Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-09-30 - AGENDA REPORTS - CIRCULATION ELEMENT (2)AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approva Item to be presented y: Jeffrev Lambert PUBLIC HEARING DATE: September 30, 1997 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT DEPARTMENT: Planning and Building Services BACKGROUND Following Council direction, staff has prepared a proposed amendment to the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. The preparation of this amendment includes an Environmental Impact Report and an extensive public outreach program. Council received the Proposed Circulation Element Text on June 3, 1997 and a copy of the Draft EIR on June 16, m 1997. A Final EIR was distributed to the Planning Commission on September 2, 1997 and to the Council on September 10, 1997. The Final EIR includes the Draft EIR Responses to Comments, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and Summary of Community Meetings. The Circulation Element Amendment is intended to accomplish two goals: to select a roadway network for the center of the City which accomodates the removal of SR 126 from the General Plan and to update the General Plan policies to reflect current conditions in the Santa Clarita Valley. An executive summary of the text changes is attached to this report. Generally, these changes update the General Plan to reference an increasingly diversified transportation system. These changes include reference to the Metrolink service, bus service and other improved transit services such as the proposed high-speed rail. In addition, recommended text changes encourage development standards that ensure local streets will function as designed and developments will encourage non -vehicular access by bus, pedestrian and bicycle. The City Council directed staff to conduct an extensive public outreach program for the Circulation Element Amendment. This program consisted of two full page ads in the paper and three interactive community workshops. In addition, staff has gathered a mailing list of 350 interested citizens and groups and has kept this group informed throughout the review process. The most significant theme expressed by the community was to encourage the City to remove the Caltrans SR 126 roadway from the General Plan. This can only be accomplished by selecting one of the six alternatives described in the Circulation Element Amendment EIR. City staff, the City Council, the Planning Commission, and the community have been working towards this end since 1992. Adopts:.': 9 - 36 -ql rca A..en Item: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission held five public hearings between July 15, 1997 and September 10, 1997 to consider the amendment, its environmental effects, and testimony from the public and from staff and City consultants. Through extensive discussions, the Planning Commission made a number of changes to the original Circulation Element text; these changes are listed in Resolution 97-113. In addition to the changes the Commission made to the Circulation Element Amendment, they raised several other issues and concerns: Northerly By-pass alternative, business/residential impacts of augmented intersections, and specific alignment impacts of future roadways such as Golden Valleylioad. On these issues, the Commission found that no further action was necessary. The EIR for this project identified the following five issue areas as having significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to levels less than significant: Air Quality, Earth Resources, Biological Resources, Noise, and Aesthetics. In addition to their consideration of significant impacts, the Commission reviewed the proposed mitigation measures and weighed the public benefits of the amendment against the impacts. These project benefits include promoting an acceptable local and regional transportation system that accommodates land use expansion as envisioned in the City General Plan and providing for efficient transportation by including policies for reducing single -occupancy vehicle trips, encouraging voluntary trip reduction methods, providing roadway designs that include bikeways and encouraging technological advances to minimize air quality impacts (Resolution 97-112). The Planning Commission also gave consideration to a letter suggesting that roadway links with LOS "F" be designated as 8 -lane divided major highways, similar to the existing designation for Bouquet Canyon Road between Seco Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the Final EIR, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations and approve the proposed Circulation Element Amendment as prepared by staff with modifications. Alternative 4, the Newhall Ranch Road Reduction with augmented intersections was the circulation alternative unanimously preferred by the Commission. The Commission also identified that transportation demand management (TDM) methods should be considered on a voluntary basis, with the elimination of parking pricing strategies. The Commission unanimously recommended the following modifications to the amendment .text which are included in the attached Resolution 97-113: • Addition of new policies relating to traffic calming (including an exhibit), traffic light synchronization, and study of vehicle weight limitations for roadways where appropriate. • Identification of Level of Service (LOS) goals below "D" for 20 roadway links. • Recommend that the following roadway links be designated as 84ane divided major highways: Newhall Ranch Road between Bouquet Canyon Road and Interstate 5 Freeway which is presently designated as an 8 -lane limited access expressway. Maeic Mountain Parkway between Valencia Boulevard and Interstate 5 Freeway which is presently designated as a 6 -lane divided major arterial highway. McBean Parkway between Valencia Boulevard and Newhall Ranch Road which is presently designated as a 6 -lane divided major arterial highway. Valencia Boulevard between Magic Mountain Parkway and Interstate 5 Freeway which is presently designated as a 64ane divided major arterial highway. The Commission was split 2-2 on approval of this roadway link. As stated above, the Commission was unanimous in their recommendation to the City Council on all aspects of the Circulation Element Amendment (text and roadway alternative) except increasing the designation of Valencia Boulevard to an 8 -lane divided major highway. This special hearing was advertised with a display ad in the Signal and mailing of the public notice to over 350 individuals and associations. This list included everyone who attended the scoping meeting and community workshops, all who commented on the EIR and all the homeowner associations. RECOMMENDATION 1. City Council receive staff report; Open the public hearing; Receive public testimony; Discuss the project; Close the public hearing. 2. Adopt Resolution 97-112, to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Circulation Element Amendment and to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Circulation Element Amendment. 3. Adopt Resolution 97-113, to Approve the Circulation Element Amendment (Master Case No. 97-111, Previous Master Case No. 93-198, General Plan Amendment No. 97- 002). ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A - Circulation Element Amendment History Chart Exhibit B - Proposed Circulation Element Text - Executive Summary Exhibit C - Resolution 97-112 Exhibit D - Resolution 97-113 Exhibit E - Circulation Update 2 READING FILE Planning Commission Resolutions P97-15 and P97-16 Planning Commission Staff Reports and Minutes from: July 15, 1997 July 23, 1997 August 19, 1997 September 2, 1997 September 10, 1997 JJL:LHS:Iep cd\council circ rUhs :WMA "V4TWWWWW DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A public hearing on this matter and associated potential environmental impacts, if any, will be conducted by the City of Santa Clarita City Council at a Special Meeting on: DATE: September 30, 1997 TIME: 6:30 p.m. LOCATION: City Council Chambers 23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor Santa Clarita, CA 91355 PROJECT LOCATION: Citywide APPLICATION: Master Case No. 97-111 (Previous Master Case No. 93-198) General Plan Amendment No. 95-002 Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) SCH No. 96112028 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project under consideration is a proposed Amendment to the City's Circulation Element and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for this project. The main purpose of the Amendment is to identify a new Master Plan of Arterial Highways, primarily affecting the center of the City for the purpose of identifying an alternative east -west route to SR -126 as presently exists on the City's General.Plan. The Amendment also includes policies concerning other important transportation -related issues. These new policies seek to: clarify roadway and bikeway development standards; encourage pedestrian -oriented development design; increase rail opportunities (Metrolink, high speed rail, light rail); encourage traffic calming where appropriate; encourage traffic signal synchronization; consider implementation of vehicle weight limits on certain roadways; and implement strategies to reduce single -occupancy vehicle trips. The EIR prepared for this project analyzes seven different roadway network alternatives at an equal level of detail. PROJECT PROPONENT: City of Santa Clarita A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (comprised of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, any subsequent changes to the text of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, and the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program) has been prepared for this proposed project and is available for public review beginning at 4:00 p.m. on September 4. 1997 at: City Hall Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Ste. 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 A copy of the Final Environmental Impact Report will also be available for public review beginning at 4:00 pm on September 8, 1997 at the Canyon Country Library (18536 Soledad Canyon Road) and the Valencia Main Library (23743 W. Valencia Blvd.) If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk, City of Santa Clarita at, or prior to, the public hearing. For further information regarding this proposal, you may contact the City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development at 23920 Valencia Blvd., Third Floor, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Telephone: (805) 255-4330. Ken Pulskamp Assistant City Manager Jeff Lambert Planning Manager Posted: Santa Clarita City Hall and Sheriffs Department Published: The Newhall Signal, September T9, 1997 9 s: \cd\advance\cirm1pn.1hs NOTE: THIS PUBLIC NOTICE NEEDS TO BE AN 1/8TH PAGE DISPLAY AD AND SHOULD BE IN THE FRONT SECTION OF THE PAPER. TIMELINE OF EVENTS CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE September 1997 6/25/91 City's first General Plan Circulation Element Adopted. 11/10/92 City Council adopted General Plan Amendment 92-02 (Master Case 92-154) which amended the Circulation Element for clarity and to identify the Lyons Avenue Extension. 10/92 Council passed a motion to reject the north and south alignments of State Route 126 as they were proposed in the Caltrans' Draft EIR. City Council made a referral to the newly formed Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) to receive further community input regarding an alternative east/west roadway network in the City. 7/93 CTAC recommendations were presented to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission conducted public hearings on this topic, made refinements in the alternative roadway patterns to be studied, and forwarded its recommendation to the City Council. 12/21/93 Planning Commission recommended a network that the City Council should consider in studying an amendment to the Circulation Element. 9/13/94 Council awarded a contract to Meyer Mchaddes Associates, Inc. to conduct a traffic study (the Center City Traffic and Modeling Study) for the purpose of examining the existing circulation system and four alternative road networks in an effort to recommend a superior and acceptable highway system which would eliminate "the super truck" State Route 126 from the City's General Plan, while providing a suitable alternative east/west connector with a network of supporting arterial highways, essential to mobility in the Clarita Valley. 1/3/95 At the City Council Study Session, staff presented the preliminary findings of the Center City Traffic and Modeling Study to be used in the environmental document for the proposed amendments to the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The presentation included highlights of the traffic study for the four alternative circulation networks recommended or endorsed by the CTAC, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. The study at that time concluded that neither the current Circulation Element nor any of the four potential circulation plans would meet the City's General Plan minimum level of service goal (LOS -D). The City Council directed staff to prepare additional analysis and try to develop a network that best meets the future circulation goals of the Valley. Two additional alternatives were ultimately analyzed as part of an iterative process to develop a superior alternative. The scenarios and the conclusions of the traffic study are described in the Draft Final Center City_ Circulation Element Study (June 1995). TIMELINE OF EVENTS CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE Confd 10/10/95 Council authorized staff to proceed with recruiting an EIR consultant. At that time, it was anticipated that Scenario 5 from the Center City Circulation Element Study would be treated as the preferred alternative for purposes of environmental analysis. 11/13/95 At City Council request, staff held a community meeting to discuss the adoption of a new circulation system. The purpose of the meeting was to present the City's proposed circulation system amendment to the General Plan to citizens and to ask their assistance in identifying the most appropriate way to involve the community in the adoption of a new citywide circulation system which would help to solve the on-going problem of traffic congestion. Two things became clear through this process: (1) that it was premature to consider Scenario 5 as the preferred alternative, and (2) that there was a need to keep the community informed and involved in all activities, studies, input opportunities and recommended actions relating to altering the City's future circulation system. 12/12/95 City Council appropriated $100,000 for the public participation process and preparation of the legally required environmental impact report and authorized an agreement with Willdan Associates to oversee the General Plan Amendment process for an amount not to exceed $30,000.00. 9/3/96 The Council authorized Rincon to prepare the Circulation Element EIR and oversee the public participation plan for the EIR project for $187,000. Meyer Mohaddes was authorized to perform the traffic study for the project for $23,000. The Council directed the formation of a steering committee and appointed Councilwoman Darcy and Councilwoman Heidt to represent the Council on the committee. The Council appropriated an additional $140,000 for these projects. ($210,000 less the $70,000 remaining from the previous allocation of $100,000= $140,000) 9/17/96 The steering committee representatives from the Planning Commission, Chairman Brathwaite and Commissioner Killmeyer are chosen. 9/19/96 The role of Willdan Associates is changes to that of technical reviewer. The Community Development Department takes the lead for project management of the amendment process. 10/15/96 Kick-off meeting for the Circulation Element EIA and the steering committee are held. 11/5/96 Notice of Preparation of an environmental impact report 30 -day public review period begins. NOP comment period ends December 9, 1996. TIMELINE OF EVENTS CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE Cont'd 11/18/96 Second Steering Committee meeting to finalize public participation information for the planned December 4, 1996 EIR Scoping Meeting. Full page Circulation Element Update ads appeared in the Signal on Sundays, November 24, 1996 and December 1, 1996. 12/4/96 Third Steering Committee meeting followed by the public EIR Scoping meeting held in Council Chambers and attended by approximately 150 people. The Scoping Meeting was taped and aired several times over the following weeks on Cable TV. 12/10/96 Agenda Report received by the Council providing an update on the Circulation Element Amendment progress. 1/28/97 Council approves an additional $13,000 to cover the cost of additional traffic modeling and public outreach efforts. 3/4/97 Council Study Session to review the status of the Circulation Element Amendment and review the proposed DEIR alternatives. 3/18/97 Fourth Steering Committee meeting to review descriptions of trip reduction alternatives and alternative circulation network possibilities. Schedule the finalizing of alternatives. Review possible newsletter content, community workshop format and content and schedule. 4/15/97 Fifth Steering Committee meeting to finalize alternative descriptions, discuss preliminary model results, review the draft Circulation Element Amendment text, review newsletter and community workshop locations. 6/8/97 Circulation Update II two-page advertisement in the Signal to advertise the upcoming release of the Draft EIR and three community workshops for June 26, June 28 and July 10, 1997: This advertisement also serves as the public notice for the first Planning Commission public hearing on this project scheduled for July 15, 1997. This advertisement was reprinted on Sunday, June 15, 1997. 6/16/96 Draft EIR released for a 45 -day public review period ending July 31, 1997. Notice of Completion sent to the State Clearinghouse and Notice of Availability sent to Los Angeles County and the various agencies. The DEIR was distributed to Council and Commission members. 6/26/97 First Community Workshop held at the Boys and Girls Club in Newhall. This workshop was attended by approximately 30 people. 6/28/97 Second Community Workshop held a Sierra Vista Junior High School and attended by approximately 20 people. V10/97 Community Workshop held at Arroyo Seco Junior High School. TIMELINE OF EVENTS CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE Cont'd 7/15/97 First Public Hearing on the Circulation Element Text and Draft Environmental Impact Report before the Planning Commission. Subsequent hearings held on July 23, August 19, 1997, September 2, 1997 and September 10, 1997. 9/10/97 The Planning Commission Considers the Final EIR, Closes the Public Hearing and Recommends Adoption of Alternative 4 to the City Council with Transporation Demand Management (TDM) strategies on a voluntary basis. 9/30/97 First City Council Public Hearing on the Circulation Element Tent and Final EIR S:\cd\advance\dres1st1.1hs RESOLUTION NO. 97-112 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA TO CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT AND TO ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT MASTER CASE NO. 97-111 (PREVIOUS MASTER CASE NO. 93-198) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 95-002 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find and determine as follows: a. On June 25, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-98, adopting the General Plan of the City of Santa Clarita and Certifying the Environmental Impact Report. b. An Initial Study was prepared for this project on November 4, 1996. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) SCH No. 96112028 was prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA )by Rincon Consultants, Inc following the 30 -day public review period for the Notice of Preparation (NOP) beginning November 4, 1996 and a formal scoping meeting held on December 5, 1996. Following the scoping meeting, the NOP circulation period was extended two additional weeks to December 19, 1996. The Draft EIR and Notice of Circulation (NOC) for this project was released for a 45 -day public review period on June 16, 1997. Two duly noticed public hearings on the Draft EIR were held before the Planning Commission during the public review period on July 15, 1997 and on July 23, 1997. The public review period ended on July 31, 1997. The Draft EIR analyzes seven circulation network alternatives, including Alternative 1 which is the No Project Alternative under CEQA. C. The Draft EIR, herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit A, identifies the following issue areas as significant but unavoidable: earth resources (roads crossing active fault lines), air quality (pollutant emissions during construction), biological resources (degradation of riparian habitat; intrusion into significant ecological area), noise (during construction)and aesthetics/light and glare (alteration of important ridgelines; change in community character/viewshed alteration; community -wide change in nighttime lighting conditions). These impacts are the same level of significance for all alternatives studied in the Draft EIR. d. The Draft EIR identifies the following issue areas as significant but feasibly mitigable to a less than significant level: hydrology/flooding, noise (traffic noise on new roadways), risk of upset, public services/utilities/energy, cultural resources. These impacts are the same level of significance for all alternatives studied in the Draft EIR. A mitigation monitoring reporting program has been prepared to mitigate these potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level and is included as part of the Final EIR. Reso. P97-112 Page 2 e. The Draft EIR identifies the following issue areas as less than significant: earth resources (slope destabilization due to grading; fill settling or rebounding; landslide movements; seismic ground shaking; liquefaction); air quality (San Joaquin Valley Fever; long-term vehicle emissions); hydrology/flooding (increase in flood height from construction in floodplains), population and housing (displacement; growth inducing impacts), and public services/utilities/energy. These impacts are the same level of significance for all alternatives studied in the Draft EIR. f. The Draft EIR identifies beneficial impacts for transportation/circulation. These impacts are the same level of significance for all alternatives studied in the Draft EIR. g.. Duly noticed public hearings were held by the Planning Commission on July 15, 1997, July 23, 1997, August 19, 1997, September 2, 1997, and September 10, 1997 in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m. h. The Response to Comments on the DEIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was prepared and provided to the Planning Commission on September 2, 1997. The Draft EIR together with the Responses to Comments and the MMRP, herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit B, together are considered the Final EIR.. The Proposed Circulation Element Text dated June 1997, herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit C, also contains circulation policies that mitigate potential circulation impacts and was considered by the Commission. The Planning Commission considered the Final EIR, as well as information provided in staff reports, the amendment text and through public testimony, prior to adopting Resolution P97-15 recommending that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and prior to adopting Resolution P97-16 recommending that the City Council approve the Circulation Element Amendment as modified by the resolution. The City Council received the Proposed Circulation Element Text on June 3, 1997, the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the project on June 17, 1997 and the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project on September 9, 1997. Copies of all the Planning Commission staff reports and minutes have been provided to the Council in the City Council reading file 10 days prior to the September 30, 1997 public hearing. j. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on September 30, 1997 in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:30 p.m. The public notice for this project was mailed to over 300 residents/businesses who expressed interestin this project and an eighth -page ad was placed in the main section of the Signal Paper on September 9, 1997. SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, and upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission and the CityCounciland on its behalf, the City Council finds: Reso. P97-112 Page 3 a. That the Final Environmental Impact Report for this project is adequate and complete. b. That the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in reaching its recommendation to the City Council and that the City Council has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in reaching its decision. C. That changes and alterations have been required and incorporated into the circulation element amendment project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect because the policies of the element itself reduce impacts upon the transportation system and mitigation measures included in the MMPR are made conditions of approval for this project. SECTION 3. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, and upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission and by the City Council and on its behalf, the City Council finds that the Circulation Element Amendment will have the following benefits: a. Promotes an acceptable local and regional transportation system that accommodates land use expansion as envisioned in the City General Plan and the Los Angeles County Area Plan. b. Provides for roadways that will accommodate regional growth, including local regional housing needs, as projected by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). C. Provides for efficient transportation including policies for reducing single -occupancy vehicle trips, trip reduction methods, roadway design (e.g. augmented intersections and cross sections for class one and class two bikeways) and technological advances (e.g. traffic light synchronization and alternate fuel vehicle usage) that minimize air quality impacts upon the Valley and the region. d. Encourages a variety of transportation options that stimulate economic development opportunities in the Santa Clarita Valley and aid in providing for the jobs -housing balance. e. Reduces Circulation Element environmental impacts because removal of SR -126 east of Golden Valley Road from the Arterial Network of Highways will reduce the need for a bridge crossing of the Santa Clara River in the Canyon Country area, reduce impacts upon biology, particularly the Santa Clara River Significant Ecological Area (SEA), reduce the amount of earth movement, and not dislocate residential units. Responds to the concerns of numerous residents that SR -126 would be placed through their neighborhood by removing the SR -126 designated link on Newhall Ranch Road east of Golden Valley. g. Provides policies to encourage pedestrian -friendly environments, encourage construction Reso. P97-112 Page 4 of bikeways, and encourage roadways appropriate for neighborhoods by providing for traffic calming and vehicle weight limits. h. Identifies and encourages expansion of transit opportunities in Santa Clarita including local bus service, commuter bus service, dial -a -ride service, Metrolink commuter train service, and possible extension of light-rail and high-speed rail. SECTION 4. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, and upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission and by the City Council and on its behalf, the Council further finds that the Final EIR analyzes a whole range of project alternatives at a program level and that the environmental impacts of the proposed eight -lane divided major highway links recommended for approval are not significantly different from the impacts of six - lane divided major highways anticipated under the seven alternatives studied, particularly Alternative 4, the recommended alternative. The existing Circulation Element already identifies an eight -lane major highway cross section and identifies a portion of Bouquet Canyon Road as an eight -lane major highway, so precedent exists for the identification of additional eight -lane major arterials in the General Plan. The reasons for supporting the finding that the additional environmental impacts anticipated from an eight -lane rather than a six -lane major arterial are less than significant are as follows for each proposed eight -lane roadway link: a. Newhall Ranch Road between Bouquet Canyon Road and I-5 Freeway- Alternative 1 of the Final EIR includes an analysis of Newhall Ranch Road as an eight -lane major highway. Additionally, a portion of this roadway is within the City and the remaining area is proposed for annexation into the City as part of the North Valencia annexation, presently under application at LAFCO. The portion of Newhall Ranch Road between Bouquet Canyon Road and the San Francisquito Creek Bridge is already analyzed as an eight -lane divided major highway at the project level through the North Valencia Specific Plan and Annexation EIR. b. Magic Mountain Parkway between Valencia Boulevard and I-5 Freeway- Approximately half of this roadway link, from Citrus Street to McBean Parkway has already been constructed to accommodate an eight -lane roadway. The link between McBean Parkway to the Southern California Edison Powerline easement, approximately .5 miles, is already studied at the project level as an eight -lane arterial and is analyzed apart of the traffic analysis for the North Valencia Specific Plan EIR.. This leaves less than one mile of roadway widening for further analysis. Given that this area is would not bisect a significant ecological area, ridgeline, Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone or other unique topographical or biologically unique area, widening the roadway an extra two lanes may result in additional impacts, however, these would not be significant given the program level of analysis in the Circulation Element Amendment Final EIR. As shown in the Final EIR traffic analysis for Alternative 4, changing the designation of Magic Mountain Parkway between Valencia Boulevard and I-5 Freeway from a six -lane to an eight -lane divided major arterial would mitigate traffic impacts on this roadway link at buildout from LOS "F" as shown in the Draft EIR., to LOS "E", thereby improving traffic circulation. Reso. P97-112 Page 5 c. Valencia Boulevard between McBean Parkway and I-5 Freeway- The widening of this link of Valencia Boulevard has been analyzed in the EIR for the North Hills project and was. approved in Spring 1997. Since environmental impacts of this link have already been analyzed at the project level and have been found to be less that significant as approved, the environmental impacts of this roadway link would likewise be less than significant at a program level analysis. As shown in the Final EIR. traffic analysis for Alternative 4, changing the designation of Valencia Boulevard between McBean Parkway and I-5 Freeway from a six -lane to an eight -lane divided major arterial would mitigate traffic impacts on this roadway link at buildout from LOS "F" as shown in the Draft EIR, to LOS "E", thereby improving traffic circulation. d. McBean Parkway between Valencia Boulevard and Newhall Ranch Road- Approximately half of this roadway link, from Valencia Boulevard to Creekside Drive has already been constructed to accommodate an eight -lane roadway. The link between Creekside Drive to Newhall Ranch Road, approximately .5 miles, is already studied at the project level as an eight -lane arterial as part of the traffic analysis for the North Valencia Specific Plan and Annexation EIR. This link includes the widening of the bridge over McBean Parkway which is already identified as a significant impact and subject to a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) under the North Valencia Specific Plan and Annexation EIR. Given that the remainder of this roadway link would not bisect a ridgeline, Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone or other unique topographical or biologically unique area, widening the roadway an extra two lanes may result in additional impacts, however, these would not be significant given the program level of analysis of the Circulation Element Amendment Final EIR. As shown in the Final EIR traffic analysis for Alternative 4, changing the designation of McBean Parkway between Valencia Boulevard and Newhall Ranch Road from a six -lane to an eight -lane divided major arterial would mitigate traffic impacts on this roadway link at buildout from LOS "F" as shown in the Draft EIR, to LOS "E", thereby improving traffic circulation. SECTION 5. By adoption of this Resolution, the City Council Ends that the Final Environmental Impact Report identifies certain significant environmental effects and feasible mitigation measures that mitigate potential significant impacts to levels less than significant for each of these impacts with the exclusion of earth resources, air quality, biological resources, noise and aesthetics/light & glare. In accordance with CEQA Sections 15091 and 15093, a description of each significant impact and rational for finding that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR is detailed below: a. Air Quality: Implementation of the proposed circulation element amendment would directly generate emissions during construction of roadways and indirectly contribute to regional air pollution by accommodating motor.vehicle traffic in the City. Project - related construction activity would occur sporadically over a number of years. Alternative 4 would exceed maximum daily significance thresholds within the South Coast Air Quality Management Districts (SCAQMD) Air Quality Handbook for NOx and PM10. Although construction activity would occur only sporadically, impacts on worst- Reso. P97-112 .Page 6 case construction days are considered significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of mitigation measures to reduce the impacts. New transportation infrastructure would not directly generate long-term air emissions but would accommodate an increase in traffic and associated air pollutant emissions. Once construction activities are concluded, the project, with mitigation measures AQ(a)-1, AQW-2 and AQW-3 as identified, would not create significant long-term impacts to local air quality. Air quality impacts are significant, even though the.mitigation measures identified above will provide a certain reduction in air quality impacts; however, the benefits of the project identified above in Section 3 outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects on air quality and the adverse environmental effect on air quality is considered acceptable. b. Earth Resources; Implementation of the proposed circulation element amendment would result in roadways across active faults which would pose a potentially significant impact from fault rupture during a seismic event. Design and construction solutions are generally available to reduce all seismic and geologic hazards to risk levels considered acceptable. Mitigation measures ER -1(a), ER -1(b), ER -1(c), ER -3(a), ER -5(a) and ER -6(a) have been identified to reduce the significance of impacts although some risk of damage to roadway infrastructure would remain. Ground rupture on active fault lines could damage roads, which is considered a potentially significant and unavoidable impact. Earth resource impacts are significant, even though the mitigation measures identified above will provide a certain reduction in these impacts; however, the benefits of the project identified above in Section 3 outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects on earth resources and the adverse environmental effect on air quality is considered acceptable. C. Biological Resources: Buildout of the roadway system as envisioned under Alternative 4 for the Circulation Element would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to biological resources within the City. The most significant impacts are associated with the loss of riparian habitats and disturbance to the significant ecological areas along the Santa Clarita River, San Francisquito Creek and the oak savanna west of Interstate 5. Mitigation measures B -2(a), B -2(b), B -2(c), B -2(d), B -2(e), B -2(f), B -2(g), B-3, B -4(a), B - 4(b), B -5(a), B-5(b)are proposed to reduce the effectsonplant and animal resources through realignment or elimination of certain roadways and the requirement for site specific survey and mitigation plans for sensitive plants and animals prior to construction. Nonetheless, biological impacts associated with the roadway network buildout and accompanying growth of the City is anticipated to result in unavoidable significant impacts. Overall biological resource impacts are considered lowest under Alternative 4, and are lower than those anticipated under the existing major arterial highway network. Biological resources impacts are significant, even though the mitigation measures Reso. P97-112 Page 7 identified above will provide a certain reduction in these impacts; however, the benefits of the project identified above in Section 3 outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects on biological resources and the adverse environmental effect on biological resources is considered acceptable. I Noise: Construction activity associated with Alternative 4 would have the potential to generate significant impacts to sensitive receptors in the vicinity of construction sites. Traffic noise would potentially exceed normally acceptable levels on all major roadway segments and would be greater under the existing major arterial network than under Alternative 4. Mitigation measures N -1(a), N -1(b), N -1(c), N -1(d) N -2(a), and N -2(b) have been added to the project to reduce short-term roadway construction noise impacts and long-term traffic noise impacts. Long-term traffic -related noise impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level through the use of sound walls, berms, setbacks, and/or the use of rubberized asphalt in street paving. Short-term noise impacts from roadway construction are significant, even though the mitigation measures identified above in Section 3 will provide a certain reduction in construction noise; however, the benefits of the project identified above outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects on earth resources and the adverse environmental effect on air quality is considered acceptable. e. Aesthetics: Implementation of the proposed circulation element amendment would result in significant alteration of important ridgelines, change in community character/viewshed alteration, and communitywide change in nighttime lighting conditions. The substantial amount of grading that would occur under Alternative 4, although less than that required for the existing master plan of arterial highways, would result in substantial changes to the natural topography of the City, altering primary and secondary ridgelines. Such alteration potentially conflicts with City policies for ridgeline preservation and hillside development and is considered a significant and unavoidable impact. New roadways under Alternative 4, as under the existing planned roadway network, would result in significant and unavoidable impacts on viewsheds as well. Mitigation measures AES -1(a), AES -1(b), AES -1(c), AES -1(d), AES -2(a), AES -2(b), AES - 2(c), AES -2(d), AES -3(a), AES -3(b), AES -3© have been added to the project to reduce the amount of landform alteration, particularly on ridgelines, to minimize the potential for roadways to affect scenic vistas and to reduce light and glare produced from development of roadways that would extend the urban lighted area of the City, alter the nighttime sky view, and produce daytime glare from reflective metallic materials and glass associated withvehicles. While these mitigation measures may reduce potential impacts to some degree, impacts relating to alteration of the overall rural nature of the public view cannot generally be mitigated, although Alternative 4 would have less impacts on public views than the existing planned roadway network because Alternative 4 proposes fewer roadway miles. Likewise, the mitigation measures may reduce the significant effects, yet the increase in artificial light and glare resulting from roadway development would remain as a significant and unavoidable under both Alternative 4 and the existing Reso. P97-112 Page 8 roadway network, although Alternative 4 would have lesser impacts because of its fewer roadway miles. Aesthetic impacts are significant, even though the mitigation measures identified above will provide a certain reduction in aesthetic impacts; however, the benefits of the project identified above in Section 3 outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects on aesthetics and the adverse environmental effect on aesthetics is considered acceptable. SECTION 6. By adoption of this Resolution, the City Council has reviewed and considered the environmental information contained in the Final EIR SCH No. 96112028 and determines that it is adequate and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.). Incompliance with CEQA Section 15093, the City Council has considered the project benefits in Section 3 as balanced against the unavoidable adverse environmental effects in Section 5 and hereby determines that the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects; therefore, the City Council determines that this resolution comprises a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) and the adverse environmental effects are considered acceptable. The City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR documents and adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC). SECTION 7. By the adoption of this Resolution, the City Council certifies the environmental. impact report and adopt an SOC that identifies the benefits of the project as balanced against its unavoidable environmental risks, but has not granted any approval or entitlement on this project. SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. S`cdNgp dMsl.lhs Reso. P97-112 Page 9 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 19 HAMILTON C. SMYTH, MAYOR CITY COUNCIL ATTEST: GEORGE CARAVALHO, CITY MANAGER STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the 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 19_ by the following vote of the City Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK Reso. P97-112 Page 10 Exhibit A Draft Environmental Impact Report June 1997 Incorporated by Reference Reso. P97-112 Page 11 Exhibit B Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR. and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Incorporated by Reference Reso. P97-112 Page 12 Exhibit C Proposed Circulation Element Text June 1997 Incorporated by Reference RESOLUTION NO. 97-113 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA APPROVING REMOVAL OF STATE ROUTE 126 FROM THE MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS AND OTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT MASTER CASE NO. 97-111 (PREVIOUS MASTER CASE NO. 93-198) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 95-002 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find and determine as follows: a. On June 25, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-98, adopting the General Plan of the City of Santa Clarita and Certifying the Environmental Impact Report. b. In November 1992 the City Council adopted General Plan Amendment 92-02 (Master Case No. 92-154) that revised the Circulation Element text. for clarity and added the Lyons Avenue Extension as a planned arterial roadway with a connection to Dockweiler Drive. C. On October 13, 1992 the City Council, by minute action, urged Caltrans to find an alternative route for SR 126 and then directed staff to find another east -west route through the City center. d. A City Manager's Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) was formed to study an east -west route and presented their recommendation to the Planning Commission in July 1993. The Planning Commission recommended network was presented to the City Council in December 1993 for consideration in studying a possible Circulation Element Amendment. e. In September 1994, the City Council commissioned the Center City Traffic and Modeling Study to examine the existing General Plan circulation system and four alternative roadway networks recommended or endorsed by CTAC, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. f. The findings of the Center City Traffic and Modeling Study were presented to the City Council at a January 1995 study session and, subsequently, two additional alternatives were added to the study and were included in the Draft Final Center City Circulation Element Study, dated June 1995. g. On November 13, 1995, a community meeting was held to present the City's recommended circulation system amendment (Scenario 5 from the Draft Final Center City Circulation Element Study), however, based on the meeting response, the Council determined that the CEQA process should be used to study various alternatives at an equal level of detail, with no preferred alternative. h. An Initial Study was prepared for this project on November 4, 1996. A Draft Reso.97-113 Page 2 Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) SCH No. 96112028 was prepared for this project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA )by Rincon Consultants, Inc following the 30 -day public review period for the Notice of Preparation (NOP) beginning November 4, 1996 and a formal scoping meeting held on December 5, 1996. Following the scoping meeting, the NOP circulation period was.extended two additional weeks to December 19, 1996. The Draft EIR and Notice of Completion (NOC) for this project was released for a 45 -day public review period on June 16, 1997. Two duly noticed public hearings on the Draft EIR were held before the Planning Commission during the public review period on July 15, 1997 and on July 23, 1997. The public review period ended on July 31, 1997. The Draft EIR analyzes seven circulation network alternatives, including Alternative 1 which is the No Project Alternative under.CEQA I. Duly noticed public hearings were held by the Planning Commission on July 15, 1997, July 23, 1997, August 19, 1997, September 2, 1997, and September 10, 1997 in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m. A duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on September 30, 1997 in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:30 p.m. k. The Circulation Element identifies the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other local public transportation facilities all correlated with the land use element of the General Plan. The Circulation Element Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan. The Circulation Element Amendment includes the following project objectives: Identify the primary east -west corridor alternative to an extension of SR -126; Remove SR -126 as a limited access expressway from the Master Plan of Arterial Highways; Identify the existing and planned standards for major, secondary, and limited secondary highways in the City; Identify the primary features of the City's transit system; Reduce the level of vehicular trips in general, and specifically the use of autos for drive -alone trips; Identify alternative commute options including Metrolink, commuter buses, park-and- ride, and telecommuting; Encourage land use planning that supports these mobility goals; Establish mobility corridors within the City. m. The Circulation Element, as amended, may necessitate subsequent amendment of other elements of the General Plan including the noise element, air quality element, open space and conservation element and land use element. SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, and upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission and by the City Council and on its behalf, the City Council further finds and determines that the proposed General Plan amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan, and that the proposed amendment complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. Reso. 97-113 Page 3 SECTION 3. The City of Santa Clarita City Council has reviewed and considered the environmental information contained in the Draft and Final EIR. SCH No. 96112028 and determines that it is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) The Planning Commission has adopted Resolution P97- 15 that recommends certification of the Final EIR documents and recommends adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC). The City Council has adopted Resolution 97-112 on September 30, 1997 that certifies the Final EIR and adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations. SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council approves the following: a. The roadway network analyzed in the Draft EIR as Alternative 4 (Augmented Newhall Ranch Road Reduction) with the addition of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures as listed in the Draft EIR Table 2.5 on a voluntary basis with the exception of Parking Pricing Strategies which would be eliminated. b. Recommend that an acceptable Circulation Element Level of Service (LOS) for the General Plan be less than "D" for the following roadway links based on the DEIR Transportation/Circulation (Section 5.8) projected Volume -to -Capacity ratios (Figure 5.8- 4) and analysis for Alternative 4: 1. Bouquet Canyon Road, between Cinema Drive and Seco Canyon Road and between Santa Clarita Parkway and Haskell Canyon Road. 2. Newhall Ranch Road, between Bouquet Canyon Road and west of I-5 Freeway. 3. Soledad Canyon Road, between west of Golden Valley Road and east of Sierra Highway. 4. Magic Mountain Parkway, between west of The Old Road and east of Bouquet Canyon Road. 5. Valencia Boulevard, between west of the I-5 Freeway and east of Bouquet Canyon Road. 6. McBean Parkway, between north of Newhall Ranch Road and south of Valencia Boulevard, and north of Decoro Road. 7. Orchard Village Road, between McBean Parkway and Wiley Canyon Road. 8. Via Princessa, between west of San Fernando Road and Sierra Highway. 9. Seco Canyon Road, between north of Decoro Road and Bouquet Canyon Road. 10. Rye Canyon Road, between The Old Road and north of Newhall Ranch Road. 11. Wiley Canyon Road, between Orchard Village Road and west of San Fernando Road. 12. Pico Canyon Road, between west of Valencia Boulevard and SR -126. 13. Sierra Highway, between Dockweiler Drive and Santa Clarita Parkway. 14. SR -126, between east of Avenue Stanford and Chiquito Canyon Road. 15. The Old Road, between Rye Canyon Road and Valencia Boulevard. 16. I-5 Freeway, between Calgrove Boulevard and the southerly Planning Area Boundary. 17. SR -14, between San Fernando Road and I-5 Freeway. Reso. 97-113 Page 4 18. San Francisquito Canyon Road, north of Copperhill Road. 19. Lyons Avenue, between I-5 Freeway and east of Wiley Canyon Road, and between Newhall Avenue and San Fernando Road. 20. Copperbill Road, between Newhall Ranch Road and north of Decoro Road, and between McBean Parkway and Seco Canyon Road. C. The Proposed Circulation Element Text dated June 1997 (Attachment A), herein incorporated by reference, with the following changes: 1. Re -order the circulation policies, add a new traffic calming policy, add a new traffic synchronization policy, add a new truck limitation policy, add a new Traffic Calming text and exhibit, and add a revised Table C-1 (Attachment B). 2. Include Augmented Intersection text. 3. Remove Avenue Scott as a Secondary Highway east of McBean Parkway to Hillsborough Parkway. 4. Remove Rio Vista Drive as a Major Highway from the Lyons Avenue Extension to Via Princessa. 5. Designate Lyons Avenue as a Major Highway from The Old Road to Dockweiler Drive as presently exists on the General Plan. 6. Designate Golden Valley Road as a Major Highway from SR -14 to Newhall Ranch Road. 7. Designate Golden Valley Road as a Secondary Highway from Newhall Ranch Road to Plum Canyon and from Placerita Canyon to SR -14 8. Designate Newhall Ranch Road as a Major Highway from 1-5 to Golden Valley Road. 9. Change the Proposed Text Major Highway discussion (Page C-7) fifth line from the top- level "F" to show level "E". 10. Remove Bouquet Canyon Road as a Major Highway from Seco Canyon Road to the Angeles Forest Boundary and designate Bouquet Canyon Road as a Major Highway from Seco Canyon to Vasquez Canyon Road and a Secondary Highway from Vasquez Canyon Road to the Angeles National Forest Boundary. 11. Remove Castaic Road as a Secondary Highway from SR -126 to Lake Hughes Road and designate Castaic Road as a Secondary Highway from Newhall Ranch Road to Lake Hughes Road. Reso. 97-113 Page 5 12. Remove Parker Road as a limited secondary highway since it is already covered under listings for major and secondary highways. 13. Designate the following roadway segments as eight -lane major highways: Newhall Ranch Road between McBean Parkway and the I-5 Freeway. Magic Mountain Parkway between Valencia Boulevard and I-5 Freeway. McBean Parkway between Valencia Boulevard and Newhall Ranch Road. 14. The Circulation Element incorporates and is consistent with specific plans previously adopted by the City of Santa Clarita. It is recognized that roadway corridors and intersection augmentations depicted on maps in the environmental analysis for the Circulation Element are conceptual only. No specific roadway alignments or intersection augmentations have been determined for areas covered by an adopted specific plan. Where a specific plan has been adopted and approved, the Circulation Element has incorporated roadway alignments and intersection characteristics that are consistent with such adopted specific plans. 15. Modify the Truck Route narrative (Attachment B ) to remove reference to super - truck routes and eliminate Exhibit C-10 Truck Routes and Super Truck Routes (STAA). 16. The Lyons Avenue Extension includes an at -grade crossing of the railroad, rather than a bridge. 17. Delete the major highway segment of The Old Road between Valencia Blvd and McBean Parkway. 18. Strengthen the language in support of the Ventura Rail Line (Attachment B) d. The proposed map exhibits of the Proposed Circulation Element Tent dated June 1997 (Attachment A) are hereby amended to reflect the changes noted above. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. SAcd\counci1\cirores2.1hs Reso. 97-113 Page 6 PASSED, ATTEST: APPROVED AND ADOPTED this , 19_. HAMILTON C. SMYTH, MAYOR CITY COUNCIL SHARON L. DAWSON CITY CLERK STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) day of I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the 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 19_ by the following vote of the City Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK Exhibit A Proposed Circulation Element Text June 1997 Incorporated by Reference Exhibit B CIRCULATION ELEMENT PROPOSED RE -ORDER OF POLICIES IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE TO THE CIRCULATION SYSTEIVL PROPOSED NEW TRAFFIC POLICIES. PROPOSED NEW TRAFFIC CALMING TEXT PROPOSED NEW TRUCK ROUTE TEXT AND PROPOSED NEW VENTURA, RAIL LINE TEXT The purpose of this exhibit is to respond to the Planning Commission's request to list the various policies identified under the six goal statements of the Proposed Circulation Element Amendment Text. This exhibit also includes a new traffic calming policy (Policy No. 1.22), new traffic calming text to be inserted between the "Collector and Local Streets" and "Augmented Intersections" narratives (page C-38 of the Proposed Circulation Element Amendment Text) and an attached traffic calming graphic that will be included as part of the recommended Proposed Circulation Element Amendment Text. This exhibit also includes new policies concerning vehicle weight limits(Policy No.1.23) and traffic synchronization (Policy No. 1.24). All new proposed text is highlighted. GOALS AND POLICIES The following goals and supporting policies are the general policies used to guide the development of the Circulation Plan contained in the Circulation Plan and the implementation programs outlined in the Implementation Plan Section. The policies further define the goals and describe the intent of the goals. As such, the policies serve as guides by which to measure goal achievement and tailor specific programs � Polse�� Sze hi3 ar @r ofYmpartaxrcewtliiiT ur Go1 steri4&t. The Goals and Policies are a direct result of the issues discussed in the Statement of Issues Section. The general policies outlined below must be applied and implemented pursuant to the plans and implementation programs contained in the following sections, and in conjunction with the other elements of the General Plan. Need for Arterial Street System GOAL 1: To provide a circulation system to move people and goods safely and efficiently throughout the City of Santa Clarita and the general Planning Area. Policies: Funding 1 1(1.4) Maintain a Capital Improvements Program (CIP) which incorporates a funding program for the construction of improvements to the City's roadway system. Specific improvement proposals should be determined for the entire community and all local benefit, cost, feasibility, and safety issues should be considered. Seek alternative funding opportunities to provide adequate transportation and circulation improvements. (1.16) Seek alternative funding opportunities to provide adequate transportation and circulation facilities. m P�el�rnu�ar T .P.T. ntptutiif Adopt a program of street and highway landscaping (i.e., median planting and street trees) to enhance the appearance of the City's circulation system. t(1.13) Enforce dual access requirements where appropriate for safety and circulation purposes. (1.15) Establish street standards which are sensitive to topographical constraints, necessary grade separations and other special needs. L6 (1.19) Develop design standards for roadway and intersection improvements to safely and efficiently accommodate existing and projected transportation patterns and circulation. 7,. (1.20) Provide reasonable traffic flow and consider the adoption of a limited access policy which would provide guidelines and criteria by which reciprocal access and parking agreements may be provided to consolidate and minimize traffic interruptions. (1.24) Establish a traffic impact "threshold of significant" condition which will require appropriate mitigation for uroiects where tr8ffi� lneri3asia `. rt tncat sr tc hrarii i ba vaTi1Ja_f1r,."nru 1.9 (1.25) Where alignments are known, the preservation of corridor rights-of-way should be immediately established. Pursue and develop a Congestion Management Program (CMP) to promote and ensure realistic and feasible traffic distribution and growth throughout the City of Santa Clarita and the general Planning Area. Ln�1��►ent�i€iii 11 IA) Improve circulation facilities to provide improved levels of service and standards of safety over current traffic operations with a priority to improve local transportation patterns. (1.2) Maintain appropriate levels of service at all intersections in the City during peak hours to ensure that traffic delays are kept to a minimum. Preserve the quality of residential neighborhoods by discouraging the flow of truck and through traffic in these areas consistent with circulation and emergency needs. Work cooperatively with County, regional and state agencies to integrate the City's circulation system with that of the surrounding region. (1.9) Maximize and improve the operating efficiency and safety of the existing roadway system wherever possible. I (1.10) Limit the number of intersections and driveways on all major, secondary and limited secondary roadways to accommodate a safe, efficient and steady flow of traffic. Develop and maintain an appropriate supertruck (trucks with an extended trailer length of approximately 48' to 60') and truck route program which will accommodate the needs of the commercial and industrial uses within the City, and the general Planning Area, but will also provide for the protection and preservation of the City's circulation system and residential areas. Avoid establishing. truck routes in areas which contain natural, scenic or other resources. Require vehicular access to higher density land uses and commercial developments from major, secondary and limited secondary roadways, and not from low density residential neighborhoods. (1.17) Maintain adequate access to state highways and freeways serving the Santa Clarita Planning Area including Interstate 5 on the west, State Route 14 on the southeast and State Route 126 on the northwest. (I (1.18) Optimize use of all major, secondary and limited secondary roadways while minimizing use of all collectors and local streets. Encourage development design that ensures that local streets function as designed and not as collector streets or other higher capacity roadways. .91.(1.22) Establish roadway alignments and require appropriate dedication of right-of-way for all lklant�x�rwce 125 (1.7) Continue to work with the County in developing and maintaining planned roadways. IT .(1.8) Maintain the Santa Clarita Valley Consolidated Traffic Model to regularly review future traffic projections as development occurs and land uses change. I"--(1.23) Encourage schools and parents to use the Suggested Routes to School Plan. x'(1.26) Discourage the creation of new gated private roadways that block area -wide through routes. 9'x(1.5) Encourage consistent through -street names. Need for Local and Regional Transit Services GOAL 2: Promote a diversified public transportation system that is safe, convenient, efficient, and meets the identified needs of the City of Santa Clarita and the general Planning Area. Policies: Pr�limuiary Tmlfle»entatac�n W2.3) Coordinate local transit planning with regional transportation planning agencies and transit agencies in adjacent communities. i (2.7) Identify and reserve locations for future commuter rail stations. t (2.8) Pursue the development of a local car pool information and routing program. The program can provide alternative transportation for concentrated users. �Kx;(2.9) Explore the use of the railroad right-of-way for intra -valley and commuter use between SR - 14 and any proposed station locations. Im1eJFUCntatical Incorporate accommodations and facilities to support local transit services (i.e., bus lanes, bus stops and bus shelters) in new and redeveloped projects, where feasible that are consistent with local transit planning. (2.2) Provide for the mobility of City residents to access local services and employment, particularly for those who may experience mobility difficulties, including the elderly, disabled, low income residents and youth. 2 (2.4) Develop multi -modal transit facilities that are strategically located in the Planning Area convenient to major local residential and employment centers. 2 (2.5) Develop adequate pedestrian access and encourage the use of these systems. 0(2.6) Require right-of-way dedication and/or construction of appropriate facilities in support of a public transportation system in new and redeveloped projects. 2.10 Explore the expansion of rail service to Ventura County, to Los Angeles, and to the Antelope Valley. Encourage connections to future high-speed rail that may be located through the Santa Claxita Valley. Transportation Alternatives GOAL 3: To promote safe and effective alternatives to the personal automobile that will meet the needs of all Planning Area residents. Policies: unsling 5) (3. A ' Develop, with the support of other agencies, alternative transportation systems throughout the City and Planning Area. .......... 94. PrI 11 . ....... T .. . . ...... 11 ... . ............ - Develop an integrated system of bus service that reaches all major concentrations of residential development and employment. Uaa'A 3.3-a2i Provide a system of sidewalks or pathways, tunnels and bridges in residential, commercial and industrial areas that features a safe, attractive and convenient environment, integrating pedestrians and bicycles in a manner harmonious with the surrounding neighborhoods. A;4 (3.6) Identify and reserve rights-of-way for local transit to connect to regional systems. #X(3.9) Establish multi -use corridors and reserve appropriate rights-of-way. Maintain the Master Plan of Bikeways that is coordinated with the County plan for the Santa Clarita Valley and regional network, including Ventura County, in order to provide an adequate system for the safe and efficient movement of cyclists. (3.3) Promote bicycle and pedestrian accessibility to all commercial, industrial, multi -family residential, and public facilities, including parks, schools, and centers of civic activity. 0(3.7) Promote ride -sharing. 9'.1 (3.8) Consider the establishment of a pedestrian only district that is bicycle -friendly. Parking Facilities GOAL 4: To provide for and ensure an adequate supply of off-street private and public parking to meet the needs of local residents and visitors to the City and the Planning Area. Policies: X'reiu ninar Impletricntai o 4.1:, Provide parking requirements for various types of land uses which consider travel,patterns, mode split, and vehicle size. Periodically review and update these standards as these factors change over time. Implexnent�tioi 4.2 Provide public parking resources and transportation alternatives in response to the demand for such facilities (including park-and-ride facilities), through development exactions, special assessment districts or other appropriate funding mechanisms. 4.3 Screen and/or buffer large parking areas from public view through the use of landscape setbacks, earth berms and hedge screens (to headlight level) and trees and landscaping in parking areas while providing convenient pedestrian access. 4.4 On -street parking should generally be eliminated from all major, secondary and limited secondary roadways. A (4.7) In addition to the retention of park-and-ride. opportunities near the Antelope Valley Freeway, suitable park-and-ride locations near Interstate 5 should be investigated. Maintenance q (4.5),.:. ..... Encourage enclosed bicycle lockers at major destinations. 4.7 (4.6) Consider the use of shared parking and jointly operated parking structures, as appropriate. Regional System Impacts GOAL 5: Pursue an aggressive posture in the region in advocating a regional transportation system. Polices: Prelxr..... xpteai exit t t 5.1 Advocate at the local, state and federal level Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and transit programs, including rail transit and local coordinated busways/routes and bike stations. Unpleezitatxu Encourage the development and utilization of the Metrolink commuter rail system. Encourage linkages between the City's transportation system, regional rail, light rail, and high speed rail. 6405.5) Encourage the creation of High -Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes and other methods to increase the capacity of the 5R-14 and I-5. Mantance (5.2).....,.... Encourage intergovernmental coordination and cooperation among all agencies and levels of government for the planning, management, financing, and implementation of transportation system improvements. Work cooperatively with regional transportation agencies to develop and improve mass transit system connections between the City, metropolitan Los Angeles, Los Angeles International Airport, the Antelope Valley and Ventura County. Trip Reduction Methods GOAL 6: Encourage the implementation of trip reduction methods to reduce daily auto trip generation through alternate transportation, land use planning and other strategies. Policies: l?'wudxx 6 (6.9) Develop marketing and customer service plans to promote widespread use of alternatives to the auto. Target public agencies, major employers, the Chamber of Commerce, Transportation Management Associations (TMAs), etc., to encourage commute patterns using public transit. Pieuninarmpiezuentat�oa 6 (6.1) Develop coordinated plans for land use, circulation, and transit with City and County departments to concentrate high density housing, employment and commercial areas close to transit corridors. (6.5) Encourage implementation of the City's General Plan, Transportation Development Plan, Bikeway Master Plan, Infrastructure Master Plan and other documents with transportation policies through new development and redevelopment. 8 (6.6) Encourage flexibility in development standards to permit higher floor area ratios and lower parking requirements for commercial developments that provide and maintain transit facilities and that subsidize shared -ride programs. —11 Irx i9.Kien# Ei6H 4% (6.2) Encourage "transit friendly" residential, commercial and industrial development that provides convenient pedestrian and bicycle access. 6`6 (6.3) Encourage new development to use pedestrian "zippers" or walkways to provide a convenient link between different residential neighborhoods and between residential neighborhoods and commercial centers. 6'T (6.4) Encourage the location of convenience services, such as day care, at transit centers. 6.8(6.7) Synchronize the expansion of public transportation facilities with new development with implementation of "pay as you go" for expansion of public transportation facilities J (6.10) Use attractive bus stops and transfer points to promote transit. Encourage implementation of transportation demand management strategies including telecommuting, compressed work weeks, and aggressive ride -sharing promotion. Mantexxax�c (6.8) _... Support improvements to Congestion Management Plan (CMP) facilities and aid in the implementation of the CMP to improve mobility corridors in the Santa Clarita Valley and North Los Angeles County region. New Narrative to be Inserted between the Collector and Local Streets and Augmented Intersections Narrative on Page C-38 Modifications to the Truck Routes Narrative to Eliminate Reference to Super - Truck Routes on Pate C-43 One of the primary goals of the Circulation Element is to provide for the safe and efficient movement of traffic and goods. regular ._..__i_ routes_ are ..v _t_4 (See T__L]L' G 19): Industrial uses require truck access for the delivery of raw materials or unfinished parts, the shifting of inventories and the delivery of finished products to the marketplace. Commercial uses require the delivery of sales goods to market and the transferring of commercial inventories. egular truck routes within the Circulation Element Plan serve to minimize the effects of truck traffic within the circulation system, including noise and reduced roadway and intersection capacity. Additionally, truck routes serve to identify additional structural requirements imposed on the arterial roadway system and minimize the effects of structural deterioration within the circulation system. Truck routes are planned to service the commercial and industrial components of the land use plan adequately and provide sufficient access to the regional freeway system. Generally, truck routes are placed away from residential and light retail commercial uses and function along roadways leading from industrial and business park uses. W Truck routes shall be appropriately designated with street signs. In order to facilitate and maintain peak commerter traffic flows, truck travel should be encouraged during off peak periods. These off peak periods generally range from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and from 9:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. Modifications to the Light Rail and High Sneed Rail Narrative to Stren&hen Support of the Ventura Rail Line on Page C-41, Paragraph 2 Continuous rail connection between the Santa Clarita Metrolink line and Ventura is desired in the future. The Cityznn$13 suppvs Chas za1 t ¢tecilQaa axtT will explore WW opportunities to re-establish this rail connection through either a freight or light rail system SAcd\advance\drelmt5.lhs TABLE C-l(A) LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS), VOLUME TO CAPACITY(V/C) RATIOS & SERVICE VOLUMES FOR URBAN ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS Level of V/C 4 -Lane 2 -Lane Service Rad 4 Description A <0.36 Free Flow - low volumes; (28,000) little or no delay through- out the day or during peak hours. B <0.54 StableFlow- relatively low volumes; acceptable delays experienced through- out the day; some peak hour congestion. C <0.71 Stable How - relatively low volumes; acceptable delays experienced through- out the day, some peak hour congestion. D <0.87 Approaching Unstable Flow - poor, yet tolerable delays experienced throughout the day. Peak hours may experience significant congestion and delays. E <1.00 _ Unstable Flow - heavy congestion and delays experienced throughout the day and during peak hours. Volumes at or near capacity. F >1.00+ Forced Flow - both speeds and flow of traffic can drop to zero. Stoppages may occur for long periods with vehicles backing up from one in[ersection through another. (Referred to as "gridlock" Average Daily Traffic Service Volumes 8 -Lane 6 -Lane 4 -Lane 4 -Lane 2 -Lane Divided Divided Divided Undivided Undivided 48,000 36,000 24,000 16.000 5.000 (28,000) 54,000 111 40,400 27,000 18,000 7,500 (32,000) 45,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 (36,000) 49,500 33,000 22,000 12.500 (40,000) 54,000 36,000 24,000 (44,000) This condition represents system breakdown and does not have a specific relationship to service volumes. condition.) AUGMENTED INTERSECTIONS: Will add 15% to the above roadway capacity. SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209; KHR Associates, 1987. +NOTE: (XX.XXX) = CanacirV For Limited Access on 4 -Lane Divided Arterial. 15.000 �1 �` i ,. '� �J I 1 / City of Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment 11 1 M Draft Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No. 96112028 Prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. June 1997 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Table of Contents CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT DRAFT EIR Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary..........................................................................................................................ES-1 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose/Legal Authority ...............................................................................................1-1 1.2 Project History .................................................................................................................1-2 1.3 Areas of Public Controversy..........................................................................................1-3 1.4 Scope and Content...........................................................................................................1-3 1.5 Lead and Responsible Agencies....................................................................................1-4 2.0 Description of Project Alternatives 2.1 Geographic Extent of the Project Area.........................................................................2-1 2.2 Proposed Polity and Text Changes.............................................................................. 2-1 2.3 Planned Physical Development....................................................................................2-8 2.4 Project Objectives............................................................................................................2-2 3.0 Regional Environmental Setting 3.1 Local Geography...................................................... :...................................................... 3-1 3.2 Regional Climate.............................................................................................................3-1 3.3 Historical Development..................................................................................................3-1 3.4 Population and Employment......................................................................................... 3-2 3.5 Regional Access/Projected Traffic Growth.................................................................3-2 4.0 Policy Consistency 4.1 City of Santa Clarita Land Use Element.......................................................................4-1 4.2 Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide...................................................................4-5 5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis.................................................................................................5.0-1 5.1 Earth Resources...............................................................................................................5.1-1 5.2 Air Quality ................................ .... .................................................................................... 5.2-1 5.3 Surface Water/ Flooding .................................................................................................5.3-1 5.4 Biological Resources........................................................................................................5.4-1 5.5 Noise..................................................................................................................................5.5-1 5.6 Risk of Upset/ Human Health and Safety ...................................................................5.6-1 5.7 Population and Housing................................................................................................5.7-1 5.8 Transportation/Circulation...........................................................................................5.8-1 5.9 Public Services/Utilities/Energy..................................................................................5.9-1 5.10 Aesthetics/Light and Glare..........................................................................................5.10-1 5.11 Cultural Resources.........................................................................................................5.11-1 City of Santa Clarita i Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Table of Contents 6.0 Long Term Impacts 6.1 Growth Inducing Effects................................................................................................6-1 6.2 Significant and Irreversible Environmental Effects ................................................... 6-2 6.3 Short -Term Uses vs. Long -Term Productivity............................................................ 6-3 7.0 Alternatives Considered but Rejected 7.1 No Project (No Development).......................................................................................7-1 7.2 CTAC Recommendation, with SR -126 Northern By-pass ......................................... 7-2 7.3 Santa Clarita Parkway Alternative, with SR -126 Northern By-pass........................7-3 7.4 CTAC Variation with Magic Mountain Extension with SR -126 By-pass ................ 7-3 8.0 References/ Preparers 8.1 References.........................................................................................................................8-1 8.2 Report Preparers..............................................................................................................8-14 List of Figures Figure2-1 Regional Location...............................................................................................2-2 Figure 2-2 Santa Clarita Planning Area.............................................................................. 2-3 Figure 2-3 Circulation System Alternatives.......................................................................2-9 Figure 2-4 Existing Planned Circulation System (Alternative 1) ....................................2-11 Figure 2-5 Newhall Ranch Road Reduction (Alternative 2) ............................................2-14 Figure 2-6 Golden Valley Road Network (Alternative 3) ................................................2-16 Figure 2-7 Augmented Intersection Diagram................................................................... 2-17 Figure 2-8 Augmented Intersection Examples..................................................................2-18 Figure 2-9 Augmented Newhall Ranch Road Reduction (Alternative 4) .....................2-19 Figure 2-10 Augmented Golden Valley Road Network (Alternative 5) ........................2-20 Figure 5.1-1 Figure 5.1-2 Figure 5.1-3 Figure 5.1-4 Figure 5.3-1 Figure 5.4-1 Figure 5.4-2 Figure 5.5-1 Figure 5.5-2 Figure 5.5-3 Figure 5.6-1 Figure 5.7-1 Figure 5.8-1 Figure 5.8-2 Figure 5.8-3 Figure 5.8-4 Figure 5.8-5 Figure 5.8-6 Figure 5.8-7 Figure 5.9-1 Geologic and Seismic Hazards ........... Cut and Fill Lines - Alternative 1....... Cut and Fill Lines - Alternative 2....... Cut and Fill Lines - Alternative 3....... .......................................................... 5.1 -5 .......................................................... 5.1 -12 .......................................................... 5.1 -14 .......................................................... 5.1-15 100 -Year Flood Zones......................................................................................5.3-11 Generalized Vegetation Map.........................................................................5.4-3 RegionalPlace Names..................................................................................... 5.4-5 Land Use/ Noise Compatibility Matrix ........................................................5.5-3 Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment.................................5.5-7. NoiseStudy Segments...................................................................................5.5-12 PotentialHazard Areas...................................................................................5.6-8 Areas of Potential Displacement...................................................................5.7-7 Projected Volume -to -Capacity Ratios - Alternative 1 ................................5.8-7 Projected Volume -to -Capacity Ratios - Alternative 2 ................................5.8-11 Projected Volume -to -Capacity Ratios - Alternative 3 ................................5.8-13 Projected Volume -to -Capacity Ratios - Alternative 4 ................................5.8-15 Projected Volume -to -Capacity Ratios - Alternative 5 ................................5.8-17 Projected Volume -to -Capacity Ratios - Alternative 6 ................................5.8-19 Projected Volume -to -Capacity Ratios - Alternative 7 ................................5.8-21 Major Water Conveyance Lines....................................................................5.9-3 City or santa cranta I Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Table of Contents Figure 5.9-2 LA County Sanitation Districts Trunk Sewers............................................5.9-5 Figure 5.10-1 Designated Ridge Lines ..................... :.......................................................... 5.10-3 Figure 5.10-2 Existing Visual Character.............................................................................5.10-5 Figure 5.10-3 Existing Visual Character.............................................................................5.10-6 Figure 5.10-4 Figure 5.10-5 Figure 5.10-6 Figure 5.10-7 Figure 5.10-8 Figure 5.10-9 Figure 5.10-10 Figure 5.11-1 List of Tables Table ES -1 Table ES -2 Table 2-1 Table 2-2 Table 2-3 Table 211 Table 2-5 Table 3-1 Table 5.1-1 Table 5.1-2 Table 5.1-3 Table 5.1-4 Table 5.2-1 Table 5.2-2 Table 5.2-3 Table 5.2-4 Table 5.2-5 Table 5.3-1 Table 5.3-2 Table 5.4-1 Table 5.4-2 Table 5.5-1 Table 5.5-2 Table 5.5-3 Table 5.54 Existing Visual Character PhotoLocation Map................................................................................. Existing and Post -Project View - Golden Valley Road/Santa Clara River............................................................................................................ ..5.10-7 ..5.10-8 ..5.10-15 Existing and Post -Project View - Via Princessa........................................5.10-17 Existing and Post -Project View - Golden Valley Road/ Sierra Highway.......................................................................................................... 5.10-19 ProposedStreet Improvements...................................................................5.10-21 Proposed Street Improvements.................................................................5.10-22 Cultural Resources........................................................................................5.11-7 Alternative Ranking by Environmental Issue Area....................................ES-3 Summary of Environmental Effects, Mitigation Measures, and Significance AfterMitigation..............................................................................................ES-7 'roposed Circulation Element Goal and Policy Changes..............................2-4 iummary of Roadway System Alternatives.....................................................2-10 >ummary of Individual Major Roadways in the Center City Area ..............2-10 Cransportation Demand Management Measures Assumed for 11ternatives1, 2, and 3........................................................................................2-13 Aggressive Trip Reduction Measures for Alternatives 6 and 7 .....................2-22 Population and Housing Growth Trends in Santa Clarita.............................3-2 Nearby Faults and Associated Seismic Accelerations.................................5.1-3 Earth Resource Impact Summary ...................................................................5.1-8 Preliminary Cut and Fill Volume Estimates for the Center City Area...... 5.1-11 Linear Miles of Roads in Areas Subject to Liquefaction..............................5.1-23 Ambient Air Quality Data at the Santa Clarita Monitoring Station .......... 5.2-3 Summary of Air Quality Impacts....................................................................5.2-6 Estimated Maximum Daily Grading Emissions During Construction for Alternatives1-7..................................................................................................5.2-7 Total Fugitive Dust Emissions from Grading for Major Roadways and Days ofGrading.......................................................................................................... 5.2-7 Projected Vehicular Air Pollutant Emissions from the Santa Clarita RoadwayNetwork............................................................................................5.2-11 Summary of Hydrology/ Flooding Impacts Road Miles in the 100 -Year Flood Zone....... 5.3-3 5.3-10 Sensitive Wildlife Species Occurring in the Project Vicinity ......................5.4-11 Biological Resource Impact Summary ............................................................5.4-13 Santa Clarita Noise Ordinance Maximum Noise Levels.............................5.5-2 Summaryof Noise Impacts..............................................................................5.5-5 Typical Noise Level Ranges at Construction Sites.......................................5.5-6 Estimated Distance to 65 dBA Contour During Construction .................... 5.5-8 City of Santa Clarita iii Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR ,/ Table of Contents ■ Table 5.5-5 Noise Level Estimates Along Selected Roadway Corridors ....................... 5.5-11 Table 5.6-1 Hazards Databases Reviewed......................................................................... 5.6-2. Table 5.6-2 Summary of Risk of Upset/Human Health and Safety Impacts ...............5.6-5 Table 5.6-3 Summary of EDR Database Sites Within One Half Mile of Specified Proposed Roadways.........................................................................................5.6-7 Table 5.6-4 Identified LUST or CHMIRS Sites that Have Affected Soil and/or Groundwater...................................................................................................... 5.6-9 Table 5.7-1 Summary of Population and Housing Impacts............................................5.7-3 Table 5.7-2 Approved, Pending, and Recorded Residential Projects............................5.7-5 Table 5.8-1 Levels of Service, Volume -to -Capacity Ratios, and Service Volumes for UrbanArterial Highways.................................................................................5.8-3 Table 5.8-2 Daily Capacity Criteria.....................................................................................5.8-4 Table 5.8-3 Summary of Transportation/ Circulation Impacts.......................................5.8-5 Table 5.84 Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel..........................................................................5.8-23 Table 5.8-5 Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel by LOS Range................................................5.8-23 Table 5.8-6 Daily Vehicle Hours of Travel.........................................................................5.8-24 Table 5.8-7 Average Travel Speeds.....................................................................................5.8-25 Table 5.9-1 Summary of Public Service, Utility, and Energy Impacts...........................5.9-7 Table 5.10-1 Summary of Aesthetics/Light and Glare Impacts .....................................5.10-10 Table 5.10-2 Number of Ridgelines. Affected .....................................................................5.10-12 Table 5.11-1 Summary of Cultural Resource Impacts ......................................................5.11-12 Table 5.11-2 Roadway Corridors Potentially Affecting Environmentally Sensitive Areas.................................................................................................................. 5.11-13 Appendices Appendix A: Initial Study/ Notice of Preparation Appendix B: Notice of Preparation Responses Appendix C: Air Quality Data Appendix D: Noise Calculations Appendix E: Hazards Map Appendix F: Traffic Volume Maps City of Santa Clarita iv Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Executive Summary I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The section summarizes the characteristics of the seven alternatives of the draft Circulation Element Amendment proposed by the City of Santa Clarita and the environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and residual impacts associated with the each of the project alternatives. PROJECT SYNOPSIS Project Location The City of Santa Clarita is located in northern Los Angeles County, within the "V" formed by Interstate 5 and State Route 14. The City is approximately 35 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles and 35 miles southwest of Palmdale. Current municipal boundaries encompass approximately 42.8 square miles, primarily on the floor of the Santa Clarita Valley and the lower reaches of the surrounding canyons. Project Background and Characteristics The proposed project is an Amendment of the City of Santa Clarita Circulation Element of the General Plan. The Circulation Element guides the development of all components of the City's circulation system, which includes roadways, public transit, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. It also guides City policy on transportation issues such as parking and transportation demand management. The primary impetus behind the Circulation Element Amendment is the City's desire to find an appropriate alternative to the State Route 126 Expressway that was part of the City's first Circulation Element, which was adopted in 1991. The purpose of that expressway was to provide a throughway in the northern portion of Santa Clarita that provides a connector between Interstate 5, which forms the City's western edge, and State Route 14, which forms the City's eastern edge. The expressway has been the subject of extensive public controversy since the adoption of the original Circulation Element. One of the primary objectives of the Circulation Element Amendment is to examine alternatives to the expressway. The City is considering seven transportation system alternatives that could be adopted to address the City s transportation needs. Each of these consists of a proposed roadway network, in combination with various measures to manage traffic demand (by encouraging carpooling, use of transit, etc.). This EIR examines all of these alternatives so as to provide a planning tool for City decisionmakers and the public as they consider which scenario to adopt to guide future development of the City's transportation system. The alternative scenarios examined include: • The Existing Planned Circulation System (Alternative 1). This alternative examines the circulation system planned in the existing Circulation Element except that the SR - 126 Expressway has been downgraded to an eight -lane major arterial known as Newhall Ranch Road (see Figure 2-4 in Section 2.0, Description of Project AIternatives). city or santa Granta ES -1 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Executive Summary It also considers planned transit improvements included in the City's Transportation Development Plan, as well as the trip reducing effects of implementing various proposed City transportation demand management (TDM) policies. The Newhall Ranch Road Reduction (Alternative 2). This alternative is identical to Alternative 1 except that the eastward extension of Newhall Ranch Road would be reduced to six lanes in width and would end at Golden Valley Road rather than at SR - 14 and Newhall Ranch Road (see Figure 2-5 in Section 2.0, Description of Project Alternatives). Like Alternative 1, this alternative considers planned transit improvements included in the City's Transportation Development Plan, as well as the trip reducing effects of implementing various proposed City TDM policies. The Golden Valley Network (Alternative 3). This alternative is identical to Alternative 2 except that it would provide a continuous east -west throughway between I-5 and SR -14 along Newhall Ranch Road, Santa Clarita Parkway, and Golden Valley Road (see Figure 2-6 in Section 2.0, Description of Project Alternatives). Like Alternatives 1 and 2, this alternative considers planned transit improvements included in the City's Transportation Development Plan, as well as the trip reducing effects of implementing various proposed City TDM policies. Augmented. Newhall Ranch Road Reduction (Alternative 4). This alternative considers the roadway system and TDM policies of Alternative 2, but allows the augmentation of six lane arterials with additional right and left turn pockets at heavily congested intersections. Both existing and new intersections could be augmented under this alternative (see Figure 2-9 in Section 2.0, Description of Project Alternatives). Augmented Golden Valley Road Network (Alternative 5). This alternative considers the roadway system and TDM policies of Alternative 3, but, like Alternative 4, allows the augmentation of six lane arterials with additional right and left turn pockets at heavily congested intersections. Both existing and new intersections could be augmented under this alternative (see Figure 2-10 in Section 2.0, Description of Project Alternatives). Newhall Ranch/Reduced Trip (Alternative 6). This alternative examines the roadway network of Alternative 2, in combination with a set of aggressive TDM measures designed to reduce citywide trips to the maximum extent feasible (See Table 2.5, Aggressive Trip Reduction Methods for Alternatives 6 and 7). The aggressive TDM measures include a range of approaches above and beyond those envisioned in Alternatives 1, 2, and 3, including the use of City and business - sponsored financial incentives and disincentives to encourage the use of alternatives to the single passenger automobile. Golden Valley/Reduced Trip (Alternative 7). This alternative examines the roadway network of Alternative 3, in combination with the same aggressive TDM measures that would be applied as part of Alternative 6 (See Table 2.5). The proposed Circulation Element Amendment also involves a number of text and policy changes to the existing Circulation Element. The primary purposes of the text changes are to reclassify certain existing and planned roadways and to incorporate various TDM concepts into City transportation policy. Consequently, the proposed Amendment represents a shift in City transportation policy toward the development of alternatives to the single passenger automobile. city of Santa cianta ES -2 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Executive Summary SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Alternative Rankinu Table ES -1 ranks the alternatives in terms of their environmental effects in each issue area studied. These rankings are based upon the conclusions contained in the individual issue discussions contained in Section 5.0. Alternatives are ranked 1 through 7, where a ranking of 1 indicates the alternative with the least impact within that issue area and a ranking of 7 indicates the alternative with the greatest impact. It should be noted, however, that the overall magnitude of impacts would be similar under any of the alternatives. In fact, the level of impact as defined by the four broad categories described below under "Summary of Environmental Effects" would be the same for every alternative for every issue area. Therefore, the difference in impact between the alternative ranked 1 and the alternative ranked 7 is generally only marginal. In the case of some alternatives (2 and 6 for example), the roadway networks that would be built are identical. Consequently, the impact for many issues would be identical at full buildout. In these cases, the alternative less likely to require full buildout of the roadway network (Alternative 6 in this case because of the reduced overall number of vehicle trips on the roadway system) is assumed to have slightly less potential for impact. A ranking of 1 indicates the alternative with the least overall environmental impact within that issue area (the "environmental superior" alternative); a ranking of indicates the alternative determined to have the greatest overall impact within that issue area. Summary of Environmental Effects Table ES -2 describes the anticipated level of effect of each of the project alternatives for each studied issue area. Effects are broken into four general categories: Significant and Unavoidable (Class I): Significant impacts that cannot be avoided even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures. These impacts require adoption of a statement of overriding considerations by the City Council. The following impacts have been determined to fall into this category for all alternatives: ES -3 Table ES -1. Alternative Environmental Issue .. Area ]ssueAreaU'�_ if:2v ,.AIt.3= Earth 7 2 4 5 6 1 3 Air Quality 3 6 7 1 2 4 5 Surface Water/ Flooding 7 2 4 5 6 1 3 Biological Resources 7 2 5 3 6 1 4 Noise 7 4 3 6 5 2 1 Risk of UpseUHuman Health and Safety 7 2 4 5 6 1 3 Population and Housing 5 2 4 6 7 1 3 Transportation/ Circulation 1 6 7 2 3 4 5 Public Services/ Utilities/Energy 7 2 4 5 6 1 3 Aesthetics/Light & Glare 7 2 5 3 6 1 4 Cultural Resources 7 2 4 5 6 1 3 A ranking of 1 indicates the alternative with the least overall environmental impact within that issue area (the "environmental superior" alternative); a ranking of indicates the alternative determined to have the greatest overall impact within that issue area. Summary of Environmental Effects Table ES -2 describes the anticipated level of effect of each of the project alternatives for each studied issue area. Effects are broken into four general categories: Significant and Unavoidable (Class I): Significant impacts that cannot be avoided even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures. These impacts require adoption of a statement of overriding considerations by the City Council. The following impacts have been determined to fall into this category for all alternatives: ES -3 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Executive Summary Earth Resources: Air Quality: Biological Resources: Noise: Aesthetics/Light & Glare: Roads crossing active fault lines. Pollutant emissions during construction. Degradation of riparian habitat; intrusion into significant ecological areas. Noise levels during construction. Alteration of important ridgelines; change in community character/viewshed alteration; communitywide change in nighttime lighting conditions. Significant but Mitigable (Class II): Potentially significant impacts that can be feasibly mitigated to a less than significant level. These impacts require that findings be made by the City Council. The following impacts have been determined to fall into this category for all alternatives: Hydrology/Flooding: Decrease in surface water quality during construction; water quality impacts from road runoff, roadways in flood zones. Noise: Traffic noise on new roadways. Risk of Upset: Roadway corridors in areas of soil and/or groundwater contamination; roadway corridors in active or abandoned oil. fields. Public Services/Utilities/Energy: Potential disturbance of water pipelines; disturbance of trunk sewers. Cultural Resources: Potential disturbance of identified and unidentified cultural resources. Less than Significant (Class III): Impacts that have found to be less than significant because they do not exceed the threshold for such a determination. The following impacts have been determined to fall into this category for all alternatives: Earth Resources: Air Quality: Hydrology/Flooding Population and Housing: Public Services/Utilities/Energy: Slope destabilization due to grading; fill settling or rebounding; landslide movements; seismic ground shaking, liquefaction. San Joaquin Valley Fever, Long-term vehicle emissions. Increase in flood height from construction in flood plains. Displacement; growth inducing potential. Potential disturbance of drainage facilities; energy policy consistency. Beneficial (Class IV): Impacts that are considered to be beneficial to the community under any alternative. The following impact has been determined to fall into this category for all alternatives: Transportation/Circulation: Overall improvement in traffic levels of service. All of the project alternatives would be generally consistent with most City of Santa Clarita and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) land use policies. However, buildout of the planned roadway network of any of the alternatives may be potentially inconsistent with City City of Santa ES -4 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Executive Summary General Plan policies relating to hillside and open space preservation. However, some General Plan policies appear to be in conflict due to the multiple land use goals of a City. It is the responsibility of City decisionmakers to weigh proposed development in term of goals and policies that may appear mutually exclusive to maximize public benefits. Environmentally Superior Alternative Based upon the information provided in Tables ES -1 and ES -2, the environmentally superior alternative can be identified in several different ways. For example, one method might involve adding up the ranking in each category and naming the alternative with the lowest overall score the environmentally superior alternative. Using this method, Alternative 6 would be considered environmentally superior overall. Another method would be to assign point totals for each level of impact (Class I =1, etc.) and sum the score for each issue area to arrive at an overall score. Again, the lowest point score would be the environmentally superior alternative. Using this method, all alternatives would be considered equal since the overall magnitude of impact would be the same for all issues under all alternatives. There are undoubtedly many other methods that could be. used to rank the various alternatives. However, in reality, the determination of which alternative is superior will vary from person to person, based upon the individual's level of concern about individual issues. For example, a citizen who is primarily concerned about improving citywide traffic conditions will likely find Alternative 1 preferable. On the other hand, a person for whom the most important issue is the preservation of biological habitats may find Alternative 6 preferable. Again, it should be noted that the difference in environmental impact among the studied alternatives is only marginal in most cases. The overall magnitude of environmental effects will be similar regardless of the alternative that is selected. City of Santa Clarita ES -5 Santa Cladta Circulation Element Amendment EIR Executive Summary This page was intentionally left blank. City of Santa Clarita ES -6 �r a a illla a� � timet mal � a r illl�lll �■■ il� � s� �■Ir a a Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Executive Summary Table ES -2. Summary of Environmental Effects, .. . . . .. . EARTH' r ads ks�i�.� Y -a ScTWh`5:#.. �t Potential geological hazards affecting the Santa Clarita planning area include landslides, and destabilization of slopes due to grading. Seismic hazards include ground shaking, surface rupture, liquefaction, and subsidence. All of the seven alternatives involve roadway development that would be subject to each of these geologic and seismic hazards. New road corridors that would be subject to potentially significant hazards relating to fault rupture under any altematfve include Via Princessa, Golden Valley Road, and Santa Clarita Parkway. Portions of the Via Princessa and Golden Valley Road corridors would also be subject to landslide hazards under any aftemative. The Golden Valley Road, Santa Clarita Parkway, and Tourney Road crossings over the Santa Clara River would be subject to liquefaction hazards under any alternative,, the entire length of the extension of Newhall Ranch Road east of Golden Valley Road that would occur only underAltemative 1 would also be subject to liquefaction. Design and construction solutions are generally available to reduce all seismic and geologic hazards to risk levels considered acceptable, although some risk of damage to roadway infrastructure would remain under any alternative. Appropriate geotechnical and soils engineering studies would be required to be prepared and their recommendations incorporated into the design of specific roadway alignments. Environmental Effect Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation Effect ER -1 All of the project alternatives would Compliance with applicable Uniform Building Code Less than significant for all involve extensive grading for roadway requirements would generally reduce erosion/slope alternatives. Residual impacts would construction. Cut and fill of slopes would have destabilization impacts to a less than significant level. The be greatest for Alternative 1; the potential to create erosion and slope following measures are recommended for all alternatives to Alternatives 3 and 7 are estimated to destabilization, although compliance with minimize the potential for such impact: involve the least overall cut and fill, Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements although the difference between these would generally reduce erosion effects to an ER -1(a) Appropriate soils and geotechnical investigations alternatives and Alternatives 2 and 6 adverse, but less than significant level for all shall be conducted for all specific roadway alignments prior is nominal. alternatives (Class III). to the design and construction of each roadway. Any additional recommendations contained in such investigations beyond compliance with standard UBC requirements shall be fully implemented. ER -1(b) An appropriate watering system, such as drip irrigation, shall be established for cut slopes to minimize the volume of water used during the establishment of vegetation, thus reducing the potential of erosion during this period. ER -1(c) Grading shall not be performed during the rainy period (October 1 to April 15) unless the grading plans include provisions to mitigate erosion, Flooding, or the deposition of sediment or debris. City of Santa Clarita rF ES -7 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Executive Summary Table ES -2. Summary of Environmental Effects, Mitigation .. Significance After Mitigation Effect ER -2 The use of fill material in roadway Compliance with UBC and city requirements relating to Less than significant for all construction would have the potential for settling differential settling would generally reduce impacts to a less alternatives. Overall, Alternative 1 (or rebounding) under any of the seven than significant level. Geologic and seismic issues relating would have the greatest impact. alternatives. However, compliance with to individual roads will be addressed in the geotechnical and Alternatives 2 and 6 are considered to applicable code requirements would reduce soils studies recommended in Mitigation Measure ER -1(a). have the lowest overall impacts impacts to a level considered less than although the difference between these significant (Class III). and Alternatives 3 and 7 is nominal. Effect ER -3 All of the project alternatives Although compliance with existing City requirements would Less than significant for all include road corridors that pass through areas generally reduce landslide risks to less than significant alternatives. Residual impacts identified as being subject to landslide hazards. levels, the following measure is recommended for all relating to landslides would be similar There would be elevated potential for roadway alternatives: for all alternatives, although damage in these areas, although compliance Alternative 1 would have the greatest with the City's Hillside Grading Ordinance would ER -3(a) Whenever feasible, individual roadway alignments overall potential for landslide hazards generally reduce impacts to levels considered shall avoid areas of high landslide potential, as illustrated in because it includes the greatest less than significant (Class III). the 1991 General Plan Safety Element. number of road miles. Effect ER -4 All new roadway infrastructure Compliance with UBC requirements would reduce impacts to Less than significant for all would be exposed to strong ground shaking in levels considered less than significant for all alternatives. No alternatives. Because Alternative 1 the event of a major earthquake in the area, additional mitigation is required. includes the greatest number of road which could damage roadways. Compliance miles, its potential for damage related with UBC requirements would reduce ground to groundshaking would be highest. shaking impacts to a level considered less than Alternatives 2 and 6 would have the significant (Class III). lowest overall potential for damage, although the difference between these two alternatives and Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 7 is nominal. Effect ER -5 All of the project alternatives ER -5(a) If, during grading, faults are observed that could be Potentially significant for all include roadway corridors that would cross active or potentially active, the project design shall be alternatives. Overall residual impacts active fault lines. Ground rupture on these fault modified to account for the possibility of ground rupture. would be similar under all alternatives, lines could cause damage to roads, which is Roads that cross known active fault lines shall be designed although alternatives that include considered a potentially significant and in accordance with the most current accepted engineering more overall road miles would have unavoidable impact (Class 1). technology available and feasible in order to minimize greater overall potential to incur catastrophic failure of the facilities. damage from ground rupture. Effect ER -6 All of the project alternatives include Compliance with UBC requirements and Mitigation Measure Less than significant for all roadway corridors that cross areas identified as ER -1(a) would generally reduce liquefaction impacts to a alternatives. Residual impacts would having high liquefaction potential. Compliance level considered less than significant. The following is also be greatest under Alternative 1 with UBC requirements would generally reduce recommended: because it Includes the segment of r ES -8 City of Santa Cladta s ems■ t� � t� � > M as ■a 1111111101111111110 iiia Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Executive Summary Table ES -2. Summary of Environmental Effects, .. . . Significance After Mitigation the potential for roadway damage in these. areas ER -6(a) If liquefiable soils are encountered during grading, Newhall Ranch Road east of Golden to a level considered less than significant (Class then proper re-engineering of the soils shall be performed or Valley Road, the entirety of which is III), the proposed structures are to be moved or designed with within an area with high liquefaction the most current accepted design features to withstand the potential. effects of liquefaction. 5 W.r AIR Yr �t33�'v I i j Ya �t N"i u i {IC f iTb 6 i- � di `. �Y x=' tea VL %K' NNm Z' a `R - `S�_Eqtr `i !Y t .xy xS Wsi�k 'V ,'�h'+=. H ,w_., - , . _ 1; implementation of the proposed Circulation Element Update would directly generate emissions during construction of roadways and indirectly contribute to regional air pollution by accommodating motor vehicle traffic in the City. Project -related construction activity would occur sporadically over a number of years. Alternative 1 would require the greatest number of days of construction, although maximum daily NOx and PM1 p levels would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds under any alternative. New transportation infrastructure would not directly generate long-term air emissions but would accommodate an increase in traffic and associated air pollutant emissions. Operation of Alternatives 4 and 5 would result in the fewest emissions citywide, primarily because they would accommodate increased average traffic speed and reduced vehicle hours traveled. Altematives 2 and 3 would result in the highest overall long-term vehicle emissions because of their relatively poor service levels. Environmental Effect Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation Effect AQ -1 All of the project AQ(a)-1 Water trucks shall be used during all roadway Potentially significant and unavoidable alternatives would involve extensive construction to keep all areas of vehicle movement for all alternatives. Overall roadway construction over the next 20 sufficiently damp to prevent dust from leaving the construction impacts would be to 25 years. Although construction construction site. At a minimum, this will require twice daily greatest under Alternative 1. Buildout activity would occur only sporadically, applications (once in late morning and once at the end of the of Alternatives 2 or 6 is projected to impacts on worst-case construction workday). Increased watering is required whenever wind generate the fewest overall days are considered significant and speed exceeds 15 miles per hour. Grading shall be construction emissions, although the unavoidable (Class 1). suspended whenever wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour. difference between these alternatives and Alternatives 3 and 7 is nominal. AQ(a)-2 Whenever importation, exportation, or stockpiling of fill material is involved in roadway construction activity, soil that is stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. Trucks transporting material shall be tarped from the point of origin or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard. AQ(a)-3 After clearing, grading, earth -moving, or excavation is completed for any road construction project, the disturbed area shall be treated by watering or revegetation, or by I City of Santa Clarita ES -9 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Executive Summary Table ES -2. Summary of Environmental Effects, Mitigation . Significance After Mitigation spreading soil binders until the area is paved or otherwise developed. Effect AQ -2 Construction activity None required for any of the alternatives other than standard Less than significant for all associated with all.project alternatives dust control measures AQ,t, AQ -2, and AQ -3. alternatives. Overall potential to would have the potential to generate spread the San Joaquin Valley Fever dust with the fungus that causes San fungus is considered highest under Joaquin Valley Fever. However, dust Alternative 1 and lowest under control measures required on all Alternatives 2 and6, although the construction activity would reduce difference among the alternatives is potential health effects to a level nominal. considered less than significant (Class III). Effect AQ -3 None of the project alternatives No mitigation is required for any of the alternatives, although No significant long-term impacts to would directly generate long-term air pollutant it appears that operation of the two "augmented *alternatives regional air quality would occur with emissions; however, all alternatives would (4 and 5) would result in the fewest overall air pollutant any alternative. Emissions associated accommodate an increase in vehicle movement emissions among the studied alternatives. with motor vehicle traffic on the in the City, which may increase emissions. citywide system would be lowest There would be variation in the amount of air under Alternatives 4 and S. The pollutants generated by vehicle trips under the highest overall emissions would occur various scenarios, although impacts are not under Alternative 2 or 3. considered significant for any alternative (Class HYDROLOGY/FLOODIN011WIN j$ srt r ri# mo w i f, } a s!E; ii,III). IT11, ,,f... r� r fit , , � _ may, . 3. ��n ,iW � , .. . W All of the project alternatives would involve roadway construction along area canyons and in tributaries to these canyons. Construction of roadways and other infrastructure has the potential to create excessive erosion and downstream sedimentation, thereby adversely affecting surface water quality. Alternative f would involve the greatest overall amount of earth movement; Alternatives 3 and 7 would require the least. The operation of new roadways could reduce water quality under any alternative because of possible spills of fuel and other potentially hazardous materials, which could wash off into area drainages. Alternative 1 includes four crossings over the Santa Clam River, all other alternatives include only three crossings. All alternatives include road corridors within the t 00 -year floodplain; these roads would be at relatively high risk for Rood damage. Much of the Newhall Ranch Road extension that would occur only under Alternative f is within the floodplain; overall potential for Rood damage is similar for all other alternatives. Environmental Effect Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation Effect HF -1 All of the project alternatives would HF -1(a) An SWMP shall be developed for all roadway Less than significant for all Involve roadway construction throughout the City, construction activity in the City and implemented for all alternatives. Residual impacts would City of Santa Clarits ES -10 illy IIIIIIII� illll� J�' M rs IIIIIIII� Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Executive Summary which would involve substantial earth construction that occurs to implement the Santa Clarita be greatest under Alternative 1 disturbance. Potential erosion and Circulation Element. The SWMP shall include specific because of the greater overall cut and sedimentation that could occur during temporary BMPs to control the export of material from fill volumes and the Newhall Ranch construction may adversely affect surface water construction sites and into local drainages. BMP methods Road extension across the Santa quality in area drainages, a potentially significant, may include, but would not be limited to, the use of Clara River. Alternatives 2 and 6 are but mitigable impact (Class ll). temporary sediment basins, hay bales, sand bagging, and considered to have the least potential increase pollutant loads in downstream areas. soil stabilizers. Additional BMPs shall be implemented for to affect surface water quality, This is considered a potentially significant, but any fuel storage or fuel handling that could occur on although the difference between these mitigable impact (Class II). construction sites. Permanent BMPs may include extensive alternatives and Alternatives 3 and 7 revegetation and construction of pollutant trapping devices. is nominal. HF -1(b) Grading shall not be performed during the rainy period (October 1 to April 15) unless the grading plans include provisions to mitigate erosion, flooding, or the deposition of sediment or debris. Grading performed during the rest of the year shall contain a provision for dust suppression. HF -1(c) Large sediment loads shall be mitigated through proper engineering control. As required by Los Angeles County Flood Control District, debris basins are to be City of Santa Clarita ES -11 constructed and maintained to handle the debris that could be generated during rain events. The debris basins are to be integrated with the local flood control network to ensure that the runoff is properly controlled and the risk of flooding is minimized. Design criteria are to follow Los Angeles County Flood Control District and City of Santa Cladta requirements. Effect HF -2 All of the project alternatives would HF -2(a) Construct oil and grease traps within the catch Less than significant for all involve the addition of new roadways throughout basins for the roadways. The catch basin shall include a trap alternatives. Overall residual impacts the City. The operation of roadways has the that prevents floatables from discharging with the drainage would be greatest under Alternative 1. potential to generate additional urban pollutants water. The City Maintenance department shall be Alternatives 2 and 6, with the fewest such as grease and oil that could wash off and responsible for monitoring and periodically cleaning out the overall road miles, would have the increase pollutant loads in downstream areas. catch basins. least potential for adverse residual This is considered a potentially significant, but effects, although the difference mitigable impact (Class II). HF -2(b) Spills along the roadway shall be removed as between these alternatives and quickly as practical. Hazardous materials and motor vehicle Alternatives 3 and 7 is nominal. fluids shall. be removed from the site. Contaminated soil shall also be removed or remediated as soon as practical. Cleanup priorities shall include human health and safety and City of Santa Clarita ES -11 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Executive Summary Table ES -2. Summary of Environmental Effects, Mitigation . Significance After Mitigation protection of streams and other habitats. Effect HF -3 All of the project HF -3(a) Roadway segments within the 100 -year flood zone Less than significant for all alternatives include road corridors that shall be constructed to withstand the 100 -year flood event. alternatives. Alternative 1 would have cross through the 100 -year flood zone. All UBC codes applicable to flood hazards and roads shall be the greatest potential for flood The potential for flood damage to these implemented. Stream crossings shall be designed to damage. All other are similar, roads is considered significant, but minimize the impact to the water course and minimize the although Alternatives 2 and 6 are mitigable (Class II). risk of damage to the structure. considered to have slightly less potential for flood damage. Effect HF -4 All of the project Compliance with all state and federal requirements relating to Less than significant for all alternatives. alternatives include river crossings that bridge construction would reduce impacts to a less than Alternative 1 would have the greatest would encroach into floodplains, significant level. This can be achieved on a case-by-case potential to affect flood heights. potentially increasing flood heights. basis during the design phase of individual bridges. No This is considered a potentially further mitigation is required. significant, but mitigable impact of any alternative (Class 11). B10LOGICAL RESOURCES �, ,,v { Natural habitats within the planning area for the Circulation Element include non-native grasslands, sage scrub, chaparral, oak woodland, oak savanna, and riparian habitats (including southern cottonwood -willow riparian forest mulefat scrub, and scalebroom scrub). Shrubland and grassland habitats comprise the majority of the area. Oak savanna habitat is primarily located west oft -5 and riparian habitat is located along the Santa Clara River and in San Francisquito Canyon. Three significant ecological areas are associated with the oak savanna and riparian habitat. Other sensitive habitats include vernal pools in the Cruzan Mesa area, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub at the mouths of some canyons, and mainland cherry woodland in Plum and Oakdale Canyons. Nine sensitive plant species and at least 37 sensitive animal species possibly occur within the planning area. Buildout of the roadway system as envisioned under all alternatives for the Circulation Element would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to biological resources within the City. The most significant impacts are associated with the loss of riparian habitats and disturbance to the significant ecological areas along the Santa Clara River and San Francisquito Canyon. Mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the effects on plant and animal resources through realignment or elimination of certain roadways and the requirement for site specific survey and mitigation plans for sensitive plants and animals. Nonetheless, biological impacts associated with the roadway network buildout and accompanying growth of the City is expected to result in unavoidable significant impacts. Overall biological resource impacts are considered lowest underAltemative 4, while Alternative i would result in the greatest amount of impact on biological resources. It should be noted, however, that the difference in the magnitude of impacts among the alternatives is nominal. Environmental Effect Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation Effect B-1 Buildout of the citywide roadway No mitigation measures are proposed to address impacts to Less than significant for all network as envisioned by all alternatives would non-native grasslands, sage scrub and chaparral alternatives. Overall residual impacts result in the permanent loss, degradation and communities since the direct and indirect impact of road would be greatest under Alternative 1 City of Santa Clarita ES -12 �aaa s r ■� s a>• aMla aaa as w ■s s• r s! arra w� +� -M = == MM ■r■ M Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Executive Summary City of Santa Clarita ES -13 Table Mitigation . Significance After Mitigation fragmentation of grassland, sage scrub and construction is considered less than significant for all and lowest under Alternative 4, chaparral habitats. Because of the widespread alternatives. although the difference among all regional supply of these habitat types, the direct alternatives is nominal. impact of the roadway system is considered to be less than significant Class Ilp. Effect B-2 All of the alternative roadway Measures a -e below apply to all alternatives, while measures Potentially significant and unavoidable networks would result in the direct loss and f and g apply only to those specifically mentioned. for all project alternatives. Alternative degradation of sensitive aquatic and riparian 1, with one additional river crossing, habitat. This is considered an unavoidable B -2(a) Bridge all significant riparian habitat within the Santa would have the greatest overall significant effect of any project alternative (Class Clara River and San Francisquito Canyon, maintaining impact. Alternatives 2 and 6 would 1). natural streamflow.. have the least residual impact, although the difference between these B -2(b) Develop and implement riparian restoration plans in two alternatives and Alternatives 3, 4, consultation with the CDFG and ACOE for all disturbed 5, and 7 would be nominal. vegetation. Plans shall use native species appropriate to the region and habitat. B -2(c) Maintain natural bottom drainages, providing greenbelt buffers along riparian corridors for flood protection in lieu of channelization. B -2(d) Avoid vernal pool habitat. Provide ample buffers to prevent any alterations to vernal pool hydrology. B -2(e) Adopt a policy encouraging the alignment of Dickason Road within San Fransquito Canyon to be outside the SEA boundaries. Provide for a single road crossing of San Fransquito Canyon as nearly perpendicular as possible to minimize the loss of riparian habitat. It should be recognized that the portion of Dickason Road within San Francisquito Canyon is currently outside the City limits. Therefore, the City does not currently have direct control over the alignment of the road. B -2(f) For Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, align the intersection of Golden.Valley Road and Newhall Ranch Road as far to the north as possible to minimize the impact on riparian resources to the extent feasible. City of Santa Clarita ES -13 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Executive Summary Table ES -2. Summary of Environmental Effects, Mitigation Mitigation B -2(g) For Alternatives 3, 5, and 7 conduct specific roadway alignment studies intended to choose an alignment that minimizes the effect on cottonwood woodland at the intersection of Newhall Ranch Road and Santa Clarita Parkway. Effect B3 Construction of proposed roads could B-3 At the time that detailed design for specific roadways is Less than significant for all result in the direct loss of oak trees and fragment conducted, the site specific design shall avoid disturbance alternatives. Overall potential for oak woodland and savanna habitat under any within the dripline of native oak trees whenever possible. direct impacts would be greatest alternative. This is considered a potentially Each roadway that passes through oak tree habitat shall under Alternative 5 and lowest under significant, but mitigable impact (Class 11). comply with the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. Alternatives 2 and 6; however, the Trees removed as a result of improvements shall be replaced difference in overall impact among the in accordance with the City's Ordinance. alternatives Is nominal. Effect B-4 Roadway construction that would B -4(a) A site specific survey for sensitive plant species Less than significant for all occur under any of the project alternatives may should be conducted along all routes during the appropriate alternatives. Because all alternatives cause the direct loss of sensitive plants. This is time of the year at the time when they are proposed for include all of the roads with the considered a potentially significant, but mitigable actual development. Surveys must be floristic in nature, potential to affect sensitive plant impact (Class 11). identifying all species encountered. species, overall residual impacts would be similar under all alternatives. B -4(b) Avoid populations of sensitive plant species if located. Develop and implement restoration plans, in consultation with the CDFG and USFWS (as appropriate) only if avoidance is not possible. Restoration plans shall contain a monitoring program for a minimum of 5 years. Effect B-5 Roadway construction associated B -5(a) A site specific survey for sensitive animal species Less than significant for all with all project alternatives may cause the direct should be conducted along all routes during the appropriate alternatives. Overall residual impacts and indirect loss of sensitive animal populations. time of the year at the time when they are proposed for would be greatest under Alternative 1. This is considered a potentially significant, but actual development. If species are encountered, the location Impacts are considered lowest under mitigable impact (Class ll). where they are found shall be avoided. If avoidance is not Alternatives 2 and 6, although the possible, a relocation or habitat restoration plan shall be difference between these alternatives implemented on lands that have been set aside for long term and Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 7 is preservation as open space. nominal. B -5(b) All road crossing construction of the Santa Clara River and San Francisquito Canyon Creek shall be done during the summer during low flow periods. In the event that flow is occurring during construction, silt traps and other facilities shall be employed to avoid the creation of City of Santa Clarita ES -14 !• � ■i r +, � � � � 1/ r � � iill� � i ir�l � tib Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Executive Summary Table Mitigation Mitigation downstream impacts on unarmored threespine stickleback populations. All diversions shall be done in accordance with Fish and Game and Army Corps of Engineers permit conditions. Effect B-6 The development of the roadway Mitigation measures described above to reduce impacts to Potentially significant under any network planned under any of the project Effects B-2, B-3, B-4, and B-5 will also serve to reduce alternative. Overall impacts are alternatives would intrude into and cause further impacts within the SEAs. considered greatest under Alternative fragmentation of significant ecological areas 1 and lowest under Alternatives 2 and contained within City boundaries. This is 6, although the difference among considered a significant and unavoidable impact alternatives is nominal. of any alternative (Class 1). N01W t . > "TMyi �Y' F �i k '= vv''44 ys .,y? .,x-.�sl„�$,` }�£e.ii'Jw a?t..�t�.lt(}�9�ii�FT 4t(+�e-s-..��e'm'm.�..iv..�9°.'...... ,'.a. m1.l. ... .. eti }I{4i.'en' Implementation of the proposed Circulation Element Amendment would generate noise primarily in two ways: (1) the use of construction equipment during roadway building; and (2) vehicular traffic on new roadways. Construction activity associated with any of the project alternatives would have the potential to generate significant impacts to receptors in the vicinity of construction sites. in general, impacts would be greatest under those alternatives that involve more overall roadway construction (Alternatives 1, 6, and 7). Alternatives 3 and 5 involve the least overall roadway construction and would therefore generate the fewest overall construction impacts. Traffic noise would potentially exceed normally acceptable levels on all major roadway segments under all project alternatives. The Newhall Ranch Road extension that would occur underAltemative f would audibly increase noise levels along Newhall Ranch Road as compared to the other alternatives. The overall impacts orother alternatives would be similar. Traffic -related noise impacts can be reduced through the use of sound walls, berms, setbacks, and/or the use of rubberized asphalt in street paving. Environmental Effect Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation Effect N-1 Any of the project alternatives N -1(a) Grading and construction operations shall be limited Potentially significant for all would involve roadway infrastructure to between 7:00 am and 7:00 PM on non -holiday weekdays alternatives. Alternatives 4 and 5 construction that would temporarily expose and Saturdays. would have the greatest residual people to noise levels exceeding those allowed impact because they involve under the City Noise Ordinance. This is N -1(b) Whenever feasible, electrical power shall be used to construction activity in proximity to considered a potentially significant and run air compressors and similar power tools rather than developed areas. Alternatives 2 and unavoidable impact of all alternatives (Class 1). diesel equipment. 6 would would therefore have the lowest overall residual impact, N -1(c) All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed although the difference between these engine covers and shall be equipped with factory- two alternatives and Alternatives 3 recommended mufflers and other silencing features. and 7 is nominal. N -1(d) The City shall review all roadway projects to determine the necessity and feasibility of additional City of Santa Clarita ES -15 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Executive Summary ES -2. Summary of Environmental Effects, MitigationTable .. . construction noise mitigation. Additional mitigation may include, but is not limited to, the use of temporary noise barriers to shield nearby sensitive receptors and additional restrictions on the phasing or timing of noise generating activities such as grading. Effect N-2 Any of the project alternatives would N -2(a) A traffic noise study shall be prepared by an Less than significant for all have the potential to expose existing and individual qualified in acoustical analysis for all specific alternatives. Alternative 1 would have planned residential areas throughout the City to roadway alignments at the time that specific alignment is the greatest residual traffic noise long-term traffic noise levels exceeding those proposed.. Any recommendations contained in the study for impact. Impacts of all other normally considered compatible with residential alleviating significant noise problems will be adhered to, alternatives would be similar; overall uses. This is considered a potentially significant, Mitigation may include, but is not limited to, the use of sound noise levels would be lowest under but mitigable impact of any project alternative walls, berms, and/or appropriate setbacks. Alternatives 2 and 3. (Class II). N -2(b) On new road segments with the potential to expose adjacent uses to noise exceeding "normally acceptable levels, the City shall consider and, if feasible, use rubberized asphalt paving material for street paving. Studies have demonstrated that this type of paving materials can substantially reduce roadway noise. A 1992 noise study in the City of Thousand Oaks by Acoustical Analysis Associates, Inc. indicated that the use of an asphalt rubber overlay can achieve a noise reduction of from 2 to 5 dBA as compared to standard asphalt. RISK OF UPSET/HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY ; x t ,. •5i.6W. ti}�xv.. 4 K.#m[.ruv.a. s. .., ...i %. ..v,'..v .. ,, ..._:? auy`',t..� �"°m,.v.: vi:. ut,NS i= All of the project alternatives include road corridors with the potential to encounter such hazards as contaminated sites and oil fields. Construction activity and roadway development in areas of soil and/or groundwater contamination would create the risk of accidental upset and risks to human health. Overall potential to encounter hazards would be similar under all alternatives, although the extension of Newhall Ranch Road to State Route 14 that would occur under Alternative 1 would increase that alternative's hazard potential to some degree.. Overall hazard potential would be similar for Alternatives 2, 3, 6, and 7. Alternatives 4 and 5 would have a slight increase in potential to encounter hazards due to the increased ground disturbance associated with intersection augmentation. Environmental Effect Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation Effect RU -1 All of the project alternatives RU -1(a) The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Less than significant for all include roadway corridors that cross through shall be contacted regarding the current investigative/remediation alternatives. After mitigation, or near areas identified as having sources of status of the former Bermite Plant property. The locations of the Alternative 1 would have the ES -16 City of Santa Cladta M M M Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Executive Summary City of Santa Clarita ES -17 Table ES -2. Summary of Environmental Effects, Mitigationand Significance After Mitigation potential soil and/or groundwater proposed roadways which pass through the former Bermite Plant greatest potential to encounter contamination. Impacts in such areas are property shall be coordinated with the person in charge of hazardous material sites. considered potentially significant, but investigation/remediation for the former plant at the DTSC. Alternatives 2 and 6, with the mitigable (Class II). fewest road miles, would have the RU -1(b) No roadways shall pass through areas of known least potential to encounter radioactive contamination within the former Bermite Plant property hazardous sites, although the boundaries. All identified radioactive contamination at the former difference between these two Bermite Plant property must be removed or remediated, prior to alternatives and Alternatives 3 and any type of construction related to the development of the 7 is nominal. proposed roadways. RU -1(c) All construction personnel working within parts of the former Bermite Plant, identified by the DTSC as formerly having soil and/or groundwater contamination other than radioactive contamination, shall participate in 40 -Hour Occupational Health and Safety Training or the equivalent at a minimum, and shall be outfitted with appropriate protective equipment should contamination be encountered. RU -1(d) A release shall be obtained from the DTSC guaranteeing that remediation activities at the former Bermite Plant will not result in air emissions or radioactive emissions that would adversely affect humans in slow-moving or stopped vehicles with the windows rolled down; OR areas for proposed roadway construction on the former Bermite facility shall be certified "clean" by the DTSC prior to the construction of the proposed roadways. RU -1(e) City or County file reviews shall be performed for all LUST sites identified herein that have affected soil and groundwater, and for all CHMIRS sites which have affected soil outside the boundaries of each identified facility. The file reviews shall be performed to ascertain the extent of contamination in soil and/or groundwater from each of the specified facilities, and to evaluate whether or not the identified contamination would adversely affect construction workers during development of the proposed roadways. The only proposed roadways that do not have identified hazardous release sites within one half mile from the roadway are: Decoro Road; Copperhill Road; Whites Canyon Road; and Avenue Scott. City of Santa Clarita ES -17 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Executive Summary City of Santa Clarita ES -I8 Table ES -2. Summary of Environmental Effects, Mitigation . Significance After Mitigation RU -2(a) All of the proposed roadways shall be located on a Effect RU -2 All of the alternative roadway Less than significant for all networks include roadway corridors that cross current topographic map, to scale, and their locations identified alternatives. Residual impacts through active or abandoned oil fields. Hazards relative to the abandoned Saugus and Bouquet Canyon Oil Fields would be greatest under associated with the construction of roads in these and the active Placenta Oil Field. Altemafive 1, which includes the areas are considered potentially significant, but greatest number of road miles mitigable (Class ll). RU -2(b) All abandoned dry holes, or abandoned or active oil or within the Bouquet Canyon Oil natural gas wells within the boundaries of any proposed roadway, Field. Alternatives 2 and 6 include shall be identified utilizing the State of California, Department of the fewest overall road miles and Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas Maps. therefore would have the least potential to encounter oil field RU -2(c) The State of California, Department of Conservation, hazards, although the difference DOG shall be contacted regarding any abandoned dry holes or oil between these two alternatives wells in an abandoned oil field and unidentified oil wells that lie in and Alternatives 3 and 7 is the pathway of any of the proposed roadways. The DOG shall be nominal. contacted to identify the holelwell and to evaluate whether or not the holetwell has been properly abandoned. The DOG will require proper abandonment or re -abandonment of an oil wellifthe well is to be located under any proposed structure. If the well is found to have been properly abandoned, and will not be located under a proposed structure, the DOG may not require re -abandonment. Any abandoned dry holes or oil wells may have to be re - abandoned according to current State of California requirements prior to the development of the proposed roadways. RU -2(d) Proposed roadways shall be aligned so as to avoid identified active oil wells, pumps, derricks, or other oil facilities. RU -2(e) The Placenta Oil Production Company, and TOSCO Enhanced Oil Recycling Corporation, shall be notified of any proposed roadway planned through the active Placenta Oil Field, but which does not encroach upon any active oil wells or facilities. These companies or their affiliations should be able to identify any risk of upset related to the construction of the proposed roadways which may include, but is not limited to: 1) gas or oil product lines which cross through the oil field; 2) air emissions from the oil production facility(es) which may be problematic to humans in vehicles on the proposed roadways; 3) soil and/or groundwater contamination resultant from oil production activities within the boundaries of the oil field; and 4) human safety risks associated City of Santa Clarita ES -I8 = M r M M == M = M M M = r = M = i M Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Executive Summary Table ES -2. Summary of Environmental Effects, Mitigation. Significance After Mitigation with active oil wells, such as hydrogen sulfide vapors and possible explosion hazards. P3�PULAIQN IA�YD HOUSING ���rr h a 2,;; rk. ,I D'fH�h�� ttATIO,vR This section assesses the potential for the proposed Circulation Element Amendment to displace existing residential and/or planned development in the City, as well as the potential for Circulation Element implementation to indirectly induce population growth in the Santa Clarita Valley. Any of the seven project alternatives would have the potential to displace residences. Alternative 1 would have the greatest potential for residential displacement. All other all alternatives would be similar, although Alternatives 4 and 5 would have greater potential for displacement of businesses because of the augmentation of intersections on existing roads in intensely developed areas. All seven alternatives would also have the potential to indirectly induce growth. Alternative 1 would open up the largest area to possible future development. Alternatives 4 and 5 may also allow for relatively high growth by increasing roadway capacity. Alternatives 6 and 7 may encourage relatively compact development by providing alternative transportation modes and increasing the costs of using single occupant vehicles. Environmental Effect Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation Effect PH -1 Any of the alternative roadway If displacement is required to accommodate future roadway Less than significant for all scenarios would have the potential to displace construction, including widening of existing roadways, relocation alternatives. The overall greatest existing residences and affect development assistance will be provided in accordance with applicable potential for displacement would patterns in areas proposed for residential relocation laws described in the setting. The following measure occur under Alternatives 4 and 5 development Because relocation assistance is recommended for all alternatives in order to minimize the need because of the roadway widening would be provided in accordance with state and for residential displacement: that would occur in highly federal law for any persons or businesses developed areas of the City. dislocated, impacts are considered adverse, but PH -1(a) The Santa Clarita Parkway, Golden Valley Road, and Alternatives 2, 3, 6, and 7 would less than significant (Class III). Copperhill Road extensions shall be planned for alignments have the least potential for though existing undeveloped corridors available in the vicinities displacement. of the proposed roadways to the extent feasible to avoid existing and future development. Effect PH -2 All of the circulation None required. Less than significant for all system alternatives would have the alternatives. The potential to potential to indirectly induce population indirectly induce growth would be growth by accommodating additional greatest under Alternative 1. The traffic flow and opening up undeveloped augmented intersections that areas to residential development. would be implemented under Because growth would be within SCAG Alternatives 4 and 5 may also projections under any alternative, have relatively high growth impacts are considered adverse, but inducement potential. less than significant (Class III). City of Santa Clarita ES -19 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Executive Summary Table ES -2. Summary of Environmental Effects, Mitigation • Significance After Mitigation TRANSPORTAT/ON/CIRCULATION fi F'' ssl:w.e< _ v.. -. _ n e Y..� V a I, 'Y,. - a., .4 , 1 r rva i r'_'r,.y Implementation of any of the circulation system alternatives would improve traffic conditions as compared to future conditions without system improvements, although none of the alternatives would achieve the desired level of service D at all locations. Alternative 1 would result in the best overall future levels of service and fewest segments operating below City level of service standards. Alternatives 4 and 5, the two "augmented" alternatives, would achieve the best overall service levels among the remaining alternatives. The trip reduction techniques associated with Alternatives 6 and 7 would improve future service levels as compared to Alternatives 2 and 3, but not to as great a degree as would Alternatives 4 and 5. Alternatives 6 and 7 would result in the fewest overall vehicle miles traveled on the City's system, although Alternatives 4 and 5 would result in the fewest overall vehicle hours traveled. The augmented intersections associated with Alternatives 4 and 5 would have the potential to create additional conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists as compared to the other alternatives because of the increased road width and faster overall vehicle speeds at major intersections. Environmental Effect Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation Effect TC -1 Although none of the project All alternatives would improve overall traffic service levels and All alternatives would improve alternatives are projected to achieve the City would therefore have beneficial impacts without mitigation. overall traffic levels of service as goal of level of service D at all intersections, all Nevertheless, because some roads are projected to continue to compared to future conditions of the alternatives would improve traffic operate at undesirable levels of service, the following measure without circulation system conditions to varying degrees as compared to is recommended to further improve citywide traffic conditions: improvements. Implementation of future conditions without circulation system Alternative 1 would result in the improvements. Impacts of any of the TC -1(a) The City should investigate the adopting transit village best overall citywide service levels. alternatives are therefore considered beneficial plans for transit development districts around major transit Among the other alternatives, (Class IV). nodes in the City, as outlined in the Transit Village Development Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in Planning Act of 1994 (Section 65460 et. seq. of the California the fewest areas operating below Administrative Code). The purpose of creating a transit village desired service levels and the best development district is to increase transit ridership and reduce overall traffic flow. Alternatives 6 vehicle traffic on highways by creating mixed use and 7 would improve traffic flow to neighborhoods centered around transit stations that make use some degree as compared to of transit convenient and attractive, thereby reducing Alternatives 2 and 3, but not to as dependence upon the automobile. great a degree as would occur under Alternatives 4 or 5. Effect TC -2 Proposed Circulation Element None recommended. Pedestrian and bicycle safety policies would generally improve traffic safety impacts are not considered conditions; however, the augmented significant under any alternative. intersections associated with Alternatives 4 and However, Alternatives 4 and 5 5 would have the potential to create conflicts for would create the potential for pedestrians and bicyclists as compared to the increased safety conflicts as other alternatives. This additional impact Is compared to the other considered less than significant (Class III), but alternatives. should be considered by decisonmakers. City of Santa Clarita ES -20 >• itis �■ tiiir• tii� Ittii� i� �■ ittr• iiii� iiiii� i� iti�i +� tip tiii� tt� Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Executive Summary Table ES -2. Summary of Environmental Effects, Miti.. . Mitigation PUBLIC SERV/CES/UTILITIES/ENERGY ' r `a' " . , 11 , " This section assesses potential conflicts between the roadway systems associated with the Circulation Element Amendment and with the operation of existing and planned public infrastructure in the City, including major storm drains, water conveyance systems, and sewer lines. it also includes an assessment of the Circulation Element Amendment's consistency with adopted City energy policy. All of the project alternatives include road corridors that would cross existing and planned water, sewer, and drainage facilities, thereby potentially interfering with the operation of infrastructure systems during construction. Potential impacts to these systems are typically addressed on a case-by-case basis and, with cooperation among affected agencies, no impacts to infrastructure systems are anticipated under any alternative. Alternative 1 would have the greatest potential for impacts to infrastructure while Alternatives 3 and 7 would have the least potential for impact. All alternatives include policies to reduce motor vehicle use and are considered equally consistent with City energy conservation policy. Environmental Effect Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation Effect PS -1 All of the project alternatives PS -1(a) The City of Santa Clarita shall submit preliminary design Less than significant for all include roadway corridors that cross existing drawings or improvements plans to the CLWA for any roadway alternatives. Overall potential for and planned water conveyance pipelines. The with the potential to affect CLWA pipelines. Any LADWP impact would be greatest under potential to interfere with water lines is specifications for the design of crossings over CLWA facilities Alternative 1. Alternatives 3 and considered a significant, but mitigable impact shall be adhered to by the City. 7 are considered to have the least (Class II). impact because of the improved PS -1(b) The City of Santa Clarita shall submit preliminary design Aqueduct crossing at Santa drawings or improvement plans to the MWD for any roadway with Clarita Parkway, although the the potential to affect MWD pipelines or rights-of-way prior to difference between these two approval of the design for any specific roadway for review and alternatives and Alternatives 2 input. The design of roadways with the potential to affect MWD and 6 is nominal. facilities will consider the Guidelines for Developments in the Area of Facilities, Fee Properties, and/or Easements of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. PS -1(c) The City of Santa Clarita shall submit preliminary design drawings or improvement plans to the LADWP for Newhall Ranch Road, Santa Clarita Parkway, and Via Princessa. Any LADWP specifications for the design of Los Angeles Aqueduct crossings shall be adhered to by the City. Effect PS -2 All of the project alternatives PS -2(a) The City of Santa Clarita shall obtain a buildover Less than significant for all include roadway corridors that cross over agreement (BOA) from the CSDs of Los Angeles County prior to alternatives. The residual existing sewer mains operated by the Los construction of any road segment that would cross a Sanitation potential for impacts would be the Angeles County Sanitation Districts. Potential Districts sewer line. The City shall comply with any conditions greatest under Alternative 1 interference with these lines is considered a set forth in the BOA regarding roadway design or alignment. because of the one additional c;ry of ES -21 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Executive Summary r ES -22 City of Santa Clarita Table ES -2. Summary of Environmental Effects, Mitigation. Significance After Mitigation potentially significant, but mitigable impact trunk line crossing. The residual (Class II). effects of all other alternatives would be roughly equivalent. Effect PS -3 All of the project alternatives PS -3(a) The City shall provide design drawings of planned Less than significant for all include roads that would cross existing flood roads to the Los Angeles County Public Works Department as alternatives. Alternative 1 would control facilities in the City. Potential early as possible to effectively address the potential for adverse have the greatest residual interference with the operation of flood control impacts to the operation of drainage facilities during construction. potential for impact due to the facilities is considered a potentially adverse, but The City shall comply with any recommendations from the increased number of road miles less than significant impact (Class III). County Public Works Department with respect to drainage and additional crossing over the facilities. Santa Clara River. All other alternatives would have similar impacts. Effect PS -4 All of the project alternatives None required for any of the alternatives. Less than significant without are considered generally consistent with City mitigation for all alternatives. energy conservation policy. Impacts to energy Overall energy consumption are considered less than significant for all would be similar under all alternatives (Class III). alternatives. AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE�,M , i��t�� This section examines the potential of the Circulation Element's physical plan to alter the visual and aesthetic environment of the City of Santa Clanta. The substantial amount of grading that would occur under any project alternative would result in substantial changes to the natural topography of the City, altering primary and secondary ridgelines. Such alteration potentially conflicts with City policies for ridgeline preservation and hillside development and is considered a significant and unavoidable impact. New roadways of all alternatives would result insignificant and unavoidable impacts on viewsheds as well. Impacts relating to alteration of the overall rural nature of the public view cannot generally be mitigated for any alternative, while the increase in artificial light and glare resulting from roadway development has been identified as a significant and unavoidable impact of all alternatives. Overall impacts would be similar under all alternatives. However, Alternative 1 includes the most overall miles of new roads, while Alternative 3 would affect the most significant ridgelines. Alternatives 2 and 6, with the fewest new road miles and fewest ridgeline crossings, would have the least overall impact. Environmental Effect Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation Effect AES -1 All of the alternatives would The City has adopted a comprehensive approach to hillside Potentially significant for all potentially conflict with the City's Ridgeline grading through its Ridgeline Ordinance. The ordinance and alternatives. Alternative 5 would Ordinance by irreversibly altering landform guidelines contain explicit techniques and methods for affect the most ridgelines with the profiles and changing their aesthetic character. preserving important ridgelines. The following measures are greatest effect. Alternatives 2 and Although innovative design may mitigate impacts recommended to augment those already adopted by the City. 6 would have the least effect. It on a case-by-case basis, this is considered a I should be noted, however, that r ES -22 City of Santa Clarita M M====== M M M M= M a Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Executive Summary City of Santa Clarita ES -23 Table Mitigation. ES -2. Summary of Environmental Effects, Significance After Mitigation AES -1(a) Recommendations forthcoming from the Community potentially significant and unavoidable impact the difference in level of impact (Class 1). Development Director regarding ridgeline protection, as provided among the alternatives is nominal. for in Section 17.80.030 of the Unified Development Code, shall be implemented. AES -1(b) If grading leads to exposure of low cohesion sandy soils four feet or greater in height, slopes shall be protected with jute matting and landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. AES -1(c) If grading leads to exposure of bedrock or hard - packed soils that resist revegetation, landscaping shall be implemented through the excavation of plant holes in a random pattern with an average of five feet on center. Plantings shall come from the palette included in the City's Ridgeline Ordinance or as otherwise approved for the site. AES -1(d) All graded slopes shall be revegetated with native plant materials that visually blend with the colors and textures of the natural slopes. Effect AES -2 All of the project alternatives AES -2(a) Individual projects shall have detailed landscaping Potentially significant for all have the potential to affect scenic vistas and plans. Landscaped areas shall include manufactured slopes and alternatives. Alternative 1 would public viewsheds throughout Santa Clarita. street medians. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in have the most significant impact. This is considered a significant and good condition. Alternatives 2 and 6 are unavoidable impact of any alternative (Class 1). considered to have the least AES -2(b) Crosswalks and pedestrian areas at major overall impact because they intersections shall be marked. They may be tinted or have a involve the fewest road miles and, textured surface that contrasts with the rest of the sidewalk in some case, the least alteration where appropriate. of the landscape. However, the difference between these AES -2(c) Decorative design elements, such as the the alternatives and Alternatives 3 treatment shown in Figure 5.10-9, Photo 13, shall be and 7 is nominal. incorporated where feasible and appropriate. AES -2(d) Street furniture, public art, transit stops, and vegetation that aid in integrating roadways and bridges into the community shall be used where feasible. City of Santa Clarita ES -23 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Executive Summary Tableof Environmental Effects, Mitigation . Significance After Mitigation Effect AES3 Light and glare produced from AES -3(a) Low sodium lights shall be used on all roadways to Potentially significant for all development of all of the alternatives would reduce glare. alternatives. Alternative 1 would extend the urban lighted area of the City of have the most significant lighting Santa Clarita, alter the nighttime sky view, and AES -3(b) Street light poles shall be of an appropriate height to impact. Alternatives 2 and 6 are produce daytime glare from reflective metallic reduce the glare and pooling of light into adjacent surrounding considered to have the least materials and glass associated with vehicles. areas. impact, although the difference This is considered significant and unavoidable between these alternatives and impact (Class 1). AES -3(c) Street light elements shall be recessed or hoods shall Alternatives 3 and 7 is nominal. be used to reduce glare impacts on surrounding areas. CUL TURALRE_S'.Oyd '-tn9. �.. uUseR".ddvC�ES.� .i.v....-kr-R .r,a.a:.. wry .. nff.;,_r.p None of the project alternatives would significantly affect any confirmed historic or prehistoric archaeological resources. However, al/ alternatives include road corridors that pass through or near environmentally sensitive areas with respect to prehistoric and historic archaeological resources. Although the significance of resources within these areas is not known at this time, impacts are considered potentially significant in these areas. Because most of Santa Clarita, including the planned roadway corridors for all alternatives, has not been surveyed, there would also be the potential for damage to as yet unidentified resources. This potential is considered greatest under Alternative 1, which includes the most overall road miles. Altematives 2 and 6, with the fewest overall road miles, are considered to have the least potential for impacts to cultural resources, although the difference between these two and Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 7 is nominal. Appropriate survey work and, if necessary, mitigation will need to be conducted prior to any roadway construction. Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance After Mitigation Effect CR -1 Roadway corridors for any of the CRA (a) Areas that have not been systematically surveyed by a Less than significant for all seven alternatives would have the potential to qualified archaeologist will require a Phase 1 archaeological alternatives. The residual affect cultural resources. Cultural resource study prior to construction of new roadways. potential for impacts would be impacts for all alternatives are therefore highest under Alternative 1 considered potentially significant (Class II). A Phase 1 Archaeological Study represents the first step in the because that alternative would planning process to identify potentially significant heritage involve the greatest overall remains within a project area. The study shall encompasses the amount of ground disturbance. performance of a formal records search; a surface Overall impact potential would be reconnaissance of the entire project area; and report detailing lowest under Alternatives 2 and 6 the results of the archaeological study. The report shall conform because they involve the fewest to the Preservation Planning Bulletin Number 4(a), overall road miles. It should be Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): noted, however, that the Recommended Contents and Format prepared by the California difference between these two Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) in 1989. Minimally, the alternatives and Alternatives 3, 4, report shall contain a preface, acknowledgments, statement of 5, and 7 is nominal. confidentiality if resources are encountered, table of contents, cover letter, title page, management abstractlsummary, r ES -24 City of Santa Clarita � � � � � � � � � � � !• � i� � ilk � � � Santa Cladta Circulation Element Amendment EIR Executive Summary able ES -2. Summary of Environmental Effects, yatinn Measuras_ and Sinnificanca After Mitiaatic description of the scope of work and project description, environmental setting, cultural and historical overview, research design, methodology, findings, discussionfinterpretation, management considerations, references, appendices, and references. CR -11(b) For areas that have previously been systematically surveyed by a qualified archaeologist and no cultural resources of a prehistoric and/or historic archaeological resources were encountered, the appropriate file number for reports on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, UCLA Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, shall be consulted (see the Cultural Resource Sensitivity Map on file at the Community Development Department for file numbers). Area specific recommendations per that report shall be implemented. In most cases, areas in which surveys have been conducted and no cultural resources were encountered will not require further work. However, on occasion, an archaeologist may have included a monitoring clause for a portion, or all of the project area due to the extreme cultural resource sensitivity of the area, or the fact that a cultural resource lies close, or adjacent to the subject parcel. CR -11(c) For areas that have been systematically surveyed by a professional archaeologist and in which a cultural resource(s) was/were encountered, the appropriate file number for reports on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, UCLA Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, shall be consulted (file numbers are available on the Cultural Resource Sensitivity Map on file with the Community Development Department). Any area - specific recommendations contained in that report shall be implemented. A review of the cultural resource document may provide additional recommendations according to Appendix K of the California Environmental Quality Ad (CEQA). In some instances, additional studies (Phase 2 - archaeological assessment, and/or, a Phase 3 - mitigation) have already been performed and no further work is required. In other instances, additional work (Phase 2 or Phase 3 testing) will be required to meet CEQA requirements as well as County and/or City guidelines, policies, and procedures as they pertain to the City of Santa Ciarita ES -25 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Executive Summary MitigationTable ES -2. Summary of Environmental Effects, . Significance After Mitigation preservation, protection, and enhancement of cultural resources. A Phase 2 Archaeological Study represents a detailed assessment of heritage resource(s) encountered during a Phase 1 Archaeological Study. A scope of work and research design must approved prior to the initiation of the field work. Native American involvement must be secured and documented, and a report must Include the results of all data obtained during the study. The primary intent of this study is to address the significance of the resource(s) based upon CEQA or Section 106 criteria. The results of this study will directly affect the next phase of planning. Either mitigation through avoidance and preservation, or additional work will recommended. If the heritage resource is determined not to be significant, it will be up to the Community Development Department to ensure that the level of work performed conformed to the scope of work and was sufficient to ensure the quality and quantity of data obtained necessary to make a determination of "non -significance." In extreme cases, if this finding is questionable, or concerns are raised by other scientists over the results, an outside consulting source with local expertise shall be consulted for a second opinion. A Phase 3 Archaeological Study represents a focused program aimed at data recovery for a significant heritage resource(s) assessed during a Phase 2 Archaeological Study or identified at some point during the planning process as being significant. A Phase 3 Archaeological study must be directed by a pre - approved scope of work, and provide a detailed report which expands on the information obtained during the Phase 2 Archaeological Study. Additionally, Native American involvement must be documented. The results of this study, shall result in a final document that synthesizes all extant data likely to be retrieved from the resource(s). If a likelihood for encountering burials and or features is sufficiently justified by the archaeologist, then monitoring may be required to ensure that buried resources encountered during excavation are identified, recorded and studied. If burials are encountered, work must stop and the coroner must be notified immediately. City of Santa Clarita ES -26 M==== M M= M i= M M M M o Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Executive Summary MitigationTable ES -2. Summary of Environmental Effects, . Significance After Mitigation CR -1(d) Environmentally sensitive areas represent the approximate location of a recorded prehistoric or historic cultural resource. For environmentally sensitive areas that could be encountered by planned roadway corridors and that are within a previously surveyed area, report recommendations on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, UCLA Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, shall be followed. For - environmentally sensitive areas that could be affected by roadway development and are not within an area that has undergone a formal, systematic archaeological survey, additional analysis (a Phase 1 Study, possibly followed by a Phase 2 archaeological assessment and Phase 3 mitigation) shall be performed prior to roadway construction. City of Santa Cfarita ES -27 iSanta Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 1.0 Introduction 1.0 INTRODUCTION This document is an environmental impact report (EIR) that analyzes the effects of the draft Circulation Element Amendment that has been proposed by the City of Santa Clarita to address the City's current and future transportation needs. The EIR has been prepared in compliance with the criteria, standards and procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines published by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research. 1.1 PURPOSE/LEGAL AUTHORITY In accordance with Section 15121(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the.purpose of an EIR is to serve as an informational document that: "... will inform public agency decision -makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project..." Because the proposed project requires discretionary approval from the City of Santa Clarita, it is subject to the requirements of CEQA (Public Resources Code, Section 21000, et. seq.). As the lead agency under CEQA, the City of Santa Clarita determined that the proposed project could result in significant adverse effects on the environment and that an EIR should be prepared. This document is prepared as a Program EIR. As provided in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, the Program EIR can allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program -wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with the citywide impacts analyzed in such a document. The Program EIR also enables the agency to examine the overall effects of the proposed course of action and take steps to avoid unnecessary adverse environmental effects. This program -level document also serves as the first tier of the environmental review for specific future circulation system infrastructure development projects that are implemented under the City's Circulation Element. The subsequent environmental review of such projects will incorporate information contained in this EIR by reference, while primarily focusing on those issues relevant to the specific action being proposed at that time. This report has also been prepared as an "alternatives EIR." As such, it examines seven alternative transportation system scenarios in an equal level of detail, with no one scenario having been identified as the preferred alternative. The different scenarios examined in this EIR are intended to present a range of options for solving current and projected traffic needs in Santa Clarita. Therefore, the document fulfills two primary objectives: (1) it identifies and, when possible, mitigates the impacts of future development under the Circulation Element, (2) it provides an issue -by -issue comparison of the effects of each of the alternative scenarios. Consequently, the document can serve as an important decision-making tool to assist both the City Council and the public in determining what kind of transportation system will best meet the present and future needs of the community. I City of Santa Clarita ' 1-1 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 1.0 Introduction 1.2 PROJECT HISTORY The preparation of this EIR is actually one of the last steps in a planning process that has spanned six years, since the adoption of Santa Clarita's first Circulation Element in June 1991. The first change came in November 1992, when the City Council adopted General Plan Amendment 92-02 (Master Case 92-154). That amendment revised the Circulation Element text for clarity and added the Lyons Avenue Extension as a planned roadway. The process of reassessing the center city circulation network began in 1992 in response to the City Council's desire to find an alternative route to the then proposed State Route 126 Expressway through the City and to eliminate the "super truck route' designation for State Route 126. The City Council subsequently requested that the newly formed Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) solicit further community input regarding an alternative east/west roadway network in the City. The CTAC recommendations that came out of this community input process were presented to the Planning Commission in July 1993. The Planning Commission then conducted a series of public hearings on the topic and suggested some refinements to the CTAC-recommended roadway system. In December 1993, a recommended network was submitted to the Council for consideration in studying a possible amendment to the City's Circulation Element. In September 1994, the City Council commissioned a traffic study (the Center City Traffic and Modeling Study) to examine the existing circulation system and four alternative road networks recommended or endorsed by the CTAC, the Planning Commission, and the City Council. It was hoped that the study would identify an acceptable and superior highway system that would enable to the City to eliminate the State Route 126 extension from the Circulation Element while providing a suitable alternative east/west connector with a network of supporting arterial highways. The findings of the Center City Traffic and Modeling Study were presented to the City Council at a January 1995 study session. At that time, the study concluded that neither the existing Circulation Element nor any of the four potential alternative roadway networks would meet the City's General Plan Ievel of service goals. Consequently, two additional alternatives were analyzed as part of an iterative planning process to develop a superior alternative. The scenarios and conclusions of this subsequent analysis are presented in the Draft Final Center City Circulation Element Study, dated June 1995. Scenario 5 from that study was determined to best meet the City's circulation goals. On November 13,1995, a community meeting was held to present the City's recommended circulation system amendment (Scenario 5) and to ask for the community's assistance in identifying the most appropriate way to involve the community in the adoption of a new Circulation Element. However, during this process it became clear that it was premature to consider Scenario 5 as the preferred alternative and that there was a need to keep the community informed and involved in all activities relating to the Circulation Element Amendment process. In response to the issues raised at the November 1995 community meeting, the City determined that it should use the CEQA environmental review process to study various circulation system City of Santa 1-2 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 1.0 Introduction alternatives and to facilitate public involvement in the circulation system planning process. Consequently, this EIR examines seven alternative scenarios in an equal level of detail to provide an objective analysis of the relative merits of the various roadway networks that are being considered. In conjunction with the EIR process, the City is undertaking an extensive community participation program that includes an EIR scoping meeting, three community workshops to discuss the alternatives and their environmental impacts, and two newsletters distributed to the public. 1.3 AREAS OF PUBLIC CONTROVERSY The primary area of public controversy with regards to the proposed Circulation Element Amendment relates to the provision of an east -west thoroughfare extending State Route (SR) 126 to connect Interstate (I) 5 and SR -14 in the northern portion of the City. As discussed in Section 1.2, an eight -lane limited access highway connecting I-5 and SR -14 (the SR -126 Expressway) was included in the City's original Circulation Element. One the primary purposes of this EIR is to examine alternatives to the expressway to determine other methods by which the City can meet its transportation objectives while minimizing disruption to community residents and businesses. 1.4 SCOPE AND CONTENT The Department of Community Development prepared an Initial Study for the draft Circulation Element in October 1996 in order to determine whether the draft Circulation Element Amendment would have the potential to create any significant environmental impacts. The Initial Study found that the project could have potentially significant impacts in the following issue areas: • Earth Resources • Air Quality • SurfaceWater/Flooding • Biological Resources • Noise • Risk of Upset/Human Health and Safety • Population and Housing • Transportation/Circulation • PubIic Seraices/Utilities/Energy • Aesthetics/Light.and Glare • Cultural Resources The Initial Study was circulated with a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR on November 4, 1997. Following a December 4,1997 EIR scoping meeting, the 30 -day NOP circulation period was extended two weeks to December 18,1997. No significant new environmental issue areas were identified as a result of the EIR scoping process, although several concerns within the main issue areas listed above were raised and have been incorporated into this EIR. This document includes discussions of each of the issue areas identified as potentially significant in the Initial Study. The analysis of environmental impacts identifies impacts by City of Santa Ctadta 1-3 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 1.0 Introduction category: significant and unavoidable (Class I), significant but mitigable (Class II), adverse but less than significant (Class III), and beneficial (Class IV). It proposes mitigation measures, where feasible, for each of the seven alternative transportation scenarios. The CEQA Guidelines also require the analysis of the cumulative effects of a project in combination with other foreseeable development in the area. Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines prescribes two methods for analyzing cumulative impacts: (1) use of a list of past, present; and reasonably anticipated future projects producing related or cumulative impacts; or (2) use of a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document. However, this document is a Program EIR that analyzes the effects of cumulative buildout of the Santa Clarita Circulation Element..This long-range plan for the development of a citywide circulation system considers the past, present, and future projects described in method 1 above, including those projects outside the City limits but with the potential to affect the City's circulation system (the currently proposed Newhall Ranch mixed-use development project west of the City in unincorporated Los Angeles County, for example). The project also constitutes the cumulative scenario described in method 2. Therefore, the cumulative effects of all circulation system improvements in the City are included in the analysis of the proposed project's impacts. The analysis of project impacts contained in this "first tier" environmental review document will form the basis for the cumulative analysis contained in any subsequent environmental documentation for specific circulation system projects performed under the Circulation Element. In addition to the impact analysis by issue area, this EIR also includes a discussion of the project's potential growth -inducing impacts, significant irreversible effects and long-term implications, as required by the CEQA Guidelines. Finally, the EIR includes a discussion of those alternatives that were considered for analysis in the EIR, but ultimately rejected. 1.5 LEAD AND RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES The City of Santa Clarita is the lead agency for the preparation of this EIR. If the City Council ultimately approves the draft Circulation Element Amendment, it must also certify this EIR as being adequate in disclosing the environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of the draft Element. It must also adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for any environmental effects of the project determined to be significant and unavoidable. Because the project is a City General Plan element, no other agencies are responsible for approving the project. Certain specific components of the project may, however, require the approval of other agencies as they are proposed in the future. For instance, portions of the planning area are not within the current Santa Clarita city limits and are within unincorporated Los Angeles County. The City will not have approval authority over specific roadways within unincorporated areas, nor will it have the authority to impose mitigation measures recommended in this EIR for specific road projects that are outside the city limits. Instead, approval authority will rest with the County of Los Angeles. The California Department of Fish and.Game will also have approval authority over specific future road projects with the potential to affect fish, wildlife, and designated rare and endangered plants. IF City of Santa Clarita 1.4 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 2.0 Description of Project Alternatives 1 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The proposed project is a comprehensive update to the Circulation Element of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. The draft Circulation Element Amendment has been proposed by the City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development. The Circulation Element lays out City transportation policy and includes a physical plan providing for the movement of people, goods and services through the City. The physical plan includes a description of new arterial roadways designed to facilitate and improve vehicular movement. The draft Circulation Element is designed to work in tandem with the Santa Clarita Transportation Development Plan (TDP), which sets forth the long range goals, objectives, and standards for transit development in the City. The TDP was adopted by the City in February 1997. The major goals of the Plan are described in Section 2.2.3. 2.1 GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT OF THE PROJECT AREA Santa Clarita is a city of about 147,000 residents located in northern Los Angeles County, within the "V" formed by Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route 14 (SR -14). The regional setting is illustrated in Figure 2-1, The City is approximately 35 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles and 35 miles southwest of Palmdale. Current municipal boundaries encompass about 428 square miles, primarily on the floor of the Santa Clarita Valley and the lower reaches of the surrounding canyons. Communities within the City include Newhall, Valencia, Saugus, and Canyon Country and the subcommunities of Sand Canyon and Placenta Canyon. The Santa Clarita planning area extends beyond the boundaries of the City to encompasses about 256 square miles. The communities of Castaic and Val Verde are located within unincorporated portions of the planning area. The City's planning area and existing circulation system are illustrated on Figure 2-2. ' The Santa Clarita Valley is separated from the San Fernando Valley by the ridgelines of the San Gabriel and Santa Susana mountains. The ridgelines of the Sierra Pelona Mountains define the Valley's northern reach. 2.2 PROPOSED POLICY AND TEXT CHANGES ' The draft Circulation Element Amendment includes a number of changes to the text of the City's Circulation Element. These include minor clarifications and corrections, as well as substantive amendments and additions to City circulation policy. The substantive text changes are summarized below. A complete copy of the draft Amendment, with all proposed text changes, is available at the Community Development Department. 2-1 City of Santa Clarita ' City of Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 2.0 Description of Project Alternatives OUNTY ANGELES COUNTY SANTA / :LARITA,� ^Froject Location LI Downtown ` Los Angeles. Regional Location T NORTH Figure 2-1 City of Santa Clarita 2-2 I' Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 2.0 Project Description I li r T NORTH NOT TO SCALE none ■ wooio ■ m Planning Area Boundary OCity Limit Santa Clarita Planning Area 2-3 Figure 2-2 City of Santa Ciarita Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR ' Section 2.0 Description of Project Alternatives 2.2.1 Circulation Element Policy I The draft Circulation Element Amendment includes several changes to City circulation policies, as well as several proposed new policies. Most of the proposed policy revisions pertain to facilitating the use of alternatives to the drive -alone automobile by improving transportation systems and encouraging development that accommodates alternative transportation modes. Revised and new circulation policies are highlighted in Table 2-1. Table 2-1. Proposed Circulation Element Goal and Policy Changes a circulation system to move 1.19 Maximize use of all major, secondary and limited secondary ple and goods safely and efficiently roadways while minimizing use of all collectors and local Provide ughout the City of Santa Clarita and streets.general planning area. . Encourage development design that ensures that local streets function as desiqned and not as collector streets or other higher capacity roadways. 1.28 Discourage the creation of new gated private roadways that block area -wide through routes. Promote a diversified public 2.2 Provide for the mobility of City residents to access local transportation system that is safe, services and employment, particularly for those who may convenient, efficient, and meets the experience mobility difficulties, including the elderly, disabled,, identified needs of the City of Santa and low income residents and youth. Clarita and the general planning area. 2.4 Develop a multi -modal transit facilities that is are strategically located in the City, aad lesated convenient to major local residential and employment centers. 3.0 Explore the expansion of rail service to Ventura County, to Los Angeles, and to the Antelope Valley. Encourage connections to future high-speed rail that may be located through the Santa Clarita Valley. To promote safe and effective 3.3 Promote bicycle and pedestrian accessibility to all commercial, alternatives to the personal automobile industrial, mufti -family residential, and public facilities, including that will meet the needs of all planning parks, schools, and centers of civic activity. area residents. Pursue an aggressive posture in the 5.3 Work cooperatively with regional transportation agencies to region in advocating a regional stbidy the feasibility of developing a develop and improve mass transportation system. transit system connections between the City, metropolitan Los Angeles, Los Angeles International Airport, the Antelope Valley and Ventura County. 5.4 Encourage the development and utilization of the Metrolink computer rail and high speed rail. 5.5 Encourage linkages between the Citv s transportation system, regional rail and high speed rail. 5.6 Encourage the creation of High -Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes and other methods to increase the capacity of the SR -14 and 1-5. Encourage the implementation of trio 6.1 Develop coordinated plans for land use, circulation, and transit reduction methods to reduce daily auto with City and County departments to concentrate high density trip generation through land use housing, employment and commercial areas close to transit corridors. planning and other strategies. 6.2 Encourage "transit friendly commercial and industrial development that provides convenient pedestrian and bicycle access. 6.3 Encourage new development to use pedestrian "zippers' or walkways to provide a convenient link between different residential neighborhoods and between residential neighborhoods and commercial centers. City of Santa Clarita 2-4 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 2.0 Description of Project Alternatives 2.2.2 Proposed Roadway Designation Changes The draft Circulation Element Update includes several changes to the Master Plan of Arterial Highways, which classifies each of the main roadways in the City's circulation system into one of three categories (Major Highways, Secondary Highways, Limited Secondary Highways). Major Highways are to have at least six lanes, be divided with a.landscaped center median, and have on -street parking or bike lanes. Secondary Highways are to be four -lane, divided roadways with no on -street parking or bike lanes where alternate bikeways are available. Limited Secondary Highways are to serve relatively small areas such as residential neighborhoods or local employment areas and may include on -street parking where appropriate. Proposed redesignations include the following (new text is bold while deleted text is shown in strikeeut): Major Highways • Avenue Tibbits from 99 1 6 Newhall Ranch Road to Magic Mountain Parkway. • Backer Road from ate Castaie Road to SR 126. • Bouquet Canyon Road from Magic Mountain Parkway to Soledad Canyon Road and from Seco Canyon Road to the Angeles National Forest boundary. The Iink between Soledad Canyon Road and Seco Canyon Road will be an eight lane major highway. • Castaic Road from Ridge Route Road to Lake Hughes Road. • Copper Hill Drive from Rye Canyon Road to Bien Read Seco Canyon Road, City of Santa Clarita 2-5 Table 2-1. Proposed Circulation Element Goal and Policy Changes 'now _. 6.4 Encourage the location of convenience services, such as day care, at Transit Centers. 6.5 Encourage implementation of the City's General Plan, Transportation Development Plan Bikeway Plan, Infrastructure Master Plan and other documents with transportation policies through new development and redevelopment. 6.6 Encourage flexibility In development standards to permit a higher floor area ratio and lower parking requirements for commercial development that provide and maintain transit facilities and that subsidize shared -ride programs. 6.7 Synchronize the expansion of public transportation facilities with new development with implementation of "pay as you go" for expansion of public transportation facilities. 6.8 Support improvements to Congestion Management Plan (CMP) facilities and aid in the implementation of the CMP to improve mobility corridors in the Santa Clarita Valley and North Los Angeles County region. 6.9 Develop marketing and customer service plans to promote widespread use of alternatives to the auto. Target public agencies, maior employers, the Chamber of Commerce, Transportation Management Associations (IMAs), etc., to encourage commute patterns using public transit. 6.10 Use bus stops and transfer points to promote transit with attractive and readable information and schedules. 6.11 Encourage implementation of travel demand management strategies including telecommuting, compressed work weeks, and aggressive ride -sharing promotion. Arno• C{.i4orue{ {evHo.,.n.,ncoA {n 6o Aeio{.d• ..«Ao.i:«ud {ecu :� n.n..�ood {n 6e ndd.A 2.2.2 Proposed Roadway Designation Changes The draft Circulation Element Update includes several changes to the Master Plan of Arterial Highways, which classifies each of the main roadways in the City's circulation system into one of three categories (Major Highways, Secondary Highways, Limited Secondary Highways). Major Highways are to have at least six lanes, be divided with a.landscaped center median, and have on -street parking or bike lanes. Secondary Highways are to be four -lane, divided roadways with no on -street parking or bike lanes where alternate bikeways are available. Limited Secondary Highways are to serve relatively small areas such as residential neighborhoods or local employment areas and may include on -street parking where appropriate. Proposed redesignations include the following (new text is bold while deleted text is shown in strikeeut): Major Highways • Avenue Tibbits from 99 1 6 Newhall Ranch Road to Magic Mountain Parkway. • Backer Road from ate Castaie Road to SR 126. • Bouquet Canyon Road from Magic Mountain Parkway to Soledad Canyon Road and from Seco Canyon Road to the Angeles National Forest boundary. The Iink between Soledad Canyon Road and Seco Canyon Road will be an eight lane major highway. • Castaic Road from Ridge Route Road to Lake Hughes Road. • Copper Hill Drive from Rye Canyon Road to Bien Read Seco Canyon Road, City of Santa Clarita 2-5 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 2.0 Description of Project Alternatives • Golden Valley Road from SR -14 to SI 126 Newhall Ranch Road (or other limit to be determined through the Circulation Element Amendment process). • Lake Hughes Road from Pap*" Rea I-5 to the Angeles National Forest Boundary. • Lyons Avenue from the Old Road to Dista Read Dockweiler or Placerita Canyon Road (to be determined through the Circulation ElementAmendement process). • Magic Mountain Parkway from SR 12Fi 1-5toganFemandeRea Via Princessa. • McBean Parkway from Pico Eanyen-Read I-5 to Copper Hill Drive. • Newhall Ranch Road from I-5 to Golden Valley (or other limit to be determined through the Circulation Element Amendment process). • Parker Road from The Old Road to Castaie Road. • Pico Canyon Road from Valencia Boulevard to west of The Old Road. • Rio Vista Drive from SR 14 the Lyons Avenue Extension to Bouquet Ganyen Read Via Princessa. • Sand Canyon Road from Placerita Canyon Road to Sierra F4ig#ta'ay Saledad Canyon Road. • Santa Clarita Parkway from Bouquet Canyon Road to SR -14. • Stevenson Ranch Parkway from I-5 to Pico Canyon Road. • The Old Road from AkBean Pa Pico Canyon Road to Backer Road and south of Calgrove Boulevard. Secondary Highways • "A" Street between Poe Parkway and Valencia Boulevard. • Avenue Scott from Avenue Tibbits to Hillsborough Parkway. • Avenue Tibbits from Avenue Scott to Magic Mountain Parkway. • • Biscailuz Drive between The Old Road and Castaic Road. • Copperhill Drive from Seco Canyon Road to Bouquet Canyon Road. • Decoro Drivefrent Rye Carryon Read Copperhill Drive to Seco Canyon Road. • Dickason Drive from Newhall Ranch Road to Decoro Drive. • Golden Valley Road from SR 126 Newhall Ranch Road to Plum Canyon Road. • Hillcrest Parkway from Sloan Canyon Road to The Old Road. • Jake's Way from Sierra Highway to Lost Canyon Road. • Pa -',n Wiest Parker Road from Sloan Canyon Road to The Old Road. • Poe Parkway from Valencia Boulevard to Ak-Bean&r7eaeay Stevenson Ranch Parkway. • Ridge Route from 1-5 to north of Lake Hughes Rea Northlake Boulevard. • Sand Canyon Road from Soledad Canyon Road to Sierra Highway. • The Old Road from M&Bean-Parkway Pico Canyon Road to Calgrove Bouelvard and from Backer Road to Lake north of Sloan Canyon Road. • 16th Street from Orchard Village Road to n:e Vista D4v San Fernando Road. Limited Secondary Highways • Chiquito Canyon Road from SR -126 to Hasley Canyon Read Del Valle Road. • Henry Mayo Drive from The Old Road to Magic Mountain Parkway. • Ridge Route from I-5 to the north of Northlake Boulevard. City of Santa Clarita 2-6 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment El Section 2.0 Description of Project Alternatives • 2.2.3 Alternative Transportation Modes The draft Circulation Element Amendment adds language regarding the use of alternatives to the single -occupancy automobile. Some of the major text additions pertaining to alternative modes are summarized below. a. Bikeways and Multi -Use Corridors. The draft Amendment states the City's support for the installation of a network of Class 1, 2, and 3 bike lanes, routes, and paths to link the City. Class 2 bike lanes are encouraged on all new segments of major and secondary highways where other convenient bikeway options do not exist. Multi -use corridors for pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians are encouraged within and adjacent to local river and flood plain facilities. The minimum width for bicycle/ pedestrian corridors is 15 feet, while the minimum width for multi- use corridors that include equestrian components is 30 feet. b. Transit -Bus Service and Dial -a -Ride. The draft Amendment identifies the TDP as ' the City document that guides long range transit planning opportunities in the Santa Clarita Valley. The following stated objectives have been added to the list of opportunities to address local transit needs: Encourage expansion of rail linkages in the Santa Clarita Valley, especialIy expansion of the Metrolink commuter service and establishment of service to Ventura County. Explore opportunities for creating multi -modal transit stations throughout the Santa Clarita Valley. Explore opportunities for creating "transit friendly" development, including improved pedestrian access to commercial, industrial and residential uses. These objectives are consistent with other policy statements in the draft Circulation Element Amendment, as identified in Table 2-1. As mentioned previously, the draft Circulation Element Amendment is also intended to complement the TDP. The major goals of the TDP are outlined below: 1. Create a diversified transportation system. 2. Develop and implement Capital Improvement Plans for short-term and long-term enhancements in support of a multimodal transportation system. 3. Assist in preserving air and environmental quality while accommodating growth. 4. Provide services tailored to existing community development and activity centers. 5. Work with City and County departments to achieve development patterns that reduce vehicle trips. 6. Adapt to differing environmental and social conditions, new land uses, and changes in the regional transportation network. 7. Build community support for the transportation system by using it to create a sense of special identity for Santa Clarita. 8. Identify and pursue all potential sources of funding to support a mix of transportation modes. 9. Coordinate with Metrolink and transit providers in the San Fernando and Antelope Valleys. 10. Implement an aggressive marketing and customer service plan to promote widespread use of alternatives to the auto. City of Santa Clarh 2-7 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 2.0 Description of Project Altematives The TDP includes a number of specific policy objectives for improving transit service and lays out service improvement programs to implement these general goals and accommodate anticipated growth in the Santa Clarita Valley. Planned improvements include the provision of expanded local bus and dial -a -ride service, as well as increased regional commute service to downtown Los Angeles and several locations in the San Fernando Valley. The Plan also supports Metrolink rail service through the construction and maintenance of several rail stations. The TDP is available for review at the Community Development Department. 2.3 PLANNED PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT In addition to the policy changes described in Section 2.2, the draft Circulation Element Amendment includes recommendations for a network of physical improvements to the City's circulation system. For much of the City, the planned roadway network has not changed from that envisioned in the current Circulation Element. However, the City is examining seven different roadway networks with changes primarily in the center city area, as well as two alternatives that involve the development of citywide strategies to manage transportation system demand by providing incentives and disincentives to reduce vehicle trips. The seven alternative scenarios consist of the following: • Existing Planned Circulation System (Alternative 1) • Newhall Ranch Road Reduction (Alternative 2) • Golden Valley Road Network (Alternative 3) • Augmented Newhall Ranch Road Reduction (Alternative 4) • Augmented Golden Valley Road Network (Alternative 5) • NewhaIl Ranch Reduction/Reduced Trip (Alternative 6) • Golden Valley/Reduced Trip (Alternative 7) The purpose of examining seven alternatives is to provide City decision -makers and the community a range of options for addressing citywide traffic issues.. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 consist of new roadway corridors and extensions in combination with TDM strategies contained in the Draft Circulation Element Amendment text changes and other existing City policy. The Alternative 1 roadway network is that of the existing Circulation Element, in effect a "no project" alternative. The networks of Alternatives.2 and 3 were developed as part of the four- year planning process described in Section 1.0, Introduction. Because it was recognized early on in the environmental review process that none of these alternatives would achieve the desired level of service (LOS D or better) at all major intersections in the City, it was decided that the EIR should also examine alternatives that would meet the City's level of service goals. Therefore, four additional alternatives were developed to augment Alternatives 2 and 3 (the "base" alternatives). Alternatives 4 through 7 address the residual poor service levels of Alternatives 2 and 3 based using two general approaches: (1) improving the roadway infrastructure to accommodate anticipated demand; and (2) reducing citywide vehicle trips by reducing travel demand. Alternatives 4 and 5 would improve levels of service at congested intersections by increasing roadway capacity to accommodate the anticipated level of demand. Alternatives 6 and 7 would meet the level of service goals by inducing behavioral changes through the adoption of aggressive TDM strategies, including City -mandated financial incentives and disincentives. Figure 2-3 illustrates the relationship among the seven alternatives being evaluated in this EIR. City of Santa Clarita 2-8 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 2.0 Description of Project Alternatives BASE ALTERNATIVES Existing Planned Circulation System Newhall Ranch Road Reduction Golden Valley Road Network City -of Santa C/arita Circulation System Alternatives MORE AGGRESSIVE ALTERNATIVES Additional Roadway Capacity Additional Transportation Demand Management Strategies IAdditional Roadway Capacity Additional Transportation Demand Management Strategies Augmented Newhall Ranch Road Reduction Newhall Ranch Road / Reduced Trip Augmented Golden Valley Road Network Golden Valley Road Network/ Reduced Trip Circulation System Alternatives Figure 2-3 2-9 City of Santa Clarita Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 2.0 Description of Project Alternatives Table 2-2 provides a summary comparison of the roadway systems that would be constructed in the center city area under each of these alternative scenarios. Table 2-3 compares the individual major roadways that would be constructed under each scenario. Each alternative scenario is described in detail below. Table 2-2. Summary of Roadway r'.Descriptor37 w x" m..3 Newhall Ranch Road Road Miles 42.6 39.5 39.8 39.5 39.8 39.5 39.8 Lane Miles 271 235 237 2504 52 235 237 Estimated Earth Movement (million cubic yards) Cut 28.04 26.25 25.81 26.25. 25.81 26.25 25.81 Fill 13.50 13.35 13.27 13.35 13.27 13.35 13.27 Assumes 50 augmented intersections. Overall earth movement would increase by 1 % or less because of intersection augmentation. ,RoadWp) , , '. v °�, _s Alternative w x" m..3 Newhall Ranch Road 5.1/8 2.0/6 2.0/6,4 2.016 2.0/6,4 2.016 2.0/6,4 Santa Clarita Parkway 5.0/6 5.0/6 5.1/6 5.016 5.1/6 5.016 5.1/6 Golden Valley Road 4.716 4.7/6 4.9/6 4.7/6 4.9/6 4.716 4.9/6 Magic Mountain 2.316 2.3/6 2.3/6 2.3/6 2.3/6 2.3/6 2.3/6 Parkway Via Princessa 3.716 3.716 3.7/6 3.716 3.7/6 3.7/6 3.7/6 • Six lanes between San Fernando Road and Golden Valley Parkway and east of Whites Canyon Road; four lanes between Golden Valley Road and Whites Canyon Road. E All roads would include augmentation of major intersections, as discussed in Section 2.3.4. 2.3.1 Existing Planned Circulation System (Alternative 1) The Existing Planned Circulation System scenario (Alternative 1) includes all of the roadways planned as part of the current Circulation Element with the exception of the extension of SR -126 through the city as an eight -lane limited access highway. That extension would be replaced with Newhall Ranch Road, an eight -lane major arterial that would provide a similar connection between I-5 and SR -14. The new roadways and roadway extensions that would be constructed under this alternative are shown on Figure 2-4. All of the roadway network changes that could occur under the various alternatives would be in the Center City area. The major roadways that would be added in that area under this alternative scenario are described as follows: • Newhall Ranch Road would be extended about 5.1 miles as an eight lane major arterial from Bouquet Canyon Road to Sierra Highway. This extension would provide a major east -west thoroughfare between 1-5 and SR -14, replacing the currently proposed extension of SR -126. • Santa Clarita Parkway, a new north -south thoroughfare, would extend about 5.0 miles from Bouquet Canyon Road to SR -14 at Placerita Canyon Road (a portion of this roadway was approved as part of the Porta Bella Specific Plan). City of Santa Clarita 2-10 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 2.0 Description of Project Altematives �q LYONS •VEti�s,,,. ;� q -} gi' I�lc YI E OU EZ Ik" 0N, 0.0'... � iIr• I r►r rr Canyon Country 3 S. f ?t \P' 3 �I� err n � 1 c 0 1 2 4 SCALE IN MILES NORTH Existing Road Corridor ..... Planned Road Corridor Existing.Planned Circulation System (Alternative 1) Figure 2-4 City of Santa Ciarita 2-11 --- COvvER -L=y►I►\ 0.0.►► _. j :.� JJIJ�_j�_IJ r _PLUM rr \•\� .OECORO TNFO ,. . 0P _ j, �•,P4 ,�' O O „1d I •44HCN 0. � O' ►�• �q LYONS •VEti�s,,,. ;� q -} gi' I�lc YI E OU EZ Ik" 0N, 0.0'... � iIr• I r►r rr Canyon Country 3 S. f ?t \P' 3 �I� err n � 1 c 0 1 2 4 SCALE IN MILES NORTH Existing Road Corridor ..... Planned Road Corridor Existing.Planned Circulation System (Alternative 1) Figure 2-4 City of Santa Ciarita 2-11 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 2.0 Description of Project Altematives • GoIden Valley Road, another new north -south arterial, would extend about 4.7 miles from Plum Canyon Road across Soiedad Canyon Road and Sierra Highway, to SR -14. • Magic Mountain Parkway would be extended about 2.3 miles from its current terminus at Bouquet Canyon Road to Via Princessa, a proposed new east -west arterial. • Via Princessa would be extended about 3.7 miles through the City, connecting two segments of that roadway which currently terminate just west of San Fernando Road and just west of Rainbow Glen Road. • Rio Vista, a new roadway, would extend about one mile from Via Princessa to the Lyons Avenue extension. • Lyons Avenue would be extended about 1.9 miles from its current eastern terminus at Bouquet Canyon Road to Dockweiler or Placenta Canyon Road. This extension was approved under General Plan Amendment 92-02. Arterial roadways would be limited to a maximum of six lanes with medians, turn pockets, and bicycle lanes provided where practical. Grade separations would also be required at Magic Mountain, Via Princessa and San Fernando Road and the railroad tracks due to anticipated increases in traffic volumes in the central city area. Trucks other than local and delivery trucks would be limited on roadways within the City. This alternative assumes that the City implements a number of measures to reduce single occupant vehicle (SOV) trips. These measures, which would implement policies contained in the City's TDP and many of those contained in the draft Circulation Element Amendment, can be accomplished through two broad incentive -based strategies: (1) improving the service and capacity of alternative modes such as public transit and carpools; and (2) reducing demand for SOV travel by encouraging telecommuting, compressed work weeks, and other means to reduce automobile travel. The strategies that are considered as part of this alternative under each of these two categories are described in Table 24. Each of the trip reduction methods included in this alternative would implement either a policy of the TDP or one or more of the new policies included in the draft Circulation Element Amendment and outlined in Table 2-1. The total trip reduction that could be expected due to implementation of all of these service improvements and travel demand management strategies is between five and six percent. It should be noted that these strategies do not include any financial incentives or disincentives. Such strategies are considered as part of Alternatives 6 and 7. 2.3.2 Newhall Ranch Road Reduction (Alternative 2) The roadway network that would be constructed under the Newhall Ranch Road Reduction alternative would be identical to that of the Existing Planned Circulation System alternative with the exception of the Newhall Ranch Road extension. Under this alternative, the Newhall Ranch Road extension would be limited to a two-mile segment between Bouquet Canyon Road and Golden Valley Road. This alternative's roadway network is illustrated on Figure 2-5. Under this alternative, the Newhall Ranch Road extension would be reduced from eight lanes to six. Newhall Ranch Road's intersection with Santa Clarita Parkway would have dual left turn lanes and one exclusive right turn lane under this alternative. At Golden Valley Road, Newhall Ranch Road would curve southeasterly, eliminating the t -intersection for through traffic traveling between Newhall Ranch Road and Golden Valley Road. City of Santa Ctarlta 2-12 ' Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 2.0 Description of Project Alternatives Improvements to Service and Capacity • Encourage the provision of convenience services, such as child-care centers and dry cleaners, at multi- modal transit facilities and park-and-ride lots. This measure has the potential to reduce SOV trips by 1.0%. This trip reduction technique would implement draft Circulation Element Amendment Policy 6.4. • Improve access to the Metrolink rail system by building the proposed Newhall station. Increase frequency during the morning and evening peak commute hours from the current 40 -minute headway to 30 minutes or less. Together, these could reduce vehicle trips by 0.8%. The improvements to Metrolink service would implement draft Circulation Element Amendment Policy 5.4. Improve the local and express bus service provided by Santa Clarita Transit. This measure includes several individual components. The first element is to increase the headways on the local lines, which currently operate every 30 or 60 minutes. Another component is to expand the local system to additional areas within the Santa Clarita Valley. Similarly, express service would be expanded to additional destinations (e.g. San Gabriel Valley, West Los Angeles, Sylmar Metrolink Station, Universal City). The final component is to provide additional multi -modal transit centers at key locations throughout the Valley. Locations could include the Princessa Metrolink Station, the proposed Newhall Metrolink Station, and the Valencia Town Center. These measures could reduce vehicle trips by 0.5%. These improvements would implement several objectives for.Goals 6, 7, and 9 of the TDP and Policies 2.4 and 5.5 of the draft Circulation Element Amendment. • Provide additional park-and-ride lots along 1-5 and SR -14. The park-and-ride facilities will complement the planned HOV lanes and Metrolink and commuter express bus lines. This improvement could reduce vehicle trips by 0.5% and would implement existing Circulation Element Policy 4.7. • The Los Angeles County MTA is currently expanding the HOV system on freeways throughout the County. HOV lanes on 1-5 and SR -14 could be expected to reduce SOV vehicle trips by 0.5%.. This improvement would imolement Dr000sed Policv 5.6 of the draft Circulation Element Amendment. Travel Demand Management Strategies The City will sponsor a program that promotes ridesharing (carpooling and vanpooling), telecommuting (either at home or at satellite work centers near home), and compressed work weeks and/or staggered and flexible hours. With a compressed work week schedule, an employee works fewer days in each week but more hours each working day. With a staggered and flexible hours policy, employees are allowed to select arrival and departure times at work that are outside the peak morning and evening commute periods. In addition, the program could provide match lists for commuters to rideshare. These techniques have the potential to reduce SOV trips during peak commuting hours by 2.0% and would Implement proposed Policies 6.9, 6.10, and 6.11 of the draft Circulation Element Amendment. • The City will implement physical improvements to the public bikeway system, such as new bike lanes and paths and loop detectors at key signalized intersections. These improvements could reduce vehicle trips by about 0.1 % and would implement proposed Policies 3.3 and 6.5 of the draft Circulation Element Amendment. • The City will adopt development standards to encourage more people to rideshare for longer trips and to use bicycles and walking for shorter trips. Standards may include preferential parking for carpools/vanpools at employment centers, bicycle amenities such as bike lockers at key destination sites (Valencia Town Center, Industrial Center, etc.), and shower facilities at work sites. This set of techniques could reduce vehicle trips by 0.1 %. These techniques would implement proposed Policy 6.2 of the draft Circulation City of Santa Clarita 2-13 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 2.0 Description of Project Alternatives 0 t 2 4 SCALE IN MILES NORTH Existing Road Corridor ----- Planned Road Corridor Newhall Ranch Road Reduction (Alternative 2) Figure 2-5 r 2-14 City of Santa Clarita Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 2.0 Description of Project Alternatives All of the trip reduction strategies that would be implemented under the Existing Planned Circulation System alternative would also be implemented as part of this alternative. 2.3.3 Golden Valley Road Network (Alternative 3) The Golden Valley Road Network is similar to the Newhall Ranch Road Reduction alternative except that it would realign portions of Santa Clarita Parkway and Golden Valley Road to create a continuous roadway corridor connecting Bouquet Canyon Road and SR -14 (see Figure 2-6). This corridor would follow the Newhall Ranch Road extension east to Santa Clarita Parkway, then southeast along Santa Clarita Parkway/Golden Valley Road to SR -14. The purpose of this corridor would be to provide a continuous thoroughfare between I-5 and SR -14. All of the trip reduction strategies that would be implemented under the Existing Planned Circulation System alternative would also be implemented as part of this alternative. 2.3.4 Augmented Newhall Ranch Road Reduction (Alternative 4) The Augmented Newhall Ranch Road Reduction alternative involves the roadway network of Alternative 2, augmented with additional lanes at intersections that would continue to operate at poor levels of service. The augmentation would entail adding left and right turn pockets at highly congested intersections in order to create additional capacity on existing roads and roads planned under Alternative 2. Therefore, roads would be widened within about 200 feet of either side of major intersections, but not along road links. In general, the addition of left and right turn pockets would widen the standard six lane arterial from 88-90 feet to 110-120 feet. A conceptual diagram of the intersection augmentation concept is shown on Figure 2-7, while examples of the concept at existing City intersections are shown on Figure 2-8. The Alternative 4 roadway network, including the intersections that could be augmented, is shown on Figure 2- 9. It should be noted that the augmented intersections shown on Figure 2-9 do not necessarily reflect all of the intersections that could be augmented. Under this alternative, additional intersections on major arterials could be augmented in the future if found to be warranted. 2.3.5 Augmented Golden Valley Network (Alternative 5) Similar to Alternative 4, this alternative involves augmenting the Golden Valley Road Network (Alternative 3) to provide additional capacity at intersections with residual poor levels of service. Again, the augmentation would take the form of additional right and left turn pockets that would widen the standard six lane arterial from 88-90 feet to 110-120 feet (see Figures 2-7 and 2-8). The Alternative 5 roadway network, including intersections that could be augmented, is shown on Figure 2-10. As with Alternative 4, additional intersections not depicted on Figure 2-10 could be augmented in the future if found to be warranted. 2.3.6 Newhall Ranch/Reduced Trip (Alternative 6) This alternative examines the roadway network of Alternative 2, in combination with a more aggressive set of trip reduction techniques above and beyond the baseline trip reduction measures that would be implemented under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. This aggressive transportation demand management (TDM) strategy is designed to reduce overall citywide vehicle trips to the maximum degree feasible by providing incentives and disincentives to rCity of Santa Clarita 2-t5 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR ' Section 2.0 Description of Project Altematives N„coEz cN xroN ao' ff cN&� CO Va EaNI LL RO-r/r\ V r J:IU gJa J PION N r-rtSr-a'r �' riwipri / rx Jr SwF 'q - ♦ N t cr,.:: it '�j r ounir`J . �y,� \I ♦ a .: L NUNTF 1(f�N,,„�uV.YY. PkW I <4'{'Vi'f”" TOI✓ ::b. ` �'AS s tiF� c 4 Y� 7.w.,�"` V31-alrla . s .t' a4, E r` E m f LYON � v 14'F-E0 aVE FN i f� 5, t e� YLP a.# •LA 0 t 2 4 SCALE IN MILES NORTH —.-- Existing Road Corridor , ----- Planned Road Corridor ' Golden Valley Road Network (Alternative 3) Figure 2-6 , City of Santa Clarita 2-16 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment El Section 2.0 Description of Project Alternatives r � l l; • ii sk ' I k I ik I` if ;l z ------------------ ------------------------------------------ ..---•--•--•-----.-.----------..-•-------_•---- ---------------------- 4.. s �— ? r - '� II .l 1E !i Ei E !i !i Augmented Intersection Diagram (Example: Valencia Blvd. at McBean Pkwy.) Figure 2-7 City of Santa Clarita 2-17 Santa Clanta Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 2.0 Description of Project Alternatives Example of an existing intersection augmented wit additional right turn lanes Example of an.existing intersection augmented with additional left turn lanes Augmented Intersection Examples r 2-18 Figure 2-8 City of Santa Clarita Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 2.0 Description of Project Alternatives 1 41i,m.- Saugus fl PLYw[N[ -moi-���, i1 Y ,hRO r�1 Canyon Uourlir`J A. . ♦3.^er � � 1 I x � PPP '' `?c°� •4oy , ll d,♦VZ�Ni 6p��n'n�r�. k H5, Yc ix '�£ T.' w Y� ♦ Ix14 � i ♦p , 1 p^.. 1 Y 1 a cif'. -"`Nc_ _ • �LYON6 AVP •�... 4Y ♦.��FT ' `�..._..-..e. ...- 1 m. RLACE RI)A GNYpA, RO i i ` `�5 / j is V: i" This figure shows major intersections anticipated to be augmented under Alternative 4. However, additional intersections along primary or secondary arterials may be augmented as well under this alternative 1 Augmented Newhall Ranch Road Reduction ' (Alternative 4) Figure 2-9 o t z a SCALE IN MILES NORTH Existing Road Corridor ----- Planned Road Corridor • Augmented Intersection (additional turn lanes) 2-19 City of Santa Clarita Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 2.0 Description of Project Altematives V..S°VEE. CAw YoN N°[ 1 1;4-11 COPPERHILL to q t C RLO r -r--\--\ I \\�� pFL.ppO �� P�A+ ♦O�rlhRq '-r rrlr • 2Y Lr Y >xE •••\yy,..., l � °NOF 1 .t CJrl `/D!I �' °oS n; •. t%y� °uo E*1 Uountr`J • f arl ~ ��-�a��a""wK"""'`.rt 5m tPr :�, "�'.Ir,;,rN'-w, b .11" • ,VNCLGa"`T:+ r�� f�4R♦R fA1 t° `f�R♦ ANYON �N4....^u! 3 I. AZ r n{" p.. hOwh it ♦ V <S�tyN� r ': il. w 04, Valencia 14 1 ° �.._....a• O.rr 1 - •• .4'.; - 10 ti �' • �LCCNS AVE •.�.,• L \ +VE EXY fr"+i��lxCE11L«,L. C..APYC ' °MyR - 4 fir. 'V. RCS" ��:• L� .4 �R aq�` y •51 � 'a'Oia-3�yd' "•.•5 i `L4 �y'sf This figure shows major intersections anticipated to be augmented under Aitemative 5. However, additional intersections along primary or secondary arterials may be augmented as well under this alternative o t 2 a SCALE IN MILES NORTH _- - Existing Road Corridor ----- Planned Road Corridor • Augmented Intersection (additional turn lanes) Augmented Golden Valley Road Network (Alternative 5) r 2_20 Figure 2-10 City of Santa Clarita Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 2.0 Description of Project Alternatives reduce single occupant vehicle (SOV) use. These strategies require substantial financial commitment from the City, local businesses, and individuals. The trip reduction strategies that would be implemented under this alternative are shown in Table 2-5. The purpose of this alternative is to determine the potential effectiveness of aggressive trip reduction measures in alleviating traffic congestion in the City. The estimated percent reduction in daily automobile trip generation that could be expected by implementing the measures assumed to be implemented under this alternative can vary. Quantified ranges have been provided for each strategy, which will be determined based on the extent of trip reduction needed to bring the entire transportation system into conformity with the Circulation Element standards by eliminating all residual capacity deficiencies from highway links. Specific average vehicle ridership targets have been determined by model traffic analysis zone (TAZ) or group of zones for developing implementation and monitoring programs. The list of measures was developed through direct reference to and adaptation of the Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) included in the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's TDM Phase 11 Program (February 1994). The total reduction that could be expected in daily automobile trip generation due to implementation of all of these service improvements and travel demand management measures can be between 10 and 15 percent, depending upon extent of City participation/enforcement and packaging of the measures, which is tied to the acceptance of the strategies based on financial incentives and disincentives. 2.3.7 Golden Valley/Reduced Trip (Alternative 7) This alternative examines the roadway network of the Golden Valley Network Alternative (Alternative 3), in combination with the trip reduction techniques listed in Table 2-5. As with Alternative 4, the purpose of this alternative is to examine the potential for trip reduction techniques to alleviate traffic congestion. 2.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES As required by Section 15124(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Santa Clarita has identified the following objectives for the draft Circulation Element Amendment: • Identify the primary east -west corridor alternative to an extension of SR -126. • Idenhfy the existing and planned standards for major, secondary and limited highways in the City. • Identify the primary features of the City's transit system. • Reduce the level of vehicular trips in general, and specifically the use of autos for drive -alone trips. • Identify alternative commute options including Metrolink, commuter buses, park-and-ride, and telecommuting. City of Santa Clarita 2-21 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 2.0 Description of Project Aitematives 1. Formal Trip Reduction Program for Small Employers. The City will adopt a formal trip reduction program for commuters working for small firms with 25-100 employees including aggressive marketing, rideshare matching, and financial incentives. 2. Compressed Work Weeks. The City will implement a formal compressed work week schedule where an employee works fewer days in each week but more hours each day throughout the City. 3. City Sponsored Formal Telecommuting Centers. The City will sponsor, fund and organize a formal telecommuting program, with possible participation and assistance from the local telecommunication and cable industries, to enable a large percentage of employees to work at home or a shared satellite work center near home. 4, Forming Transportation Management Associations. The City will sponsor formation of new TMNs or expansion of the representation of the present ones to serve all major employers in Santa Clarita. 5. City Sponsored Home -End Ridesharing Programs. The City will develop a program to aggressively promote, advertise, sponsor and subsidize carpool, vanpool and buspool programs at the home -end for Santa Clarita residents, and will assist in ride -matching. 6. Childcare Centers. The City will fund and/or provide childcare centers at multi -modal transit facilities and park-and-ride lots_ 7. Bicycle Improvements. The City will provide/subsidize (or through employers) bicycle improvements such as bicycles, bike lockers and shower facilities to encourage employees who drive less than three miles to work to use bicycles. 8. Employee Transit Subsidy. The City will require local Employers to provide 50% of the cost of a monthly transit pass, or will provide direct subsidy to these employees. 9. Ridesharing and Non -Motorized Commute Subsidy. The City will require local employers to provide a $1 per commute trip subsidy to employees for the use of vanpooling, carpooling, bicycling, and walking as means of commute, or will provide direct subsidy to these employees. 10.Significant Decreases in Transit Headways. Transit headways will be reduced by 25 percent for local transit services in the Santa Clar to Valley through the addition of new transit vehicles and provision of transit priority treatments using advanced technologies, such as dedicated bus lanes, signal priority/preemption and queue -jumpers. 11. Transit Feeder Services with ITS Technologies. The City will provide dedicated, demand responsive transit feeder/shuttle operation serving the park-and-ride facilities and transit stations. Intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and "smart shuttle" technologies will be integrated for dispatching, scheduling and routing through advanced technologies such as information kiosks, automatic vehicle locators, "smart cards" for fare collection, and advanced traveler information systems. 12. Parking Pricing Strategies. The City will adopt an ordinance requiring daily parking charges of up to $5.00/vehicle for all employers of more than 25 employee at one site with subsidies, discounts or other financial incentives provided for ridesharing. City of Santa Clarita 2-22 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 2.0 Description of Project Alternatives • Encourage land use planning that supports these mobility goals. ' Establish mobility corridors within the City. II I II II II IL II II II 2-23 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment ER Section 3.0 Regional Environmental Setting 3.0 REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This section provides a brief description of historic, current, and projected environmental conditions in the Santa Clarita Valley and the City of Santa Clarita. More detailed descriptions of the setting for individual issue areas can be found in the issue area discussions in Section 5.0, Environmental Impact Analysis. 3.1 LOCAL GEOGRAPHY The Santa Clarita Valley is an irregularly shaped area draining the Santa Clara River, a watershed of approximately 500 square miles. This drainage area is generally defined by significant mountain ridges of the San Gabriel, Santa Susana and the Sierra Pelona Mountains, several significant canyons, the valley floor, and the Santa Clara River bed. The topography of the area is dramatic, with elevations ranging from 1,000 feet above mean sea level along the Santa Clara River near Castaic Junction to approximately 3,200 feet along the ridgelines near Pico and Towsley Canyons, in the southwest portion of the City. Elevations in the San Gabriel Mountains east of the City range from 4,000 to 6,000 feet above sea level. 3.2 REGIONAL CLIMATE Santa Clarita's physiographic features and general proximity to coastal and desert influences place the City in a transitional microclimatic zone that includestwoclimatic types: valley marginal and high desert. Summers are generally hot and dry, while winters are generally temperate and semi -moist. Overall, the areas climate is relatively mild, with summertime high temperatures averaging about 90 degrees Fahrenheit (° F) and wintertime lows in the 30s and 40s. Annual precipitation in the Valley averages from about 13 inches, with almost all rainfall occurring between October and early April. Precipitation in neighboring mountain areas is substantially higher, reaching 22 inches per year and higher. 3.3 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT The Santa Clarita Valley has a European history dating back to the late 1700s when Gaspar de Portola claimed the area for Spain. Around 1797, the Valley became part of the San Fernando Mission and cattle grazing activities began. In 1842, gold was discovered in Placerita Canyon, thus fueling the California gold rush. Later in the nineteenth century, oil was discovered in Pico Canyon and oil field development ensued in the region. Early American -era development in the Santa Clarita Valley was generated primarily by railroad and oil operations. The area has also historically attracted motion picture filming. Most recently, the Valley has developed into a series of residential communities that provide housing to serve the employment base within the greater Los Angeles region. Although the current development character is predominantly single-family residential, the City includes scattered pockets of multi -family residential, industrial, service/strip commercial, institutional, and recreational uses. utty or Santa wanta 3-1 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 3.0 Regional Environmental Setting Following years of rapid residential growth commencing in the 1960s, the City incorporated in 1987. The current City limits include several distinct communities, including Saugus, Newhall, Valencia, and Canyon Country. 3.4 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT Since incorporation, Santa Clarita has continued to grow at a relatively rapid rate. The City is currently home to about 131,000 residents and is expected to grow to over 188,000 by 2020, representing a 1.6% average annual growth rate. Past and projected growth in population and housing in the City are shown in Table 3-1. The City s population is relatively young, with a median age of 30 years. The median number of years of education for City residents is 12.9. Table 3-1. Population and Housing Trends in Santa Clarita Growth •.. _ . Souras: SLAG, City of Santa Clarita, California Department of Finance. Although Santa Clarita is largely recognized as a suburban residential community, the City includes a diversity of employment opportunities. The largest employers in the City include Six Flags Magic Mountain (3,000 employees), Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital (1,072 employees), and William S. Hart Unified School District (650 employees). The local labor force of about 43,000 is employed in a range of occupations. The largest occupational types include professional/technical (20.2% of the labor force), management (17.2%), clerical (16.8%), and sales (14.3%). 3.5 REGIONAL ACCESS/PROJECTED TRAFFIC GROWTH Santa Clarita is located at the junction of Interstate 5, a major north -south interstate highway, and State Route 14, a freeway that provides access to high desert areas to the northeast, including the cities of Palmdale and Lancaster. Santa Clarita is also linked to downtown Los Angeles via Metrolink rail service. The City is currently served by two Metrolink Stations: the Saugus Station located off Soledad Canyon Road in the central portion of the City and the Via Princessa Station in the southeastern portion of the City. A third station is currently planned for Newhall. Growth in traffic has grown dramatically in the Santa Clarita Valley in recent years, paralleling the growth in population in the area. This growth, in combination with the absence of substantial improvements in the City's circulation system, has resulted in significant traffic congestion in many parts of the City. This trend is projected to continue into the future, with generally declining levels of service on area roadways, slower traffic speeds, and increased commute times. According to SCAG, the total number of automobile trips in the Santa Clarity City of Santa Clarita 3-2 ' Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 3.0 Regional Environmental Setting 1 Valley is anticipated to increase by more than 40% by 2015. Traffic delays are projected to more than triple over the same time period. II 1 II II ' City of Santa Clarita 1 3-3 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 4.0 Policy Consistency 4.0 POLICY CONSISTENCY This section reviews formally adopted City of Santa Clarita and regional policies that are applicable to the draft Circulation Element Amendment and assesses the project's consistency with these policies. Relevant policies of both the Land Use Element of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan and the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide are discussed. 4.1 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA LAND USE ELEMENT The Land Use Element of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan contains numerous policies that are potentially applicable to the draft Circulation Element Amendment. These include policies related to growth management, types and mix of land use, distribution and intensity of land use development, quality and maintenance of development, preservation of natural resources, and housing distribution and maintenance. The discussion below includes the text of each applicable City policy, followed by an analysis of the project's consistency with that policy. 4.1.1 Growth Management Three City policies are related to the preservation of the character and integrity of the Santa Clarita Valley through orderly growth and development practices. They are presented and analyzed below. S 1.8 Encourage the concept of traffic mitigation agreements that provide a variety of transportation options including but not limited to automobiles, transit, commuter trains, light rail, and bicycle pathways. The draft Circulation Element Amendment incorporates strategies to improve services and capacities of alternative modes of transportation and to reduce demand for automobile travel. Baseline improvements for each alternative include improving access to the Metrolink rail system, improving the local and express bus services in the area, providing additional park- and-ride lots, and implementing physical improvements to the public bikeway network. These improvements are intended to encourage people to make use of alternative transportation modes by providing a variety of convenient transportation options. Each alternative also incorporates travel demand management strategies to encourage ridesharing and telecommuting. Therefore, each of the project alternatives appears to be consistent with this policy. Alternatives 6 and 7 would best implement the above policy by including more aggressive transportation demand management strategies to further encourage alternative transportation options. 7.1 Ensure demand for public facilities and services does not exceed the ability to provide and maintain such facilities and services; necessary facilihj improvements should precede or be coordinated with future development. The City of Santa Clarita's current population is approximately 131,000 and is forecasted to increase by 40% by 2020 (North Los Angeles County Subregion 2020 Growth Projection Report). According to the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide developed by SCAG, congestion on City of Santa Clarita 1 4.1 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 4.0 Policy Consistency the streets and highways will be greater and traffic delays will more than triple by 2015. Although individuals will be making fewer automobile trips on average, the total number of automobile trips is anticipated to increase by 43% from 1990 levels. The draft Circulation Element Amendment is proposed to upgrade transportation infrastructure in conjunction with this anticipated growth and development.. All of the project alternatives respond to the forecasted population increase by accommodating anticipated traffic demand and are therefore considered consistent with Policy 7.1 above. Among the studied alternatives, Alternative 1 would result in the best overall future levels of service. It should, however, be noted that none of the project alternatives would result in the City's level of service goals at all intersections in the City. 7.3 Establish and implement necessary safety measures and standards to ensure that development is appropriately restricted in areas where natural hazards are present (seismic, geologic, flooding, fires, etc.), unless such hazards can be mitigated. Certain roadways would be constructed within areas at seismic and flood hazard risk. Engineering solutions are generally available to minimize and mitigate risks associated with natural hazards. Compliance with existing Uniform Building Code and other City construction and design standards would generally reduce risks to acceptable levels.. Therefore, all of the alternatives are considered consistent with this policy. 4.1.2 Types and Mix of Land Use The following policy is related to the goal of achieving the development of a well-balanced, financially sound; and functional mix of land uses. 2.12 Promote the retention of open space to preserve significant ridgelines, to provide land use buffers, and to provide for both public safety and oak tree preservation. Roadway infrastructure that would be built under any of the project alternatives would generally avoid the loss of oak trees, and would be consistent with the notions of public safety and provision of appropriate land use buffers. However, all of the alternatives would involve grading of City -identified significant ridgelines. Implementation of any of the alternatives would encroach into existing open space, particularly in the Center City area. However, areas that would accommodate roadway construction have already been planned for urban development in the City's Land Use Element. Cut and fill necessary to accommodate some roadways associated with each of the alternatives would affect ridgelines under any of the alternatives (see Section 5.11, Aesthetics). Similarly, individual oak trees may need to be removed for roadway construction. Although all of the alternatives are consistent with this policy in a general sense, portions of any alternative could be considered inconsistent with the provisions relating to retaining open space and preserving ridgelines and oak trees. 4.1.3 Distribution and Intensity of Land Use Development The following three policies are directed at achieving a balanced physical environment through sensible land use planning and urban design, while establishing the City's role as a regional center. City of Santa Clarita 4-2 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 4.0 Policy Consistency 3.1 Promote the development of City centers where more intensive Iand uses will be encouraged, including the development of a regional commercial center, office/business park renters, an entertainment complex, and a civic toren center. The proposed project includes a network of physical improvements to the City's circulation system including strategies to improve public transit service, as well as pedestrian and bicycle facilities. These types of physical improvements are compatible with the notion of "City centers" which generally involve relatively high intensity development that creates an environment conducive to walking, bicycling, and other alternative modes of travel. Therefore, all of the alternative scenarios are considered generally consistent with this policy. Alternatives 6 and 7 may best implement this policy by providing additional financial incentives to induce greater use of alternative transportation modes. Such incentives may make higher intensity development more attractive by reducing the cost of modes such as transit, carpooling, and j bicycling relative to driving alone. 3.3 Identify a primary town center and other centers which encourage a pedestrian orientation and can accommodate a clustered mix of commercial, entertainment, recreation, town square/meeting place(s), multi -use complexes, and multimodal transportation activity opportunities. All of the alternative scenarios are considered generally consistent with this policy. See discussion for Policy 3.1 above. Alternatives 6 and 7 would best implement this policy by providing additional incentives to use alternative transportation modes. The intersection augmentation that would occur under Alternatives 4 and 5 may make some areas less desirable for pedestrians and bicyclists as compared to the other alternatives because of the additional road widening and consequent increase in traffic speed. 3.6 Locate higher density residential development inclose proximity to regional and sub - regional centers and public transportation corridors. Policy 6.1 of the draft Circulation Element Amendment states that plans for land use, circulation, and transit should be developed in coordination with City and County departments to concentrate high density housing, employment, and commercial areas close to transit corridors. The draft Circulation Element Amendment supports land use planning and other strategies that result in a reduction in daily auto trip generation. This policy also serves to encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation. Each alternative would support the above City policy by improving pedestrian and bicycle facilities and public transit, all of which would provide transportation alternatives best suited to serving higher density, compact development. All of the alternative scenarios are considered consistent with this policy, although the additional transportation demand management strategies associated with Alternatives 6 and 7 may best encourage high intensity development, as discussed under Policy 3.1. 43 City of Santa Clarita ' Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 4.0 Policy Consistency 4.1.4 Quality and Maintenance of Development The policies described below are intended to ensure that development in the City is consistent with the overall community character and that it contributes in a positive way toward the City's image. 4.1 Establish a land use pattern that is constructed around a framework of established greenbelts and a linear system of equestrian, pedestrian and bike trails tied to the primary network of the river corridor. The draft Circulation Element Amendment states the City's support for the installation of a network of bike lanes, routes, and paths to link the City. Multi -use corridors for pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians are encouraged within and adjacent to local river and flood plain facilities. Bikeways and multi -use corridors, as part of the Circulation Element, would be constructed in dose correlation with the Land Use Element to ensure that land use patterns would complement trail systems. Thus, the proposed project is considered consistent with Policy 4.1. 4.13 Encourage the preservation of significant architectural, historical, and cultural structures and landmarks within the planning area whenever possible. The proposed network of roadway corridors could affect areas that have been identified as "environmentally sensitive' with regard to cultural resources. However, because the entire city has not been surveyed to identify exact locations of cultural resources, the extent of the impacts cannot be determined at this time. With the mitigation measures included in Section 5.11, Cultural Resources, of this EIR, impacts to cultural resources in the City can generally be avoided. Therefore, any of the project alternatives are considered consistent with this policy. 4.1.5 Preservation of Natural Resources Many of the policies contained in the City's Land Use Element are directed at providing protection of biological habitat through the location of land uses and the use of sensitive design. The proposed project appears consistent with most of these policies. Policies applicable to the proposed draft Circulation Element Amendment that appear to be potentially inconsistent with the City's policies are discussed below. 5.1 AIlow only responsible and sensitive development of hillside areas and prohibit development on ridgelines designated as "Significant Ridgelines." 5.2 Ensure that new development, grading, and landscaping are sensitive to the natural topography and major landforms in the planning area. 5.3 New development must be sensitive to the significant ecological areas (SEAS) through utilization of creative site planning techniques to avoid and minimize disturbances of these and other sensitive areas. The roadway development that would occur under the alternatives would potentially affect SEAS. In addition, all of the alternatives involve grading and traversing designated primary City of Santa Clarita 4-4 Santa Cladta Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 4.0 Policy Consistency and secondary ridgehnes. Portions of The Old Road, Newhall Ranch Road, Dickason Road, Avenue Tibbitts, and Avenue Scott would extend into areas designated as SEAS. However, construction of these roads would be required to incorporate design features that would minimize impacts to important scenic and/or biological resources, as required by the City's Hillside Development Ordinance and other applicable local regulations. Therefore, although all of the alternatives are consistent with this policy in a general sense, portions of any alternative could be considered inconsistent with the provisions relating to SEAS and ridgelines. Mitigation measures recommended in this EIR are directed at further reducing the potential for adverse impacts to ridgelines, natural topography, major landforms, and significant ecological areas. 4.1.6 Housing Distribution and Maintenance The following City policies are related to protecting and enhancing the integrity of existing residential neighborhoods. 6.3 Provide for the retention and maintenance ofexisting residential neighborhoods which are primarily developed with single-family homes and ensure that new development is compatible with and complementary to existing development in terms of scale, architecture, and density. The proposed project appears generally consistent with the above policy, although there is a potential for the displacement of some housing. However, the proposed roadway corridors are not anticipated to affect housing significantly given that displacement of residences can be avoided through careful siting of roadway corridors. 6.4 Provide for the retention and maintenance of multiple family neighborhoods and ensure that new development is compatible with and complements existing structures, in scale and architecture, where a distinctive neighborhood character exists. All of the alternative scenarios are considered generally consistent with this policy. See discussion for Policy 6.3 above. 4.2 REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GUIDE SCAG is responsible for assisting agencies in reviewing projects and plans for consistency with regional plans. SCAG has identified policies contained in the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG), specifically in the Growth Management and Regional Mobility chapters, which are applicable to the proposed project. Due to the large number of policies that are potentially pertinent, for the purpose of this analysis all policies have been categorized and summarized. The discussion below includes a summary of applicable regional policies, followed by an analysis of the project's consistency with those policies. 4.2.1 Growth Management The Growth Management Chapter of the RCPG contains many policies potentially applicable to the proposed project. These growth management policies adopted by SCAG are related to City of Santa Ctarita 4-5 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 4.0 Policy Consistency growth forecasts, the RCPG goal to improve the regional standard of living, and the RCPG goal to maintain the regional quality of life. a. Growth Forecasts. Policies related to growth forecasts refer to SCAG's mandates and responsibilities in the review of regionally significant projects. The proposed project is an Amendment of the Santa Clarita Circulation Element, which involves the provision of transportation infrastructure to accommodate projected growth in the City as outlined in the North Los Angeles County Subregion 2020 Growth Projections Report prepared for SCAG in October 1995. Because the draft Circulation Element Amendment would not directly induce any population growth in the City, it is considered consistent with growth forecast policies and SCAG's review process. It should be noted that the Amendment is specifically intended to enable the citywide transportation system to accommodate projected population growth. b. RCPG Goal to Improve the Regional Standard of Living. Policies related to the RCPG goal to improve the regional standard of living are directed at strengthening the regional strategic goal to stimulate the regional economy. The intent of the draft Circulation Element Amendment is to improve the standard of living in Santa Clarita by providing the necessary infrastructure to accommodate the City's current and future transportation needs. Provision of appropriate infrastructure would improve traffic flow in heavily congested areas of the City, thereby improving overall mobility and removing a constraint to local economic development. Therefore, all of the alternative scenarios appear to be consistent with these RCPG policies. c. RCPG Goal to Maintain the Regional Quality of Life. Policies related to the RCPG goal to maintain the regional quality of life are directed at developing urban development patterns that enhance the quality of life, that accommodate a diversity of life styles, that preserve open space and natural resources, and that are aesthetically pleasing and preserve the character of communities. Among the primary strategies to be added to the City's Circulation Element are measures to improve the service and capacity of alternative transportation modes and reduce single - occupancy vehicle (SOV) demand. Both strategies are intended to encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation and to reduce the number of auto trips and vehicle miles traveled. Policies and plans contained in the draft Circulation Element Amendment promote bicycle and pedestrian accessibility, and create opportunities for residents to walk or bike. Specifically, Policies 2.4 and 6.1 promote convenient opportunities by developing strategically located multi -modal facilities and concentrating high density areas close to transit corridors. These policies are also consistent with RCPG policies that encourage the development of compact communities. The proposed project appears to meet many of the regional policies directed at maintaining the quality of life. By addressing current and projected traffic problems in the City, the Amendment is intended to improve the quality of life for area residents. City decision makers will need to weigh the need to provide an adequate transportation network against the desire to City of Santa Clarita 46 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 4.0 Policy Consistency retain the existing open spaces that enhance the quality of life in the City as they consider the project. , 4.2.2 Regional Mobility The Regional Mobility Element (RME) contains policies pertinent to the proposed project which are related to transportation demand management, regional transit programs, regional streets and highways programs, regional non -motorized transportation programs, goods movement programs, and regional long-range corridor programs. a. Transportation Demand Management. Policies contained in the RME related to transportation demand management are directed at promoting TDM programs along with transit and ridesharing facilities, supporting strategies to mitigate travel demand, supporting the use of market incentives, and supporting efforts to educate the public. Each alternative scenario incorporates measures to reduce single -occupant vehicle trips. These measures would be accomplished by improving the service and capacity of alternative modes of transportation and reducing the demand for SOV travel. For Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, strategies include promoting ridesharing, and compressed work weeks and/or staggered and flexible hours; improving the public bikeway network; and adopting development standards to encourage more people to rideshare for longer trips and to use bicycles for shorter trips. Alternatives 6 and 7 implement a more aggressive TDM strategies to reduce travel demand by incorporating specific financial and other incentives and disincentives to encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation. Policies 6.9 and 6.10 of the draft Circulation Element Amendment are directed at promoting alternative transportation modes to make the public aware of alternative transportation options. All of the alternatives appear to meet many of the regional goals directed at transportation demand management, although Alternatives 6 and 7 provide the most aggressive strategies for implementing these SCAG policies. b. Regional Transit Programs. Public transportation programs should be considered an essential public service and should be supportive of the Centers -based Transit Network. Specific service types, levels, and configurations should be determined by a comprehensive group of applicable organizations. Alternative transportation modes, such as transit, are addressed and encouraged in the draft Circulation Element Amendment. The proposed project is intended to complement the City's Transportation Development Plan, which contains objectives and programs for improving transit service. Most of the proposed policy revisions of the draft Circulation Element Amendment involve improving transportation systems and encouraging development that accommodates alternative transportation modes. Policies are directed toward promoting a ' diversified public transportation system that is safe, convenient, efficient, and meets the needs of the City of Santa Clarita (Policies 2.2, 2.4, and 3.0). The draft Circulation Element Amendment also aims to develop and improve regional transportation systems in cooperation ' with regional transportation agencies (Policies 5.3 and 5.4). Each alternative includes provisions to improve the local and express bus service provided by Santa Clarita Transit. All of the alternatives appear to be consistent with regional transit program policies. Alternatives 6 and 7 City of Santa Clarita 47 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 4.0 Policy Consistency would best implement regional transit program policies as they include specific programs that provide additional public transit vehicles and operations. c. Regional Streets and Highways Programs. Policies related to regional streets and highways programs are aimed at the expansion of transportation system management, consideration and provision of HOV facilities, and incorporation of advanced system technology. The draft Circulation Element Amendment has been proposed by the City of Santa Clarita as a comprehensive transportation system management approach intended to facilitate and improve vehicular movement. Policy 5.6 of the draft Circulation Element Amendment encourages the creation of HOV lanes and other methods to increase the capacity of the SR -14 and I-5. Under any of the Alternatives, park-and-ride facilities are anticipated to be provided to complement the planned HOV lanes currently being expanded by Los Angeles County MTA on freeways throughout the County. Alternatives 6 and 7 extend the use of HOV facilities further by incorporating specific incentives and disincentives to promote ridesharing. These two alternatives also include programs that incorporate advanced systems technologies such as intelligent transportation systems and "smart shuttle." All of the alternative scenarios appear to be consistent with policies related to regional streets and highway program policies identified in the RME, although Alternatives 6 and 7 provide the most comprehensive approach to transportation system management. d. Regional Non -Motorized Transportation Programs. The development of the regional transportation system should include a non -motorized transportation system that provides an alternative to automobile use while City policies should include requirements for safe and convenient non -motorized transportation. City policies 3.3 and 6.2 proposed as part of the draft Circulation Element Amendment promote bicycle and pedestrian accessibility to all commercial, industrial, multi -family residential, and public facilities, and encourage "transit friendly" commercial and industrial development that provides convenient pedestrian and bicycle access, respectively. The proposed project supports the installation of a bicycle network to link the City and proposes to implement physical . improvements to the existing public bikeway network. Strategies such as improving the public bikeway system and encouraging more people to use bicycles and walking for shorter trips, have been incorporated into each alternative. The draft Circulation Element Amendment is considered consistent with regional policies related to non -motorized transportation programs. Alternatives 6 and 7 would best implement this regional goal by incorporating programs that promote non -motorized commuting by providing incentives and disincentives. Alternatives 4 and 5 involve the augmentation of intersections with additional lanes, which may make some areas less desirable for pedestrians and bicyclists due to encroachment into pedestrian and bicycle routes and increased traffic speeds. e. Goods Movement Programs. According to this regional goal, goods movement program policies are designed to accommodate and facilitate the movement of goods throughout the region. City of Santa Clarita 48 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 4.0 Policy Consistency The draft Circulation Element Amendment is specifically intended to facilitate and improve vehicular movement while providing for the movement of people, goods, and services throughout the City. Strategies to improve the service and capacity of the City's roadway network encourage the use of alternative transportation modes, and reduce demand for SOV travel would facilitate movement in the City of Santa Clarita. All of the alternative scenarios are considered consistent with goods movement program policies. f. Regional Long -Range Corridor Programs. According to this regional goal, long- range corridors and projects that will employ multi -modal and inter -modal strategies designed to maintain mobility should be supported along with projects that are conducive to reducing SOV trips. Policy 2.4 of the draft Circulation Element Amendment is directed at developing multi -modal transit facilities that are strategically located in the City. Each alternative includes provisions to improve the local and express bus service by providing additional multi -modal transit centers at key locations. These transit centers are intended to provide the public with a transportation system that is safe, convenient, and efficient. The draft Circulation Element Amendment encourages multi -use corridors for pedestrians,.bicyclists, and equestrians as a means to provide alternative modes of transportation, thereby reducing demand for SOV trips. Each alternative incorporates strategies to reduce the demand for SOV travel. Each alternative appears to be consistent with regional long-range corridor program policies. Alternatives 6 and 7 would reduce daily automobile trip generation beyond reductions achieved by Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 with the incorporation of specific, aggressive trip reduction programs. r I I I! D I Ii 4-9 City of Santa Clarita Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS This section analyzes the environmental effects of each of the seven Circulation Element Update alternatives for each of the environmental issue areas for which the Initial Study found the potential for significant impacts. The purpose of the analysis is twofold: (1) to identify and, when possible, mitigate the environmental effects of the proposed project; and (2) to provide a comparison of the impacts of the seven studied alternatives. Therefore, each individual environmental effect is analyzed in two ways. First, the magnitude of the effect is determined in accordance with the four categories shown in the chart below. Second, the various alternatives are compared and ranked 1 through 7 in terms of their environmental consequences. A ranking of 1 indicates the alternative that would have the least impact upon the environment with respect to a given issue, while a ranking of 7 would indicate the alternative with the greatest impact. The alternative rankings with respect to individual issues can be found in the impact summary tables found in each analysis section. Significant and Unavoidable (Class 1): Significant impacts that cannot be avoided even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures. These impacts require adoption of a statement of overriding considerations by the City Council. Significant but Mitigable (Class 11): Potentially significant impacts that can be feasibly mitigated to a less than significant level. These impacts require that findings be made by the City Council. Less than Significant (Class III): Impacts that have found to be less than significant because they do not exceed the threshold for such a determination. Beneficial (Class IVI: Impacts that are considered to be beneficial to the communitv. City of Santa Clarita 5.0-1 ' Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources 5.1 EARTH RESOURCES Potential geological hazards affecting the Santa Clarita planning area include landslides, and destabilization of slopes due to grading. Seismic hazards include ground shaking, surface rupture, liquefaction, and subsidence. All of the seven alternatives involve roadway development that would be ' subject to each of these geologic and seismic hazards. New road corridors that would be subject to potentially significant hazards relating to fault rupture under any alternative include Via Princessa, Golden Valley Road, and Santa Clarita Parkway. Portions of the Via Princessa and Golden Valley Road corridors would also be subject to landslide hazards under any alternative. The Golden Valley Road, Santa Clarita Parkway, and Tourney Road crossings over the Santa Clara River would be subject to liquefaction hazards under any alternative; the entire length of the extension of Newhall Ranch Road east of Golden Valley Road that would occur only under Alternative 1 would also be subject to liquefaction. Design and construction solutions are generally available to reduce all seismic and geologic hazards to risk levels considered acceptable, although some risk of damage to roadway infrastructure would remain ' under any alternative. Appropriate geotechnical and soils engineering studies would be required to be prepared and their recommendations incorporated into the design of specific roadway alignments. 5.1.1 Setting Santa Clarita is located within the Transverse Range Geomorphic Province of California. This province is characterized by east -west trending mountains and faults. Mountain ranges within this province include the Santa Ynez, Santa Susana, Topatopa, San Gabriel, Sierra Pelona, and San Bernardino. Sedimentary basins include the Ventura, Soledad, and Ridge Basins, and the San Fernando Valley. Mountain ranges in the Transverse Ranges are comprised of rocks that are progressively older from the west to east. East -west trending folds and faults predominate. Mountain ranges are separated by valleys, faults, and downwarps. Mid to late Pleistocene faulting uplifted the area, resulting in the present-day landforms. Geologic environments represented in the rocks found in the Transverse Ranges include periods of non -marine deposits (Saugus, Mint Canyon, Sespe formations), marine deposits (Pico, Repetto, Monterey, San Francisquito), volcanics (Conejo Volcanic series),and metamorphic or igneous rocks (Lowe Granodiorite; Pelona Schist, Mendenhall Gneiss). a. Area Geology. Santa Clarita is on the northern flank of the San Gabriel Mountains. Terrain throughout the City includes hills and canyons. Topographic highs are comprised of rocks of the Mint Canyon, Castaic, Saugus, and Older Alluvium formations. Lowlands are covered with Quaternary aged (within the last 2 million years) alluvium. The alluvium is derived as erosional remnants of the surrounding hillsides and other rocks. The Mint Canyon Formation is of Miocene age (Miocene is from 5 to 22 million years before present). It is a non -marine sedimentary formation comprised of thin to thick bedded, light gray to greenish gray and tan to light brown conglomerate, sandstone, and silty claystone. Some greenish gray to dark olive green bentonitic clay seams are known in the Mint Canyon Formation. Geologic structure of the Mint Canyon Formation across the site includes folds and faults. City of Santa Clarita 5.1-1 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources I The Castaic Formation is also of Miocene age. This formation represents a minor portion of the planning area. It is comprised of grey claystone and sandstone. These rocks were derived from shallow marine clastic sediments. They are younger than the Mint Canyon Formation rocks. The Saugus Formation is of Quaternary age (between 10,000 and 1.8 million years before present). The Saugus Formation represents terrestrial river -derived sediments. The formation consists of conglomerate, sandstone, and siltstone. The clasts in the formation include erosional remnants from the nearby metamorphic and igneous rocks. Much of the site is underlain by Older Dissected Alluvium of Quaternary age. This unit consists of alluvial fan and high terrace deposits. The material was derived from the nearby topographically higher areas, principally igneous and metamorphic rocks. Quaternary Alluvium is present in the low-lying areas of the site. The alluvium varies depending on its proximity to the larger washes and the steepness of the adjacent hillsides. In steep areas and places where the washes are wide, sediments include sand and gravel. In areas where the washes are narrower and away from the steep hillsides, the alluvium consists of sand, silt and clay. The alluvium is generally unconsolidated at the surface to moderately consolidated at depth. Topsoil includes the following associations: Yolo-Metz-Cortina in the valley bottoms; Ojai- Agua Dulce; Gaviota-Millsholm; Saugus-Castaic-Balcom. Yolo-Metz-Cortina soils are in level to moderately sloping areas. The soils are deep and have a loam to loamy sand surface layer. They are found on alluvial fans and flood plains. Ojai-Agua Dulce soils are found on gently sloping to steep areas. The soils tend to be well drained and are moderately to very deep in profile. The soils have a loam to sandy loam surface layer. This association is found on terraces and foothills. Gaviota-Millshohn soils are found on steep to very steep slopes. The soil is well -drained to excessively well drained and have a sandy loam to loam surface layer. The soils are found on foothills. The soil profile is poorly developed in areas over sandstone and shale: Saugus- . Castaic-Balcom soils are found on gently sloping to very steep areas. The soils are well drained and consist of loam to silty clay loam. The profile is deep to moderately deep over soft sandstone and shale. This association is found on foothills and mountains. Depth to groundwater is expected to vary with season and with location.. In areas of stream washes, water seasonally flows at the ground surface. In the hills where alluvium is lacking, groundwater is in the bedrock and may be several tens to hundreds of feet below grade. Stream washes typically have groundwater within the unsaturated alluvium. Thus, groundwater in the washes ranges in depth from near surface to about 100 feet below grade. b. Seismic Conditions. Ground Rupture/Shaking. Several active and potentially active faults cross the project area. In addition to these active and potentially active faults, nearby active and potentially active faults can generate groundshaking that could effect the project area. Active faults that 5.1-2 City of Santa Clarita Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources ' are located within the City of Santa Clarita, as defined in the Safety Element (1991) and the State of California Earthquake Fault Zones map, include the San Gabriel, Holser, and Stevenson Ranch faults. Potentially active faults within the city limits include the Whitney, Placerita, Soledad, Mint Canyon, Tick Canyon, Pelona, San Francisquito, Del Valle, and San Felicia faults (see Figure 5.1-1). Common geologic practice is to define active faults as those that have ' evidence of movement within the last 11,000 years. Potentially active faults show evidence of movement between 11,000 and 2 million years ago. ' The proximity of active faults is such that the area has experienced strong seismically induced ground motion and will experience continued strong seismically induced ground motion in the future. Active or potentially active faults in the vicinity of the project area are listed in Table 5.1-1. Ground shaking is a function of both the strength of an earthquake and the distance between the point of measurement and the fault. In general, ground accelerations decrease with increasing distance from the earthquake epicenter. Localized amplification of ' groundshaking is possible, as was noted during the Northridge earthquake. These amplifications are often the result of the alluvial conditions upon which a structure is built. Bold type face indicates a fault that crosses through the City. ' As described in the Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1996), the Santa Clarita area has a 10% probability of undergoing a 0.7g (g=gravity, 32 ft/sec/sec) ground acceleration in the next 50 years. This ' ground acceleration would be produced from a 6.5 to 7.0 magnitude earthquake located within three miles of the City., As indicated in Table 5.1-1, seismically induced ground accelerations of up to 0.7gcould occur in the City. ' 5.1-3 City of Santa Cladta II ' ' Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources The 1994 Northridge earthquake produced strong groundshaking and damage to numerous structures in the City of Santa Clarita. The epicenter of the earthquake was about 15 miles southwest of the City. The Northridge earthquake caused bedding plane surface rupture west of the City (Treiman,1995). hi addition, the Interstate 5/State Route 14 interchange was damaged when part of the highway collapsed. Recorded ground accelerations of 0.61 g were measured in Santa Clarita during the Northridge earthquake. Seismic events also have the potential to cause liquefaction of surface sediments and destabilization of slopes (landslides and debris slides). As described in the Safety Element, several areas of high liquefaction potential are found within the city limits (see Figure 5.1-1). In general, these are areas along canyon bottoms where groundwater is shallow and the sediments are unconsolidated. Landslides. Landslides occur when the underlying support can no longer maintain the load of material above it, causing a slope failure. The size of a landslide can vary from minor rock falls to large hillside slumps. The underlying bedrock bedding plains, degree of water saturation of a material, steepness of a slope, and the general strength of the soil all contribute to the stability of a hillside. Basal erosion caused by water or human -induced modification to the natural contour of a hill, including grading, have the potential to destabilize a hillside. Much of the terrain in Santa Clarita consists of hills that are potentially subject to landsliding. Areas at high risk of landsliding are shown on Figure 5.1-1. Liouefaction. Areas of liquefaction have been mapped in the Safety Element and are shown on Figure 5.1-1. Liquefaction is defined as the transformation of a granular material from a solid state to a liquefied state as a consequence of increased pore water pressure. During ground shaking, the alluvial grains are packed into a tighter configuration. Pore water is squeezed from between the grains, increasing the pore pressure. As the pore pressure increases, the load bearing strength of the material decreases. As a result, structures built on this material can sink into the alluvium, buried structures may rise to the surface, or sloped areas may run downhill. Slopes as gentle as 0.3 degrees are known to have flowed downhill during liquefaction events. c. Regulatory Setting. A range of regulatory requirements apply to the development of circulation system infrastructure. Among the most important in Santa Clarita are the City Grading Ordinance and the Cites Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance and Guidelines. City Grading Ordinance. Chapter 17.20 of Santa Clarita's Unified Development Code provides minimum standards for grading in the City. The chapter includes standards for import and export of earth, excavation, fill, drainage, and erosion control. The City Engineer is required to confirm that any development complies with the ordinance standards. Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance and Guidelines. The Ridgelines Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance was adopted in 1992 to provide development standards in areas having average slopes of 10% or more. Several requirements relating to grading are applicable to the development of circulation system infrastructure: City of Santa Clarita 5.1-4 B44 L -.... CO PP,�RHILLR /, rrrrl s... - M 0 n o �O t 4 'pUpURt x°( y� �?♦ .Wmw• ,�' 96i ,��♦ ,��wY •epi /moi ,�� 9j y'rrrrZ���i • I r� o VE.EXT. 1\1 P,Wh,--l11 0 0 5.1-5 :C= = VA.SQUEZ CANYONRO' /Y { ti 1# 0 °, �� r anYpDfa r10 Mtntc nynn i! j'untry ;• .Yo gLAOlb17q,CANYOry p It pfaoeft n- Farr/r � • r J GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS LEGEND Existing Roads Included In Planned Roads Alternatives -•---- Common to All Alternatives . Existing Planned Roadway System Only. 1� uuuuuuum Existing Planned Roadway System And Newhall Ranch Road Reduction Alternatives Only 11,2,4,6 ►►►►►►►►► Newhall Ranch Road Reduction And Golden Valley Road Network Altematives OnlyV3,4, 4, 5, 6, 7 Golden Valley Road Network Alternative Only 0 1 2:T i SCALE IN MILES NORTH ■ ■ ■ ■ Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone ■ All Other Faults s Potential Liquefaction Areas # A� � �er �� ,,'.0 [� I 4* 1, I •�� � ��♦ o B44 L -.... CO PP,�RHILLR /, rrrrl s... - M 0 n o �O t 4 'pUpURt x°( y� �?♦ .Wmw• ,�' 96i ,��♦ ,��wY •epi /moi ,�� 9j y'rrrrZ���i • I r� o VE.EXT. 1\1 P,Wh,--l11 0 0 5.1-5 :C= = VA.SQUEZ CANYONRO' /Y { ti 1# 0 °, �� r anYpDfa r10 Mtntc nynn i! j'untry ;• .Yo gLAOlb17q,CANYOry p It pfaoeft n- Farr/r � • r J GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS LEGEND Existing Roads Included In Planned Roads Alternatives -•---- Common to All Alternatives . Existing Planned Roadway System Only. 1� uuuuuuum Existing Planned Roadway System And Newhall Ranch Road Reduction Alternatives Only 11,2,4,6 ►►►►►►►►► Newhall Ranch Road Reduction And Golden Valley Road Network Altematives OnlyV3,4, 4, 5, 6, 7 Golden Valley Road Network Alternative Only 0 1 2:T i SCALE IN MILES NORTH ■ ■ ■ ■ Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone ■ All Other Faults is 5-100 Acre Definite Landslide Figure 5.1-1 City of Santa Clarita s Potential Liquefaction Areas > 100 Acre Definite Landslide is 5-100 Acre Definite Landslide Figure 5.1-1 City of Santa Clarita ' Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources • Major public roads, such as those identified in the General Plan Circulation Element, may require slopes steeper than 2:1. In such an event, slopes steeper than 2:1 may be allowed, provided that a geotechnical study is prepared verifying the feasibility of such: slopes. • The overall shape, height or grade of any cut or fill slope shall be developed to appear similar ' to the existing natural contours in scale with the natural terrain of the subject site. • Where any cut or fill slopes intersect the natural grade, the intersection of each slope shall be vertically and/or horizontally rounded and blended with the natural contour so as to present a natural slope appearance. • Where any cut or fill slope exceeds 100 feet in horizontal length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be developed to appear similar to the existing natural contours. • Grading shall be balanced on site whenever possible to avoid excessive cut and fill and to avoid import or export. The Guidelines provide for grading that exceeds the maximum standards if the grading project is found to be of innovative design. They also provide direction for earthwork in hillside areas, including that required for road development. The Road Guidelines include the following ' specific policies: • Roads should, wherever practical, be parallel or diagonal to the existing contours. Roads should be curvilinear in fashion for local roads and blend in with the existing topographical conditions. • Where steeper terrain exists, a split-level road configuration may be utilized to minimize grading. Split-level roads will transition at grade at intersections to provide for effective and safe traffic movements. All conditions will be subject to the approval of the Community Development Department. 5.1.2 Impact Analysis a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. Project alternatives were evaluated with respect to the proximity of circulation system infrastructure to geologic and seismic hazards identified in the City's Safety Element and other relevant sources. The following conditions constitute a geologic hazard that has the potential to significantly affect planned infrastructure unless appropriate design and construction practices are followed: • Active or potentially active faults; • Soils with the potential for liquefaction; • Seismic ground shaking that could activate landslides, debris flows, or other large; scale mass wasting event; • Improper fill subject to compaction; ' • Improperly engineered cut or fill slopes; • Undercutting bedrock in a manner that destabilizes the slope; and • Removal of vegetation from areas, increasing erosion potential. ' b. Impact Summary. Table 5.1-2 summarizes potential earth resource effects and ranks the alternatives in terms of their potential for impact. city or sans 5.1-7 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources 5.1-8 Ta5.1-2. ble Earth Resource Impact Summary e.otam att*AIt�1t�tivetl Altetnativ", ,Altems4iY 3 glternative;:4 tAlternaf,5 Alte native 6�, „tlternat[�.: ER -1. Slope Extensive Extensive Extensive Impact similar to Impact similar to: Same as Same as destabilization due grading for all grading for all grading for all Alternative 2; Alternative 3; Alternative 2 at Alternative 3 at to grading road road road augmented augmented buildout; buildout; development; development; development; intersections intersections possibly less possibly less estimated 28 . estimated 26.3 estimated 25.8 would increase would increase need for need for million cubic million cubic million cubic overall earth overall earth roadway roadway yards of cut and yards of cut and yards of cut and movement by movement by development development 13.5 million 13.4 million 13.3 million 1% or less. 1 % or less. because of because of cubic yards of cubic yards of cubic yards of Class Ill Class 111 reduced trips. reduced trips. fill in Center fill in Center fill In Center City Rank= 6 Rank = 3 Class Ill Class 111 City area. City area. area. Rank = 4 Rank = i Class 111 Class Ill Class 111 Rank= 7 Rank = 5 Rank = 2 ER -2. Fill settling Extensive use Impact similar Impact similar to Impact similar to Impact similar to Same as Same as or rebounding of fill material to to Alternative 1; Alternative 1; Alternative 2; Alternative 2; Alternative 2 at Alternative 3 at construct overall potential overall potential slight increase in slight increase buildout; buildout; roadways; fill for settling or slightly lower settlemenU in settlemenU possibly less possibly less has potential to rebounding than Alternative rebound rebound need for need for settle (or slightly lower 1 or 2 due to potential due to potential due to roadway roadway rebound) under due to reduction in Intersection intersection development development the weight of elimination of road miles. augmentation. augmentation. because of because of roads, the Newhall Class It/ Class 111 Class Ul reduced trips. reduced trips. landscape Ranch Road Rank = 2 Rank = 6 Rank = 3 Class /it Class 111 irrigation, and extension. Rank= 4 Rank =1 seismic Class IJI shaking. Rank = 5 Class 111 Rank = 7 ER -3. Landslide Portions of Same roads Same roads Impact similar to Impact similar to Same as Same as movements Golden Valley within landslide within landslide Alternative 2; Alternative 3; Alternative 2 at Alternative 3; Road, Via areas as under areas as under augmented augmented buildout; possibly less Princessa, and Alternative 1; Alternative 1; intersections intersections possibly less need for Whites Canyon overall potential overall potential may slightly may slightly need for roadway Road would be for landslide for landslide increase risk of increase risk of roadway development within landslide damage similar. damage similar. roadway roadway development because of areas; relatively Class I// Class 111 damage. damage. because of reduced trips. high potential Rank= 5 Rank= 2 Class 111 Class 11l reduced trips. Class 111 for damage to Rank =6 Rank = 3 Class 111 Rank= 1 these roads. Rank = 4 Class Il1 Rank= 7 5.1-8 M M M M M M M M M M I= M Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources M M M M M M M City of Santa Clarita 5.1-9 . ........ . .......... . ............. AkAllternative',20, vAltdtnative ,4,j 10 �,Alterqative,'4$ vAltornatlyw5i$ !,,,TAIteMatIv", 4All-ternatl1r6,74,1i ER -4. Seismic All of Santa Impact similar Impact similar to Impact similar to Impact similar to Same as Same as ground shaking Clarita is to Alternative 1; Alternative 1; Alternative 2; Alternative 3; Alternative 2 at Alternative 3 at subject to overall damage overall damage intersection intersection buildout; buildout; strong ground potential slightly potential slightly augmentation augmentation possibly less possibly less shaking; lower because lower than may slightly may slightly need for need for potential for of the Alternative I or increase increase roadway roadway damage to all elimination of 2 due to damage damage development development roadways, the 3.1 -mile reduction in potential, potential. because of because of although Newhall Ranch road miles. Class Ill Class I// reduced trips. reduced trips. building codes Road Class /it Rank = 6 Rank = 3 Class fit Class II/ minimize extension. Rank = 2 Rank = 4 Rank =1 damage Class 111 potential. Rank = 5 Class II/ Rank = 7 ER -5. Roadway Portions of Via Same roadway Same roadway Impact similar to Impact similar to Same as Same as damage due to PrIncessa, corridors corridors Alternative 2; Alternative 3; Alternative 2 at Alternative 3 at ground rupture Newhall Ranch crossing fault crossing fault slight increase slight increase buildout; buildout; Road, Golden lines as under lines as under for damage due for damage due possibly less possibly less Valley Road, Alternative 1; Alternative 1; to augmented to augmented need for need for and Santa overall impact overall impact intersections. intersections. roadway roadway Clarita Parkway similar. similar. Class I Class I development development would cross the Class I Class I Rank = 3 Rank = 6 because of because of San Gabriel Rank = 2 Rank = 5 reduced trips. reduced trips. Fault line; Class I Class I relatively high Rank = I Rank = 4 potential for ground rupture on these corridors. Class I Rank = 7 City of Santa Clarita 5.1-9 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources ER -6. Estimated 8.7 Impact similar Impact similar to Impact similar to Impact similar to Same as Same as Liquefaction miles of to Altemative 1; Alternative 1; Alternative 2; Alternative 3; Alternative 2 at Alternative 3 at roadway estimated 6.6 estimated 6.6 slight increase in slight increase buildout; buildout; corridors within miles of miles of liquefaction in liquefaction possibly less possibly less areas subject to roadway roadway damage due to damage due to need for need for liquefaction corridors within corridors within augmented augmented roadway roadway hazards; areas subject to areas subject to intersections. intersections. development development relatively high liquefaction liquefaction Class 111 Class 111 because of because of potential for hazards. hazards. Rank = 3 Rank = 6 reduced trips. reduced trips. damage in Class 111 Class 111 Class Ill Class /it these areas. Rank= 2 Rank = 5 Rank = i Rank = 4 Class Ill Rank = 7 Class I = Significant and Unavoidable; Class 11= Significant but Mitigable; Class /it = Less than Significant; Class 1V = Beneficial A ranking of 1 indicates the alternative with the least impact,' a ranking of 7 indicates the greatest impact. of Santa Clarita 5.1-10 ' Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources c. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Effect ER -1 All of the project alternatives would involve extensive grading for roadway construction. Cut and fill of slopes would have the potential to create erosion and slope destabilization, although compliance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements would generally reduce erosion effects to an adverse, but less than significant level for all alternatives (Class III). Implementation of the proposed Circulation Element Amendment would involve the development of roadway extensions and new roads. Extensive grading, including cut and fill, would modify the topography of the area. Cut slopes could expose adverse bedding of the bedrock. Adverse bedding occurs when the angle of cutting exposes blocks of material that become unsupported and can slide downslope along the bedding plane. Slopes stripped of vegetation could also be adversely eroded by irrigation watering or periods of rainfall. During the construction period, the onsite slopes would produce debris. In the absence of appropriate erosion controls, sediment could be transported downstream, where it can clog drainage conveyances and create flooding problems. Hillsides would be cut and low-lying areas would be filled with earth materials during roadway construction under all alternatives. The amount of cut and fill on individual slopes would vary depending upon the width of each road, engineering properties of the underlying material, and the steepness of the slopes. Future construction of earthem berms in limited locations in conjunction with roadway development for the purpose of noise alteration or visual screening may also involve earth movement. Preliminary calculations of the volume of material to be cut or filled in conjunction with major roadway construction are included in Table 5.1-3. ° Augmentation of all intersections shown on Figures 2.7 and 2-10 of Section 2.0, Description of Project Alternatives, would increase overall earth movement by less than one percent. Alternative 1. The major roadways in the Center City area have a cut volume of about 28 million cubic yards, and a fill volume estimated at 13.5 million cubic yards. Figure 5.1- 2 shows cut and fill lines for the major roadways planned for the Center City area. Portions of all of the major roadways planned for the Center City area would require substantial grading. Among the roadways that would require extensive cut and fill are Golden Valley Road near the City of Santa Clarita 5.1-11 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment El Sectlon 5.1 Earth Resources i/ p 31 _ _ — Zig ..?i,9 '% r - 12q VIA-= BINC 14 i :� 1� n�� •1 �-� ^+.-•,0••.` 'dam i 1 1 • RANCH LEGEND CUT/FILL CATCHPOINT RDWY CENTERLINE y� CUT/FILL CATCHP03NT Cut and Fill Lines - Alternative 1 T NORTH Not to Scale Figure 5.1-2 City of Santa Clarita p _ _ — Zig BINC 14 i :� 1� n�� •1 �-� S�jyr5 l-.� , ., iii• LEGEND CUT/FILL CATCHPOINT RDWY CENTERLINE y� CUT/FILL CATCHP03NT Cut and Fill Lines - Alternative 1 T NORTH Not to Scale Figure 5.1-2 City of Santa Clarita fSanta Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources Via Princessa intersection, the Lyons Avenue Extension, the entire length of Santa Clarita Parkway south of Soledad Canyon Road, and much of Golden Valley Road north of Newhall Ranch Road. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) provisions pertaining to cut and fill require consideration of ' such engineering considerations as design of drainage back slopes, drainage downslope channels, and buttressing unstable slopes. Buttressing requires the proper placement of compacted fill material, compacted to the UBC specifications for such an application. All ' grading activity would be. in accordance with UBC requirements, which would generally reduce impacts relating to slope destabilization and erosion to a less than significant level. Nevertheless, appropriate geotechnical and soil studies will need to be performed in conjunction with the design of any specific roadways. Alternative 2. This alternatives cut volume in the Center City area is estimated at 26.3 million cubic yards while the fill volume is estimated at 13.3 million cubic yards. Areas of substantial cut and fill include those shown on Figure 5.1-3. Cut and fill lines are identical to those of Alternative 1 except that the segment of Newhall Ranch Road east of Golden Valley j Road is eliminated. All construction activity that would occur under Alternative 2 would be in compliance with ' applicable provisions of the.UBC (see Alternative 1 for a discussion of UBC requirements). This would reduce slope destabilization impacts to a less than significant level. ' Alternative 3. This alternatives cut volume estimate for the Center City area is 25.8 million cubic yards, while the fill volume is estimated at about 13.3 million cubic yards. Estimated cut and fill lines for Alternative 3 are shown on Figure 5.1-4. Roadways that would require substantial grading include most of Golden Valley Road south of Soledad Canyon Road and north of Newhall Ranch Road, and the Lyons Avenue Extension. Although overall cut and fill volumes are estimated to be slightly lower than under Alternative 2, certain areas would involve more extensive grading. For example, the Newhall Ranch Road/Santa Clarita Parkway and Santa Clarita Parkway/Golden Valley Road intersections involve relatively large graded areas under this alternative. All construction activity that would occur under Alternative 3 would be in compliance with applicable provisions of the UBC (see Alternative 1 for a discussion of UBC requirements). This would reduce slope destabilization impacts to a less than significant level. ' AIternative 4. Grading associated with Alternative 4 would be similar to that of Alternative 2, although the augmentation of heavily congested intersections with additional lanes would entail additional cut and fill at those locations. Overall cut and fill would increase ' by one percent or less as a result of augmentation of all intersections indicated on Figure 2-7 in Section 2.0, Description of Project Alternatives. All construction activity that would occur under Alternative 4 would be in compliance with applicable provisions of the UBC (see Alternative 1 for a discussion of UBC requirements). This would reduce slope destabilization impacts to a less than significant level. City of Santa Cia6t ' S.7-13 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources LEGEND E CUT/FILL CATCHP[ INT RDWY CENTERLINE CUT/FILL CATCHPOINT NORTH Not to Scale Cut and Fill Lines - Alternative 2 Figure 5.1-3 - City of Santa Clarita 5.1-14 - ... ------ �pP 0 r Z -3 0 VIA RINCE .j PRINCES A - "o �A LEGEND E CUT/FILL CATCHP[ INT RDWY CENTERLINE CUT/FILL CATCHPOINT NORTH Not to Scale Cut and Fill Lines - Alternative 2 Figure 5.1-3 - City of Santa Clarita 5.1-14 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources LEGEND .1 CUT/FILL CATCHPOINT RDWY CENTERLINE �- --`"-� CUT/FILL CATCHPOINT Cut and Fill Lines - Alternative 3 NORTH Not to Scale Figure 5.1-4 City of Santa Clarita 5.1.15 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources Alternative 5. Grading associated with Alternative 5 would be similar to that of Alternative 3, although the augmentation of heavily congested intersections with additional lanes would entail additional cut and fill at those locations. Overall cut and fill would increase by one percent or less as a result of augmentation of all intersections indicated on Figure 2-7 in Section 2.0, Description of Project Alternatives. All construction activity that would occur ander Alternative 5 would be in compliance with applicable provisions of the UBC (see Alternative 1 for a discussion of UBC requirements). This would reduce slope destabilization impacts to a less than significant level. Alternative 6. With regard to slope destabilization and erosion, this alternative is the same as Alternative 2. All effects discussed in Alternative 2 apply. Alternative 7. With regard to slope destabilization and erosion, this alternative is the same as Alternative 3. All effects discussed in Alternative 3 apply. Mitigation Measures. Compliance with applicable Uniform Building Code requirements would generally reduce erosion/slope destabilization impacts to a less than significant level. Nevertheless, the following measures are recommended for all alternatives (1- 7) to minim;ze the potential for such impact: ER -1(a) Appropriate soils and geotechnical investigations shall be conducted for all specific roadway alignments prior to the design and construction of each roadway. Any additional recommendations contained in such investigations beyond compliance with standard UBC requirements shall be fully implemented. ER -1(b) An appropriate watering system, such as drip irrigation, shall be established for cut slopes to minimize the volume of water used during the establishment of vegetation, thus reducing the potential of erosion during this period. ER -1(c) Grading shall not be performed during the rainy period (October 1 to April 15) unless the grading plans include provisions to mitigate erosion, flooding, or the deposition of sediment or debris. Significance After Mitigation. Adherence to standard UBC and City requirements, in combination with the recommended measures, would reduce erosion and slope destabilization impacts to less than significant for all alternatives. The recommended mitigation measures would further reduce impacts. Residual impacts would be greatest for Alternative 1, which would require the greatest amount of cut and fill. Alternatives 3 and 7 are estimated to involve the least overall cut and fill, although the difference between these alternatives and Alternatives W. "M IF-ITIM.,, ,.J Effect ER -2 The use of fill material in roadway construction would have the potential for settling (or rebounding) under any of the seven alternatives. However, compliance with applicable code requirements would reduce impacts to a level considered less than significant (Class III). City of Santa Ctarita . 5.1-18 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources Any of the Circulation Element alternatives would involve the extensive use of fill material to construct planned roadways. The fill has the potential to settle (or rebound) under the weight of the highway built upon it, from precipitation and landscape irrigation, and from seismic shaking. Grading would generate large rock, which would need to be incorporated into the fill areas. Bentonitic beds in the bedrock may also be encountered during cut and fill. Rock and bentonite need either to be removed from the fill or buried to a depth and in a manner that the proper compaction characteristics can be met per the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer. Otherwise, differential settling of the fill could occur either because of the weight of the roadway infrastructure or because of seismic shaking, thereby resulting in cracking of the foundation of structures. Roadways could lie across cut and fill lines. In the event of seismic shaking, fill material may further compact, while the cut area remains at the cut elevation. Therefore, an affected roadway could be vertically offset and significant damage could occur to any structure lying across the cut/fill line (see Figures 5.1-2 through 5.1-4 for estimated cut/fill lines). Alternative 1. The Existing Planned Roadway System alternative would involve cut and fill along all planned road corridors. All areas of cut and fill would have the potential for uneven settling. However, fill density would be in accordance with UBC requirements for all roadway construction. If the fill material does not meet the strength and compaction requirements, it would be rejected. Full implementation of appropriate UBC design and construction practices would m nimize the effects of settling. Impacts are not considered significant, although some potential for differential settling would remain in areas with substantial fill material. Alternative 2. Cut and fill areas associated with Alternative 2 would be similar to ' those of Alternative 1 except that Newhall Ranch Road would be eliminated east of Golden Valley Road. These engineered areas would have the potential to settle following roadway construction. Compliance with UBC requirements as described under Alternative 1 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level, although some potential for differential settling would remain in areas of substantial fill. ' Alternative 3. - Although the Golden Valley Road Network alternative would involve grading for all roadway development, it would involve less overall cut and fill than either Alternative 1 or Alternative 2. Consequently, it would have less overall potential for differential settling. Compliance with UBC requirements would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Nevertheless, the potential for differential settling and associated damage to roadways would remain. AIternative 4. Cut and fill areas associated with this alternative would be similar to ' those of Alternative 2 but would be increased at augmented intersection locations. Engineered areas would have the potential to settle following roadway construction. Compliance with UBC requirements as described under Alternative 1 would reduce impacts to a less than significant ' level, although some potential for differential settling would remain in areas of substantial fill. City of Santa Clarita ' S.1-17 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources I Alternative 5. Cut and fill areas associated with Alternative 5 would be similar to those of Alternative 3, but would be increased at augmented intersections. Engineered areas would have the potential to settle following roadway construction. Compliance with UBC requirements as described under Alternative 1 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level, although some potential for differential settling would remain in areas of substantial fill. Alternative 6. With respect to differential settling, this alternative is the same as Alternative 2. All impacts discussed in Alternative 2 apply. Alternative 7. With respect to differential settling, this alternative is the same as Alternative 3. All impacts discussed in Alternative 3 apply. Mitigation Measures. Compliance with UBC and city requirements relating to differential settling would generally reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Geologic and seismic issues relating to individual roads will be addressed in the geotechnical and soils studies recommended in Mitigation Measure ER -1(a). Significance After Mitigation. Conformance with applicable UBC and City requirements and would reduce impacts associated with differential settling to a less than significant level. Overall, Alternative 1 would have the greatest impact because it would involve the greatest number of road miles. Alternatives 2 and 6 are considered to have the lowest overall impacts because they involve the fewest overall road miles. However, the difference between these two alternatives and Alternatives 3 and 7 is nominal. Effect ER -3 All of the project alternatives include road corridors that pass through areas identified as being subject to landslide hazards. There would be elevated potential for roadway damage in these areas, although compliance with the City's Hillside Grading Ordinance would generally reduce impacts to levels considered less than significant (Class III). Known landslides and debris flows are located throughout the City. Areas identified as having high landslide potential are shown on Figure 5.1-1. Movement of these earth masses could damage structures. Construction of the roadways through landslides could remove portions of landslides, destabilizing the hillsides and potentially creating a safety hazard during grading or damage to structures after completion of site grading. If the debris flows are either undermined during construction or are not stabilized during grading operations, future downhill movement of material could cause structural damage to roadway facilities located near slopes. Alternative 1. The Golden Valley Road and Via Princessa corridors traverse areas of high landslide risk in the southeastern part of the City. In addition, portions of Golden Valley Road and Whites Canyon Road in the Canyon Country area are in potential landslide areas. These roads would be subject to elevated landslide risk that may damage the road facilities and pose safety hazards to travelers. However, compliance with the City's Hillside Development City of Santa Clarita 5.1-18 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources ' Ordinance and Guidelines would generally reduce risk in these areas to levels considered less than significant. 4 ' Alternative 2. The same segments of the Golden Valley Road and Via Princessa corridors that traverse areas of high landslide risk under Alternative 1 apply to Alternative 2. ' Landslide hazards for these roads would be adverse, although the use of appropriate design and construction practices can minimize the landslide hazard. ' Alternative 3. The Golden Valley Road Network alignment alternative includes the same segments of Golden Valley Road and Via Princessa that would be subject to high landslide risk under Alternatives 1 and 2. Impacts in these areas are considered potentially significant, ' although the use of appropriate design and construction practices would minimize landslide hazards. ' Alternative 4. Landslide hazards associated with this alternative would be similar to those of Alternative 2, although the augmentation of intersections in hilly areas would have the potential to increase the risk of damage from landsliding to some degree. Alternative 5. Landslide hazards associated with this alternative would be similar to those of Alternative 3, although the augmentation of intersections in hilly areas would have the potential to increase the risk of damage from landsliding to some degree. Alternative 6. Landslide hazards associated with buildout of this alternative are the ' same as those of Alternative 2. Alternative 7. Landslide hazards associated with buildout of this alternative are the same as those of Alternative 3. Mitigation Measures. Although compliance with existing City requirements would generally reduce landslide risks to less than significant levels, the following measure is recommended for all alternatives: ' ER -3(a) Whenever feasible, individual roadway alignments.shall avoid areas of high landslide potential, as illustrated in the 1991 General Plan Safety Element. Significance After Mitigation. Through proper design and implementation of roads, landslide effects can be reduced to not significant levels for all alternatives. Residual impacts relating to landslides would be similar for all alternatives, although Alternative 1 would have the greatest overall potential for landslide hazards because it includes the greatest number of road miles. Alternatives 2 and 6 include the fewest road miles and therefore are considered to have the lowest overall landslide hazard potential. However, it should be noted that the difference between these two alternatives and all other alternatives is nominal. ' Effect ER -4 All new roadway infrastructure would be exposed to strong ground shaking in the event of a major earthquake in the area, which could damage roadways. Compliance with UBC requirements would reduce ground shaking impacts to a level considered less than significant (Class IIn. 5.1-19 City of Santa Clarita ' Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources Strong seismically induced ground shaking will occur through the planning area over the life of planned circulation system infrastructure. Ground shaking has the potential to cause fill material to settle, destabilize slopes, and cause physical damage to structures, utilities, and humans. All of City of Santa Clarita is located in an area subject to strong ground shaking during seismic events and building codes adopted by the City have been established to set standards for construction in such an area. Besides the direct physical damage caused by the ground shaking, marginally stable landslides, slopes, and inadequately compacted fill material could move, thereby causing additional damage. Alternative 1. Over the life of the roads, all road corridors would be expected to experience seismically induced ground shaking, which would create the potential for damage to all transportation infrastructure. Ground shaking impacts to all roads are considered potentially significant, although they can be minimized through the use of appropriate geotechnical engineering techniques. Alternative 2. As with Alternative 1, all roads would be subject to seismically induced ground shaking, which may cause damage to roads and other infrastructure. Impacts are considered potentially significant, although the use of appropriate geotechnical engineering practices would minimize ground shaking hazards. Alternative 3. Ground shaking impacts would be similar to those of Alternatives 1 and 2 and are considered potentially significant. The use of appropriate geotechnical engineering practices would minimize hazards. Alternative 4. Groundshaking impacts associated with Alternative 4 would be similar to those of Alternative 2 and, with the application of UBC requirements, are considered less than significant. Augmented intersections may increase the risk of damage from ground shaking to some degree. Alternative 5. Groundshaking impacts associated with Alternative 5 would be similar to those of Alternative 3 and, with the application of UBC requirements, are considered less than significant. Augmented intersections may increase the risk of roadway damage to some degree. Alternative 6. This alternatives ground shaking impact at buildout is the same as that of Alternative 2 and, with the application of UBC requirements, is considered less than significant. Alternative Z This alternatives ground shaking impact at buildout is the same as that of Alternative 3 and, with the application of UBC requirements, is considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures. Compliance with UBC requirements would reduce impacts to levels considered less than significant for all alternatives. No additional mitigation is required. or Santa Gana 5.1.20 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources Significance After Mitigation. Through proper design, the effects of ground shaking can be reduced to an acceptable level of risk. Overall, residual impacts relating to ground ' shaking would be similar for all alternatives. Because Alternative 1 includes the greatest number of road miles, its potential for damage related to groundshaking would be highest. Alternatives 2 and 6, with the fewest road miles, would have the lowest overall potential for ' damage, although the difference between these two alternatives and Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 7 is nominal. ' Effect ER -5 All of the project alternatives include roadway corridors that would cross active fault lines. Ground rupture on these fault lines could cause damage to roads, which is considered a ' potentially significant and unavoidable impact (Class I). As discussed in Section 5.1.1, the entire planning area is seismically active. The potential for ground rupture by faulting within the City limits appears to be high based upon the high number of active or potentially active faults traversing the City. Figure 5.1-1 illustrates the locations of active faults in the planning area relative to the roadway networks of all ■ alternatives. Alternative 1. Via Princessa would cross the San Gabriel Fault Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone under this alternative. In addition, a portion of Newhall Ranch Road would cross the San Gabriel Fault in the northwest part of the City, while Golden Valley Road and Santa Clarita Parkway would cross the San Gabriel Fault in the Center City area. The potential for damage resulting from ground rupture is considered significant at these locations, although implementation of appropriate design and construction practices would minirn;ze the adverse effect that ground rupture may cause. Alternative 2. The Newhall Ranch Road Reduction alternative includes all of the roads that would cross fault lines under Alternative 1. Therefore, the potential for damage relating to ground rupture would be similar to that of Alternative 1 and is considered significant. Overall risk of damage may be slightly lower because of the reduction in road miles. The use of appropriate design and construction practices would minimize the effects of fault rupture. Alternative 3. This alternative includes all of the roads that would cross fault lines ' under Alternatives 1 and 2. Consequently, the potential for damage relating to ground rupture would be similar and is considered significant. The overall risk is considered slightly lower than under Alternative 1 because of the elimination of the Newhall Ranch Road extension. The use of appropriate design and construction practices would minimize the effects of fault rupture. ' Alternative 4. This alternative's impact would be similar to that of Alternative 2 and is considered potentially significant. Intersection augmentation could marginally increase the risk of damage related to ground rupture. ' Alternative 5. This alternative's impact would be similar to that of Alternative 3 and is considered potentially significant. Intersection augmentation could marginally increase the risk of damage related to ground rupture. City of Santa Clarita 5.1-21 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources Alternative 6. This alternative's impact would be similar to that of Alternative 2 and is considered potentially significant. Alternative 7. This alternative's impacts would be similar to that of Alternative 3 and is considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measure is recommended for all alternatives to minimize the impact of ground rupture on the roads: ER -5(a) If, during grading, faults are observed that could be active or potentially active, the project design shall be modified to account for the possibility of ground rupture. Roads that cross known active fault lines shall be designed in accordance with the most current accepted engineering technology available and feasible in order to minimize catastrophic failure of the facilities. Significance After Mitigation. The recommended mitigation measure should minimize the.damage from ground rupture; however, no known design method can prevent ground displacement during such an event. Because of the likelihood of large-scale failure of structures from differential ground movement, this effect is considered a significant impact in areas where road corridors cross fault lines. Overall residual impacts relating to surface rupture at known faults would be similar under all alternatives, although it is assumed that alternatives that include more overall road miles would have greater overall potential to incur damage from ground rupture. Therefore, Alternative 1 is considered to have the greatest impact. Buildout of Alternatives 2 and 6 is considered to have the least potential for rupture, although the difference between these two alternatives and the remaining alternatives is nominal. Effect ER -6 All of the project alternatives include roadway corridors that cross areas identified as having high liquefaction potential. Compliance with UBC requirements would generally reduce the potential for roadway damage in these areas to a level considered less than significant (Class III). Several areas in the City near local drainages have the potential to liquefy during seismic conditions, which can result in damage to overlying structures. Shallow groundwater is found in stream canyon bottoms. Depending on the soil stratigraphy, depth to groundwater, and seismically induced ground shaking, liquefaction could occur. Such areas of potential liquefaction problems are recognized in the City's Safety Element. Liquefaction has the potential to damage or destroy structures built on the liquefiable material because of the loss of support. Areas earmarked for structures shall be assessed for the potential of liquefiable sediments. Soil borings and material testing is to be performed for areas having the potential for liquefaction. Figure 5.1-1 shows areas prone to liquefaction in relation to the roadway networks of all alternatives. Table 5.1-4 provides estimates of the number of linear feet of roads that would be within identified liquefaction areas under the various alternatives. 5.1-22 1 I I 1 I Santa Ctarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources Alternative 1. This alternative includes an estimated 8.7 linear miles of roadways crossing areas identified as having high liquefaction potential. Specific road segments within liquefaction areas include: • Much of the Newhall Ranch Road extension east of Golden Valley Road; • The easternmost portion of Via Princessa (east of SR 14); • Golden Valley Road in the vicinity of the Santa Clara River; • Santa Clarita Parkway in the vicinity of the Santa Clara River; • The northern end of Rye Canyon Road; • The southernmost part of Avenue Tibbitts; • Tourney Road between Avenue Scott and Magic Mountain Parkway; • Avenue Scott west of McBean Parkway; and ' • Via Princessa/Wiley Canyon Road west of San Fernando Road. The potential for damage from liquefaction would be elevated in these areas, although compliance with UBC requirements would generally reduce impacts to levels considered less than significant. Alternative 2. The Newhall Ranch Road reduction alignment alternative includes all of the road corridors within potential liquefaction areas with the exception of Newhall Ranch Road east of Golden Valley Road. The overall number of linear miles of roads in liquefaction areas would be reduced to about 6.6. Overall impacts would be lower than those of Alternative 1, but liquefaction damage risk would be relatively high for road corridors within identified liquefaction hazard areas. Impacts can be reduce to levels considered less than significant through the use of appropriate design and construction practices. Alternative 3. Like Alternative 2, the Golden Valley Road Network alternative includes all of the planned roadway corridors that cross areas with high liquefaction potential listed under Alternative 1 with the exception of Newhall Ranch Road east of Golden Valley Road. An estimated 6.6 linear miles of roads would be within liquefaction areas. Overall liquefaction impacts would be similar to those of Alternative 2 and would be relatively high for road corridors within identified liquefaction hazard areas. The use of appropriate design and construction techniques would reduce liquefaction hazards to a level considered less than significant. City of Santa Ctarita 5.1-23 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.1 Earth Resources Alternative 4. Liquefaction hazards associated with this alternative would be similar to those of Alternative 2, although the augmentation of intersections would marginally increase the potential for liquefaction damage. With implementation of UBC requirements, impacts are generally considered less than significant. Alternative 5. Liquefaction hazards associated with this alternative would be similar to those of Alternative 3, although the augmentation of intersections would marginally increase the potential for liquefaction damage. With implementation of UBC requirements, impacts are generally considered less than significant. Alternative 6. Liquefaction hazards associated with buildout of this alternative would be similar to those of Alternative 2. With implementation of UBC requirements, impacts are generally considered less than significant. Alternative 7. Liquefaction hazards associated with buildout of this alternative would be similar to those of Alternative 3. With implementation of UBC requirements, impacts are generally considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures. Compliance with UBC requirements and the recommendations contained in the road specific geotechnical and soils studies recommended in Mitigation Measure ER -1(a) would generally reduce liquefaction impacts to a level considered less than significant. Nevertheless, the following mitigation measure is recommended for all alternatives to further reduce the impact of liquefaction on roads: ER -6(a) If liquefiable soils are encountered during grading, then proper re-engineering of the soils shall be performed or the proposed structures are to be moved or designed with the most current accepted design features to withstand the effects of liquefaction. Significance After Mitigation. With proper design, this effect would not be considered significant under any of the alternatives. Residual impacts would be greatest under Alternative 1 because it includes the segment of Newhall Ranch Road east of Golden Valley Road, the entirety of which is within an area with high liquefaction potential. Alternatives 2 and 6 are considered to have the least potential for liquefaction damage, although the difference between these two alternatives and Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 7 is nominal. City of Santa Ctarita 5.1-24 I I 1 IF 5 I I H I !1 I 11 li I Santa Clanta Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.2 Air Quality 5.2 AIR'QUALITY Implementation of the proposed Circulation Element Amendment would directly generate emissions during construction of roadways and indirectly contribute to regional air pollution lnj accommodating motor vehicle traffic in the City. Project -related construction activity would occur sporadically over a number of years. Alternative 1 would require the greatest number of days of construction, although maximum daily NO, and PMio levels would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds under any alternative. New transportation infrastructure would not directly generate long-term air emissions but would accommodate an increase in traffic and associated air pollutant emissions. Operation of Alternatives 4 and 5 would result in the fewest emissions citywide, primarily because they would accommodate increased average traffic speed and reduced vehicle hours traveled. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in the highest overall Iong-term vehicle emissions because of their relatively poor service levels. 5.2.1 Setting a. Climate and Meteorology. The semi-permanent high pressure system west of the Pacific coast strongly influences California's weather, creating sunny skies throughout the summer, and controlling the pathway and occurrence of low pressure weather systems that bring rainfall to the area during October through April. As a result, the Santa Clarita Valley is generally mild during the winter, with hot, dry summers. Daytime heating of this inland valley creates upslope winds, with this pattern reversing at night when down valley nighttime breezes are prevalent. Because of the surrounding topography and the mountain/valley drainage flow, distinctly different predominant wind patterns occur within the southern and northern portions of the City with the downslope winds converging in the valley bottom. The wind patterns in the valley also. reflect the coastal influence, as winds in the northern part of the city are dominated by onshore daytime breezes up the Santa Clara River Valley from the Oxnard Plain, with a reversal of this flow to down river during the night. These predominant wind patterns are broken during the winter by storms coming from the north and northwest and by episodic Santa Ana winds. Santa Ana winds are strong northerly to northeasterly winds that originate from high pressure areas centered over the desert of the Great Basin. These winds are usually warm, very dry, and often full of dust. They are particularly strong in the mountain passes and at the mouths of canyons. Daytime summer temperatures in the area average about 907. Minimum nighttime summer temperatures are typically in the high 50s to low 60s, while the winter high temperature tends to be in the 60s. Minimum winter temperatures are in the 30s and 40s throughout most of the Santa Clarita Valley. Annual average rainfall in the Santa Clarita Valley is about 13 inches, while the surrounding mountains can receive over 22 inches per year. Two types of temperature inversions (warmer air on top of colder air) are created in the area, subsidence and radiational (surface). The subsidence inversion is a regional effect created by the Pacific high in which air is heated as it is compressed when it flows from the high pressure area to the low pressure areas inland. This type of inversion generally forms at about 1,000 to 2,000 feet and can occur throughout the year, but is most evident during the summer months. Surface inversions are formed by the more rapid cooling of air near the ground during the City of Santa Clarita ' 5.2-1 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.2 Air Qualitv night, especially during winter. This type of inversion is typically lower and is generally accompanied by stable air. Both types of inversions limit the dispersal of air pollutants within the regional airshed, with the more stable the air (low wind speeds, uniform temperatures), the lower the amount of pollutant dispersion. The primary air pollutant of concern during the summersubsidence inversions is ozone, while the greatest pollutant problems during winter inversions are carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. b. Air Pollution Regulation. The federal and state governments have been empowered by the federal and state Clean Air Acts to regulate the emission of airborne pollutants and have established ambient air quality standards for the protection of public health. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the federal agency designated to administer air quality regulation, while the Air Resources Board (ARB) of the California Environmental' Protection Agency is the state equivalent. Local control in air quality management is provided by the ARB through county -level Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs). The ARB established the air quality standards and is responsible for control of mobile emission sources, while the local APCDs are responsible for enforcing standards and regulating stationary sources. The City of Santa Clarita is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality. Management District (SCAQMD - a multi -county APCD). Federal and stricter state standards have been established for ozone (Oa), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulates less than 10 microns in diameter (PMlo), and lead (Pb). California has also set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing particles. A summary of the state and national ambient air quality standards and description of the criteria pollutants and their health effects are provided in Appendix C. In November 1996, the USEPA issued proposals for new, stricter federal standards for ozone and PMro. The first proposal would replace the current 1 -hour ozone standard with an 8 -hour averaging time and would lower the standard's concentration level from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm. The second proposal would revise the current particulate matter standard by adding annual and 24-hour standards for PM2.5. The PM10 concentration level would be retained, but the methods for calculating exceedances of the PMro standard would change. In essence, the USEPA proposes to split the existing PMio standard into two sub -classes: a fine fraction (less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter) and a coarse fraction (between 2.5 and 10 microns in diameter). The annual PM2.s standard would be set at 15 micrograms per cubic meter, spatially averaged across an area. The 24-hour PMzs standard would be based on the three-year average of the 98th percentile of the 24-hour concentrations measured at each monitor within an area. The USEPA is under a court order to publish its final decision on these proposed new standards by June 28,1997. b. Current Ambient Air Quality. The local air quality management agency is required to monitor air pollutant levels to assure that the air quality standards are met, and if they aren't, to also develop strategies to meet the standards. Depending on whether or not the standards are met or exceeded, the air basin is classified as being in "attainment or as "nonattainment." The South Coast Air Basin is in nonadainrnent for both the federal and state standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide, and the state standard for PM1o. City of Santa Clarita 5.2-2 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.2 Air Quality The nearest air monitoring station to the project site is located in the Newhall portion of the city. This station measures ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and PM10. Table 5.2-1 summarizes the annual air quality data over the past four years for the local airshed. Source: SCAQMD, 1992 -1995. The primary pollutant of concern in the City of Santa Clarita is ozone, a secondary pollutant that is not produced directly by a source, but rather it is formed by a reaction between NO. -and reactive organic compounds (ROC) in the presence of sunlight. Reductions in ozone concentrations are dependent upon reducing the amount of these precursors. The major sources of ozone precursor emissions in the South Coast Air Basin are motor vehicles, the petroleum industry, and solvent usage (paint, consumer products, and certain industrial processes). The Santa Clarita Valley records some of the highest ozone readings in the South Coast Air Basin, primarily because of the transport of ozone precursors from the Los Angeles Basin. Ozone levels have, however, shown a general downward trend over the past several years (see the chart on page 5.2-4). The South Coast Air Basin is also is in non -attainment regarding the state standard for particulate matter (PMlo). The major sources for this pollutant are mineral quarries, grading, demolition, agricultural tilling, road dust, and vehicle exhaust. Locally, Santa Ana winds are responsible for entraining dust and occasionally causing elevated PMlo levels. I If the proposed new ozone and PM standards are adopted by the USEPA, more exceedances of the federal ozone and PM standards would be expected and non -attainment areas such as the South Coast Air Basin may be unable to meet these standards within federal deadlines. Consequently, additional or more stringent controls may have to be considered to meet the federal mandate. City of Santa Clarita 5.2-3 Table D.. at the Santa Clarita Monitoring Station * 1993 "'p 1994 = 995t:± - -;Pollutants _£, _ .., 3, ..::1992 Ozone ppm - Worst Hour 0.22 0.22 0.26 0.21 Number of days of State exceedances (>0.09 ppm) 127 92 118 72 Number of days of Federal exceedances (>0.12 ppm) 40 22 66 26 Carbon Monoxide, ppm - Worst 1 Hour/8 Hours 8.0/3.7 8.0/3.9 8.0/3.9 7.0/4.1 Number of days of State exceedances (>20.0/9.0 ppm) 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 Number of days of Federal exceedances (>35.0/9.0 0/0 010 0/0 0/0 ppm) Nitrogen Dioxide, ppm - Worst Hour 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.16 Number of days of State exceedances (>0.25 ppm) 0 0 0 0 Particulate Matter <10 microns, pg/m4 Worst 24 Hours 84 75 66 87 Number of samples of State exceedances (>50 µg/m') 8 8 13 13 Number of samples of Federal exceedances (>150 0 0 0 0 Pg/m3 ) Annual Geometric Mean (State standard = 30µg/m3) 31.0 28.2 31.7 31.2 Annual Arithmetic Mean (Federal standard = 50µg/m3) 35.5 32.7 35.8 37.0 Source: SCAQMD, 1992 -1995. The primary pollutant of concern in the City of Santa Clarita is ozone, a secondary pollutant that is not produced directly by a source, but rather it is formed by a reaction between NO. -and reactive organic compounds (ROC) in the presence of sunlight. Reductions in ozone concentrations are dependent upon reducing the amount of these precursors. The major sources of ozone precursor emissions in the South Coast Air Basin are motor vehicles, the petroleum industry, and solvent usage (paint, consumer products, and certain industrial processes). The Santa Clarita Valley records some of the highest ozone readings in the South Coast Air Basin, primarily because of the transport of ozone precursors from the Los Angeles Basin. Ozone levels have, however, shown a general downward trend over the past several years (see the chart on page 5.2-4). The South Coast Air Basin is also is in non -attainment regarding the state standard for particulate matter (PMlo). The major sources for this pollutant are mineral quarries, grading, demolition, agricultural tilling, road dust, and vehicle exhaust. Locally, Santa Ana winds are responsible for entraining dust and occasionally causing elevated PMlo levels. I If the proposed new ozone and PM standards are adopted by the USEPA, more exceedances of the federal ozone and PM standards would be expected and non -attainment areas such as the South Coast Air Basin may be unable to meet these standards within federal deadlines. Consequently, additional or more stringent controls may have to be considered to meet the federal mandate. City of Santa Clarita 5.2-3 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.2 Air Qualitv e w i 0 a E Z One -Hour Ozone Standard Exceedances at.the Santa Clarita Monitoring Station 1992 1991 1994 1995 5.2.2 Impact Analysis a State ■ Federal a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. Buildout of the roadways and other infrastructure planned under the draft Circulation Element Amendment would involve construction activity that would occur throughout the City over many years. No schedule for the actual construction has been determined at this time; therefore, the analysis of project construction impacts is based upon a conceptual worst-case day. Emissions have been estimated using emission factors contained in the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook and in the USEPA's AP -42. The SCAQMD has not developed significance thresholds for program level EIRs. However, construction activity for all components of the planned roadway network would have similar characteristics in terms of emissions on the worst-case day. Therefore, impacts relating to construction activity are considered significant if emissions are projected to exceed the SCAQMD daily significance thresholds for individual development projects, which are: • 75 pounds per day for ROC • 100 pounds per day for NOx • 550 pounds per day for CO • 150 pounds per day for PMto or SOr. Construction activity can also result in the release of the fungus that causes San Joaquin Valley Fever. Impacts relating to San Joaquin Valley Fever are considered potentially significant if project construction activity would be expected to substantially increase the risk of incidence of the disease in the Santa Clarita Valley. Because the draft Circulation Element would not directly generate motor vehicle trips and related air pollutant emissions, it would not directly affect regional air quality in the long term. In some cases, buildout of the planned circulation system would improve localized air quality by relieving traffic congestion at heavily traveled intersections. However, the planned circulation system would accommodate an overall increase in vehicular movement. As the City and surrounding area build out, the increase in traffic would result in an overall increase in air 5.2-4 120�� ("'.rif. 100SA .,�W.. .�K60 so M. 40;; 'Y 1992 1991 1994 1995 5.2.2 Impact Analysis a State ■ Federal a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. Buildout of the roadways and other infrastructure planned under the draft Circulation Element Amendment would involve construction activity that would occur throughout the City over many years. No schedule for the actual construction has been determined at this time; therefore, the analysis of project construction impacts is based upon a conceptual worst-case day. Emissions have been estimated using emission factors contained in the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook and in the USEPA's AP -42. The SCAQMD has not developed significance thresholds for program level EIRs. However, construction activity for all components of the planned roadway network would have similar characteristics in terms of emissions on the worst-case day. Therefore, impacts relating to construction activity are considered significant if emissions are projected to exceed the SCAQMD daily significance thresholds for individual development projects, which are: • 75 pounds per day for ROC • 100 pounds per day for NOx • 550 pounds per day for CO • 150 pounds per day for PMto or SOr. Construction activity can also result in the release of the fungus that causes San Joaquin Valley Fever. Impacts relating to San Joaquin Valley Fever are considered potentially significant if project construction activity would be expected to substantially increase the risk of incidence of the disease in the Santa Clarita Valley. Because the draft Circulation Element would not directly generate motor vehicle trips and related air pollutant emissions, it would not directly affect regional air quality in the long term. In some cases, buildout of the planned circulation system would improve localized air quality by relieving traffic congestion at heavily traveled intersections. However, the planned circulation system would accommodate an overall increase in vehicular movement. As the City and surrounding area build out, the increase in traffic would result in an overall increase in air 5.2-4 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.2 Air quality pollutant emissions.. The seven alternative scenarios would each result in a different number of citywide trips in the future, as well as differing traffic speeds, and overall congestion. Therefore, overall future emission levels would vary among the seven alternatives as well. Although none of the alternatives would result in direct long-term air pollutant emissions or air quality impacts, estimates of total emissions from vehicular movement at buildout of the City's roadway network are provided for informational purposes. The project's consistency with policies contained in the Southern Califomia Association of Governments' (SCAG) Regional Comprelwnsive Plan and Guide is discussed in Section 4.0, Policy Consistency. b. Impact Summary. Table 5.2-2 summarizes the impacts of each alternative and ranks the alternatives for each individual impact. c. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Effect AQ -1 All of the project alternatives would involve extensive roadway construction over the next 20 to 25 years. Although construction activity would occur only sporadically, impacts on worst-case construction days are considered significant and unavoidable (Class I). The grading phase of construction uses the largest amount of heavy duty construction equipment, which is the primary source of pollutants other than Mo. For purposes of this analysis, daily emissions from construction equipment were estimated for the typical day during construction. Eleven pieces of equipment were estimated to be in use during roadbed grading, including three graders, two water trucks, two wheeled dozers, a tracked tractor, a scraper, and wheeled loader, and a roller. Emissions from these sources were estimated based upon factors contained in the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Estimated maximum daily emissions for all alternatives are shown in Table 5.2-3. Grading also generates substantial PMro in the form of fugitive dust. Such emissions were estimated based upon factors contained in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook. It was assumed that a maximum of 12 acres could be graded on the worst-case day, although the amount of grading on the average day would likely be somewhat lower. Estimated worst-case daily PMro emissions from fugitive dust are also shown in Table 5.2-3. Table 5.2-4 estimates total emissions of fugitive dust (PMio) associated with grading and ' estimates the total number of grading days (full days of grading) that would be required for roadway construction under each alternative. Alternative 1. The maximum daily grading emissions during construction would exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for NO. and PMro under this alternative. Such emission levels would be expected to occur only sporadically over a period of years as specific roadway projects are built. Nevertheless, because maximum emissions would be expected to exceed SCAQMD thresholds, construction impacts are considered potentially significant. 5.2-5 City of Santa Cladta ' Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment El Section 5.2 Air Quality Class I = Significant and Unavoidable; Class 11= Significant but Mitigable; Class 111= Less than Significant; Ctass tv = tienericiai A ranking of 1 indicates the alternative with the least impact,, a ranking of indicates the greatest impact. City of Santa Clarita 5.2-6 W0 Mae so Table 5.2-2. Summary of Air Quality Impacts Alternative 2 iF Alternative 3 - ""-'Alternative 4�r.? 'V Alternative';5 '- .Alternative 6 a = AltemaUve 'Ni1ype'of Impact"t t Alternative,l AQ -1. Maximum daily Maximum daily i Maximum daily Maximum daily Maximum daily Maximum daily Maximum daily Construction emissions of NO. emissions similar emissions similar emissions similar emissions similar emissions similar emissions similar Emissions and PM10 would to Alternative 1; to Alternative 1; to Alternative 1; to Alternative 1; to Alternative 1; to Alternative 1; exceed SCAQMD roadway roadway roadway roadway roadway roadway significance construction would i construction construction construction construction construction thresholds; road involve about 71 would about 72 would Involve would involve would involve would involve construction would grading days. grading days. about 74 grading about 74 grading about 71 grading about 72 grading involve about 82 Class I; Rank = 2 Class l; Rank = 4 days. days. days. days. grading days. Class I; Rank = 5 Class 1; Rank = 6 Class 1; Rank =1 Class l; Rank = 3 Class I; Rank = 7 AQ -2. San No significant Impact similar to Maximum daily Impact similar to Impact similar to Impact of Impact of Joaquin Valley change in the Alternative 1; emissions similar Alternative 2; Alternative 3; buildout similar to buildout similar to Fever current exposure slight reduction in to Alternative 1; slightly greater slightly greater Alternative 2; Alternative 3; of neighboring potential to spread roadway potential for potential for somewhat less somewhat less communities to the disease due to construction impacts due to impacts due to grading may be grading may be this endemic overall reduction would about 68 grading grading required due to required due to disease; dust in grading. grading days. associated with associated with possible possible control measures Class 111; Rank = 5 Class 111; Rank = augmented augmented reduction in need reduction in need required during 2 intersections. intersections. for new roadway for new roadway grading would Class 111; Rank = Class Ill; Rank = development. development. reduce potential 6 3 Class 111; Rank = Class lit; Rank = spreading of 4 1 fungus spores. Class 111; Rank = 7 AQ -3. Long -Term Citywide ROG Citywide ROG Citywide ROG Citywide ROG Citywide ROG Citywide ROG Citywide ROG Vehicle Emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions emissions estimated at 4.4 estimated at 4.9 estimated at 4.9 estimated at 3.8 estimated at 3.9 estimated at 4.7 estimated at 4.7 tons per day (tpd); tons per day (tpd); tons per day tons per day tons per day tons per day tons per day citywide CO citywide CO (tpd); citywide (tpd); citywide (tpd); citywide (tpd); citywide (tpd); citywide emissions emissions CO emissions CO emissions CO emissions CO emissions CO emissions estimated at 37.2 estimated at 39.7 estimated at 39.7 estimated at 34.5 estimated at 34.8 estimated at 38.4 estimated at 38.6 tpd. tpd. tpd. tpd. tpd. tpd_ tpd. Class Irl,• Rank = 3 Class Ill; Rank = 6 Class Ill; Rank = Class Ili; Rank = Class Ill; Rank = Class 111; Rank = Class Ill; Rank = 7 1 2 4 5 Class I = Significant and Unavoidable; Class 11= Significant but Mitigable; Class 111= Less than Significant; Ctass tv = tienericiai A ranking of 1 indicates the alternative with the least impact,, a ranking of indicates the greatest impact. City of Santa Clarita 5.2-6 W0 Mae so Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.2 Air Quality Emission Saurc� , r r lin �, a iT Emissions (lbsfday)-n0 « .,� ' ' �. -ROC z, 1,w� ;NOx __. - :SCO SO, _-PMia`,:_' On -Site Heavy Equipment 12.5 213.5 81.0 21.7 14.2 Suspended Dust — — — — 477.2 Totals 12.5 213.5 81.0 21.7 1 491.4 SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 See Appendix C for calculations. Table 5.2-4. Grading Total Fugitive for Major Roadways Dust (PM,o) Emissions and Days of from Grading � Alternativr +� �Estirrlated Are,2q � �,�Es�timate� e.Graded, Acres lbs „��_ , b ( ( Gradt g�D s, 1 493 13,015 82 2 427 11,273 71 3 431 11,378 72 4 441'r--11,642 74 5 445'r--11,748 74 6 427 11,273 71 7 431 11,378 72 Calculated based upon the total lane miles, as shown in Table 2-2, multiplied by 15 (about a 90 -foot corridor for a six -lane road) and divided by 43,560 (the number of square feet in an acre). Calculated by multiplying the total graded area by 26.4 lbs/acm (from the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook). ` Calculated by dividing overall acreage by 6 acres per day. Actual days of grading activity forthe major roadways may be higher depending upon the actual level of activity on any given day. Additional grading would also be required for other minor extensions. ° Assumes that each augmented intersection requires 30 feet of additional right-of-way and is 400 feet in length. A total of 50 augmented intersections are assumed. Construction of major roadways would involve grading of an estimated 493 acres. Overall PMro emissions associated with roadway construction based upon this acreage are estimated at 13,015 pounds. Overall, necessary grading for the major roadways is estimated to require about 82 days of activity. Alternative 2. Maximum daily emissions associated with construction activity that would occur under Alternative 2 would be the same as those of all other alternatives and would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for NO. and PMro. Construction impacts are therefore considered potentially significant. Overall PMro emissions from grading are estimated at 11,273 pounds, while an estimated 71 days of grading would be required. Alternative 3. Maximum daily emissions associated with construction activity that would occur under Alternative 3 would be the same as those of all other alternatives and would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for NO, and PMro. Therefore, construction impacts are considered potentially significant. Overall PMro emissions from grading associated with rr City of Santa Clarita 5.2-7 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.2 Air Quality Alternative 3 are estimated at 11,378 pounds, while an estimated 72 days of grading would be required. Alternative 4. Maximum daily emissions would be the same as under any other alternative. Daily emissions would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for NOx and PMio (see Table 5.2-3). Construction impacts are therefore considered potentially significant. Overall PMlo emissions from grading would be similar to those of Alternative 2, except that the augmentation of intersections would require a minor amount of additional grading. Overall PMio emissions are estimated at 11,642 pounds, while an estimated 74 days of grading would be required. Alternative 5. Maximum daily emissions would be the same as under any other alternative. Daily emissions would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for NO, and PM,o (see Table 5.2-3). Impacts are therefore considered potentially significant. Overall PMm emissions from grading for roadways are estimated at 11,748 pounds, while an estimated 74 days of grading would be required. Alternative 6. Construction impacts associated with full buildout of this alternative would be identical to those of Alternative 2 and are considered potentially significant. As with Alternative 2, overall emissions associated with major roadway construction are estimated at 11,273 pounds while about 71 grading days would be required. Alternative 7. Construction impacts would be similar to those of Alternative 3 and are considered potentially significant. As with Alternative 3, overall emissions associated with major roadway construction are estimated at 11,378 pounds while about 72 grading days would be required. Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are recommended for all roadway construction under any of the seven alternatives to reduce construction -related emissions: AQ(a)-1 Water trucks shall be used during all roadway construction to keep all areas of vehicle movement sufficiently damp to prevent dust from leaving the construction site. At a minimum, this will require twice daily applications (once in late morning and once at the end of the workday). Increased watering is required whenever wind speed exceeds 15 miles per hour. Grading shall be suspended whenever wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour. AQ(a)-2 Whenever importation, exportation, or stockpiling of fill material is involved in roadway construction activity, soil that is stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. Trucks transporting material shall be tarped from the point of origin or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard. AQ(a)-3 After clearing, grading, earth-moving,'or excavation is completed for any road construction project, the disturbed area shall be treated by watering or 1 City of Santa Clarita 5.2-5 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.2 Air Qualitv revegetation, or by spreading soil binders until the area is paved or otherwise developed. Significance After Mitigation. The recommended mitigation measures would reduce construction -related air emissions to the degree feasible. Nevertheless, daily emissions of NO. and PMlo may remain above SCAQMD thresholds on some construction days. Construction impacts are therefore considered significant and unavoidable for all alternatives. Overall construction impacts would be greatest under Alternative 1. Buildout of Alternatives 2 or 6 is projected to generate the fewest overall construction emissions, although the difference between these alternatives and Alternatives 3 and 7 is nominal. Effect AQ -2 Construction activity associated with all project alternatives would have the potential to generate dust with the fungus that causes San Joaquin Valley Fever. However, dust control measures required on all construction activity would reduce potential health effects to a level considered less than significant (Class III). San Joaquin Valley Fever (Coccidioidomycosis) is a disease caused by a fungus (Coccidioides immitis) that is a common inhabitant of soil in desert and dry grassland areas of the and and semi -arid portions of the southwestern United States from Texas west to California. The fungus generally enters the body through the lungs while carried on dust particles or as spores. Nearly everyone living for many years within the endemic range of this disease is exposed to and infected by the fungus. About 60 percent of infected individuals do not develop any symptoms. When symptoms do occur, they are usually mild and are often diagnosed as a cold or influenza. However, the disease can be severe and manifested by such symptoms as fever, chills, and coughs, which occur in about two of every 1,000 persons infected. Occasionally, symptoms will be severe enough to require hospitalization and can be fatal in particularly susceptible individuals. Immigrants to the area nearly always become infected after a period of time, and are more likely to exhibit symptoms than permanent residents that contracted the infection as children. Once exposed, a person has lifelong immunity, but the earlier infection can be reactivated in persons who are immunosuppressed due to cancer treatment, organ replacement, or illnesses such as AIDS. The incidence of reported cases of valley fever more than doubled in Los Angeles County in 1992, rising to 1.1 cases per 100,000 individuals, compared to an average incidence of 0.4 reported cases per 100,000 individuals in the previous nine years (County of Los Angeles, Department of Health Services, 1992). Reported cases remained at this level in 1993 (County of Los Angeles, DHS, 1993), with the largest number of cases in both years occurring in the San Fernando Health District, an area that includes the Antelope, Santa Clarita, and northern San Fernando Valleys. Total number of cases in both years was 95 for all of Los Angeles County. Data for 1994 indicate a similar, if somewhat lower incidence rate. This is despite the fact that media attention to the Sind Valley "epidemic" following the January 17,1994 earthquake heightened awareness of both the public and the medical community to the disease. The three year increase in reported cases in Los Angeles County parallels the trend reported for all of southern California and is probably related to recent climatic conditions. Abundant winter rainfall provides for heavier growth of the fungus, while subsequent summer drought City of Santa Clarita 5.2-9 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.2 Air Quality conditions allow the spores to become friable and easily dispersed by wind, construction, and other activities. Alternative V Buildout of Alternative 1 would generate dust during grading operations that could contain the fungus spores and thereby increase the possibility of disease incidence in the adjacent area. However, virtually all long term residents in the area have been previously exposed to the disease and are likely to have already acquired immunity. Therefore, construction activity would not be expected to create a significant change in the current exposure of neighboring communities to this endemic disease. Dust control measures required during grading construction would further reduce the potential spreading of the fungus spores. Alternative 2. This alternative's impacts relating to San Joaquin Valley Fever would be similar to those described for Alternative 1 and are considered less than significant. The potential to disperse the fungus spores may be somewhat lower than for Alternative 1 due to the overall reduction in the area to be graded. Alternative 3. This altemative s impacts relating to San Joaquin Valley Fever would be similar to those described for Alternative 1 and are considered less than significant. The potential to disperse the fungus spores may be somewhat lower than for Alternative 1 due to the overall reduction in the overall area to be graded. Alternative 4. Impacts would be similar to those of Alternative 2 and are considered less than significant. The overall potential to disperse the fungus that causes San Joaquin Valley Fever may be slightly higher than for Alternative 2 because of the overall increase in grading associated with the augmentation of intersections. Alternative 5. Impacts would be similar to those of Alternative 3 and are considered less than significant. The overall potential to disperse the fungus that causes San Joaquin Valley Fever may be slightly higher than for Alternative 3 because of the overall increase in grading associated with the augmentation of intersections. Alternative 6. Impacts relating to San Joaquin Valley Fever associated with full buildout of this alternative would be identical to those of Alternative 2 and are considered less than significant. Alternative Z Impacts relating to San Joaquin Valley Fever associated with full buildout of this alternative would be identical to those of Alternative 3 and are considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures. None required for any of the alternatives other than standard dust control measures AQ -1, AQ -2, and AQ -3. Significance After Mitigation. This impact would remain less than significant for all project alternatives. Overall potential to spread the San Joaquin Valley Fever fungus is considered highest under Alternative 1 and lowest under Alternatives 2 and 6, although the difference among the alternatives is nominal. City of Santa Ctarita 5.2-10 I I i Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.2 Air Quality Effect AQ -3 None of the project alternatives would directly generate long- term air pollutant emissions, however, all alternatives would accommodate an increase in vehicle movement in the City, which may increase emissions. There would be variation in the amount of air pollutants generated by vehicle trips under the various scenarios, although impacts are not considered significant for any alternative (Class III). None of the project alternatives would directly generate vehicle trips and, as discussed in Section 4.0, policy Consistency, all alternatives would be generally consistent with regional objectives for improving regional air quality. Therefore, none would have a significant impact upon regional air quality in accordance with SCAQMD significance thresholds. However, there would be variation among the alternatives in terms overall vehicle trips on the City's road network and overall levels of congestion. Therefore, the amount of vehicular emissions that would be generated on the City's roadway network would vary from alternative to alternative. Estimates of total air pollutant emissions from the vehicles traveling on the City's roadway network are shown in Table 5.2-5. These estimates were derived using emission factors from EMFAC7, in combination with the operational characteristics of the roadway network described in Section 5.8, Transportation/Circulation. Alternative 1. Operation of the Alternative 1 roadway network is projected to result in generally fewer overall vehicular emissions than Alternatives 2, 3, 6, or 7. Presumably, this is because of the superior operation of the road system under this alternative, and resulting reduction in vehicle idling. Alternative 2. Operation of the roadway network of Alternative 2, along with Alternative 3, is projected to result in the highest emissions among the studied alternatives. This is likely due to the relatively poor levels of service that would occur as compared to the other alternatives, which would result in lower -average vehicle speeds and higher vehicle.hours traveled. These factors would increase engine idling and reduce the efficiency of motor vehicle operation. Alternative 3. Operation of this roadway network, along with that of Alternative 2, would result in the highest air pollutant emissions among the study alternatives. Again, this City of Santa Clarita 1 5.2-11 5.2-5. . Projected from the Vehicular Santa Clarita Air Roadway PollutantTable " PQllutant,l' �.�` �,�,1"fmissiortperAlternative(tanslday) _" �'c,.i% 3,._, , 4 5 6 , 7. Total Organic Gas 4.7 5.2 5.2 4.1 4.1 4.9 5.0 Reactive Organic Gas 4.4 4.9 4.9 3.8 3.9 4.7 4.7 Carbon Monoxide 37.2 39.7 39.7 34.5 34.8 38.4 38.6 Nitrogen Oxides 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.0 8.0 8.2 8.2 Exhaust Particulates 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 Tire Wear 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Alternative 1. Operation of the Alternative 1 roadway network is projected to result in generally fewer overall vehicular emissions than Alternatives 2, 3, 6, or 7. Presumably, this is because of the superior operation of the road system under this alternative, and resulting reduction in vehicle idling. Alternative 2. Operation of the roadway network of Alternative 2, along with Alternative 3, is projected to result in the highest emissions among the studied alternatives. This is likely due to the relatively poor levels of service that would occur as compared to the other alternatives, which would result in lower -average vehicle speeds and higher vehicle.hours traveled. These factors would increase engine idling and reduce the efficiency of motor vehicle operation. Alternative 3. Operation of this roadway network, along with that of Alternative 2, would result in the highest air pollutant emissions among the study alternatives. Again, this City of Santa Clarita 1 5.2-11 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.2 Air Quality appears to be because of the relatively poor service levels as compared to other alternatives and associated reduction in average vehicle speed and increase in vehicle hours traveled. Alternative 4. Operation of the Alternative 4 roadway network is projected to result in the fewest overall air emissions among the study alternatives. Overall emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and carbon monoxide (CO) would be substantially lower than would occur under any alternative other than Alternative 5, which would result in similar overall emissions of these pollutants. This reduction in overall emissions can be attributed to the increased speeds and associated reduction in engine idling that would occur under this alternative, as well as the reduction in overall vehicle hours traveled. Alternative 5. Operation of the Alternative 5 roadway network would is projected to result in fewer overall air pollutant emissions than any network other than Alternative 4. Overall emissions of ROG and CO are expected to be similar to, but slightly higher than, those of Alternative 5. Again, this improvement as compared to Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 6, or 7 can be attributed to the increased vehicle speeds and reduced vehicle hours anticipated to occur under this alternative. Alternative 6. The aggressive transportation demand management (TDM) measures that would be implemented under this alternative would be expected to reduce emissions of ROG and carbon monoxide (CO) as compared to its "base" alternative (Alternative 2), presumably because of the overall reduction in vehicle trips. However, as compared to other alternatives that would result in better overall levels of service (Alternatives 1, 4, and 5), operation of this alternative. would result in greater overall emissions. This indicates that, in terms of overall air pollutant generation, the reduction in overall vehicle trips on the road that would occur under this alternative would be more than offset by the increased speeds and reduced vehicle hours traveled under the other alternatives. Nitrogen oxide emissions would rise under this alternative as compared to Alternatives 1 through 5, presumably because of the increase in citywide bus service. Alternative 7. Operation of this alternative would result in overall emissions similar to Alternative 6. Citywide emissions would be lower than for the corresponding "base" alternative (Alternative 3) due to the reduction in overall vehicle trips. However, as with Alternative 6, this alternative does not compare favorably with the Alternatives 1, 2, or 3, all of which would result in better overall levels of service, higher traffic speeds, and fewer vehicle hours traveled. As with alternative 6, overall nitrogen oxide emissions would rise under this alternative as compared to Alternatives 1 through 5. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation is required for any of the alternatives, although it appears that operation of the two "augmented "alternatives (4 and 5) would result in the fewest overall air pollutant emissions among the studied'alternatives. Significance After Mitigation. No significant long-term impacts to regional air quality would occur with any alternative. Emissions associated with motor vehicle traffic on the citywide system would be lowest under Alternatives 4 and 5. The highest overall emissions would occur under Alternative 2 or 3. City of Santa Clarita 5.2-12 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.3 Hydrology/Flooding 5.3 HYDROLOGY/FLOODING All of the project alternatives would involve roadway construction along area canyons and in tributaries to these canyons. Construction of roadways and other infrastructure has the potential to create excessive erosion and downstream sedimentation, thereby adversely affecting surface water quality. Alternative 1 would involve the greatest overall amount of earth movement; Alternatives 3 and 7 would require the least. The operation of new roadways could reduce water quality under any alternative because of possible spills of fuel:and other potentially hazardous materials, which could wash off into area drainages. Alternative 1 includes four crossings over the Santa Clara River; all other alternatives include only three crossings. All alternatives include road corridors within the 100 -year floodplain; these roads would be at relatively high risk for flood damage. Much of the Newhall Ranch Road extension that would occur only under Alternative 1 is within the floodplain; overall potential for flood damage is similar for all other alternatives. 5.3.1 Setting a. General Hydrology. Much of the planning area is characterized by hilly topography. Hills in the City are cut by several washes, the largest being Santa Clara, San Francisquito, Bouquet, and Mint Canyons. Smaller canyons include Castaic, Dry, Haskell, Soledad, Placerita, and Plum Canyons. All of these washes are tributaries to the Santa Clara River. The streams within canyons in the planning area are intermittent, with streamflow generally occurring after winter rains begin and with flow maintained only as long as rains continue sufficiently to sustain flows. With suburban development of portions of the watersheds, some local intermittent flows can develop during the summer in the urbanized channels because of irrigation overflow, but this flow is negligible when compared to winter flows. The natural stream areas are susceptible to major debris flows because of erosion from steep mountain slopes with sparse vegetation. Most of the major flood events in the area are the result of high intensity rains, which can be further aggravated by major fires that denude vegetation in the affected watershed. Flood control planning is thereforebasedon stream flows that are "burned and bulked," reflective of a burned watershed with high debris flows contained in the normal (clear) water flow. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA, 1989) has prepared flood maps for the 100 - year peak discharge, which has a one percent probability of occurring in any year. Ninety percent of annual rainfall in the Santa Clarita Valley occurs during November through April as a result of winter storms from the northwest. Infrequent summer thunderstorms and showers from tropical depressions account for the remaining rainfall. The amount of rainfall that occurs in any one year can vary greatly, ranging from less than 10 inches to over 40 inches. The 50 -year 24-hour precipitation event for the project area is 7.0 inches, while the 25 -year event is 6.0 inches and the 100 -year event is 8.0 inches (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Atlas 2). b. Water Quality. The protection of water quality in drainages is under the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Board establishes requirements prescribing the quality of point sources of discharge and establishes water quality objectives through the Water.Quality Control Plan for the local basin. Water quality objectives are City of Santa Clarita 5.3-1 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.3 Hydrology/Flooding established based on the designated beneficial uses for a particular surface water or groundwater basin. Water quality sampling of surface water along the Santa Clara River (Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1995) indicates that water quality through the planning area (from Lang Gauging Station to Blue Cut Gauging Station) is relatively good, and decreased in quality downstream because of urban, agricultural, and wastewater discharges. For example, concentrations of total dissolved solids were 500 milligrams per liter (mg/1) at Lang, but increased to 1,000 mg/liter at the Blue Cut Gauging Station. 5.3.2 Impact Analysis a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. Potential impacts to surface water quality were assessed based upon the types of activities proposed and relative locations to area drainages. Significant impacts would occur if Circulation Element buildout would result in a change in the water quality of area drainages that would prevent the achievement of water quality goals or objectives for area drainages. Flood hazards were assessed based upon the location of new roadways in relation to identified flood hazards. Impacts related to flooding are considered significant if flooding would have the potential to cause direct or indirect risks to human lives and property. Impacts are also considered significant if bridges associated with project buildout would fail to conform to state or federal standards relating to construction within floodplain. b. Impact Summary. Table 5.3-1 summarizes the drainage/hydrology impacts of each of the seven project alternatives and ranks the alternatives. c. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Effect HF -1 All of the project alternatives would involve roadway construction throughout the City, which would involve substantial earth disturbance. Potential erosion and sedimentation that could occur during construction may adversely affect surface water quality in area drainages, a potentially significant, but mitigable impact (Class II). During construction of roadways, the soil surface would be disrupted and become subject to erosion, with potential offsite sedimentation of eroded material. Estimates of total earth movement that would occur under each of the project alternatives are provided in Table 5.1-3 in Section 5.1, Earth Resources. Construction grading is expected to occur primarily during the spring and other periods of low rainfall. Nevertheless, if large amounts of bare soil are exposed during the rainy season or in the event of intense thunderstorms, exposed soils could be eroded. The eroded soils could be washed into the drainages, degrading surface water quality and causing increased sedimentation. Erosional processes would be greatest in areas of substantial grading, such as those shown on Figures 5.1-2 through 5.1-4 in Section 5.1, Earth Resources. City of Santa Clarita 5.3-2 mum a a i at. �a �a a r r a s ■a r M a s as Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.3 Hydrology/Flooding C/ty of 5.3-3 Table 5.3-1. Summary of Hydrologyfflooding Impacts T pa atim acttA temative.l AltemaYive.2 Aitemative 3 fi °rAitarnatiye 4 4Altemativa�5k tAlternative 6t Alternative 7 HF -1. Decrease Engineered Impact similar Impact similar Impact similar to Impact similar Same as Same as in surface water slopes may to Alternative 1; to Alternative 1; Alternative 2; to Alternative 3; Alternative 2 at Alternative 3 at quality during expose soil or less overall less overall more overall more overall full buildout; full buildout; construction bedrock and earth earth earth movement earth possibly less possibly less lack movement and movement; due to movement due demand for new demand for vegetation; associated Santa Clara augmented to augmented roads as new roads as possible erosion River crossing intersection intersection compared to compared to erosion and potential; one at Newhall construction. construction. Alternative 2. Alternative 3. sedimentation fewer crossing Ranch Class 11 Class 11 Class 11 Class 11 impacts during over the Santa Extension Rank = 5 Rank = 6 Rank = 1 Rank = 3 construction; Clara River. eliminated; four new Class 11 additional river crossings of Rank= 2 crossing at the Santa Golden Valley, Clara River Class 1/ and a crossing Rank = 4 over the South Fork Santa Clara River. Class 11 Rank = 7 HF -2. Decrease 42.6 miles of Impact similar Impact similar Impact similar to Impact similar Similar to Similar to in surface water new roads, to Alternative 1; to Alternative 1; Alternative 2; to Alternative 3; Alternative 2 at Alternative 3 at quality due to road including 4 39.5 miles of 39.8 miles of augmented augmented full buildout; full buildout; surface runoff bridges over new roads and new roads. intersections intersections slightly fewer slightly fewer the Santa 3 Santa Clara Class 11 near drainages near drainages over automobile automobile Clara River; River Rank = 4 increase increase trips. trips. buildup of fuel, crossings. potential for potential for Class 1l Class 11 oil, and other Class 11 impact to some impact to some Rank =1 Rank = 3 fluids could Rank = 2 degree. degree. wash into area Class /1 Class Il drainages; risk Rank = 5 Rank = 6 of impact from spills on river crossings. Class 11 Rank = 7 C/ty of 5.3-3 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.3 Hydrology/Flooding Class I = Significant and Unavoidable; Class 11= Significant but Mitigable; Class it/ = Less than Significant; Class IV = Beneficial A ranking of 1 indicates the alternative with the least impact a ranking of 7 indicates the greatest impact. City of Santa Clarita 5.3-4 Table 5.3-1. Summary of . • .. ••. Typa of;impaet ;"Alternative„9. Alternativer2: =Aitematrve:3« Alternative;4� 3 A ternative.5 Alternative,.& /1ltemative 7- HF -3. Roadways 5.4 miles of 4.8 miles of 4.8 miles of Impact similar to Impact similar Same as Same as in flood zones roads within roads within roads within the Alternative 2; to Alternative 2; Alternative 2 at Alternative 3 at the 100 -year the 100 -year 100 -year flood augmented augmented full buildout; full buildout; flood zone; flood zone. zone. intersections in intersections in possibly less possibly less flood damage Class If Class 11 flood zone flood zone demand for new demand for likely in these Rank = 2 Rank = 4 increase increase roads as new roads as areas. damage damage compared to compared to Class It potential to potential to Alternative 2. Alternative 3. Rank = 7 some degree. some degree. Class Il Class Il Class Il Class 11 Rank = 1 Rank = 3 Rank = 5 Rank = 6 HF -4. Increased Potential to Impact similar Impact similar Impactsimilar to Impact similar Same as Same as flood heights increase flood to Alternative 1; to Alternative 1; Alternative 2; to Alternative 3; Alternative 2 at Alternative 3 at heights on the however, only however, only 3 slight increase slight increase full buildout; full buildout; Santa Clara 3 Santa Clara Santa Clara in potential for in potential for possibly less possibly less River due to 4 River River crossings. flood height flood height demand for new demand for crossings; crossings. Class 1l1 increase due to increase due to roads as new roads as compliance Class 111 Rank = 4 augmented augmented compared to compared to with federal Rank = 2 intersections. intersections. Alternative 2. Alternative 3. standards Class Ill Class 111 Class /it Class 111 would reduce Rank = 5 Rank = 6 Rank = i Rank = 3 impacts to less than significant. Class Ill Rank= 7 Class I = Significant and Unavoidable; Class 11= Significant but Mitigable; Class it/ = Less than Significant; Class IV = Beneficial A ranking of 1 indicates the alternative with the least impact a ranking of 7 indicates the greatest impact. City of Santa Clarita 5.3-4 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.3 HydrologytFlooding Alternative 1. This alternative includes about 42.6 miles of roads. The cut volume in the Center City area is estimated at 28 million cubic yards under this alternative, while the fill volume is estimated at 13.5 million cubic yards. Engineered slopes would have exposed soil or bedrock and lack vegetation, thereby potentially affecting water quality in area drainages. As compared to the other project alternatives, this alternative includes the most roadway miles and greatest overall amount of earth movement. This alternative includes four new crossings of the Santa Clara River (Tourney Road, Santa Clarita Parkway, Golden Valley Road, and Newhall Ranch Road) and one crossing of the South Fork.Santa Clara River at Via Princessa/ Wiley Canyon Road. It also includes several roads in canyon areas, including Whites Canyon Road and Dickason Road in San Francisquito Canyon. Construction activity associated with these roads would have the greatest potential to affect surface waters. Impacts associated with this alternative are considered potentially significant. Regulations under the federal Clean Water Act require that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water permit be obtained for any construction project that would disturb greater than five acres. Acquisition of such a permit is dependent upon the preparation of a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) that contains specific actions, termed Best Management Practices (BMPs), to control the discharge of pollutants, including sediment, into the local surface water drainages. Implementation of an approved SWMP for all roadway construction would minimize erosion and sedimentation impacts associated with roadway construction. Alternative 2. This alternative includes an estimated 39.5 miles of roads, with an overall cut volume in the Center City area of about 26.3 million cubic yards and a fill volume of about 13.3 million cubic yards. This alternative eliminates the Newhall Ranch Road extension that crosses the Santa Clara River, but includes all of the other road development in proximity to surface waters. Therefore, the substantial amount of grading that would occur under this alternative would have the potential to create significant erosion and sedimentation impacts, particularly in heavily sloped areas. As with Alternative 1, implementation of BMPs on all roadway construction would minimize erosion and sedimentation. Alternative 3. This alternative includes about 39.8 miles of roads. The cut volume in the Center City area is estimated at 25.8 million cubic yards, while the fill volume is estimated at 13.3 million cubic yards. The Newhall Ranch Road extension crossing over the Santa Clara River would be eliminated under this alternative, thereby reducing the potential for increased sedimentation in that major drainage as compared to Alternative 1. However, the potential for impacts would be greater at the Newhall Ranch Road/Golden Valley Road intersection, where additional bridge construction may be necessary. Erosion impacts would be potentially significant. The use of BMPs on all road construction would minimize erosion potential. Alternative 4. Overall cut and fill associated with this alternative would be generally equivalent to that of Alternative 2. Therefore, erosion impacts would be similar, although the 1 augmentation of intersections would increase overall grading by a minor amount as compared to Alternative 2. Several intersections along Newhall Ranch Road, Soledad Canyon Road, and Santa Clarita Parkway are within several hundred feet of the Santa Clara River bed. Erosion 1 City of Santa Clarita � 1 5.3-5 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.3 Hydrology/Flooding and sedimentation impacts are considered potentially significant, though the use of BMPs on all road construction would minimize erosion potential. Alternative 5. Overall cut and fill associated with this alternative would be generally similar to that of Alternative 3. Therefore, erosion impacts would be similar, although the augmentation of intersections would increase overall grading by a minor amount. As with Alternative 2, several intersection augmentations along Newhall Ranch Road, Soledad Canyon Road, and Santa Clarita Parkway would be within several hundred feet of the Santa Clara River bed. Erosion impacts are considered potentially significant, particularly in these areas. The use of BMPs on all road construction would minimize erosion. Alternative 6. Erosion and sedimentation potential associated with full buildout of this alternative would be similar to that of Alternative 2 and is considered potentially significant. Alternative 7. Erosion and sedimentation potential associated with full buildout of this alternative would be similar to that of Alternative 2 and is considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measures. The federal Clean Water Act requires the preparation of an SWMP for any construction project of five acres or more. In order to ensure that appropriate erosion control practices are followed for all roadway construction that implements the City�s Circulation Element, regardless of size, the following mitigation measures are recommended for all alternatives: HF -1(a) An SWMP shall be developed for all roadway construction activity in the City and implemented for all construction that occurs to implement the Santa Clarita Circulation Element. The SWMP shall include specific temporary BMPs to control the export of material from construction sites and into local drainages. BMP methods may include, but would not be limited to, the use of temporary sediment basins, hay bales, sand bagging, and soil stabilizers. Additional BMPs shall be implemented for any fuel storage or fuel handling that could occur on construction sites. Permanent BMPs may include extensive revegetation and construction of pollutant trapping devices. Best Management Practices involve the proper handling, storage, and disposal of materials to prevent pollutants from entering storm drains and channels. Examples of specific actions are given below: General Construction and Site Supervision Keep pollutants off exposed surfaces by having trash cans. and recycling receptacles around the site; Cover and maintain dumpsters. Check frequently for leaks. Never clean a dumpster by hosing it down at the site; Keep materials out of the rain by covering exposed piles of soil or construction materials with plastic sheeting or temporary roofs; City of Santa Clarita 5.3-6 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.3 Hydrology/Flooding • Designate one area for auto parking, vehicle refueling and routine equipment repairs. The designated area should be well away from gutters and storm drains, and in the case of refueling areas, bermed to prevent the escape of spilled materials; • Make sure portable toilets are in good working order, • Use the minimum amount of water necessary for dust control. Do not use excessive amounts that result in water draining from the dust control area; • Revegetate either permanently or temporarily as quickly as possible; and • Remove vegetation only when necessary and just prior to earthmoving. Schedule large projects into phases that allow for erosion control of smaller areas rather than having a single, large exposed site. Heavy Equipment and Earth -Moving Activities • Schedule excavation and grading work for dry weather; • Never hose down spilled materials or dirty pavement or impermeable surfaces where fluids have spilled. Use dry clean-up methods (saw dust, chemical ' absorbents, cat litter; rags); • Sweep up dry spilled materials immediately. Do not bury them or try to wash them away, • Clean up spills in dirt areas by digging up and properly disposing of contaminated soils; • Report significant spills to the responsible agencies immediately, • Perform major maintenance, repair jobs, and vehicle equipment washing offsite; • Do not use diesel oil to lubricate equipment or parts; and • Use drip pans or drop cloths to catch drips and spills of equipment parked overnight and if motor oil, radiator coolant, or other fluids are drained and replaced at the site. Collect all used fluids and store in separate containers for recycling whenever possible and otherwise proper disposal. Roadwork and Pavine • Develop and implement erosion and sediment control plans for embankments and drainages; • Recycle used oil, concrete, broken asphalt, etc.; • Shovel or vacuum saw cut slurry from the site; • Cover or barricade storm drain openings during saw -cutting; • Cover catch basins and maintenance holes when applying seal coat, slurry seal, etc.; • Collect and recycle abrasive gravel or sand, and • Dispose of small amounts of dry concrete in the trash. Fresh Concrete and Mortar Al2lice ation • Secure open bags to keep wind-blown material away from streets, storm drains, rainfall, and runoff; City of Santa Clarita 5.3-7 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.3 Hydrology/Flooding • When cleaning up after roadway construction, wash concrete dust onto dirt areas and not down the street and into storm drains; • Wash out concrete mixers and other equipment only in designated wash-out spots or at the equipment yard, where water flows into containment ponds. Recycle cement wash water by pumping it back into mixers for reuse, • Never dispose of cement washout into streets, gutters, storm drains, or drainage ditches, • Place erosion controls (berms, hay bales, etc.) down-slope to capture runoff carrying mortar or cement before it reaches the storm drain; and • Set up and operate small mixers on tarps or heavy drop cloths. HF -1(b) Grading shall not be performed during the rainy period (October Ito April 15) unless the grading plans include provisions to mitigate erosion, flooding, or the deposition of sediment or debris. Grading performed during the rest of the year shall contain a provision for dust suppression. HF -1(c) Large sediment loads shall be mitigated through proper engineering control. As required by Los Angeles County Flood Control District, debris basins are to be constructed and maintained to handle the debris that could be generated during rain events. The debris basins are to be integrated with the local flood control network to ensure that the runoff is properly controlled and the risk of flooding is minimized. Design criteria are to follow Los Angeles County Flood Control District and City of Santa Clarita requirements. Significance After Mitigation. Through the proper design, implementation, and maintenance of the slopes and drainage features and the use of BMPs and other measures on all new roadways, erosion and sedimentation effects can be reduced to less than significant levels for all alternatives. Residual impacts would be greatest under Alternative 1 because of the greater overall cut and fill volumes and the potential for construction of the Newhall Ranch Road extension across the Santa Clara River to increase sedimentation in that major drainage. Alternatives 2 and 6 are considered to have the least potential to affect surface water quality, although the difference between these alternatives and Alternatives 3 and 7 is nominal. Effect HF -2 All of the project alternatives would involve the addition of new roadways throughout the City. The operation of roadways has the potential to generate additional urban pollutants such as grease and oil that could wash off and increase pollutant loads in downstream areas. This is considered a potentially significant, but mitigable impact (Class II). Any of the alternatives may result in a decrease in the quality of surface water and groundwater associated with change in land use from open space to roadways. The introduction of roadways has the potential to change the quality of surface water that drains from the site and ultimately to groundwater due to the percolation of surface waters. Pollution sources include motor vehicle fluids that are deposited on the highways, possible fuel spills during accidents, and possible spills of hazardous materials from trucks or other transport vehicles during accidents. City of Santa Clarita 5.3-8 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.3 Hydrology/Flooding ' Alternative 1. This alternative would add about 42.6 miles of roadways (271 lane miles) to the City's circulation system, including four crossings over the Santa Clara River, one crossing over the South Fork Santa Clara River, and roads in the vicinity of streams in Whites and San Francisquito Canyons. Such pollutants as fuel, oil, and other fluids relating to the use of automobiles would build up on roads on a daily basis and wash off into area drainages ' during rain storms. In addition, the operation of roads crossing over area drainages would entail the possibility of major spills that could adversely temporarily affect water quality. Runoff from roads could increase overall pollutant loads in area drainages, thereby degrading surface water quality. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Alternative 2. This alternative's overall impact upon surface water quality would be ' similar to that of Alternative 1 and is considered potentially significant. Overall, about 39.5 miles of roads (235 lane miles) would be added under this alternative, including three bridges over the Santa Clara River. ' Alternative 3. The overall impact upon surface water quality would be similar to that described for Alternative 1 and is considered potentially significant. Overall, about 39.8 miles ' of roads (237 lane miles) would be added under this alternative, including three bridges over . the Santa Clara River. Alternative 4. This alternative's overall impact upon surface water quality would be similar to that of Alternative 2 and is considered potentially significant. Overall, 39.5 miles of roads would be added under this alternative, including three bridges over the Santa Clara River. As compared to Alternative 2, the augmentation of major intersections would add an estimated 15 lane miles (assuming 50 augmented intersections). Alternative 5. This alternative's overall impact upon surface water quality would be similar to that of Alternative 2 and is considered potentially significant. Overall, about 39.8 miles of roads would be added under this alternative, including three bridges over the Santa ' Clara River. As compared to Alternative 2, the augmentation of major intersections would add an estimated 15 lane miles (assuming 50 augmented intersections). ' AIternative 6. Surface runoff impacts associated with this alternative would be similar to those of Alternative 2 and are considered potentially significant. The amount of pollutants in runoff may be incrementally lower due to the 1 % reduction in overall vehicle miles traveled in the City resulting from implementation of aggressive transportation demand management strategies (see Section 5.6, Transportation/Circulation). Alternative 7. Impacts relating to surface runoff would be similar to those of Alternative 3 and are considered potentially significant. The amount of pollutants in runoff may be incrementally lower due to the 1.2% reduction in overall vehicle miles traveled in the City resulting from implementation of aggressive transportation demand management strategies (see Section 5.6, Transportation/Circulation). I Mitigation Measures. A number of general "housekeeping" practices can be used to reduce pollutant runoff from roads, including regular street sweeping, litter and trash control, ' r City of Santa Clarita 5.3-9 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.3 Hydrology/Flooding and quick response to spills of motor vehicle fluids or hazardous materials. In addition, the following specific mitigation measures are recommended for all alternatives: HF -2(a) Construct oil and grease traps within the catch basins for the roadways. The catch basin shall include a trap that prevents floatables from discharging with the drainage water. The City Maintenance department shall be responsible for monitoring and periodically cleaning out the catch basins. HF -2(b) Spills along the roadway shall be removed as quickly as practical. Hazardous materials and motor vehicle fluids shall be removed from the site. Contaminated soil shall also be removed or remediated as soon as practical. Cleanup priorities shall include human health and safety and protection of streams and other habitats. Significance After Mitiag tion. Effective implementation of a Best Management Practices plan during construction (see Measure HF -1(a)) and the mitigation measures listed above would reduce the potential for water quality impacts to a level considered less than significant. Overall residual impacts would be greatest under Alternative 1. Alternatives 2 and 6, with the fewest overall road miles, would have the least potential for adverse residual effects, although the difference between these alternatives and Alternatives 3 and 7 is nominal. Effect HF -3 All of the project alternatives include road corridors that cross through the 100 -year flood zone. The potential for flood damage to these roads is considered significant, but mitigable (Class II). All of the roadway network include road corridors that cross through the 100 -year flood zone established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Areas where planned roads would cross the 100 -year flood plain are shown on Figure 5.3-1. Roads with segments within the flood plain are listed in Table 5.3-2. Alternative 1. This alternative includes 13 roadway corridors that cross areas mapped within the 100 -year flood zone, with a total of about 5.4 linear miles of roads. The potential for flood damage to these roads is considered significant. City of Santa Clarita 5.3-10 -... Miles in 0i ... Zone the Alternative; t� �� = _ ?Total Linear. ,Mll '� 1 ; within the'EooitZone: 1. Existing Planned Circulation System 5.4 2. Newhall Ranch Road Reduction 4.8 3. Golden Valley Road Network 4.8 4. Augmented Newhall Ranch Road Reduction 4.8 5. Augmented Golden Valley Road Network 4.8 6. Newhall Ranch/Reduced Trip 4.8 7. Golden Valley/Reduced Trip 4.8 Alternative 1. This alternative includes 13 roadway corridors that cross areas mapped within the 100 -year flood zone, with a total of about 5.4 linear miles of roads. The potential for flood damage to these roads is considered significant. City of Santa Clarita 5.3-10 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.3 Hydrology I Flooding LEGEND Existing Roach Planned Roads N: mel: ......••• Coon to All ANemathrw mm 11,37,4,5,0,71 ------ Exbang Planned Roadway Syabm Only uuuuumnn Fining Planned Roadway System And Newhall Ranch Rwd Reducton AnemaMea Onty 0ae0aeeaa Newhall Ranch Road Reduction And Golden Valley Read Nalwedl AMemaOwa Only 00006009 Golden Valley Road NetwaO ANemalWe Onty 13375-7 o + 2 T ' SCALE IN MILES NORTH " x: ' 100 -Year Flood Zones tl ria Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Maps Note: Flood zone boundaries are approximate at this scale. See FIRM maps for precise boundaries. 100 -Year Flood Zones Figure 5.3-1 City of Santa Clarita 5.3-11 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.3 Hydrology/Flooding AIternative 2. This alternative includes all of the roadway corridors that cross the 100 -year flood zone under Alternative 1 except the Newhall Ranch Road extension. A total of 4.8 linear miles of roads would be within the flood zone. Flood damage would be most likely to occur in these locations. Impacts to roads within these flood zones are considered potentially significant Alternative 3. This alternative includes all of the roadway corridors that cross the 100 -year flood zone under Alternative 1 except the Newhall Ranch Road extension. As with Alternative 2, a total of 4.8 linear miles of roads would be within the flood zone. Flood damage would be most likely to occur in these locations. Impacts to roads within these flood zones are considered potentially significant. As compared to Alternative 2, the Santa Clarita Parkway/ Newhall Ranch Road interchange would involve more bridge construction under this alternative. Although this interchange isnot within the 100 -year flood zone, it is immediately adjacent and could be subject to flood hazards as well. Alternative 4. Flood zone impacts associated with this alternative would be similar to those of Alternative 2 and are considered potentially significant. Several augmented intersections would be within the 100 -year flood zone. These include Rye Canyon Road/Dickason Road, San Fernando Road/Via Princessa, and Golden Valley Road/Newhall Ranch Road. This would increase the risk of flood damage to some degree as compared to Alternative 2. Alternative 5. Flood zone impacts associated with this alternative would be similar to those of Alternative 3 and are considered potentially significant. The augmented intersections at Golden Valley Road/Newhall Ranch Road, Rye Canyon Road/Dickason Road,, and San Fernando Road/ Via Princessa would be within flood plains, which would increase the risk of flood damage to some degree as compared to Alternative 3. Alternative 6. Flood zone impacts associated with full buildout of this alternative would be similar to those of Alternative 2 and are considered potentially significant. Alternative 7. Flood zone impacts associated with full buildout of this alternative would be similar to those of Alternative 3 and are considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measure. The following mitigation measure is recommended for all alternatives to minimize the impact of flooding on planned roads: HF -3(a) Roadway segments within the 100 -year flood zone shall be constructed to withstand the 100 -year flood event. All UBC codes applicable to flood hazards and roads shall be implemented. Stream crossings shall be designed to minimize the impact to the water course and minimize the risk of damage to the structure. Significance after Miti ag tion. Through proper design, the risk of flooding and risk of damaging the roads during floods should be reduced to a less than significant level for all alternatives. Overall residual impacts would be similar for all alternatives. Alternative 1 includes the most road miles of roads within the 100 -year flood zone and would therefore have City of Santa Clarity 5.3.12 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.3 Hydrology/Flooding the greatest potential for flood damage. All other alternatives include the same number of road miles within the flood plain, although Alternatives 2 and 6 are considered to have slightly less potential for flood damage than the remaining alternatives. Effect HF -4 All of the project alternatives include river crossings that would encroach into floodplain, potentially increasing flood heights. This is considered a potentially significant, but mitigable impact of any alternative (Class III). The construction of bridge pilings in riverbeds would have the potential to constrict the flow of water during periods of flooding. This could increase flow velocity and/or increase flood heights. However, various agencies with jurisdiction over floodways in the City (the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA) enforce standards that can require that bridges be designed to limit the increase in flood height to one foot or less. All new bridge construction would be required to comply with the federal and state standards. Therefore, no significant impacts to flood heights are ancitipated, although detailed hydrology studies will need to be conducted in conjunction with the design phase for specific bridges. Alternative 1. This alternative includes four new crossings over the Santa Clara River (at Tourney Road, Santa Clarita Parkway, Golden Valley Road, and Newhall Ranch Road). All of these crossings would potentially constrict flow in the river as described above, thereby increasing flood heights. This is considered a potentially significant impact, although engineering solutions are expected to be available to reduce changes in the floodplain to a less than significant level. Alternative 2. Impacts would be similar to those of Alternative 1, although the Newhall Ranch Road crossing over the Santa Clara River would be eliminated. Alternative 3. Impacts would be similar to those of Alternative 1, although the Newhall Ranch Road crossing over the Santa Clara River would be eliminated. Alternative 4. This alternative's impact would be similar to that of Alternative 2; ' however, the augmentation of intersection within floodplain would increase the potential to raise floodheightsto some degree. ' Alternative 5. This alternative's impact would be similar to that of Alternative 3, although the augmentation of intersections within floodplains would increase the potential to raise. flood heights to some degree. Alternative 6. This alternatives impact at full buildout would be the same as that of Alternative 2. The potential for impact is considered slightly lower due to the potentially reduced demand for new roads. Alternative 7. This alternative's impact at full buildout would be the same as that of ' Alternative 2. The potential for impact is considered slightly lower due to the potentially reduced demand for new roads. ' City of Santa Ctarita III 1 5.3-13 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment El Section 5.3 Hydrology/Flooding Mitigation Measures. Compliance with all state and federal requirements relating to bridge construction would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. This can be achieved on a case-by-case basis during the design phase of individual bridges. No further mitigation is required. Significance After Mitigation. Because all bridge construction would have to comply with State and Federal requirements relating to raising flood heights, no significant impact would occur under any alternative. Alternative 1 would have the greatest potential to affect flood heights because it includes an additional crossing over the Santa Clara River. Alternatives 2 and 6 would have the least potential to affect flood heights, although the difference between these alternatives and Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 7 is nominal. City of Santa Clarita 5.3-t4 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.4 Biological Resources 5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Natural habitats within the planning area for the Circulation Element include non-native grasslands, sage scrub, chaparral, oak woodland, oak savanna, and riparian habitats (including southern cottonwood - willow riparian forest, mulefat scrub, and scalebroom scrub). Shrubland and grassland habitats comprise the majority of the area. Oak savanna habitat is primarily located west of I-5 and riparian habitat is located along the Santa Clara River and in San Francisquito Canyon. Three significant ecological areas are associated with the oak savanna and riparian habitat. Other sensitive habitats include vernal pools in the Cruzan Mesa area, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub at the mouths of some canyons, and mainland cherry woodland in Plum and Oakdale Canyons. Nine sensitive plant species and at least 37 sensitive animal species possibly occur within the planning area. Buildout of the roadway system as envisioned under all alternatives for the Circulation Element would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to biological resources within the City. The most significant impacts are associated with the loss of riparian habitats and disturbance to the significant ecological areas along the Santa Clara River and San Francisquito Canyon. Mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the effects on plant and animal resources through realignment or elimination of certain roadways and the requirement for site specific survey and mitigation plans for sensitive plants and animals. Nonetheless,biological impacts associated with the roadway network buildout and accompanying growth of the City is expected to result in unavoidable significant impacts. Overall biological resource impacts are considered lowest under Alternative 4, while Alternative 1 would result in the greatest amount of impact on biological resources. It should be noted, however, that the difference in the magnitude of impacts among the alternatives is nominal. 5.4.1 Setting ' This report focuses on biological resources known to occur within the area that could be affected by roadway improvements. Other biological resources found within the City limits but not within the general vicinity of proposed roadway improvements are not addressed. Figure 5.4-1 illustrates the habitats traversed by the proposed alternatives and Figure 5.4-2 contains geographical place names that are referenced regarding the location of sensitive biological resources. a. Vegetation. Vegetation within the planning area consists primarily of five general plant communities commonly found in the interior reaches of the Santa Clara River Valley and adjacent hills. These include: Non -Native Grassland; Riversidean Sage Scrub; Chaparral (Semi - Desert and Mixed); Coast Live Oak Woodland and Savannah; and Riparian (including Southern Cottonwood/ Willow Forest and Mulefat Scrub). The northeastern reaches of the planning area form a transitional link between the moister coastal plant communities and the drier desert habitat. Non-native grassland contains common European grasses and occasional native grasses and annual broadleaf herbs. Species most often associated with the grassland are: wild oats (Avena fatua); ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus); soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus); foxtail (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens); and glaucus barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. glacum). The species composition of sage scrub communities in Southern California varies from coastal ' to inland areas, with inland areas such as Santa Clarita supporting a higher proportion of City of Santa Clarita ' S.4-1 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.4 Biological Resources LJ desert -adapted species than do coastal areas. Sage scrub is usually found on steep slopes with well -drained soils, or on clay soils that hold water tightly. The community consists of small - leaved shrubs that are typically less than 5 feet in height. In the,planning area, dominant woody species include: California sagebrush (Artemisia californica); big sagebrush (A. tridentata); encelia (Encelia californica); California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum ssp. fasciculatum); deerweed (Lotus scoparius); wishbone bush (Mirabilis californica); white, black, and purple sage (Salvia apiana, S.mellifera, S. leucophylla); and Spanish bayonet (Yucca whipplei). Non-native grasses and spring annuals are also present. Semi -desert chaparral and mixed chaparral communities are characterized by woody, generally tall and leathery -leaved shrubs (commonly associated with the coastal chaparrals) as well as shrubs found in the drier desert climates further inland. This habitat generally occupies higher elevations than the scrublands, which it often borders. Dominant species include: chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum); redberry (Rhamnus crocea); mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides); hoary -leaved ceanothus (Ceanothus crassifolius); and yerba santa (Eriodictyon crassifolium). The desert components, often found on the drier south -facing slopes, include beavertail cactus (Opuntia sp.) and juniper (Juniperus californica). Shrubs of the sage scrub community are also present interspersed within the chaparral. Coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) form woodlands in shaded ravines and are also seen scattered in grasslands forming oak savannas. Oak trees are also occasionally located within scrublands as isolates or small groups. Valley oak (Quercus lobata) are also present in the region and are found scattered in open savannas to the west of Route 5, outside of the area that would be affected by roadway improvements. Scrub oak (Quercus dumosa) are found in areas of thick chaparral. All oak species are protected by City ordinance. Riparian habitat is found along perennial and seasonal streams such as San Francisquito Canyon and the Santa Clara River, which supports a well developed Southern cottonwood - willow riparian forest community. This riparian forest is predominantly found downstream of the McBean Parkway bridge. Dominant species include arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis); narrow - leaved willow (Salix exigua); Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontia); and mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia). White alder (Alnus rhombifolia) are occasionally located along stream beds that have perennial water or shallow groundwater throughout the year. The particularly noxious weed giant reed (Arundo donax) has invaded much of the river. Native herbs include California mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana) and seep monkey flower (Mimulus guttatus). Density of vegetation is high and impenetrable in some locations. In wetter areas, cattails (Typha latifolia) also occur. Like all perennially -fed riparian habitats, the Santa Clara River supports a diverse faunal population. Mulefat scrub, typically found along drier, intermittant creeks and tributaries, is dominated by its namesake, mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia). Scrubland species are often found immediately adjacent to the seasonal drainages and intermixed with the mulefat. The blue -line drainage west of San Francisquito Canyon supports a disturbed mulefat scrub community. Mulefat scrub is the predominant riparian habitat in the upper reaches of the Santa Clara River above McBean Parkway. City of Santa Clarita 5.4-2 Figure 5.4-3 GENERALIZED VEGETATION MAP LEGEND ........._._.., Existing Roads 2 Planned Roads Included in Alternatives - - - - - - Common to All Alternatives –-- 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 . Existing Planned Roadway - System Only Riparian - Mulefat Scrib and Southern Cottonwood/Willow nunuuwmi Existing Planned Roadway System And Newhall Ranch Road Reduction _ Alternatives Only 4, 6 Newhall Ranch Road Reduction And Golden Valley Road Network Alternatives Only _ _ - 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 1 *oafs*** Golden Valley Road Network i Alternative Only —3,5.7 0 1 2 _ SCALE IN MILES NORTH Interior Live Oak Woodland I ' i L�. Valley Oak Woodland _ Coast Live Oak Woodland Developed Coast Live Oak Woodland Riparian - Mulefat Scrib and Southern Cottonwood/Willow t �T f€� Forest Semi -Desert Chaparral — Riversidean Sage Scrub i Disturbed Riversidean Sage Scrub El Developed / Disturbed r City of Santa Clarita Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section SA Biological Resources LEGEND bdatlng Roads Planned Roads Included In --------- Common to All ARema*" ------ bating Planned Roadway -I "U m Ony nuuunnnnr Filsting Planned Roadway System And Newhall Ranee Road Raduaon ARemaynn, Only aeeeeetaa Newhall Ranch Road Reduction And Golden Valley Road Network y 7, 6 S.6 7 ANa notMa ony teeeeeee Golden Valley Rued Network J67 Ahemallw Ony o z ecnts� IN MILES NORTH 1O San Francisquito Canyon Mint Canyon 3O Cruzan Mesa Plum Canyon Q Oakdale Canyon © Quigley Canyon Regional Place Names Figure 5.4-2 City of Santa Clarks 5.4-5 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.4 Biological Resources Scalebroom scrub is a riparian related habitat that occurs within the floodplain of the Santa Clara River, but removed from the low flow channels.. This alluvial floodplain habitat is identified by the presence of scalebroom (Lepidospartum squamatum), which exists with upland elements such as buckwheat and sagebrush and riparian species such as mulefat. Scalebroom scrub typically experiences low velocity flooding only every few decades. Because of the widespread loss of upper floodplain areas throughout southern California due to urbanization and flood control channels, this habitat type has become increasingly rare and is considered a sensitive community by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG): Scalebroom scrub is the predominant vegetated riparian habitat found along the Santa Clara River in its drier upper reaches. b. Fish and Wildlife. Natural fish habitat exists within the study area along the downstream portions of the Santa Clara River and some of its tributaries (such as San Francisquito Canyon). These support a variety of native and introduced fishes along those reaches with permanent water, while river areas that contain flows only during the winter storm periods provide fish the opportunity to move between areas of permanent water. The non-native grassland and ruderal areas provide limited wildlife habitat to native species due primarily to their disturbed nature and ongoing human disturbance, such as weed -control. Nonetheless, these open areas will contain winter migrants such as lark sparrow, homed lark, fox sparrow, white -crowned sparrow, and golden -crowned sparrow. Western meadowlark is typically limited to the ruderal grassy fields, while non-native species such as starlings, rock dove (common pigeon) and house sparrows will frequently forage in the grasslands as well as in developed areas. Small mammals such as deer mice, house mice, western harvest mice, ground squirrels, and pocket gophers will maintain populations within less disturbed areas and along the fringes of disced fields. The open areas provide foraging space for the red-tailed hawk, turkey vulture, common raven, and common crow, which are often seen flying over the open fields within the study area. Common reptiles within these areas include the western fence lizard and side -blotched lizard. The shrub habitats throughout the planning area provide cover and food for a variety of small reptiles, birds, and mammals. Species diversity at any particular location is generally a function of the plant diversity, the location of appropriate nesting or breeding areas, access to open water, and the level of human disturbance. Most of the area south of Soledad Canyon has been described as significantly disturbed (Impact Sciences, April 8,1994). The largest mammals typically present within the study area south of Soledad Canyon include mule deer, coyote, bobcat, gray fox; and raccoon. No evidence of mountain lion or black bear is known for this portion of the study area, though the presence of deer indicate that mountain lion may be in the area. Mountain lion are more likely present in the less disturbed areas north of Soledad Canyon and in the Angeles National Forest to the south and west of the City. Black bear would similarly be expected to be limited to the foothills and mountains above the City, though they may occasionally wander through the outskirts. Long-tailed weasel, ringtail, Audubon cottontail, California ground squirrel, dusky -footed and desert woodrats, along with other small mammals are typical constituents within the shrublands. Suitable roosts exist in the planning area for bats and several are expected to forage over the shrublands and woodlands. Brushland species such as wrentit, California thrasher, and wintering sparrows tend to be most abundant in the chaparral habitat. Ctarits 5.4-6 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.4 Biological Resources Woodlands are an important wildlife habitat because the increase in structural diversity created by the trees provides important roosting and nesting locations. Woodlands also create their own micro -climate of cooler temperatures that provide an important respite for animals from the summer heat of this and inland valley. Oaks juxtaposed with shrublands and nearby grasslands provide ideal breeding and foraging habitat for several birds of prey (raptors), including red-tailed hawk, red -shouldered hawk, white-tailed kite, Cooper's hawk, great horned owl, barn owl, and American kestrel. Golden eagles have been recently reported in the area over Sand Canyon to the east of the study area and Cruzan Mesa. The shrubland and oak habitats support many smaller birds, with scrub jay, California quail, phainopepla, bushtit, plain titmouse, mockingbird, California and rufous -sided towhees, and acorn woodpeckers found commonly. Common migratory species that may breed in the woodlands include orange -crowned and Wilson's warblers, ash -throated flycatcher, western kingbird, western wood peewee, and northern oriole. c. Sensitive Habitats. Stream courses are protected under the CDFG Code Chapter 1600 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Any proposed disturbance to aquatic or wetland habitat must be examined by the Army Corps of Engineers, who oversees permitting under the Clean Water Act, and the CDFG, which administers stream alteration agreements, specified under Chapter 1600. The State Water Resources Control Board also has jurisdiction over the discharge of materials within streambeds and potential disturbances through the certification requirements of Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. a Vernal pools, which are known from the Cruzan Mesa north of Forest Park, are seasonally -wet depressions that typically sustain an unusual assortment of plant species. This community is considered sensitive by the CDFG under the Non -Game Heritage Program (Holland, 1986). In addition to the rarity of the habitat, the pools located on the mesa contain two rare plants (see below). Other vernal pools may exist in the planning area. Several upland habitats found within the planning area are also considered sensitive. Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub is characterized by a series of successional stages occupying terraces in the alluvial plains that emerge from canyon mouths. The fans are subject to irregular t and frequent flooding and scouring, which cut many channels through the loose alluvium material washed down from higher elevations. The irregular terraces created from flooding events support a unique vegetation known as alluvial scrub. Three types of alluvial scrub are recognized. Pioneer alluvial scrub occupies the most dynamic sites.. This early -successional scrub tends to have low species diversity and low overall plant density. Intermediate alluvial scrub has a high density of sub -shrubs and low shrub species. Mature alluvial scrub consists of well spaced, large woody shrubs and mature scrub species, often with a highly diverse herbaceous layer occupying openings within the mature shrub stands. The community was once widely distributed along the southern outwashes of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino ' Mountains, where it formed a nearly continuous skirt along the base of these ranges. The distribution of this community has been greatly reduced in recent years, as residential, ' commercial and flood control developments have eliminated it from most of its former range. Alluvial scrub supports a number of rare plant species. This community is now rare in California and considered sensitive by the CDFG and the Army Corps of Engineers. Examples of this community in and around the planning area can be found in Plum and Bee Canyons. City of Santa Clarita 5.4.7 Santa Cladta Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 6.4 Biological Resources Mainland Cherry Woodland was believed to be extirpated until recent years and is considered sensitive by the CDFG. It is characterized by holly -leaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia) as the dominant woody vegetation in stands of particularly large trees. A small woodland is located in Plum Canyon. This locality was reported as the only known example of this community in the County of Los Angeles (CDFG; 1996). However, another woodland is located in Oakdale Canyon between the proposed alignments of Magic Mountain Parkway and Via Princessa (Impact Sciences, Inc., April 8,1994). The County of Los Angeles had designated five locations within the Santa Clarita Valley as Significant Ecological Areas (SEAS). The largest of these, the Santa Clara River SEA, lies within the study area. This SEA is inclusive of the entire length of the Santa Clara River within the City, and was so designated in part because it supports a variety of natural habitats such as freshwater marsh, sage scrub, oak woodland, and riparian woodlands. In addition, this SEA contains critical habitat for the federal and state listed endangered unarmored threespine stickleback, which is discussed further below. The San Francisquito Canyon SEA contains an intermittent stream that drains the hillsides north of the City. Riparian vegetation lies along the canyon bottom while grasslands and chaparral are found along the canyon walls. This SEA was designated because it supports a population of unarmored threespine stickleback and maintenance of this area is important in preventing excessive siltation of critical downstream stickleback habitat. The Valley Oaks Savannah SEA is located west of Interstate 5 and generally between McBean Parkway and Valencia Boulevard. This approximate 400 -acre area contains one of the last extensive stands of valley oak in the Santa Clarita Valley and it represents the southernmost limit of large, contiguous valley oak savanna in California. Although many valley oaks are within the stand, little regeneration appears to be occurring in the disturbed weed -dominated grassland that forms the understory of this savanna. Scattered coast live oaks also occur within this SEA. d. Sensitive Plant Species. The following list of potentially -occurring sensitive plant species has been compiled from the CDFG Natural.Diversity Data Base records for the planning area USGS quadrangles (Mint Canyon and Newhall) and surrounding quadrangles (San Fernando, Oat Mountain, Agua Dulce), and environmental documents prepared for projects in the site vicinity (Aspen,1996; Tierney, 1996; Tierney, 1997). Included are plants that are: state and/or federally -listed or proposed; candidates for state and/or federal listing (former candidate category 1 species); and those species that are either "species of concern" (former candidate category 2 species), or contained in the California Native Plant Society (CLAPS) List 1B. State and Federally -Listed and Proposed Species Berberis nevinii (Nevin's Barberry) STATUS: Federal -proposed; State -listed, endangered; CNPS-List 1B City of Santa Clarita 5.4-8 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.4 Blolooical Resources Nevin's Barberry is known from San Diego, San Bernardino, Riverside and Los Angeles Counties, occurring in chaparral, coastal sage scrub and alluvial fan sage scrub communities. The distinctive, prickly compound leaves of this shrub can be recognized at any time of year. Fewer than six localities of native, occupied habitat are known. Sightings have been recorded in the foothills of the Transverse and Peninsular Ranges, on steep north -facing slopes or on more gently -sloped sandy washes below 2,000 feet. The closest known occurrence is in San Francisquito Canyon. This is among the original locations where the species was noted and the species is thought to continue to occur there. Another known occurrence is south of the City of San Fernando (San Fernando quadrangle). This population may have been extirpated. Dodecahema leptoceras (Slender -horned Spineflower) STATUS: Federal -listed, endangered; State -listed, endangered; CNPS-List 1B Slender -homed Spineflower is a small, annual herb found on alluvial substrates in chaparrals and sage scrubs. It is historically known from 20 small and widely scattered populations, ranging from: Tujunga Valley at the western edge of the San Fernando Valley (Los Angeles County); eastward to the Santa Ana Wash near Redlands (San Bernardino County); southward to the San Jacinto River floodplain near Hemet; and Temescal Canyon near Elsinore (Riverside County). Only five of these populations have been relocated during subsequent surveys conducted by the CDFG. A population has recently been located in Bee Canyon, north of Soledad Road and east of the planning area (Aqua Dulce quadrangle). The species was also recorded in Mint Canyon in 1937. Mint Canyon was searched for the species in 1979, but it was not found at that time. It has probably been extirpated in much of Los Angeles County as a result of habitat disturbances such as grazing and flood control. Navarretia fossalis (Spreading Navarretia) STATUS: Federal -proposed, threatened; State - none; CNPS-List 1B Spreading Navarretia is a low growing, annual species typically found on hardpan or claypan vernal pools, ditches and other shallow, freshwater habitats. It has been found in the Mint Canyon USGS quadrangle, within the upper reaches of the Plum Canyon watershed, northeast of the planning area. The species was located near an artificial impoundment at Cruzan Mesa and within the vernal pool that is bisected by the Cruzan Mesa airstrip. This locality represents a disjunct population for the plant, which had previously been identified in Riverside and San Diego Counties, as well as in Baja California. Orcuttia califomica (California Orcutt Grass) STATUS: Federal -listed, endangered; State -listed, endangered; CNPS-List 1B ' California Orcutt Grass, an annual grass, is known from fewer than 20 occurrences, usually in vernal pools. It has been found in widely scattered locations from Los Angeles County ' southward. It has been located in the Mint Canyon quadrangle at Cruzan Mesa, on one side of the landing strip that bisects a natural vernal pool, as well as in the artificial impoundment to the south. I City of Santa Clarita 1 S.4-9 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.4 Biological Resources 1. Federal "Species of Concern" and CNPS List 1B Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis (Slender Mariposa Lily) STATUS: Federal -Species of Concern; State - none; CNPS-List 1B Slender Mariposa Lily is a perennial, bulbiferous herb found in chaparral and sage scrub communities. It has been located in Los Angeles County, along the south slope of the Transverse Ranges, and more recently, at the confluence of Bee Canyon and Soledad Canyon Road. Calystegiaeip irsonii (Peirson's Morning Glory) STATUS: Federal -Species of Concern; State - none; CNPS-List 1B Peirson's Morning Glory is a trailing perennial vine found in Los Angeles County. It is common throughout the planning area. It has been located in the Mint Canyon quadrangle in several locations northeast of the planning area (within 2 miles of Bouquet Canyon Road), and west of the planning area (in Marple Canyon, San Francisquito Canyon and Valencia, adjacent to Highway 5). It occurs in coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitats and is especially common following fires. Galiumrg ande (San Gabriel Bedstraw) STATUS: Federal -Species of Concern; State - none; CNPS-List 1B San Gabriel Bedstraw is a sprawling and climbing, woody -perennial subshrub. It is known from fewer than 10 localities in chaparral and open woodlands in the San Gabriel Mountains of Los Angeles County southeast of the planning area. A population was also recorded to the northwest of the planning area on the Warm Springs Mountain quadrangle. This locale is somewhat disjunct from the other known populations. Malacothamnus davidsonii (Davidson's Bush Mallow) STATUS: Federal -Species of Concern; State - none; CNPS-List 1B Davidson's Bush Mallow is known from sandy flats and washes in the Burbank, Van Nuys, San Fernando, Sunland and Tierra Rodunda Mountains USGS quadrangles in Los Angeles County. The species appears again in northern San Luis Obispo and southern Monterey Counties. It has . been found in several locations to the north and south of Route 210, south of the planning area. Opuntia basilaris var. brachyclada (Short -joint Beavertail) STATUS: Federal -Species of Concern; State - none; CNPS-List 1B Short -joint Beavertail is a diminutive cactus found in chaparral, joshua tree woodland, pinon juniper -woodland and Mojave desert scrub in San Bernardino and Los Angeles Counties. The closest recorded sighting is in the south of the planning area in the Mint Canyon quadrangle, on the south side of Quigley Canyon, east of the town of Newhall. This species is more often associated with drier, desert habitats. e. Sensitive Fish and Wildlife. At least 37 species of sensitive animals with declining populations occur in the project region, as listed in Table 5.4-1. State or federally listed species City of Santa Clarita 5.4-10 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.4 Biological Resources are accorded the highest protection status. Many sensitive species that could occur in the planning area are listed by the federal government as Species of Concern, a designation indicating that existing information indicates that these species may warrant listing as a threatened or endangered species in the future. This status does not afford any protection on these species beyond that contained in Fish and Game codes regulating the take of native species, but rather this list serves to indicate those species which may become listed in the future. California Species of Special Concern are those animals listed by the Department of Fish and Game because of declining population levels or naturally rare levels that may be under population stress; listing under this category is informal and does not provide any additional protection status to the species. 5.4-1. Sensitive Wildlife Occurring in the SpeciesTable Project ¢^'tI - 57rafF"vw.. m+T�:..mr� 3 r a$tate SWtu Unarmored threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeates williamsoni Endangered Endangered California red -legged frog Rana aurora draytonh CSC Threatened Arroyo southwestern toad Bufo microscaphus califomicus CSC Endangered Western spadefoot load Coast homed lizard Scaphiopus hammondl Phrynosoma coronatum hontale and P. c blainvillei CSC CSC Sc SC Coastal western whiptail lizard Cnemidophoms tigris multiscutatus CSC SC Silvery legless lizard Aniella pulchra pulchra CSC SC Rosy boa Lichanura Mvirgata CSC SC Coastal patch -nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea CSC SC ' Two -striped garter snake Thamnophis hammondii Special Animal Sc San Bernardino ring-necked snake Diadophis punctatus modestus None SC San Diego mountain kngsnake Lampropeltis zonate pulchra CSC SC San Bernardino mountain kingsnake Lamprope@is zonata parviruba CSC SC 1 California condor Gymnogyps califomianus Endangered Endangered Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos CSC None Coopers hawk Accipiter cooped CSC None Northern harrier Circus cyaneus CSC None Sharp -shinned hawk AccipitershVatus CSC None White-tailed kite Elanus caeruleus CSC None Long-eared owl Asio otus CSC None Western burrowing owl Athena cunicularia hypugea CSC SC California spotted owl SWx occidentalis occidentalis CSC SC ' Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax trailli extimus Endangered Endangered Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludoviclanus CSC SC Least Bell's vireo Vireo bellil pusillus Endangered Endangered ' California homed lark Bell's sage sparrow Eremophila alpestris actia Amphispiza bellii bellii CSC CSC SC SC Southern CA rufous -crowned sparrow Aimophila ruficeps canescens CSC SC California leaf -nosed bat Macrotus califomicus CSC SC Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus CSC None California mastiff bat Eumops pembs califomicus CSC SC Long-legged bat Myotis volans None SC Pale big -eared bat Plecotus townsendii pallescens CSC SC San Diego black -tailed hare Lepus califomicus bennetti CSC SC ' San Diego desert woodrat Southern grasshopper mouse Neotoma lepida intermedia Onychomys tomdus rmaona CSC CSC SC SC CSC= Califomia Species of Special Concern; SC=Federal Species of Concern Source; Rincon Consultants, 1996, Planning Consultants Research, 1996, California Department of Fish and Game, August 1994. ' City of Santa Clarita Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.4 Biological Resources 5.4.2 Impact Analysis a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. Project alternatives were compared against regional vegetation mapping previously prepared for the City's General Plan Conservation Element and other available environmental documents. Proposed new roads, particularly those in the area south of Soledad Canyon, were spot-checked in the field for potential effects. The significance of impacts to biological resources was based upon Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, which state that a project would have a significant impact if it: Substantially affects a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of the species, Interferes substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or Substantially diminishes habitat for fish, wildlife or plants. b. Impact Summary. Table 5.4-2 summarizes the anticipated effects of build -out of each alternative for the City's Circulation Element. It also ranks the alternatives in terms of their impact potential to biological resources. c. Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Effect B-1 Buildout of the citywide roadway network as envisioned by all alternatives would result in the permanent loss, degradation and fragmentation of grassland, sage scrub and chaparral habitats. Because of the widespread regional supply of these habitat types, the direct impact of the roadway system is considered to be less than significant (Class III). The Circulation Element provides the blueprint for the future development of a roadway system to serve the transportation needs of a developing community. As the City grows to its planned size in accordance with the General Plan, new roads Will be needed to provide adequate circulation. This new roadway system together with the growth of urban uses within the City will adversely affect the natural biological communities in the region, an unavoidable effect impact that was addressed at the time that the General Plan for the City was adopted in 1990. The discussion that follows addresses those general impacts that are associated with particular road segments and discusses the difference in biological impacts, if any, between the different road network alternatives. Most of the new roadway segments are common to all alternatives and the proliferation of roads, especially on the fringes of the current developed portions of the City, will fragment biological communities, reducing overall species diversity, and interfering with the movement of animals through the planning area. Much of the proposed future planned growth of the City and its associated road network is within the shrubland communities of sage scrub and chaparral and non-native grassland. Road construction in previously undisturbed areas would increase the amount of exotic, invasive plant species within native vegetation flanking the new highways, thus decreasing the value of the adjacent habitat. Although these plant communities City of Santa Clarita 5.4.12 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.4 Biological Resources City of Santa Clarifa 5.4.13 5.4-2. v ternat ve, BiologicalTable 'Alternative 3 . =Aitemative 4. � Alternative Su 1�,Tyipe,of;lm acta -Alternative 1- , Altemative 6 ,-Alternative 7. B-1. Permanent Permanent loss Impacts similar Impacts similar Impact similar to Impactsimilar to- Same as Same as loss, degradation of native sage to Alternative 1; to Alternative 1, Alternative 2; Alternative 3; Alternative 2 at Alternative 3 at and fragmentation scrub and Newhall Ranch but the Newhall slightly greater slightly greater buildout; buildout; of grassland, sage chaparral Road extension Ranch Road direct impact direct impact possibly less possibly less scrub and habitat along Santa Clara extension Santa due to due to demand for demand for chaparral habitats the Santa Clara River crossing Clara River intersection intersection new roads due new roads due River; Newhall eliminated. crossing augmentation. augmentation. to trip to trip Ranch Road Class 111; eliminated; Class 1l1 Class 111 reduction. reduction. extension Rank = 2 slight increase Rank = 3 Rank = 7 Class III; Class III; causes in impact Rank = I Rank = 5 additional potential due to impact on north increased air bank of river. emissions. Class Ill Class 111; Rank = 4 Rank = 6 B-2. Loss and Habitats along Impact similar Impact similar to Impact similar to Impact similar to Same as Same as degradation of the Santa Clara to Alternative 1; Alternative 1; Alternative 2; Altemative 3; Alternative 2 at Alternative 3 at sensitive aquatic River, San one Santa one Santa Clara slightly greater slightly greater buildout; buildout; and riparian Francisquito Clara River River crossing potential for direct impact possibly less possibly less habitat Canyon, and crossing eliminated but direct impacts potential due to demand for demand for Plum Canyon eliminated,but increased due to intersection new roads due new roads due potentially increased impact potential intersection augmentation. to trip to trip degraded; four impact potential at Newhall augmentation. Class I; reduction. reduction. crossings over at Newhall Ranch Road Class 1; Rank = 5 Class I Class 1; the Santa Clara Ranch Road/ intersections Rank = 3 Rank = 2 Rank = i River. Golden Valley with Golden Class /; Road. Valley and Rank = 7 Class 1; Santa Clarita. Rank = 2 Class 1; Rank = 4 B-3. Loss of oak Possible Impact potential Impact similar to Impact similar to Impact similar to Same as Same as trees and removal of similar to Alternative 1; Alternative 2; Alternative 3; Alternative 2 at Alternative 3 at fragment oak individual coast Alternative 1. additional slight increase in slight increase buildout; buildout; woodland and live oak, valley Class 11,• graded area direct impact in direct impact possibly less possibly less savanna habitat oak, and scrub Rank = 2 south of potential due to potential due to demand for demand for oak trees; Soledad intersection intersection new roads due new roads due numerous oaks Canyon may augmentation. augmentation. to trip to trip present on the incrementally Class Il; Class 11; reduction. reduction. south slope of increase Rank =4 Rank = 7 Class ll; Class /1; Soledad impacts. Rank =1 Rank = 5 City of Santa Clarifa 5.4.13 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.4 Biological Resources City of Santa Clarita 5.4-14 Table 5.4-2. Biological "Alternative 2 , 'Altemative.6 ;Alternative 7.= sT pe'of;im act; ,FAltemative l': ~Alternative 3r Altemative'4 r Alternative 5 - Canyon and Class 11, near west of 1-5 Rank = 6 near the Old Road extension. Class ll; Rank = 3 B-4. Loss of Potentially Impact similar Impact similar to Impact similar to Impact similar to Impact similar Impact similar sensitive plant significant to Alternative 1. Alternative 1. Alternative 1. Alternative 1. to Alternative 1. to Alternative populations impact to Class 11; Class N; Class 11; Class It, Class Il; 1. Nevin's All Ranked All Ranked All Ranked Ali Ranked All Ranked Class ll; barberry in San Equally Equally Equally Equally Equally All Ranked Francisquito Equally Canyon and spreading navarretia and California orcutt grass found in vernal pools in the Cruzan Mesa area. Class Il; All Ranked Equally B-5. Loss of Potential Impact similar Impact similar to Impact similar to Impact similar to Same as Same as sensitive plant impacts to to Alternative 1; Alternative 1; Alternative 2; Alternative 3; Alternative 2 at Alternative 3 at populations sensitive one Santa one Santa Clara intersection intersection buildout; buildout; species Clara River River crossing augmentation augmentation possibly less possibly less (unarmored crossing eliminated but may may demand for demand for threespine eliminated but additional road Incrementally incrementally new roads due new roads due stickleback, additional road grading along increase direct increase direct to trip to trip red -legged frog, grading along the north bank impacts. impacts. reduction. reduction. southwestern the north bank of the river at Class fl; Class 11; Class ll; Class ll; toad, willow of the river at Golden Valley Rank = 3 Rank = 6 Rank = 1 Rank = 2 flycatcher, and Golden Valley Road/ Newhall least Bell's Road/ Newhall Ranch Road vireo) in Ranch Road and Santa riparian habitats may have Clarita/Newhall located along additional Ranch Road the Santa Clara impact. may have River and San 1 Class 11 additional City of Santa Clarita 5.4-14 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.4 Biological Resources Class t = Significant and Unavoidable; Class 11= Significant but Mitigable; Class 111= Less than Significant; Class IV = Beneficial A ranking of t indicates the alternative with the least impact; a ranking of 7 indicates the greatest impact. City of Santa Clarita 5.4-15 Table 5.4-2. Biological Wternative`<1 Alternative°2f arAltemative3. =1Alternative4u'�4' ernatIve, e=AlternativefiF ;'Altemative7 - peaf.ImpaW Francisquito Rank = 2 impact. Canyon. Class II Class ll Rank = 5 Rank = 7 B-6. Intrusion into Old Road Impact similar Impact similar to Impact similar to Impact similar to Same as Same as and fragmentation extension to Alternative 1; Alternative 1; Alternative 2; Alternative 3; Alternative 2 at Alternative 3 at of significant through the one Santa one Santa Clara intersection intersection buildout; buildout; ecological areas Valley Oaks Clara River River crossing augmentation augmentation possibly less possibly less SEA; Dickason crossing eliminated but may may demand for demand for Road through eliminated. possible incrementally incrementally new roads due new roads due and adjacent to Class 1; increase increase direct increase direct to trip to trip the San Rank = 2 impacts at two impacts. impacts. reduction. reduction. Francisquito intersections Class l; Class 1; Class I Class I Canyon SEA; along Newhall Rank = 3 Rank = 6 Rank =1 Rank = 4 four crossings Ranch Road. of Santa Clara Class I; River SEA; Rank = 5 direct disturbance to plant and animal habitat. Class I Rank = 7 Class t = Significant and Unavoidable; Class 11= Significant but Mitigable; Class 111= Less than Significant; Class IV = Beneficial A ranking of t indicates the alternative with the least impact; a ranking of 7 indicates the greatest impact. City of Santa Clarita 5.4-15 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.4 Biological Resources are common in the planning area, increased loss and fragmentation of existing open space would result in the displacement and/or destruction of wildlife and a reduction of available foraging habitat. The loss, degradation and fragmentation of grassland and shrubland habitat resulting from new roadway construction would not be considered significant in itself, as the region would still contain large expanses of undisturbed habitat. The roadway system and accompanying urban growth would contribute to the incremental loss of open space in the area, which is rapidly becoming a scarcity in Southern California. This adverse impact is the unavoidable effect of build -out of the City, as previously considered under .the City's General Plan. Alternative 1. The primary difference between this alternative and the others is the eastward extension of Newhall Ranch Road past Golden Valley Road. This alternative would result in some additional permanent loss of native sage scrub and chaparral habitat associated with the upper bank areas of the Santa Clara River along the Newhall Ranch Road extension, but this additional loss of habitat is not expected to be significant. No specific animal species of concern are known to be associated with the shrublands in this area and no additional significant effect is anticipated for this alternative. Alternative 2. This alternatives impacts would be similar to those of Alternative 1, although the Newhall Ranch Road extension would be eliminated, reducing the overall potential to affect native sage scrub and chaparral on the north side of the Santa Clara River. Impacts are not considered significant. AIternative 3. As compared to Alternatives 1 and 2, this roadway network would increase areas of cut and fill in the shrubland habitats south of Soledad Canyon. Therefore, it would be expected to affect somewhat more sage scrub and chaparral habitat than the other alternatives. Nonetheless, because of the available supply of this habitat in the region, this additional impact is not considered significant. Alternative 4. This alternative would widen intersections associated with Alternative 2, and similar to that alternative, would not result in significant direct impacts to shrubland habitats. The widening of intersections would have the potential to incrementally increase the direct loss of shrubland. However, because this alternative would reduce air pollutant emissions, the impact of poor air quality on regional vegetation resources would be reduced and this alternative would have a decreased indirect impact as compared to Alternative 2. Alternative 5. This alternative would widen intersections associated with Alternative 3, and similar to that alternative, would not result in significant direct impacts to shrubland habitats. The widening of intersections would have the potential to incrementally increase the direct loss of shrubland. However, because this alternative would reduce air pollutant emissions, the impact of poor air quality on regional vegetation resources would be reduced and this alternative would have a decreased indirect impact as compared to Alternative 3. Alternative 6. This alternative would disturb the same land area as Alternative 2 and would have the same effects as those discussed above for Alternative 2. The indirect air quality impacts of this alternative are similar to Alternative 2, but because this alternative would City of Santa Ctarita 5.4.16 ' Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.4 Biological Resources produce fewer overall air emissions, it would have a slightly reduced impact as compared to Alternative 2. Alternative 7. This alternative disturbs the same land area as Alternative 3 and would have the same effects as those discussed above for Alternative 3. The indirect air quality impacts of this alternative are similar to Alternative 3, but because this alternative would produce fewer overall air emissions, it would have a slightly reduced impact as compared to Alternative 3. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation measures are proposed to address impacts to non- native grasslands, sage scrub and chaparral communities since the direct and indirect impact of road construction is considered to be less than significant for all alternatives given the widespread regional supply of such habitat. Significance After Mitigation. The direct effect of roadway construction is considered to be less than significant with respect to loss and habitat fragmentation of grassland and shrubland habitats. Overall residual impacts would be greatest under Alternative 1 and lowest under Alternative 4, although the difference among all alternatives is nominal. Effect B-2 All of the alternative roadway networks would result in the direct loss and degradation of sensitive aquatic and riparian habitat. This is considered an unavoidable significant effect of any project alternative (Class I). Several new crossings of the Santa Clara River are proposed for all of the alternatives under consideration. Riparian habitat along the Santa Clara River would be disturbed during crossing construction of the proposed Golden Valley Road, Santa Clarita Parkway, and Tourney Road under all alternatives. Impacts to riparian habitat associated with the Tourney Road crossing are expected to be the most severe given the density of southern cottonwood -willow riparian forest habitat in this area and the perennial nature of the river through this reach. Indirect impacts such as altered storm flows, sedimentation and contaminants may impact habitat downstream of all creek crossings. Dickason Road, proposed for San Francisquito Canyon, would cross within a designated SEA and may substantially alter the riparian habitat located within this area. Since this road is included under all alternatives, construction of this roadway is considered to be an unavoidable significant impact. The proposed Whites Canyon Road for all alternatives will disturb portions of Plum Canyon, although large-scale residential development that will alter the natural drainage in this area is already approved. The upper reaches of Whites Canyon Road would pass close to vernal pool habitat on the Cruzan Mesa, where populations of two rare plant species are known to occur. Changes in the drainage patterns of vernal wetlands would affect the long term continuation of these populations. Alternative 1. The Newhall Ranch Road extension east of Golden Valley Road would result in an additional and relatively long crossing through the Santa Clara River. In addition, its development along the north bank of the river is anticipated to require substantial bank Fr City of Santa Clarita 5.417 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.4 Biological Resources stabilization and construction work within the river that would result in the temporary and potentially permanent loss of additional riparian habitat (primarily scalebroom scrub). Bank stabilization may also result in a significant change in the hydrologic dynamics of the river channel through this area and downstream that may result in the removal of additional downstream vegetation on a permanent basis. The impact of this additional roadway on the sensitive resources of the Santa Clara River and the wildlife populations associated with it is considered an unavoidable and significant impact of this alternative. Alternative 2. This alternative would result in additional road grading along the north bank of the Santa Clara River at the junction of Golden Valley Road and Newhall Ranch Road. The corridor for this intersection is partially on the upper terraces of the river and within mulefat scrub habitat. While the amount of riparian and wetland habitat affected by this intersection is greater under this alternative than under Alternative 1, the total impact on riparian resources is less than that under Alternative 1. The additional impact caused by this intersection is considered potentially significant. Alternative 3. Similar to Alternative 2, this roadway network would result in an intersection at the junction of Golden Valley Road and Newhall Ranch Road that could result in greater site specific impacts than under Alternative 1. This alternative would also create substantial additional impacts to riparian resources associated with needed fill at the intersection of Newhall Ranch Road and Santa Clarita Parkway. The river at this location has relatively sparse vegetation due to the relatively higher velocity flows and rapid filtering of water into the underlying gravels. Nonetheless, some significant cottonwood woodland is located along the north bank in this reach that may be substantially disturbed by this alternative. In addition, the constraining of the river through this reach could alter the hydrologic nature of the river, resulting in the erosion of materials through this reach and subsequent downstream sedimentation and filling of wetlands. This is considered a potentially significant additional impact of this alternative. Alternative 4. This alternative would widen the Golden Valley Road and Newhall Ranch Road intersection associated with Alternative 2. This may create additional impacts to the mulefat habitat in this area, depending upon the length and width of approach lanes for the northbound traffic. This significant impact is similar to that described for Alternative 2, differing only in the potential amount of mulefat scrub acreage disturbed. As with Alternative 2, the impact at this location is considered mitigable. Alternative 5. This alternative would widen both the Golden Valley Road and Santa Clarita Parkway intersections with Newhall Ranch Road associated with Alternative 3. Such widening may result in additional losses to riparian habitat as discussed above, though these losses can be mitigated. Alternative 6. Full buildout of this alternative would disturb the same land area as Alternative 2 and would have the same effects as those discussed above for Alternative 2. Alternative 7. Full buildout of this alternative would disturb the same land area as Alternative 3 and would have the same effects as those discussed above for Alternative 3. City of Santa Clarita 5.4-18 I LI J 1 II I I n 1 I LSI I I I Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.4 Biological Resources Mitigation Measures. The following measures are recommended to reduce significant impacts associated with buildout of the City's roadway network. Measures a -e below apply to all alternatives, while measures f and g apply only to those specifically mentioned. B -2(a) Bridge all significant riparian habitat within the Santa Clara River and San Francisquito Canyon, maintaining natural streamflow. B -2(b) Develop and implement riparian restoration plans in consultation with the CDFG and ACOE for all disturbed vegetation. Plans shall use native species appropriate to the region and habitat. B -2(c) Maintain natural bottom drainages, providing greenbelt buffers along riparian corridors for flood protection in lieu of channelization. B -2(d) Avoid vernal pool habitat. Provide ample buffers to prevent any alterations to vernal pool hydrology. B -2(e) Adopt a policy encouraging the alignment of Dickason Road within San Fransquito Canyon to be outside the SEA boundaries. Provide for a single road crossing of San Fransquito Canyon as nearly perpendicular as possible to minimize the loss of riparian habitat. It should be recognized that the portion of Dickason Road within San Francisquito Canyon is currently outside the City limits. Therefore, the City does not currently have direct control over the alignment of the road. B -2(f) For Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, align the intersection of Golden Valley Road and Newhall Ranch Road as far to the north as possible to minimize the impact on riparian resources to the extent feasible. B -2(g) For Alternatives 3, 5, and 7 conduct specific roadway alignment studies intended to choose an alignment that minimizes the effect on cottonwood woodland at the intersection of Newhall Ranch Road and Santa Clarita Parkway. Significance After Mitigation. Impacts to the riparian resources of San Francisquito Canyon and the willow -cottonwood woodland east of the I-5 cannot be fully mitigated given the planned alignments of roadways and new bridge construction in these areas. This is considered a significant and unavoidable impact of any of the project alternatives on the riparian resources of the Santa Clara River. Alternative 1, with one additional river crossing, would have the greatest overall impact. Alternatives 2 and 6 would have the least residual impact, although the difference between these two alternatives and Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 7 would be nominal. Effect B-3 Construction of proposed roads could result in the direct loss of oak trees and fragment oak woodland and savanna habitat under any alternative. This is considered a potentially significant, but mitigable impact (Class II). City of Santa Cladta 5.4-19 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.4 Biological Resources Roadway improvements may result in the removal of individual coast live oak, valley oak, and scrub oak trees. Numerous oaks are present on the south slope of Soledad Canyon and in the drainages to the south. Development of the various roads within this area as proposed by all alternatives could directly remove many oaks in this area. Loss of these native oak trees would constitute an adverse and significant impact. The Old Road extension south of Valencia Boulevard would pass through an open savanna containing many valley oaks. This road extension is proposed for all alternatives, and depending upon the specific alignment chosen for this road, it could result in impacts to approximately 50 oak trees. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Alteration of oak trees requires specific permitting under City ordinance (Section 17.17.090 of the Development Code) and associated mitigation. The ordinance requires an oak tree permit to be obtained prior to cutting, pruning, removing, relocating, endangering, damaging, or encroaching into the protected zone (5 feet beyond the dripline) of any oak tree, with specific exemptions for pruning of branches less than 6 inches in circumference (about 2 inches in diameter) or trees with a circumference less than 6 inches, emergency conditions, nursery stock and planted trees, and public utility maintenance by the service company. Any removal, pruning, or relocating of oak trees would be done in compliance with the conditions developed for specific oak tree permits that would be required for each road that may impact oaks. Certain findings must be made specifically regarding the removal or relocation of Heritage Oaks. Standard conditions of the oak tree permit require the replacement/relocation of trees either on- or off-site and certification of compliance with the conditions of the permit and the health of all replacement and relocated on-site trees after planting and two years after planting. A fee equivalent to the value of the trees removed from the property or donation of equivalent value boxed trees to the City may be also be made. Equivalent value is determined using the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal published by the International Society of Arboriculture. Oak trees and woodlands provide significant microclimatological differences in average temperature, sunlight, and humidity, while also serving to increase the structural diversity of the site and provide nesting and food for many wildlife species. Roadway construction in the area south of Soledad Canyon is expected to sufficiently fragment the oak woodland habitat in this area such that the population levels of animals most closely associated with this habitat type are significantly reduced. In particular, woodland nesting species such as sharp -shinned and Cooper'shawks would be expected to become increasingly rare in this area due to roadway development and the cumulative associated adjacent land use changes. Alternative 1. Impacts to oak trees and woodlands would be as described above. Alternative 2. Impacts to oaks would be as described above. Alternative 3. Impacts to oak trees would be as described above. The differences in roadway alignments in the area south of Soledad Canyon for the Golden Valley Road network alternatives (Alternatives 3, 5, and 7) as compared to the other alternatives would occur primarily within areas of disturbed sage scrub and grassland habitats. No substantial difference in the number of oak trees impacted is expected and no additional significant impacts City of Santa Ctarita 5.4-20 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.4 Biological Resources would occur. However, because the overall number of road miles within this area would increase slightly as compared to Alternatives 1 and 2, the overall potential for oak tree impacts would be slightly higher. Alternative 4. Impacts to oaks would be similar to those of Alternative 2, although widening of intersections may marginally increase the potential to affect oak trees. AIternative 5. Impacts to oaks would be similar to those of Alternative 3, although widening of intersections may marginally increase the potential to affect oak trees. Alternative 6. Impacts associated with buildout of this alternative would be the same as those of Alternative 2. Alternative 7. Impacts associated with buildout of this alternative would be the same as those of Alternative 2. Mitigation Measures. The following measure is required for all alternatives. B-3 At the time that detailed design for specific roadways is conducted, the site specific design shall avoid disturbance within the dripline of native oak trees whenever possible. Each roadway that passes through oak tree habitat shall comply with the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. Trees removed as a result of improvements shall be replaced in accordance with the City's Ordinance. Significance After Mitigation. The direct impact to oak trees is considered to be fully mitigable provided there is compliance with the City's Oak Tree Ordinance, although the loss and fragmentation of oak woodland habitat as a direct result of road construction cannot be reduced given build -out of the City's road network. Overall potential for direct impacts would be greatest under Alternative 5 and lowest under Alternatives 2 and 6; however, the difference in overall impact among the alternatives is nominal. Effect B-4 Roadway construction that would occur under any of the project alternatives may cause the direct loss of sensitive plants. This is considered a potentially significant, but mitigable impact (Class Sensitive species may be disturbed during roadway improvements under all alternatives. The degree to which any particular roadway impacts such resources is dependent on actual alignments. Loss of any listed, proposed or CNPS List 1B species is considered an adverse and significant impact. In particular, all alternatives may have a significant impact on the population of Nevins barberry located in San Francisquito Canyon because of the proposed development of Dickason Road. The development of Plum Canyon Road and Whites Canyon Road, as proposed under all alternatives, may have a significant impact on the populations of spreading navarretia and California orcutt grass found in vernal pools in the Cruzan Mesa area. Alternative 1. Potential impacts to sensitive plants would be as described above. City of Santa Clarita 5.421 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.4 Biological Resources Alternative 2. Impacts to sensitive plants would be as described above. Alternative 3. Impacts to sensitive plants would be as described above. Alternative 4. Impacts to sensitive plants would be as described above. Alternative 5. Impacts to sensitive plants would be as described above. Alternative 6. Impacts to sensitive plants would be as described above. Alternative 7. Impacts to sensitive plants would be as described above. Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are required for all alternatives. 114(a) A site specific survey for sensitive plant species should be conducted along all routes during the appropriate time of the year at the time when they are proposed for actual development. Because of the potential to find previously unidentified sensitive species, surveys should be floristic in nature, identifying all species encountered. B -4(b) Avoid populations of sensitive plant species if located. Develop and implement restoration plans, in consultation with the CDFG and USFWS (as appropriate) only if avoidance is not possible. Restoration plans shall contain a monitoring program for a minimum of 5 years. Significance After Mitigation. The direct loss of sensitive plant resources can be reduced to less than significant under all alternatives if the recommended mitigation measures are implemented. Because all alternatives include all of the roads with the potential to affect sensitive plant species, overall residual impacts would be similar under all alternatives. Effect B-5 Roadway construction associated with all project alternatives may cause the direct and indirect loss of sensitive animal populations. This is considered a potentially significant, but mitigable impact (Class II). As indicated in Table 5.4-1, a large variety of sensitive animals reside within the planning area. The majority of the most sensitive species (unarmored threespine stickleback, red -legged frog, southwestern toad, willow flycatcher, and Least Bell's vireo) are associated with riparian habitats located along the Santa Clara River and San Francisquito Canyon. Disturbance to this habitat is expected to occur as a result of all alternatives, particularly due to the proposed construction of the Tourney Road bridge and Dickason Road. Many of the sensitive raptorial bird species would be most affected by the potential loss of woodland nesting habitat, as discussed under Effect B-3. Other species are wide-ranging and may or may not occur in suitable habitat within the planning area, depending upon the past use of specific sites and the availability of suitable habitat. Development of the roadway system of any project alternative is expected to result in potentially significant impacts to sensitive animals, depending on their actual presence along specific road alignments. City of Santa Clarita 5.4-22 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.4 Biological Resources Alternative 1. The Newhall Ranch Road extension east of Golden Valley Road would result in an additional and relatively long crossing through the Santa Clara River. Bank stabilization may also alter the hydrologic dynamics of the river channel through this area and downstream, which could result in the removal of additional downstream vegetation on a permanent basis. This could increase siltation effects on the downstream population of the endangered unarmored threespine stickleback. The impact of this alternative on the sensitive resources of the Santa Clara River and the wildlife populations associated with it is considered potentially significant. Alternative 2. This alternative would eliminate one Santa Clara River crossing but would result in additional road grading along the north bank of the Santa Clara River at the junction of Golden Valley Road and Newhall Ranch Road. The current alignment for this intersection is partially on the upper terraces of the river and within mulefat scrub habitat. The habitats in this area could harbor populations of coast horned lizard, silvery legless lizard, coastal western whiptail lizard, coast patch -nosed snake, San Diego black -tailed hare, and San Diego desert woodrat. The incremental loss of habitat and populations of these animals would not be significant on a regional or site specific basis because of the continuing regional supply of suitable habitat and these species' widespread distribution. Nonetheless, such incremental losses would contribute to the overall cumulative decline in their population levels. Alternative 3. Similar to Alternative 2, this roadway network would result in an intersection at the junction of Golden Valley Road and Newhall Ranch Road that would result in potentially greater site specific impacts than under Alternative 1. This alternative would also create additional impacts to riparian resources associated with needed fill at the intersection of Newhall Ranch Road and Santa Clarita Parkway. Sensitive animals discussed above under Alternative 2 would also occur in this area, and the cottonwood trees in this area have the potential to provide suitable breeding habitat for sensitive raptors, including Cooper's and sharp -shinned hawks. In addition, constraining the river through this reach could alter the hydrologic nature of the river, resulting in the erosion of materials through this reach and subsequent downstream sedimentation that may affect populations of the unarmored threespine stickleback. This is considered a significant additional impact of this alternative. Alternative 4. This alternative would widen the Golden Valley Road and Newhall Ranch Road intersection associated with Alternative 2. This may create additional impacts to the mulefat habitat in this area, depending upon the length and width of approach lanes for the northbound traffic. This less than significant impact to sensitive animals is similar to that described for Alternative 2, differing only in the potential amount of mulefat scrub acreage disturbed. Alternative 5. This alternative would widen both the Golden Valley Road and Santa Clarita Parkway intersections with Newhall Ranch Road associated with Alternative 3. Such widening may result in additional losses to riparian habitat used by sensitive animal species as discussed above and these losses can be mitigated as discussed below under mitigation measures. Alternative 6. Buildout of this alternative would disturb the same land area as Alternative 2 and would have the same effects as those discussed above for Alternative 2. 5.4-23 City of Santa Clarita Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment El Section 5.4 Biological Resources Alternative 7. Buildout of this alternative would disturb the same land area as Alternative 3 and would have the same effects as those discussed above for Alternative 3. Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are required for all alternatives. B -5(a) A site specific survey for sensitive animal species should be conducted along all routes during the appropriate time of the year at the time when they are proposed for actual development. If species are encountered, the location where they are found shall be avoided. If avoidance is not possible, a relocation or habitat restoration plan shall be implemented on lands that have been set aside for long term preservation as open space. B -5(b) All road crossing construction of the Santa Clara River and San Francisquito Canyon Creek shall be done during the summer during low flow periods. In the event that flow is occurring during construction, silt traps and other facilities shall be employed to avoid the creation of downstream impacts on unarmored threespine stickleback populations. All diversions shall be done in accordance with Fish and Game and Army Corps of Engineers permit conditions. Significance After Mitigation. The direct loss of sensitive animals can be reduced to less than significant if mitigation measures are followed. Overall residual impacts would be greatest under Alternative 1. Impacts are considered lowest under Alternatives 2 and 6, although the difference between these alternatives and Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 7 is nominal. Effect B-6 The development of the roadway network planned under any of the project alternatives would intrude into and cause further . fragmentation of significant ecological areas contained within City boundaries. This is considered a significant and unavoidable impact of any alternative (Class I). As discussed in the setting section, three SERs originally delineated by the County of Los Angeles are contained within the planning area. The proposed roadway network for all alternatives would include an extension of the Old Road through the Valley Oaks SEA west of I- 5, Dickason Road through and adjacent to the San Francisquito Canyon SEA, and three to four new road crossings of the Santa Clara River SEA. The roadway extensions through these areas will serve to directly disturb plant habitat through fill and grading activities, remove animal habitat, and disrupt the movement of animals through these SEAs through the creation of barriers. When the fragmentation of these Significant Ecological Areas and the plant and animal habitat that they contain is considered in the context of the regional growth that creates the need for the roadways, it is considered to be cumulatively significant. Alternative 1. This alternative includes an additional and relatively long road crossing through the Santa Clara River SEA. This road crossing and the bank stabilization expected to be required for it would have an additional significant effect on the long term viability of this SEA to sustain sensitive plants and animals. City of Santa Ctarita 5.4-24 l� I I I �I Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.4 Biological Resources AIternative 2. Impacts to significant ecological areas would be similar to those of Alternative 1, although one of the Newhall Ranch Road crossings over the Santa Clara River would be eliminated. Nevertheless, this alternative's impact is considered significant and unavoidable. AIternative 3. Impacts to significant ecological areas would be similar to those of Alternative 2 and are considered significant and unavoidable. The increased amount of roadway area that could occur within the Santa Clara River SEA at the Newhall Ranch Road/Santa Clarita Parkway intersection could incrementally increase impacts. Alternative 4. Impacts to significant ecological areas would similar to those of Alternative 2, although the augmentation of intersections that could occur within SFAs may incrementally increase direct impacts. Alternative 5. Impacts to significant ecological areas would similar to those of Alternative 3, although the augmentation of intersections that could occur within SEAs may incrementally increase direct impacts. Alternative 6. Impacts to significant ecological areas associated with full buildout of this alternative would be similar to those of Alternative 2. Alternative 7. Impacts to significant ecological areas associated with buildout of this alternative would be similar to those of Alternative 3. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures described above to reduce impacts to Effects B-2, B-3, B-4, and B-5 will also serve to reduce impacts within the SEAS. Significance After Mitigation. While the direct effects of roadway construction can be substantially reduced through specific alignment to avoid sensitive resources and the restoration of impacted habitats, such measures do not reduce the effect caused by further fragmenting the habitats through road development and future buildout of planned land uses. Therefore, this impact on the SEAs would remain significant under any alternative. Overall impacts are considered greatest under Alternative 1 and lowest under Alternatives 2 and 6, although the difference among alternatives is nominal. City of Santa Ctadta 5.4-25 I Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.5 Noise 5.5 NOISE Implementation of the proposed Circulation Element Amendment would generate noise primarily in two ways: (1) the use of construction equipment during roadway building, and (2) vehicular traffic on new roadways. Construction activity associated with any of the project alternatives would have the potential to generate significant impacts to receptors in the vicinity of construction sites. In general, impacts would be greatest under those alternatives that involve more overall roadway construction (Alternatives 1, 6, and 7). Alternatives 3 and 5 involve the least overall roadway construction and would therefore generate the fewest overall construction impacts. Traffic noise would potentially exceed normally acceptable levels on all major roadway segments under all project alternatives. The Newhall Ranch Road extension that would occur under Alternative 1 would audibly increase noise levels along Newhall Ranch Road as compared to the other alternatives. The overall impacts of other alternatives would be similar. Traffic -related noise impacts can be reduced through the use of sound walls, berms, setbacks, and/or the use of rubberized asphalt in street paving. ■ 5.5.1 Setting ' a. Noise Background. Noise is often defined as unwanted or objectionable sound. Noise level (or volume) is typically measured in decibels (dB) using the A -weighted sound pressure level (A -weighted decibels, or dBA). The A -weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound power levels to be consistent with that of human hearing response, which is most sensitive to frequencies around 4,000 Hertz (about the highest note on a piano) and less sensitive to low frequencies (below 100 Hertz). In addition to the actual instantaneous measurement of sound levels, the duration of sound is important because sounds that occur over a long period of time are more likely to be an annoyance or cause direct physical damage or environmental stress. One of the most frequently used noise metrics that considers duration as well as sound power level is the equivalent noise level (Leq). The Leq is essentially .the average sound level occurring over a specified time period, typically one hour. Another noise metric used to characterize the variations in sound levels over time is the percentage exceedance level, designated as Lio, Lso, L90, etc. The subscript notes the percentage of time that the noise level was exceeded during the measurement period. For example, Lio is the sound level exceeded 10% of the time and is generally taken to be indicative of the highest noise levels experienced at a site. The Lgo is that level exceeded 90% of the time and this level is often called the base level of noise at a location. The L5o sound level (that level exceeded 50% of the time) is frequently used in noise standards and ordinances. The sound pressure level is measured on a logarithmic scale with the 0 dB level based on the lowest detectable sound pressure level that people can perceive (an audible sound that is not zero sound pressure level). Decibels cannot be added arithmetically, but rather are added on a logarithmic basis. A doubling of sound energy is equivalent to an increase of 3 dB and a sound that is 10 dB less than another does not increase the dB level. Because of the nature of the human ear, a sound must be about 10 dB greater than the reference sound to be perceived as twice as loud. In general, a 3 dB change in community noise levels is noticeable, while 1-2 dB changes are generally not perceived. Quiet suburban areas typically have noise levels in the 40- 50 dBA range, while those along arterial streets are in the 50-60+ dBA range. Normal City of Santa Clarita 551 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.5 Noise conversational levels are in the 60-65 dBA range, and ambient noise levels greater than that can interrupt conversations. The time period in which noise occurs is also important because noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that which occurs during the daytime. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) recognizes this characteristic by weighting the hourly Leqs over a 24- hour period. The weighting involves the addition of 10 dB to nighttime noise levels and 5 dB to evening noise levels (7:00 PM to 10:00 PM) to account for the greater amount of disturbance associated with noise at these time periods. b. Noise Regulation. Noise Element of the General Plan.. The City of Santa Clarita has adopted the land use compatibility chart contained in the California Office of Noise Control Guidelines for the Preparation of Noise Elements of the General Plan as part of its General Plan Noise Element, which was originally adopted in 1991. This chart, depicted on Figure 5.5-1, provides guidelines for acceptable and unacceptable noise levels for various types of land uses. For noise sensitive single family residential uses, noise levels below 60 dBA CNEL are considered "normally acceptable" while noise levels of 70 to 75 dBA CNEL are considered "normally unacceptable" and levels of over 75 dBA CNEL are considered "clearly unacceptable." For less sensitive commercial uses, noise -levels of up to 70 dBA CNEL are considered normally acceptable while levels of up to about 78 dBA CNEL are considered "conditionally acceptable." Santa Clarita Noise Ordinance. The Santa Clarita Noise Ordinance governs noise from non -transportation sources in the City by setting maximum noise levels that one person can produce at the boundary between his/her property and adjoining properties. The creation of noise above these levels, which are shown in Table 5.5-1, are considered violations of the . Ordinance. For noise occurring for between 5 and 15 minutes in any hour, the maximum levels in Table 5.5-1 are increased by 5 dBA. The adjustment is 10 dBA for noise occurring between 1 and 5 minutes in any hour and 20 dBA for noise occurring for less than one minute. Table 5.5-1. Santa Maximum Clarita Noise Ordinance Noise Levels 0,1 Reg to ' d'h ... Ni, :.. Residential Zone imeF, ` , _r sf{. r W! Day eSound.Leve : 65 dBA Residential Zone Night 55 dBA Commercial and Manufacturing Day 80 dBA Commercial and Manufacturing Night 70 dBA Source: City of Santa Clarita Noise Ordinance, Section 11.44.040.A. At the boundary line between a residential property and a commeroiall manufacturing property, the noise level of the quieterzone shall be used. The City Noise Ordinance also includes time restrictions for construction activity. Section 11.44.080 of the Ordinance restricts construction activity requiring a building permit on sites within 300 feet of a residentially zoned property to between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM Monday through Friday and between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturday. IFF City of Santa Clarita 5.5-2 I II It II IA U I1 I II II I Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.5 Noise RPRETATION NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Source: City of Santa Clarita Noise Element of the General Plan, 1991. Land Use/ Noise Compatibility Matrix Figure 5.5-1 r5.5-3 City of Santa Clarita •• •EXPOSURE LAND •' 55 r 65 70 75 :r RESIDENTIAL•DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY, DUPLEX,W MOBILE HOMES RESIDENTIAL - MUL TI -FAMILY /dam /%%///��0/l/�// . v� m SCHOOLS, LICHURCHES,BRARIES �,� 22" HOMESNURSING AUDITORIUMS, CONCERT HALLS, AMPHITHEATRES SPORTS ARENA, OUTDOOR SPECTATOR SPORTS PLAYGROUNDS, NEIGHBORHOOD PAR,IKS GOLF COURSES, RIDII` G STABLES, WATER RECREATION, • • - Will E PROFESSIONAL • / IA RPRETATION NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Source: City of Santa Clarita Noise Element of the General Plan, 1991. Land Use/ Noise Compatibility Matrix Figure 5.5-1 r5.5-3 City of Santa Clarita Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.5 Noise c. Current Noise Environment. The primary source of noise in most areas of the City is traffic on freeways and major arterials. The two greatest noise generators are Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route 14 (SR -14), which border the City to the west and east, respectively. Noise levels immediately adjacent to these freeways generally exceed 75 dBA CNEL; the 70 dBA CNEL contour extends several hundred feet from the centerline of both freeways in areas where there are no intervening barriers. Major arterials that generate substantial traffic noise include Bouquet Canyon Road, Soledad Canyon Road; Valencia Boulevard, Seco Canyon Road, and San Fernando Road. Noise levels along these major arterials generally exceed 70 dBA CNEL. 5.5.2 Impact Analysis a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. Implementation of the draft Circulation Element would create two types of noise impacts: (1) temporary noise due to the operation of construction equipment as new roadway infrastructure is constructed; and (2) long-term noise due to the introduction of traffic noise associated with new roadways. Noise related to construction activity was evaluated using construction equipment noise level estimates contained in the USEPA report Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances (1971). Impacts related to construction activity are considered significant if construction would cause noise levels exceeding the maximum level of 65 dBA allowed in residential areas under the City Noise Ordinance (see Table.5.5-1). Long-term noise related to traffic on new roadways was estimated using a modification of the Federal Highway Noise Prediction Model and the traffic estimates in Section 5.8, Transportation/CircuIation. Impacts are considered significant if traffic noise from any new roadways or other transportation infrastructure are projected to cause the noise level at any adjacent use to exceed the normally acceptable level for that use, as shown on Figure 5.5-1. b. Impact Summary. The noise impacts of each of the project alternatives are summarized and ranked in Table 5.5-2. A ranking of 1 indicates the alternative with the least environmental impact while a ranking of 7 indicates the alternative with the greatest impact. c. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Effect N-1 Any of the project alternatives would involve roadway infrastructure construction that would temporarily expose people to noise levels exceeding those allowed under the City Noise Ordinance. This is considered a potentially significant and unavoidable impact of all alternatives (Class I). The operation of heavy equipment during the construction of roadway infrastructure would result in temporary increases in noise in the immediate vicinity of individual construction sites. Typical noise levels associated with individual pieces of construction equipment are shown on Figure 5.5-2. As illustrated in Table 5.5-3, average noise levels associated with the use of heavy equipment at construction sites can range from about 78 to 88 dBA at 50 feet from the source, depending upon the types of equipment in operation at any given time and the phase of City of Santa Cladta 5.5-4 on "a, 1111111114 ON Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.5 Noise air. an UK on, Va. on am M 1111111110 M Class I = Significant and Unavoidable, Class It = Significant but Mitigable; Class II/ = Less than Significant; Class IV = Beneficial A ranking of I indicates the alternative with the least impact; a ranking of 7 indicates the greatest impact. 5.5-5 City of Santa Clarlita of Noise Impacts Table 5.5-2. Summary ype of'Impact -0,41 0 �,WzAlterrlkathid!4 AltehliatlVeS 0, 0Uk9AIteMAtIve6*p!Alternative,7 r; N-1. Temporary Roadway Roadway Roadway Impacts similar to Impacts similar to Impacts from Impacts from Construction Activity construction would construction construction may Alternative 2 for Alternative 3 for buildout similar buildout similar have the potential to may cause cause temporarily new roads; new roads; to Alternative 2; to Alternative temporarily cause temporarily significant augmentation of augmentation of possibly less 3; possibly less noise exceeding significant impacts; overall existing existing construction construction City Noise impacts; overall impact slightly intersections in intersections in because of because of Ordinance impact slightly lower than either developed areas developed areas slightly lower slightly lower standards. This is less than Alternative I or 2 potentially potentially demand for new demand for considered a Alternative 1 because of the disruptive. disruptive. roads. new roads. potentially because of the reduction in Class 1,, Rank = 6 Class 1,, Rank = 7 Class 1,, Class I; significant impact. reduction in roadway miles. Rank = I Rank = 3 Class 1, Rank = 5 roadway miles. Class 1,, Rank = 4 Class 1,, Rank 2 N-2. Traffic on New. All new major roads Overall impact Overall impact Impact similar to Impact similar to Impact similar Impact similar Roadways would create noise similar to similar to Alternative 2; Alternative 3; to Alternative 2; to Alternative potentially Alternative 1; Alternatives 1 traffic levels traffic levels noise levels 3; noise levels exceeding normally impact from and 2; impact generally slightly generally slightly slightly lower in slightly lower in acceptable levels; Newhall Ranch from Newhall higher because of higher because of many cases many cases noise in normally Road extension Ranch Road increased increased due to overall due to overall unacceptable range eliminated; extension average traffic average traffic reduction in reduction in on portions of noise slightly eliminated but speed associated speed associated vehicle trips. vehicle trips. Newhall Ranch higher than traffic lower than with intersection with intersection Class I/,, Rank = Class I/,, Road. Alternative 1 on under Alternative augmentation. augmentation. 2 Rank= I Class I/,*. Rank = 7 other 2; noise slightly Class I/,, Rank = 6 Class 11, Rank = 5 throughways higher than between 1-5 and Alternative I on SR -14. Class H; other Rank = 4 throughways. Class I/,, Rank= 3 Class I = Significant and Unavoidable, Class It = Significant but Mitigable; Class II/ = Less than Significant; Class IV = Beneficial A ranking of I indicates the alternative with the least impact; a ranking of 7 indicates the greatest impact. 5.5-5 City of Santa Clarlita Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.5 Noise Construction Phase vel -at 50 Feet ? »Q en t( Minimum Required *,, TAllrtm .Equipment OtiSite. Equipment OnISite Clearing 84 dBA 84 dBA Excavation 78 dBA 88 dBA Foundation/Conditioning 88 dBA 88 dBA Laying Subbase, Paving 78 dBA 79 dBA Finishing and Cleanup 84 dBA 84 dBA Source: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, 'Noise from c:onstrucuon tquipmenr and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances,"prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971. construction. The highest noise levels generally occur during excavation and foundation development, which involve the use of earth -moving equipment such as backhoes, bulldozers, shovels, and front loaders. Even the minimum average noise level of 78 dBA that would occur during construction exceeds the daytime maximum of 65 dBA allowed at residential uses under the City Noise Ordinance. The maximum levels during all phases except paving also exceed the daytime maximum (80 dBA) allowed for commercial and manufacturing uses. Construction noise would be temporary and violations of the Noise Ordinance standard would be expected to occur only sporadically during construction period. Nevertheless, impacts to both residential and non-residential are considered potentially significant. Noise levels from point sources such as construction sites typically attenuate at a rate of about 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Therefore, only areas within a few hundred feet of construction sites would be exposed to noise levels potentially exceeding that allowed under the City Noise Ordinance. Table 5.5-4 shows the estimated distance to the 65 dBA contour (the maximum allowable level for noise sensitive residential uses) during each phase of roadway construction. Noise Ordinance violations may occur in residential areas closer than about 750 feet to roadway construction sites during the loudest construction phases (excavation and foundation development). Alternative 1. Areas within about 750 feet of construction sites could.be exposed to noise levels of over 65 dBA during roadway construction, which would exceed the maximum level for residential land uses under the City Noise Ordinance. Planned roadway segments that may temporarily create noise levels exceeding the 65 dBA threshold for existing residential uses include: • Newhall Ranch Road east of Golden Valley Road; • Golden Valley Road between Sierra Highway and SR -14; • Santa Clarita Parkway north of SR -14; and • Copperhill Road. City of Santa Clarits 5.5-6 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 6.6 Noise Noise Level at 50 Feet, dBA 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 j 1 i Compacters (Rollers) - tn I j z Front Loaders Backhoes 1 a Tractors/Dozers �w Scrapers/Graders O aPavers Trucks Concrete Mixers I I Concrete Pumps Movable Cranes I .` O - H! Derrick Cranes Pumps c �y . Generators W Compressors F Z Pneumatic Wrenches i y a' i Jack Hammers and Rock Drills Pile Drivers (Peak) x Vibrator i ' O Saws Note: Based on Limited Available Data Samples Source: USEPA, 1971, Noise From Construction Equipment -and Operations. Typical Noise Levels from Construction Equipment Figure 5.5-2 City of Santa Ciarifa 5.5-7 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.5 Noise Table 5.54. Estimated Distance to 65 .: Contour During Construction Phase Distance lin feet) r p, Minimum Required ; , A11:Pa anent . c� t �•��r e v *ff3... A( ,= i x 6 tai Equtpmenb Egulpinent"ti=Site, d t nSitu Clearing 400-500 400-500 Excavation 200-250 650-750 Foundation/Conditioning 650-750 650-750 Laying Subbase, Paving 200-250 225-275 Finishing and Cleanup 400-500 400-500 Note: Assumes the average noise levels presented in Table 5.5-3 and an attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. These estimates due not account for attenuation due to topography or other noise barriers and, therefore, represent a 'worst-case* scenario. Impacts in each of these areas are considered potentially significant. In addition, nearly all planned roadway construction could expose planned future residential development to noise levels exceeding City Noise Ordinance standards, depending upon the timing of road construction in relation to housing construction. Alternative 2. Construction noise levels associated with the Newhall Ranch Road Reduction alternative would be similar to those of Alternative 1. However, because the eastern terminus of Newhall Ranch Road would be at Golden Valley Road under this alternative, roadway construction activity would not affect residential areas between Golden Valley Road and SR -14. Nevertheless, construction noise levels would be expected to exceed that normally allowed under the City Noise Ordinance in some instances. Therefore, construction impacts are considered_ significant. Alternative 3. Construction noise levels associated with the Golden Valley Road Network alternative would be similar to those of Alternative 1. Areas within about 750 feet of roadway corridors may temporarily be exposed to noise over 65 dBA. However, because the eastern terminus of Newhall Ranch Road would be at Golden Valley Road under this alternative, roadway construction activity would not affect areas between Golden Valley Road and SR -14 (which includes much of Canyon Country). Noise levels in some residential areas would be expected to exceed that normally allowed under the City Noise Ordinance. Therefore, impacts relating to construction are considered potentially significant. Alternative 4. Noise levels associated with the construction of new roadways would be similar to those of Alternative 2. However, the additional construction activity associated with building additional lanes at some intersections would result in longer overall periods of noise. In addition, because this alternative includes augmentation of a number of intersections on existing roads in highly developed areas, the overall potential for exposure to construction noise would be greater. The augmentation of existing intersections in developed areas would have the potential to be temporarily.disturbing to nearby residents and businesses. This alternatives impacts are considered potentially significant. City of Santa Cladta 5.5-8 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR cesr..., CC u..r�e Alternative 5. Construction noise levels associated with this alternative would be similar to those of Alternative 3. However, as with Alternative 4, the additional construction activity associated with building additional lanes at some intersections would result in longer overall periods of noise. In addition, the augmentation of a number of intersections on existing roads in highly developed areas would increase the overall potential for exposure to construction noise. The augmentation of existing intersections in developed areas would have the potential to be temporarily disturbing to nearby residents and businesses. This alternative's impacts are considered potentially significant. Alternative 6. Construction -related noise impacts associated with full buildout of Alternative 6 would be identical to those of Alternative 2 and are considered potentially significant. Alternative 7. Construction -related noise impacts associated with full buildout of Alternative 6 would be identical to those of Alternative 2 and are considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are recommended for all alternatives to minimize the impact of roadway construction: N -1(a) Grading and construction operations shall be limited to between 7:00 am and 7:00 PM on non -holiday weekdays and Saturdays. N -1(b) Whenever feasible, electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel equipment. N -1(c) All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine covers and shall be equipped with factory -recommended mufflers and other silencing features. N -1(d) The City shall review all roadway projects to determine the necessity and feasibility of additional construction noise mitigation. Additional mitigation may include, but is not limited to, the use of temporary noise barriers to shield nearby sensitive receptors and additional restrictions on the phasing or timing of noise generating activities such as grading. Significance After Mitigation. The recommended mitigation measures would reduce the effects of roadway construction to the. degree feasible for all alternatives. However, the potential for construction -related noise levels to exceed that allowed under the City Noise Ordinance would remain. Alternatives 4 and 5 would have the greatest residual impact because they involve the greatest amount of construction activity in proximity to developed areas. Alternatives 2 and 6 would involve the least overall construction and would therefore fj have the lowest overall residual impact, although the difference between these two alternatives ■ and Alternatives 3 and 7 is nominal. II I city or santa wanra 5.5-9 Santa Clama Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.5. Noise Effect N-2 Any of the project alternatives would have the potential to expose existing and planned residential areas throughout the City to long-term traffic noise levels exceeding those normally considered compatible with residential uses. This is considered a potentially significant, but mitigable impact of any project alternative (Class II). None of the Circulation Element alternatives would directly generate additional vehicle trips in the City. However, implementation of any alternative would introduce new roadways that would carry traffic, thereby exposing existing and possible future uses to new sources of vehicular noise. Noise level estimates for several planned roadway segments with the potential for exposure to high noise levels are shown in Table 5.5-5. Figure 5.5-3 shows the locations of study segments. In general, future traffic noise levels along planned major roadway corridors would not vary substantially from alternative to alternative. In most cases, the projected noise levels for the various alternatives vary by less than 3 dBA, the level of change that is normally required before a change in noise level is perceived. Therefore, with a few exceptions, the future noise levels along planned roadways would not be audibly different. Alternative 1. All of the major roadway corridors that would be added under this alternative are anticipated to carry sufficient traffic volumes to cause noise levels to potentially exceed 60 dBA CNEL, the maximum level considered "normally acceptable" for residential uses (see Table 5.5-5). All but two of the studied corridors (segments 1 and 2 on Newhall Ranch Road) are adjacent to existing or planned residential uses. Noise levels along segments 1 and 2 are within the "normally acceptable" to "conditionally acceptable" range for adjacent business park uses. Impacts associated with all roadway corridors are considered potentially significant. On all four studied segments of Newhall Ranch Road, the noise level at the roadway edge could exceed 70 dBA, which is considered "normally unacceptable" for residential uses. Although segments 1 and 2 in Table 5.5-5 are not adjacent to residential uses, segments 3 and 4 are adjacent to residentially designated lands. Segment 4 is also adjacent to existing residences. Alternative 2. Traffic noise levels associated with buildout of this alternative would generally be similar to those of Alternative 1. Impacts are considered potentially significant on all major road segments. The most substantial difference between this alternative and.Altemative 1 would be on Newhall Ranch Road, which would carry less traffic because it would terminate at Golden Valley Road) by almost 7 dBA, while traffic noise east of Golden Valley Road (segment 4) would be eliminated. The noise level change would therefore be clearly audible along Newhall Ranch Road. The elimination of the Newhall Ranch Road extension would divert more traffic to alternative throughways such as Via Princessa, Golden Valley Road, Copperhill Road, and Lyons Avenue as compared to Alternative 1. Therefore, the overall noise level along these roads would increase; however, the increase would be in the range of 1 to 2 dBA, a change that is not generally audible. City of Santa Clarita 5.5-10 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.5 Noise RE = Residential Estate; RVL = Residential Very Low, RL = Residential Low; RS = Residential Suburban; RM = Residential Moderate; CO = Commercial Office, BP = Business Park; IC = industrial Commercial, OS = Open Space. See Appendix D for noise calculation worksheets. 11 I City of Santa Clarita 5.5-11 TableNoise Selected Roadway Corridors z Noise Level (tiBA CNELj at RoaSlway Edge o Roadway Adjacent Land Uses , Comdor ' DeslgnattonsTHEN ' perAllemattve x }„ 15 Newhall Ranch Road 1. 1-5 to Rye Cyn BP 74.2 70.0 70.1 70.6 70.6 69.9 69.8 2. Rye Cyn to BP 73.3 69.6 69.6 70.0 70.0 69.5 69.5 Dickason 3. S. Clarita to G. RM, CO 76.0 69.2 63.7 70.6 65.1 70.1 63.4 Valley 4. G. Valley to RS, RM, CC 74.0 N/A N/A NIA NIA NIA NIA Soledad Santa Clarita Parkway 5. Soledad Cyn to RS 69.0 68.8 69.4 69.4 70.3 69.7 69.3 Via Princessa 6. Via Princessa RS, RL, RE 66.2 66.0 63.4 67.0 65.1 66.9 63.4 to Sierra Hwy Golden Valley Rd. 7. Newhall to OS, RVL 64.2 63.7 64.0 63.4 64.3 63.8 64.0 Plum Cyn. 8. Sierra Hwy to RS 65.9 67.3 67.3 68.4 68.4 68.3 67.3 SR -14 9. Via Princessa RL, RE 68.6 69.7 71.8 70.9 71.3 69.5 70.0 to Sierra Hwy Via Princessa 10. S. Clarita to G. RS, RE 68.6 69.7 69.7 70.9 71.0 70.6 69.8 Valle 11. G. Valleyto RS, RL 65.9 67.6 68.1 68.4 68.7 68.6 68.0 Plum Cyn 12. Wiley Cyn Rd. RS, RL 69.0 69.6 1 69.4 70.9 70.7 69.5 69.5 13. Lyons Ave. RL, IC 65.2 66.7 66.7 67.4 67.1 66.8 66.6 Ext. 14. Copperhill Rd. RS, RL, RE 62.2 64.0 64.2 64.0 64.0 64.0 64.0 15: Dickason Rd. RS, RL, BP, CC 65.6 65.8 66.0 62.6 62.6 65.3 65.7 (n/o Decoro) 16. Rye Canyon ° RL, BP 69.9 69.8 69.9 70.9 71.0 70.9 70.0 Rd. 17. Magic Mtn. RS 68.5 68.9 68.6 69.6 69.4 69.8 68.7 Pkwy. 1 18. The Old Road RE 67.2 66.9 67.8 68.4 68.21 67.6 1 67.7 RE = Residential Estate; RVL = Residential Very Low, RL = Residential Low; RS = Residential Suburban; RM = Residential Moderate; CO = Commercial Office, BP = Business Park; IC = industrial Commercial, OS = Open Space. See Appendix D for noise calculation worksheets. 11 I City of Santa Clarita 5.5-11 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.5 Noise LEGEND Existing Road[ In Planned Roads A" I.[ d . ••••••••• 0,Nnment1All Ahemagwaa ...... Exleting Planned Roadway , Syetam Only uunnnnnm E[Iseng Planned Roadway S"m And Newhall Ranch Read Rsduetlon Ahemaewen Ony 11.3.1, 6 eeeeeeele Newhall Ranch Road Reduction And Golden Valley Read Natwark AhametMa Only- Golden nly Golden Vasey Road Network Albmallw Only o1 2 I ' ecuux mc[a NORTH 1s Study Segment Noise Study Segments Figure 5.5-3 City of Santa Clarita 5.5.12 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.5 Noise Alternative 3. Traffic noise levels associated with buildout of this alternative would generally be similar to those of Alternative 1. Impacts are considered potentially significant on all major road segments. As with Alternative 2, the most substantial difference between this alternative and Alternative 1 would be on Newhall Ranch Road. The reduction in traffic would reduce future noise levels along segment 3 (between Santa Clarita Parkway and Golden Valley Road) by over 12 dBA this represents about a 5.5 dBA reduction on this segment as compared to Alternative 2). In addition, traffic noise east of Golden Valley Road (segment 4) would be eliminated, as shown in Table 5.5-5. The noise level change would therefore be clearly audible along Newhall Ranch Road as compared to Alternative 1 and, on segment 3, as compared to Alternative 2. As with Alternative 2, the elimination of the Newhall Ranch Road extension would divert more traffic to alternative throughways such as Via Princessa, Copperhill Road, and Lyons Avenue as compared to Alternative 1. Therefore, the overall noise level along these roads would increase; however, the increase would be in the range of 1 to 2 dBA, a change that is not generally audible. Alternative 4. Traffic noise impacts associated with buildout of Alternative 4 would be similar to those of Alternative 2 and are considered potentially significant on all planned major roadways. In general, noise levels would be slightly higher than those of Alternative 2 because of the greater overall traffic speeds accommodated by intersection augmentation. However, the increases are generally in the 1 to 2 dBA range, a level that is not audible to most listeners. Alternative 5. Traffic noise impacts associated with buildout of this alternative would be similar to those of Alternative 3 and are considered potentially significant on all planned major roadways. Overall noise levels would be slightly higher than those of Alternative 2 on most roadway segments because of the greater traffic speeds accommodated by intersection augmentation. However, the increases are generally in the 1 to 2 dBA range, a level that is not audible to most listeners. AIternative 6. Traffic noise impacts associated with buildout of this alternative would be similar to those of Alternative 2 and are considered potentially significant on all planned major roadways. Although the overall number of vehicle miles traveled would be slightly lower under this alternative, noise levels on most roadways would be slightly higher (less than 2 dBA) under this alternative as compared to Alternative 2 because of the slight increase in average traffic speeds and projected increase in the number of buses on the road system. However, the change in noise levels as compared to Alternative 2 would not be audible to most listeners. Alternative T Traffic noise impacts associated with buildout of this alternative would be similar to those of Alternative 3 and are considered potentially significant on all planned major roadways. The increase in average traffic speed and increase in the number of buses on the roadway system would actually increase noise levels on most road segments as compared to Alternative 3, despite the overall reduction in vehicle miles traveled. However, the change in City of Santa Clarita 5.5-13 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.5 Noise noise levels as compared to Alternative 3 are less than 3 dBA and would not be audible to most listeners. Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are recommended for all alternatives to minimize the impacts of traffic noise on existing and planned development in the City: N -2(a) A traffic noise study shall be prepared by an individual qualified in acoustical analysis for all specific roadway alignments at the time that specific alignment is proposed. Any recommendations contained in the study for alleviating significant noise problems will be adhered to. Mitigation may include, but is not limited to, the use of sound walls, berms, and/or appropriate setbacks. N -2(b) On new road segments with the potential to expose adjacent uses to noise exceeding "normally acceptable" levels, the City shall consider and, if feasible, use rubberized asphalt paving material for street paving. Studies have demonstrated that this type of paving materials can substantially reduce roadway noise. A 1992 noise study in the City of Thousand Oaks by Acoustical Analysis Associates, Inc. indicated that the use of an asphalt rubber overlay can achieve a noise reduction of from 2 to 5 dBA as compared to standard asphalt. Significance After Mitiag tion The recommended mitigation measures would be expected to reduce the effects of traffic noise to acceptable levels for all alternatives. Alternative 1 would have the greatest residual traffic noise impact because it would result in an audible increase in noise along Newhall Ranch Road as compared to all other alternatives. Impacts of all other alternatives would be similar; overall noise levels would be lowest under Alternatives 2 and 3, primarily because the greater traffic congestion that would occur under those alternatives would reduce average traffic speeds as compared to other alternatives. City of Santa Clarita 5.5-14 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.6 Risk of Upset/Human Health and Safety ' 5.6 RISK OF UPSET/HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY All of the project alternatives include road corridors with the potential to encounter such hazards as contaminated sites and oil fields. Construction activity and roadway development in areas of soil and/or groundwater contamination would create the risk of accidental upset and risks to human health. Overall potential to encounter hazards would be similar under all alternatives, although the extension of Newhall Ranch Road to State Route 14 that would occur under Alternative 1 would increase that alternative's hazard potential to some degree. Overall hazard potential would be similar for Alternatives 2, 3, 6, and 7. Alternatives 4 and 5 would have a slight increase in potential to encounter hazards due to the increased ground disturbance associated with intersection augmentation. 5.6.1 Setting To identify existing conditions along the proposed roadways, a windshield survey and an environmental records review was performed, and State of California Oil and Gas records were reviewed. The following sections describe the major findings of this field and literature review. a. Windshield Survey. Current land uses were evaluated utilizing information collected during a windshield survey of the proposed roadway areas. The majority of commercially established businesses were observed along Soledad Canyon, Valencia Boulevard, San Femando, and Bouquet Canyon Roads. Land uses along Rye Canyon and the existing section of Golden Valley Roads are predominantly industrial. In addition, the entrance to the former Bermite Plant was observed on Soledad Canyon Road, adjacent to the existing Metrolink Station. The roads leading into the former Bermite Plant were inaccessible as the entrance to the former plant was manned with a guard station, and in addition the majority of the roads are unpaved and require appropriate vehicles. Also, persons entering the site are required by the EPA to have, or be escorted by someone with, a 24-hour HAZWOPER certificate. The operational Placerita Oil Field was observed in the southeastern corner of the study area. The oil field appeared to extend from Placerita Canyon Road south to San Fernando Road, and from Sierra Highway westward to Choke Cherry Lane. An oil refinery or staging area exists on Placerita Canyon Road between Choke Cherry Lane and Dudley Lane. A view of the majority of the oil field was available from the ridgeline along Dockweiler Drive. Operating oil pumps were observed southwest and northeast of Dockweiler Drive, and the oil refinery or staging area was partially visible. Driving along Placerita Canyon Road, westward from Sierra Highway and eastward from San Fernando Road, large storage tanks and other oil equipment within the oil refinery or staging area were viewed. b. Environmental Records Review. Hazardous and toxic materials records relating to sites along the proposed roadways were reviewed. Environmental Data Resources (EDR) was contracted to provide a database search of public lists of facilities that generate, store, treat or dispose of hazardous materials or facilities/sites for which a release or incident has occurred. The EDR search was conducted for three study areas which encompassed the study area, and which included data from surrounding sites within a one -mile radius of the study area. A copy of the EDR report, which specifies the search distance for each public list, is included as Appendix E. Federal, State and County lists were reviewed as part of the research effort. City of Santa Clarita 5.6-1 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.6 Risk of UpseUHuman Health and Safety The sites that were identified within a one-half mile radius of the proposed roadways appear in the databases listed in Table 5.64. CHMIRS: The California Hazardous Material Incident Report System (CHMIRS) contains information on reported hazardous material incidents (accidental releases or spills). This database is maintained by the Office of Emergency Services. UST: The underground storage tank (UST) database contains registered USTs. This database is maintained by the State Water Resources Control Board. FINDS: The Facility Index System (FINDS) contains both facility information and pointers to other sources that contain more detail. LUST: Leaking underground storage tank (LUST) records contain an inventory of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents. This database is maintained by the State Water Resources Control Board. RCRIS4TSD, LQG, SQG): The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information on Sites (RCRIS) database includes selected information on sites that generate, store, treat, or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). TSD refers to transfer, storage or disposal facilities. LQG refers to large quantity generators. SQG refers to small quantity generators. The source of this database is the U.S. EPA. CORTESE: Identified Hazardous Waste and Substance Sites. This database (from the CAL EPA/Office of Emergency Information) identifies public drinking water wells with detectable levels of contamination, hazardous substance sites selected for remedial action, sites with known toxic material idenfified through the abandoned site assessment program, sites with USTs having a reportable release and all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is known migration. Ca. FID. The California Facilities Inventory Database contains active and inactive underground storage tank locations as provided by the California State Water Resources Control Board. CERCLIS: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability System database contains data on potentially hazardous waste sites that have been reported to the USEPA by states, municipalities, private companies, and private persons, pursuant to section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). CERCUS contains sites which are either on the National Priorities List (NPL) or those sites which are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. ERNS: The Emergency Response Notification System database records and stores information on reported releases of oil and hazardous substances. CORRACTS: The Corrective Action Reports identify hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activities. PADS: The PCB Activity Database Systems identify generators, transporters, commercial storerslbrokers, and disposers of PCBs. HMS. The HMS database includes industrial waste and underground storage tank sites reported to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. RAATS: The RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System includes records based on enforcement actions issued under RCRA pertaining to major violators and includes administrative and civil actions brought by the EPA. TRIS: The Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System identifies sites which release toxic chemicals to the air, water and land in reportable quantifies under SARA Title III Section 313. City of Santa Clarita 5.6-2 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.6 Risk of Upset/Human Health and Safety TSCA: The Toxic Substances Control Act identifies manufacturers and importers of chemical substances included on the TSCA Chemical Substances Inventory List. CAL -SITES (AWP): The Cal -Sites Annual Workplan lists known hazardous waste sites. CAL -SITES (ASPIS): The Cal -Sites database lists known and potential hazardous waste sites. NOTIFY 65: This database lists Proposition 65 notification reports. SWF/LS (SWIS): The Solid Waste Information System database lists active, dosed, and inactive landfills_ AST: This database lists aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank (AST) Facilities. CERC-NFRAP. This database lists CERCLIS sites for which no further remedial action is planned.' Site Mitigation. This database of Site Mitigation Complaints is kept by Los Angeles County. Haznet The Hazardous Waste Information System is maintained by the California Environmental Protection Agency. Data is extracted from copies of hazardous waste manifests received each year by the Department of Toxic Substances Control. CA SLIC. This database lists active toxic site investigations maintained by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. CA WDS. The California Waste Discharge System governs sites which have been issued waste discharge requirements. This list is maintained by the State Water Resources Control Board. One identified hazardous materials site, the Bermite Division of Whittaker (the former Bermite Plant) is located in the City. The former Bermite Plant encompasses an approximately one mile by two mile area, south of Soledad Canyon Road and east of Bouquet Canyon Road. The former Bermite Plant was a government munitions manufacturing facility. According to the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC - Nakashima,1997), the former Bermite Plant property is currently under environmental investigation. As of March 21,1997, soil in areas on the property have been found to be contaminated with red phosphorus; volatile organic compounds; high levels of metals; rocket propellants; oxidizers; dioxins; and depleted uranium. Radioactive substances have been identified on the former Bermite Plant property. Some onsite groundwater monitoring wells in the southern portion of the former Bermite Plant property penetrate an aquifer between 600 and 700 feet below ground surface. Upon installation of the groundwater wells, the groundwater was found to be contaminated with volatile organic compounds. The groundwater wells have been continuously monitored, and no longer show concentrations of volatile organic compounds in the groundwater. However, groundwater in the northern portion of the former Bermite Plant property is reportedly much shallower (about 20 feet below ground surface), and has not been investigated yet. c. State of California Oil and Gas Records. According to the State of California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOG) one active and two abandoned oil/ gas fields exist within the boundaries of the City of Santa Clarita. The abandoned Saugus Oil Field is located north of State Route 126 (SR -126) and west of Bouquet City of Santa Clarita 5.6-3 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.6 Risk of UpsetfHuman Health and Safety Canyon Road. The abandoned Saugus Field contains numerous plugged and abandoned dry holes, as well as at least three plugged and abandoned oil wells. No oil pumps or derricks were observed immediately adjacent to the north of the existing Rye, Canyon Road, to the east of the existing Avenue Scott, or to the northwest of the intersection of the existing Rye Canyon and Avenue Scotts. The abandoned Bouquet Canyon Field is located north of Soledad Canyon Road and east of Bouquet Canyon Road. The field predominantly contains plugged and abandoned dry holes, with one plugged and abandoned oil well (Edward Lustgarten "Lucky Lusty 1") located north of the Santa Clara River and east of the junction of Bouquet Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road. The active Placerita Field is generally located southwest of the intersection of Via Princessa and Sierra Highway, southeast of the intersection of Lyons Avenue and San Fernando Road, and north of Interstate Highway 5 (I-5). This field contains numerous active oil wells, an oil refinery or staging and production area, and underground storage tanks. According to the EDR database, there are seven underground storage tanks registered under Placerita Oil Production, located at 20749 Placerita Canyon Road. Tosco Enhanced Oil Recycling Corporation is.also located at the same address. In addition, a crude oil release was noted on a property near the intersection of Sierra Highway and Dockweiler Drive in January of 1991. The crude oil release was reportedly attributed to the petroleum refinery on the property. Numerous operating oil pumps and the oil refinery/staging and production areas were observed from Dockweiler Drive. The actual extent of the oil field, and the locations of the active oil wells, can be determined from the DOG maps, and by contacting the DOG. The Southern California Gas Company (SCG) operates four underground injection wells near Rye Canyon Road that are used for the storage and extraction of natural gas. The injection wells are currently enclosed by a chainlink fence, with access available only to SCG employees. Natural gas is stored at a depth of about 6,000 feet below the ground surface (Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., 1993). 5.6.2 Impact Analysis a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. For the purpose of this analysis, a significant environmental impact is one that adversely affects human health, either acutely or chronically, adversely affects the environment which can lead to the compromise of human health, or adversely affects the environment which can lead to the demise of natural habitat: Significant environmental impacts may occur if project activities result in the exposure of people to contamination or if contaminated conditions adversely impact future development due to costly assessment and remediation. b. Impact Summary. Table 5.6-2 summarizes the Risk of Upset/Human Health and Safety Impacts for the seven alternatives related to the proposed roadways within the City of Santa Clarita. City of Santa Clarita 5.6-4 City of Santa Clarita 5.6-5 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.6 Risk of Upset/Human Health and Safety Table 5.6-2. Summary of Risk of Upset/ Human Health and Safety Impacts � ype�of Aite�Ati e 1 Alternatl e2 Iterttat[i c ternativol�t - Alte ative S �Altertta<,t. wu; � 1.*., RU -1. Magic Mountain and Same impacts as Same as Aftemative Impact similar to Impact similar to Same as Same as Hazardous Santa Clarita Alternative 1 relative 1 relative to the Alternative 2 for new Alternative 3 for new Alternative 2 at Alternative 2 at Materials Sites Parkways, and the to the former former Bermite Plant roadways, although roadways, although buildout; possibly buildout; possibly western portion of Bermite Plant property; proximity intersection intersection less need for less need for Via Princessa, would property; reduction to hazardous augmentation would augmentation would future road future road go through the in the number of material sites similar increase potential to increase potential to construction due construction due former Bermite Plant hazardous material to Alternative 2. encounter hazards encounter hazards to trip reduction. to trip reduction. property. In addition, sites affecting the Class 11; Rank = 4 during construction; during construction; Class ll; Rank = 1 Class !l; Rank = 3 all proposed construction of construction in construction in roadways, with the Newhall Ranch highly developed highly developed exception of Decoro, Road. Class 11; areas would areas would Copperhill, Scott, Rank = 2 increase hazard increase hazard and Whites Canyon potential, potential. Roads, would be Class 11; Rank = 5 Class /h Rank = 6 within one half mile of identified LUST, CHMIRS, and RCRIS sites. Class Il; Rank = 7 RU -2. Oil and Places the southern Impact similar to Impact similar to Impact similar to Impact similar to Same as Same as Gas Fields portions of Rio Vista Alternative 1, but the Alternative 2; overall Alternative 2, but Alternative 3, but Alternative 2 at Alternative 3; Lyons Avenue, Santa length of Newhall reduction in hazard additional ground additional ground buildout; possibly possibly less need Clarita Parkway, and Ranch Road within potential as disturbance from disturbance from less need for for future road Golden Valley Road an abandoned oil compared to intersection intersection future road construction due within the boundaries field would be Alternative 1. augmentation would augmentation would construction due to trip reduction. of the active reduced. Class Il; Rank = 4 increase hazard increase hazard to trip reduction. Class 11, Rank = 3 Placenta Oil Field; all Class ll; Rank = 2 potential to some potential to some Class If; Rank = 1 other roadways degree. degree. within the boundaries Class 11; Rank = 5 Class 11; Rank = 6 of two abandoned oil fields. Class 11; Rank = 7 Class I = Significant and Unavoidable; Class 11 = Significant but Mitigable; Class III = Less than Significant; Class IV= Beneficial A ranking of 1 indicates the alternative with the least impact a ranking of indicates the greatest impact. City of Santa Clarita 5.6-5 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.6 Risk of UpseUHuman Health and Safety c. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Effect RU -1 All of the project alternatives include roadway corridors that cross through or near areas identified as having sources of potential soil and/or groundwater contamination. Impacts in such areas are considered potentially significant, but mitigable (Class II). Database -listed sites were compiled in Table 5.6-3 to assess the geographical distribution of hazardous materials sites within a one-half mile radius of each proposed roadway. Alternative 1. Numerous hazardous materials sites lie within one half mile of most of the proposed roadways, with the exception of the proposed Decoro Road, Copperhill Road, Whites Canyon Road, and Avenue Scott. Numerous underground storage tanks, leaking underground storage tanks (LUST), and large and small quantity hazardous waste generators (RCRIS) have been identified within Santa Clarita. In addition, the former Bermite Plant, a government munitions manufacturing facility, lies south of Soledad Canyon Road and east of Bouquet Canyon Road, encompassing an area of approximately one mile by two miles (see Figure 5.6-1). Radioactive contamination has been identified in soil in parts of the former Bermite Plant property, which is currently under investigation by the DTSC. Several proposed roadways south of Soledad Canyon Road (Magic Mountain Parkway, Santa Clarita Parkway, and Via Princessa) pass through the former Bermite Plant property. Of the hazardous materials sites identified in the EDR database, Table 5.64 summarizes identified LUST sites that have affected groundwater, or CHMIRS sites that have had hazardous materials leaks or spills into the soil outside of the facility boundaries. The risk of upset, in relation to the proximity of the proposed roadways to hazardous materials sites and/or releases, is considered a potentially significant impact. Alternative 2. This alternative would terminate Newhall Ranch Road at Golden Valley Road. The number of LUST sites that have affected groundwater, and the number of CHMIRS sites that have impacted soil outside of the facility boundaries, in proximity to the proposed Newhall Ranch Road would be reduced by six and one, respectively (see Table 5.6-3). The same roads that would cross the former Bermite Plant property in Alternative 1 would cross the property under this alternative. Alternative 3. The number of LUST and CHMIRS sites encountered under this ralternative would be similar to that encountered under Alternatives 1 and 2. The same roads also traverse the former Bermite Plant property as in Alternative 1. Alternative 4. Impacts associated with this alternative would be similar to those of Alternative 2. The augmentation of existing and planned major intersections would, however, incrementally increase the potential to encounter hazardous material sites during construction. Two of the intersections that could be augmented are on the Bermite property. -In addition, a number of the augmented intersections would occur at existing intersections in already intensely developed parts of the City. Any upset in these areas would have increased potential to create health hazards. Impacts are considered potentially significant. City of Santa Clarita 5.6-6 MM MM� M Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment E1R Section 5.6 Risk of Upset/Human Health and Safety , .CAL u, 1NOTIF Proposed R oiRAATW 4Al bitl CERCa; CA CpK; , - � —ic i10,WDS s&M[Lw il4t Rye Canyon Road Table 6.6-3. Within One Half Summary Mile of Specified of EDR Database Sites Proposed Roadways 1 25 ropose 0 ay,,$1 C H ml, .UST...FINDS _:LUST_. _RCRIS.. _TESEs =' _..GEIS. , `ERNS k RACT5: .PADS. '' Hiw =..HMS. Rye Canyon Road 2 4 9 5 10 2 3 1 3 Decoro Road Whites Canyon Road Avenue Scott Copperhill Road Rio Vista/Lyons Ave 1 1 Whites Canyon Road Magic Mountain Pky 2 1 2 1 2 2 4 Santa Clarita Pky 1 1 1 Avenue Scott 1 1 3 10 2 1 Golden Valley Road 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 Rio Vista/Lyons Ave 3 11 24 8 24 4 4 4 Newhall Ranch Road 4 Magic Mountain Pky 2 6 9 3 9 4 3 1 2 4 Santa Clarita Pky 1 9 13 3 13 2 2 2 2 1 3 Golden Valley Road 3 8 27 4 19 3 2 3 1 6 Via Princessa* 2 3 5 1 1 Newhall Ranch Road 2 16 34 9 29 7 5 1 5 6 , .CAL u, 1NOTIF Proposed R oiRAATW 4Al bitl CERCa; CA CpK; , - � —ic i10,WDS s&M[Lw il4t Rye Canyon Road 1 1 25 Decoro Road Copperhill Road Whites Canyon Road Avenue Scott Rio Vista/Lyons Ave 1 1 12 Magic Mountain Pky 2 2 2 1 2 2 4 Santa Clarita Pky 1 1 1 1 1 3 10 2 1 Golden Valley Road 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 161 Via Princessa a 4 Newhall Ranch Road 1 1 1 1 1 21 8 Includes data for Via Princessa from Bouquet Canyon Road to SR -14. City of Santa Clarita 5.6-7 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section S.6 Risk of Upset / Human Health and Safety CO V>E RNILL RD. 'r -E .ori..:@nr � ::..........rr ..... w.!,. ' 77J JJ� :'rRVN c.Ixrn C A '� 'A, Approximate Boundary of Former Barmlte Plant 3 y: I/J1='(1017 r/9 E ; ISL� 1 n AVE l ....... LEGEND Existing Roads Included In Planned Roads an.nl.tiv.. ........• Common to Ag AMr,'e oa —•—•— ExlaMg Ptenoad Roadnny System Ony ununwnun Edsting Planoad Roadway System And Nw.hall Ranch Road Reduction 1, 3 a, a AttemaWEs Onty aeaaaeaaa Nw.l+all Ranh Road Reducilan And eaMen Valley Road Nelwark !3.3.4.5.0.7 AllarlutMs Ony eeeeeeea Golden Veil" Road Network j Aawnallm Onty VAEOO EZ CANYONea; Approx/mateBoundaryor Actin Placentia Oil Ra/d Potential Hazard Areas o t 1T r SCALE IN MILES NORTH ® Hazard Area Figure 5.6-1 City of Santa Clarlia 5.&6 = M = M M M M M M M M M M M Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.6 Risk of UpsetlHuman Health and Safety Proposed roadway also traverses through a solid waste disposal site (SIMS, #63 on map in Appendix Q. Portions of proposed roadways transverse through the formerBermite Plant property. Note. Data on Proposed Via Pfiricessa covers only proposed section from Bouquet Canyon Road east to SR -14. City of Santa Cladta 5.6-9 Table 5.6-4. Identified.LUST Sites that Have Affected Soil or CHMIRS and/or Groundwater Proposed RoadaffY' =AltemhIt 1 t a-Altemattve efla -F x,-, at f -"J X aLUST..,1,.CHMIRS;iLUSTe --CHMIRS];LUST, jCHMlRS'1l#LUST.j ,CHMIRSEJ,LUSTS XHMlRS+LUST4lLCHMlRSr 5.LUST CHMIRS; Rye Canyon Road 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Decoro Road Copperhill Road Whites Canyon Road Avenue Scott Rio Vista/Lyons Ave 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 Magic Mountain Pky 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 —1 Santa Clarita Pky 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Golden Valley Road o 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Via Princessa' i Newhall Ranch Road 8 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 Proposed roadway also traverses through a solid waste disposal site (SIMS, #63 on map in Appendix Q. Portions of proposed roadways transverse through the formerBermite Plant property. Note. Data on Proposed Via Pfiricessa covers only proposed section from Bouquet Canyon Road east to SR -14. City of Santa Cladta 5.6-9 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.6 Risk of UpseVHuman Health and Safety Alternative 5, Impacts associated with this alternative would be similar to those of Alternative 3. The augmentation of existing and planned major intersections would, however, incrementally increase the potential to encounter hazardous material sites during construction.. Two of the intersections that could be augmented are on the Bermite property. In addition, a number of the augmented intersections would occur at existing intersections in already intensely developed parts of the City. Any upset in these areas would have increased potential to create health hazards. Impacts are considered potentially significant. Alternative 6. Impacts associated with full buildout of this alternative would be the same as those of Alternative 2. Alternative 7. Impacts associated with full buildout of this alternative would be the same as those of Alternative 2. Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are recommended for all alternatives to reduce the potential for risk of upset hazards relating to roadway development. RU -1(a) The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DISC) shall be contacted regarding the current investigative/remediation status of the former Bermite Plant property. The locations of the proposed roadways which pass through the former Bermite Plant property shall be coordinated with the person in charge of investigation/remediation for the former plant at the DTSC. RU -1(b) No roadways shall pass through areas of known radioactive contamination within the former Bermite Plant property boundaries. All identified radioactive contamination at the former Bermite Plant property must be removed or remediated; prior to any type of construction related to the development of the proposed roadways. RU -1(c) All construction personnel working within parts of the former Bermite Plant, identified by the DTSC as formerly having soil and/or groundwater contamination other than radioactive contamination, shall participate in 40 - Hour Occupational Health and Safety Training or the equivalent at a minimum, and shall be outfitted with appropriate protective equipment should contamination be encountered. RU -1(d) A release shall be obtained from the DTSC guaranteeing that remediation activities at the former Bermite Plant will not result in air emissions or radioactive emissions that would adversely affect humans in slow-moving or stopped vehicles with the windows rolled down; OR areas for proposed roadway construction on the former Bermite facility shall be certified "clean" by the DTSC prior to the construction of the proposed roadways. RU -1(e) City or County file reviews shall be performed for all LUST sites identified herein that have affected soil and groundwater, and for all CHMIRS sites which have affected soil outside the boundaries of each identified facility. The file reviews shall be performed to ascertain the extent of contamination in soil City of Santa Clarita 5.6-10 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.6 Risk of Upset/Human Health and Safety and/or groundwater from each of the specified facilities, and to evaluate whether or not the identified contamination would adversely affect construction workers during development of the proposed roadways. The only proposed roadways that do not have identified hazardous release sites within one half mile from the roadway are: Decoro Road; Copperhill Road; Whites Canyon Road; and Avenue Scott. Sig! ficance After Mitigation. If the recommended mitigation measures above are implemented, the impact should be less than significant for any of the project alternatives. After mitigation, Alternative 1 would have the greatest potential to encounter hazardous material sites because it includes the greatest overall number of road miles. Alternatives 4 and 5 would have marginally more potential to encounter contaminated sites than would Alternatives 2 and 3. Alternatives 2 and 6, with the fewest road miles, would have the least potential to encounter hazardous sites, although the difference between these two alternatives and Alternatives 3 and 7 is nominal. Effect RU -2 All of the alternative roadway networks include roadway corridors that cross through active or abandoned oil fields. Hazards associated with the construction of roads in these areas are considered potentially significant, but mitigable (Class II). The majority of the proposed roadways lie within the boundaries of active or abandoned oil fields. One active oil field (Placenta Oil Field) is located in the southeastern portion of the City, and two abandoned oil fields (Bouquet Canyon and Saugus) lie north of Soledad Canyon Road. In addition, four SCG injection wells used to store natural gas are in the vicinity of the planned Rye Canyon Road/Newhall Ranch Road intersection. Development within areas previously or currently involved in oil and gas activities can result in adverse impacts to existing or proposed development. Alternative 1. The proposed Rye Canyon, Copperhill, Scott, and Decoro roadways, as well as the northwestern extension of Newhall Ranch Road, lie within the boundaries of the abandoned Saugus Oil Field. The portions of Golden Valley Road, Santa Clarita Parkway, and Newhall Ranch Road which are proposed north of Soledad Canyon Road, and east of Bouquet Canyon Road, are within the boundaries of the abandoned Bouquet Canyon Oil Field. Portions of the proposed Rio Vista Avenue, Santa Clarita Parkway, and Golden Valley Road, south of Via Princessa, lie within the active Placerita Oil Field. The risk of upset, in relationship to the proximity of the proposed roadways to the abandoned and active oil fields, has been determined to have a potentially significant impact. Alternative 2. This alternative would terminate the proposed Newhall Ranch Road at the proposed Golden Valley Road. This alternative would lessen the length of Newhall Ranch Road which traverses through the abandoned Bouquet Canyon Oil Field, thus reducing, but not eliminating, the associated impacts. Alternative 3. This alternative would connect the proposed Golden Valley Road with the reduced Newhall Ranch Road. Golden Valley Road would continue southward to Sierra Highway. The northern portion of Golden Valley Road (north of Soledad Canyon Road) would still he within the boundaries of the abandoned Bouquet Canyon Oil Field, and the southern City of Santa Clarita 5.6-11 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.6 Risk of UpsettHuman Health and Safety portion of Golden Valley Road would traverse through the active Placerita Oil Field as in Alternative 1, Alternative 4. This alternative's impact would be similar to that of Alternative 2, although the overall potential for impacts relating to oil fields would increase slightly due to the augmentation of intersections within the abandoned Saugus and Bouquet Canyon oil fields and associated increase in overall area of disturbance. Alternative 5. This alternative's impact would be similar to that of Alternative 3, although the overall potential for impacts relating to oil fields would increase slightly due to the augmentation of intersections within the abandoned Saugus and Bouquet Canyon oil fields and associated increase in overall area of disturbance. Alternative 6. This alternative's impact at full buildout would be same as that of Alternative 2. Alternative Z This alternative's impact at full buildout would be same as that of Alternative 3. Mitigation Measures. The following measures are recommended for all alternatives: RU -2(a) All of the proposed roadways shall be located on a current topographic map, to scale, and their locations identified relative to the abandoned Saugus and Bouquet Canyon Oil Fields and the active Placenta Oil Field. RU -2(b) All abandoned dry holes, or abandoned or active oil or natural gas wells within the boundaries of any proposed roadway, shall be identified utilizing the State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas Maps. RU -2(c) The State of California, Department of Conservation, DOG. shall be contacted regarding any abandoned dry holes or oil wells in an abandoned oil field and unidentified oil wells that lie in the pathway of any of the proposed roadways. The DOG shall be contacted to identify the hole/well and to evaluate whether or not the hole/well has been properly abandoned. The DOG will require proper abandonment or re -abandonment of an oil well if the well is to be located under any proposed structure. If the well is found to have been properly abandoned, and will not be located under a proposed structure, the DOG may not require re -abandonment. Any abandoned dry holes or oil wells may have to be re -abandoned according to current State of California requirements prior to the development of the proposed roadways. RU -2(d) Proposed roadways shall be aligned so as to avoid identified active oil wells, pumps, derricks, or other oil facilities. RU -2(e) The Placenta Oil Production Company, and TOSCO Enhanced Oil Recycling Corporation, shall be notified of any proposed roadway planned through the active Placerita Oil Field, but which does not encroach upon any active oil wells City of Santa Ciarita 5.6-t2 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 6.6 Risk of Upset/Human Health and Safety or facilities. These companies or their affiliations should be able to identify any risk of upset related to the construction of the proposed roadways which may include, but is not limited to: 1) gas or oil product lines which cross through the oil field; 2) air emissions from the oil production facility(ies) which may be problematic to humans in vehicles on the proposed roadways; 3) soil and/or groundwater contamination resultant from oil production activities within the boundaries of the oil field; and 4) human safety risks associated with active oil wells, such as hydrogen sulfide vapors and possible explosion hazards. Significance After Mitigation. If the recommended mitigation measures above are implemented, the impact should be less than significant for all alternatives. Residual impacts would be greatest under Alternative 1, which includes the greatest number of road miles within the Bouquet Canyon Oil Field. Alternatives 2 and 6 include the fewest overall road miles and therefore would have the least potential to encounter oil field hazards, although the difference between these two alternatives and Alternatives 3 and 7 is nominal. Ir City of Santa Clarita 5.6-13 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.7 Population and Housing 5.7 POPULATION AND HOUSING ' This section assesses the potential for the proposed Circulation EIement Amendment to displace existing residential and/or planned development in the City, as well as the potential for Circulation Element implementation to indirectly induce population growth n/in the Santa Clarita Valley. Any of the seven project alternatives would have the potential to displace residences. Alternative 1 would have the greatest potential far residential displacement. All other all alternatives would be similar, although Alternatives 4 and 5 would have greater potential for displacement of businesses because of the augmentation of ' intersections on existing roads in intensely developed areas. All seven alternatives would also have the potential to indirectly induce growth. Alternative 1 would open up the largest area to possible future development. Alternatives 4 and 5 may also allow far relatively high growth by increasing roadway capacity. Alternatives 6 and 7may encourage relatively compact development by providing alternative transportation modes and increasing the costs of using single occupant vehicles. 5.7.1 Environmental Setting a. Current and Projected Population and Housing. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has developed the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) to provide direction to local governments in addressing regional issues such as population growth for the six -county southern California region, which is comprised of 13 individual subregions. ` These subregions have provided growth projections to assist SCAG in developing a comprehensive plan for Southern California. The City of Santa Clarita is located in the North LOS Angeles County (NLAC) Subregion, which includes the Cities of Palmdale, Lancaster, and Santa Clarita. The NLAC has prepared a 2020 Growth Projection Report that evaluates SCAG projections for population and housing within the subregion and, more specifically, the City of Santa Clarita. The latest projections were compiled in October 1995 and were submitted to SCAG for inclusion in the RCPG. Santa Clarita's current population of approximately 131,000 is projected to reach 188,000 by 2015, which represents a 1.4% average annual growth rate. The City's housing stock is ' projected to grow at an even faster rate. Between 1997 and 2015, the housing stock is projected to grow from 44,000 to 66,000, which represents an average annual growth rate of 2.3%. Most of the housing construction that will occur over the next 20 to 25 years is anticipated to bb in currently undeveloped areas of the City, including the Center City area where a majority of the new road construction is planned to occur and outlying areas outside the current City limits that will be annexed in the future. b. Relocation Laws. The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Federal Act) guaranteed that all persons displaced as a result of 1 government acquisition of property would be entitled to certain assistance, payments, and rights. The Federal Act was adopted to: ' • Establish a uniform policy with respect to the fair and equitable treatment of persons displaced; • Provide compensation to those persons being displaced to assist in their moving expenses and I' increased expenses at their new replacement dwellings, and I City of Santa Clarita 5.7-1 Santa Cladta Circulation Element Amendment El Section 5.7 Population and Housing • Ensure that no persons would be displaced from their dwellings until comparable decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing was available. The State of California adopted the California Relocation Assistance Act of 1970 (State Act) in response to the Federal Act. The State Act requires all state public entities to provide relocation assistance and payments patterned after those provided in the Federal Act when carrying out their projects that cause displacement of residents and businesses. The State Act also requires that all public entities causing displacement adopt guidelines for relocation assistance and real property acquisition. The State Guidelines state that no public entity may proceed with any phase of a project or other activity that will result in the displacement of any persons, business, or farm until it determines that: • Fair and reasonable relocation payments will be provided to eligible persons; • A relocation assistance program will be established; • Eligible persons will be adequately informed of the assistance, benefits, policies, practices, and procedures, including grievance procedures, provided for in the State Guidelines, • Based upon a recent survey and analysis of both the housing needs of persons displaced and the availability of comparable replacement housing (considering competing demands for that housing), comparable replacement dwellings sufficient in number, size, and cost for the eligible persons who require them will be available or provided, if necessary, within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement; • Adequate provisions have been made to provide orderly, timely, and efficient relocation of eligible persons to comparable replacement housing that is available without regard to race, color, religion, sex, marital status, or national origin with minimum hardship to those affected; and • If applicable, a relocation plan will be prepared. 5.7.2 Impact Analysis a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. The draft Circulation Element Amendment would have the potential to create two types of impacts to population and housing. First, new roadway construction would have the potential to displace local residents if roadway corridors would cross through residential areas. Second, the addition of new circulation system infrastructure would have the potential to induce population growth by accommodating additional traffic flow in the City. This second.type of impact is addressed both in this section and in Section 6.0, Long -Term Impacts. Impacts to housing and population are generally social or economic. Under CEQA, a social or economic change is not considered a significant effect on the environment unless the changes can be directly linked to a physical change. Therefore, a significant impact would occur if the project would alter the location, distribution, or density of the human population of the City of Santa Clarita. A significant impact with respect to population growth would occur if the project would induce population growth that is inconsistent with regional (SCAG) and local population projections. b. Impact Summary. Table 5.7-1 summarizes the draft Circulation Element's effects upon population and housing and ranks each of the alternatives' impacts. City of Santa Clarita 5.7-2 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.7 Population and Housing Class I = Significant and Unavoidable, Class If = Significant but Mitigable; Class 111 = Less than Significant Class IV = ilenericlal A ranking of I indicates the alternative with the least impact; a ranking of 7 indicates the greatest impact. 5.7-3 Table 6.7-1. Summary of Population and Housing Impacts S Ty eof4lmpact ti Altetnative,l Vdternative{,95, 7FAItemattv-53 77, Iternat V 4A 0. e a PH -1. Potential to Potential to Potential to Potential to Potential to Impact from Impact from full Displacement displace displace displace displace displace full buildout buildout similar existing existing existing existing existing similar to to Alternative 3; residences in residences in residences in residences in residences in Alternative 2; possibly less the vicinity of 4 the vicinity of 3 the vicinity of 3 the vicinity of 3 the vicinity of possibly less need for new roadways, roadways. roadways. new roadways 3 new need for new road Class fit Class III Class I// and roadways road construction Rank = 5 Rank = 2 Rank = 4 businesses at and construction due to reduced several businesses at due to reduced trips. augmented several tops. Class I// intersections. augmented Class I// Rank = 3 Class I// intersections. Rank = 1 Rank = 6 Class I// Rank = 7 PH -2. Growth Potential to Potential to Potential to Growth Growth Growth Growth inducing Inducing direct growth to direct growth direct growth inducing inducing inducing potential similar Potential newly to newly to newly potential potential potential to Alternative 3. accessible accessible accessible similar to similar to similar to Increased cost areas in the areas in the areas in the Alternative 2. Alternative 3. Alternative 2. of SOV travel vicinity of new vicinity of new vicinity of new Slightly more Slightly more Increased cost may encourage roadways. roadways. roadways. potential due potential due of SOV travel more compact Class I// Elimination of Elimination of to increased to increased may development to Rank = 7, Newhall Newhall road capacity. road encourage some degree. Ranch Ranch Class /// capacity. more compact Class II/ extension extension Rank = 5 Class /I/ development Rank = 2 reduces reduces Rank = 6 to some overall overall degree. potential. potential- Class Iff Class 1/1 Class /It Rank = 1 Rank= 3 Rank = 4 Class I = Significant and Unavoidable, Class If = Significant but Mitigable; Class 111 = Less than Significant Class IV = ilenericlal A ranking of I indicates the alternative with the least impact; a ranking of 7 indicates the greatest impact. 5.7-3 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment El Section 5.7 Population and Housing c. Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Effect PH -1 Any of the alternative roadway scenarios would have the potential to displace existing residences and affect development patterns in areas proposed for residential development. Because relocation assistance would be provided in accordance with state and federal law for any persons or businesses dislocated, impacts are considered adverse, but less than significant (Class III). All of the project alternatives include new roadway corridors in the vicinity of existing residential neighborhoods. Consequently, any of the alternatives would have the potential to displace residents. In addition to displacing existing development, the project has the potential to affect future residential development. Many additional development projects are proposed to be implemented that are located in the vicinity of the proposed roadways associated with the Circulation Element Amendment. A complete listing of approved, pending, and recorded projects is shown in Table 5.7-2. Alternative 1. The Existing Planned Circulation System scenario may displace existing residences and affect future housing development in some parts of the City. Potential impacts to existing and future development are discussed below. Future development refers to any approved, pending, or recorded projects that have not yet been completed as shown in Table 5.7-2. Existing residential development may be affected in the vicinity of the following proposed roadway corridors: Newhall Ranch Road, Santa Clarita Parkway, Golden Valley Road, and Copperhill Road. Displacement of residences in any of these areas would be considered a significant impact. Areas of potential displacement are shown on Figure 5.7-1 and are described below. Newhall Ranch Road would extend along the northern side of the Santa Clarita River. The extension may potentially affect suburban residential and medium density residential development located immediately north of the Soledad Canyon Road intersection. Therefore, the extension of Newhall Ranch Road through this area may result in the displacement of existing residential development. Santa Clarita Parkway extends primarily through open space areas where no housing development is located. However, segments of the proposed roadway may extend into areas with light development. The southern portion of Santa Clarita Parkway north of Sierra Highway may extend through an area with scattered housing of low density, thus potentially displacing residents. However, existing roadway corridors are located within the vicinity that could accommodate roadway development, thereby avoiding impacts relating to displacement. The Golden Valley Road extension may run through a suburban residential development north of SR -14 and a cluster of residential developments located south of SR -14. Thus displacement could occur. However, an existing corridor could accommodate roadway development. Therefore, these impacts can be avoided. City of Santa Clarita 5.7-4 1 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.7 Population and Housing City of Santa Clarita 5.7-5 Table 5.7-2. Approved, Pending, and Recorded Residential Projects Atternative'Proposed tr . oailwaY N6PotenUally�ffected Development � r �'N - "rojects �Prolect DescrlptlkltIN- 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 Newhall Ranch Newhall 42 lots, 1 school, 212 approved Road acres 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 Santa Clarita Bermite* 1560 MF units, 1351 approved Parkway SF units, 996 acres 1,2,4,6 Golden Valley Mint Canyon 120 SF, 14 MF, 205 pending Road acres Mint Canyon 14 SF, 4 OS, 93.4 pending acres 3,5,7 Golden Valley Bermite` 1,560 MF units, 1351 approved Road SF units, 996 acres Mint Canyon 120 SF, 14 MF, 205 pending acres Mint Canyon 14 SF, 4 OS, 93.4 pending acres 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 Magic Mountain Bermite` 1560 MF units, 1351 approved Parkway SF units, 996 acres 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 Via Princessa Bermite" 1,560 MF units, 1351 approved SF units, 996 acres Via Princessa' 55 SF units, 32 acres approved Via Princessa' 29 SF units, 30.5 acres approved Gilbert Drive' 187 SF units, 47.4 recorded acres Mint Canyon 76 MF (645 condos), approved 19.97 acres 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 Rio Vista Circle J/Via 156 SF units, 192 MF pending Princessa' units, 56 acres 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 Redview Drive Bermite' 1560 MF units, 1,351 approved SF units, 996 acres 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 Scott Newhall 12 MF, 1,800 condos, pending 17 OS, 299 acres 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 Rye Canyon Road Newhall 42 lots, 1 school, 212 approved acres Valencia 8 MF, 802 condos, 91.1 pending acres Newhall 6 MF lots (451 condos), pending 71.5 acres Newhall 5 MF (1,397 condos), 2 pending Comm., 2 OS, 246.7 acres Valencia 1,000 SF, 1,398 MF, pending 572 acres Newhall 875 SF, 557 condos approved 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 Decoro Newhall 5 MF (1,397 condos), 2 pending Comm., 2 OS, 246.7 acres Newhall 6 MF lots (451 condos), pending 71.5 acres City of Santa Clarita 5.7-5 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.7 Population and Housing 11 1 Source: City of Santa Clarita. "denotes projects within the city limits of Santa Clarita; all other projects are within the , jurisdiction of Los Angeles County. SF = single family; MF = multi family; OS = open space: Comm. = commercial. Suburban residential developments are located in the vicinity of the planned Copperhill Road extension. These residential developments may be displaced by the proposed extension. However, because an existing roadway corridor could be utilized, displacement of housing can ' be readily avoided. A total of 24 projects are anticipated to be constructed in the future which are located in the , vicinity of roadways associated with the Existing Planned Roadway Alternative. These projects could be affected by roadway construction, although it is anticipated that future projects will be planned in coordination with roadway development. Therefore, potential impacts associated with , displacement of future development are not considered significant. Alternative 2. With implementation of the Newhall Ranch Road Reduction ' Alternative, the same effects would occur to existing and future residential development as described under Alternative 1 with one exception. The suburban residential and medium density residential developments located on Newhall Ranch Road immediately north of the , Soledad Canyon Road intersection would not be affected. Alternative 3. Buildout of the alternative would result in impacts similar to the • -Approved, . . and Recorded Residential Projects IM Alternative Proppsed _ x PntentiallyAffected development, " ,s d. Roadway ). ;.»r N ;I..... .ti , Alternative 4. The new roadway corridors that would be added under this s Protect J£} ' Project Description Status are fronted by residential and commercial development. Widening the existing road rights-of- 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 Copper Hill Road Newhall 437 SF, 3 MF (102 approved units), 238 acres 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 Whites Canyon Mint Canyon 202 SF, 4 OS, 360 approved Road I acres Mint Canyon 1,297 SF, 10 MF approved (1,203 units) 11 1 Source: City of Santa Clarita. "denotes projects within the city limits of Santa Clarita; all other projects are within the , jurisdiction of Los Angeles County. SF = single family; MF = multi family; OS = open space: Comm. = commercial. Suburban residential developments are located in the vicinity of the planned Copperhill Road extension. These residential developments may be displaced by the proposed extension. However, because an existing roadway corridor could be utilized, displacement of housing can ' be readily avoided. A total of 24 projects are anticipated to be constructed in the future which are located in the , vicinity of roadways associated with the Existing Planned Roadway Alternative. These projects could be affected by roadway construction, although it is anticipated that future projects will be planned in coordination with roadway development. Therefore, potential impacts associated with , displacement of future development are not considered significant. Alternative 2. With implementation of the Newhall Ranch Road Reduction ' Alternative, the same effects would occur to existing and future residential development as described under Alternative 1 with one exception. The suburban residential and medium density residential developments located on Newhall Ranch Road immediately north of the , Soledad Canyon Road intersection would not be affected. Alternative 3. Buildout of the alternative would result in impacts similar to the effects described for Alternative 1 with one exception. As with Alternative 2, residential ' developments on the segment of the Newhall Ranch Road extension located immediately north of the Soledad Canyon Road intersection would not be affected by the proposed project. An ' additional future project is anticipated to be constructed in the vicinity of Golden Valley Road under this alternative; however, because it is anticipated to be planned in coordination with roadway development, no impact to future housing development is anticipated. , Alternative 4. The new roadway corridors that would be added under this alternative would have similar potential for displacement as described under Alternative 2. In , addition, this alternative would include roadway widenings on a number of existing roads that are fronted by residential and commercial development. Widening the existing road rights-of- way by an estimated 20 to 32 feet would have the potential to disrupt existing development at , augmented intersections in already developed parts of the City (see Figure 5.74). Uses most likely to be affected by intersection augmentation would be businesses directly fronting commercial corridors in highly developed areas in the western part of the City. Compensation ' 5.7-6 City of Santa Clarita , AM POTENTIAL DISPLACEMENT AREAS LEGEND 2 Existing Roads Planned Roads Alremaatives ------ Common to All Alternatives --- -- . Existing Planned Roadway System Only r� lunnemano Existing Planned Roadway System And Newhall Ranch Road Reduction Alternatives Only _[TT1. 4, 6 EE�E���EE Newhall Ranch Road Reduction And Golden Valley Road Network Alternatives Only _ *0000000 Golden Valley Road Network Alternative Only 6 yy 0 1 lei 2 SCALE IN MILES NORTH Potential Residential Displacement from New """"'"` Roadway Development. Augmented Intersection with Residential/Business Displacement Potential (Alternatives 4 and 5). Figure 5.7-1 City of Santa Clarita Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment El Section 5.7 Population and Housing and relocation assistance would be provided in accordance with state and federal requirements, thereby reducing displacement impacts to levels considered less than significant. Alternative 5. The new roadway corridors that would be added under this alternative would have similar potential for displacement as described under Alternative 2. In addition, this alternative would include roadway widenings on a number of existing roads that are fronted by residential and commercial development. Widening the existing road rights-of- way would have the potential to disrupt existing development at augmented intersections in already developed parts of the City. Existing uses most likely to be affected would be businesses directly fronting major commercial corridors in the highly developed western portion of the City. Compensation and relocation assistance would be provided in accordance with state and federal requirements, thereby reducing displacement impacts to a level considered less than significant. Alternative 6. Impacts resulting from implementation of the Newhall Ranch Road/Reduced Trip Alternative would be comparable to the effects of Alternative 2.. With relocation assistance, impacts are considered potentially adverse, but less than significant. Alternative Z The Golden Valley Roadway Network/Reduced Trip Alternative would result in impacts similar to those of Alternative 3. With relocation assistance, impacts are considered potentially adverse, but less than significant. Mitigation Measures. If displacement is required to accommodate future roadway construction, including widening of existing roadways, relocation assistance will be provided in accordance with applicable relocation laws described in the setting. Although compliance with applicable relocation regulations would mitigate impacts, the following measure is recommended for all alternatives in order to minimize the need for residential displacement: PH -1(a) The Santa Clarity Parkway, Golden Valley Road, and Copperhill Road extensions shall be planned for alignments though existing undeveloped corridors available in the vicinities of the proposed roadways to the extent feasible to avoid existing and future development. Significance After Mitigation. Compliance with the requirements for compensation and relocation assistance contained in state and federal law would mitigate displacement impacts for any of the alternatives. The mitigation measure recommended above would minimize dislocation. The overall greatest potential for displacement would occur under Alternatives 4 and 5 because of the roadway widening that would occur in highly developed areas of the City. Alternative 1 would have the greatest potential for residential displacement in outlying areas because it includes the greatest overall number of road miles. Alternatives 2, 3, 6, and 7 would all have similar potential for displacement. City of Santa Clarita 5.7-9 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.7 Population and Housing Effect PH -2 All of the circulation system alternatives would have the potential to indirectly induce population growth by accommodating additional traffic flow and opening up undeveloped areas to residential development. Because growth would be within SCAG projections under any alternative, impacts are considered adverse, but less than significant (Class III). Alternative 1. The Existing Planned Roadway Alternative roadways could indirectly induce growth by providing access to undeveloped areas and by increasing the overall capacity of the City s transportation system to accommodate residential growth. Areas within the planning area of the City of Santa Clarita that would most likely experience induced growth consist of undeveloped land in the vicinity of each of the proposed roadways. Projected growth in the City would substantially alter the character of the community. However, this alternative would not accommodate growth beyond that envisioned in SCAG population and housing projections. Therefore, the potential to induce growth does not exceed the identified significance threshold. Alternative 2. The Newhall Ranch Road Reduction Alternative would have similar growth inducing potential as that described for Alternative 1. However, because it would eliminate the Newhall Ranch Road extension, it would incrementally reduce the amount of new land opened up to development and would reduce the overall roadway system capacity. The overall potential for growth inducement is therefore somewhat lower. This alternative would not accommodate growth beyond that envisioned in SCAG projections. Alternative 3. The Golden Valley Road Network alternative would have similar growth inducing potential as that described for Alternative 1. However, like Alternative 2, this alternative would eliminate the Newhall Ranch Road extension, thereby incrementally reducing the amount of new land opened up to development and overall roadway system capacity. The overall potential for growth inducement is therefore somewhat lower than for Alternative 1. This alternative would not accommodate growth beyond that envisioned in SCAG projections. Alternative 4. The growth inducing effects of the Augmented Newhall Ranch Road Reduction alternative would be similar to those of Alternative 2. However, by increasing overall transportation system capacity as compared to Alternative 2, this alternative would ultimately accommodate greater overall traffic volumes. This additional system capacity may therefore encourage somewhat more intense development and greater overall population growth. Alternative 5. Impacts associated with the Augmented Golden Valley Network are anticipated to be similar to the effects described under Alternative 3. However, by increasing overall transportation system capacity, this alternative would ultimately accommodate greater overall traffic volumes than Alternative 3. This additional system capacity may therefore encourage somewhat more intense development and greater overall population growth. Alternative 6. Growth -inducing impacts associated with implementing the Newhall Ranch / Reduced Trip alternative would generally be similar to those of Alternative 2. However, the trip reduction strategies that would be implemented under this alternative may City of Santa Clarita 5.7-117 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.7 Population and Housing ultimately reduce population growth as compared to Alternatives 1 through 5. The additional expenses (parking fees, for example) associated with the use of the single occupancy vehicles would be expected to encourage the use of alternative transportation modes, which would reduce the pressure to construct new roads through currently undeveloped areas. Such programs may also discourage some home buyers from locating in the City, thereby directing more population growth to other communities. Alternative 7. Growth inducing impacts associated with implementing the Golden Valley Road Network / Reduced Trip Alternative would generally be similar to those of Alternative 3. However, as described under Alternative 6, the aggressive trip reduction measures that would be implemented under this alternative may reduce population growth pressure in the City to some degree. Mitigation Measures. None required. Significance After Mitigation. Impacts would not be significant under any of the alternatives. Nevertheless, implementation of any alternative would help open up large areas of the City that are currently undeveloped to future residential and commercial development. Such development may substantially alter the character of the community. The potential to indirectly induce growth would be greatest under Alternative 1 because of the greater overall number of new road miles. The augmented intersections that would be implemented under Alternatives 4 and 5 may also have relatively high growth inducement potential due to the increased road capacity as compared to other alternatives. Alternatives 6 and 7 may encourage more compact development as compared to the other alternatives because of the improved availability of alternative transportation modes and added expense of operating the single occupant vehicle. City of Santa Clarita 5.7-11 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.8 TransportatiordCirculation 5.8 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION I' Implementation of any of the circulation system alternatives would improve traffic conditions as compared to future conditions without system improvements, although none of the alternatives would achieve the desired level of service D at all Iocations. Alternative I would result in the best overall future levels of service and fewest segments operating below City level of service standards. Alternatives 4 and 5, the two "augmented" alternatives, would achieve the best overall service levels among the remaining alternatives. The trip reduction techniques associated with Alternatives 6 and 7 would improve future ' service levels as compared to Alternatives 2 and 3, but not to as great a degree as would Alternatives 4 and 5. Alternatives 6 and 7 would result in the fewest overall vehicle miles traveled on the City's system, although Alternatives 4 and 5 would result in the fewest overall vehicle hours traveled. The augmented intersections associated with Alternatives 4 and 5 would have the potential to create additional conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists as compared to the other alternatives because of the increased road width and faster overall vehicle speeds at major intersections, ' 5.8.1 Setting a. Current Transportation System. The City's current transportation system consists of a combination of roadways, rail lines and stations, bus service, and multi-purpose trails. Each of these components of the system is described below. Arterial Roadway System. Regional access to the City is provided primarily by Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route 14 (SR -14), which form the western and eastern boundaries of the City, respectively. I-5 provides an important link for commuter traffic between Santa Clarita and Los Angeles, as well as a link between southern and northern California. SR -14 provides a regional link between the Los Angeles basin area and the Antelope Valley communities of Lancaster and Palmdale. Limited regional access is also provided by SR -126, which connects Santa Clarita to the Santa Clara River Valley and the Ventura County cities of Fillmore, Santa Paula, and Ventura. Local circulation is provided primarily by a network of arterial roadways, including major highways, secondary highways, and limited secondary highways. All of these roadway types are described below: Major highways have an ultimate design of at least six travel lanes with limited vehicular access through driveways and cross streets. These roads are intended to accommodate the majority of traffic between different portions of the City and adjacent communities and the freeway system. Most major highways have a capacity of. about 54,000 vehicles per day. Secondary highways have an ultimate design of at four travel lanes with limited vehicular access. These roads are intended to service the majority of through traffic and collect traffic from limited secondary streets. Most secondary highways have a capacity of about 44,000 vehicles per day. Limited secondary highways have an ultimate roadway design of two travel lanes with partial control of vehicular and pedestrian access. from driveways, cross streets, and crosswalks. These roads are usually undivided and may accommodate limited City of Santa Clartta 5.8-1 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.8 TransportationlCirculation parking. They accommodate moderate volumes of traffic and provide local access to major and secondary highways. Daily capacity is generally around 24,000 vehicles. Rail Service. Metrolink commuter rail also provides access to other parts of the greater Los Angeles area. The Santa Clarita Metrolink provides service between downtown Los Angeles and the Antelope Valley. At Union Station in Los Angeles, the Santa Clarita line also connects to other Metrolink lines serving other parts of the region. There are currently two Metrolink stations in the City: the Santa Clarita Station on Soledad Canyon Road and the Santa Clarita/Princessa Station, which opened as an emergency measure following the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. A third station in Newhall is currently planned. Bus Service. Santa Clarita Transit provides both regional and local bus service. Express regional service is provided to downtown Los Angeles, Van Nuys, Warner Center/ Chatsworth, and Lancaster/Sylmar. Local service includes eight all -day routes, generally operated every 30 minutes from 5:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. on weekdays and from 8:00 A.M. to 7:30 P.M. on Saturdays. The overall fleet includes 28 vehicles for fixed route local and express buses. In February 1997, the City adopted the Transit Development Plan, which outlines the long-range transit needs for the community. The major objectives of that plan are described in Section 2.0, Description of Project Alternatives. Multi -Purpose Trails. The local circulation network also includes a trail system that serves a variety of users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians. The City has constructed a number of multi -use trails that include Class 1 bicycle paths, including the Chuck Pontius Commuter Rail Trail, the South Fork Trail, and the Santa Clara River Trail. Other areas for bikeway development have.been identified in various City documents, including the Park Project Report, the Santa Clara River Water Feature Report, and the Parks Master Plan. The City also encourages Class 2 bike lanes on all new segments of major and secondary highways where other convenient bikeway options are not present. b. Traffic Level Measurement. The operation of a roadway network is typically defined in terms of levels of service (LOS). LOS is a qualitatively defined measure of prevailing traffic, design, and operational conditions. Denoted alphabetically from "A" to "F the LOS is an evaluation of the degree of congestion, roadway design constraints, delay, accident potential, and driver discomfort experienced during a given time period, typically either during the peak traffic hour or daily. LOS A represents the most desirable operational condition for a roadway segment or intersection, while LOS C is normally considered the benchmark for planning purposes. In heavily urbanized areas, LOS D is an accepted, though undesirable, condition for heavily traveled roads such as freeways and arterial highways. The City of Santa Clarita, as part of its current Circulation Element, has adopted a goal of attaining LOS D on all arterial highways in the City. The LOS may be quantitatively calculated by a number of methods that generally compare traffic volumes to the physical and operational capacity of a roadway section or intersection. For roadway segments, the volume -to -capacity (v/c) ratio is used to define the LOS, as shown in Table 5.8-1. City of Santa Clarita 5.8-2 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.8 Transportation/Circulation Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209; KHR Associates, 1987. Note: W XXX) = Capacity for limited Access on 4 -Lana Divided Arterial. 5.8.2 Impact Analysis a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. The analysis conducted in this.study on the Circulation Element has used both absolute and relative factors. The City's Circulation Element sets a goal of level of service (LOS) D for the performance of the highway system under buildout conditions of the General Plan land use. This corresponds to a maximum daily volume to capacity (V/C) ratio of 0.87 for the links in the highway system. The analysis used daily traffic projections at buildout from the travel demand model and the standard capacities assumed for various highway classifications in the Circulation Element, to identify highway links which would perform worse than the LOS D criteria. These daily capacity criteria for each facility type are presented in Table 5.8-2. City of Santa Clarita 5.8-3 Table of . . •. VolumesService .Urban '_Level [if n "" AveTge Daly TrafficServit e,olumeSia�" ' 4 V 9 ° �1, Descnpfaanli: ' ��' Service . Ratio Lane Lanaa , y 4-La ne` 2 Laps 8 4 ea UriludzDwld6dAK, d4 A <0.36 Free Flow — low volumes; little or no 36,000 24,000 16,000 5,000 delay throughout the day or during (28,000) peak hours. 13 <0.54 Stable Flow— relatively low 40,400 27,000 18,000 7;500 volumes; acceptable delays (32,000) experienced throughout the day; some peak hour congestion. C <0.71 Stable Flow — relatively low 45,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 volumes; acceptable delays (36,000) experienced throughout the day; some peak hour congestion. D <0.87 Approaching Unstable Flow — poor, 49,500 33,000 22,000 12,500 yet tolerable delays experienced (40,000) throughout the day; peak hours may experience significant congestion and delays. E <1.00 Unstable Flow— heavy congestion 54,000 36,000 24,000 15,000 and delays experienced throughout (44,000) the day and during peak hours; volumes at or near capacity. F >1.00 Forced Flow — both speeds and flow This condition represents system breakdown and of traffic can drop to zero; does not have a specific relationship to service stoppages may occur for long volumes. periods with vehicles backing up from one intersection through another. (referred to as "gridlock" condition). Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209; KHR Associates, 1987. Note: W XXX) = Capacity for limited Access on 4 -Lana Divided Arterial. 5.8.2 Impact Analysis a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. The analysis conducted in this.study on the Circulation Element has used both absolute and relative factors. The City's Circulation Element sets a goal of level of service (LOS) D for the performance of the highway system under buildout conditions of the General Plan land use. This corresponds to a maximum daily volume to capacity (V/C) ratio of 0.87 for the links in the highway system. The analysis used daily traffic projections at buildout from the travel demand model and the standard capacities assumed for various highway classifications in the Circulation Element, to identify highway links which would perform worse than the LOS D criteria. These daily capacity criteria for each facility type are presented in Table 5.8-2. City of Santa Clarita 5.8-3 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.8 Transportation/Circulation Table Daily Capacity Criteria Factltty _ ,,� Dai Capacity `+ , . .. . P .. � ,Per lane per=our),... ' Freeway 20,000 Expressway 14,000 Major Arterial 9,000 Secondary Arterial 8,000 Ltd: Secondary Arterial 7,000 In addition, to facilitate the comparison of the overall performance of alternatives, with each other and with the adopted Circulation Element, this study considered several system -wide performance measures. These include: • Total vehicle -miles of travel on the highway system, represents the total distance driven by all trips and is an indication of the magnitude of total travel and efficiency of the network as affected by the level of congestion. • Vehicle -hours of travel, represents the total time spent traveling and provides an indication of the levels of congestion and amount of delay. • Average speeds, represent the overall levels of congestion and average travel times on the entire system or by facility. Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 assume a total of approximately five percent reduction in home -work trips, and three percent reduction in non -work trips as the base trip reductions as presented in detail in Section 2.0, Description of Project Alternatives. Alternatives 4 and 5 assume augmented capacities on major (6 -lane) arterials by 20 percent to account for transportation demand management (MM) improvements and additional tum lanes (dual left -turn lanes and exclusive right -tum lanes). Alternatives 6 and 7 assume implementation of a set of aggressive trip reduction measures, which include active participation by the City in financial incentives and disincentives to reduce the total daily trips. These alternatives assume a total of approximately 15 percent additional reduction in home -work trips, and three percent additional reduction in non -work trips in addition to the previously assumed (five percent and three percent) base trip reductions.: These measures are presented in detail in Section 2.0, Description of Project Alternatives. b. Impact Summary. The traffic impacts of each of the project alternatives are summarized and ranked in Table 5.8-3. City of Santa Clarita 5.8-4 W In co Cl) a ~ m m d m DO F=� 12 >' m3�c 005j`m� _ 'r> -- C m O N a lL L C. O1 r:i; N 0 d E y .rile m m m x; o y cr ' r Wo `a0 ¢(D O �mm3 00rnemL lm- mm oOmd -E0"p.)_ a C p dI C N N y o o LL ,� Q, i] C O y s m m '�f7EwQw0`o>ctb.I�Ua E¢rpxicU2 O a cG a O U C OOw0.,.LL L^ N >+ J H N J OO N df m p1a A 4i a N N y o m O 0 « O m a O C L 4O+ C C o U C N S m> 5 y d E N uyi E C mm aZ Qijiry` >UE'm no �Ea•NQ p °?Ummo Ua� -pp0p0 a���SNCNOWOQ .IO a aW oU o y 3 m >- « � a m=;> N 3 O� a) ~ v m c° a y L C r �.. N 3 N m@cn m E p>«� 0 > 0 E O a 0 oma c w c a@� E w c E N r m d .- W .�. N W CSS m C +N-• m U a O? C� c .m. N N�~ y C .C-. C N UC '... a N p) 9 d rt Q C n d Ol \' co i--C m E E- N 6 2 fo O 2 t m m 0 U K > O C p 3p ry p Cp O N U L O L Ol .0.. =0 p U 2 O O> r J> e.. �' Q.- U N U U a.n .... m N v W o U d mN :._...— O�> of E O N ^'y•C Em•-rn c Ym0` It Aote\a- 0i c o ,NNOm3MO Q~f C C7 E NQ w D O> NOJ> ��UC �QL E CU2 ma W OU m O. `mom `m mi '"! •- 3000ip 0 d 3Jp0m i 02..c m E a m L m II a) m or > m m m E E E o o ii e c y y a y c 1p .X S o y a°y`y°p aci o -•E O W> vi I,) .m E'm¢ N o O>NJ >..vnaUa £QL2 ° co ..... ._. ^ O m ^2 r _ vm do a� C a _y 3 NlNaL '0N NO O LO rCTm ..dN No M3: p>0 t 0p1 LON> E NW m¢ O NN.; N w N N .0 y N N L C O m CL>. N Eem N OV MO «0 ot NCEomCJ TO E o OoENm WCNN m p U LO U U 2 VT 0 N d m p m _ > � N £' J L m F r: V N 4• f F- U) W In co Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.8 Transportation/Circulation c. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Effect TC -1 Although none of the project alternatives are projected to achieve the City goal of level of service D at all intersections, all of the alternatives would improve traffic conditions to varying degrees as compared to future conditions without circulation system improvements. Impacts of any of the alternatives are therefore considered beneficial (Class IV). All of the project alternatives involve improvements to the City's circulation system that would improve traffic flow on the citywide arterial network as compared to conditions that would occur in the absence of any improvements. Therefore, the overall effect of implementation of any project alternative on citywide traffic levels of service can be considered beneficial. Although any of the alternatives would have overall traffic benefits, none of the alternatives would achieve the level of service (LOS) goal outlined in the existing Circulation Element (LOS D). Moreover, the level of improvement in traffic conditions would vary from alternative to alternative. The levels of service that would be achieved under each alternative scenario are described below. Alternative 1. Projected daily volumes on Newhall Ranch Road range between 60,000 and 80,000 average daily traffic (ADT) near both the I-5 and SR -14 freeways to a maximum of over 123,000 just west of McBean Parkway. Other major east -west highways in the area are also projected to carry large amounts of traffic. These include Magic Mountain Parkway (62,000 ADT west of Valencia Boulevard), Valencia Boulevard (62,000 ADT west of McBean Parkway), Soledad Canyon Road (62,000 ADT east of Magic Mountain Parkway, and 52,000 ADT east of Newhall Ranch Road), and Via Princessa (48,000 ADT east of San Fernando Road). Appendix F contains figures displaying daily traffic volume projections for each of the alternatives analyzed in this study. Figure 5.8-1 shows the resulting vohnne/capacity (v/c) ratios from these daily traffic volume forecasts. Results of the daily v/c's are simplified by consolidating highway segments in three categories using green, red and black colors. All highway links that exhibit v/c ratios equal or below 0.87 (the City's acceptable standard for the upper threshold of LOS D) are indicated in green. All highway segments with v/c ratios between 0.87 and 1.00 (indicating LOS E) are shown in red. Finally, highway segments with v/c ratios higher than 1.00 (indicating LOS F) are shown in black. As shown, a number of the circulation plan route segments within the City are projected to operate at levels of service that exceed the City's General Plan Buildout goal LOS D standard. Some significant highway segments that are projected to operate over a v/c of 0.87 include: • Bouquet Canyon Road, betzveen Cinema Drive and Seco Canyon Road and between Santa Clarita Parkway and Haskell Canyon Road. • Newhall Ranch Road, betzveen Bouquet Canyon Road and Avenue Tibbetts. • Soledad Canyon Road,_betzveen Whites Canyon Road and Sierra Highway. • Magic Mountain Parkway, west of the Old Road to Tourney Road and between McBean Parkway and Valencia Boulevard. City of Santa 5.8-6 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.8 Trans portationlCirculation Legend (D Green V/C Ratio <0.87 NORTH Red WC Ratio 0.87 - 1.00 Not to Scale Black V/C Ratio > 1.00 0.87 is the maximum VIC within level of service "D" Projected Volume -to -Capacity Ratios Alternative 1 Figure 5.8-1 City of Santa Clarita 5.8.7 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.8 TransportabonlCirculation • Valencia Boulevard, from ivest of -the 1-5 Freeway to Bouquet Canyon Road. • McBean Parkivay, between Newhall Ranch Road and Valencia Boulevard. • Tourney Road, between Magic Mountain Parlavay and Newhall Ranch Road. • Via Princessa, east of San Fernando Road. • Sem Canyon Road, between Demro Road and Bouquet Canyon Road • Rye Canyon Road, between the 1-5 Freeway and north of Decoro Road. All other studied facilities are projected to operate at LOS D or better at General Plan Buildout. Alternative 2. The elimination of the Newhall Ranch Road extension that would occur under this alternative would redirect much of the traffic that would be on Newhall Ranch Road under Alternative 1 to other roadways. Projected traffic volumes on individual roadways in the City under this alternative are shown in Appendix F. The levels of service ranges that would be experienced under this alternative at General Plan buildout are shown on Figure 5.8-2. All of the roads that would operate at below LOS D under Alternative 1 would continue to operate at "unacceptable" levels of service under this alternative. The following road segments segments would also operate at V/C ratios below 0.87: • Newhall Ranch Road from west of I-5 to Bouquet Canyon Road. • Magic Mountain Parkway, from Joest of the Old Road to San Fernando Road. • Soledad Canyon Road, from Golden Valley Road to Whites Canyon Road. • Via Princessa, from Orchard Village Road to Sierra Highway. • Orchard Village Road, from McBean Parkhvay to Wiley Canyon Road. • "D" Street; on the Porta Bella development . Alternative 3. By eliminating the Newhall Ranch Road extension and creating a continuous throughway between I-5 and SR -14, this alternative would redirect traffic a substantial amount of traffic from Newhall Ranch Road to Santa Clarita Parkway/Golden Valley Road. The traffic volumes on individual road segments under this alternative are shown in Appendix $ ' while the projected v/c ratios at General Plan buildout are shown on Figure 5.8-3. In general, traffic flow would worsen under this alternative as compared to Alternative 1. All of the segments that would operate below the LOS D standard under Alternative 1 would continue to operate at "unacceptable levels under this alternative. In addition, the following segments are also projected to operate below LOS D: • Newhall Ranch Road, from 1-5 to San Fernando Road. • Magic Mountain Parkzvay, from west of the Old Road to San Fernando Road. • Soledad Canyon Road, from Golden Valley Road to Whites Canyon Road. • Via Princessa, from Orchard.Village Road to Sierra Highway. • Orchard Village Road, from McBean Parkway to Wiley Canyon Road. • "D" Street on the Porta Bella Development. Alternative 4. The augmentation of major intersections with additional right and left turn pockets would generally improve overall traffic flow as compared to this alternative's corresponding base alternative (Alternative 2). The traffic volumes on individual road segments under this alternative are shown in Appendix F, while the projected v/c ratios at General Plan buildout are shown on Figure 5.8-4. Segments that would no longer operate below the LOS D standard as compared to Alternative 2 include: City of Santa Clarita 5.8-9 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment El Section 5.8 Transportation/Circulation • Newhall Randa Road, from I-5 to Tourney Road. • Magic Mountain Parkzvay, from Tourney Road to McBean Parkzvay. • Via Princessa, from Santa Clarita Parkway to Sierra Highway. • Orchard Village Road, from McBean Parkway to Wiley Canyon Road. Alternative 5. The augmentation of major intersections with additional right and left tum pockets would generally improve overall traffic flow as compared to this alternative's corresponding base alternative (Alternative 3). The traffic volumes on individual road segments under this alternative are shown in Appendix F, while the projected v/c ratios at General Plan buildout are shown on Figure 5.8-5. Segments that would no longer operate below the LOS D standard as compared to Alternative 3 include: • Newhall Ranch Road, from I-5 to Tourney Road. • Magic Mountain Parkzoay, from Tourney Road to McBean Parkway. • Via Pnncessa, from Orchard Village Road to Sierra Highway. • Orchard Village Road, from McBean Parkzvay to Wiley Canyon Road. Alternative 6. The transportation demand management (TDM)strategies that would be implemented under this alternative would reduce citywide vehicle trips as compared to its corresponding base alternative (Alternative 3). This would generally improve overall levels of service a compared to Alternative 3, although not to as great a degree as would occur with the intersection augmentation that would occur under Alternative 4. The traffic volumes on individual road segments under this alternative are shown in Appendix F, while the projected v/c ratios at General Plan buildout are shown on Figure 5.8-6. The following segments would no longer operate below the LOS D standard as compared to Alternative 2: • Newhall Ranch Road, east of Santa Clarita Parkway. • Sierra Highway, between San Fernando Road and Rio Vista/Lyons Avenue extension. Alternative 7. The TDM strategies that would be implemented under this alternative would result in an overall reduction in citywide vehicle trips as compared to its corresponding base alternative (Alternative 3). This would generally improve overall levels of service'a compared to Alternative 3, although not to as great a degree as would occur under Alternative 5. The traffic volumes on individual road segments under this alternative are shown in Appendix $ while the projected v/c ratios at General Plan buildout are shown on Figure 5.8-7. The following segments would no, longer operate below the LOS D standard as compared to Alternative 3: • Wiley Canyon Road, between Ordu:rd Village Road and San Fernando Road. Systemwide Performance Indicators In addition to traffic levels of service, there are a number of other systemwide performance indicators that can be used to evaluate the comparative merits of the various project alternatives. These include: (1) vehicle miles of travel (VMT); (2) vehicle hours of travel; and (3) average traffic speeds. These indicators are described below as they pertain to each project alternative. City of Santa Clarita 5.8-10 I 0 I I 1 I 0 I I J I I I I I Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.9 Transportation/Circulation Legend T Green V/C Ratio < 0.87 NORTH Red V/C Ratio 0.87 -1.00 Not to Scale Black V/C Ratio > 1.00 0.87 is the maximum V/C within level of service "D" Projected Volume -to -Capacity Ratios Alternative 2 Figure 5.8-2 City of Santa Clarita 5.8-11 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.8 Transportation/Circulation Legend T Green V/C Ratio <0.87 NORTH Red V/C Ratio 0.87 - 1.00 Not to Scale Black V/C Ratio > 1.00 0.87 is the maximum V/C within level of service 'D" Projected Volume -to -Capacity Ratios Alternative 3 Figure 5.8-3 City of Santa Clarita 5.8-13 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section S.8 Transportation/Circulation Legend T Green V/C Ratio < 0.87 NORTH Red V/C Ratio 0.87 - 1.00 Not to scale Black V/C Ratio> 1.00 0.87 is the maximum V/C within level of service "D" Projected Volume -to -Capacity Ratios Alternative 4 Figure 5.84 City of Santa Clarita 5.8-15 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.8 Transportation/Circulation Legend T Green V/C Ratio < 0.87 NORTH Red V/C Ratio 0.87-1.00 Not to Scale Black V/C Ratio > 1.00 0.87 is the maximum V/C within level of service "D" Projected Volume -to -Capacity Ratios Alternative 5 r5.8-17 Figure 5.8-5 City of Santa Cfarita Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.8 Transportation/Circulation Legend T Green V/C Ratio <0.87 NORTH Red V/C Ratio 0.87-1.00 Not to Scale Black VIC Ratio > 1.00 0.87 is the maximum VIC within level of service "D" Projected Volume -to -Capacity Ratios Alternative 6 Figure 5.8-6 City of Santa Clarita 5.8-19 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.8 Transportation/Circulation Legend �D Green V/C Ratio <0.87 NORTH Red V/C Ratio 0.87 -1.00 Not to scale Black V/C Ratio> 1.00 0.87 is the maximum V/C within level of service 'D" Projected Volume -to -Capacity Ratios Alternative 7 Figure 5.8-7 City of Santa Clarita 5.8-21 iSanta Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.8 Transportation/Circulation IVehicle Miles of Travel Table 5.8.4 compares projected citywide daily VMT on each of the project alternatives. As compared to Alternatives 2 and 3, Alternatives 4 and 5 would experience a decrease in VMT of between 0.6% and 0.7% on arterials within the City. This is due to the fact that with additional capacity on some roadways, motorists could take less circuitous routes to their destinations. This would reduce the distance they would have to drive with a resulting decrease in VMT. Table 5.8-4. Daily Vehicle Miles F9eilitlr a L ,�P� � � 1 6 �Alternatrve of Travel wa,d" I4 �,a Y t �fl kFE1 m Freeway 5,309,644 5,377,431 5,392,431 5,335,948 5,354,668 .6,14 ,v,. 5,381,962 _.7. ,- 5,391,347 Expressway 1,220,023 434,372 435,021 423,508 424,304 432,419 432,730 Major 3,373;196 4,061,932 4,048,794 4,209,766 4,213,741 3,952,998 3,944,003 Secondary 835,076 851,313 862,102 660,716 675,053 830,760 839,674 Ltd. Secon. 221,095 226,195 225,401 224,653 222,983 223,221 222,095 Local 83,206 85,551 84,990 82,264 85,318 84,450 83,296 Total 1 11,042,240 1 11,036,794 11,048,738 10,956,855 10,976,266 10,905,850 10,913,774 As compared to Alternatives 2 and 3, Alternatives 6 and 7 would experience a decrease in VMT of approximately 2.4% on arterials within the City. This is primarily due to the fact that the aggressive TDM measures would reduce overall trip -making, and therefore, reduce the corresponding VMT. Another way of examining VMT is as a function of the number of miles traveled within a given LOS. This statistic is an indicator of overall mobility and compliance with City General Plan Circulation Element standards. Table 5.8-5 compares the number of vehicle miles traveled within three LOS ranges (A -C, D -E, and F) on daily basis. Table 5.8-5. w €Cevel of a.7, Daily Vehicle Miles of Travel by LOS.• 72 Mileson'Expressways; Major Arterials; and Seconda 'Arterials 44" 7,1 Service;,.. Alt 1 - _ .'AIt:2u... ,. ;-Alt 3 : - AIt 4.. - ; Alt 5 -. , =Alt 6' ... „ z;.° : Alt7l:,,.° A -C 3,175,562 2,603,983 2,561,134 3,071,721 2,981,492 2,627,363 2,596,656 D -E 1,001,079 1,289,667 1,331,385 1 1,407,599 1,476,255 1 1,288,896 1 1,304,577 F 1,251,654 1,453,772 1,453,394 1 834,672 1 655,348 1 1,299,937 1 1,314,976 Under Alternative 1, about 59% of all VMT on arterials would be at LOS A, B, or C, while about 23 percent of all VMT would be at LOS E Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the number of VMT at LOS A, B, or C would drop to 49% and 48%, respectively, while the VMT at LOS F would increase to about 27 percent under either. As compared to Alternatives 2 and 3, Alternatives 4 and 5, the augmented intersection alternatives, show an increase in VMT at LOS A, B, or C and a decrease in VMT at LOS F. Overall, 58% of VMT would be at LOS LOS A, B, or C under -either Alternative 4 or 5. About 16% of VMT would be at LOS F under Alternative 4, while about 13% of VMT would be at LOS F under Alternative 5. City of Santa Clarita 5.8-23 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.8 Transportation/Circulation Alternatives 6 and 7 would also show improvements as compared to Alternatives 2 and 3, although not as great as the improvements that would occur under Alternatives 4 and 5. Under either Alternative 6 or 7, about 50°k of overall VMT on arterials would be at LOS A, B, or C, while about 25% of all VMT would be at LOS F. Vehicle Hours of Travel Table 5.8-6 compares the overall citywide daily vehicle hours of travel (VHT) under each alternative. This statistic reflects total travel time and is most related to experienced travel delay. Alternatives 2 and 3 show an increase in VHT of 5.0% and 5.77a, respectively, as compared to Alternative 1. This is primarily due to the elimination of the proposed east -west expressway. Elimination of the facility would increase projected travel time for motorists traveling within the City. As compared to Alternatives 2 and 3, Alternatives 4 and 5 show a decrease in VHT (less delay) of approximately 6.5%. Similarly, compared to Alternatives 2 and 3, Alternatives 6 and 7 show a decrease in VHT (less delay) of approximately 3.6%. Average Speeds Table 5.8-7 compares the average travel speeds that would be experienced under each of the project alternatives. This statistic reflects average on each type of facility (i.e. freeway, major arterial, etc.) and is most related to mobility and air quality. Alternative 1 has a projected average arterial speed of about 30.miles per hour (mph). Alternatives 2 and 3 have a projected average arterial speed of about 28 mph. Compared to Alternatives 2 and 3, Alternatives 6 and 7 would have a slightly improved average arterial speed of just over 28 mph. Alternatives 4 and 5 would have the highest average arterial speed of between 30 and 30.5 mph. Mitigation Measures. All of the project alternatives would improve overall traffic service levels as compared to future conditions with no circulation system improvements and would therefore have beneficial impacts without mitigation. Nevertheless, because some roads are projected to continue to operate at undesirable levels of service under any alternative, the following measure is recommended to further improve citywide traffic conditions: City of Santa Clarita 5.8-24 Table 5.8-6. Daily Vehicle Hours of Travel FacilItyI €,r AIto mative- ,.T. .._.-...2. _ 7.757'o s .4;�.-_.,z5d.->✓ �+,`,.a6 ,ik �,z7; ,._._:3: Freeway 125,092 126,616 126,959 125,651 126,067 126,861 127,054 Expressway 36,721 14,677 14,714 13,750 13,764 14,594 14,591 Major 114,920 145,215 145,894 136,587 137,685 138,981 139,692 Secondary 30,619 31,513 31,955 24,061 23,797 30,527 30,788 Ltd. Sec. 11,611 11,894 11,896 15,769 15,556 11,709 11,658 Local 10, 517 11,408 11,551 10,686 10,657 11,128 11,326 Total 329,480 1 341,323 342,969 326,504 327,726 333,801 335,109 As compared to Alternatives 2 and 3, Alternatives 4 and 5 show a decrease in VHT (less delay) of approximately 6.5%. Similarly, compared to Alternatives 2 and 3, Alternatives 6 and 7 show a decrease in VHT (less delay) of approximately 3.6%. Average Speeds Table 5.8-7 compares the average travel speeds that would be experienced under each of the project alternatives. This statistic reflects average on each type of facility (i.e. freeway, major arterial, etc.) and is most related to mobility and air quality. Alternative 1 has a projected average arterial speed of about 30.miles per hour (mph). Alternatives 2 and 3 have a projected average arterial speed of about 28 mph. Compared to Alternatives 2 and 3, Alternatives 6 and 7 would have a slightly improved average arterial speed of just over 28 mph. Alternatives 4 and 5 would have the highest average arterial speed of between 30 and 30.5 mph. Mitigation Measures. All of the project alternatives would improve overall traffic service levels as compared to future conditions with no circulation system improvements and would therefore have beneficial impacts without mitigation. Nevertheless, because some roads are projected to continue to operate at undesirable levels of service under any alternative, the following measure is recommended to further improve citywide traffic conditions: City of Santa Clarita 5.8-24 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.8 Transportation/Circulation - Table.Travel Speeds r€aaiLty ' �` is �4 ',,;�- . �;6e ..�7�, �: Freeway42.4 42.5 42.5 42.5 42.5 42.4 42.4 Expressway 33.2 29.6 29.6 30.6 30.8 29.6 29.7 Major 29.4 28.0 27.6 30.8 30.6 28.4 28.2 Seconds 27.3 27.0 27.0 28.3 28.4 27.2 27.3 Ltd. Secondary 19.0 19.0 18.9 14.2 14.3 19.1 19.1 Local 7.9 7.5 7.4 7.7 7.9 7.6 7.4 Average of Exp1Ma /Sec 29.6 27.9 27.6 30.5 30.3 28.3 28.2 TC -1(a) The City should investigate the adopting transit village plans for transit development districts around major transit nodes in the City, as outlined in the Transit Village Development Planning Act of 1994 (Section 65460 et. seq. of the California Administrative Code). The purpose of creating a transit village development district is to increase transit ridership and reduce vehicle traffic -on highways by creating mixed use neighborhoods centered around transit stations that make use of transit convenient and attractive, thereby reducing dependence upon the automobile. Significance After Mitigation. All of the project alternatives would improve overall traffic levels of service as compared to future conditions without circulation system improvements. Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in the best overall citywide service levels. Among the other alternatives, Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in the fewest areas operating below desired service levels and the best overall traffic flow. Alternatives 6 and 7 would improve traffic flow to some degree as compared to Alternatives 2 and 3, but not to as great a degree as would occur under Alternatives 4 or 5. Effect TC -2 Proposed .Circulation Element policies would generally improve traffic safety conditions, however, the augmented intersections associated with Alternatives 4 and 5 would have the potential to create conflicts for pedestrians and bicyclists as compared to the other alternatives. This additional impact is considered less than significant (Class III), but should be considered by decisonmakers as they weigh the project alternatives. All of the project alternatives include policies to improve overall traffic safety conditions, including conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists and at rail crossings. Proposed policy changes relating to pedestrians/bicyclists are described in Section 2.0, Description of Project Alternatives. In addition, at -grade crossings are planned to be eliminated wherever feasible, while all new rail crossings will be grade separated. ' Although all roadway new roads would have the potential to pose safety hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists, implementation of these policies is considered to have overall beneficial effects with respect to walking and bicycling in the City. The augmentation of major intersections that could occur under Alternatives 4 or 5 may, however, create additional conflicts City of Santa Clarita ' S.8-25 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.8 Transportation/Circulation for bicyclists and pedestrians as compared to the other alternatives. This is due to the arterial capacity enhancements assumed for these two alternatives. The typical Major Arterial cross- section for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 assumes one left -tum lane, two through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane in each direction. The Major Arterial cross-section for Alternatives 4 and 5 assumes two left -turn lanes, three through lanes, and one right -tum lane in each direction. The additional intersection width required for Alternatives 4 and 5 is approximately 40 percent more than that required for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3. The intersection crossing time for bicyclists and pedestrians under Alternatives 4 and 5 would, therefore, be about 40 percent longer than the crossing time under the other Alternatives. Because bicyclists and pedestrians take longer to cross a street than automobiles, a decision may have to be made at many of the augmented capacity intersections as to whether the traffic signal should be timed for automobiles only or whether they should be timed to also accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians. Accommodation of bicyclists and pedestrians may increase delay for automobiles. In order to accommodate pedestrians, which take the longest to cross intersections, traffic signal cycle lengths may have to be 20 to 30 seconds longer at augmented capacity intersections than at non -augmented intersections. This may affect the ability to coordinate traffic signals along a facility and may likely increase travel time for motorists. The wider cross-section of the augmented capacity intersections would also require bicyclists and pedestrians to be in the traffic stream for a greater length of time. This would increase their exposure to motorized vehicles and the potential for vehicle-bicyclist/pedestrian accidents. The exclusive right -tum lanes, which are incorporated within the augmented intersection configuration may have additional impacts on pedestrian crossings and designated bicycle facilities. Vehicles would be making more convenient, and possible uninterrupted, right turns directly across the path of pedestrians and bicycle lanes and may provide a greater potential for conflict than under the regular arterial configuration. Mitigation Measures. None recommended. Significance After Mitigation. Pedestrian and bicycle safety impacts are not considered significant under any alternative. However, Alternatives 4 and 5 would create the potential for increased safety conflicts as compared to the other alternatives. City of Santa Clarita 5.8.28 ' Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.9 Public ServicestUtilitieslEnergy 1 5.9 PUBLIC SERVICES/UTILITIES/ENERGY ' This section assesses potential conflicts between the roadway systems associated with the Circulation Element Amendment and with the operation of existing and planned public infrastructure in the City, including major storm drains, water conveyance systems, and sewer lines. It also includes an assessment ' of the Circulation EIement Amendment's consistency with adopted City energy policy. All of the project alternatives include road corridors that would cross existing and planned water, sewer, and drainage facilities, thereby potentially interfering with the operation of infrastructure systems during construction. Potential impacts to these systems are typically addressed on a case-by-case basis and; with cooperation among affected agencies, no impacts to infrastructure systems are anticipated under any alternative. Alternative 1 would have the greatest potential for impacts to infrastructure while Alternatives 3 and 7 would have the least potential for impact. All alternatives include policies to reduce motor vehicle use and are considered equally consistent with City energy conservation policy. 5.9.1 Setting a. Water Delivery System. The Castaic Lake Water Agency (CLWA) operates water ' conveyance and treatment facilities to deliver water on a wholesale basis to water purveyors serving the Santa Clarita Valley. Facilities owned and operated by the CLWA include the Castaic Pumping Plant at Castaic Lake, the Earl Schmidt Filtration Plant in the Castaic area, and the Castaic Conduit and Newhall and Honby Laterals, which are pipelines used to deliver water to local purveyors. The locations of these facilities are shown on Figure 5.9-1. ' The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) also operates several existing water conveyance facilities in the Santa Clarita Valley and has others planned. The primary facility, the Foothill Feeder, traverses the central portion of the City, near San Fernando Road. Specific existing facilities located along the portion of the Foothill Feeder within the City limits include the Santa Clara Valley Pipeline First Barrel, the Santa Clara River Spillway, and the Saugus, Placerita, and Newhall Tunnels. Two new facilities are also proposed along the Foothill Feeder - the Santa Clara Valley Pipeline Second Barrel and the Saugus Pipeline Second Barrel. ' The Los Angeles Aqueduct, owned and operated by the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), crosses through Santa Clarita near Seco Canyon. The above- ground pipeline delivers water from the Owens Valley to users in the Los Angeles area. In ' combination with a second aqueduct, it provides about 70% of the total water supply for the City of Los Angeles. b. Sewer System. The County Sanitation Districts (CSDs) of Los Angeles County provide sewage collection and treatment service to the City of Santa Clarita. District 26 serves the Saugus, Placerita, and Canyon Country areas, while District 32 serves the Newhall and Valencia areas. The wastewater collection system consists of 8 -inch clay, concrete, and plastic service connections feeding into primary and secondary collectors, which in tum flow into the a main trunk lines and on to wastewater treatment plants. The two districts maintain a network of trunk sewers. The locations of all trunk sewers in both districts are shown on Figure 5.9-2. City of Santa Clarita 5.9-1 Santa Cladta Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.9 Public Services/Utilities/Energy c. Flood Control/Drainage Facilities. The City of Santa Clarita is within the 630 - square -mile watershed of the Santa Clara River. The average annual unimpaired runoff at the western boundary of the drainage area is more than 25,000 acre-feet per year. The ultimate destination for stormwater runoff in Santa Clarita is the Santa Clara River, which drains into the Pacific Ocean some 50 miles to the west at the City of San Buenaventura. The County of Los Angeles provides and maintains major storm drain facilities in the City, as required by the State Subdivision Map Act. The current storm drainage system consists of natural drainages, main storm drainage collection lines and drainage channels maintained by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD), and local storm drainage systems and on-site retention or detention ponds typically required of developers. Storm drain facilities are upgraded as needed to provide adequate drainage for new development in the City. d. City Energy Conservation Policy. As part of its Open Space and Conservation Element, the City of Santa Clarita has adopted a goal to reduce the community's reliance on traditional energy resources through the initiation of energy conservation practices and the utilization of available energy technology. To implement this goal, the Open Space and Conservation Element includes the following policies: • Promote the conservation of energy in the planning area. • Encourage the incorporation of conservation features, such as solar panels, in the design of new development and the installation of conservation devices in existing developments. • Consider incentives for the installation of energy conservation measures in existing buildings. • Encourage the use of passive design concepts such as the siting of buildings in such a manner as to increase energy efficiency. • Encourage the use of solar collectors on public buildings. 5.9.2 Impact Analysis a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. Impacts to drainage facilities, water conveyance facilities, and sewer mains were assessed by overlaying the planned roadway networks over maps of the existing and planned infrastructure facilities. Impacts to drainage, water, and sewer lines are considered potentially significant if a proposed roadway corridor would cross over an existing pipeline, thereby potentially interfering with its operation. Supplementary Document G of the State CEQA Guidelines state that a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will "use fuel, water, or energy in a wasteful manner." Because the proposed project is a plan rather than a specific development project, it would not directly consume energy. Therefore, the Circulation Element Amendment is considered to have a significant impact upon energy resources if it would be inconsistent with adopted City policies pertaining to energy conservation. b. Impact Summary. Table 5.9-1 summarizes the impacts of each of the project alternatives and ranks the alternatives for each specific type of impact. A ranking of 1 indicates the alternative with the least environmental impact while a ranking of 7 indicates the alternative with the greatest impact. 5.9-2 City of Santa Clarita j f .�♦ f Q ♦ 1 f OPPERHILL RD, 'A N 0 K ��! 2 Ja OECORO = JG10;. Tf U' to o� On ° O� yqt 0 < 9° I 41# %. qNO RD. gC,C.'i o ............. o.- 44 O1j1Vr'q1'V a PKWY,. fA Poo Vsilerivia 10 LYONS AVE. n i Z 0 PLUM Cq N} 0 SRO J I J, i. �2 - 0, ON RD. v. PO 00 ♦, %'9 ! NCESSA 9 r Q ♦♦ '0 ♦♦♦ 10 VASOVEZ CANYONRO' w. G'arlyorl .oarlcry SyN I\1eL1/fI-@I 5.9-3 VEEXT. PLACERITA CANYON Rp ro gNOO Ro r T v 0 0 A Z m << o -AN c a MAJOR WATER CONVEYANCE LINES LEGEND Existing Roads Included in Planned Roads Alternatives ...... Common to All Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 . Existing Planned Roadway System Only uuuwmuw Existing Planned Roadway System And Newhall Ranch Road Reduction Alternatives Only _;.1, 2,4_,_6 Newhall Ranch Road Reduction And Golden Valley Road Network - Alternatives Only _— 2, 3 4, 5, 6, 7 •*e•••,& Golden Valley Road Network Alternative Only _ _ _ __ 3, 5 7 e SCALE IN MILES NORTH CLWA Facilities Existing Water Pipeline .............. New Water Pipeline .......... Proposed Water Pipeline r E3 Existing Treatment Plant E] Proposed Treatment Plant Expansion p Existing Pump Station 8 Proposed Pump Station Figure 5.9-1 City of Santa Clarifa VASOUEZ CANYONR° 1 Oc; • O�RD,.r-�' CO PPE RHIL-_-r'.r•_ P A , i01 G. y oUI Ali♦ o til II f Baa ? ::! p �rI ��,�`�♦fir 21 c o ctMc ♦��.��� I♦♦ f m Z ANyO l �� ♦� I �r�� 00, DECORO \, ��� ��♦ �%f �rHF° 1 20 s ♦♦♦.�f GPa' ai �%lfl yon 2," `°Ro cod' ��R v0 t o !;ounl f f 25 13 1 29 I ANCH RD. I U I • ^ • Pr i ♦, 11 f 30 ■(1 ,; ti 5 AGC M 15 >l '1♦s 10 12 Q 16 M OUNTq� ° 9 t:Zg, f • 10 o Y • V Z A Rom°. 2 ♦,, --_2 ! NCESSA •�``� I-'+# O 24 . A • a I to -. l- ♦ 18 n .�I y�Oi��4kr♦ ♦Valen il .0 to to _ 9 • 26 ♦♦♦ .OAO • .♦♦ N . O 1 , LYONS AVE . ♦♦:+`E=T ♦ft� PLACERITA CANYDvR o • - .. p 9ryF yZ FqH z �`1�vlinall°R P ° L.A. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS TRUNK SEWERS LEGEND Existing Roads Included in Planned Roads Alternatives ------ Common to All Alternatives t, 2, 3, d, 6, 6,7 . Existing Planned Roadway _ 2 System Only SCALE IN MILES iuuuulinun Existing Planned Roadway System And Newhall Ranch Road Reduction Alternatives Only _ 1 t 2, 4, 6 rrrrrrrrr Newhall Ranch Road Reduction And Golden Valley Road Network Alternatives Only I$3 4,5,6,7' 0*0.0000 Golden Valley Road Network Alternative Only 13,5,7___ 0 1 _ 2 SCALE IN MILES NORTH SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 26 TRUNK SEWERS 1. Soledad Canyon 2. Soledad Canyon, Sec. 2 & 3 3. San Fernando Road 4. Bouquet Canyon ' S. Soledad Canyon Sec.4 6. Water Pollution Control Plant Eff. Line #2 7. Soledad Canyon Sec.5 8. San Fernando Extension 9. Soledad Canyon Relief Sec. 2 10. Soledad Canyon Relief Sec. 3 11. Bouquet Canyon Relief Sec.1 12. Soledad Canyon Relief Sec. 48 13. Relocation of Soledad Canyon (2 places) 14. Soledad Canyon Relief Sec. 4A 15. Distr. 26 Interceptor Sewer & Soledad Canyon Relief Sec. 1 16. Soledad Canyon Sec. 5 (Relocation at Mint Canyon Channel) SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 32 TRUNK SEWERS 17. Rye Canyon 18. District 32 Main Sec. 3 19. District 32 main Sec. 1 & 2 20. Rye Canyon Sec. 3A 21. Rye Canyon Sec. 4 & 5 22. Castaic Sec. 1, 2 & 3 23. Castaic Sec. 4 24. Valencia Sec. 1 & 2 25. Avenue Scott Sec. 1 26. Valencia Sec. 3 27. District 32 Main Relief Sec. 10 28. Newhall Sec. 1 29. Avenue Scott Sec.2 30. Avenue Scott Sec.3 Figure 5.9-2 City of Santa Cfarita 5.9-5 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.9 Public Services/Utilities/Energy 5.9-7 5.9-1. Summary of Public Service, Table Utility, and Energy Impacts Type ofJmpact 'Alternative .1 Iternativell te a' 1,10- - a "Alternative,6 1Arn T Iteatim.79 PS -11. Water Several Impacts Impacts similar Similar to Similar to Impacts at Impacts at Conveyance crossings of similar to to Alternative Alternative 2; Alternative 3; buildout similar buildout Facilities CLWA, Alternative 1; 1; improved additional additional to Alternative 2; similar to MWD, and one crossing crossing over construction construction with possibly less Alternative 3; DWP water over L.A. Aqueduct with augmented augmented need for new possibly less pipelines; planned at Santa intersections intersections roadway need for new construction CLWA facility Clarita Increases increases development due roadway could eliminated. Parkway. disruption disruption to trip reduction. development temporarily Class l/ Class 11 potential to potential to some Class 11 due to trip disrupt Rank = 4 Rank = 2 some degree. degree. Rank = 3 reduction. operation. Class 11 Class I/ Class 11 Class I/ Rank = 6 Rank = 5 Rank =1 Rank = 7 1 PS -2. Trunk Several Impact similar Impact similar Similar to Similar to Impacts at Impacts at Sewers crossings to Alternative to Alternative Alternative 2; Alternative 3; buildout similar buildout over existing 1; one trunk 1; one trunk additional additional to Alternative 2; similar to trunk sewers; sewer sewer crossing construction construction with possibly less Alternative 3; potential for crossing eliminated. with augmented augmented need for new possibly less impact during eliminated. Class I/ intersections intersections roadway need for new construction. Class It Rank = 4 increases increases development due roadway Class If Rank =2 disruption disruption to trip reduction. development Rank = 7 potential to potential to some Class 11 due to trip some degree. degree. Rank = I reduction. Class /I Class It Class It Rank = 5 Rank = 6 Rank= 3 PS -3. Drainage Several Similar to Similar to Similar to Similar to Impacts at Impacts at Facilities crossings Alternative 1; Alternative 1; Alternative 2; Alternative 3; buildout similar buildout over natural one Santa one Santa additional additional to Alternative 2; similar to and man- Clara River Clara River construction construction with possibly less Alternative 3; made crossing crossing with augmented augmented need for new possibly less drainages; eliminated. eliminated. intersections intersections roadway need for new generally no Class I/I Class H/ Increases increases development due roadway impacts, Rank= 2 Rank = 4 disruption disruption to trip reduction. development although potential to potential to some Class M due to trip some some degree. degree. Rank = 1 reduction. 5.9-7 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.9 Public Services/Utilities/Energy Class I= Significant and Unavoidable; Class//= Significant but Mitiga ;Class III= Less than Significant; Class IV= Beneficial A ranking of 1 indicates the alternative with the least impact; a ranking of 7 indicates the greatest impact. 6.9-1. Summary of Public Service, Table Utility, and Energy Impacts [""jV00 Of Impawq"Alterriatl :�.,,Wtonnative.30 Ati',,AltematlVa'4M'- ,"$!AlternatiVw. wvOWAterna 'T ", temative potential for disruption Class Ill Rank = 6 Class /it Rank = 5 Class I// Rank = 3 would exist. Class Ill Rank = 7 PS -4. Energy Generally Generally Generally Generally Generally Generally Generally Consumption consistent with City energy policy. Class I// consistent with City energy policy. Class It/ No Ranking consistent with City energy policy. Class /I/ No Ranking consistent with City energy policy. Class /I/ No Ranking consistent with City energy policy. Class Ill No Ranking consistent with City energy policy. Class I// No Ranking consistent with City energy policy. Class /I/ No Ranking No Ranking Class I= Significant and Unavoidable; Class//= Significant but Mitiga ;Class III= Less than Significant; Class IV= Beneficial A ranking of 1 indicates the alternative with the least impact; a ranking of 7 indicates the greatest impact. Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.9 Public ServicestUtilitiestEnergy c. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures. ' Effect PS -1 All of the project alternatives include roadway corridors that cross existing and planned water conveyance pipelines. The potential to interfere with water lines is considered a significant, but mitigable impact (Class II). Roadway corridors planned under any alternative would cross existing water pipelines ' operated by the CLWA, MWD, and DWP. Roadway construction would therefore have the potential to interfere with the operation of pipelines. Alternative 1. CLWA Facilities. Several roadway corridors would cross over existing or planned CLWA pipelines. Roads with the potential to interfere with the operation of existing CLWA pipelines include: II • Newhall Ranch Road (two locations between Rye Canyon Road and 1-5); • Santa Clarita Parkway (near Newhall Ranch Road); • Golden Valley Road (near Newhall Ranch Road); and • Dickason Road (near Newhall Ranch Road). In addition, two planned road links (Via Princessa/Wiley Canyon west of San Fernando Road and the Newhall Ranch Road extension near Soledad Canyon Road) would cross planned CLWA facilities. Construction of any of the roads would have the potential to interfere with pipeline operation. According to the CLWA, potential impacts relating to construction activity are typically addressed on a case-by-case basis and impacts to operation typically do not occur. Nevertheless, the impacts of roads crossing existing or planned facilities are considered potentially significant. MWD Pipelines. Several roadways that would be constructed under this alternative may cross the MWD's existing Foothill Feeder - Santa Clara Valley Pipeline, as well as several proposed facilities, including the Second Barrel, the Santa Clara River Spillway, and Saugus, Placerita, and Newhall Tunnels. Roadways that could affect these facilities include Magic Mountain Parkway, Dickason Road, Via Princessa, and the Lyons Avenue extension. These crossings would have the potential to interrupt water delivery operations in these facilities, both during construction and in the long-term unless appropriate design techniques are followed to avoid conflicts. This is considered a potentially significant impact. The MWD publication Guidelines for Developments in the Area of Facilities, Fee Properties, and/or Easements of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California provides guidance in the design of facilities to be constructed adjacent to MWD facilities. Through compliance with these guidelines, impacts to MWD facilities can generally be avoided. Los Angeles Aqueduct. Newhall Ranch Road, Santa Clarita Parkway (two locations) and Via Princessa would also cross the Los Angeles Aqueduct under this alternative. Any roadway construction over the aqueduct would have the potential to directly affect the 5.9-9 Eay or Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.9 Public Services/Utilities/Energy operation of the unreinforced facility. This is considered a potentially significant impact, although the LADWP indicates that construction over the aqueduct can generally occur without disruption of service if certain procedures, to be developed on a case-by-case basis, are followed. These would include the provision of a driveway from the road onto the aqueduct right-of-way and fenced gate to the driveway. For a road project, LADWP requirements may include construction of a bridge over the aqueduct. The LADWP has also indicated that 90 degree crossings are preferred and that roads colinear with the aqueduct are not allowed. Only the northern Santa Clarita Parkway crossing would not be at essentially a 90 degree angle. Alternative 2. Impacts to water conveyance facilities would be similar to those of Alternative 1 and are considered potentially significant. The only difference as compared to Alternative 1 is that the Newhall Ranch Road crossing over planned CLWA facilities Soledad Canyon Road would be eliminated. Alternative 3. Impacts to water conveyance facilities would be similar to those of Alternative 1 and are considered potentially significant. The differences are: The Newhall Ranch Road extension crossing over planned CLWA facilities near Soledad Canyon Road would be eliminated, One additional crossing over a CLWA line would occur at the Santa Clarita Parkway/Newhall Ranch Road interchange, and One of the Santa Clarita Parkway crossings over the Los Angeles Aqueduct would be moved farther north and would cross the facility at closer to a 90 degree angle. Alternative 4. Impacts to water conveyance facilities would be similar to those of Alternative 2, although the augmentation of intersections may marginally increase the potential for disruption to pipelines in some instances. Impacts are considered potentially significant, but can be avoided through compliance with CLWA, MWD, and LADWP procedures. Alternative 5. Impacts to water conveyance facilities would be similar to those of Alternative 2, although the augmentation of intersections may marginally increase the potential for disruption to pipelines in some instances. Impacts are considered potentially significant, but can generally be avoided through compliance with CLWA, MWD, and LADWP procedures. Alternative 6. Impacts to water conveyance facilities from buildout would be the same as those of Alternative 2. Overall, impacts are considered potentially significant, but can generally be avoided through compliance with CLWA, MWD, and LADWP procedures. Alternative 7. Impacts to water conveyance facilities associated with buildout of this alternative would be the same as those of Alternative 3. Overall, impacts are considered potentially significant, but can be avoided through compliance with CLWA, MWD, and LADWP procedures. Mitigation Measures. The following measures are recommended for all alternatives to avoid conflicts with water conveyance pipelines:. City of Santa Clarita 5.9-70 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.9 Public Services/Utilities/Energy PS -1(a) The City of Santa Clarita shall submit preliminary design drawings or improvements plans to the CLWA for any roadway with the potential to affect CLWA pipelines. Any LADWP specifications for the design of crossings over CLWA facilities shall be adhered to by the City. PS -1(b) The City of Santa Clarita shall submit preliminary design drawings or improvement plans to the MWD for any roadway with the potential to affect MWD pipelines or rights-of-way prior to approval of the design for any specific roadway for review and input. The design of roadways with the potential to affect MWD facilities will consider the Guidelines for Developments in the Area of Facilities, Fee Properties, and/or Easements of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. PS -1(c) The City of Santa Clarita shall submit preliminary design drawings or improvement plans to the LADWP for Newhall Ranch Road, Santa Clarita Parkway, and Via Princessa, Any LADWP specifications for the design of Los Angeles Aqueduct crossings shall be adhered to by the City. Significance After Mitigation. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, any impacts to major water conveyance facilities could be reduced to a less than significant level for all alternatives. Overall potential for impact would be greatest under Alternative 1. Alternatives 3 and 7 are considered to have the least impact because of the improved Aqueduct crossing at Santa Clarita Parkway, although the difference between these two alternatives and Alternatives 2 and 6 is nominal. Effect PS -2 All of the project alternatives include roadway corridors that cross over existing sewer mains operated by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. Potential interference with these lines is considered a potentially significant, but mitigable impact (Class II). Planned road corridors would cross several Los Angeles CSDs sewer mains. Roadway construction would have the potential to temporarily interfere with the operation of sewer lines in the City. Figure 5.9-2 shows the locations of Alternative 1 roadway corridors relative to trunk sewers. Alternative 1. This alternative includes several crossings over District 26 and District 32 sewers. District 26 trunk lines would be affected as follows: • The planned extension of Magic Mountain Parkway east of San Fernando Road would cross ' the San Fernando Road line, and • Santa Clarita Parkway, Golden Valley Road, and Newhall Ranch Road would all cross the Soledad Canyon line. District 32 trunk lines would be affected as follows: r City of Santa Clan' 5.9-11 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.9 Public ServiceslUtilitieslEnergy The extension of Wiley Canyon Road to San Fernando Road would intersect the District 32 main line; The extension of Avenue Scott to McBean Parkway would follow the Avenue Scott line; and The extension of SR -126 between I-5 and Rye Canyon Road would cross the Rye Canyon line. Each of these trunk line crossings would have the potential to conflict with sewer line operation and limit access to the sewer. This is considered a potentially significant impact, although any impacts to sewer lines can be avoided through compliance with the buildover procedures and requirements of the CSDs. In order to obtain a buildover agreement (BOA) from the CSDs, the City will need to provide to the Districts: (1) a grading plan and site plan showing the location of the sewer easement in relation to the proposed improvement; (2) the calculated footing and/or traffic loadings resulting from the project; (3) a soils report for the project; (4) a foundation plan and footing detail for the project; and (5) a vicinity map showing the location of proposed improvements. Based upon this information, the BOA would set out the conditions under which the proposal is acceptable to the Districts. Alternative 2. Impacts to sewer lines would be the same as those of Alternative 1, with one exception. The crossing of the Newhall Ranch Road extension over the Soledad Canyon line would be eliminated under this alternative due to the termination of Newhall Ranch Road at Golden Valley Road. Therefore, the overall potential for impact is slightly lower than that of Alternative 1. The impacts of the Newhall Ranch Road Reduction alternative are considered potentially significant, but can be avoided through compliance with CSDs buildover procedures, as described above. Alternative 3. Impacts to sewer trunk lines would be similar to those of Alternative 2. Planned roads that would cross the existing County Sanitation Districts trunk lines include Magic Mountain Parkway, Santa Clarita Parkway, and Golden Valley Road. The Golden Valley NetworVs impacts are considered potentially significant, but can be avoided through compliance with CSDs buildover procedures, as described above. Alternative 4. The Augmented Newhall Ranch Reduction alternative's impacts to sewer trunk lines would be similar to those of Alternative 2, although the augmentation of intersections could marginally increase the potential to affect sewer trunk lines. Planned roads that would cross the existing CSDs trunk lines include Magic Mountain Parkway, Santa Clarita Parkway, and Golden Valley Road. Impacts are considered potentially significant, but can be avoided through compliance with CSDs buildover procedures. Alternative 5. This alternatives impacts to sewer trunk lines would be similar to those of the Golden Valley Road Network, although the augmentation of heavily congested intersections would marginally increase the potential to affect sewer trunk lines. Planned roads that would cross the existing County Sanitation Districts trunk lines include Magic Mountain Parkway, Santa Clarita Parkway, and Golden Valley Road. Impacts associated with Alternative 5 are considered potentially significant, but can be avoided through compliance with CSDs buildover procedures. City of Santa Clarita 5.9-12 Santa CWta Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.9 Public Services/Utilities/Energy ' Alternative 6. Overall impacts associated with full buildout of Alternative 6 would be the same as those of Alternative 2. Impacts are considered potentially significant, but can be ' avoided through compliance with CSDs buildover procedures. Alternative 7. Overall impacts associated with full buildout of Alternative 7 would be the same as those of Alternative 3. Impacts are considered potentially significant, but can be avoided through compliance with CSDs buildover procedures. ' Mitigation Measures. The following measure is recommended to avoid conflicts with sewer facilities operated by the CSDs: ' PS -2(a) The City of Santa Clarita shall obtain a buildover agreement (BOA) from the CSDs of Los Angeles County prior to construction of any road segment that ' would cross a Sanitation Districts sewer line. The City shall comply with any conditions set forth in the BOA regarding the design or alignment of the roadway. Significance After Mitigation. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measure, potential impacts to CSDs sewer lines could be reduced to a less than significant level for all alternatives. The residual potential for impacts to sewer system operation after ' mitigation would be the greatest under Alternative 1 because of the one additional trunk line crossing. The residual effects of all other alternatives would be roughly equivalent. Effect PS -3 All of the project alternatives include roads that would cross existing flood control facilities in the City. Potential interference with the operation of flood control facilities is considered a potentially adverse, but less than significant impact (Class III). Roads that would be constructed with any of the Circulation Element Amendment alternatives would cross numerous storm control facilities throughout the City, including the Santa Clara River. Construction of these crossings would have the potential to adversely affect the operation of existing drainages in the City. Alternative 1. This alternative would include numerous crossings over both man- made storm channels and natural drainages, including the Santa Clara River and South Fork Santa Clara River. Three planned roads (Santa Clara Parkway, Golden Valley Road, and Newhall Ranch Road) would include bridges over the Santa Clara River while Via Princessa/ Wiley Canyon Road would require a bridge over the South Fork Santa Clara River. Construction of new roads would have the potential to temporarily interfere with the operation of storm drain facilities by increasing erosion and sedimentation, and/or damaging man-made facilities. This would have the potential to create localized flooding problems during construction (this issue is also addressed in Section 5.3, Hydrology/Flooding). According to the Los Angeles County Public Works Department, potential disruption to storm drains is typically addressed on a case-by-case basis. Cooperative efforts between City and cry or zianra 5.9-13 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.9 Public Services/Utilities/Energy Public Works staff would be expected to minimize the potential for damage to facilities and interference with proper drainage. Impacts are therefore considered potentially adverse, but less than significant. Alternative 2. Impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be similar to those described for Alternative 1 and are not considered significant. The overall potential for interference with the operation of the local storm drain system would be somewhat lower than under Alternative 1 because of the elimination of the Newhall Ranch Road extension, a 3.1 -mile segment that would require a bridge over the Santa Clara River. AIternative 3. Impacts associated with this alternative would be similar to those described for Alternative 1. This alternative would eliminate the Newhall Ranch Road crossing over the Santa Clara River; however, the Santa Clarita Parkway/Newhall Ranch Road interchange may require more construction activity near the Santa Clara River bed than would Alternative 1. Alternative 4. This alternatives impacts would be similar to those of Alternative 2 for new roadways. Impacts are considered potentially adverse, but less than significant. However, this alternative would include the augmentation of a number of existing intersections in already developed areas. The increased construction activity in highly developed areas would increase the potential to disrupt the man-made drainage system and expose existing residential and commercial development to temporary localized flooding. Alternative 5. This alternatives impacts would be similar to those of Alternative 3 for new roadways. Though impacts are considered less than significant, the augmentation of existing intersections in already developed areas would have greater potential to disrupt the man-made drainage system, thereby potentially exposing residential and commercial development to temporary localized flooding. Alternative 6. Impacts associated with full buildout of this alternative would be similar to those of Alternative 2 and are considered potentially adverse, but less than significant. Alternative 7. Impacts associated with full buildout of this alternative would be similar to those of Alternative 3 and are considered potentially adverse, but less than significant. Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure HF -1(a) in Section 5.3, Hydrology Tlooding, would minimize the potential for impacts to natural drainages relating to erosion and sedimentation. Although impacts to the operation of storm drains and natural drainage facilities will be addressed on a case-by-case basis, the following mitigation measure is recommended to minimize impacts: PS -3(a) The City shall provide design drawings of planned roads to the Los Angeles County Public Works Department as early as possible to effectively address the potential for adverse impacts to the operation of drainage facilities during City of Santa Clarita 5.9-14 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.9 Public Services/Utilities/Energy construction. The City shall comply with any recommendations from the County Public Works Department with respect to drainage facilities. Significance After Mitigation. With the application of Mitigation Measure HF -1(a) and the recommended measure, significant impacts to drainage facilities can be avoided for all of the alternatives. Alternative 1 would have the greatest residual potential for impact due to the ' increased number of road miles and additional crossing over the Santa Clara River. All other alternatives would have similar impacts, although alternatives with more overall construction activity are assumed to have somewhat greater potential for impact. Effect PS -4 All of the project alternatives are considered generally consistent with City energy conservation policy. Impacts to energy are considered less than significant for all alternatives _ (Class III). ■ Most of the adopted energy conservation policies listed in Section 5.9.1.d pertain to energy conserving building design and, therefore, are not applicable to the proposed Circulation Element Amendment. However, the general policy of promoting energy conservation throughout the planning area does apply. ' Alternative 1. As with any construction activity, construction relating to buildout of the Existing Planned Roadway Network alternative would involve the consumption of energy. In addition, the extension of the roadway network would accommodate additional motor vehicular movement, which would also increase citywide energy consumption. However, because the expanded roadway network would in some cases provide more direct links between points of origin and destination and relieve traffic congestion and associated engine ' idling, it may promote energy conservation in the long term as compared to not implementing any further improvements to the City's circulation system. In addition, the proposed policies relating the use of transportation demand management techniques to reduce single occupant ' vehicle (SOV) use would serve to promote energy conservation. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not conflict with adopted City energy conservation policy and no significant impacts to energy resources would occur. Alternative 2. The Newhall Ranch Road Reduction alternative's impacts to energy resources would be similar to those of Alternative 1. Overall energy consumption relating to construction would be slightly lower because of the reduction in overall construction activity while long-term energy consumption would be about the same. Similar to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 includes policies that would reduce energy consumption by encouraging the use of alternatives to the single occupant vehicle. Because this alternative would not conflict with City energy conservation policy, its impact to energy resources is considered less than significant. Alternative 3. The Golden Valley Network alternatives impacts to energy resources ' would be similar to those of Alternative 1. Overall energy consumption relating to both construction activity and long-term operation of the circulation system. Like Alternatives 1 and 2, this alternative includes the new policies to encourage the use of alternatives to the single ' occupant vehicle (SOV). Implementation of these policies would help conserve energy in the City of Santa Clarita ' 5.9-t5 Santa Ciarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.9 Public Services/Utilities/Energy long term. Therefore, -Alternative 3 would not conflict with City energy conservation policy and its impact to energy resources is considered less than significant. Alternative 4. This alternative's energy consumption would be similar to that of Alternative 2. Like Alternative 2, it would also generally be consistent with City energy policy. The easing of traffic congestion that would occur under this alternative may incrementally reduce vehicle -related energy consumption as compared to Alternatives 2 or 3 by reducing engine idling. However, the increased roadway capacity may accommodate greater increases in traffic in the long term. Overall, energy impacts would be similar to those of Alternative 2 and are considered less than significant. Alternative 5. Energy consumption associated with Alternative 5 would be similar to that of Alternative 3. As with Alternative 3, this alternative would also generally be consistent with City energy policy. The easing of traffic congestion that would occur under this alternative may incrementally reduce vehicle -related energy consumption as compared to Alternatives 2 or 3 by reducing engine idling. However, the increased roadway capacity may accommodate greater increases in traffic in the long term. Overall, energy impacts would be similar to those of Alternative 3 and are considered less than significant. Alternative 6. Like all of the studied alternatives, Alternative 6 would involve the direct consumption of energy as roadway and other infrastructure are built and would indirectly result in long-term increases in energy consumption by accommodating additional motor vehicular movement in the City. This alternative includes all of the policies relating to . reducing SOV trips, which would encourage long-term energy conservation. Therefore, it would not conflict with adopted City policy regarding energy conservation and would not create any significant impacts. The aggressive transportation demand management (TDM) strategies that would be implemented as part of this alternative would be expected to achieve a 10-15% reduction in citywide motor vehicle trips as compared to Alternative 2. On the other hand, overall traffic congestion would be somewhat higher under this alternative (see Section 5.8, Transportation and Circulation), resulting in more idling and less efficient transportation. Overall energy consumption would likely be about the same as under Alternative 2. Alternative 7. Like all of the studied alternatives, Alternative 7 would involve the direct consumption of energy during construction and an indirect increase in energy consumption due to the accommodation of additional motor vehicular movement. Because this alternative includes all of the policies relating to reducing SOV trips, it would not conflict with adopted City policy regarding energy conservation or create any significant impacts to energy resources. Like Alternative 4, this alternative would include aggressive TDM strategies that would achieve a 10-15% reduction in citywide motor vehicle trips, but would result in more traffic congestion than under Alternative 3. Overall energy consumption would be similar to that of Alternative 3. Mitigation Measures.. None required for any of the alternatives. Significance After Mitigation All of the alternatives are considered consistent with City energy policy. Therefore, impacts to energy resources would be less than significant 5.9-16 ' Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.9 Public Services/Utilities/Energy I I 1 I 1 1 1 without mitigation for all alternatives. Overall energy consumption would be similar under all alternatives. 5.9.17 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.10 Aesthetics/tight and Glare ' 5.10 .AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE ' This section examines the potential of the Circulation Element's physical plan to alter the visual and aesthetic environment of the City of Santa Clarita. The substantial amount of grading that would occur under any project alternative would result in substantial changes to the natural topography of the City, altering primary and secondary ridgelines. Such potentially conflicts with City policies for ridgeline preservation and hillside development and is considered a significant and unavoidable impact. New roadways of all alternatives would result in significant and unavoidable impacts on viewsheds as well. ' Impacts relating to alteration of the overall rural nature of the public view cannot generally be mitigated for any alternative, while the increase in artificial light and glare resulting from roadway development has been identified as a significant and unavoidable impact of all alternatives. Overall impacts would be similar under all alternatives. However, Alternative 1 includes the most overall miles of new roads, while Alternative 3 would affect the most significant ridgelines. Alternatives 2 and 6, with the fewest new road miles and fewest ridgeline crossings, would have the least overall impact. 5.10.1 Setting ' a. Regulatory Setting. The City of Santa Clarita has adopted a range of policies and ordinances aimed at protecting and enhancing the visual character of the incorporated portion of the Santa Clarita Valley. The City's General Plan includes a Community Design Element, ' which identifies goals and policies to guide the City's decision makers in numerous components of community design. The Community Design Element includes a Ridgeline Protection subsection that identifies the primary and secondary ridgelines within the Santa ' Clarita Valley as significant design features that should be protected. The City's Unified Development Code includes the Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance (Ridgeline Ordinance), which has detailed standards relative to ridgeline preservation, slope gradation, slope landscaping, contour grading, road design, and landforms. The Ordinance includes the Ridgeline Preservation Map (1992), which identifies primary and secondary ridgelines that the City considers significant in terms of visual quality (see Figure 5.10-1). All of the documents and codes mentioned above are incorporated by reference and available for public review at the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department. b. Visual Character of Santa Clarita. I'Natural Features. There are many natural features of the Santa Clarita Valley that are important in terms of preserving the rural/ urban interface that exists throughout much of the City, including the varied topography provided by the numerous ridgelines, canyons and waterways that visually dominate much of the planning area. Besides the visual dominance of the ridgelines, the Santa Clara River, Bouquet Canyon, Castaic Creek, San Francisquito Canyon, ' Newhall Creek, Placerita Canyon, Sand Canyon, and the South Fork of the Santa Clarita River all give local identity to particular portions of Santa Clarita. Oak woodlands spill over from the surrounding National Forests into many areas of the Valley. Roadways. Many of the major freeways and roadways in the area serve as view corridors. Protected oak woodlands line Interstate 5 (I-5) between McBean Parkway and ' Valencia Boulevard. Much of the planning area along I-5, State Highway 14, State Highway City of Santa C 5.10-1 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.10 Aesthetics/Light and Glare 126, Bouquet Canyon Road, San Francisquito Canyon Road, Sand Canyon Road, Placerita Canyon Road, Soledad Canyon Road, and Sierra Highway afford scenic vistas, as shown on Figures 5.10-2, 5.10-3, and 5.10-4 (a photo location map is provided on Figure 5.10-5.). Communities: Santa Clarita is made up of several distinct communities. Newhall is the oldest community, founded in 1876. The architecture of Newhall residences reflect a diversity of architectural styles. Many of the older homes are built on large lots. Residential areas in the subcommunity of-Placerita Canyon are semi -rural and equestrian. Commercial development include single -story older buildings along San Fernando Road and numerous small and mid- sized wood and stucco strip centers along Lyons Avenue. In developments are found along the northern part of San Fernando Road. Newhall has developed without any particular architectural style, street development standards, or consistent streetscapes. Saugus, similar to Newhall, began as a rural community with large residential lots and open spaces. Many of the homes in Saugus are of the California ranch style. Much of the development in Saugus has moved into the canyon and hillside areas, including Bouquet, Seco, and Haskell Canyons. The Santa Clara River is a dominant feature of this community. Strip commercial and commercial centers are prevalent along Soledad Canyon and Bouquet Canyon Roads. Open space is prevalent on the edges of development in the northern part of Saugus. Canyon Country is the easternmost community of the City. A variety of residential architectural styles are used, including California ranch, Santa Fe, and Mediterranean style homes. Some areas of Canyon Country, including Sierra Highway south of Soledad Canyon Road, provide a mix of single and multiple family development with some commercial uses. Other areas, including the northern section of Sierra Highway, are generally rural with very low density. The Santa Clara River provides natural open space and is a dominant feature of this community. Commercial development in Canyon Country is similar to that of Saugus. The subcommunity of Sand Canyon contains many of the Santa Clarita Valley's most expensive homes, which are equestrian and built on large lots. Valencia was first developed in the 1960s and the first homes in the area reflect the style of that time. New residential development reflects several different modern architectural styles. The neighborhoods are connected to each other and to various parks by a system of pedestrian paths. Small parks and private recreational areas are located throughout the community. Commercial centers are small and incorporate Spanish and Mediterranean architectural styles. The Valencia Industrial Center in the northern portion of the community, near Rye Canyon Road, contains wide streets with landscaped setbacks and no sidewalks. 5.10.2 Impact Analysis a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. Assessment of aesthetic impacts involves qualitative analysis that is inherently subjective in nature. Viewers react to viewsheds and aesthetic conditions differently. This evaluation measures the existing visual resource against the proposed action, analyzing the nature of the anticipated change. The City, of Santa Clarita was observed and photographically documented. The City's Ridgeline Ordinance and General Plan Community Design Element were reviewed for policy guidance relative to visual City of Santa Clarita 5.10-2 5.10-3 DESIGNATED RIDGE LINES LEGEND 2 .,.,,,..... M.,..., Existing Roads SCALE IN MILES Planned Roads Included In Alternatives ------ Common to All Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.7 _ . Existing Planned Roadway System Only 1 uunumeun Existing Planned Roadway System And Newhall Ranch Road Reduction AlternativesOnly Newhall Ranch Road Reduction And Golden Valley Road Network 2, 3, 4, S. 6, 71, Alternatives Only _ _ _ a******* Golden Valley Road Network Alternative Only 3, 5, 7 0 1 2 T SCALE IN MILES NORTH Primary Ridge Lines .......... Secondary Ridge Lines Figure 5.10-1 rCity of Santa Ctarita Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.10 Aesthetics/Light and Glare PHOTO 1- View of the Santa Clara River looking northeast toward the proposed intersection of Golden Valley Road and Newhall Ranch Road n .�.., r a "� i ='* i `€ij�,"'s r+ ,�tA��1.��r� +{ �•4�'`�'�'.d � a„x+,�� ;�� xF �xr .;: � a w • • i'TYy _ �Yt! 14.,.i' � � .�,iy�, �(i'y ..,.m>� y i+ � � � eye R. PHOTO 2- View toward the proposed Santa Clarita Parkway Existing Visual Character Figure 5.10-2 City of Santa Clarita 5.10-5 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.10 Aesthetics/Light and Glare PHOTO 3- View from Sierra Highway looking south toward the proposed Santa Clarita Parkway PHOTO 4 - View from San Fernando Road looking toward the Rio Vista/ Lyon Avenue exit Existing Visual Character Figure 5.10-3 5.10-6 City of Santa Clarita Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.10 Aesthetics/Light and Glare t ss7{ t. Y! a µ Y+ InT { PHOTO 5 - View of Santa Clara River looking north from Soledad Canyon Road Existing Visual Character Figure 5.104 City of Santa Clarfta 5.10-7 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment Ella Section 5.10 Aesthetics Ught and Glare ..n EZ CANYON%O' LEGEND ExIWNg Roads °pR1 COPPENNILLRD./// ♦ ;II ♦I 1 3 Ig ' na -� �aUJu 'NI ... i i ea nuxDAq ♦.` I/.:Gv••• f f S OqA 1 oFcoa Newhall Raoah Road Rsduell°n Caripri A, ". wggYY 'V C7Jnity A., a°uo".� °moi q�wCN I p1 .: � ,'y.:. III ♦ aD � Ir 6 . NEJ Ax OM a° ♦ �I 'I w^WO4MTAIN # k PO 5 O i'a4 ,�a„{{ �N^'T ,`� 4 vita A4���`v x-'11 ..,:x.- ♦+I o ii i11 14 �3 IN �• s xi ..._ 1� 1 i a i a ; {�:��.• ♦,'d`♦-� �YONE AVE ...�.:W ``i ♦ �B P4ACFNRA CIJ1Yory/� S i LEGEND ExIWNg Roads Planned Roads Albonadm:E° ......... Cmemen to All Aganwtives H, 2, 5,4, 5, 4, 71 .•.•.. Exlallng Planned Roadway System only nunnnnnnr EWting Planned Roadway, 8ystEm And Newhall Raoah Road Rsduell°n ANernaUvee Only eereeeeeP Newhall Ranch Road Reduotlan And Golden Valley Road Network Alternagwa Only eeeeaeee Golden Valley Road Netw°rk ANemaWe Only IS 6,7 o 2 SCALE IN ones NORTH Photo Location Map Figure 5.10-5 City of Santa Clarlta 5.10-0 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.10 Aesthetics/Light and Glare ' resources and community design policy. The Ridgeline Ordinance classifies the ridgelines in the Santa Clarita Valley as either primary or secondary. According to this Ordinance, a ' ridgeline is categorized as primary if it meets any combination of the following ridgeline criteria: ' • It surrounds or visually dominates the valley landscape either through its size in relation to the hillside or mountain terrain of which it is a part; • Its visual dominance is characterized by a silhouetting appearance against the sky;- It ky;It provides a significant natural backdrop feature or separation of communities, • It visually dominates due to its proximity and the view from existing development or major ' corridors, and • It is in an area of significant ecological, historical, or cultural importance such as those which connect park or trail systems. ' A secondary ridgeline meets any combination of the above ridgeline criteria, but is secondary in nature to primary ridgelines due to the following features: ' • It is of smaller size and prominence, due to being a feature or branch of a primary ridgeline; and • The silhouette of the ridgeline against open sky falls on a smaller size hill or the silhouette of the ridgeline falls on a smaller hill which is backdropped by a significant ridgeline. The Ridgeline Ordinance indicates that certain uses may be permitted on significant ridgelines to promote the public health, safety and general welfare. Encroachments onto ridgelines may be granted if the Planning Commission finds that the encroachment onto a primary ridgeline will be in compliance with the criteria of the Ordinance. An impact is considered significant if it can be reasonably argued that (a) the change would adversely affect a viewshed from a public viewing area; (b) an existing identified visual resource is obstructed, (c) a City -identified primary or secondary ridgeline is modified so as to alter its significance, or (d) a new light and glare source or sources are introduced that substantially alter the nighttime lighting character of the area. In this analysis, modifications to the viewshed were considered less than significant if the modification is unnoticeable or visually subordinate to the overall viewshed. A modification that is visually dominant or one that adversely modifies the existing view adversely is considered a significant impact. b. Impact Summary. Table 5.10-1 summarizes the impacts of each alternative and ranks the alternatives for each aesthetic issue. c. Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Effect AES -1 All of the alternatives would potentially conflict with the City's Ridgeline Ordinance by irreversibly altering landform profiles and changing their aesthetic character. Although innovative design may mitigate impacts on a case-by-case basis, this is considered a potentially significant and unavoidable impact (Class I). 5.10-9 City of Sar ' Santa Clahta Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.10 Aesthetics/Light and Glare Class I = Significant and Unavoidable,- Class 11= Significant but Mitigable; Class I// = Less than Significant; Class IV = Beneficial A ranking of I indicates the alternative with the least Impact; a ranking of 7 indicates the greatest impact. City of Santa Clarita 5.1D-10 Glare Impacts Table 5.10-1. Summary of Aesthetics/Light and � b � � Alt motive 6 Alternative 7 ;, ";;Type of�+� Altmative'i �: , Alternative �Y ,� �, Altetnahve 3 , � Altmahve 4 � � ,Alternative AES -11. 8 primary and 12 8 primary and 12 8 primary and 14 Similar to Similar to Sameas Sameas Landform secondary secondary secondary Alternative 2, but Alternative 3; Alternative 2; Alternative 3. Alteration ridgelines ridgelines ridgelines potential for potentially wider possibly less Class 1; possibly potentially affected; potentially potentially Wider intersections at need for road less need for landforms affected; less total affected; greater intersections at some locations. development. road significantly altered. impact than total,impact than some locations. Class I Class I development. Class I Alternative 1 due Alternatives 1 and Class I Rank = 7 Rank = I Class I Rank = 4 to less grading and 2 because more Rank = 3 Rank = 5 road length. ridgelines would be Class I crossed. Rank = 2 Class I Rank = 6 AES -2. Viewsheds Viewsheds Viewsheds Similarto Similar to Sameas Sameas Viewsheds significantly significantly significantly Alternative 2. but Alternative 3., Alternative 2, Alternative 3; impacted at various impacted, although impacted, although wider but wider possibly less possibly less locations. less than less than intersections at intersections at need for new need for new Class I Alternative 1 as Alternative 1 as some locations. some locations. roads. roads. Rank = 7 Newhall Ranch total road length Class I Class I Class I Class I Road would be would be shorter. Rank = 5 Rank = 6 Rank = 1 Rank = 3 shorter. Class I Class I Rank = 4 Rank = 2 AES -3. Light Significant light and Significant light Significant light Similar to Similar to Sameas Sameas and Glare glare impacts at and glare impacts and glare impacts Alternative 2, but Alternative 3, but Alternative 2 at Alternative 3 at various locations. at fewer locations at fewer locations wider wider full buildout; full buildout; Class I than Alternative 1 than Alternatives. intersections may intersections possibly less possibly less Rank= 7 as Newhall Ranch 1, 2, 4, 6 due to require more may require demand for new demand for new Road would be shorter total road intense lighting. more intense roads. roads. shorter. length. Class I lighting. Class I Class I Class I Class I Rank = 5 Class 1; Rank = 6 Rank = 1 Rank = 3 Rank = 2 Rank = 4 1 1 Class I = Significant and Unavoidable,- Class 11= Significant but Mitigable; Class I// = Less than Significant; Class IV = Beneficial A ranking of I indicates the alternative with the least Impact; a ranking of 7 indicates the greatest impact. City of Santa Clarita 5.1D-10 Santa Cladta Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.10 Aesthetics/Lightand Glare The City's Ridgeline Ordinance allows development on secondary ridgelines provided that a hillside review is granted and the project complies with the provisions of the Ordinance. Section 17.80.030, Hillside Plan Review/Permit Requirements, Subsection A, Plan Review of the Ordinance includes eight objectives that have been established for hillside preservation. The applicable objective statements are summarized below. 1. Natural topographic features and appearances shall be conserved by means of landform grading so as to blend any manufactured slopes or required drainage benches into the natural topography. 2. Significant, natural, topographic prominent features shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. 5. Plant materials shall be conserved and introduced so as to protect the slopes from slippage and soil erosion and to minimize visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas, including the consideration of the preservation of prominent trees and, to the extent possible, reduce the maintenance cost to public and private owners. 6. Curvilinear street design and improvements that serve to minimize grading alterations and simulate the natural contours and character of the hillside shall be utilized. Section 17.80.040, Development Standards, Subsection E, Innovative Applications for Significant Ridgelines of the Ordinance outlines a series of criteria that allow the Planning Commission to approve encroachment onto significant ridgelines. The relevant criteria are as follows: 1.d The establishment of the pro )sed use or development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property, nor encourage inappropriate encroachments to the ridgeline area. 2.b. The proposed use or development will be shielded from general public view by a perimeter ridgeline or perimeter ridgeline system. Section 17.80.040, Development Standards, Subsection J, Grading Design of the Ordinance establishes standards for grading. The following summarizes the standards from this subsection that are applicable to aesthetics: 2. The overall slope, height or grade of any cut or fill slope shall be developed to appear similar to the existing natural contours in scale with the natural terrain of the subject site. 4. Where any cut or fill slope exceeds 10 feet in horizontal length, the ...contours of the slope shall... appear similar to the existing natural contours. 5. Grading shall be balanced on site whenever possible to avoid excessive cut and fill and to avoid import or export. All of the alternatives include roadway corridors that would cross designated primary and secondary ridgelines. Ridgeline crossings are shown on Figure 5.10-1 while the number of ' crossings that would occur under each alternative are listed in Table 5.10-1. Because roadway Fir City of Santa Ciarita 5.10-11 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.10 Aesthetics/Lightand Glare corridors would cross designated ridgelines, project buildout would potentially violate the provisions of .the City s Ridgeline Ordinance. AIternative 1. Although it is assumed that grading and design plans would avoid prominent natural features whenever feasible, planned roadway corridors could cross 8 primary and 12 secondary ridgelines under this alternative. Roads that would cross primary or secondary ridgelines under this alternative include: • Rye Canyon Road, • Magic Mountain Parkway, • Santa Clarita Parkway, • Newhall Ranch Road, • GoIden Valley Road, • Via Princessa; • Whites Canyon Road, and • Plum Canyon Road. The cut and fill that would be required to build the roadway extensions and new roads included in the Existing Planned Roadway System would significantly modify the topography of the City, although it is assumed that manufactured slopes and drainage benches would be blended by means of landform grading whenever feasible. In a number of instances, roadway development would substantially alter the incline of slopes for the areas graded; thereby causing a significant change in ridgeline appearance. Because of the extent of roads involved, the proposed roadways would be visible from numerous locations. As portions of the planned roadway system are potentially in conflict with provisions of the CiVs Hillside Ordinance, impacts to ridgelines are considered potentially significant. However, it should be noted that the Ridgeline Ordinance.allows encroachment onto significant ridgelines if a finding that innovative design and construction techniques mitigate the effects of ridgeline grading. Individual roadways will need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether or not they will comply with the Ordinance. Alternative 2. Impacts would be similar to those of Alternative 1. The only difference is the elimination of the Newhall Ranch Road extension, which would not affect any significant ridgelines. This alternative's impacts are considered potentially significant, although individual roads will need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether or not they comply with the Ridgeline Ordinance. Alternative 3. This alternative includes road corridors that would cross 8 primary ridgelines and 14 secondary ridgelines. The difference between this alternative and Alternatives 1 and 2 is that the alignment of Santa Clarita Parkway under this alternative would City of Santa Clarita 5.10-12 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.10 Aestheticstl.ight and Glare affect two additional secondary ridgelines. The overall impact of this alternative would be somewhat greater than that of Alternatives 1 or 2 and is considered potentially significant. Individual roads will need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether or not they comply with the Ridgeline Ordinance. AIternative 4. Impacts would be similar to those of Alternative 2, although certain augmented intersections could increase the overall amount of cut and fill on ridgelines. Augmentation of intersections on Magic Mountain Parkway, Santa Clarita Parkway, Golden Valley Road, and Via Princessa would have the potential to further modify important ridgelines. Impacts are considered potentially significant, although individual roads will need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether or not they comply with the Ridgeline Ordinance. Alternative 5. Impacts would be similar to those of Alternative 3, although certain augmented intersections could increase the overall amount of cut and fill on ridgelines. Augmentation of intersections on Magic Mountain Parkway, Santa Clarita Parkway, Golden Valley Road, and Via Princessa would have the potential to further modify important ridgelines. Impacts are considered potentially significant, although individual roads will need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether or not they comply with the Ridgeline Ordinance. Alternative 6. Alternative 6's ridgeline impacts would be the same as those of Alternative 2 and are considered potentially significant and unavoidable. Individual roads will need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether or not they comply with the Ridgeline. Ordinance. Alternative 7. Alternative 7s ridgeline impacts would be the same as those of Alternative 3 and are considered potentially significant and unavoidable. Individual roads will need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether or not they comply with the Ridgeline Ordinance. Mitigation Measures. The City has adopted a comprehensive approach to hillside grading through its Ridgeline Ordinance. The ordinance and guidelines contain explicit techniques and methods for preserving important ridgelines. The following measures are recommended to augment those already adopted by the City. AES -1(a) Recommendations forthcoming from the Community Development Director regarding ridgeline protection, as provided for in Section 17.80.030 of the Unified Development Code, shall be implemented. AES -1(b) If grading leads to exposure of low cohesion sandy soils four feet or greater in height, slopes shall be protected with jute matting and landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. AES -1(c) If grading leads to exposure of bedrock or hard -packed soils that resist revegetation, landscaping shall be implemented through the excavation of plant holes in a random pattern with an average of five feet on center. City of Santa CL i � 5.10.13 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.10 Aesthetics/Ughtand Glare 1 Plantings shall come from the palette included in the City's Ridgeline Ordinance or as otherwise approved for the site. AES -1(d) All graded slopes shall be revegetated with native plant materials that visually blend with the colors and textures of the natural slopes. Significance After Mitigation. Although the mitigation measures identified above would be implemented and many of the standards of the Ridgeline Ordinance would be met in the construction of the roadways network of any alternative, several standards and criteria would not be met. Therefore, the grading and construction required to implement any of the alternatives would represent a significant unavoidable impact with respect to landform alteration, aesthetic character, and compliance with the Ridgeline Ordinance and Community Design Element. Alternative 5 would affect the most ridgelines with the greatest effect. Alternatives 2 and 6 would have the least effect. It should be noted, however, that the difference in level of impact among the alternatives is nominal. Effect AES -2 All of the project alternatives have the potential to affect scenic vistas and public viewsheds throughout Santa Clarita. This is considered a significant and unavoidable impact of any alternative (Class I). Figures 5.10-6,5.10-7, and 5.10-8 illustrate present visual conditions and simulations of post - project conditions at three different locations throughout the City. Figure 5.10-6 shows the proposed Golden Valley Road north of Soledad Canyon Road where it would intersect with the Santa Clara River. Figure 5.10-7 represents a before -and -after look at the proposed extension of the existing Via Princessa. Figure 5.10-8 shows a before -and -after representation of Golden Valley Road where it would intersect with Sierra Highway. Each of the alternatives was compared to the Ridgeline Ordinance to determine its conformance with the goals, objectives and policies of the Ordinance in terms of viewsheds. Subsection 17.80.030, A of the Ordinance includes the following applicable objective: • Site design and grading that provide the minimum disruption of view corridors and scenic vistas from and around any proposed development shall be utilized. Subsection 17.80.040, E 2 of the Ridgeline Ordinance states the following applicable objective: • The visual impacts of the proposed use of development will be confined to the immediate local neighborhood and proposed new use or development area. Alternative 1. Depending upon the size of the viewshed and its distance from the viewer, some of the roadways to be developed under this alternative would be overshadowed by more dominant remaining vistas of local ridgelines and the San Gabriel Mountains. In general, roads themselves will not block viewsheds. Development of roadways would actually open up new rights-of-way, thus providing new scenic vistas for the public. However, the planned roadway network includes four bridges over the Santa Clara, one of the only remaining natural watercourses in Southern California. In addition, roadway development that would occur under this alternative would involve substantial cutting of hillsides, particularly in City of Santa Clarita 5.10-14 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.10 AestheticalLight and Glare ; ....�. .. Existing view looking north across the Santa Clara River toward Golden Valley Rd, Newhall Ranch Rd. intersection at��a4a-'+"r�:. ®fir' :±►`��._ArR�'�KFaiY"�.L � 3^ .T3w:i. F*mZa:... _._ s`";s• y"Fa` -t w-��Lr^. i';�.. Vis_..,.._ �'r'£*'q � 3'' i Y}i �!!�r$' �,r; �y'�3r F•' 3TC �t '."."� �� � ,� .a nQ Post -project view looking north toward Golden Valley Rd, Newhall Ranch Rd. intersection, showing the Golden Valley Road bridge over the Santa Clara River Existing & Post -Project View - Golden Valley Road/Santa Clara River Figure 5.10-6 5.10-15 City of Santa Clarita Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.10 AestheticslLightand Glare Existing view looking west at Via Princess extension Post -project view looking west at Via Princess extension Existing & Post -Project View - Via Princessa r5.10-17 Figure 5.10-7 My of Santa Clarita Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.10 Aesthetics/l.ightand Glare 1 x K�yy ��- �3 .: M ���� 4 Y� • rv�y. rw Jill 14, Y q y Existing view looking northwest at Golden Valley Rd,(Sierra Highway intersection j i Post -project view looking northwest at Golden Valley Rd,(Sierra Highway intersection 1 Existing & Post -Project View - Golden Valley Road/Sierra Highway Figure 5.10-8 City of Santa Clarita 5.10.19 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.10 Aesthetics/Light and Glare the largely undeveloped Center City area. This would irreversibly alter the character of this area from undeveloped open space to urban/suburban uses. The extensive nature roadway development would have a substantial effect upon views in all portions of the community, which is considered a potentially significant impact. ' Alternative 2. This alternative includes the same roadways and therefore the same impacts as in Alternative 1, except for the elimination of the Newhall Ranch Road extension. By eliminating this 3.1 -mile corridor, this alternative would reduce visual effects of Circulation Element buildout from a number of viewing locations, including parts of the Santa Clara River. Nevertheless, the overall impact upon viewsheds is considered potentially significant, although to an incrementally lesser extent than Alternative 1. Alternative 3. This alternative's overall impact would be similar to that of Alternative 2. Overall earth movement required for roadway development is estimated to be slightly lower than under Alternative 2, although more area would be graded at some locations, notably the Santa Clarita Parkway/ Newhall Ranch Road and Santa Clarita Parkway/ Golden Valley Road intersections. Impacts may be somewhat greater at these locations. Although this alternative would provide new scenic vistas to the public, overall viewshed impacts are considered significant. Alternative 4. Impacts would generally be similar to those of Alternative 2. However, the augmentation of major intersections throughout the City would create marginally greater overall viewshed impacts by dedicating more overall land area to roadway development and requiring additional alteration of the topography and landscape of the community. Impacts are considered significant. Alternative 5. This alternative's impact upon viewsheds would be similar to those of Alternative 3 and are considered potentially significant. As with Alternative 4, the augmentation of major intersections would have the potential to further alter the community's environment by requiring more overall earth movement and dedicating more land area to roadway development. Alternative 6. Alternative 6 impacts would be the same as Alternative 2 and would be considered significant. AIternative 7. Alternative 7 impacts would be the same as Alternative 3 and would be considered significant. Mitigation Measures. Although no mitigation is available to alleviate the alteration of the landscape of the community from rural open space to urban/suburban development, all roadways would comply with the City's road improvement standards. Examples of City sidewalks, street trees, decorative tiles, bus stops and traffic signal stations are shown on Figure 5.10-9 and 5.10-10. In addition, the following measures are recommended for all alternatives to ensure an attractive urban/suburban setting for human development. �r City of Santa Ctarlta s.,o-2° Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.10 AestheticslLight and Glare PHOTO 12- Sidewalk and street trees PHOTO 13 - Public wall with tile treatment Proposed Street Improvements r5.10-21 Figure 5.10-9 City of Santa Clarita Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.10 Aesthetics/Light and Glare PHOTO 14 - Bus stop with street trees PHOTO 15 -Traffic signal station Proposed Street Improvements F5.10-22 Figure 5.10-10 City of Santa Clarita Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.10 Aesthetics/Light and Glare AES -2(a) Individual projects shall have detailed landscaping plans. Landscaped areas shall include manufactured slopes and street medians. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in good condition. AES -2(b) Crosswalks and pedestrian areas at major intersections shall be marked. They may be tinted or have a textured surface that contrasts with the rest of the sidewalk where appropriate. AES -2(c) Decorative design elements, such as the tile treatment shown in Figure 5.10-9, Photo 13, shall be incorporated where feasible and appropriate. AES -2(d) Street furniture, public art, transit stops, and vegetation that aid in integrating roadways and bridges into the community shall be used where feasible. Significance After Mitigation. No mitigation is available that would eliminate the significant impacts attributable to all of the alternatives. Therefore, the grading and construction required to implement any of the alternatives would represent a significant unavoidable impact with respect to viewsheds Alternative 1 would have the most significant impact. Alternatives 2 and 6 are considered to have the least overall impact because they involve the fewest road miles and, in some case, the least alteration of the landscape. However, the difference between these alternatives and Alternatives 3 and 7 is nominal. Effect AES -3 Light and glare produced from development of all of the alternatives would extend the urban lighted area of the City of Santa Clarita, alter the nighttime sky view, and produce daytime glare from reflective metallic materials and glass associated with vehicles. This is considered significant and unavoidable impact (Class I). Future street lights and vehicle lights represent the most prominent visual aspect of the circulation systems under any of the alternatives during the nighttime hours. It is anticipated that this would significantly affect area residents and degrade nighttime views throughout the community. Alternative 1. This alternative. would add an estimated 42.6 miles of arterials roadways to the City's transportation network. All streets would require nighttime street lighting. Vehicles would create additional light and glare effects. The effect would be to alter the landscape of many currently undeveloped parts of the City in the Center City area and outlying areas from rural to urban/suburban. Natural darkness will be replaced by an urban "glow" as new roads are built. ■ Several new roads would be in the immediate vicinity of existing residential uses. These include the Newhall Ranch Road extension north of the Santa Clara River, Santa Clarita ' Parkway near SR -14, Golden Valley Road near SR -14, and the extension of Copperhill Road (see Figure 5.7-1 in Section 5.7, Population and Housing). Light and glare from these roads could adversely affect nearby residences. City of Santa Clarita ' 5.10.23 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.10 Aesthetics/Light and Glare Ii Appropriate design of street lighting and alignment of roads on a case-by-case basis would be expected to minimize the effects of street an automobile lighting. Nevertheless, the dramatic increase in overall nighttime lighting levels in currently undeveloped areas is considered a significant impact. Alternative 2. This alternative's impact upon light/ glare conditions would be similar to that of Alternative 3 and is considered significant. The overall impact would be slightly lower than for Alternative 1 because of the elimination of the Newhall Ranch Road extension, which has the potential to adversely affect existing residences. Alternative 3. This alternative's impact upon light/glare conditions would be similar to that of Alternative 3 and is considered significant. As with Alternative 2, the overall impact would be slightly lower than for Alternative 1 because of the elimination of the Newhall Ranch Road extension, which has the potential to adversely affect existing residences. Alternative 4. Impacts would be similar to those of Alternative 2 and are considered significant. The effect of street lighting and automobile headlights may be slightly more pronounced at augmented intersections. Intersection widening may bring street lighting and automobile headlights closer to homes and businesses, particularly in already developed areas. Alternative 5. This alternative's light/ glare impacts would be similar to those of Alternative 3 and are considered significant. The effect of street lighting and automobile headlights may be slightly more pronounced at augmented intersections. Intersection widening may bring street lighting and automobile headlights closer to homes and businesses, particularly in already developed areas. Alternative 6. The impacts of Alternative 6 buildout would be the same as those of Alternative 2 and would be considered significant and unavoidable. Alternative 7. This alternatives impacts would be the same as those of Alternative 3 and would be considered significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures are recommended for all alternatives to reduce light and glare impacts. AES -3(a) Low sodium lights shall be used on all roadways to reduce glare. AES -3(b) Street light poles shall be of an appropriate height to reduce the glare and pooling of light into adjacent surrounding areas. AES -3(c) Street light elements shall be recessed or hoods shall be used to reduce glare impacts on surrounding areas. Significance After Mitigation. Implementation of the above mitigation measures would reduce but not eliminate the significant impacts attributable to the street and vehicle lights that would result with implementation of any of the seven alternatives. Alternative 1 would have the most significant lighting impact because it includes the most road miles, City of Santa Clarita 5.10-24 Santa Cladta Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.10 Aesthetics/Light and Glare including the Newhall Ranch Road extension. Alternatives 2 and 6 are considered to have the least impact; although the difference between these alternatives and Alternatives 3 and 7 is nominal. I 1 11 1 I ICity of Santa Cladta 5.10-25 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.11 Cultural Resources 5.11 CULTURAL RESOURCES None of the project alternatives would significantly affect any confirmed historic or prehistoric archaeological resources. However, all alternatives include road corridors that pass through or near environmentally sensitive areas with respect to prehistoric and historic archaeological resources. Although the significance of resources within these areas is not known at this time, impacts are considered potentially significant in these areas. Because most of Santa Clarita, including the planned roadway corridors for all alternatives, has not been surveyed, there would also be the potential for damage to as yet unidentified resources. This potential is considered greatest under Alternative 1, which includes the most overall road miles. Alternatives 2 and 6, with the fewest overall road miles, are considered to have the least potential for impacts to cultural resources, although the difference between these two and Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 7 is nominal. Appropriate survey work and, if necessary, mitigation will need to be conducted prior to any roadway construction. ' 5.11.1 Setting a. Prehistoric Information. At present, the archaeological sample of the Upper Santa Clara River Valley Region is not sufficient to determine the time period in which people first occupied the area. However, C. King et al. (1974:14) suggests that people were occupying the area by 2000 B.C., as evidenced by the artifactual assemblage characteristics and a time -sensitive shell bead recovered from CA -LAN -615, a large.village. This period is recognized as the Early Period where there were some changes in the subsistence economy and technology, including a broadening of the ecological zones that were exploited (King and Casebier 1976:26-27). By 1000 B.C., the Middle Period began, continuing until approximately A.D. 500. Unlike the Early Period, this Period is well represented in the Upper Santa Clara River Valley region, with major site complexes located along the Piru and Castaic drainage systems, Escondido Canyon and at Vasquez Rocks. There appears to be a very high degree of inter -regional variation with relation to village structure (Wessel and McIntyre 1985:4). From A.D. 750 until approximately A.D. 1769 when the Spanish arrived is referred to as the Late Period. This period witnessed significant changes in the social and economic systems of the people occupying the general area. There is an increase in the number of sites in the area that some researchers believe is the result of a population increase. Leonard (1971) discusses the Late Period as a time when there are a greater number of more specialized sites in terms of their location and function, and an amplification of all aspects of the cultural system. Other cultural aspects by the Late Period, such as pictograph styles, suggest the possibility that two ethnic components coexisting in this region. The existing information points toward a culture more like the Chumash than Shoshonean by the end of the Late Period. At this point, it has not been adequately determined whether this bias in ethnic affinity is due to population movement or the absorption of one economic -social system (Shoshonean) by another (Chumash) (Wessel and McIntyre 1985:6). b. Ethnographic Information. Based upon information to date, it appears that the Santa Clarita area was first inhabited by the Alliklik (a Chumash term meaning "Grunters") or Tataviam (which represents a Mtanemuk term meaning "people of the sunny slope"). They occupied the Upper Santa Clara River Valley from Piru Creek on the west; the Tehachapi I City of Santa Clarita 5.11-1 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.11 Cultural Resources , Mountains on the north; the Porter and Ritter Ridges on the east; and the San Gabriel and Santa ' Susana Mountains on the south. The captain (sic) of the rancheria, Ferdenio was baptized at the Mission on January 4, ' The following list of sites is derived from Van Valkenburgh's (1935) research on the Ventureno ' Chumash within the Santa Clarita area. 2. Newhall -Saugus (No information is provided). , 1. Newhall -LaSalle Ranch (Ape-vit) (Femandeno) (Mission San Fernando) Ape-vit was possibly the site visited in the Newhall region by the Portola Expedition in 1769. The captain (sic) of the rancheria, Ferdenio was baptized at the Mission on January 4, 1801. From the number of Neophytes listed in the baptismal records of the site was ' not large (sic). This was the birthplace of Sinforosa, the last full blooded 'Tat'ap- alliklik." , 2. Newhall -Saugus (No information is provided). 3. San Francisquito-Ruiz Ranch (Tacuymanen, Tacuymam) (Serrano) (Mission San Fernando). Practically all of this site was destroyed in the St. Frances dam disaster of 1927. A few scattered artifacts and a burial were found in 1934. ' 4. Newhall -Needham (Fernandeno) (No information is provided). 5. Castaic Canyon -Danes Ranch (Serrano) (No information is provided). 6. Castaic Canyon -Pyle Ranch (Serrano) (No information is provided). 7. Castaic Canyon -Highway Forks (Ka-stuk, Kashtuk, Castec, "The Eye") (Mission San Buenaventura and San Fernando). This was the westernmost Ventureno village. All , evidence of the site have been destroyed. 8. Castaic Junction -Newhall Ranch (Chaguya-vit) (Fernandeno). The rancheria of Chaguya-vit is the most important "I'at'ap-alliklik" village in the upper Santa Clara River region. The activities during the Mission period have completely obliterated any evidence of the Indian occupation. , c.. Historical Information. Perkins (1957:124) stated that Mission San Fernando acquired the entire headwater area of the Santa Clara River, easterly from Piru Creek and called ' it Rancho San Fernando. In time, the mission fathers established an adobe asistencia near the Indian village, located on top of a mesa behind present-day Castaic Junction, using Indian labor to till the fields and tend the livestock. Perkins also cited the presence of a "lost" Indian village near the eastern boundary of the Rancho called Taburga Tobinga. In 1833, following the decree of secularization, Lieutenant Antonio Del Valle was given a ' commission to take over Mission San Fernando from the incumbent Franciscans. In 1839 Del Valle successfully petitioned Governor Alvarado for a portion of the old Rancho San Francisco, ' submitting a Diseno that Pablo de la Guerra of Santa Barbara had drawn from a verbal description. On January 22,1839, Bautista Alvarado granted 48,000 acres of ex -Mission San Fernando land to del Valle. r5.11-2 City of Santa Clarita Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.11 Cultural Resources tThere was a rich gold strike in 1842 in Placerita Canyon on the southern portion of the Del Valle land following the discovery of gold in the area in 1841. After the discovery, the oak tree that marked the site of discovery was named "The Oak of the Golden Dream" (Grenier 1978:312). However, it was the demand for cattle to feed the gold rush hoards in northern California that prompted the sleepy Pueblo of Los Angeles to take action. An easier land route had to be found ' to provide commercial access to the lands north of Los Angeles and easterly to the Mojave Desert. The Soledad Township was first described legally in 1870 in the Records of the Board of Supervisors of the County as "All that part of Los Angeles County lying north of the Summit Ridge of the Sierra Madre, or Main Coast Range." In 1878, the Board of Supervisors formally established it as "All that part of Los Angeles County, lying North of the Township Line, between Townships 3 and 4 North" (Perkins 1958:149). The isolation of the township from the pueblo had always been virtually complete due to the mountain barrier until 1863, when Edward F. Beale completed a toll road through the pass, making Los Angeles the stage and freight station for goods and passenger service to the north and east. Iri 1863 Beale added Rancho Tejon, including Fort Tejon to his holdings and persuaded the commandant of the I' garrison to order his troops to deepen and widen the cut through Fremont Pass. The soldiers excavated a vertical slit, 90 feet deep through the top of the mountains. Beale built a toll house and collected toll for the right of passage through Beale's Cut for 22 years until the County of Los Angeles took control. The new technologies of the mid -nineteenth century were.also operating to end the isolation of northwestern Los Angeles County, In 1852, a United States Army railroad survey crew under the command of a Lieutenant Williamson began work in San Francisquito Canyon, and the Los Angeles to San Francisco telegraph line was under construction. ' Since San Francisquito Canyon was the traditional route taken to the east, it was the first of the canyons to be prospected, mined and settled. Gold mining operations continued in San Francisquito until the end of the nineteenth century. One of the camps, Ratsburg, located at the junction of San Francisquito and Bouquet Canyons, was mined into the 1930s (Perkins 1958:156- 7). ' By 1860, a copper boom was on in the Soledad. A little town grew up near the head of Williamson's Pass. Both copper and gold bearing quartz veins were worked into the twentieth century, although by 1875 the rush was over (Perkins 1958; Jackson 1974; Robinson 1973;Vemon 1956, and; Cleland (1964). [J I Meanwhile, stage passengers and freight could go by either the San Francisquito Road - the shortest route for Fort Tejon and the Kern County mines - or Soledad Canyon, best option for the.Cerro Gordo mines. Passenger traffic between Los Angeles and San Francisco was carried by three connecting lines: Flint Bixby's Coast Line Stages to San Buenaventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and the rail connection at Salinas; Sam Harper's Atlantic and Pacific Stage Line between San Buenaventura and Lyons Station just south of Newhall; and Telegraph Stages, operating between Los Angeles and the Southern Pacific railhead in the San Joaquin Valley, the Owens Valley, and the Cerro Gordo. City of Santa Clarita 5.17.3 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.11 Cultural Resources In 1873, the entire Rancho San Francisco, excluding Ignacio Del Valle's Camulos Ranch, became the property of Henry Mayo Newhall. From that time to the present, the history of the Santa Clarita Valley has been linked to the activities of Newhall, and after his death to the family company, Newhall Land and Farming (Perkins 1957). When Newhall acquired the Rancho, the tracks of the Southern Pacific were coming down Soledad Canyon from the north and through the San Fernando tunnel from the south, continuing the line from Los Angeles. Newhall selected a site for a station, calling it Saugus after his Massachusetts home. When the climate proved intemperate and the wells ran dry during a drought, the station was moved three miles to the south. It's new designation was Newhall. Following the arrival of the railroad, the California Star Oil Company built the first California refinery alongside the tracks just east of the townsite (Newhall 1958; Reynolds 1985). In 1908, the city of Los Angeles obtained rights to the watershed of the Owens Valley. The project was expanded in the 1920s and Newhall granted an easement for the aqueduct pipes, which came down San Francisquito Canyon after St. Francis dam was built in 1927. From there, the aqueduct crossed the eastern end of the ranch and extended over the San Fernando Pass to the spillway above San Fernando Reservoir. The Newhall directors also agreed to reservoir spillage of excess water into the Santa Clara River for ranch use. The collapse of the 185 -foot high San Francisquito Dam in 1928, which had been located at the top of San Francisquito Canyon, stimulated new mining interests. In some areas, the rushing water scoured canyon - lands down to bedrock before turning west to devastate Piru and Fillmore on the way to the ocean (Outland 1977). The dam was never rebuilt after its collapse in 1928. However, the pipelines were replaced and still carry water down the Canyon and across the river bed to Van Norman Dam in the San Fernando Valley (Newhall 1958; Robinson 1938). With the coming of the highways systems, the unincorporated county area grew exponentially. The Bermite Corporation, a defense -contractor and ordnance manufacturer, following in the footsteps of its predecessor; the Halifax Powder Company, whose plant south of Soledad Canyon Road, began operations in the first decades of the century. In the 1960s, Newhall Land and Farming Company became involved in the urbanization of the valley, announcing plans to convert 4,000 acres to the development of the planned community, Valencia, which was dedicated August 25,1967. Canyon Country developed to the east of ranch lands; Newhall and Saugus also became attractive to San Fernando Valley and Los Angeles commuters. On December 15, 1987, citizens of the four communities voted to incorporate as the City of Santa Clarita. Presently, there is continuing population growth and extensive home and commercial building. d... Archival -Background Research Information. In order to address prior investigations and research interests with applicability to the proposed Circulation Element Amendment, a thorough and intensive archival -background research phase was conducted. This research was designed to review existing archaeological and historical resource information in an effort to provide cultural.resource sensitivity base maps for the planning area. A review of monographs, archaeological survey reports, site survey records, early topographic and township -range plat survey maps, and mining and claim records was performed. A records search was conducted for the project on February 27,1997. This search included a review of all recorded historic and prehistoric archaeological sites within the planning area, as City of Santa Clarita 5.11-4 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.11 Cultural Resources well as a review of all known cultural resource survey and excavation reports. In addition, in- house files of historic maps, the National Register of Historic Places, the California State ' Historic Resources Inventory, the California Points of Historical Interest, and the listing of California Historical Landmarks in the region were checked. ' This extensive search found five prehistoric sites, two isolates and one possible buried site, within a one-eighth mile radius of the planning area. In addition, eight historic sites have been identified within a one-eighth mile radius of the planning area. The National Register of ' Historic Places lists no properties within a one-eighth mile radius of the planning area; however, the California State Historic Resources Inventory lists numerous properties within the City of Santa Clarita. The listings of the California Historical Landmarks (1990) of the Office of ' Historic Preservation, California Department of Parks and Recreation, indicate that there are three California Historical Landmarks within a one-eighth mile radius of the planning area, including: Landmark No. 172 - Pioneer Oil Refinery: In 1875 the Star Oil Company, one of the predecessors of the Standard Oil Company of California, drilled its first Pico Canyon well, which yielded about one hundred barrels per day. The discovery resulted in the erection of the first commercial oil refinery in California the following year. Located at 238 Pine Street, Newhall. Landmark No. 556 - Rancho San Francisco: Approximately one-half mile south of the point was the adobe headquarters of Rancho San Francisco, originally built about 1804 as a granary of Mission San Fernando. The rancho was granted to Antonio del Valle in 1839. Here, in January 1850, William Lewis Manly and John Rogers obtained supplies and animals to rescue their comrades in a California -bound gold -seeking emigrant party that was stranded and starving in Death Valley, some 250 miles to the northeast. Located at the southwest comer of "The Old Road" and Henry Mayo Drive, 0.2 miles south of I-5 and State Highway 126 interchange, Valencia. Landmark No. 168 - Oak of the Golden Dream: In March 1842, Francisco Lopez y Araballo, while gathering wild onions from around an old oak in Placerita Canyon, discovered gold particles clinging to the roots of the bulbs. It is estimated that $ 80,000 in gold was recovered as a result of this discovery. Located at: Placerita Canyon State and County Park, Placerita Canyon Road, 4.6 miles northeast of Newhall; Plaque located at: southeast corner I-5 and Lyons Avenue, Newhall. The California Points of Historical Interest (1992) identify three properties within a one- eighth mile radius of the project: PHI# LAN -030 - Good Templars Hall, AKA Pardee Home, 24275 Walnut at Market; PHI# LAN -031- Saugus Station, 24107 San Femando Road, Newhall; and PHI# LAN -032 - Wm. S. Hart Park Ranch and Museum, 24151 Newhall Ave., Newhall. The records search also reviewed published literature and unpublished reports pertaining to the planning area. These materials provided information regarding the natural and cultural IF City of Santa Clarita 5.11-5 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.11 Cultural Resources �I background of the project needed for the evaluation of the cultural resources documented in this study. Such information is useful in developing a management plan that deals with project impacts at any stage of the planning process. The records search revealed that 61 cultural resource surveys have been conducted within a one-eighth mile radius of the maximum extent of the planning area. The general areas previously surveyed are shown on Figure 5.11-1. Thirteen prehistoric and historic archaeological resources have been identified.within a one- eighth mile radius of the planning area: CA -LAN -87; CA -LAN -351; CA -LAN -1108; CA -LAN - 1824; CA-LAN-1829;.CA-LAN-2040H; CA- LAN -2041H; CA -LAN -2042H, CA -LAN- 2043H; CA - LAN -2044H; CA -LAN -2105H; CA -LAN- 2132H; CA -LAN -2190H; and Isolated Find; CA -IF 65, and; a possible buried site with no site documentation. The sites at which resources have been confirmed are described below. CA -LAN -87, was originally recorded as CA -LAN -10. The site was reported to be located on a terrace with an undetermined number of burials found during road construction in the 1930s. Following the impacts, S. L. Peck recorded the site as CA -LAN -87, and reported the occurrence of metates, obsidian and other flakes to a depth of at least four feet below the surface. Louis Tartaglia and Robert Wlodarski re-recorded the site in 1979. While no burials were observed, a fairly extensive midden covered by at least one meter of overburden was uncovered in the southern portion of the original boundary. The overburden, recent development, and grading precluded an accurate determination of remaining site extent. Prehistoric site CA -LAN -351 was recorded by N. Leonard, III, on November 20,1968. Leonard described the site as a large area encompassing two terraces, that contained numerous flakes and cores of rhyolite, chert, and fused shale, as well as one obsidian flake. The depth of the cultural deposit was not determined, but was believed to be fairly shallow. Modifications were minor, and included three dirt roads along the western and southern peripheries. He further commented that the site may be partially within the proposed State Route 126. An Amendment was prepared by Louis James Tartaglia in 1986, describing the site area as encompassing approximately 13,000 square meters and covering two terraces. A further Amendment by J. Romani and G Romani in September 1991, found the site to be much more extensive, with a greater diversity of lithic materials and tool types. Prehistoric resource CA -LAN -1108 was recorded by Roger Robinson in 1981. The site was described as a very thin surface scatter of rhyolite flakes and cores, with one granitic mano noted. The site area was roughly 3,660 square meters with a notation that "little remains of the site." Louis Tartaglia recorded CA -LAN -1824 in August, 1986. The site consisted of one rhyolite core, one quartzite chopper/hammer, and one metavolcanic flake situated on a low terrace on the south side of the Santa Clara River. The site area was assessed by a series of shovel test pits in April, 1990. During the test, a mano fragment was recorded on the surface and removed. No other cultural remains were encountered, and therefore Tartaglia concluded that this site should be considered an isolated find, and no further archaeological work was recommended. City of Santa Clarita 5.11-6 ufL.; y MC N Pk /4 O 5.11-7 COPPERHILL RO. -.err► � � � ai:i. to m 2 C O Z a �O AO Cpl f'. S °COVE 0 1 Newhall VASOUEZ CANYONIRO' col z PLUM C' '�'Y ♦ r >. to go l 1 I f I I 1 C-arlyorl rnnfry• ,. N ••0 (ice, z O SSA 4- 5 PLACERI7ACANYO/V •s "r Cultural Resources LEGEND Existing Roads Included In Planned Roads Alternatives Common to All Alternatives . Existing Planned Roadway System Only ununeunni Existing Planned Roadway System And Newhall Ranch Road Reduction Alternatives Only ��N►M�� Newhall Ranch Road Reduction And Golden Valley Road Network Alternatives Only 000.0•** Golden Valley Road Network Alternative Only 0 1 2 �� D > vY F� 2 � O go O Z L `i. O 0 5 PLACERI7ACANYO/V •s "r Cultural Resources LEGEND Existing Roads Included In Planned Roads Alternatives Common to All Alternatives . Existing Planned Roadway System Only ununeunni Existing Planned Roadway System And Newhall Ranch Road Reduction Alternatives Only ��N►M�� Newhall Ranch Road Reduction And Golden Valley Road Network Alternatives Only 000.0•** Golden Valley Road Network Alternative Only 0 1 2 SCALE IN MILES NORTH Environmentally Sensitive Area Q Previously Surveyed Area No Prehistoric or Historic Archaeological Resources Encountered 0 Previously Surveyed Area Prehistoric or Historic Archaeological Resources Encountered '-A Figure 5.11-1 City of Santa Clarita Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.11 Cultural Resources No cultural materials were observed during the Greenwood and Associates cultural resource survey (Romani and Greenwood 1991). CA -LAN -1829 was recorded by Louis Tartaglia in August, 1986. The site consisted of one rhyolite flake and one quartz flake located atop a knoll above the upper northern terrace of the Santa Clara River. The site was believed to have been heavily impacted by a power line and water pipe. No cultural remains were encountered during the Greenwood and Associates cultural resource survey (Romani and Greenwood 1991). CA -LAN -2040H was recorded by Judith Rasson and Lisa Le Count on March 24,1992 as an extensive deposit of domestic trash along the bank of Plum Canyon Creek. Approximately 1,500 square meters in size, the site contains whiteware, California colored. dinnerware, bottle glass, and condensed milk cans. The site is listed as "disturbed by at least one episode of illegal excavation/bottle collecting." CA -LAN -2041H was recorded by Judith Rasson and Lisa Le Count on March 24,1992 as a scatter of domestic refuse on a slope above a floodplain south of Plum Canyon Creek. Approximately 100 square meters in size, the site contains California colored dinnerware, whiteware, heat -resistant and Depression era glass, and press-fit baking powder can lid. CA -LAN -2042H was recorded by Judith Rasson and Lisa Le Counton March 23,1992 as a cluster of historic features comprising a dwelling with associated activity and trash disposal areas lying on the east side of a broad, shallow side canyon south of Plum Canyon Creek. the site encompasses approximately 2,000 meters, and contains a wash basin, toy truck, corrugated metal pipe, bricks, pane glass, California colored dinnerware, and cobalt glass. Eight distinct loci or features were listed as part of this site. CA -LAN -2043H was recorded by Judith Rasson and Lisa Le Count on March 24,1992 as three concrete slabs, two concrete footings, and eight distinct structural remains designated as features A -H, and a light density scatter of modern artifacts on the south bank of Plum Canyon Creek. Approximately 2,025 square meters in size, the site contains clear glass, and bottle caps. CA-LAN-2105/CA-INY4591H was recorded by J. Costello, J. Marvin, and J. Tordoff on August 27,1992 as including the water conveyance systems and related features of the Los Angeles Aqueduct system. The first phase of the aqueduct construction, completed between 1908 and 1913, brought the waters of the Owens River over 215 miles into the San Fernando Valley. At that time, as a feat of water engineering, it was surpassed only by the New York City aqueduct system and the Panama Canal. The second phase, completed around 1926, extended the canal north to Bishop. The final phase, which tapped the waters of the Mono Lake Basin, was completed in 1940. The site is 340 miles long and approximately 100 ft. wide and encompasses 179.5 million Square feet. CA -LAN -2132H was recorded by Mike Macko on June 21, 1993. The site represents the Olive - Power Plant 1 Transmission Line, which extends from Power Plant 1 in San Francisquito Canyon, approximately 14 miles north of Santa Clarita along San Francisquito Canyon Road, to the Olive Switching Station in the northern San Fernando Valley. The site is part of the first electric generation and transmission system for the City of Los Angeles. The system was City of Santa Clarita 5.11-9 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.11 Cultural Resources developed as part of the Los Angeles Aqueduct Act of 1901. Occasional historic debris associated with transmission line construction, maintenance, and repair/replacement are found around the tower sites. CA -LAN -2190 was recorded by Mary Valentine Maki on May 13,1993. The site is located 400 meters northeast of Interstate 5/Saugus Ventura Road interchange. The bridge crosses the Santa Clara River west of San Francisquito Canyon. The 1898 Southern Pacific Railroad bridge is approximately 125' long and 18' wide. The bridge's heavy wooden planks are supported by a metal trestle. The date 1898 is etched out of two metal plaque hanging at either end of the bridge. The northern cement foundation of the bridge has 192? etched into it. It is assumed that this foundation required replacement or repair following the 1928 flood resulting from the breaking of the St. Francis dam and probably dates 1928 or 1929. e. Relevant Laws and Policies. CEQA Requirements. CEQA provides guidelines for administering to archaeological resources which may be adversely affected by proposed development, resulting in the loss of valuable cultural and scientific information through its destruction. There are a number of ways to alleviate direct and indirect adverse impacts, including: 1) Avoidance of the resource, 2) data retrieval through an assessment and/or salvage phase; or 3) programs combining both avoidance and data salvage phases. The.design of project alternatives that avoid cultural resource remains is preferable to mitigation through salvage programs. CEQA [Appendix K] directs public agencies to avoid adverse impacts to cultural resources whenever possible. Avoidance can be achieved through several methods of in-situ preservation, including: 1) planning construction to miss the site; 2) planning parks, greenspace, or other open space elements which would incorporate the archaeological site; 3) "capping" or covering the site with a layer of soil; or, 4) deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. If an archaeological resource(s) cannot be preserved through one of the avoidance measures, the significance of the resource(s) must be addressed under CEQA. This is accomplished through a Phase II Archaeological Study that evaluates the significance of a resource(s) by determining the quality of information contained within a site(s) using five criteria listed in Section III of Appendix K [CEQA]. Achieving CEQA compliance with regard to mitigating impacts to cultural resources requires that a preservation plan be developed for the resource(s). Although Appendix K limits the cost of archaeological programs when used as mitigation measure under CEQA, it does not limit the cost of mitigation that may be required under Federal laws, or County or local ordinances and policies. Native American Concerns. The NAHC was established in 1976 to protect the heritage of California Indians, and ensure participation in matters concerning heritage sites. Their legal authority includes assisting federal and state agencies in protecting Native American sacred places, as well as providing recommendations on Indian heritage in accordance with environmental law and policy. Senate Bill 297 became law in 1982, addressing the disposition of Native American human burial and skeletal remains as well as amending sections of the state's Government Code, Health and Safety Code, and Public Resources Code. City of Santa Clarita 5.11.10 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.11 Cultural Resources These amended regulations protect burials from disturbance, vandalism, and inadvertent destruction, and stipulate the implementation of specific procedures if a Native American burial is discovered during project construction or archaeological data recovery. In 1990, the Native . American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was passed, requiring museums and Federal agencies to document certain Native American human remains and cultural ties within their collections; notify all Native Indian tribes and organizations that they are or are likely to be affiliated with these holding; and provide an opportunity for the repatriation of appropriate human remains or cultural items. Native Americans as represented by the Alliklik or Tataviam recognize all prehistoric sites within their territory as part of their heritage. Potential disturbance and destruction of any resource can adversely affect the values of their culture and their ability to transmit these values to future generations. Therefore, any future work involving archaeological sites must minimally require consultation with the Alliklik or Tataviam representatives. 5.11.2 Impact Analysis a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds. Cultural Resource Management represents the implementation of an integrated system of Federal, State, County, and local laws, policies, guidelines and procedures aimed at the identification, recordation, evaluation, protection, preservation and enhancement of cultural resources located within a specified sphere of influence. A cultural resource is any evidence reflecting the historical development of any land by human life (including prehistoric and historic sites, buildings, architecture, artifacts, sacred areas, or other features that embody psychological, scientific, socio -cultural, religious, political, and/or economic values). These resources are usually fragile, easily susceptible to destruction, and cannot be recreated or replaced. Impacts to cultural resources are identified by comparing plans for land alteration with the location of individual resources. The extent of the impact can be measured by the amount of scientific information that would be lost upon implementation of the Circulation Element alternative. Direct impacts destroy the information that is present within a cultural resource(s) through the removal of the material remains which contribute to the integrity of the site (location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association). Indirect impacts tend to affect a resource(s) by significantly enhancing the possibility of destruction through increased access or awareness, usually resulting in vandalism. b. Impact Summary. Table 5.11-1 summarizes the impacts of each of the seven project alternatives upon cultural resources and ranks the alternatives in terms of their potential to affect cultural resources. A ranking of 1 indicates the alternative with the fewest impacts while a ranking of 7 indicates the alternative with the greatest impact. c. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Effect CR -1 Roadway corridors for any of the seven alternatives would have the potential to affect cultural resources. Cultural resource impacts for all alternatives are therefore considered potentially significant (Class II). r City of Santa Clarity ' 5.71-11 Santa ClaritaCirculation Element Amendment 8R Section 5.11 Cultural Resources City of Santa Clanita 5.11-12 Table 5.11-1. Summary of Cultural Resource Impacts CR -1. Potential Potential to Potential to Potential to affect Impacts similar Impacts similar Similarto Similar to impacts to both affect up to 9 affect up to 9 up to 9 areas to Alternative 2, to Alternative 3, Alternative 2 at Alternative 3 at identified and areas identified areas identified identified as although although full buildout; full buildout; unidentified as having as having having cultural overall potential overall reduced trips reduced trips cultural resources cultural cultural resources; to encounter potential to may create less may create due to roadway resources; resources; potential to affect resources encounter demand for new less demand construction. because most potential to unidentified slightly greater resources roads. for new roads. of the study affect resources as dueto slightly greater Class I/ Class 11 area has not unidentified well, although the additional due to Rank I Rank 3 undergone resources as 4.7 mile reduction ground additional systematic well, although in overall road disturbance at ground survey, there is the 3.1 mile miles as augmented disturbance at also potential reduction in compared to intersections. augmented for impacts to overall road Alternative 1 Class Ii intersections. unidentified miles would would reduce the Rank = 5 Class 11 resources- reducethe potential to Rank= 6 Class 11 potential to encounter Rank= 7 encounter resources. resources as Class 11 compared to Rank = 4 Alternative 1. Class 11 Rank= 2 Class I=Significant and Unavoidable; Class 0 Significant but ill = Less than Significant,, Class /V=Beneficial City of Santa Clanita 5.11-12 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.11 Cultural Resources None of the roadways planned under any of the project alternatives would directly affect structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places or on the California State Historic Resources Inventory, nor would they affect any California Historical Landmarks or Points of Historical Interest. However, roadway development associated with any alternative would have the potential to affect recorded prehistoric or historic cultural resources; which are considered environmentally sensitive areas. Table 5.11-2 lists the roadway corridors that could be affected. The approximate locations of environmentally sensitive areas (areas previously identified as having the potential to contain significant cultural resources) are shown on Figure 5.11-1, while a Cultural Resource Sensitivity Map with more precise locations is on file at the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department. For purposes of confidentiality, all environmentally sensitive areas must be referenced either by appropriate file number on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, UCLA Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles. In some instances, environmentally sensitive areas lie within a previously surveyed area and any recommendations contained in that survey report should be followed. File numbers for previously conducted survey reports are on file at the Community Development Department. Table 5.11-2. Roadway Corridors Potentially Affecting Environmentally Sensitive AreaSa RoadwaY Corridor Alternatives in Numberof :"� llgqfiW,� fr ' � �lnrhich �e Carrs or Erivlronn?entaiiy` E "r+ is included Sensitive A er as' P,otentiall Affacted< Newhall Ranch Road from All 1 1-5 to Rye Canyon Rd. Newhall Ranch Road from All 2 Santa Clarita Pkwy to Santa Clarita Pkwy from All 2 Newhall Ranch Rd. to Soledad Canyon Golden Valley Road from All 2 Newhall Ranch Rd. to Plum Canyon Whites Canyon Road All 1 Lyons Avenue Extension All 1 This table lists all environmentally sensitive areas shown on Figure 5.11-1 that are within about 1,000 feet of a planned roadway corridor. Alternative 1. Several planned roadway corridors are in the general vicinity of recorded cultural resources. Up to nine recorded sites could be affected by implementation of this alternative. Although the significance of resources at the locations is not known at this time, impacts to these recorded sites are considered potentially significant. Planned roadway corridors would also cross two confirmed historic archaeological resources: (1) the Los Angeles Aqueduct system (CA-LAN-2105/CA-INY-4591H) ; and (2) the Olive -Power Plant 1 Transmission Line (CA -LAN -2132H). However, roadway development would not be expected to adversely affect either of these resources. urty or sanra 5.11-13 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.11 Cultural Resources Most of the areas through which Alternative 1 roadway corridors would pass have not undergone formal survey for cultural resources. Several roads (Dickason Road, Avenue Tibbitts, Newhall Ranch Road, Whites Canyon Road) pass through riparian and/or canyon areas where the likelihood of encountering previously unidentified cultural resources is relatively high. Figure 5.11-1 illustrates areas that have been surveyed. Therefore, an unknown number of unrecorded sites could also be affected by project implementation. Appropriate cultural resource surveys would therefore need to be conducted prior to construction of any specific roadways. Alternative 2. This alternatives potential to affect both environmentally sensitive areas and confirmed cultural resources would be identical to that of Alternative 1. Impacts associated with the roadway corridors listed in Table 5.11-2 are considered potentially significant. As with Altemative 1, the majority of the area encompassed by planned roadway corridors has not been previously surveyed.. Therefore, the extent of impacts to unidentified cultural resources is not known. However, because this alternative does not include the 3.1 -mile extension of Newhall Ranch Road to SR 14, overall ground disturbance and potential for impacts to unidentified cultural resources would be somewhat lower than those of Alternative 1. Alternative 3. The Golden Valley Road Network alternative's potential to affect both environmentally sensitive areas and confirmed cultural resources would be identical to that of Alternative 1. Impacts associated with the roadway corridors listed in Table 5.11-2 are considered potentially significant. As with Alternative 1, the majority of the area encompassed by planned roadway corridors has not been previously surveyed. Therefore, the extent of impacts to unidentified cultural resources is not known. However, this alternative includes 2.8 fewer overall road miles than Alternative 1(and 0.3 miles more than Alternative 2). Consequently, overall ground disturbance and potential for impacts to unidentified cultural resources would be somewhat lower than either of the other two base alternatives (Alternatives 1 or 2). Alternative 4. The Augmented Newhall Ranch Road Reduction alternative's potential to adversely affect both identified and unidentified cultural resources would be similar to that of Alternative 2. The overall potential to encounter cultural resources during construction would, however, be slightly higher than for Alternative 2 because of the additional ground disturbance associated with intersection augmentation. Impacts are considered potentially significant. Alternative S. This alternative's potential to adversely affect both identified and unidentified.cultural resources would be similar to that of Alternative 3. However, the overall potential to encounter cultural resources during construction would be slightly higher than for Alternative 3 because of the additional ground disturbance associated with intersection augmentation. Impacts are considered potentially significant. City of Santa Ciarita 5.11-14 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.11 Cultural Resources Alternative 6. Cultural resource impacts associated with full buildout of the Newhall ' Ranch/Reduced Trip alternative would be identical to those of Alternative 2 and are considered potentially significant. Because fewer overall trips would be generated under this alternative there may be slightly less overall demand for new roads. Therefore, the potential to affect cultural resources is considered incrementally lower. Alternative 7. Cultural resource impacts associated with full buildout of this ' alternative would be identical to those of Alternative 3 and are considered potentially significant. Because fewer overall trips would be generated under this alternative there may be slightly less overall demand for new roads. Therefore, the potential to affect cultural resources is considered incrementally lower. Mitigation Measures. Keying proposed roadway corridors to the Cultural Resource Sensitivity Map on file at the Community Development Department will aid in the decision- making process with regard to implementing CEQA as it pertains to potential adverse direct and indirect project impacts to cultural resources. The following mitigation measures provide a general procedural approach with regard to the treatment of cultural resources as specific roadway projects are proposed under any of the seven alternative circulation system alternatives. CR -1(a) Areas that have not been systematically surveyed by a qualified archaeologist will require a Phase 1 archaeological study prior to construction of new ' roadways. A Phase 1 Archaeological Study represents the first step in the planning I' process to identify potentially significant heritage remains within a project area. The study shall encompasses the performance of a formal records search; a surface reconnaissance of the entire project area; and report detailing the results of the archaeological study. The report shall conform to the Preservation Planning Bulletin Number 4(a), Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format prepared by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) in 1989. Minimally, the report shall contain a preface, acknowledgments, statement of confidentiality if resources are encountered, table of contents, cover letter, title page, management abstract/summary, description of the scope of work and project description, environmental setting, cultural and historical overview, research design, methodology, findings, discussion/interpretation, imanagement considerations, references, appendices, and references. CR -1(b) For areas that have previously been systematically surveyed by a qualified archaeologist and no cultural resources of a prehistoric and/or historic archaeological resources were encountered, the appropriate file number for reports on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, UCLA Institute of Archaeology; Los Angeles, shall be consulted (see the Cultural Resource Sensitivity Map on file at the Community Development Clty of Santa Clarita 5.11-15 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.11 Cultural Resources Department for file numbers). Area specific recommendations per that report shall be implemented. In most cases, areas in which surveys have been conducted and no cultural resources were encountered will not require further work. However, on occasion, an archaeologist may have included a monitoring clause for a portion, or all of the project area due to the extreme cultural resource sensitivity of the area, or the fact that a cultural resource lies close, or adjacent to the subject parcel. CRA(c) For areas that have been systematically surveyed by a professional archaeologist and in which a cultural resource(s) was/were encountered, the appropriate file number for reports on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, UCLA Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, shall be consulted (file numbers are available on the Cultural Resource Sensitivity Map on file with the Community Development Department). Any area - specific recommendations contained in that report shall be implemented. A review of the cultural resource document may provide additional recommendations according to Appendix K of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In some instances, additional studies (Phase 2 - archaeological assessment, and/or; a Phase 3 - mitigation) have already been performed and no further work is required. In other instances, additional work (Phase 2 or Phase 3 testing) will be required to meet CEQA requirements as well as County and/or City guidelines, policies, and procedures as they pertain to the preservation, protection, and enhancement of cultural resources. A Phase 2 Archaeological Study represents a detailed assessment of heritage resource(s) encountered during a Phase 1 Archaeological Study. A scope of work and research design must approved prior to the initiation of the field work. Native American involvement must be secured and documented, and a report must include the results of all data obtained during the study. The primary intent of this study is to address the significance of the resource(s) based upon CEQA or Section 106 criteria. The results of this study will directly affect the next phase of planning. Either mitigation through avoidance and preservation, or additional work will recommended. If the heritage resource is determined not to be significant, it will be up to the Community Development Department to ensure that the level of work performed conformed to the scope of work and was sufficient to ensure the quality and quantity of data obtained necessary to make a determination of "non -significance." In extreme cases, if this finding is questionable, or concerns are raised by other scientists over the results, an outside consulting source with local expertise shall be consulted for a second opinion. A Phase 3 Archaeological Study represents a focused program aimed at data recovery for a significant heritage resource(s) assessed during a Phase 2 Archaeological Study or identified at some point during the planning process City of Santa Clarita 5.tt-15 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 5.11 Cultural Resources as being significant. A Phase 3 Archaeological study must be directed by a pre -approved scope of work, and provide a detailed report which expands on the information obtained during the Phase 2 Archaeological Study. Additionally, Native American involvement must be documented. The results of this study, shall result in a final document that synthesizes all extant data likely to be retrieved from the resource(s). If a likelihood for encountering burials and or features is sufficiently justified by the archaeologist, then monitoring may be required to ensure that buried resources encountered during excavation are identified, recorded and studied. If burials are encountered, work must stop and the coroner must be notified immediately. CR -1(d) Environmentally sensitive areas represent the approximate location of a recorded prehistoric or historic cultural resource. For environmentally sensitive areas that could be encountered by planned roadway corridors and that are within a previously surveyed area, report recommendations on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, UCLA Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, shall be followed. For environmentally sensitive areas that could be affected by roadway development and are not within an area that has undergone a formal, systematic archaeological survey, additional analysis (a Phase 1 Study, possibly followed by a Phase 2 archaeological assessment and Phase 3 mitigation) shall be performed prior to roadway construction. Significance After Mitigation. With implementation of the above recommended mitigation measures, potential impacts to cultural resources in the City should be reduced to a less than significant level. The residual potential for impacts would be highest under Alternative 1 because that alternative would involve the greatest overall amount of ground disturbance. Overall impact potential would be lowest under Alternatives 2 and 6 because they involve the fewest overall road miles. It should be noted, however, that the difference between these two alternatives and Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 7 is nominal. City of Santa Clarita 5.11-17 ' Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 6.0 Long Tenn Impacts 6.0 LONG TERM IMPACTS ' This section describes the long-term effects of implementation of the proposed Circulation Element Amendment. As required by CEQA, this evaluation includes discussions of grazvth inducing effects, significant irreversible effects, and the relationship betiveen the short-term use of the environment and long-term productivity. t 6.1 GROWTH INDUCING EFFECTS The CEQA Guidelines specify that an EIR include a discussion of the ways in which a project ' could cultivate economic or population growth, either directly or indirectly. The primary purpose of the Circulation Element is to provide adequate transportation ' infrastructure to provide for the mobility of City residents. As part of this overall objective, the Circulation Element plans for new infrastructure to accommodate growth that could occur in Santa Clarita under the City's Land Use Element. Although road development is intended ' primarily to accommodate rather than induce growth, the construction of new roadways can encourage additional urban residential and non-residential development in two ways. First, implementation of planned improvements to the City's transportation system would help ' relieve traffic congestion on the Cit/,s road network, thereby improving overall mobility and removing an impediment to population and economic growth. Second, many of the new roads planned as part of the Circulation Element are within currently undeveloped areas (the Center ' City area and other outlying areas). Although the roadway systems in these areas are intended to be developed in conjunction with buildout of the area as prescribed in the Land Use Element, the introduction of new roads would open up these areas to further development in the future. For the reasons described above, all of the alternative scenarios have the potential to indirectly induce population and economic growth in the City. It should be noted, however, that all of the alternatives studied in this EIR examine either similar or scaled back versions of the planned roadway system in the current Circulation Element. Therefore, potential growth inducement is not anticipated to be greater than that of the existing Element. In addition, it should be recognized that the ultimate extent of urban expansion in Santa Clarita will be largely dependent upon a variety of other factors, including City of Santa Clarita and County -of Los Angeles land use policy and market forces. All of the alternatives are similar; however, in general, it is assumed that alternatives involving more roadway development would have more potential to induce growth. Consequently, Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 are anticipated to have the greatest growth inducing potential among the alternatives. Alternative 1 includes the Newhall Ranch Road extension and therefore involves the greatest overall number of road miles. As such, it would open up the most undeveloped land to future urban development. Alternatives 4 and 5 both include augmented intersections in heavily congested areas, which would increase overall roadway system capacity. The improved traffic flow under either of these two alternatives would remove the constraint imposed by traffic congestion to a greater degree than would the remaining alternatives (2, 3, 6, and 7). City of Santa Clarita 6-1 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 6.0 Lona Tenn Impacts The scaled back roadway networks of Alternatives 2 and 3 would be expected to have less growth inducing potential than the Alternative 1 network. Because overall roadway system capacity would be lower than that of Alternatives 4 and 5, traffic would remain more of a constraint under these two alternatives. The aggressive transportation demand strategies that are part of Alternatives 6 and 7 would improve roadway system capacity as compared to Alternatives 2 and 3 (though not as much as Alternatives 4 and 5). Therefore, they could accommodate more overall growth in the City. On the other hand, the increased costs to businesses and individuals associated with implementing many of the financial incentive and disincentive strategies to be implemented under Alternatives 6 and 7 could discourage population and economic growth in the City to some degree. 6.2 SIGNIFICANT AND IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The CEQA Guidelines specify that an EIR include a discussion of "significant irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented". This includes the use of resources (nonrenewable) during all phases of the project; primary and secondary impacts, which commit the project areas to similar uses in the future; and damage (irreversible) which may, as a result of the project, result in environmental accidents. Any of the alternative scenarios for the proposed Circulation Element Amendment would involve movement of substantial quantities of earth to accommodate roadway development. This would significantly and irreversibly alter the visual landscape of the City both by directly changing area topography to accommodate roads and indirectly accommodating growth by opening up new areas to development in accordance with the Santa Clarita Land Use Element. Substantial cut and fill would be required under any of the alternatives, although Alternative 1 would involve the most grading among the alternatives. Alternatives 4 and 5 would also entail relatively large quantities of earth movement because of the widenings that would occur at major new and existing intersections. The development of hillside areas and City designated ridgelines would substantially alter visual conditions in many parts of the City. Implementation of the City's Hillside Development Ordinance and mitigation measures recommended in this document would reduce the potentially adverse effects associated with roadway development to the degree feasible. Nevertheless, the construction of roadway infrastructure on undeveloped hillsides would irreversibly alter the visual landscape of the City by contributing to the further urbanization of the community. Roadway construction in undeveloped areas would have the potential to significantly affect important biological resources. As discussed in Section 5.4, Biological Resources, impacts associated with individual roadways would have. significant and unavoidable impacts to important habitats in the City. In addition, the overall effect of buildout of any of the project alternatives would be to contribute to the conversion of existing open space in the Center City area and outlying areas of the City to urban uses. City of Santa 6-2 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 6.0 Long Tenn Impacts All of the alternative scenarios for the proposed Circulation Element Amendment include the construction of new roadways, which would involve the use of substantial quantities of building materials and energy, some of which are non-renewable. Consumption of construction materials is associated with any new roadway development and is not unique to this project, however, the alternatives that involve more roadway construction (Alternatives 4 and 5) would consume more building materials and energy than alternatives that involve less roadway construction (Alternatives 2, 3, 6, and 7). The increased transportation activity that would be provided by the proposed roadways in conjunction with build -out under the City Land Use Element would accommodate increased traffic levels throughout the City. Increased air pollutant emissions would contribute to the ongoing degradation of regional air quality, although the easing of traffic congestion resulting from build -out of the roadway system would reduce pollutant concentrations in some locations. Ambient noise levels would also increase along proposed roadways due to the introduction of new noise sources. All new major roadways planned under all alternatives would have the potential to create noise exceeding normally acceptable levels. Though long-term noise impacts would generally be mitigable, some of the techniques that may be used to reduce noise impacts (sound walls, for instance) would 'irreversibly alter the visual character of the community. 6.3 SHORT-TERM USES vs. LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY Section 15126 [e] of the CEQA Guidelines specify that an EIR "describe the cumulative and long- term effects of the proposed project which adversely affect the state of the environment". This includes assessment of the impacts which may "pose long term risks to health and safety" or constrict the beneficial uses of the environment. Additionally, the reasons the proposed project is to be justified now, rather than reserving an option for further alternatives, should be discussed. Implementation of the Circulation Element would represent a long-term commitment of portions of the City's planning area to roadway and other transportation infrastructure. Long- term benefits of buildout of any of the alternatives considered for the Circulation Element Amendment include: • Improving traffic flow in Santa Clarita by providing increased traffic capacity and improving traffic operations along the route; • Increasing health and safety characteristics by reducing congestion on the roadways in Santa Clarita; • Improving air quality in some areas by reducing congestion along the roadways in Santa Clarita; and • Improving the efficiency of public services by reducing the response times of emergency vehicles (based on less congestion). These benefits would enhance the long-term productivity of the Santa Clarita Valley for human development, both by easing traffic congestion on existing roads and providing improved access to undeveloped areal in the City. Such development would, however, be at the expense of natural biological habitats and open space areas, as discussed in Section 6.2. City decisonmakers will need to consider these tradeoffs as they weigh the various alternatives. City of Santa Clarita 6-3 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 6.0 Lona Tenn Impacts The overall environmental effects of all of the studied alternatives would be similar, but with minor differences in several areas. The alternatives that involve either more roadway development (Alternative 1) or greater traffic capacity (Alternatives 4 or 5) would have the greatest long-term benefits in terms of reducing traffic congestion and travel time. The expanded roadway networks associated with these alternatives would, on the other hand, also have somewhat greater impacts in most other environmental issue categories (with the exception of long term air quality). Alternatives 6 and 7 would generally have fewer benefits in terms of overall traffic levels of service but would also result in the fewest environmental impacts in most other areas. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in the worst overall traffic service levels among the alternatives studied, but would generally have fewer adverse effects in other areas as compared to 1, 4, or 5. The proposed Circulation Element Amendment has been the subject of intensive study for over four years. The City has examined numerous alternatives for a citywide circulation system over that time, as described in Section 2.0, Description of Project Alternatives. Meanwhile traffic conditions in the City have continued to worsen, while various options for a citywide network are being considered. The alternatives examined in this report are the scenarios that represent the best compromise solutions that have come out of this lengthy planning exercise. In addition, as development continues, open corridors within which to place roadways are narrowing, and in some places vanishing. Delaying the development of a circulation network would therefore increase the likelihood of residential and business displacement in the future. Consequently, adoption and implementation of one of the alternative scenarios (or some combination thereof) is considered justified now, rather than continuing to examine further options. City of Santa Clarita 64 I Santa Cladta Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 7.0 Altematives Considered but Rejected 7.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED Numerous alternative circulation systems have been examined by the City of Santa Clarita and/or suggested by members of the Santa Clarita community since the adoption of the City's original Circulation Element in 1991. This EIR examines seven reasonable alternative scenarios that were selected for detailed examination by the analysis team. The seven scenarios were part of a large group of alternatives considered for detailed analysis. As required by 15126(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, this section describes those alternative scenarios that were considered for analysis in the EIR, but were rejected for one reason or another. It also explains the reasoning behind the decision not to evaluate each of them further. 7.1 NO PROJECT (NO DEVELOPMENT) Section 15126(d)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires evaluation of a "no project' alternative, which is typically assumed to be either a "no build" scenario in which no further development is undertaken on subject site or full buildout of the site under the existing general plan designation or zoning. The Existing Planned Circulation System alternative (Alternative 1 examined in Section 5.0) is the circulation system contained in the existing Santa Clarita Circulation Element. Therefore, it serves as the "buildout under the existing general plan" scenario. In the case of the proposed project, the "no build" scenario could mean one of two things: (1) no future upgrades to the CiVs circulation system (no new roadways, no transit or trail improvements, etc.), with land development proceeding as planned; or (2) no further development of any sort in the City (including no new circulation system upgrades). However, neither of these scenarios is realistic, for the reasons described below. As discussed in Section 5.8, Transportation/Circulation, even the circulation system improvements that would occur under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would not achieve desirable levels of service at all major intersections in the City. If development proceeds in Santa Clarita in accordance with the existing General Plan Land Use Element without corresponding improvements to the City's circulation system, traffic service levels would fail to meet City goals service goals as outlined in the current Circulation Element. The failure to improve the circulation system to accommodate new development would violate numerous City Circulation Element and Land Use Element policies, and constitute a breach of state General Plan law whereby a jurisdiction would adopt a General Plan Element that would be inconsistent with other General Plan elements. A "no build" scenario would also conflict with approved City - private party development agreements that include certain road extensions, thereby jeopardizing these development agreements. Such a scenario would ultimately halt all development in the City by making further development infeasible because of traffic impacts that could not be mitigated. Therefore, this scenario would essentially create a de facto growth moratorium in the City. The scenario in which no further development of any sort occurs in the City would create an immediate moratorium on development in the City. Again, this would be inconsistent with General Plan Land Use Element policy objectives and would fail to implement the citywide land use plan prescribed in the Land Use Element. Moreover, in a City that has experienced 7-1 uny or Santa Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 7.0 Alternatives Considered but Rejected over four percent annual population growth on average over the past seven years, it is unrealistic to expect that all development in the City will cease immediately. In addition, development is expected to continue in the surrounding areas of unincorporated Los Angeles County. Such development will place increasing strain on the City's circulation system without improvements to the City's circulation system. Because neither of the "no build" scenarios appears to fulfill City land use and circulation policies, they are both considered infeasible. Therefore, analysis of the environmental effects of a "no build" alternative is not considered to be warranted. At the same time, it should be recognized that the analysis of project impacts contained in Section 5.0 assesses the impacts of buildout under each of seven scenarios in relation to existing conditions in the City. In this way, Section 5.0 provides an assessment of the proposed project in comparison to "no build" conditions. 7.2 CTAC RECOMMENDATION, WITH SR -126 NORTHERN BY- PASS This alternative, which was considered as part of the original Center City Circulation System Study, incorporated a revised circulation element as developed by the Citizen's Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC). Major differences between this alternative and the existing circulation system include: (1) extending Magic Mountain Parkway eastward from San Fernando Road to connect to Santa Clarita Parkway rather than southeast to Via Princessa; and (2) adding the SR 126 "Northern By-pass", a six -lane limited access facility that would connect I-5 and SR -14 north of the City in lieu of the SR -126 Expressway. The By-pass was assumed to extend from a point approximately one mile north of Backer Road on I-5 and a point between Agua Dulce and Shadow Pines on SR -14. According to the Study, the Northern By-pass was projected to carry between 25,000 and 30,000 vehicles per day, only a fraction of the 110,000 vehicles expected to be carried on the SR -126 extension on a daily basis. Therefore, the by-pass was anticipated to provide relatively little traffic relief to the east -west arterials in the Center City area. A comparison of two scenarios that were identical other than inclusion of the Northern By-pass in one found that the addition of the by-pass would have only minor benefits to traffic conditions in the City. For example, vehicle hours of travel would go down by only about 1.5%, average speed on arterials would rise by only about 5%, and overall average speed would increase by only about 1.5%. 1 Implementation of this alternative was also anticipated to have greater potential to induce growth north of the City by providing access to currently inaccessible areas outside the City limits. Such growth could result in the irreversible loss of biological habitat and open space north of the current urban limits of the City. The addition of a Northern By-pass would do little to solve traffic congestion in the Center City area. Though the extension of Magic Mountain Parkway accompanied with other minor Circulation Element revisions would alleviate some of the Center City traffic congestion, the I The referenced analysis compares Scenarios 2 and 3 of the Center City Circulation System Study. Scenario 2 involved the Santa Clarita Parkway Alternative with a Northern By-pass while Scenario 3 involved the same alternative without the Northern By-pass. IF City of Santa Clarita 7-2 ' Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 7.0 Alternatives Considered but Rejected Northern By-pass would not redirect an amount of traffic large enough away from the Center City area to be a feasible alternative. It was therefore. determined that such an alternative would not meet the circulation or land use goals of the City. Consequently, the CTAC Recommendation with SR -126 Northern By-pass alternative was rejected as a project alternative. 7.3 SANTA CLARITA PARKWAY ALTERNATIVE, WITH SR -126 NORTHERN BY-PASS This alternative, also considered as part of the initial Center City Circulation System Study, included an arterial roadway network in the City identical to the Newhall Ranch Road Reduction (Alternative 2) being considered in this EIR. It differed from the Newhall Ranch Road Reduction alternative in that it incorporated the SR -126 Northern By-pass described in Section 7.2. As with the CTAC Recommendation, with SR -126 Northern By-pass alternative, the inclusion of the SR -126 Northern By-pass in this alternative was determined to do little tosolvetraffic congestion problems in the City while having the potential for significant environmental effects relating to growth inducement north of the City. For these reasons, it was determined that this alternative would not meet the circulation and land use goals of the City. 7.4 CTAC VARIATION WITH MAGIC MOUNTAIN EXTENSION WITH SR -126 BY-PASS This alternative, also considered as part of the initial Center City Circulation System Study, was similar to the CTAC recommended alternative described in Section 7.2, including the addition of the Northern By -Pass. The primary difference was that the Magic Mountain Parkway extension connected with Via Princessa east of Golden Valley Road, forming a continuous throughway between I-5 and SR -14. The circulation improvements made within the Center City area were found to result in traffic i levels of service similar to CTAC recommended alternative. The alternative was rejected because of the inclusion of the Northern By -Pass, which, as described above, was determined to have relatively few benefits in terms of circulation while creating potentially significant impacts in terms of growth inducement, and loss of biological habitat and open space. I I I �1 7-3 Clty of Santa Clarita Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 8.0 References and Report Preparers ' 8.0 REFERENCES AND REPORT PREPARERS 8.1 REFERENCES 8.1.1 Bibliography Anne Peak and Associates, Consolidated Report: Cultural Resource Studies for the Proposed Pacific Pipeline Project. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, California (L-2950),1992. I' Aspen Environmental Group. 1996. EIS Pacific Pipeline Project: Biological Assessment, Vol. II. Prepared for the California Public Utilities Commission. ' Bailey, Thomas L., and Richard H. Jahns. Geology of the Transverse Range Province, Southern California, In Geology of Southern California, edited by Richard H. Jahns. Division of Mines Bulletin 1970:83-106. California Department of Natural Resources, San Francisco, 1954. Bean, and Thomas F. King; pp. 93-110. Ballena Press, Ramona. 1975. December's Child: A Book of Chumash Oral Narratives. University of California Press, Berkeley. Bean, Lowell John, and Charles R. Smith. Gabrielino. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 538-549. Smithsonian Institution, 1978. Becker, Robert. Designs on the Land. Book Club of California, San Francisco, 1969. Disenos of California Ranchos. Book Club of California, San Francisco, 1974. Beeler, M. S., and Kathryn Klar. Interior Chumash. Journal of California Anthropology 4(2):287-305. Banning, 1977. Bissell, Ronald M. Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Of Tentative Tract 47200, 220 Acres Near Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, California (L-2104),1990. Blackburn, Thomas. Ethnohistoric Descriptions of Gabrielino Material Culture. Archaeological Survey Annual Report, University of California, Los Angeles, 1974. Ceremonial Integration and Social Interaction in Aboriginal California. In Antap: California Indian Political and Economic Organization, edited by Lowell J, 1963. Bolton, Herbert (Translator), Fray Juan Crespi. Missionary Explorer on the Pacific Coast. 1769- 1174. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1927. Boscana, Geronimo. Chinigchinich: A Revised and Annotated Version of Alfred Robinson's translation of Father Geronimo Boscana's Historical Account of the Belief, Usages, Customs, and Extravagencies of the Indians of this Mission of San Juan Capistrano. Edited by Phil Townsend Hanna, Fine Arts Press, Santa Ana, 1933. 8-1 II City of Santa Clarita Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 8.0 References and Report Preparers Bright, William. The Alliklik Mystery. The Journal of California Anthropology 2(2):228-230. Banning, 1975. California Department of Transportation, California Vehicle Noise Emission Levels, 1987 California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Map of California (Los Angeles). San Francisco, 1969. California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, California Air Quality Data, 1991-1996. California Native Plant Socity. 1994. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Carey, Stephanie, Archeological Reconnaissance Report: Los Pinetos Grazing Allotment. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, California (L-1362),1978. Carter, Bruce, Field Trip Guide to the Anorthosite-Syenite Terrain of the Western San Gabriel Mountains, Los Angeles County, California, with emphasis on the Origin of the Layered Gabbroic Rocks. Ms. on file, Pasadena City College, Geology Department, 1980. "Cedar Mining District," California Vertical File, Los Angeles Public Library History Room. Chartkoff, Joseph L., and Kerry K. Chartkoff, and Theodore Gutman, An Archaeological Resurvey of Placerita Canyon State Park. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, California (L-779),1969. City of Santa Clarita.1991. Open Space and Conservation Element. Clark, William B., Gold in the Transverse Ranges, Southern California. In Geology and Mineral Wealth of the California Transverse Ranges, edited by Donald L. Fife and John A. Minch, pp. 198-207, South Coast Geological Society, Santa Ana, 1982. Clark, William B., Gold in the Transverse Ranges, Southern California. In Geology and Mineral Wealth of the California Transverse Ranges, edited by Donald L. Fife and John A. Minch, pp. 198-207, South Coast Geological Society, Santa Ana, 1982. Cleland, Robert C., Cattle on A Thousand Hills. Huntington Library, San Marino, 1964. Clevenger, Joyce and Dennis Gallegos, Cultural Resource Survey for Mystery Mesa/Cruzan Mesa, Los Angeles County, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, California (L-1665),1987. Coffin, G.W., Staging, Stations on the Santa Clara. Ventura County Historical Society Quarterly 19:3,1974. Originally published in Ventura Signal, October 18, 1873. Cohen, Jerry,"William C. Bonelli Dies in Mexico at 75." Los Angeles Times, November 24, Part. I, p.1. "The Controversial Mr. Bonelli." 1954 Fortnight, February 17,1970. City of 8-2 fSanta Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 8.0 References and Report Preparers Costanso, Miguel, Diary of Miguel de Costanso. " Academy of Pacific Coast History. Volume II. University of California, Berkeley, 1909. Davis, Gene, Mobil M-70 Pipeline Replacement Project Cultural Resource Survey Report. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, California (L-3289),1990. Davis, Lois and Bruce Love, An Archaeological Assessment of a Proposed 400 Unit Mobile ' Home Park In Canyon Country, Los Angeles County, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, California (L-571),1979. Department of Transportation, Negative Archaeological Survey Report Interstate 10 (I-10) Between Puente Avenue in the City of Baldwin Park on the West and the Interchange Between I-10 and State Routes 57 (SR 57/SR71/Interstate210 (I-210),1993. Dillon, Brian D.,Archaeological Survey and Impact Assessment of the Rye Canyon Redevelopment Project, A 400 Acre Parcel in Valencia, Los Angeles County, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, California (L-2933),1993. ' Edberg, Robert, Archaeological Site Survey Records, CA-LAN-96IH and -962H. On file South Central Coastal, Information Center, UCLA Institute of Archaeology, Fowler Museum of Cultural History, Los Angeles, California, 1978. Englehardt, Zephyrin, O.F.M., San Fernando Rev: the Mission of the Valley. Franciscan Herald, Chicago, Illinois, 1927. "Bxpediente Rancho San Francisco" Case 318. National Archives, Washington, D.C. On file, Huntington Library, San Marino, California, 1868. Gay, T.E., and S.H. Hoffman. Mines and Mineral deposits of Los Angeles County. California Journal of Mines and Geology, 50 (3-4):504-505. Division of Mines, San Francisco, 1954. Grant, Campbell_ The Rock Paintings of the Chumash. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, 1965. Grenier, Judson P. (editor). A Guide to Historic Places in Los AnQeles County, Kendall Hunt, Dubuque, Iowa, 1978. ■ Gudde, Erwin G. California Place Names. University of California, Berkeley, 1969. Hanks, Herrick E. The Archaeological Resources of the Piru Creek Project: A Preliminary Report. Ms. on file, State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, 1972. Harrington, John P. Rescuing the Early History of the California Indians. Explorations and Fieldwork of the Smithsonian Institution in 1933, pp. 54-56. Washington, 1934. ulty of uanra Manta 8-3 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 8.0 References and Report Preparers Harris, Cyril M. Handbook of Noise Control. 1979. Heizer, R., and W. Sturtevant (editors). Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8. California. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., 1978. Heizer, Robert F. The Western Coast of North America. In Prehistoric Man in the New World, edited by D. Jennings and E. Norbeck, pp. 117-148. University of Chicago Press, 1964. Hickman, J. 1993. The Jepson Manual; Higher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. Holland, R. 1986. Preliminary Description of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Horizon and Tradition on the Southern California Coast: A Comment. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 6(2):266-268,1984. Home, Wiley. Letter Report of Archaeological Survey for Los Angeles County Sanitation Project Engineer Report for Soledad Canyon Relief Trunk Sewer Section 4. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, California, 1976 (Ir209). Hudson, Travis, and Ernest Underhay. Crystal in the Sky: An Intellectual Odyssey Involving Chumash Astronomy, Cosmology, and Rock Art. Ballena Press AnthroDoloaical Parsers No. 10, edited by Lowell J. Bean and Thomas C. Blackburn. Ballena Press, Socorro, New Mexico, 1978. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Transportation and Land Development. 1988. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation, Fifth Edition. 1991. Jackson, Wm. Turrentine. Stages, Mails and Express in Southern California. Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly; 56:3.1974. Jacobs, David and Glen Rice. An Archaeological Survey of 225 Acres in the Foothills Overlooking Santa Clara Valley, Los Angeles County, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (L-643), Los Angeles, California, 1977. James, George Wharton. A Tourist's Guide to Southern California. B.R. Baumgardt, Los Angeles, 1895. Johnston, Bernice Eastman. California's Gabrielino Indians. Southwest Museum Publications, F. W. Hodge Anniversary Publication Fund, Volume VIII, Highland Park, California, 1962. King, Chester D. The Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used in Social System Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region Before A.D.1804. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis, 1981. wry or ziama cranes 8-4 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 8.0 References and Report Preparers I' King, Chester D. The Sweetwater Mesa Site (LAn-267) and its Place in Southern California. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 9:25-76. University of California, Los Angeles, 1967. King, Chester D., Charles Smith and Tom King. Archaeological Report Related to the Interpretation of Archaeological Resources Present at Vasquez Rocks County Park. Ms. on file, County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation, Los Angeles, California, 1974. King, Chester, and Dennis G. Casebier. Background to Historic and Prehistoric Resources of the East Mojave Desert Region, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside. On file, USDI Bureau of Land' Management (California Desert Planning Program) Riverside, California, 1976. King, Chester, and Thomas Blackburn. Tatavium. In Handbook of North America Indians, Vol. 8 -California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 535-537. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 1978. Koerper, Henry C. Horizon and Tradition on the Southern California Coast: A Rejoinder. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 6(23):269-272.1984. Koerper, Henry C. Prehistoric Subsistence and Settlement in the Newport Beach Area and Environs. Orange County. California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside, 1981. Koerper, Henry, and Christopher Drover. Chronology Building for Coastal Orange County:. The Case from CA -ORA -119A. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 19(2):1-34. 1983. Kroeber, A.L. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 1925. Landberg, Leif C. The Chumash Indians of Southern California. Southwest Museum Papers No. 19. Southwest Museum, Highland Park, 1965. Larson, Dan, and Gary Major. Canalino Social Ecology. Paper presented at the American Anthropological Association 73rd Meeting, Mexico City, 1974. Leadabrand, Russ A. A Guidebook to the San Gabriel Mountains. Ward Ritchie, Los Angeles, 1963. Leighton and Associates. Geotechnical Assessment, State Route 126 Location Study from Interstate 5 to State Route 14. Prepared for Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade, Douglas, Inc., IOrange, 1991. Leonard, N. Nelson. Archaeological Resources of the Proposed Castaic Conduit System. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (L-54), Los Angeles, California, 1974. City of Santa Clarita 8-5 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 8.0 References and Report Preparers Leonard, N. Nelson. Natural and Social Environments of the Santa Monica Mountains (6000 B.C.-A.D. 1800). Archaeological Survey Annual Report, Volume 13:93-135. University of California, Los Angeles, 1971. Lopez, Robert. The Prehistory of the Lower Portion of the Piru Creek Drainage Basin, Ventura County, California. Master's Thesis, Department of Anthropology, CS University, Northridge, 1974. Los Angeles Court of Sessions of May 19,1851. Historical Society of Southern California Annual Report. 1905. Love, Bruce. Cultural Resource Assessment for Three Postal Service Sites, Los Angeles County Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (L- 1775), Los Angeles, California, 1989. McIntyre, Michael J. A Cultural Resource Management Program for the Upper Santa Clara River Valley, Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, California. Master's Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Northridge, 1979. McIntyre, Michael J. Cultural Resource Reconnaissance and Impact Assessment for the Art Grayson Oil and Gas Lease Project in Newhall, Los Angeles County, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (L-984), Los Angeles, California, 1981. McKenna, Jeanette A. A Class I Cultural Resources Investigation for the Proposed Elsmere Canyon Solid Waste Management Facility, Newhall, Los Angeles County, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (L- 2317), Los Angeles, California, 1991. Montgomery, Steve. Biological Analysis of Alternative Corridors for a Proposed Extension of Route 126, Between Interstate 5 and California State Highway14. Submitted by SJM Biological Consultants, San Diego, 1991. Nadeau, Remi. City -Makers. 3rd edition. Trans -Anglo Books, Costa Mesa, California, 1965. Newhall, Ruth Waldo. The Newhall Ranch. Huntington Library, San Marino, California, 1958. Nongame Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. Northridge Archaeological Research Center. Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Report for Zone Case No. 6406, Soledad Canyon Area, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (L-1117), Los Angeles, California, 1979. "Notable Places in Los Angeles County." Los Angeles Star. On file, Special Collections Library, University of California, Los Angeles,1872. City of Santa Clarita 8-6 jSanta Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 8.0 References and Report Preparers ' Oakeshott, Gordon B. Geology and Mineral Deposits of San Fernando Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California. In Division of Mines Bulletin 172, Department of Natural Resources, San Francisco, California, 1958. Outland, Charles F. Man -Made Disaster: the Story of St. Francis Dam. Arthur H. Clark, Glendale, California, 1977. Outland, Charles F. Stage Coaching on El Camino Real. Arthur H. Clark, Glendale, California, 1973. f Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., Investigation of the San Gabriel Fault and Preliminary Geotechnical ' GeologicaI Report Concerning the Rye Canyon Property of Lockheed Corporation, Valencia, California, May 1993. Paulson, L.L. Handbook and Directory of Santa Clara, San Benito. Santa Cruz. Monterey and San Bernadino Counties. L.L. Paulson, Los Angeles, 1875. Perkins, Arthur B. Mining Camps of the Soledad. Part I411. Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly; 40:2;40:3; 40:4.1958. Perkins, Arthur B. Rancho San- Francisco. Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly; 39-2. 1957. Phase 1 Archaeological Study: Santa Clarita Water Company Application 29898, For 13 Existing Well Site Locations, Los Angeles County, California. Report on file South Central Coastal, Information Center, UCLA Institute of Archaeology, Fowler Museum of Cultural History, ' Los Angeles, California (L-unaccessioned),1996. Preliminary Report: Archaeological Assessment Reclaimed Water Distribution System, Los Angeles County, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, California (L-2477),1989. Priestley, Herbert I. (translator). A Historical, Political and Natural Description of California by Pedro Fages: Written for the Viceroy in 1775. Ballena Press, Ramona, 1972. Rasson, Judith, and Roberta S. Greenwood. An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Tract 31803, A 220 Acre Parcel in Plum Canyon, Los Angeles County. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (L-2590), Los Angeles, California, ' 1992. Reid, Hugo, The Indians of Los Angeles County: Hugo Reid's Letters of 1852. Edited by Robert F. Heizer. Southwest Museum, Highland Park, California, 1968. Reynolds, Gerald G. Pico Canyon Chronicles. Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society, Newhall, California, 1985. ' Reynolds, Jerry. "Beale, Camels and Cut." Scrapbook on file, Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society, Newhall, California. City of Santa Clarita S-7 � e Santa Clarda Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 8.0 References and Report Preparers Reynolds, Jerry. 'Black Gold in Pico." Scrapbook on file, Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society, Newhall, California. Reynolds, Jerry. "Coming of the Gringos." Scrapbook on file, Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society, Newhall, California. Reynolds, Jerry. "Driving the Golden Spike." Scrapbook on file, Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society, Newhall, California. Reynolds, Jerry. "Monarch of All He Surveyed." Scrapbook on file, Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society, Newhall, California: Reynolds, Jerry. Del Valle Chronicles. Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society Newsletter 8:2. 1982b. Reynolds, Jerry. Ethnography of Castaic. Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society -Newsletter 8:6. 1982a. Reynolds, Jerry. The Shape of a Rancho. Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society Newsletter 11:12.1986. Reynolds, Jerry."The Founding of Newhall." Scrapbook on file, Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society, Newhall, California. Rice, Glen. An Archaeological Survey of Tract 324558, Santa Clarita Valley, Los Angeles. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (L- 274), Los Angeles, California, 1977, Rios-Bustamente, A. An Illustrated History of Mexican Los Angeles. University of California, Los Angeles, 1969. Robinson, John W. Mines of the. San Gabriels. La Siesta Press, Glendale, 1973. Robinson, John W. The San Fernando Valley: A Calendar of Events. 1938. Robinson, R. W. Cultural Resources Investigation for Tentative Minor. Land Division Map No. 11721. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (1, 451), Los Angeles, California, 1979a. Robinson, R.W. Cultural Resources Investigation Regariding Tentative Minor Land Division Map Number 11518. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, -The Institute of Archaeology(L-615), Los Angeles, California,1979b. Romani, John F. Cultural Resources Survey for 6.69 Acres of Land Located at the Intersection of Magic Mountain Parkway and San Fernando Road in Valencia, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (L-951), Los Angeles, Califomfa,1980. city or Santa cranta 8-8 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 8.0 References and Report Preparers Romani, John F. Negative Archaeological Survey Report: Additional Ramps to I-5 Between Magic Mountain Parkway and Henry Mayo Drive Interchanges, Los Angeles County, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (L-1419), Los Angeles, California, 1984. Romani, John F. and Roberta S. Greenwood. Historic Property Survey Report and Archaeological Survey Report and Historic Interstate 5 to State 14, Santa Clarita Valley, Los Angeles County, California 07 -LA -126 R5.8/R12.7 07820- 065710. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (L-2503), Los Angeles, California, 1991. Rozaire, Charles E. Archaeological Investigation for Environmental Study Report of the Los Angeles County, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (L-834), Los Angeles, California, 1974. Ryan, Thomas M. USFS Archaeological Reconnaissance Report Old Newhall Ranger Station Land Exchange. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (L-1360), Los Angeles, California, 1975. Santa Clarita, City of. General Plan. 1991. Santa Clarita, City of. Ridgeline Preservation and Hills Development Ordinance and Guidelines. March 1992. Santa Clarita, City of. Unified Development Code. 1992. Schroth, Adella_ Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Tract 32262 Saugus Area of Los Angeles County. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (L-584), Los Angeles, California, 1980a. ' Schroth, Adella. Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Tract 36701, Newhall Area of Los Angeles County. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (L-587), Los Angeles, California, 1980b. Science Applied International Corporation, PHR Associates, and Cultural Resources Inventory Elsmere Canyon Proposed Landfill Site Los Angeles County, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, California (L-2972),1994. Singer, Clay A., John E. Atwood, and Shelley Marie Gomes. Cultural Resources Survey and Impact Assessment for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47657, Haskell Canyon, Los Angeles County, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (L-2775), Los Angeles, California, 1992. Singer,Clay A. Archaeological Reconnaissance of Tentative Tract 38376 - CUP 1926, A 5.5 Acre Site (MARC Project # VS -582). Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (L-1106), Los Angeles, California, 1981. ' r City of Santa Clarita 8-9 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 8.0 References and Report Preparers Skaggs, Glenn A. USFS Placerita Burn project. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology(L-175), Los Angeles, California, 1978. South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993. Southern California Association of Governments, Regional Plan and Guide, 1995. State of California. California Historic Landmarks. Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California, 1982. State of California. California Inventory of Historic Resources. Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California, 1976. State of California. Minutes and Agendas of the State of California. Historical Resources Commission 1975 to date. Sacramento, California, 1975. Tartaglia, Louis James. Archaeological Site Assessment Site: A Soledad Canyon Project Tentative Tract Map 20838 Saugus, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (L-2117), Los Angeles, California, 1990. Tartaglia, Louis James. Assessment of the Impact Upon Cultural Resources by the Proposed Development of Tentative Tract 38304, Newhall, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (L=914), Los Angeles, California, 1979. Tartaglia, Louis James. -Cultural Resources Archaeolgical Survey Tentative Tract No. 44831. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (L- 2106), Los Angeles, California,1989c. Tartaglia, Louis James. Cultural Resource Resurvey San Francisquito Canyon. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (L-1342), Los Angeles, California, 1985. Tartaglia, Louis James. Cultural Resource Survey Report of Tentative Tract NO. 44896. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (1:-307), Los Angeles, California, 1987. Tartaglia, Louis James. Cultural Resource Survey Report Tentative Parcel Map 19392. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (L,2783), Los Angeles, California, 1988. Tartaglia, Louis James. Cultural Resource Survey Report Tentative Tract Map No. 50151. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (L- 2249), Los Angeles, California, 1990. Tartaglia, Louis James. Cultural Resource Survey Report, Soledad Canyon Project. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (1,2118), Los Angeles, California, 1986. City of Santa Clarita 8-10 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 8.0 References and Report Preparers Tartaglia, Louis James. Cultural Resources Archaeological Survey Wildwood Hills Project Tentative Tract 46183. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (L-2500), Los Angeles, California, 1991. Tartaglia, Louis James. Cultural Resources Survey Report Tentative Tract No.44832.Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (L-1750), Los Angeles, California, 1989a. Tartaglia, Louis James. Cultural Resources Survey Report Tentative Tract No. 44821. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (L-1751), Los Angeles, California, 1989b. Tartaglia, Louis James. Cultural Resources Survey Report Tentative Tract map No. 44831. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (L- 3226), Los Angeles, California, 1994. Tartaglia, Louis James. Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance San Francisquito Canyon. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (L- 1317), Los Angeles, California, 1983. Taylor, Thomas T. Tosco Cogeneration Project Transmission Line: Archaeological Survey and Native,American Contacts. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (L-1466), Los Angeles, California, 1985. Teggart, Frederick J. (Translator). The Portola Expedition of 1769-1770: Diary of Miguel Costanso. Publications of the Academy of Pacific Coast History 2(4):161-327. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1911. Tierney, R. 1996. Biota Report for Soledad Rock Quarry. October 11, 1996. Tierney, R. 1997. Biological Resource Assessment. Plum Canyon TT# 31803. Los Angeles County. February 20,1997. Title Insurance and Trust Co., Los Angeles. Land in California. University of California, Berkeley, 1948. Toren, A. George. Northridge Archaeological Research Center Assessment of the Archaeological Impact by the Proposed Development of Tract No. 32615 in Valencia, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (L-1114), Los Angeles, California, 1976. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 61, No. 40. February 28, 1996. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. 1971. City of Santa Clarita 8-11 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 8.0 References and Report Preparers Valentine -Maki, Mary, Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Santa Clara River Horse and Bike Trail Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, California (L-2996), 1993. Van Horn, David M. Archaeological Survey Report: A 285+ Acre Percel Located Near Saugus and Newhall in an Unincorporated Portion of Los Angeles County, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (L-1032), Los Angeles, California, 1981. Van Horn, David M., and J.P. Murray. Archaeological Survey Report: Tract 43510 Located in Canyon Country, Unincorporated Los Angeles County, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology (L-1398), Los Angeles, California, 1984. Van Valkenburgh, Richard, Notes on the Ethnography and Archaeology of the Ventureno Chumash Indians. Ms. on file, National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 1935. Van Voast, Judy, Cultural Resource Survey Report on the Proposed Bouquet Canyon Treatment Plant Site, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, Califomai.Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, California (L-1896), 1989. Vernon, Charles C., A History of the San Gabriel Mountains. Southern California Quarterly, March, June, September, December, 1956. Wallace, William J., A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11 (3):214-230,1955. Warren, Claude N., Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the California Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, edited by C. Irwin -Williams. Eastern New Mexico Contributions in Anthropology 1:1-14,1968. Wessel, Richard L., and Michael J. McIntyre, Cultural Resource Reconnaissance of the Proposed Rowher Flat Off -Road Vehicle Park, Saugus Ranger District, Angeles National Forest (05 -01 - SA -65). On file, Cultural Resource Section, Angeles National Forest, Arcadia, 1985. Wessel, Richard L., Archaelogical Reconnaissance Report: Divide Fire Rehabilitation. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, California (L-1692),1988. West, J. M., Bureau of Mines Reprint from Bulletin 667. United States Department of the Interior, Washington, 1975. Whitley, David and Joe Simon, Phase 1 Archaeological Survey And Cultural Resources Assessment For The South River Project Area, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, City of Santa Clarita 8-12 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 8.0 References and Report Preparers ' California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, California (L -3135),1994a. Whitley, David and Joe Simon, Phase 1 Archaeological Survey and Cultural Resources Assessment for the Ranch Road -South Project Area, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, California (L -3154),1994b. ' Whitley, David, Phase I Archaeological Survey and Cultural Resources Assessment for the Porta Bella Specific Plan Study Area, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, California (L-2979),1993. Whitney -Desautels, Nancy A., Phase 1 Feasibility Analysis for the Los Angeles County Airport ' Site Selection Study: Evaluation of Prehistoric, Historic and Paleontological Resource Sensitivity of Three Alternative Locations. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, California (L-1660),1987. ' Wlodarski, Robert J., A Phase 1 Archaeological Study for the proposed Commuter Rail Station: Bermite and Glazer Sites, City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, California (L-2562),1992. Woods, CIyde M., Andrew York, Rebecca Apple, Tirzo Gonzalez, Stephen Van Wormer, Tom Demere, and James H. Cleland Dames and Moore, Bicep Transmission Project Magunden to Vincent/ Pardee Alternative Corridor Study Archaeology, Ethnology, History and ' ' Paleontology Technical Reports. Report on file, South Central Coastal Information Center, The Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, California (L-2987),1987. 8.2.2 Persons Contacted Buntich, Marko, Substructures Section, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Chaffin, Jeff, Assistant Planner II, City of Santa Clarita Christian, Sean, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. Core, George, Assistant to the General Manager, Castaic Lake Water Agency Grindle, Lance, Head, Permit Subdivisions, Los Angeles County Public Works Department Maskol, Steve, City of Santa Clarita Nakashima, Penny, California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control city of Santa cianta 8-13 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 8.0 References and Report Preparers Pagenkopp; Marie, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Price, Chris, Associate Engineer, City of Santa Clarita Salsman, Ken, Southern District Aqueduct Engineer, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Thompson, Mike, Kennedy -Jenks Engineers (consultant to Castaic Lake Water Agency) Williams, Frank, Supervising Civil Engineer II, Los Angeles County Public Works Department 8.2 REPORT PREPARERS This EIR was prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc., under contract to the City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development. City and consultant staff involved in the preparation of the EIR are listed below. City of Santa Clarita Jeffrey Lambert, AICP, Planning Manager Laura Stotler, Associate Planner Tony Nisich, City Engineer Bahman janka, City Traffic Engineer Rabie Rahmani, Associate Traffic Engineer Willdan Associates Susan O'Carroll, Contract Planner Rincon Consultants, Inc. Stephen Svete, AICP, Principal in -Charge Joe Power, AICP, Planning Manager Duane Vander Pluym, D.Env., Principal Walter Hamann, RG, CEG, Principal John Johnson, Senior Associate Stephanie Vasconcellos, Associate Keith Miles, Associate Sondra Harris, Associate Julie Welch, Associate Meyer, Mohaddes Associates Viggen Davidian, P.E., Principal Ian Pari, P.E., Senior Transportation Engineer DINV, Santa Cladta Circulation Element Amendment EIR Section 8.0 References and Report Preparers Rachel Tiemey Consulting Rachel Tierney, Principal Historical Environmental Archaeological Research Team Robert Modarski, Principal T.Y. Lin International Gene Bougdanos, P.E., Senior Civil Project Engineer uIry 8-15 L1 LI 7j I 1 1 Appendix A 1 Initial Study/Notice of Preparation I 7 i� 1 1 !�J 1 I CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Department of Community Development ' 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 ' (805)255-4330 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENCY COMMENT SHEET PLEASE CHECK ONE: ' [ I REVIEW FOR COMPLETENESS [✓] REVIEW FOR PRE -DRC MEETING MASTER CASE NUMBER: General Plan Circulation Element Amendment ' TYPE OF APPLICATION(S): General Plan Circulation Element Amendment and EIR ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:Preparation of an EIR. and General Plan amendment to update the description of the existing circulation system, remove SR 126 from the master plan of arterial highways and various other circulation related topics. DATE APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED: 11/04/96 DATE COMMENTS DUE: 12/09/96 Contact Person: Laura Stotler Date: November 5, 1996 Notice is hereby given that this application has been filed with the Department of Community Development. Please review the revised mapslexhibits and return this sheet with your comments and/or recommendations by December 9, 1996. If we do not receive a reply, it shall be determined your agency will not be adversely impacted should this proposal subsequently be approved by the City. If you have no comments we still request you return this form as indicated below. PLEASE CHECK ✓ ONE: 1 [ ] We have reviewed this project and have no comments at this time. [ ] See comments below/attached: 1/l 'I (Signature) current\agency.dre (Agency) (Date) NOTICE OF PREPARATION Environmental Impact Report for the 013t of Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element Amendment Santa Clarita, California Lead Agency Contact: City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23290 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355-2196 Contact: Laura Stotler Associate Planner (805)255-4357 Summary: The City of Santa Clarita will be the Lead Agency for the preparation of a Program Environmental Impact Report for the City of Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element Amendment. The EIR will include an equal level of examination for five alternative circulation plans. The EIR is intended to serve as an informational document to inform decision -makers and the general public of the environmental consequences of the proposed action. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response to this notice must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days from receipt of this notice. Please send your response to Laura Stotler at the City of Santa Clarita address shown above. Indicate the appropriate contact person in your agency for any return correspondence. Project Title: City of Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment Program EIR Project Location: City of Santa Clarita, California Project Description: The City of Santa Clarita's Circulation Element Amendment will update information on the existing built circulation system and address several other changes to the text and maps in the existing Circulation Element. Five major alternative circulation system plans will be considered for the Circulation Element Amendment. Four of those alternatives have been identified and the remaining one will be determined during the EIR scoping process. In addition to the potential modification of the circulation network, the Circulation Element Amendment would discuss other circulation related topics including transportation improvement corridors, expansion of the City's fixed route transit system, Metrolink and the regional Congestion Management Plan. Potential Environmental Effects: The EIR will address the issues of earth (geologic hazards, grading), air, water (hydrology), biology (flora and fauna), noise, aesthetics / light and glare, land use, population and housing, transportation / circulation, public service (fire, police, flood control, roads), and cultural resources. Prepared By: Rincon Consultants, Inc. J& 1�/ to en S te, AI Prin ' -in-Charge ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Initial Study Form B) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA MASTER CASE NO: General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element Project Location: Citywide (see attached location description and maps) Project Description and Setting: Amendment to the Circulation Element of the City's General -1. Plan (see attached project description and maps) Applicant: City of Santa Clarita A. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or In changes In geologic substructures?.................................................... I1 IXl I1 b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction orovercovering of the soil? .................................................... [X] I I I 1 C. Change in topography or ground surface relieffeatures? .......................................................................... IXl I] I] d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? .......................... I l IXl 11 e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? ............................................... [X] I l I l f. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? .................... [X] [ ] [ ] g. Changes in deposition, erosion or siltation? ....................... [X] [ ] [ ] h. Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river?......................................................................... IXI I 1 I l I. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubicyards or more?.............................................................. IXl [ I [ 1 j. Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 25% natural grade? ............................................ [X] I l I I -1. k. Development within the Alquist-Priolo -2- Special Studies Zone?............................................................ 1XI L J L J I. Other?........................................................................................ [1 [Xl II 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality?................................................................ IXI I1 I 1 b. The creation of objectionable odors? ................................... [ ] [ I [X] C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally?.................................................... I l I I [X] d. Other?....................................................................................... [ 1 [ I IXI 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff?........................................................................ EXI [ 1 I I b. Alterations to the course or flow of floodwaters?........................................................................... I I IXI I l C. Change In the amount of surface water inany 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 IXI I I e. Alteration of the direction or rate of flowof ground waters?........................................................... I 1 IXI I I 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? ............................................. I1 IXI I l g. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public watersupplies?........................................................................ I 1 I l IXI h. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ........................................ [XI I I I I -2- 4. S. 6. 7. I. other?........................................................................................ I] II I1 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)? ............................. [XI [ I I ] b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? ................................. [ ] [X] I ] C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal re- plenishment of existing species? .......................................... I ] [ I IXI d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?......................................................................................... [ 1 [ I [XI 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 [XI I 1 b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? ............................... [ ] [X] [ ] C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ............................... I I IXI I1 d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat and/or migratory routes? ........................................... [ I [X] [ ] Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? ........................................ [XI I ] I I b. Exposure of people to severe or unacceptable noise levels? .................................................... I I [Xl I1 C. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ............................ [ I [XI [ I Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare?............................................................ [ I [XI I I -3- S. Land Use. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial alteration of the present landuse of an area?................................................................ I I IXI I 1 b. A substantial alteration of the planned land use of an area? ................................................. [I IXI 11 C. A use that does not adhere to existing zoninglaws?............................................................................ I1 I1 IXI d. A use that does not adhere to established development criteria?............................................................. I1 IX1 I 1 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?............................................................................... I] I] IXI b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable naturalresources?.................................................................. I1 I1 IX] 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?.................................................................... I I IXI 11 b. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard- ous or toxic materials (Including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?................................................................................. I I I1 IXI C. Possible Interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? ......................... :............................................................... I1 IX] 11 d. Otherwise expose people to potential safety hazards?................................................................................... II IXI I1 11. Population. Will the proposal: a. Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human populationof an area?............................................................ [ I IXI I1 b. Other?......................................................................................... [] II II -4- 12. Housing. Will the proposal: a. Remove or otherwise affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing?................................................................ I I IXI 11 b. Other?......................................................................................... [I [] [] 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement?.............................................................. I I IXI I I b. Effects on existing parking facilities, ordemand for new parking? .................................................. [ 1 I I IXI C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, Including public transportation?........................................................................ [X] I] I1 d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods?.......................................................................... IX] I ] I 1 e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ...................................... [ ] [XI I I f. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements?........................................................................ [ I IXl [] 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govem- mental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection?....................................................................... [ 1 1X1 I I b. Police protection?................................................................... [I IX] 11 C. Schools?................................................................................... [ 1 [ 1 [XI d. Parks or other recreational facilities? ........................ I.......... I I [ I IX] e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?...................................................................... 11 IXI 11 f. Other governmental services? Flood control ....................... I] [x] [] -5- 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in? a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?..................................................................................... [I IXI [ ] 16. 17 18. b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? ....................... [ ] [ I [XI Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas?............................................................. [ I I I IXI b. Communications systems? .................................................... [ I I I [XI C. Water systems?....................................................................... I I [ I [XI d. Sanitary sewer systems?........................................................ I I I I IXI e. Storm drainage systems?....................................................... [ I IXI [ 1 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] I I Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? ............................. [ I [X] I ] b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards?................................................................................... [I [X] II Aesthetics. Will the proposal result In: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public?......................................................... I ] 11 IXI b. Will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site opento public view?............................................................... [ 1 [Xl [ 1 . C. Will the visual impact of the proposal be detrimental to the surrounding area? .............................. [] [X] [] -6- 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?................................................................. I I 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result In the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? .................................................. I1 b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? .................................. I I C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect uniqueethnic cultural values? ............................................... [ d., Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potentialimpact area?............................................................. I I .7. [1 [X1 In 21WAIMNIT:05 I'd 011 Mil 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." .............................................................................................. Y M N Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code.............................................................. I I [XI 11 1. EARTH - IMPACTS AND MITIGATION DISCUSSION The Circulation Element identifies major circulation corridors. Engineered roadway: alignments within these corridors will be developed in the future and such development may cause changes in geologic substructures, and disruptions, displacements, compaction and overcovering of the soil. Grading for roadways will result in changes to topography and ground surface relief features. This issue will be evaluated in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). A temporary increase in wind and water erosion of soils on the site would occur during construction activities. No long-term impacts from wind and/or water erosion are anticipated. This issue will be evaluated in the EIR. Roadway corridors may be exposed to geologic hazards such as landslides, mudslides, ground failure or other similar hazards depending on their actual location. Environmental review will be conducted to determine if specific roadway design can minimizeexposureto these hazards. There may be changes in deposition,- erosion, siltation and/or modifications to a wash, channel, creek or river during roadway construction activities. These impacts will be evaluated in the EIR. Since most of the unconstructed roadways identified in the Circulation Element are In hillside areas, earth movement in excess of 10,000 cubic yards and development/grading will occur on slopes greater than 25% during roadway construction. Potential impacts from development of roadways in these hillside areas will be addressed during environmental review for the Circulation Element. An Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone (AP Zone) exists in the central portion of the City for study of the San Gabriel Fault. A portion of this study zone parallels a portion of Soledad Canyon Road west of Bouquet Canyon Road. The General Plan roadway corridors for proposed Santa Clarita Parkway, SR -126 and Newhall Ranch Road bisect this fault study zone. The consequences of this alignment will be discussed in the Circulation Element of the EIR. Specific seismic studies may need to be conducted prior to actual roadway construction in this area to ensure seismic safety to the greatest extent possible. Alquist-Priolo constraints would be reviewed during environmental review for roadway construction. The Open Space and Conservation Element (Policies 1.1, 1.3, 1.10, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 4.13, 5.1) and Public Safety Element (Policies 1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.8,1,12,1.13, 2.2, 5.1) provide policy concerning earth resources. Subsequent environmental review prior to roadway construction would provide mitigation for earth impacts. -8- 2. AIR - IMPACTS AND MITIGATION DISCUSSION A General Plan Circulation Element Amendment may have a significant impact upon local air quality. Substantial temporary impacts could occur to local air quality from dust and emissions during construction activities. Depending on the adequacy of the circulation system and its ability to handle the volume of traffic anticipated, the future roadways envisioned could result in excessive congestion that results in additional air pollution. This issue will be evaluated in the EIR. The roadways associated with the General Plan Circulation Element Amendment are not expected to cause objectionable odors since future land use development controls should be sufficient to distance sensitive uses from potentially objectionable odors. The Circulation Element Amendment will not alter air moisture, temperature or result in any change in the local or regional climate. 3. WATER - IMPACTS AND MITIGATION DISCUSSION A General Plan Circulation Element Amendment will not directly affect water quality or flow. Indirectly, there will be changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff as a result of roadway construction. Since the actual roadway alignments are unknown at this time, it is possible that roadway development within the identified General Plan roadway corridors may alter the course or flow of drainage and flood waters. No change in the amount of surface water in the Santa Clara River or its tributaries is anticipated as a result of this amendment since the acreage of constructed roadway is insignificant when compared to the total watershed. There may be local discharges of pollutants associated with roadways into surface waters and alteration of surface water quality. There may be alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters. There may be a change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through Interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations. This issue will be evaluated in the EIR. The roadways associated with the General Plan Circulation Element Amendment will not produce a substantial reduction In the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies. There may be exposure of people or property to water -related hazards such as flooding from this Amendment since proposed roadways cross floodways and floodplains. This Issue will be evaluated in the EIR. 4. PLANT LIFE - IMPACTS AND MITIGATION DISCUSSION The particular roadway corridors chosen for the General Plan Circulation Element Amendment could, reduce the diversity of species or number of plant species (including trees, shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora) during subsequent road development. The Amendment could reduce the numbers of unique, rare; or endangered species of plants depending on the location of such species relative to the chosen roadway corridors. It is not anticipated that the roadway corridors would introduce new species of plants into the area or create a barrier to the normal -9- replenishment of existing species since standard landscaping materials would be used and roadways would not.significantly impact plant replenishment. Roadway corridors associated with the General Plan Circulation Element Amendment will not significantly reduce acreage of any agricultural crop given the lack of such uses in the planning area. Impacts to plant life will be evaluated in the EIR. 5. ANIMAL LIFE - IMPACTS AND DISCUSSION The General Plan Circulation Element Amendment could substantially impact diversity of species or numbers of animal species (birds, land animals, including reptiles, fish and insects or microfauna). Roadway corridors associated with the Circulation Element Amendment could diminish or destroy habitat resulting in a) a barrier to the migration or movement of animals, b) reduction in the numbers of unique, rare or endangered species of animals, andlor c) the deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat and/or migratory routes. This issue will be evaluated in the EIR. 6. NOISE - IMPACTS AND DISCUSSION The General Pian Circulation Element Amendment may alter the anticipated noise contours in the General Plan due to altered roadway networks and the and introduction of new roadway corridors. Construction -related noises will be short-term. Long-term noise Impacts will result from expansion of existing roadways and construction of new ones in previously undeveloped areas. Exposure of people to severe vibrations is possible depending on the location of truck routes and requires further environmental review. Further environmental review of noise impacts is necessary to determine whether they pose significant cumulative impacts. 7. LIGHT AND GLARE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION DISCUSSION Changes in light and glare will occur as this General Plan Circulation Element Amendment is Implemented and new roadways are constructed. There will be new light and reflections from automobiles and other vehicles using the roads, as well as new light from street lights and signals. This issue will be evaluated in the EIR. 8. LAND USE - IMPACTS AND MITIGATION DISCUSSION Adoption of a General Plan Circulation Element Amendment may result in a substantial alteration of the present land use of the area. The capacity of the City's circulation network in the Circulation Element served as the basis for justifying the densities in the City's Land Use Element. An amendment to the circulation network, particularly the elimination of an eight -lane limited access expressway, may result In a significant alteration of the planned land use of an area if the new roadway network is unable to meet the anticipated demand of planned land uses. The zoning laws and development criteria may need to be altered accordingly to provide consistency between the General Plan and implementation documents. The cumulative impacts to land use as a result of the General Plan Circulation Element Amendment may be significant and require further study. -10- 9. NATURAL RESOURCES - IMPACTS AND MITIGATION DISCUSSION The Santa Clarita planning area is rich in mineral and construction aggregate resources. Oil producing areas are found in several locations west of Interstate 5 and along State Route 14. Mining areas are generally located in the eastern and northeastern portions of the planning area. A Mineral/Oil Conservation Area Overlay Zone discussed in the Land Use Element is designed to protect oil producing fields and areas designated as significant mineral aggregate resource areas. However, no roadway corridors would be located within this overlay zone. No increases in the rate of use of any natural resources or depletion of any nonrenewable natural resources is anticipated. The EIR will not further evaluate this Issue. 10. RISK OF UPSET/MAN-MADE HAZARDS - IMPACTS AND MITIGATION DISCUSSION The City's General Plan Circulation Element Amendment could involve risk of upset or man-made hazards. During roadway construction activities there may be risks due to the use of hazardous substances, disruption of hazardous materials, or reduced emergency access for fire and police. In the long-term, this amendment to the Circulation Element may result in improved emergency access.. While the policies of the Public Safety Element include several measures to encourage proper land use and engineering design to minimize public safety impacts (Policies 1.1, 1.2,1.3, 1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7,1.8,1.9,1.10,1.11,1.12,1.13,2.1,3.1,3.2,3.3,3.4,3.5,3.5,3.6,3.7,3.8,3.9,3.10, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5), the EIR will further evaluate this issue. Please also see Item 17, "Human Health." 11. POPULATION - IMPACTS AND MITIGATION DISCUSSION An amendment to the City's General Plan Circulation Element may significantly alter the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population in areas of the City. The EIR will further evaluate this issue. 12. HOUSING - IMPACTS AND MITIGATION DISCUSSION An amendment to the City's General Plan Circulation Element may significantly affect existing and future housing stocks; depending upon the location of roadways planned to be removed or added. The EIR will further evaluate this issue. 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION - IMPACTS AND MITIGATION DISCUSSION An amendment to the City's General Plan Circulation Element will affect existing transportation systems, including public transportation. The Amendment will also alter present patterns of circulation and movement of people and/or goods. This amendment may result In a disjointed pattern of roadway improvements on roadways where portions were built following different roadway standards. This issue will be evaluated in the EIR. This Amendment could accommodate additional vehicular movement depending on the location of roadway corridors. The Circulation Element Amendment would not be expected to affect existing parking facilities or demand for parking since the roadways would be used as transportation routes and not as destination locations. Depending on the design and location of -11- I roadway corridors, an increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians may result. Subsequent environmental review will evaluate issues of increased vehicular movement and traffic hazards. Several circulation related events have occurred since the adoption of the Circulation Element in June 1991. These include City identification of transportation corridors for improvements, expansion of the City's fixed -route transit system, commencement and subsequent expansion of Metrolink, including the construction of two stations, new park -and -rides and re -building efforts resulting from the January 17,1994, Northridge Earthquake. Regionally, laws have changed requiring consistency with the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) and other air quality mandates. The Circulation Element Amendment will update information on these transportation topics. Potential environmental impacts of these updates will be evaluated in the EIR. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES - IMPACTS AND MITIGATION DISCUSSION The amendment may result in a need for construction and maintenance of flood control/drainage facilities. Impacts to these facilities will be evaluated In the EIR. This Circulation Element Amendment is not anticipated to impact police, fire, school, library, recreational or medical services since these services are affected by the demographic characteristics of the City and not by roadways or transportation policies. Emergency access issues are considered In the "Risk of Upset I Man Made Hazards" section. 15. ENERGY - IMPACTS AND MITIGATION DISCUSSION The Southern California Gas Company provides natural gas service to the Santa Clarita Valley and electric service is provided by Southern California Edison. New opportunities for routing distribution lines maybe created because utility lines are encouraged by the General Plan to be placed in and along transportation corridors. The City's Public Service, Facilities, and Utilities Element contain several goals and policies relating to the provision of energy to Santa Ciarita (Policies 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5). The Open Space and Conservation element also contain policies intended to reduce energy consumption (Policies 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, and 8.5). Depending on the location of roadway corridors in the General Plan, an increase in demand for fuel could occur due to increased congestion and lack of mobility. However it is not anticipated to require the development of new sources of energy. This issue will be further evaluated in the EIR. 16. UTILITIES - IMPACTS AND MITIGATION DISCUSSION The Circulation Element Amendment may create new utility lines distribution opportunities since the General Plan encourages lines to be placed in and along transportation corridors. These issues were previously considered during adoption of the General Plan, which Includes policies to limit the effects of development upon Infrastructure. These policies Include Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities Element policies 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.7, 1.7, 1.9, 1.10,.1.11, 1.12, 2.4, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5. As roadways are constructed, alterations to the City's storm drainage system will occur. Impacts to the storm drainage system are considered under the Public Services and Water sections. A power transmission line and the California Aqueduct run north to south through the study area. Roadway alignments would not affect the use or right-of-way of these -12- I lines. The power and natural gas system, communication system, water system, sanitary sewer system, and solid waste and disposal system would not be affected by the Circulation Element Amendment since the roadway corridors associated with the Amendment would not generate significant demand for these utilities or otherwise impact major distribution infrastructure for these utilities. 17. HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS AND MITIGATION DISCUSSION The Amendment to the City's Circulation Element may create a human health hazard or expose people to potential health hazards depending on the routing of roadway corridors through known areas of contamination. The Circulation Element Amendment may lead to improved emergency access and more effective evacuation plans as existing roadways are improved and new roadways developed. However, during construction, emergency routes may be impacted and there is a potential for disruption of oil and gas lines. Temporary construction impacts will be evaluated by the EIR. 18. AESTHETICS - IMPACTS AND MITIGATION DISCUSSION Subsequent road construction resulting from roadway corridors determined during this Circulation Element could after existing scenic vistas and views, but may also provide opportunities for additional public vistas. Roadway construction activities may create an aesthetically offensive site open to public view. These activities would Include grading and building walls, bridges and hillsidelridgeline roadways which may have long-term as well as short- term visual impacts. Specific mitigation of roadway construction impacts would be addressed during subsequent environmental review. While aesthetic Impacts from a General Plan Circulation Element Amendment would be addressed by the policies of the Community Design Element (Policies 1.1,1.2,1.3,2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4,2.5,2.6,3.1,3.2,3.3,3.4,3.5,3.6,4.1,4.2,4.3,4.4,5.1,5.2,5.3, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7, 9.8,9.9,9.10,10.1,10.2,10.3,10.4,10.5,11.1,11.2,11.3,11.4,11.5,11.6,11.7,11.8 and 11.9), localized impacts will be evaluated in the EIR. 19. RECREATION - IMPACT AND MITIGATION DISCUSSION The Circulation Element Amendment is not anticipated to affect any City recreational facilities since the general roadway corridors potentially affected by the Circulation Element Amendment do not contain any recreational facilities or any proposed parks identified in the General Plan. The proposed City Central Park maybe affected by the Santa Clarita Parkway corridor, however, potential impact upon the park site would be addressed during subsequent environmental review for roadway alignment and construction. I 1 -13- I �l 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACTS AND MITIGATION DISCUSSION Archaeological resources may be affected by road construction depending on location of identified roadway corridors and known and unknown resources. Although detailed environmental review may be necessary to evaluate the potential effects of specific future roadway projects, this issue will be evaluated in the EIR. C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 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. ................ YES MAYBE NO 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 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 important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ........................................ I I [X] I 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 II [X) 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 on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.).................................................................................................... [] [Xj I1 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or Indirectly?................................................... [ ) [X) [ ) -14- D. DETERMINATION 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. [ ] 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. [X] JEFFREY LAMBERT, AICP PLANNING MANAGER CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA (NamelTitle) Prepared By: Rincon Consultants and the City of Santa Clarita -15- P/a"&i&�- 1 j &n(p (Date) City of Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element Amendment PROJECT DESCRIPTION CIRCULATION ELEMENT BACKGROUND The proposed project -is a comprehensive amendment to the Circulation Element of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. It will lay out City policy and a physical plan providing for the movement of people, goods and services through the City. The Circulation Element will include a plan of new arterial roadways to accomplish vehicular movement. The City's first General Plan Circulation Element was adopted on June 25,1991, as part of the City's Comprehensive General Plan. On November 10, 1992, the City Council adopted General Plan Amendment 92-02 (Master Case 92-154) which amended the Circulation Element for clarity and to identify the Lyons Avenue Extension. The second Circulation Element Amendment was adopted by the Council In September 1995 as park of the Porta Bella project approval. The project to be evaluated In the EIR is the amendment to the City's Circulation Element and is focused upon a revision to the Central City Circulation Network. The process to reassess the central city circulation network began following Council direction in 1992 to find an alternative route to the State Route 126 expressway through the City. PROJECT LOCATION The City of Santa Clarita is located in North Los Angeles County, situated within the "V" formed by Interstate 5 and State Route 14. The City is approximately 35 miles northwest of the City of Los Angeles Civic Center. Current municipal boundaries encompass approximately 43 square miles of land, primarily on the floor of the Santa Clarita Valley and the lower reaches of the surrounding canyons. The Santa Clarita Valley is separated from the San Fernando Valley by ridgelines of the San Gabriel and Santa Susana mountains. Ridgelines of the Sierra Pelona Mountains define the Valley's northern reach. The Santa Clarita planning area extends beyond the boundaries of the City and is approximately 256 square miles. Communities within the City Include Newhall, Valencia, Saugus, and Canyon Country and the subcommunities of Sand Canyon and Placerita Canyon. The communities of Castaic and Val Verde are currently located within unincorporated portions of the planning area. Data provided from the 1990 U.S. Census on population and households shows that the total population of the City in April 1990 was 110,794 people. Several large annexations brought an additional 9,681 residents into the City after April 1990.. The California Department of Finance Population and Housing Estimates released in April 1996 show the population of the City to be 128,900 residents. DESCRIPTION OF ROADWAY SCENARIO ALTERNATIVES The EIR will evaluate five alternatives including an alternative that will be developed by the public EIR scoping meeting for the preparation of this project. The following is a description of those alternatives that are being considered. -16- Alternative Im Existing Planned Roadway System (No Project Alternative] The designation of State Route 126 through the City as depicted on the City's existing General Plan Map as an eight -lane limited access highway would be eliminated. Newhall Ranch Road would be extended across the City as an eight lane major arterial to join Golden Valley Road. Newhall Ranch Road would continue past Golden Valley Road along the Santa Clara River intersecting with State Route 14. Golden Valley Road would extend north across the Santa Clara River and intersect with Plum Canyon Road and Bouquet Canyon Road. A new road; Santa Clarita Parkway (previously approved roadway) would connect Bouquet Canyon Road between Seco Canyon Road and Haskell Canyon Road with Soledad Canyon Road and Via Princessa (Via Princessa is a previously approved roadway). The Santa Clarita Parkway would continue south from the Via Princessa intersection and connect with Placerita Canyon Road at the Sierra Highway and State Route 14. Arterial roadways would be limited to a maximum of six lanes with medians, turn pockets, and bicycle lanes provided where practical. A portion of Rio Vista Road from north of the Santa Clara River to Via Princessa would be deleted. Magic Mountain Parkway would be extended southeast and intersect Via Princessa. Wiley Canyon Road would be extended over the South Fork of the Santa Clara River to intersect Magic Mountain Parkway/Via Princessa. Lyons Avenue would be extended east to intersect with Rio Vista. Lyons Avenue would then continue southeast and connect with Dockwiler Drive and Intersect with Sierra Highway. This project assumes that the Magic Mountain Parkway extension would have a grade separation from San Fernando Road and the railroad tracks. Grade separations would also be required at Magic Mountain, Via Princessa and San Fernando Road and the railroad tracts due to anticipated increases in traffic volumes in the central city. Trucks other than local and delivery trucks would be limited on roadways within the City. MIX M1 1.TFS13 _RSdiiTq Alternative 11, the Newhall Ranch Road Reduction, would have the same road alignments as Alternative I with the exception of Newhall Ranch Road east of Golden Valley Road. Newhall Ranch Road would also be reduced from eight to six lanes. The intersections on Newhall Ranch Road and Golden Valley Road would have intersections with dual left and one exclusive right turn lane. Alternative III, the Golden Valley Road Network is similar to the Newhall Ranch Road Reduction with the following changes: the Santa Clarita Parkway (a previously approved roadway) would Intersect with Golden Valley Road north of Via Princessa and south of Redview Drive. At the intersection of Santa Clarita Parkway and Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley Road would continue southeast to State Route 14 as in Alternatives I and U. This alternative would examine the roadway scenario if SOV trips were reduced by increasing the use of public transit, carpooling, bicycling, walking and other transportation alternatives to SOVs. This alternative has not yet been developed, but would likely include a reduction in the number of lanes for SOVs, greater connectivity to public transportation and other roadway designs to encourage alternatives to SOVs. .17. Alternative V: This alternative will be determined during the public scoping process of the EIR. Alternative V will likely be similar in design and scope of environmental impacts as the above alternatives. The Circulation Element Amendment would add several discussions on other circulation related topics including transportation improvement corridors, expansion of the City's fixed -route transit system, Metrolink services, and the regional Congestion Management Plan (CMP). Maps and graphics in the Circulation Element would be updated to provide consistency within the document. PRIMARY OBJECTIVES OF THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT • Identify the primary east -west corridor alternative to an extension of State Route 126. • Identify the existing and planned standards for major, secondary and limited highways in the City. • Identify the primary features of the City's transit system. • Reduce the level of vehicular trips in general, and specifically the use of autos for drive -alone trips. • Identify alternative commute options including Metrolink, commuter buses, park-and-ride, and telecommuting. • Encourage land use planning which supports these mobility goals. • Establish mobility corridors within the City. SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT An environmental consultant will prepare an environmental impact report to analyze five alternatives. Issue areas to be addressed are Identified in the Initial Study. The Issue areas Include earth (geologic hazards, grading), air, water (hydrology), biology (flora and fauna), noise, aesthetics/light and glare, land use, population and housing, transportation/circulation, public services, utilities, and cultural resources. As with most EIRs that analyze planning programs or policies, the Circulation Element EIR will be prepared as a Program EIR In accordance with Sections 15168 (a) and 15152 of the State CEQA Guidelines. These provisions allow for the preparation of a program EIR that provides for tiering. The program EIR is appropriate for planning programs that "...are related (to) logical pans in the chain of contemplated actions". Under this provision, the EIR would address any near-term or pending projects encompassed within the Circulation Element. This program EIR would give an equal level of analysis to each alternative for purposes of comparison. This program EIR approach would clarify that the element accommodates a range of -18. l I I U I I j I I V I recommendations and reclassifications, and the exact schedule of implementing each component,, of the Circulation Element is neither decided nor necessary at this time. -19- Alternative I Existing Planned Roadway System (No Project Alternative) I Alternative II Newhall Ranch Road Reduction Alternative III Golden Valley Road Network 1 L P I J 11 I L 17 I 1 I J I I u Appendix B Notice of Preparation Responses 'I STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY PETE WIISON, Gowmw DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION... DISTRICT 7, 120 SO. SPRING ST.— - ^� LOS ANGELES, CA 90012-3606 December 5, 1996 Ms. Laura Stotler Associate Planner City.of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23290 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355-2196 Dear Ms. Stotler: IGR/CEQA/NOP City of Santa Clarita GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT 9611015 LA -005-48.55/55.83 Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above -referenced proposed Santa. Clarita General Plan Circulation Element Amendment. This amendment will update information on the existing circulation system and consider five major alternative circulation system plans. Caltrans is keenly interested in the regional affects these alternatives may have on the State transportation system. You are aware that the circulation systems identified need to be.of such proportion that they can adequately serve the land use specified in the General Plan. To the extent possible, please identify funding sources for all referenced future transportation improvements in State Right -of -Way, and funding sources for other proposed regional transportation system improvements. As State and regional transportation systems are identified, please indicate the land use they will serve and, where applicable, the trips, directional flow and turning movements projected for the duration of this General.Plan Update. When specific development projects are proposed, environmental clearance .is needed prior to project approval. Individual redevelopment projects should be subject to a screening review of their potential traffic and circulation impacts. If determined necessary, additional traffic analysis, including volume counts, distribution modeling, signal warrants analysis, etc. should be performed prior to project approval; and the rate of growth can be served in. part by existing and proposed roadway and traffic controls. In addition, we suggest that the City consider augmenting its fund in order to implement both improvements to the local, and regional circulation system. Local contributions to the regional or CMP Roadway System through MTA can result in bringing more transportation dollars to the city, as the local matches serve as leverage for State/Federal funding. Typically, improvements to the CMP Roadway System in the City's jurisdiction havethepotential of being more mobility enhancing than improvements to local arterials. We look forward to reviewing the Draft Program EIR. We expect to receive a copy from the State Clearinghouse. However, to expedite the review process, you may send two copies in advance to the undersigned at the following address: Stephen J. Buswell District 7 IGR/CEQA Coordinator Transportation Planning Office, 1-10C 120 South Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 If you have any questions regarding this response, please call me at (213) 897-4429. Sincerely, Steve Buswell IGR/CEQA Coordinator STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Region 5 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 Long Beach, California 90802 (310)590-5113 November25,1996 Ms. Laura Stotler City of Santa Clarita 23290 Valencia Boulevard, Suite#300 Santa Clarita, California 91355-2196 Dear Ms. Stotler Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report Cityof Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element Amendment Los Angeles County The Department of Fish and Game (Department) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the above -referenced project, relative to impacts to biological resources. To enable Department staff to adequately review and comment on the proposed project, we ' recommend the following information be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Report: A complete assessment of flora and fauna within and adjacentto the project area, with particular emphasis upon identifying endangered, threatened, and locally unique species and sensitive habitats. a. A thorough assessment of rare plants and rare natural communities, followingthe Department's May 1984 Guidelines forAssessing Impactsto Rare Plants and Rare Natural Communities (Attachment 1). b. A complete -assessment of sensitive fish, wildlife, reptile, and amphibian species. Seasonal variations in use of the prejectareashouldalso be addressed. Focused species-specific surveys, conducted at the appropriate time of year and time of daywhen the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable, are required. Acceptable species-specific survey procedures should be developed in consultation with the Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. C. Rare, threatened, and endangered speciesto be addressed should include all those which meetthe California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA) definition (see CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). d. The Department's California Natural Diversity Data Base in Sacramento should be contacted at (916) 327-5960 to obtain current information on any previously reported sensitive species and habitats, including Significant Ms. Laura Stotler November25,1996 PageThree C. The Department generally does not support the use of relocation, salvage, and/or transplantation as mitigationfor impacts to rare, threatened, or endangered species. Department studies have shown that these efforts are experimental in nature and largely unsuccessful. 4. If the project has the potential to adversely affect species of plants or animals listed under the Califomia Endangered Species Act (CESA), either during construction or over the life of the project, a CESA-Memorandum of Understanding (CESA-MOU) must be obtained under §2081 of the Fish and Game Code. CESA-MOU's are issued to conserve, protect, enhance, and restore State -listed threatened or endangered species and their habitats. Early consultation is encouraged, as significant modifications to a project and mitigation measures may be required in orderto obtain a CSEA-MOU. a. Biological mitigation proposals should be of sufficient detail and resolution to satisfy the requirements for a C ESA-MOU. b. A Department -approved Mitigation agreement and Mitigation Plan are required for plants listed as rare underthe Native Plant Protection Act. 5. The Department opposes the elimination of watercourses andlortheir channelization or conversion to subsurface drains. All wetlands and watercourses, whether intermittent or perennial, must be retained and provided with substantial setbacks which preserve the riparian and aquatic habitat values and maintain their value to on-site and off-site wildlife populations. a. The Department has direct authority under Fish and Game Code §1600 et seq. in regard to any proposed activitywhich would divert, obstruct, or affect the natural flow orchange the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake. Early consultation is recommended, since modification of the proposed project may be required to avoid or reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources. b. A discu ssion of potential adverse impacts from any increased runoff, sedimentation, soil erosion, and/or urban pollutants on streams and watercourses on or near the project site, with mitigation measures proposed to alleviate such impacts, must be included. Ms. Laura Stotler November25,1996 PageTwo Natural Areas identified under Chapter 12 of the Fish and Game Code. Also, any Significant Ecological Areas (SEAS) or environmentally Sensitive HabitatArea ESHAs) that have been identified by the County of Los Angeles or any areas that are considered sensitive by the local jurisdiction that are located in or adjacent to the project area must be addressed. 2. Athorough discussion of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts expected to I adversely affect biological resources, with specific measures to offset such impacts. a. CEQA Guidelines, § 15125(a), direct that knowledge of the regional setting is critical to an assessment of environmental impacts and that special emphasis should be placed on resources that are rare orunique to the region. b. Project impacts should also be analyzed relative to their effects on off-site habitats and populations. Specifically, this should include nearby public lands, open space, adjacent natural habitats, and riparian ecosystems. Impacts to and maintenance of wildlife corridor/movement areas, including access to undisturbed habitat in adjacent areas, should be fully evaluated and provided. C. The zoning of areas fordevelopment projects orother uses that are nearby or adjacentto natural areas may inadvertently contribute towildlife-human interactions. A discussion of possible conflicts and mitigation measures to reduce these conflicts should be included in the environmental document. d. A cumulative effects analysis should be developed as described under CEQA Guidelines, § 15130. General and specific plans, as well as past, present, and anticipated future projects, should be analyzed relative to their impacts on similar plant communities and wildlife habitats. 3. A range of alternatives should be analyzed to ensure that alternatives to the proposed project are fully considered and evaluated. A range of alternatives which avoid or otherwise minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources should be included. Specific alternative locations should also be evaluated in areaswith lower resource sensitivity where appropriate. a. Mitigation measures for project impacts to sensitive plants, animals, and habitats should emphasize evaluation and selection of alternatives which avoid or otherwise minimize project impacts. Off-site compensation for unavoidable impacts through acquisition and protection of high quality habitat elsewhere should be addressed. b. The Department considers Rare Natural Communities as threatened habitats having both regional and local significance. Thus, these communities should be fully avoided and otherwise protected from project - related impacts (Attachment2). Ms. Laura Stotler November25,1996 Page Four Thank you for this opportunity to provide comment. Questions regarding this letter and further coordination on these issues should be directed to Ms. Chanelle Davis, Wildlife Biologist, at(909)627-1613. Sincerely, ILI� 111�-Patricia Wolf Acting Regional Manager Attachments cc: Ms. Chanelle Davis Department of Fish and Game Chino Hills, California Mr. RayAlly Department of Fish and Game Long Beach, California Ms. MaryMeyer Department of Fish and Game Ojai, California Ms. Leslie MacNair Departmentof Fish and Game Long Beach, California U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad, California U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers LosAngeles, California II It SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA I ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS Main Office 818 West Seventh Street 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-3435 t(213) 236-1800 1(213) 236-1825 www.scag.ca.gov • Presdrnn Maear Pm Tem in Retell: eDeu Ery lx Preside' Super• mr Brarhxu„< Burke, las angHn Cowry of PrcuMayoBaob U'did, Gy Min - Inmdve Ps, Pdn s„mZb Inamn. : Almide ryoflmperWil Sam Shup, hnlwrial Counp' d DhdIm, EI Cenw ry aLm Angden Y onne erahwv¢ Burke. U�An,eln Coum1' • McM1udAWan. Limam',les • Rwhard Alamme. lm Angeles • Elan Aowi. Tnamwd Bu • Bob Banlna. Momma • Gemge Bell • Hil krnson. W Mgeldm •S•ue Bauer, Iota • Miran lamde, Lm A„ea 11 n uh. R imn,dd • LLm CPo,L. lae Angeles • s Gawlry. ferries • h— En,druk. Redondo Bush • Dun, Drummond. Ion, kavh • Jahn F,rt Lia, im"k,•MwhaAFuer.LmMgla- Tuley. Ca4M>as • 0.mh Wlama. Lw.ingeln an -land Glendale • . I Goldberg. Im les • Lind Harleman. Ingknwd •Mike andez. big dd. W, Nam Holden, Loa Angeles • Abbe land, D' MI,i n,d • Beal, - Messes. Alhmabra Darad Mlen, 4dmdile F. ekF. Nakam. Tonarr • knny Ompeza. Lon, • kanace Paw, hm Rdm • Mark Wdky- as lAngrin • Inehad RmNan. Los s .Allen RnNia. Somb Ga,, • Marone .11 Compam • Bay Smnh, kllnaner • Rudy Swrwch, Un Angelex • Joel wain. Las Angeles - wSlmn, lm Angela • Judy wnghr. Clarcmw, 1za.Samh OranPden+ ry d gin e: }tarty -and Orwge y • Ram Laes. Loa Adman—n• h - di,hand Buena Art • Jan - &Nen pm ,, Cn • Ruhad Daaw, lake fano •Sandra Cn, Cmn Mev • 4:1-r.nd H,g,n8 S,n Clrm.nr<-Wally Linn, U Arty,Brca of M, ide: Bob Buneq Riverside Demus Uraga, Cil,maa • Duk ILAI, Pile Ower, . Roo Lmamnl, . lemma e • Mo Rnhaaa:.umecwa try d L a Rdiem anda I ey walker. San dino Count • BIB Al.undrr, Rancho wga • Pm &81ry', Twmaynme Palma • lawdre Nm m, Cm. •Dassd Sideman. Fw,m, •Lan Mww, Ln kmard,nn • Guenn Norton - m, Hdh m =,.=1fL .:Indy M,kels."mrma Co, - mr I .T ammand Oaks • San Daily. Camndla Melmn, Smu Paula ® Famed nn A....I'd Varv, sxn November 26, 1996 Ms. Laura Stotler, Planner City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23290 Valencia' Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355-2196 RE: Comments on the Notice of Preparation for the Draft EIR, City of Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element Amendment - SCAG No. 19600406 Dear Ms Stotler: Thank you for submitting the Notice of Preparation for the Draft EIR for City of Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element Amendment to SCAG for review and comment. As areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG assists cities, counties and other agencies in reviewing projects and plans for consistency with regional plans. In addition, The California Environmental Quality Act requires that EIRs discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable general plans and regional plans (Section 15125 [b]). If there are inconsistencies, an explanation and rationalization for such inconsistencies should be provided. Please provide a minimum of 45 days for SCAG to review the.Draft EIR when this document is available. If you have any questions regarding the attached comments, please contact Bill Boyd at (213) 236-1963. Slncerely,f i /, i/ DOCHE-BOULOS Manager, Intergovernmental Review I:A3S$re) 1:]:0ZCO)9 November 26, 1996 Ms. Laura Stotler Page 2 COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT The project encompasses the preparation of a program EIR for the City of Santa Clarita's Circulation Element. Five alternative circulation plans will be evaluated. In addition to changes to the existing circulation network, the Draft EIR will consider other related transportation topics including transportation corridors, expansion of the City's fixed route transit system, Metrolink and the regional Congestion Management Plan. CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GUIDE POLICIES The Growth Management Chapter (GMC) of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) contains the following policy that is particularly, applicable and should be addressed in the Draft EIR for the proposed project': o The population, housing, and jobs forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG's Regional Council and that reflect local plans and policies, shall be used by SCAG in all phases of implementation and review. O The timing, financing, and location of public facilities, utility systems, and transportation systems shall be used by SCAG to implement the region's growth policies. o Encourage patterns of urban development and land use which reduces costs of infrastructure construction and make better use of existing facilities. o Encourage subregions to define an economic strategy to maintain the economic vitality of the subregion, including the development and use of marketing programs, and other economic incentives, which support attainment of subregional goals and policies. O Support local jurisdictions' efforts to minimize the cost of infrastructure and public ' See Endnote. November 26, 1996 Ms. Laura Stotler Page 3 service delivery, and efforts to seek new sources of funding for development and the provision of services. o Support local jurisdictions' actions to minimize red tape and expedite the permitting process to maintain economic vitality and competitiveness. o Encourage existing or proposed local jurisdictions' programs aimed at designing land uses which encourage the use of transit and thus reduce the need for roadway expansion, reduce the number of auto trips and vehicle miles traveled, and create opportunities for residents to walk and bike. o Encourage local jurisdictions' plans that maximize the use of existing urbanized areas accessible to transit through infill and redevelopment. o Support local plans to increase density of future development located at strategic points along the regional commuter rail, transit systems, and activity centers. O Support local jurisdictions' to establish mixed-use clusters and other transit -oriented developments around transit stations and along transit corridors. o Encourage developments in and around activity centers, transportation node corridors, underutilized infrastructure systems, and areas needing recycling and redevelopment. o Support and encourage settlement patterns which contain a range of urban densities. o Encourage planned development in locations least likely to cause adverse environmental impact - 0 Support the protection of vital resources such as wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, woodlands, production lands, and land containing unique and endangered plants and animals. o Support the protection of vital resources such as wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, woodlands, production lands, and land containing unique and endangered plants and animals. o Encourage the implementation of measures aimed at the preservation and protection of recorded and unrecorded cultural resources and archaeological sites. November 26, 1996 Ms. Laura Stotler Page 4 o Discourage development, or encourage the use of special design requirements, in areas with steep slopes, high fire, flood, and seismic hazards. o Encourage mitigation measures that reduce noise in certain locations, measures aimed at preservation of biological and ecological resources, measures that would reduce exposure to seismic hazards, minimize earthquake damage, and develop emergency response and recovery plans. The Regional Mobility Element (RME) also has policies pertinent to this proposed projectz. This chapter links the goal of sustaining mobility with the goals of fostering economic development, enhancing the environment, reducing energy consumption, promoting transportation -friendly development patterns, and encouraging fair and equitable access to residents affected by socio- economic, geographic and commercial limitations. Among the relevant policies of this chapter are the following: TranMgrtation Demand Management Policies o Promote Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs along with transit and ridesharing facilities as a viable and desirable part of the overall mobilityprogram while recognizing the particular needs of individual subregions. o Support the development of public seed funding for new and innovative demonstration programs. o Support the extension of TDM program implementation to non -commute trips far public and private sector activities. o Support the coordination of land use and transportation decisions with land use and transportation capacity, taking into account the potential for demand management strategies to mitigate travel demand if providedfor as a part of the entire package. o Support the use of market incentives as a mechanism to affect and modify behavior toward the use of alternative modes for both commute and non -commute travel. o Support efforts to educate the public on the efficacy of demand management strategies and increase the use of alternative transportation. z See Endnote. li II November 26, 1996 Ms. Laura Stotler Page 5 Regional Transit Program Policies o Public transportation programs should be considered an essential public service because of their social, economic, and environmental benefits. o Implementation of new transit service or improvements in existing and expanded transit ' should be supportive of the Centers -Based Transit Network (cbtn) concept. o Specific service types, levels and configuration should be determined by the local transit providers, transit users, local jurisdictions, and applicable county transportation commissions. a o Public transit services shall be designed to provide the maximum availability at times convenientfor use. b o Public transit services shall be designed to be available for use without impediments. c o Public transit services should be designed to provide maximum user utility. d O New and expansion transit programs which are designed to meet the objectives of Transportation Control Measures contained in the AQMP shall receive priority for funding. e o Local funding resources for transit should be used to leverage all available federal funding sources as applicable. f o All existing and new public transportation services, facilities, and/or systems shall be fully accessible to persons with disabilities 'as defined, mandated, and required under the applicable Titles and Sections of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act, 1974. g o All existing and new public transit services shall be provided in a manner which does not preclude use on the basis of race, color, and/or national origin as defined, mandated and required under Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act, 1964. h o All existing and new public transit services, facilities, andlorsystems shall evaluate the potential for private sector participation through the use of November 26, 1996 Ms. Laura Stotler Page 6 competitive procurement based on Fully Allocated Costing methodologies. Regional Streets and Highways Program Policies o Potential down -stream congestion impacts from capacity enhancing projects will be studied. o HOV facilities shall be constructed and operated to encourage use of public and private transit, carpools; vanpools, and other HOVs. o In addition to increasing occupancy thresholds on HOV facilities, consideration should be given to additional or expanded HDV capacity in the corridor. o Alternative modes and projects shall be developed and implemented where implementation of HDV element projects is demonstrated to be unfeasible due to widespread local opposition. o HOV lanes shall be provided for in new facility construction and for capacity enhancements of existing facilities in accordance with the HOV program. o Certain freeway facilities within the SLAG region lack adequate median, shoulder or existing rights-of-way to add HOV lanes. When the formation of two plus occupancy carpools on these facilities yield consistent directional HOV volumes averaging I500 vehicles per hour' during the daily peak periods of congestion, SLAG shall request Caltrans to initiate a study as to how the HOV improvement can be implemented before programming the project. The study shall examine alternatives for the HOV, operational considerations (including IVHS), public support for HOV (including conversion) within the corridor, and pricing, as well as the legal and environmental ramifications of each speck project - 0 Toll facilities shall be designed, operated, and priced to encourage use of public and private transit, carpools, vanpools, and other HOV. Average vehicle occupancy (AVO) of the toll facilities shall be comparable to similar HDV facilities. o Pricing policies may be applied to maintain appropriate levels of service on facilities. 3 Assumes that once the conversion takes place, HOV traffic volumes will increase 20%. I I 11 11 November 26, 1996 Ms. Laura Stotler Page 7 o Necessary steps to develop and implement arterial HOV facilities in support of transit and rideshare activities shall be initiated. O Necessary steps to develop and implement Smart Corridors and Smart Streets to achieve regional mobility objectives shall be initiated. o Expanded transportation system management by local jurisdictions will be encouraged. O The development and application of management systems by local jurisdictions as a means of optimizing the expenditure of scarce maintenance, operating, and capital funds should be supported. o New transportation infrastructure will incorporate advanced system technologies, where appropriate. ' o TSM activities throughout the region shall be coordinated among jurisdictions. o Methods to improve safety and reduce incidents on the regional transportation system will be considered. Regional Non -Motorized Transportation Program Policies o The development of the regional transportation system should include a non -motorized ' transportation system that provides an effective alternative to auto travel for appropriate trips. The planning and development of transportation projects and systems should incorporate the following, as appropriate: ` a o Provision of safe, convenient, and continuous bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure to and throughout areas with existing and potential demand such as activity areas, schools, recreational areas (including those areas served by trails), which will ultimately offer the same or better accessibility provided to the motorized vehicle. o Accessibility to and on transit (bus terminals, rail stations, Park -And -Ride lots), where there is demand and where transit boarding time will not be significantly delayed. c O Maintenance of safe, convenient, and continuous non -motorized travel ' during and. after the construction of transportation and general 1 November 26, 1996 Ms. Laura Stotler Page 8 development projects. Existing bikeways and pedestrian walkways should not be removed without mitigation that is as effective as the original facility. o Entities and programs that currently support the auto should be encouraged to provide the same types of services for non -motorized transportation, including education, promotion, and enforcement. o Urban form, land use and site -design policies should include requirements for safe and convenient non -motorized transportation, including the development of bicycle and pedestrian friendly environments near transit. Goods Movement Program Policies o Growth in the demand for goods movement will be accommodated through the provision of adequate multi -modal and intermodal infrastructure that is consistent with overall regional goals, objectives, and policies. o Pricing strategies will be considered as one of the strategies to reduce peak period congestion. o Demand for. increased goods movement will be given consideration in corridors where system connectivity andgap closure projects are being planned. o The development and use of pipelines within suitable utility corridors of public rights-of- way will be encouraged. o The siting, routing, and construction of pipelines will be conducted so as to avoid disruptions of sensitive environments, to improve the safety and reliability of the system, and to protect ground water quality. o Arterial truck access routes will be coordinated for .the purpose of improving system connectivity, eliminating circuitous routings, and reducing delays. o The potential for adverse impacts to mode shares, diversion of business to other ports and loss of cost -competitiveness in goods movement to, from, and through the SLAG region will be considered in the development and implementation of local and regional plans. o Planning to accommodate multi -modal and inter -modal goods movement shall be an integral part of the land use and circulation elements of local government general plans and speck plans. o Local governments shall consider requiring off-street dock facilities for all new buildings and for existing buildings that are approved for extensive renovation; the facilities should November 26, 1996 Ms. Laura Stotler Page 9 be sufficient to accommodate the shipping and receiving needs of such buildings. o In order to assist in the identification of potential bottlenecks that could occur downstream of cargo flows, the identification of potential internodal routes that cross or connect to provide future transfer facility nodes (highway, rail, harbor or airports) shall be encouraged. o Support long-range corridors that will employ multi -modal and inter -modal strategies designed to maintain mobilityfor people, goods, services,- and information in ways that are safe, efficient, cost-effective, meet environmental mandates, and foster economic development. o Support long-range projects and rights-of-way preservation programs that foster the 1 development of an urban form conducive to reducing single occupant vehicle trips. 1 I 1 I I 1 November 26, 1996 Ms. Laura Stotler Page 10 SOiT BIERN CALIFORNIA- ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNM UM Roles and Authorities SCAG is a Joint Powers Agency established under California Goverment Code Section 6502 et ". Under federal and state law, SCAG is designated as a Council of Govenunents (COG); a Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), and a Metropolitan v Planning Organa tion (MPO). SCAO's mandated roles and responsibilities include the following: SCAG is designated by the federal government as the Region's Metropolitan Planning Organiradon and mandated to maintain a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process resulting in a Regional Transportation Plan and a Regional Transportation Improvement Program pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 1134(g) -(h), 49 U.S.C. 11607(f) -(g) et seq., 23 C.F.R. §450, and 49 C.F.R. 1613. SCAG is also the designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency, and as such is responsible for both preparation of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) under California Government Code Section 65080. SCAG is responsible for developing the demographic projections andthe integrated I" use, housing, employment, and transportation programs, measures, and strategies portions of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plat, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 40460(b) -(c). SCAG is also designated under 42 U.S.C. §7504(a) as a Qo-Lead Agency for air quality planning for the Central Coast and Southeast Desert Air Basin District. SCAG is responsible under the Federal Clean Air Act for dcUnni ting Conformity of Projects, Plans and Programs to the Air Plan, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §7506. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65089.2, SCAG is responsible for reviewing all Congestion Management Plans (CMPs) for consistency with regional transportation plats required by Section 65080 of the Government Code. SCAG must also evaluate the consistency anti compatibility of such programs within the region. SCAG is the authorized regional agency for Inter -Governmental Review of Programa proposed for federal financial assistance and direct development activities, pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 12,372 (replacing A-95 Review). SCAG reviews, Pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087, Environmental Impact Reports of projects of regional significance for consistency with regional plana [California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Sections 15206and 15125(b)]. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 11288(a)(2) (Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act), SCAG is the authorized Areawlde Waste Treatment Management Planning Agency. SCAG is responsible for preparation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584(a). SCAG is responsible (with the San Dego Association of Governments and the Santa Barbara County/Cities Area Planning Camrcil) for preparing the Southern California Hazardous Waste Management Pian pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 25135.3. MWD METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Ms. Laura Stotler City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Dear Ms. Stotler: RECEIVED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA December 9, 1996 Notice of Preparation of a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the City of Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element Amendment We have received the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (NOP) for the City of Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element Amendment (Amendment). The City proposes to update information on the existing circulation system and address several other changes to the text and maps in the existing Circulation Element. These changes include the removal of SR 126 from the master plan of arterial highways. Five major alternative circulation system plans will be considered for the Amendment. In addition to the potential modification of the circulation network, the Amendment will discuss other circulation - related topics including transportation improvement corridors, expansion of the City's fixed route transit system, Metrolink, and the regional Congestion Management Plan. This letter contains The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California's (Metropolitan) response as a potentially affected public agency. Our review of the NOP indicates that Metropolitan's existing Foothill Feeder - Santa Clara Valley Pipeline and proposed Second Barrel, Santa Clara River Spillway, Saugus Tunnel, Placenta Tunnel, and Newhall Tunnel traverse the proposed project area. In addition, Metropolitan's proposed West Valley Conveyance - Santa Clara Feeder and interconnection structure may cross the proposed project area. The enclosed maps show Metropolitan's facilities in relation to the proposed project. It will be necessary for the City to consider these facilities in its project planning. In order to avoid potential conflicts with Metropolitan's facilities, we request that preliminary engineering design drawings or improvement plans for any activity in the area of Metropolitan's pipelines and rights-of-way be submitted for our review and written approval. You may obtain detailed prints of drawings of Metropolitan's pipelines and Tflf RMOPOVTAN WATER 0/STRICT Of SOUTHERN CAURTRMA Ms. Laura Stotler -2- December 9, 1996 rights-of-way by calling Metropolitan's Substructures Information Line at (213) 217-6564. To assist you in preparing plans that are compatible with Metropolitan's facilities and easements, we have enclosed a copy of the "Guidelines for Developments in the Area of Facilities, Fee Properties, and/or Easements of The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California." Please note that all submitted designs or plans must clearly identify Metropolitan's facilities and rights- of-way. We appreciate the opportunity to provide input to your planning process. If you have any questions related to Metropolitan's facilities, please contact Mr. Leslie Barrett of the Substructures Section at (213) 217-6245. If we can be of further assistance, please contact me at (213) 217-6242. MME Enclosures Very truly yours, Lo.. -.,..e. Laura J. Simo k Principal Environmental Specialist [! II Area of 11 r District o the a 1. Introduction ' a. The following general guidelines should be followed for the design of proposed facilities and developments in the area of Metropolitan's facilities, fee properties, and/or easements. ' b. We require that 3 copies of your tentative and final record maps, grading, paving, street improvement, landscape, storm drain, and utility plans be submitted for our review and written approval as they pertain to Metropolitan's facilities, fee properties and/or easements, prior to the commencement of any construction work. ' 2. Plans, Parcel and Tract Maps The following are Metropolitan's requirements for the identification of its.facilities, fee properties, and/or easements on your plans, parcel -maps and tract maps: a. Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements and ' its pipelines and other facilities must be fully shown and identified as Metropolitan's on all applicable plans. ' b. Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements must be shown and identified as Metropolitan's with the official recording data on all applicable parcel and tract maps. C. Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements and existing survey monuments must be dimensionally tied to the parcel or tract boundaries. d. Metropolitan's records of surveys must be referenced on the parcel and tract maps. II II - 2 - 3. Maintenance of Access Along Metropolitan's Rights -of -Way a. Proposed cut or fill slopes exceeding 10 percent are normally not allowed within Metropolitan's fee properties or easements. This is required to facilitate the use of construction and maintenance equipment, and provide access to its aboveground and belowground facilities. b. We require that 16 -foot -wide commercial -type driveway approaches be constructed on both sides of all streets crossing Metropolitan's rights-of-way. Openings are required in any median island. Access ramps, if necessary, must be at least 16 -feet -wide. Grades of ramps are normally not allowed to exceed 10 percent. If the slope of an access ramp must.exceed 10 percent due to the topography, the.ramp.must be paved. We require a 40 -foot -long level area on the driveway approach to access ramps where the ramp meets the street. At -Metropolitan's fee properties, we may require fences and gates. C. The terms of Metropolitan's permanent easement deeds normally preclude the building or maintenance of structures of any nature or kind within its.easements,.to ensure safety and avoid interference with operation and maintenance of Metropolitan's pipelines or other facilities. Metropolitan must have vehicular access along the easements at all times for inspection, patrolling, and for maintenance of the pipelines and other facilities on a routine basis. We require a 20 -foot -wide clear zone around all above -ground facilities for this routine access. This clear zone should slope away fromour facility on a grade not to exceed 2 percent. We must also have access along the easements with construction equipment. An example of this is shown on Figure 1. d. The footings of any proposed buildings adjacent to Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements must not encroach into the fee property or easement or impose additional loading on Metropolitan's pipelines or other facilities therein. A typical situation is shown on Figure.2. Prints of the detail plans of the footings for any .building or structure adjacent to the fee property or easement must be submitted for our review and written approval as they pertain to the pipeline or other facilities therein. Also, roof eaves of buildings adjacent to the easement or fee property must not overhang into the fee property or easement area. 4. 5. - 3 - e. Metropolitan's pipelines and other facilities, e.g. structure:;, manholes, equipment, survey monuments, etc. within its fee properties and/or easements must be protected from damage by the easement holder on Metropolitan's property or the property owner where Metropolitan has an easement, at no expense to Metropolitan. If the facility is a cathodic protection station it shall be located prior to any grading or excavation. The exact location, description and way of protection shall be shown on the related plans for the easement area. Easements on Metropolitan's Property a. We encourage the use of Metropolitan's fee rights- of-way by governmental agencies for public street and utility purposes, provided that such use does not interfere with Metropolitan's use of the property, the entire width of the property is accepted into the agency's public street system and fair market value is paid for such use of the right-of-way. b. Please contact the Director of Metropolitan's Right of Way and Land Division, telephone (213) 250-6302, concerning easementsfor landscaping, street, storm drain, sewer, water or other public facilities proposed within Metropolitan's fee properties. A map and legal description of the requested easements must be submitted. Also, written evidence must be submitted that shows the city or county will accept the easement'for the specific purposes into its public system. The grant of the easement will be subject to Metropolitan's rights to use.its land for water pipelines and related purposes to the same extent as if such grant had not been made. There will be a charge for the easement. Please note that, if entry is required on the property prior to issuance of the easement, an entry permit must be obtained. There will also be a charge for the entry permit. Landscaping Metropolitan's landscape guidelines for its fee Dronerties and/or easements are as follows: a. A green belt may be.allowed within Metropolitan's fee property or easement. b. All landscape plans shall show the location and size of Metropolitan's fee property and/or easement and the location and size of Metropolitan's pipeline or other facilities therein. 6. - 4 - C. Absolutely no trees will of the centerline of Metropolitan's pipelines and facilities. 11 1 be allowed within 15 feet ' existing or future d. Deep-rooted trees are prohibited within Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements. Shallow - rooted trees are the only trees allowed. The shallow -rooted trees will not be permitted any closer than 15 feet from the centerline of -the pipeline, and such trees shall not be taller than 25 feet with a root spread no greater than 20 feet in diameter at maturity. Shrubs, bushes, vines, and ground cover are permitted, but larger shrubs and bushes should not be planted directly over our pipeline. Turf is acceptable. We require submittal of landscape plans for Metropolitan's prior review and written approval. (See Figure 3). e. The landscape plans must contain provisions for Metropolitan's vehicular access at all times along its rights-of-way.to its pipelines or facilities therein. Gates capable of accepting Metropolitan's locks are required in any fences across its rights-of-way. Also, any walks or drainage facilities across its access route must be constructed to AASHTO H-20 loading standards. f. Rights to landscape any of Metropolitan's fee properties must be acquired from its Right of Way and Land Division. Appropriate entry permits must be obtained prior to any entry on its property. There will be a charge for any entry permit or easements required. Fencing Metropolitan requires that perimeter fencing of its fee properties and facilities be constructed of universal chain link, 6 feet in height and topped with 3 strands of barbed wire angled upward and outward at a 45 degree angle or an approved equal for a total fence height of 7 feet. Suitable substitute fencing may be considered by Metropolitan. (Please see Figure 5 for details). 7. Utilities in Metropolitan's and Metropolitan's policy for the alinement of utilities permitted within its fee properties and/or easements and street rights-of-way is as follows: - 5 - a. Permanent structures, including catch basins, manholes, powe:: poles, telephone riser boxes, etc., shall not be located within its fee properties and/or easements. b. We request that permanent utility structures within public streets; in which Metropolitan's facilities are constructed under the Metropolitan Water District Act, be placed as far from our pipeline as possible, but not closer than 5 feet from the outside of our pipeline. C. The installation of utilities over or under Metropolitan's pipeline(s) must be in accordance with the requirements shown on the enclosed printsofDrawings Nos. C-11632 and C-9547. Whenever possible we request a minimum of one foot clearance between Metropolitan's pipe and your facility. Temporary support of Metropolitan's pipe may also be required at undercrossings of its pipe in an open trench. The temporary support plans must be reviewed and approved by Metropolitan. d. Lateral utility.crossings of Metropolitan's pipelines must be as perpendicular to its pipeline alinement as practical. Prior to anyexcavation our pipeline shall be located manually and any excavation within two feet of our pipeline must be done by hand. This shall be noted on the appropriate drawings. e. Utilities constructed longitudinally within Metropolitan's rights-of-way must be located outside the theoretical trench prism for uncovering its pipeline and must be located parallel to and as close to its rights- of-way lines as practical. f. When piping is jacked or installed in jacked casing or tunnel under Metropolitan's pipe, there must be at least two feet of vertical clearance between the bottom of Metropolitan's pipe and the top of the jacked pipe, jacked casing or tunnel.- We also require that detail drawings of the shoring for the jacking or tunneling pits be submitted.for our review and approval. Provisions must be madetogrout any voids around the exterior of the jacked pipe, jacked casing or tunnel. If the piping is installed in a jacked casing or tunnel the -annular space between the piping and the jacked casing or tunnel must be filled with grout. - 6 - 9. overhead electrical and telephone line requirements: 1) Conductor clearances are to conform to the California State Public Utilities Commission, General Order 95, for Overhead Electrical Line Construction or at a:greater clearance if required by Metropolitan. Under no circumstances shall clearance be less than 35 feet. 2) A marker must be attached to the power pole showing the ground clearance and line voltage, to help prevent damage to your facilities during maintenance or other work being done in.the area. 3) Line clearance over Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements shall be shown on the drawing to indicate the lowest point of the line under the most adverse conditions including consideration of sag, wind load, temperature.change, and support type. We require that overhead lines be located at least 30 feet laterally away from all above -ground structures on the pipelines. 4) when underground electrical conduits, 120 volts or greater, are installed within Metropolitan's fee property and/or easement, the conduits must be incased in a minimum of three inches of red concrete. Where possible, above ground warning signs must also be placed at the right-of-way lines where the conduits enter and exit the right-of-way. h. The construction of sewerlines in Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements must conform to the California Department of Health Services Criteria for the Separation of Water Mains and Sanitary Services and the local City or County Health Code Ordinance as it relates to installation of sewers in the vicinity of pressure waterlines. The construction of sewerlines.should also conform to these standards in street rights -of- way. i. Cross sections shall be provided for all pipeline crossings showing Metropolitan's fee property and/or easement limits and -the location of our pipeline (s) TheM1 exact locations of the crossing pipelines and their elevations shall be marked on as -built drawings for our information. I' 3) Sewer or storm drain pipeline: A - 7 - two-inch green warning tape shall be imprinted with: j. Potholing of Metropolitan's pipeline is required if the vertical clearance between a utility and Metropolitan's pipeline is indicated on the plan to be one foot or less. If the indicated clearance is between one and two feet, potholing is suggested. Metropolitan will provide ' a representative to assists others in locating and identifying its pipeline. Two -working days notice is requested. k. Adequate shoring and bracing is required for the full depth of the trench when the excavation encroaches within the zone shown on Figure 4. 1. The location of utilities within Metropolitan's fee property and/or easement shall be plainly.marked to ' help prevent damage during maintenance or other work done in the area. Detectable tape over buried utilities should be placed a minimum of 12 inches above the utility and shall conform to the following requirements: 1) Water pipeline: A two-inch blue warning. tape shall be imprinted with: "CAUTION BURIED WATER PIPELINE" 2) Gas, oil, or chemical pipeline: A two. -inch yellow warning tape shall be imprinted with: "CAUTION BURIED PIPELINE" I 3) Sewer or storm drain pipeline: A two-inch green warning tape shall be imprinted with: "CAUTION BURIED PIPELINE" ' 4) Electric, street lighting, or traffic signals conduit: A two-inch red warning tape shall be imprinted with: ' "CAUTION BURIED CONDUIT" 5) two-inch Telephone, or television conduit: A orange warning tape shall be imprinted with: ' "CAUTION BURIED CONDUIT" I M. Cathodic Protection requirements: 1) If there is a cathodic protection station for Metropolitan's pipeline in the area of the proposed work, it shall.be located prior to any.grading or excavation. The exact location, description and manner of protection shall be shown on all applicable plans. Please contact Metropolitan's Corrosion Engineering Section, located at Metropolitan's F. E. Weymouth Softening and Filtration Plant, 700 North Moreno Avenue, La Verne, California 91750, telephone (714) 593-7474, for the locations of Metropolitan's cathodic protection stations. 2) If an induced -current cathodic protection system is to be installed on.any pipeline crossing Metropolitan's pipeline, please contact Mr. Wayne E. Risner at (714) 593-7474 or (213) 250-5085. He will review the proposed system and determine if any conflicts will arise with the existing cathodic protection systems installed by Metropolitan. 3) Within Metropolitan's rights-of-way, pipelines and carrier pipes (casings) shall be coated with an approved protective coating to conform to Metropolitan's requirements,.and shall be maintained in a neat and orderly condition as.directed by Metropolitan. The application and monitoring.of cathodic protection on the pipeline and casing shall conform to Title 49 of the Code of Federal,Regulations, Part 195. 4) If a steel carrier pipe (casing) is used: (a) Cathodic protection shall be provided by use of a sacrificial magnesium anode (a -sketch showing the cathodic protection details can be provided for the designers information). (b) The steel carrier pipe shall be protected with a coal tar enamel coating inside and out in accordance with AWWA C203 specification. n. All trenches shall be excavated to comply with the CAL/OSHA Construction Safety Orders, Article 6, beginning with Sections 1539 through 1547. Trench backfill shall be placed in 8 -inch lifts and shall be compacted to 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM D698) across roadways and through protective dikes. Trench backfill elsewhere will be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D698). o. Control cables connected with the operation of Metropolitan's system are buried within streets, its fee properties and/or easements. The locations and elevations of these cables shall be shown on the drawings. The drawings shall note that prior to any excavation in the area, the control cables shall be located and measures shall be taken by the contractor to.protect the cables in place. p. Metropolitan is a member of Underground Service Alert (USA). The contractor (excavator) shall contact USA at 1-800-422-4133 (Southern California) at least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation work. The contractor will be liable for any damage to Metropolitan's facilities as a result of the construction. 8. Paramount Right ' Facilities constructed within Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements shall be subject to the paramount right of Metropolitan to use its fee properties ' and/or easements for the purpose for which they were acquired. If at any time Metropolitan or its assigns should, in the exercise of their rights, find it necessary to remove any of the facilities from the.fee properties ' and/or easements, such removal and replacement shall be at the expense of the owner of the facility. ' 9. Modification of Metropolitan's Facilities ' when a manhole or other of Metropolitan's facilities must be modified to accommodate your construction or recons- truction, Metropolitan will modify the facilities with its forces. This should be noted on the construction plans. The estimated cost to perform this modification will be given to you and we will require a deposit for this amount before the work is performed. Once the deposit is received, we will ' schedule the work. our forces will coordinate.the work with your contractor. Our final billing will be based on actual cost incurred, and will include materials, construction, engineering plan review, inspection, and administrative overhead charges calculated in accordance with Metropolitan's standard accounting practices. If the cost is less than the deposit, a refund will be made; however, if the cost exceeds ' the deposit,.an invoice will be forwarded for payment of the additional amount. II FJ 10. 11. - 10 - Drainage a. Residential or commercial development typically increases and concentrates the peak storm water runoff as well as the total yearly storm runoff from an area, thereby increasing the requirements for storm drain facilities downstream of the development. Also, throughout the year water from landscape irrigation, car washing, and other outdoor domestic water uses flows into the storm drainage system resulting in weed abatement, insect infestation, obstructed access and other problems. Therefore, it is Metropolitan's usual practice not to approve plans that show discharge of drainage from developments onto its fee properties and/or easements. b. If water must be carried across or discharged onto Metropolitan's fee properties and/or easements, Metropolitan will insist that plans for development provide that it be carried by closed conduit or lined open channel approved in writing by Metropolitan. Also the drainage facilities must be maintained by others, e.g., city, county, homeowners association, etc. If the development proposes changes to existing drainage features, then the developer shall make provisions to provide for replacement and these changes must be approved by Metropolitan in writing. Construction Coordination During construction, Metropolitan's field representative will make periodic inspections. We request that a stipulation be added to the plans or specifications for notification of Mr. of Metropolitan's Operations Services Branch, telephone 213) 250- , at least two working days prior to .any work in the vicinity of our facilities. 12. Pipeline Loading Restrictions a. Metropolitan's pipelines and conduits vary.in structural strength, and some are not adequate for AASHTO H-20 loading. Therefore, specific loads over the specific sections of pipe or conduit must be reviewed and approved by Metropolitan. However, Metropolitan's pipelines are typically adequate for AASHTO H-20 loading provided that the cover over the pipeline is not less than four feet or the cover is not substantially increased. If the temporary cover over the pipeline during construction is between three and four feet, equipment must restricted to that which 11 �I ' b. The existing cover over the pipeline shall be maintained unless Metropolitan determines that proposed changes do not pose a hazard to the integrity of the �I pipelineoran impediment to its maintenance. 13. Blasting ' a. At least 20 days prior to the start of any drilling for rock excavation blasting, or any blasting, in ' the vicinity of Metropolitan's facilities, a two-part preliminary conceptual plan shall be submitted to Metropolitan as follows: ' b. Part 1 of the conceptual plan shall include a complete summary of proposed transportation, handling, storage, and use of explosions. C. Part 2 shall include the proposed general concept for blasting, including controlled blasting techniques and controls of.noise, fly rock,.airblast, and ground vibration. 14. CEQA Requirements a. When Environmental Documents Have.Not Been Prepared ' 1) Regulations implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) require that ' Metropolitan have an opportunity to consult with the agency or consultants preparing any environmental documentation. We are required to review and consider the environmental effects of the project as shown in ' the NegativeDeclaration or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for your project before.committing Metropolitan to approve your request. If the is imposes loads no greater than AASHTO H-10. cover between two and three feet, equipment must be restricted to that of a Caterpillar D-4 tract -type tractor. If the cover is less than two feet, only hand equipment may be used. Also, if the contractor plans to use any equipment over Metropolitan's pipeline which will impose loads greater than ' AASHTO H-20, it will be necessary to submit the specifications of such equipment for our review and approval at least one week prior to its use. More restrictive requirements may apply to the loading guideline over the San Diego Pipelines ' 1 and 2, portions of the Orange County Feeder, and the Colorado River Aqueduct. Please contact us for loading restrictions on all of Metropolitan's pipelines and ' conduits. ' b. The existing cover over the pipeline shall be maintained unless Metropolitan determines that proposed changes do not pose a hazard to the integrity of the �I pipelineoran impediment to its maintenance. 13. Blasting ' a. At least 20 days prior to the start of any drilling for rock excavation blasting, or any blasting, in ' the vicinity of Metropolitan's facilities, a two-part preliminary conceptual plan shall be submitted to Metropolitan as follows: ' b. Part 1 of the conceptual plan shall include a complete summary of proposed transportation, handling, storage, and use of explosions. C. Part 2 shall include the proposed general concept for blasting, including controlled blasting techniques and controls of.noise, fly rock,.airblast, and ground vibration. 14. CEQA Requirements a. When Environmental Documents Have.Not Been Prepared ' 1) Regulations implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) require that ' Metropolitan have an opportunity to consult with the agency or consultants preparing any environmental documentation. We are required to review and consider the environmental effects of the project as shown in ' the NegativeDeclaration or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for your project before.committing Metropolitan to approve your request. - 12 - 2) In order to ensure compliance with the regulations implementing CEQA where Metropolitan is not the Lead Agency, the following minimum procedures to ensure compliance with the Act have been established: a) Metropolitan shall be timely advised of any determination that a Categorical Exemption applies to the project. The Lead Agency is to advise Metropolitan that it and other agencies participating in the project have complied with the requirements of CEQA prior to Metropolitan's participation. b) Metropolitan is to be consulted during the preparation of the Negative Declaration or EIR. c) Metropolitan is to review and.submit-any necessary comments on the Negative Declaration or draft EIR. d) Metropolitan is to be indemnified for any costs or liability arising out of any violation of any laws or regulations including but not limited to the California Environmental Quality Act and its. implementing regulations. b. When Environmental Documents Have Been Prepared If environmental documents have been prepared for your project, pleasefurnishus a copy for our review and files in a timely manner so that we may have sufficient time to review and comment. The following steps must also be accomplished: - 1) The Lead Agency is to advise Metropolitan that it and other agencies participating in the.project have complied with the requirements of CEQA prior to Metropolitan's participation. 2) You must agree to indemnify Metropolitan, its officers, engineers, and agents for any costs or liability arising out of any violation of any laws or regulations including but not limited to the California Environmental Quality Act and its implementing regulations. 15. Metropolitan's Plan -Review Cost a. An engineering review of your proposed facilities and developments and the preparation of a letter response — is — giving Metropolitan's comments, requirements and/or approval that will require 8 man-hours or less of effort is typically performed at no cost to the developer, unless a facility must be modified where Metropolitan has superior rights. If an engineering review and letter response requires more than 8 man-hours of effort by Metropolitan to determine ifthe proposed facility or development is compatible with its facilities, or if modifications to Metropolitan's manhole(s) or other facilities will be required, then all of Metropolitan's costs associated with the project must be paid by the developer, unless the developer has superior rights. ' 16. Caution We advise you that Metropolitan's plan reviews and ' responses are based upon information available to Metropolitan which was prepared by or on behalf of Metropolitan for general record purposes only. Such I I 11 information may not be sufficiently detailed or accurate for your purposes. No warranty of any kind, either express or implied, is attached to the information therein conveyed as to its accuracy, and no inference should be drawn from Metropolitan's failure to comment on any aspect of your project. You are therefore cautioned to make such surveys and other field investigations as you may deem prudent to assure yourself that any plans for your project are correct. b. A deposit of funds will be required from the developer before Metropolitan can begin its detailed engineering plan review that will exceed 8 hours. The amount of the required deposit will be determined after a ' cursory review of the plans for the proposed development. C. Metropolitan's final billing will be based Ton actual cost incurred, and will include engineering plan review, inspection, materials, construction, and administrative overhead charges calculated in accordance with Metropolitan's standard accounting practices. If the cost is less than the deposit, a refund will be made; ' however, if the cost exceeds the deposit, an invoice will be forwarded for payment of the additional amount. Additional deposits may be required if the cost of Metropolitan's review exceeds the amount of the initial deposit. ' 16. Caution We advise you that Metropolitan's plan reviews and ' responses are based upon information available to Metropolitan which was prepared by or on behalf of Metropolitan for general record purposes only. Such I I 11 information may not be sufficiently detailed or accurate for your purposes. No warranty of any kind, either express or implied, is attached to the information therein conveyed as to its accuracy, and no inference should be drawn from Metropolitan's failure to comment on any aspect of your project. You are therefore cautioned to make such surveys and other field investigations as you may deem prudent to assure yourself that any plans for your project are correct. - 14 - 17. Additional Information Should you require additional information, please contact: Civil Engineering Substructures Section Metropolitan Water District of Southern California P.O. Sox 54153 Los Angeles, California 90054-0153 (213) 217-6000 JEH/MRW/lk Rev.' January 22; 1989 Encl. t. BACKHOE DR TRENCHER I Y ;-+---LAY1NO CRANE IVY �r.a'�1T i.' •"?� _ w li / .a• NEEDED KOR TAENCIIER �•• I / C,— ALSO DUMP TRUCK PARKING MINIMUM WIDTH FOA i tY?; 8� 0"I.D. X 26-O'LENGTII FULLY TIMBERED WEIGHT 90,000 LOS. TRENCH ' _ " '_ " I .I 111£ METROPOLITAN WATER OISTRICT 4•Q 2' d ,e„I„Iww ulna.... 6'-0" 20-0' REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION 44'-0" WIDTHS IwA .i.. ... R[fdM[tT[0.................... i r le ............... ............ AMR.V[0.............................. w FIGURE 1 i NO PERMANENT STRUCTURES P M.W.D. PERMANENT RIGHT OF WAY NO RODE OVERHANG PERMITTED -r FOOTING MUST NOT ENCROACH INTO RIGHT OF WAY-, FINISHED SURFACE M.W.D. PIPELINE NOTE M.W.D. PIPELINE SIZE, DEPTH, LOCATION AND WIDTH OF PERMANENT RIGHT OF WAY VARIES. u..f PRbmn.NR[1,�....p �.,• SUILDING ADJACENT TO RIGHT OF WAY RE OUIRED DEPTH OF FOOTING L- FIGU �I . , % � •; . • ! � � ■| m � k ® � A . CL Lu ) � 7 � LQ § k $$ k 2� k t STREET W o TRENCH 0' %45° TYP/CAL `ADEOUATE SHORING AND BRACING \ REOUIREO FOR THE FULL DEPTH OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT THE TRENCH WHEN THE EXCAVAT/ON ENCROACHES WITHIN THIS ZONE SHORING AND BRACING R£OUIREMENTS ow.w.r_............ ftcd r v .................. .............. .... Gw[(rts............ Ar'wmTn ............................ FIGURE 4 ..» r.. ........... Y ww ...... �i fl �• ifly %g8 o 4. � 9. :;s C., 4 h r w Q EW •+ •a as litt ai L i:�$iflia 4 c&ia; .E�<e �a�E�BS!iE8'dn � o: y w iFi qql }i�4aF� • n e2 ` + �1 �p�EE e i lit t o rof �at�7 $ 8 ifl,:.L t•�R 8. t�• '� ga�, at•ri .t;L prr3.atr• tgar.ri>>i!' i Y I'. ,e ,,fln r$fl6twr < P�c'RAB „A „A1e �i YYA y4 �• ifly %g8 o 4. � 9. 4 h r w Q EW •`�. •a as litt 4p pp S: i:�$iflia 4 c&ia; .E�<e �a�E�BS!iE8'dn � o: y w iFi qql }i�4aF� • n e2 ` + �1 �p�EE e i lit t rof �at�7 $ 8 ifl,:.L t•�R 8. t�• '� ga�, at•ri .t;L prr3.atr• tgar.ri>>i!' i Y I'. ,e ,,fln r$fl6twr < P�c'RAB „A „A1e �i YYA y4 �• ifly %g8 o 4. � 9. 4 h r as•:8; �i YYA y4 �• ifly %g8 o 4. � 9. t h b� as•:8; It V EW •a as litt [. I•' jt 1• pp S: i:�$iflia 4 c&ia; �i ------------------------------, N YYA y4 :*n %g8 o 4. � 9. t h b� as•:8; It V EW t'. (€ oaaYpypy pp S: i:�$iflia 4 c&ia; .E�<e �a�E�BS!iE8'dn � o: y w iFi qql }i�4aF� • n e2 ` + �1 �p�EE e i rof �at�7 ------------------------------, N e eris ani go Lm L Supporting wall shall have a firm bearing on the subgrade and against the side of the excavation. , 2. Premolded expansion joint filter per ASTM D•1751-73to be used in support for steel pipe only. J. If trench width is 4feet or greater, measured along centerline of M.W.D. pipe, concrete support must be constructed. 4. ff french width is less than 4 feel, clean sand back- fill, compacted to 90 % density in accordance with • ° ; the provisions of ASTM Standard D-1557-70 may be used in lieu of the concrete support wall. SECTION "B -B" pA• L,TMC.."".01, i M.W.O. Pipeline Ill ii premoldeo' Q expansion joint r filler 4 Omin.� — --. .r' Apertures as directed by — ---- the Engineer,totol volume not to exceed 2 the volume of the supporting wall Concrete support wall to be placed against undis- lurbed ground I---=�{ "A SECTION -A' J CROSS SECTION L Supporting wall shall have a firm bearing on the subgrade and against the side of the excavation. , 2. Premolded expansion joint filter per ASTM D•1751-73to be used in support for steel pipe only. J. If trench width is 4feet or greater, measured along centerline of M.W.D. pipe, concrete support must be constructed. 4. ff french width is less than 4 feel, clean sand back- fill, compacted to 90 % density in accordance with • ° ; the provisions of ASTM Standard D-1557-70 may be used in lieu of the concrete support wall. SECTION "B -B" pA• L,TMC.."".01, i ISO, O(:D - �3 Preformed expansion joint filler N07 -ES 4 This method to be•used where the M.W.D. pipe utility line is 24"oegreater in diameter and the clearance between the utility line and M.W,D. pipe is 12"or less. 2. Special protection may be required SECTION r A if the utility line diameter is J greater than MWD pipe or if the CROSS SECTION cover over the utNrty ime to the street surface is minimal and there isl2'orless clearance betweenM.W,D. pipe and the uli/ity line. J. Preformed expansion joint filler to comply with ASTM designolion D-1751-73• 4. M. WD. requests 12 minimum clearance whenever possible. limits ! ezponsion rr i ,F:rZZS Na ::XR I.AXIr r Rte, AFFrcCS SAutWus TuNNEC_ PI ctcer,+C. Tvnntk• Newhc.LL Twp. �d FoerlYi,1 � Fee:e,�r C.'lenera�. (�la.v.CirGPu�r��vr+ fat/N bw.n tY.. .N SIN CASXU MV9:- JXS awlLtT N1i 1CX/1. fON-Tf — A.YCZ= Nar7CNAt ICWr { ♦ 1! Alternative I Existing Planned Roadway System (No Project Alternative) 0413Y COPYRIGHT 1992 1992 71L- Q/ 5Z" '7 4`' •' j Puna �63 J S-� m 24 6+ a •$'� ' �'b%l - • a L NE a N � U •k . o T .r � ,.w •. S Q 6" JcAUG�-- --• 0.NNID0 + ,t+`` 201 -� FE RtvFR : w 8 � v,•- • 4: id NiP p/bi u1C>ME 3,YiB2 q IT. e.J _ _.._ _. \1.�+. • q�6 Pow r �.._ � _ � )iir� .. • � __.... _ �� r is ©� r - , ,`aw 751 S "f OR •�! cr. „ d`p•P _ ..y r c v 'Y4br i q�u /,Q < <- y r u. b , ♦ ♦ pd, ? y4 < - Ly��!i SJOiN � S' ,v r j_I!_ w a. ( •'b"M. v�+v . a �, ¢,, ���a. \y8 , s --3 1. wna2 % - S•r c • ,♦. pq^a �4\� -4 �. lflz i C � � 1 0/1 � ?b8 b ui S+ Q`�yW. Yn �G •� � -YTY • , Lf^� '�(h �/'+i<` f U8 < 'y, •• ya a ri' aY P •yr• Yn Ics � nr �?/�"4 !� � � %� � byy �y "vi o � P�vr e�^sa��`•GC`\p'• � '`�3'_oy ' o a '� _ C~ - - 4 2 ' 9' 'iw v.>� Eip,VY '°C• � _' rr s no P. 1r ho .� L -tJ♦ 3 Y ���� ^ Q �a4 °ds# � rrrA', r cw armoe i % aP vr�P � a 8 � � .yY L+,� 8� VS•Q I c Y Q _L� LL„”, V VR E g CJ,NYON 1+4 t-•. mi j niu� _ fr Y 'i t c ' r •• .� a +� -a �- I 1 .�Tp W •W- %a � g�br�J C �� 33� I +e" r I• >^ f 1xE Oto � 8 � 3 N3�v i J•' w 8 ��' �BSiCR PL � '�i\_ y J • bi.' Qi l Q I w,o 1 I. f . \ \ aM1 I _ I 1 _ gall � �� �~-• i.�' — ' a • dy O I' � /I ^��rf l Ln 71 ILI \Iy�' WI��Ji Iz LL CD b:!'"tl Awn �.� �,�� '. ♦ >s = -- �/ �' „� L��Ei�i m#° i`' Fxn� only `<a:V,,. r\I `1"�11' 1 l� ` ,/� 5� 'A'_I�' �� /• `�' II�17Y��1`I ' d ♦ r�f �b,T 25.���_-1 _tT � �Y`��4•r�/ I'• �'f �__- �! +. F�' gas saw - e% i I �., ✓ ♦ i - mss.. ' t , ,m 8 F., I f f •- ne -T e}, � � � MTA MOBILITY/AIR QURLI Fax=213-922-2849 phone 213-922-7658 fax 213-922.2849 Fcax Dec 9 '96 11:44 P.01 To: Laura Stotler From: Bili Lundgren Fax: 805-259-8125 Pages: 4 Phone: Gate: 9 December 1996 Re: Circulation Element NOP Cc: ❑ Urgent -3X For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle e Comments: Attached are the comments of the MTA on the Circulation Element NOP. I am mailing the original to you as well. If you have any questions, my numbers are at the top of the page. MIH MUbiL11Y/H1k UUHLl rax:21�-y2L-2b4y December 9, 1996 City of Santa Clarity Los Angeles County Community Development Department Metropol+tan 23290 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Transportation Santa Clarita, CA 91355-2196 Authority Attention: Laura Stotler, Associate Planner Dec 9 '`Jb 11:44 F. U2 One Gateway Pias Subject: City of Santa Clarity Circulation Element Amendment Program EIR Los Angeles. CA 90ot2 Dear Ms. Stotler, It is our pleasure to provide comments to you regarding the scope and content of an EIR that aa3'963'600c you will be preparing for the City of Santa Clarity's update of the General Plan Circulation Element. For these comments we have discussed the project with the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) and various divisions of the MTA. While most of our comments focus on the requirements of the state -mandated Congestion Management Program (CMP); other comments of a more general nature are also listed. In 1993, all Los Angeles County local jurisdictions adopted the CMP Land Use Analysis Program: requiring that EIRs incorporate an analysis of potential project impart(s) on the CMP regional system. The CMP also requires that EIR preparation be done in consultation with affected transit operators and that the EIR contain a thorough analysis of transit impacts. The Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA's) guidelines contained in the adopted 1995 CMP (Appendix D) provide a detailed discussion of issues that are required to be addressed, and should be consulted during preparation of the ETR. These comments on the NOP include an outline of the TIA requirements, as well as other issues of concern that the NITA requests the City to address in the EIR 1. 1995 CMP TIA Guidelines. To comply with the CMP TIA Guidelines the EIR must include the following: A. An analysis of potential project impacts on the regional CMP highway and freeway system, including: • An examination of the CMP arterial and freeway monitoring locations in the study area, as defined in the TIA Guidelines; • Documentation of existing traffic conditions including traffic volumes, LOS, and projections of background traffic growth, as described in the TLA Guidelines; • Projections of proposed project traffic generation; • Projections of trip distribution consistent with the TIA procedures; • Project impact analysis, including intersection LOS: freeway segment analysis, and transit impact analysis, and; MIH MU1;1L11Y/H1K UUHLl 1-ax:215-911-2849 City of Santa Clarity Circulation Element NOP 12/69/96 Page 2 Dec 9 '9b 11:4 r'. U3 Identification and evaluation of mitigation measures for significant impacts on the C.MP system, including fair share cost estimates and implementation responsibilities. If the £IR concludes that project impacts will be mitigated by future regional transportation improvements, such as rail transit or high occupancy vehicles, the EIR must document any project contribution to the improvement and the means by which project generated trips will access the regional facility. If the EIR assumes or concludes that project impacts will be reduced' through implementation of TDM measures, the E1R must substantiate these conclusions and Iist the specific actions to be implemented by the project. B. An analysis of potential project impacts on local and regional transit, including: • A summary of existing transit services in the project area; • Trip generation and mode assignment information for both a.m and p.m peak hour periods, as well as daily. Trips assigned to transit will also need to be calculated for the same peak hour and daily periods; • Documentation on the assumptions/analyses that were used to determine the number/percent of trips assigned to transit • Information on facilities and/or programs that will be incorporated in the development plan that will encourage public transit use. Include not only the jurisdiction's TDM Ordinance measures, but other project specific measures, and; • Expected transit impacts and proposed mitigation measures. 2. CMP Credit Opportunities. Amendment of the City General Plan offers unique opportunities for the City to meet its deficiency plan requirements under the CMP: While the mitigation measures required of land use projects and capital improvement programs are at the local lead agency's discretion, the measures required by the City for this project can be designed to have multiple benefits_ In this case, mitigation measures can be drafted that reduce local traffic impacts, which also give the City credit towards reducing its share of traffic impacts on regional facilities. Annually, the City prepares a Local Implementation Report (LIR), which inventories the City's net new development each year, as well as the transportation improvements/programs it planned, designed, initiated or constructed to offset the traffic generated by the new development Appendix G of the 1995 CMP lists the mitigation strategies which give the City credits under the CMP. To take advantage of the opportunity to receive CMP credit, we recommend that the EIR evaluate the potential for including CMP approved strategies as project mitigation measures. In most cases, credit is offered at the planning stage of a project. These strategies are summarized below; A. Land use strategies focus an integrating complementary land uses and on concentrating activity in areas that can be effectively served by transit. B. Capital improvement straregies such as highway improvements can reduce delays by increasing the capacity for vehicle movement. Improvements to roadways included in the CMP network receive more credit than other facilities. C_ Transponarion Systems Management strategies improve operational efficiency of the highway system without significantly increasing right-of-way equirements and at costs significantly lower than capital improvements. D. Transit Service strategies encourage more efficient use of the highway system by providing high occupancy vehicle service. MTA MOBILITY/AIR QUALI Fax:213-922-2849 Dec 9 '96 11:46 P.U4 City of Santa Clarita Circulation Element NOP 12/09/96 pave 3 E. Transportation Demand Management strategies reduce the demand for automobile use. 3. Other NOP Comments. The MTA requests that the City consider the foIIowing issues as well during this review of the environmental impacts of the City's future transportation planning policy: A. Policies for pedestrian access to and passenger sheltershvaiting areas at transit stops. B. Consideration of land use policies which replace the traditional automobile orientation of land use developments in favor of transit integration To do this it is recommended that the City consider expanding the scope of this general plan amendment to include amendments of the Land Use Element as well_ It is possible that the City may need to amend the Land Use Element anyway if the land use assumptions used in the traffic analysis of the Circulation Element alternatives do not agree with either existing land use policy or general plan land use map designations. C. Coordination with the Southern California Regional Rail Authority to find and designate an acceptable route for reestablishing the former Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way that once connected the Santa Clarity Metrolink station to the Santa Paula Branch. This route will be necessary for future acquisition of right-of-way if the proposed extension of Metrolink commuter rail service is implemented. This route has been proposed to serve the Route 126 corridor through Newhall Ranch and the County of Ventura - D. Consider policies/programs for improving existing rail lines (fencing, drainage, access). We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the scope of this study. Please forward the Draft EIR and related public notices directly to me- If you have any questions I can be contacted at (213) 922-7655. Sincerely, � William Lun n, AICP Project Manager Congestion Management Program c: Renee Berlin, Director MTA San Fernando Valley/North County Area Team WASTEWATER RECLAMATION %SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT C O.0 � Ty 1955 Workman Mill Road, Whittier, CA 90601-1400 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4998, Whittier, CA 90607-4998 Telephone: (310) 699-7411, FAX: (310) 695-6139 i Ms. Laura Stotler City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 I SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY CHARLES W. CARRY Chief Engineer and General Mcnager December 5, 1996 File No: 26-00.04-00 32-00.04-00 Dear Ms. Stotler: City of Santa Clarita _Circulation Element Amendment Program EIR The County Sanitation Districts of the Los Angeles County (Districts) received a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the subject project on November 7, 1996. We offer the following comments regarding sewerage service: • The proposed project will impact several existing and/or proposed Districts' trunk sewers over which it will be constructed. Existing and proposed Districts' trunk sewers are located directly under and/or cross directly beneath the proposed project alignment. The Districts cannot issue a detailed response to or permit construction of the proposed project until project plans and specifications which incorporate Districts' sewer lines are submitted. In order to prepare these plans, you will need to submit a map of the proposed project alignment, when available, to the attention of Calvin Jin of the Districts' Sewer Design Section at the address shown above. The Districts will then provide you with the plans for all Districts' facilities which will be impacted by the proposed project. Then, when revised plans which incorporate our sewers have been prepared, please submit copies of the same for our review and comment. • The Districts maintain facilities within the project area which may be affected by the proposed project. Approval to construct improvements within a Districts' sewer easement and/or over a Districts' sewer is required before construction may begin. For specific information regarding the buildover procedure, please contact Sean Christian at (310) 699-7411, extension 2707. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (310) 699-7411, extension 2717. IMLP:eg ail L:IWILLSERVIWP601LETTERSISCCEAEIR.LTR Very truly yours, harles W. �c��f� JZ a op Eng' ing Technic? Planning & Property Management Section The Gas Company �J November 13, 1996 If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please call Laura Stotler (213) 881-8208. City of Santa Clarita i Community Development Department Santo Plescia 23290 Valencia Blvd Suite 300 Santa Clarita, Ca. 91355-2196 Soufhem California Gas Company 16!91 Corporate Cenar� Slontnxq Fnrk. C. -I Dear Ms. Stotler: 31ai1;»XAddreu: BOT HM The following is in response to your, 11/5/96 letter requesting information relative to an Xknte,ry r,,,k. Ct Environmental Impact Report on the proposed development of the General Plan Circulation 91754,Y931 Element Amendment and EIR. ' ml 213260-7789 -� Within the areas of interest and responsibilities of the Southern California Gas Company, we find the proposed development reasonable and acceptable. This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the subject development, i but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the proposed project can be served from existing mains in the area. This can be done without any major impact on overall system capacity, service to existing customers, or the environment. Average consumption is estimated at 1095 therms per year per single family dwelling unit. This estimate is based on past system averages and does not encompass the possible effect of the State's new insulating requirements and consumers' loads vary with types of equipment used. The availability of natural gas service as set forth in this letter is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action that effects gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with the revised condition. We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please call (213) 881-8208. Sincerely, i Santo Plescia Planning Aide II 11 I I# J 1 r' I II CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 (805) 255-4330 1996 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENCY COMMENT SHEET PLEASE CHECK ONE: [ 1 REVIEW FOR COMPLETENESS [✓1 REVIEW FOR PRE -DRC MEETING MASTER CASE NUMBER: General Plan Circulation Element Amendment TYPE OF APPLICATION(S): General Plan Circulation Element Amendment and EIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:Preparation of an Eli ,, and General Pian amendment to update the description of the existing circulation system, remove SR 126 from the master plan of arterial highways and various other circulation related topics. DATE APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED: 11/04/96 DATE COMMENTS DUE: 12/09/96 Contact Person: Laura Stotler Date: November 5, 1996 Notice is hereby given that this application has been filed with the Department of Community Development. Please review the revised maps/exhibits and return this sheet with your comments and/or recommendations by December 9, 1996. If we do not receive a reply, it shall be determined your agency will not be adversely impacted should this proposal subsequently be approved by the City. If you have no comments we still request you return this form as indicated below. PLEASE CHECK ✓ ONE: [71 We have reviewed this project and have no comments at this time. [ 1 See comments below/attached: (Signature) current\agency.dre 5-c- (4fir% 1, C r;-1 ?,_ C)b (Agency) (Date) Fix Cover Page FAX COVER SHEET Monday, December 02, 1996 11:17:55 PM To: Laura Stotler Company: City of Santa Clarita Fax #: 2598125 From: Michael A Kotch Fax #: 805-257-2131 Voice: 805-257.2131 Fax: 1 page and a cover page. I Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment P.O. Bol 1182, Santa Clarita, CA 91386 2 December 1996 City of Santa Clarita 23920 West Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, CA91355 Ref: Santa Clarita Circulation Study Attn: Laura Stotler T Dear Ms. Stotler: Scope wishes to state that many of the items checked in the Notice of Preparation as "maybe" under Sections 3. Water, 4. Plant Life, 5. Animal Life, 6. Noise, 7. Light Glare, 17. Human Health and section 18 Aesthetics should in fact be checked "yes" due to obvious substantial impacts. For example, degradation of water quality from road runoff pollution and glare from street lights and auto headlights should necessitate "yes" under the Health and Aesthetics. If the "maybe" category denotes areas that will still be addressed in the EIR with full consideration, it is acceptable. Otherwise we request a meeting to formally state our concerns in these sections so that thev may be considered during the EIR process. SCOPE generally would request that roads stay out of SEA designations and as far away from the Santa Clara River and its • tributaries as possible to reduce pollution from runoff and preserve the biological and aesthetic value of these waterways. River and tributary crossings should also be reduced to the minimum necessary for the same reasons. Additionally, bridges are expensive to the tax payer and degrading to the neighborhoods in which they are located. We therefore oppose the Lyons extension and the road to which it leads and the river crossing of Santa Clarita Parkway. We also oppose the extension of Newhall Ranch Road past Golden Valley for these reasons. Clean air is a basic component of a high quality of life. Degraded air quality especially effects young children. As a family oriented community, air quality should be of major concern to even part of our City. We therefore support the transportation alternative which will encourage alternate forms of transportation such as pedestrian and bike ways as well as public transportation as a means of reducing auto pollution and keeping our air clean. Thank -you for your time. Sincerely, Zynne CA. jJtambeck Lynne A.Plambeck 'i 7 Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment P.O. Bol 1182, Santa Clarita, CA 91386 2 December 1996 City of Santa Clarita 23920 West Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, CA91355 Ref: Santa Clarita Circulation Study Attn: Laura Stotler T Dear Ms. Stotler: Scope wishes to state that many of the items checked in the Notice of Preparation as "maybe" under Sections 3. Water, 4. Plant Life, 5. Animal Life, 6. Noise, 7. Light Glare, 17. Human Health and section 18 Aesthetics should in fact be checked "yes" due to obvious substantial impacts. For example, degradation of water quality from road runoff pollution and glare from street lights and auto headlights should necessitate "yes" under the Health and Aesthetics. If the "maybe" category denotes areas that will still be addressed in the EIR with full consideration, it is acceptable. Otherwise we request a meeting to formally state our concerns in these sections so that thev may be considered during the EIR process. SCOPE generally would request that roads stay out of SEA designations and as far away from the Santa Clara River and its • tributaries as possible to reduce pollution from runoff and preserve the biological and aesthetic value of these waterways. River and tributary crossings should also be reduced to the minimum necessary for the same reasons. Additionally, bridges are expensive to the tax payer and degrading to the neighborhoods in which they are located. We therefore oppose the Lyons extension and the road to which it leads and the river crossing of Santa Clarita Parkway. We also oppose the extension of Newhall Ranch Road past Golden Valley for these reasons. Clean air is a basic component of a high quality of life. Degraded air quality especially effects young children. As a family oriented community, air quality should be of major concern to even part of our City. We therefore support the transportation alternative which will encourage alternate forms of transportation such as pedestrian and bike ways as well as public transportation as a means of reducing auto pollution and keeping our air clean. Thank -you for your time. Sincerely, Zynne CA. jJtambeck Lynne A.Plambeck 'i N E W H A L L L A N D RECEIVED DEC 13 1995 COMMUMIT! MVELOPQ ENT CITY OF SANTA m1199" Mr. Jeff Lambert Planning Manager City of Santa Clarita 23820 Valencia Boulevard Valencia, CA 91355 December 12, 1996 RE: CIRCULATION ELEMENT SCOPING COMMENTS/NOTICE OF PREPARATION Dear Jeff: We are in support of the City's efforts to amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan (Project). The timely development of a high quality circulation system is fundamental to the Valley's economic growth and quality of life, and we are hopeful that the City can complete this planning expeditiously. We trust that the following comments will be helpful in scoping the EIR for the update. 1. We trust that the City is processing this amendment with the intent that there will not be significant alterations of the planned land uses in the General Plan. Land uses as described in the City's existing General Plan have been the basis for significant capital, infrastructure and planning. investments as well as property taxes and assessments. Moreover, based on the existing General Plan designations the nexus between fees and densities has been relied upon by the entire community. Accordingly, numerous decisions have been based on the ability to develop in the future based on land uses in the General Plan and significant investments have been made. by businesses and residents of our community based on current and approved land uses. It is essential that the Amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan should be designed to accommodate existing General Plan uses. I RANOYWHEELER , M PRE90EM REEOENTIAL VAtENCN DNsm1 2. The objective identified in the project description to identify the primary east - west corridor alternative to an extension of State Route 126 must be studied in the context that any new corridor would not lose the potential funding associated with a State Route (SR) designation. Our studies suggest that a six THE NEWHALL LAND AND FARMING COMPANY 2.382.3 VALENCIA BOULEVARD. VALENCIA. CALIFORNIA 91355-2194 1805] 255-4206 I I i I I I 1' 1 Mr. Jeff Lambert Page 2. lane roadway with augmentation at intersections and without grade separations could still retain an SR designation that allows state and federal funds to be used for construction and therefore could be built at a much earlier date than if local funds are the primary funding source. Designation of a State Route across the Santa Clarita Valley provides major opportunities to attract back to this Valley more of the transportation oriented taxes (such as gas taxes) that local residents pay to the State and Federal governments. Based on data from a recent fiscal impact analysis, the total highway and freeway related taxes currently paid by Santa Clarita Valley residents and businesses are in the neighborhood of $22 million dollars per year. The Valley currently is not experiencing a reasonable return of those dollars for local transportation improvements. If the SR designation is retained ,the extension of SR -126 between I-5 and the Valencia Industrial Center, the upgrade of the SR -126/1-5 interchange, and the extension of a State Route across the Valley would all be eligible for State and Federal funding. Obtaining funds for a State Route would also promote employment in the Valley. SR -126 has a direct bearing on the. Valencia Gateway area which surrounds Castaic Junction and includes the Valencia Industrial and Commerce Centers and will continue to be the Santa Clarita Valley's largest employment complex, ultimately providing in excess of 100,000 jobs. As the City has recognized on numerous occasions, the expansion of local employment is one of the most significant issues facing the Valley. By improving. the transportation system we can increase the percentage of people who both live and work in the Valley and we can reduce vehicle miles traveled, improve air quality, make public transit work better, while providing a higher quality lifestyle for local residents. 3. The NOP states that the update "is focused upon a revision to the Central City Circulation Network". We are not clear on what the area is that makes up the Central City and whether highways outside this area will also be studied. 4. It is our understanding that Alternative IV is intended to consider the ability of public transit and other single occupancy vehicle (SOV) alternatives to reduce vehicle trips, and not to consider changes to land uses within the City. As has been seen in the Los Angeles region as a whole, SOV alternatives only reduce vehicle trips by about 5%. Therefore, it is important that ,the most effective II Mr. Jeff Lambert Page 3. highway network be determined for the Valley, after which the effect of SOV alternatives should be added. 5. It would be helpful to define "transportation improvement corridors" and "mobility corridors". 6. We believe, in order to be effective as a programmatic document, the EIR should confine itself to highway link analysis and should not attempt to describe the future design of every intersection in the City. We suggest that references to specific intersection characteristics be deleted from the Alternatives. descriptions because this level of detail can be provided more accurately when individual highways are precisely aligned and the configuration of intersections and access points are determined prior to construction. 7. Since Alternative I is the "No Project" alternative, it should show the City Circulation Plan as it currently exists with the 8 lane expressway from I-5 to SR -14. This is necessary under CEQA and would also allow documentation of the reasons other alternatives are better than the existing Plan. A separate alternative can be prepared to study the existing highway plan with the grade separations eliminated. 8. The land use component of the traffic model used for the update should include all land uses contained in the City General Plan and the County's Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan in order to achieve General Plan consistency. Other reasons for doing this are than the City occupies the more central areas of the Santa Clarita Valley and is surrounded by unincorporated areas which are projected for development, and because the City's circulation system includes highways in unincorporated areas. 9.. The cumulative analysis for the EIR must, under CEQA, include not only General Plan land use but all known General Plan amendments and foreseeable projects which would add urban land uses to City or County areas within the Santa Clarita Valley. Since some of these projects could be approved during the time that the Circulation Plan update is in process, a careful consideration of the cumulative analysis is necessary to make sure that. the Circulation Plan will be adequate when it is adopted. 10. We believe that the project for the EIR should include the elimination of the current SR -126 designation on Magic Mountain Parkway between I-5 and San I I Mr. Jeff Lambert Page 4. Fernando Road, and should instead designate Newhall Ranch Road between I-5 and Bouquet Canyon Road and Bouquet Canyon Road southward to San Fernando Road, or another alternative east of Bouquet Canyon Road as the new SR -126. The reason for this request is that the existing I-5 to Magic Mountain routing of SR -126, as regional agencies have previously stated, will never be an adequate facility because of its indirect connection to the existing portions of SR -126 west of I-5. Newhall Ranch Road provides a direct connection. In summary, we are very supportive of the City's effort to update the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Please feel free to contact me if we can be of assistance in any way. Best Regards, THE NEWHALL LAND AND FARMING COMPANY Nov. 27. 1996 Jeff Lambert Planning Manager Santa Clarity City Hall 23920 Valencia Blvd. Valencia, CA Dear Mr. Lambert, I am unable to make the Dec. 4th Community Scoping Meeting regarding the Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR but as a Valencia homeowner I wanted to make my opinion known to you. I am a homeowner in the Valencia Northbridge area. I feel that the existing General Plan Roadway Network would very negatively impact on the quality of life in the area I live in and in Santa Clarita in general. Newhall Ranch Road by McBean and Bouquet Canyon runs through a residential area, one not suited for a eight -lane freeway. Single family homes and townhomes and/or will be built along both sides of this road. I feel that high speed traffic, especially big rig trucks, belong on major freeways such as the Golden State Freeway. Trucks are a potential hazard for major accidents and hazardous waste spills which are best taken care of on major highways, not near homes. Big rig trucks area a source of both noise and air pollution and where possible should be limited to non-residential areas. Newhall Ranch Road should be used by residents of Santa Clarita for business within the city, not as a "shortcut" from the 5 Freeway to the 14 Freeway. Of the proposed alternatives I support the Newhall Ranch Road Reduction. The Golden Valley Road Network alternative would still make a direct route from the 5 to the 14 freeway too easy for trucks to use. Big rigs should use only major freeways, especially these that are so easily accessible for most of their travel. The other proposed alternatives are a disincentive for trucks to use the major freeways available to them. Thank.you for listening to my concerns. Sincerely, Susan Tanaka 27395 Brighton Drive Valencia, CA 91354 (805) 297-6800 J r M1 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA -NOY ' 7 1996 Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 (805) 255-4330 ■ DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENCY COMMENT SHEET PLEASE CHECK ONE: [ ) REVIEW FOR COMPLETENESS W1 REVIEW FOR PRE -DRC MEETING MASTER CASE NUMBER: General Plan Circulation Element Amendment TYPE OF APPLICATION(S): General Plan Circulation Element Amendment and EIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:Preparation of an EIR and General Plan amendment to update the description of the existing circulation system, remove SR 126 from the master plan of arterial highways and various other circulation related topics. DATE APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED: 11/04/96 DATE COMMENTS DUE: 12/09/96 Contact Person: Laura Stotler Date: November 5, 1996 Notice is hereby given that this application has been filed with the Department of Community Development. Please review the revised mapslexhibits and return this sheet with your comments and/or recommendations by December 9, 1996. - If we do not receive a reply, it shall be determined your agency will not be adversely impacted should this proposal subsequently be approved by the City. If you have no comments we still request you return this form as indicated below. PLEASE CHECK ✓ ONE: �I 1 [ ] We have reviewed this project and have no comments at this time. [XI See comments below/attached: 1 nave reviewed the General Plan Circulation Element Amendment for the City of Santa Clarita. The project is within the city limits and will have no significant impact on the California Highway Patrol. However, consideration should be given, and discussed with Caltrans, the possible effects the amendment may have on freeway access. Another issue is the location of the Castaic Inspection Facility on Interstate 5. Any road that connects the State Route 14 to the Interstate 5 that is north of the Inspection Facility will_JMve a -ne ative impact on their operation. ill c- Calif. Hwy. Patrol ' 11/25/96 (Signa e) (Agency) (Date) current\agency.dre CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 (805)255-4330 , DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENCY COMMENT SHEET PLEASE CHECK ONE: [ ] REVIEW FOR COMPLETENESS [✓I REVIEW FOR PRE -DRC MEETING MASTER CASE NUMBER: General Plan Circulation Element Amendment TYPE OF APPLICATION(S): General Plan Circulation Element Amendment and EIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOrATION:Preparation of an EIR and General Plan amendment to update the description of the existing circulation system, remove SR 126 from the master plan of arterial highways and various other circulation related topics. DATE APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED: 11/04/96 DATE COMMENTS DUE: 12/09/96 Contact Person: Laura Stotler Date: November 5, 1996 Notice is hereby given that this application has been filed with the Department of Community Development. Please review the revised mapslexhibits and return this sheet with your comments and/or recommendations by December 9, 1996. If we do not receive a reply, it shall be determined your agency will not be adversely impacted should this proposal subsequently be approved by the City. If you have no comments we still request you return this form as indicated below. PLEASE CHECK ✓ ONE: [ } We have reviewed this project and have no comments at this time. �] See comments below/attached: (Signature) current\agency.dre (Agency) (Date) 11 AI I II I I II LAURA STOTLER ASSOCIATE PLANNER CITY OF SANTA CLARITA II 1 HAVE REVIEWED THIS PROJECT YOU HAVE SENT TO US HERE AT MARTIN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AND I DO NOT THINK THIS PROJECT IS A GOOD IDEA. A PROJECT LIKE THIS IS NOT WORTH THE POTENTIAL HEALTH HAZARDS, GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS, DESTRUCTION OF HABITAT, AND REDUCTION OF RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES. THE POTENTIAL FOR GROUND FAILURE, AND/ OR ' MUDSLIDES DO NOT EXCITE ME AT ALL. THERE IS JUST TOO MUCH AT STAKE HERE TO RISK THE SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OF OUR GREAT CITY. PLEASE TAKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION BEFORE MAKING ANY DECISIONS ON THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU IMARTIN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES �I !t II CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 (805)255-4330 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENCY COMMENT SHEET PLEASE CHECK ONE: [ ] REVIEW FOR COMPLETENESS [✓] REVIEW FOR PRE -DRC MEETING MASTER CASE NUMBER: General Plan Circulation Element Amendment TYPE OF APPLICATION(S): General Plan Circulation Element Amendment and EIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:Preparation of an EER and General Plan amendment to update the description of the existing circulation system, remove SR 126 from the master plan of arterial highways and various other circulation related topics. DATE APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED: 11/04/96 DATE COMMENTS DUE: 12/09/96 Contact Person: Laura Stotler Date: November 5, 1996 , Notice is hereby given that this application has been filed with the Department of Community Development. Please review the revised mapslexhibits and return this sheet with your comments and/or recommendations by December 9, 1996. If we do not receive a reply, it shall be determined your agency will not be adversely impacted should this proposal subsequently be approved by the City. If you have no comments we still request you return this form as indicated below. PLEASE CHECK ✓ ONE: [✓] We have reviewed this project and have no comments at this time. [ ] See comments below/attached: u (Signature) current\agency.dre - -(Agency) 7// /t (Date) II 11 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 AIR (805)255-4330 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENCY COMMENT SHEET PLEASE CHECK ONE: [ I REVIEW FOR COMIPLETENESS [✓l REVIEW FOR PRE -DRC MEETING MASTER CASE NUMBER: General Plan Circulation Element Amendment TYPE OF APPLICATION(S): General Plan Circulation Element Amendment and EIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:Preparation of an EIR and General Plan amendment to update the description of the existing circulation system, remove SR 126 from the master plan of arterial highways and various other circulation related topics. DATE APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED: 11/04/96 DATE COMMENTS DUE: 12/09/96 Contact Person: Laura Stotler Date: November 5, 1996 Notice is hereby given that this application has been filed with the Department of Community Development.' Please review the revised mapslexhibits and return this sheet with your comments and/or recommendations by December 9, 1996. If we do not receive a reply, it shall be determined your agency will not be adversely impacted should this proposal subsequently be approved by the City. If you have no comments we still request you return this form as indicated below. PLEASE CHECK ✓ ONE: [L-J--IWe have reviewed this project and have no comments at this time. [ 1 See comments below/attached: lei i r_. A . SrfiYLr r -i r --by 2 , r5'9G (Signature) (Agency) (Date) mrrent\agency.dre II CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 (805)255-4330 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENCY COMMENT SHEET PLEASE CHECK ONE: [ ] REVIEW FOR COMPLETENESS [✓] REVIEW FOR PRE -DRC MEETING MASTER CASE NUMBER: General Plan Circulation Element Amendment TYPE OF APPLICATION(S): Genprni Plan Circulation Element Amendment and EIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:Preparation of an EIR and General Plan amendment to update the description of the existing circulation system, remove SR 126 from the master plan of arterial highways and various other circulation related topics. DATE APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED: 11/04/96 DATE COMMENTS DUE: 12/09/96 ' Contact Person: Laura Stotler Date: November 5, 1996 Notice is hereby given that this application has been filed with the Department of Community Development. Please review the revised mapslexhibits_and return this sheet with your comments and/or recommendations by December 9, 1996. If we do not receive a reply, it shall be determined your agency will not be adversely impacted should this proposal subsequently be approved by the City. If you have no comments we still request you return this form as indicated below. ' PLEASE CHECK ✓ ONE: [ [' We ha••e re iewed this prniset and have no comments at this time. r [ l See comments below/attached: (Signature) \ (Agency) (Date) current\agency.dre.J G%`Y (F �C( C«'�L� J/��1 11 PLEASE CHECK ONE: I[ 1 REVIEW FOR COMPLETENESS [✓1 REVIEW FOR PRE -DRC MEETING MASTER CASE NUMBER: General Plan Circulation Element Amendment TYPE OF APPLICATION(S): General Plan Circulation Element Amendment and EIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:Preparation of an EIR. and General Plan amendment to update the description of the existing circulation system, remove SR 126 from the master plan of arterial highways and various other circulation related topics. DATE APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED: 11/04/96 DATE COMMENTS DUE: 12/09/96 Contact Person: Laura Stotler Date: November 5, 1996 Notice is hereby given that this application has been filed with the Department of Community Development. Please review the revised mapslexhibits and return this sheet with your comments and/or recommendations by December 9, 1996. If we do not receive a reply, it shall be determined your agency will not be adversely impacted should this proposal subsequently be approved by the City. If you have no comments we still request you return this form as indicated below. PLEASE CHHECK ✓ ONE: We have reviewed this project and have no comments at this time. [ ] See comments below/attached: (Signature) (Agency) ~(Date) current\agency.dre 1I CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 (805) 255-4330 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENCY COMMENT SHEET PLEASE CHECK ONE: I[ 1 REVIEW FOR COMPLETENESS [✓1 REVIEW FOR PRE -DRC MEETING MASTER CASE NUMBER: General Plan Circulation Element Amendment TYPE OF APPLICATION(S): General Plan Circulation Element Amendment and EIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:Preparation of an EIR. and General Plan amendment to update the description of the existing circulation system, remove SR 126 from the master plan of arterial highways and various other circulation related topics. DATE APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED: 11/04/96 DATE COMMENTS DUE: 12/09/96 Contact Person: Laura Stotler Date: November 5, 1996 Notice is hereby given that this application has been filed with the Department of Community Development. Please review the revised mapslexhibits and return this sheet with your comments and/or recommendations by December 9, 1996. If we do not receive a reply, it shall be determined your agency will not be adversely impacted should this proposal subsequently be approved by the City. If you have no comments we still request you return this form as indicated below. PLEASE CHHECK ✓ ONE: We have reviewed this project and have no comments at this time. [ ] See comments below/attached: (Signature) (Agency) ~(Date) current\agency.dre 1I CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 (805)255-4330 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENCY COMMENT SHEET PLEASE CHECK ONE: [ ] REVIEW FOR COMPLETENESS [✓] REVIEW FOR PRE -DRC MEETING MASTER CASE NUMBER: General Plan Circulation Element Amendment TYPE OF APPLICATION(S): General Plan Circulation Element Amendment and EIR PROJECT DESC-P=ON!LOCATION:Preparation of an EIR and.General Plan amendment to update the description of the existing circulation system, remove SR 126 from the master plan of arterial highways and various other circulation related topics. DATE APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED: 11/04/96 DATE COMMENTS DUE: 12/09/96 j Contact Person: Laura Stotler Date: November 5, 1996 �- Notice is hereby given that this application has been filed with the Department of Community Development. Please review the revised maps/exhibits and return this sheet with your comments and/or recommendations by December 9, 1996. If we do not receive a reply, it shall be determined your agency will not be adversely impacted ' should this proposal subsequently be approved by the City. If you have no comments we still request you return this form as indicated below. PLEASE CHECK ✓ ONE: [ ] We have reviewed this. project and have no comments at this time. [ ] See comments below/attached: Newhall County Water District has reviewed the referenced notice of preparation. Tho Prnpncod changes to the (:4t3, Urn-1—tion Element—parti—lnrly 4n tl+o implementation stage. nresent thepotential for impacts upon the groundwater resources that constitute a substantial component of the District's supply and _also present the potential for.direct impact to District physical improvements. Please Gond nc a nnp17 of hho draft FTR wlhen it is nnmplatod ✓/.�� Newhall County Water District December 3, 1996 (Signa e) (Agency) (Date) current\agency.dre III 11 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Department of Community Development iN 0V - i 199 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 (805)255-4330 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENCY COMMENT SHEET PLEASE CHECK ONE: ' [ ] REVIEW FOR COMPLETENESS [✓I REVIEW FOR PRE -DRC MEETING MASTER CASE NUMBER: General Plan Circulation Element Amendment ' TYPE OF APPLICATION(S): General Plan Circulation Elemeni kreredment and EIR ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:Preparation of an EIR and General Plan amendment to update the description of the existing circulation system, remove SR 126 from the master plan of arterial highways and various other circulation related topics. DATE APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED: 11/04/96 DATE COMMENTS DUE: 12/09/96 Contact Person: Laura Stotler Date: November 5, 1996 I' Notice is hereby given that this application has been filed with the Department of Community Development. Please review the revised maps/exhibits and return this sheet with your comments and/or recommendations by December 9, 1996. If we do not receive a reply, it shall be determined your agency will not be adversely impacted should this proposal subsequently be approved by the City. If you have no comments we still request you return this form as indicated below. PLEASE CHECK ✓ ONE: [zWe have reviewed this project and have no comments at this time. [ ] See comments below/attached: r i2794> Signature) (Agency) (Date) current\agency.dre CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 (805)255-4330 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE ' AGENCY COMMENT SHEET PLEASE CHECK ONE: [ ] REVIEW FOR COMPLETENESS [6/1 REVIEW FOR PRE -DRC MEETING , MASTER CASE NUMBER: General Plan Circulation Element Amendment TYPE OF APPLICATION(S): General Plan Circulation Element Amendment and EIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION:Preparation of an EIR and General Plan amendment to ' update the description of the existing circulation system, remove SR 126 from the master plan of arterial highways and various other circulation related topics. DATE APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED: 11/04/96 DATE COMMENTS DUE: 12/09/96 Contact Person: Laura Stotler Date: November 5, 1996 , Notice is hereby given that this application has been filed with the Department of Community Development. Please review the revised mapslexhibits and return this sheet with your comments and/or recommendations by December 9, 1996. If we do not receive a reply, it shall be determined your agency will not be adversely impacted , should this proposal subsequently be approved by the City. If you have no comments we still request you return this form as indicated below. PLEASECHECK✓ ONE: [YJ We have reviewed this project and have no comments at this time. I ( ] See comments below/attached: r (Signat ) current\agency.dre (Agency) (Date) 1 Author: Tonya Trotman at SantaClarita-POI Date: 12/10/96 11:10 AM Priority: Normal TO: Laura Stotler Subject: Dorothy Andree 252-4218 ----------------------------------- Message Contents -------------------- She had me take her testimony over the phone re: Circulation Element meeting. If you call her on the following, prepare for a very long winded speech. obj-ections re: Green Mountain Dr. where Golden Valley crosses. 1) New circulation extension would intersect into a tract of homes not built to have a busy street crossing the tract which is residential, not a highway. 2) School children cross Golden Valley Rd. to get to and from Sierra Vista each day. The expansion would cause serious danger to the children. 3) The pollution from the busses and trucks which would constantly using the road, would be extensive. A traffic signal would be needed, not a stop sign. 4) The area is currently crime free. If the road goes through, the crime rate will increase greatly once criminals see the residential area as a target. 5) Tract is not built to be a major highway area. The houses don't face away from the proposed highway, like in the Wiley Cyn. area. 1) get rid of Connie Warden Roberts because she has a conflict of interest since she is on the side of the developer in order to put bucks in her back pocket. 2) get rid of Ms. Johnson as well, since she only supports Connie 3) put up more bridges to handle the excess flow of traffic. 4) put cross streets in tracts to bypass major roads.- Her example was from San Fernando Valley, how they have tracts that have side streets which run parallel to major roads so as to bypass traffic problems. 5)Golden Valley should be a second artery along side Soledad to aleviate the flow of traffic. She realizes this may require the condenming some stores that are up against the hill. 6) have Wiley Cyn. go through to cross all of the valley. SEQUENCE nAa� c ee tr e'' POI Ora Rcl lie BuRt Pkwood:, Lyws Ave- .y4 40e1'M o0 •I G 'c� e A7 0Ce r PK Sdtedad CPC Rj, 12�t3196 • • .9s• •wr � S U� Q: $4 ••�'kn.: Via'•,• y 6 Ww.J ��"'• �� •YiM1 • T �f tlP Q�. V\CA� J 1 �•vttiw" E " • i d E •' ` d � •T�+p lY yy lE p M •�^ �° y J ,it .••'•5 • • .9s• •wr � S U� Q: $4 ••�'kn.: Via'•,• y 6 Ww.J ��"'• �� •YiM1 • T �f tlP Q�. V\CA� 109 :SYS° S cP ' d E •' ` d � •T�+p lY yy lE �'• � M •�^ �° y J ,it .••'•5 �. W � I.A `.• • • • • QY • a. '. f' Q, •s1 a� $4 ••�'kn.: Via'•,• y tl �: Amy •P• �luf• aq.. ••• g�� � Q�. V\CA� 109 :SYS° S cP ' d > icy L - �pF�� � •T�+p lY yy lE �'• � M 4y{ �° y I.A `.• • • • • QY • a. '. f' Q, •s1 a� $4 ••�'kn.: Via'•,• y tl �: Amy •P• �luf• aq.. ••• g�� � Q�. V\CA� 109 :SYS° S cP ' d > icy L - �pF�� � •T�+p lY yy lE •.•` �..KS �04 Wf� T I • a • :SYS° S Appendix C Air Quality Data 181318 7 State of California Air Resources Board Ambient Air Quality Standards (FCOtncte5 an reverie Side) ARBFan Slxml39: IV91 1 California Standards t National Standards 2 Pollutant on Ccentratldn 4 Method I 3,5 Primary� 3,4,6 SecondarY Method 7 Averaging3 TIme Ozone 1 Hour 0.09 ppm Ultraviolet 0.12 ppm Same as Elhylene 180 u m3 1 y ) photometry (235 ugm3) Primary Std. Chemiluminescence Cspdn 8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mym3) Nan -dispersive (10m�n3) Non dispersive Monosoe Infrared Infrared 1 Hour 20 ppm I :s Ppm SPecvosccpy Spectroscopy (23 mym3) INDIA) (40 mg/m3) (NOIR) Annual 0.053 ppm Wrogen Average Gas Phase (100u 1331 y 025 ml D:oxae Gscence i Pmme Ss Id' Gas Phase 1 Hour nezcerice ChemJuminesunce (470 vg/rt3) gi - Annual- 80 uym3 Average (0.03 ooml - 24 Hour I 0.04 ppm 385 ug/m3 SO.r D:Oxlde 1105 uorr..31 U!tranoat l0.la come 3Hour I 73W u�m3 Fluorescence Pararosoaniine l0.5 oIXr1 1 Hour 0.25 pant - (655 ug/m3) Susnded x Annual Parx elate Geomemc I 30 ug/m3 I I Marx Mean Size SeiepOve Inertial (PM Inlet Sign. Secaraticn IO) 24 Hour 50 ug'M3 Volume Sandler 15D uym3 and and Sameas Gravimetric Annual Gravimevic Pnnuiry Analysis Arithmetic Anarysis 50 uym1 S7andard Mean Sulfates 24 Hour 25 ugM13 Tur[idimene Barium Sulfate "0 aay 1.5 uym3 • Lead Av erage Atomk I Atomic Calendar I Same as AbsopJUtl^ Adsorption Quaver 1.5 uy173 Primary Sttl. MycHycrogen oe t Hour II 0.03 ppm Cadmium HYdr- 1 (d2 uym31 IIII oxide STRacian _ Vmp Cn.ende I 24 Hour I 0.010 PPM Tedlar Bag fc:o�cemene) (26 ug/m3) Colleceon•Gas - Chroman 2mv 8 hour In sUmcem amount to procuu an exmc=n Onam melficient of 0.23 per kilometer due to Rec-C- Rr.c rg a Pa•::c:es 6(1 S p Tt Paredes when the relauve numidity is less man 70 percent. Measurement in awrdanoe with ARB Memod V. Applicable Only In the Uke Tahoe Air Basin Ce x- I.Sygx�ce 8hour � 6Con1(7 mglm3) NDIR - - • 6 hour In sufficient amount to produce an ex9ncAn A Fc.cr; I. am :o coefficient of 0.07 per kilometer due to pa•:: es 9 6 pm• PST) pan:des wnen me +elauve humidity is less - - man 70 percent. Measurement in accomarce with ARB Method V. (FCOtncte5 an reverie Side) ARBFan Slxml39: IV91 1 NOTES: California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 -hour and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter - PIvl10, and visibility reducing particles, are values that are not to be exceeded. The standards for sulfates, Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride are not to be equaled or exceeded. 2. National standards, other than ozone and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic means, are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above the standard is eoual to or less than one. 3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parenthesis are based upon a reference temperature of 250 C and a reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury. All measurements of air quality are to.be corrected to a reference temperature of 250 C and a reference pressure of 760 mm of mercury (1,013.2 millibar); ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. . 4.. Any equivalent procedure which can be shown to the satisfaction of the Air Resources Board to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air duality standard may be used. 5. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. Each state must attain the primary standards no later than three years after that state's implementation plan is approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. 6. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. Each state must attain the secondary standards within a "reasonable time" after the implementation plan is approved by the EPA. 7. Reference method as described by the EPA. An "equivalent method" of measurement may be used but must have a "consistent relationship to the reference method" and must be approved by the EPA. 8. This standard is intended to limit the frequency and severity of visibilty impairment due to regional haze and is equivalent to a 10 -mile nominal visual range when relative humidity is less than 70 percent. 9. This standard is equivalent to a 30 -mile nominal visual range when relative humidity is less than 70 percent. ARB Fact Sheet 39; (revised 11/91) AAA/RBB/.RD 1/ i' EFFECTS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS Ozone (03) Ozone, the major constituent of smog, is created in the atmosphere by the complex photochemical interaction of reactive organic compounds, including hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides. Ozone is a pungent, colorless toxic gas with direct health effects on humans including respiratory and eye irritation and possible changes in lung functions. Groups most sensitive to ozone include children, the elderly, persons with respiratory disorders, and people who exercise strenuously outdoors. Ozone also causes ' direct damage to vegetation, causes cracking in untreated rubber, and accelerates deterioration of structures. 111 �I '1 II Carbon Monoxide (CO) Carbon monoxide is a colorless and odorless gas that is formed as a by-product of combustion. It's primary source is the automobile and.other types of motor vehicles, and congested intersections can become "hot -spots," where significant concentrations of this gas can occur. CO replaces oxygen in the hemoglobin of red blood cells, thereby. causing physiological and pathological changes, and in sufficiently high concentrations, death. Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Nitrogen dioxide is also a by-product of fuel combustion, with the primary source being motor vehicles and industrial boilers and furnaces. The principal form of nitrogen oxide produced by combustion is nitric oxide (NO), but this reacts rapidly to form NO2, creating a mixture that is typically referred to as NO.. Nitrogen dioxide is an acute irritant, but at typical atmospheric concentrations, it is only potentially irritating. A relationship between NO2 and chronic pulmonary fibrosis may exist, and an increase in bronchitis in young children at concentrations below 0.3 parts per million (ppm) may occur. Nitrogen dioxide absorbs blue light and causes a reddish brown cast to the atmosphere and reduced visibility. It also can contribute to the formation of PMro and acid rain Fine Particulate Matter (PMro) Fine particulate matter includes small suspended solids and droplets under 10 microns in diameter. This material can lodge in the lungs and add to respiratory problems. PM10 is derived from road dust, soot, combustion products, abraded materials from brakes and tires, and the suspension of earth materials during construction activities and wind storms. Fine particulate matter can also be formed in the atmosphere from nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide reactions with ammonia. Particulate matter is also a primary factor in reducing visibility. Fine particulate matter poses a serious health threat to all groups, but particularly to the elderly, children, and those with respiratory problems. More than half of the fine particulate matter inhaled into the lungs remains there, which can'cause permanent lung damage. These materials can damage health by interfering with the body's mechanisms for clearing the respiratory tract or by acting as carvers of an absorbed toxic substance. SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HEAVY-DUTY EQUIPMENT EMISSIONS Per Table A9 -8-A, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Nov. 1993 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Emissions in pounds per day Type Usage per day Carbon Reactive Nitrogen Sultur Equipment (G or D) Number in hours Monoxide Organic Cmpnds Oxides Oxides PM10 Fork Lift - 50 Hp D 0 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A 0.0 Fork Lift - 175 Hp D 0 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 #N/A 0.0 Off -Highway Truck D 2 8 28.8 3.0 66.7 7.2 4.2 Tracked Loader D 0 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tracked Tractor D 1 8 2.8 1.0 10.1 1.1 0.9 Scraper D 1 8 10.0 2.2 30.7 3.7 3.3 Wheeled Dozer D 2 8 28.8 3.0 66.7 5.6 2.6 Wheeled Loader D 1 8 4.6 1.8 15.2 1.5 1.4 Wheeled Tractor D 0 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Roller D 1 8 2.4 0.5 7.0 0.5 0.4 Motor Grader D 3 8 3.6 0.9 17.1 2.1 1.5 Miscellaneous D 0 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Number of days operating/week: operating/quarter: Thresholds (SCAQMD, Nov. 1993) SCAB/Coachella Valley Total: 81.0 12.5 213.5 21.7 14.2 5 Averaged Daily lbs: 57.9 8.9 152.5 15.5 10.1 65 Quarterly tons: 2.6 0.4 6.9 0.7 0.5 Daily, lbs 550 55 55 150 150 Quarter, tons 24.75 2.5 2.5 6.75 6.75 PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSIONS Scenario: Worst -Case Day - Santa Clarita Circulation Element Dirt Piling Mean wind speed 12 mph Note: Moisture Content Moisture content 2% Dry 2% Amount of dirt 2000000 lbs/day Moist 15% Days with >0.01" rain 34 Wet 50% PM10 Emissions 3.5 lbs/day PM10 Emissions 20.0 lbs/day Dirt Pushing Silt Content 7.5 % Moisture Content 2% Hours Operating 8 PM10 Emissions 61.8 lbs/day Wind Erosion of Storage Piles Silt Content 7.5% Days with >0.01" rain 34 % Time wind speed>12 mph 25 % Acreage of piles 2 PM10 Emissions 20.0 lbs/day Haul Road Vehicle Travel on Dirt Roads Surface Silt Load 8% Mean Vehicle Speed 15 mph Number of Wheels 18 Vehicle Weight 35 tons Days with >0.01" rain 34 Vehicle Miles Traveled 10 miles PM10 Emissions 75.2 Grading Emissions Acreage 12 per day PM10 Emissions 316.8 lbs/day Total Emissions 477.2 lbs/day Methodology Source: SCAQMD,1993, CEQA Air Quality Handbook Appendix D Noise Calculations Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR TO DETERMINE NOISE CONTOURS FOR A GIVEN NOISE LEVEL ATTENUATION RATE: 6 dBA/DOUBLING OF DISTANCE (Choice: 3, 4.5, or 6) Note: Within 0-10 feet from NOISE LEVEL: 78 dBA the source, there is REFERENCE DISTANCE: 50 FEET virtually no attenuation. DISTANCE SPECIFIC NOISE NOISE CONTOUR FROM SOURCE DISTANCE LEVEL 75 71 feet 50 78.0 70 126 feet 100 72.0 65 223 feet 150 68.5 60 397 feet 200 66.0 55 706 feet 400 59.9 50 1256 feet 800 53.9 75 71 feet 74 79 feet 73 89 feet 72 100 feet 71 112 feet 70 126 feet 69 141 feet 68 158 feet 67 177 feet 66 199 feet 65 223 feet 64 251 feet 63 281 feet 62 315 feet 61 354 feet 60 397 feet Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR TO DETERMINE NOISE CONTOURS FOR A GIVEN NOISE LEVEL ATTENUATION RATE: 6 dBA/DOUBLING OF DISTANCE (Choice: 3, 4.5, or 6) Note: Within 0-10 feet from NOISE LEVEL: 79 dBA the source, there is REFERENCE DISTANCE: 50 FEET virtually no attenuation. DISTANCE SPECIFIC NOISE NOISE CONTOUR FROM SOURCE DISTANCE LEVEL 75 79 feet 50 79.0 70 141 feet 100 73.0 65 251 feet 150 69.5 60 446 feet 200 67.0 55 792 feet 400 60.9 50 1409 feet 800 54.9 75 79 feet 74 89 feet 73 100 feet 72 112 feet 71 126 feet 70 141 feet 69 158 feet 68 177 feet 67 199 feet 66 223 feet 65 251 feet 64 281 feet 63 315 feet 62 354 feet 61 397 feet 60 446 feet Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR TO DETERMINE NOISE CONTOURS FOR A GIVEN NOISE LEVEL ATTENUATION RATE: 6 dBA/DOUBLING OF DISTANCE (Choice: 3, 4.5, or 6) Note: Within 0-10 feet from NOISE LEVEL: 84 dBA the source, there is REFERENCE DISTANCE: 50 FEET virtually no attenuation. DISTANCE SPECIFIC NOISE NOISE CONTOUR FROM SOURCE DISTANCE LEVEL 75 141 feet 50 84.0 70 251 feet 100 78.0 65 446 feet 150 74.5 60 792 feet 200 72.0 55 1409 feet 400 65.9 50 2506 feet 800 59.9 75 141 feet 74 158 feet 73 177 feet 72 199 feet 71 223 feet 70 251 feet 69 281 feet 68 315 feet 67 354 feet 66 397 feet 65 446 feet 64 500 feet 63 561 feet 62 629 feet 61 706 feet 60 792 feet Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR TO DETERMINE NOISE CONTOURS FOR A GIVEN NOISE LEVEL ATTENUATION RATE: 6 dBAIDOUBLING OF DISTANCE (Choice: 3, 4.5, or 6) Note: Within 0-10 feet from NOISE LEVEL: 88 dBA the source, there is REFERENCE DISTANCE: 50 FEET virtually no attenuation. DISTANCE SPECIFIC NOISE NOISE CONTOUR FROM SOURCE DISTANCE LEVEL 75 223 feet 50 88.0 70 397 feet 100 82.0 65 706 feet 150 78.5 60 1256: feet 200 76.0 55 2233 feet 400 69.9 50 3972 feet 800 63.9 75 223 feet 74 251 feet 73 281 feet 72 315 feet 71 354 feet 70 397 feet 69 446 feet 68 500 feet 67 561 feet 66 629 feet 65 706 feet 64 792 feet 63 889 feet 62 998 feet 61 1119 feet 60 1256 feet ROADWAY TRAFFIC NOISE Project Santa Clarita Circulation Element - AltemaUva 1 Project No. 96-1770 Date: 8 -May -97 PROJECT DATA and ASSUMPTIONS Vehicle Noise Emission Levels (CALVENO or FFIWA) - FHWA Project Dally Vehicle Mix Distance to Receptor. 50 feet Automobile 97.5% Site Condition (Hard or Solo: Soft Medium Truck 1.8% Upgrade longer than 1 mile: 0 % Heavy Truck 0.7% Ambient Growth Factor. 0.0% Future Year: 2020 Source of Traffic Data: Meyermohaddes Roadway: Rye Carryon Road Gilden Valley 1 Golden Vallay 2 NewMl1 Ranch Rd 1 Newhall Ranch Rd 2 Magic MN Santa Clarita 1 Santa Cladla Pkwy Via Pdncesss 1 Via Prnkessa 2 Existing Total Traffic Volume (ADT): 50,000 16,000 20,000 82,000 52,000 36,000 40,000 21,000 37,000 20,000 Total Project Volume (ADT): Total Cumulative Growth Volume (ADT): Street Dally Vehicle Mix Automobile 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% Medium Truck 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% Heavy Truck 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% Average Speed, mph 29 27 29 42 42 29 29 29 29 29 COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LEVEL (CNEL) dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dSA dBA Existing 69.9 64.2 65.9 76.0 74.0 68.5 69.0 66.2 68.6 65.9 Existing + Project 69.9 64.2 65.9 78.0 74.0 68.5 69.0 66.2 68.6 65.9 Future Cumulative + Project 69.9 64.2 65.9 76.0 74.0 68.5 89.0 66.2 68.6 65.9 Change in Noise Levels Due to Project 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Due to All Future Growth 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Existing Distance to 70 CNEL 49 #WA 27 125 93 40 43 28 40 27 Existing Distance to 65 CNEL 106 44 58 270 199 86 92 60 87 58 Future Distance to 70 CNEL 49 #NIA 27 125 93 40 43 28 40 27 Future Distance to 65 CNEL 106 44 58 270 199 86 92 60 87 58 'NOTES: Based on Methods of Federal Highway Administration "Highway Traffic Noise Model", FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978. #NIA = Not Applicable ROADWAY TRAFFIC NOISE Project: Santa Clarite Circulaton Element - AltemallveI Project No. 96-1770 Date: 8 -May -97 Golden My Copper Hit na PROJECT DATA and ASSUMPTIONS 17,000 27,000 79,000 98,000 Vehicle Noise Emission Levels (CALVENO or FHWA) FHWA Project Daily Vehicle Mix Distance to Receptor 62.2 50 feet Automobile 97.5% Site Condition (Hard or Soft): 97.5% Soft Medium Truck 1.8% Upgrade longer than 1 mile: 96.0% 0 % Heavy Truck 0.7% Ambient Growth Factor: 1.8% 0.0% 1.8% 1.8% Future Year: 2.0% 2020 0.7% 0.7% Source of Traffic Data: Mayer Mohaddes 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% Roadway: Existing Total Tragic Volume (ADT): Total Project Volume (ADT): Total Cumulative Growth Volume (ADT): Street Dally Vehicle Mix Automobile Medium Truck Heavy Truck Average Speed, mph Lyons Old Rd N.1hall3 Newhell4 Tourney Ma Pms.3 Golden My Copper Hit na na 17,000 27,000 79,000 98,000 22,000 40,000 37,000 10,000 68.6 62.2 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 96.0% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 2.0% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 2.0% 29 29 33 33 27 29 29 27 35 40 COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LEVEL (CNEL) *NOTES: Based on methods of Federal Highway Administration "Highway Traffic Noise Madel", FHWA-RD-77-108, December,1978. #N/A = Not Applicable dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA Existing 65.2 67.2 73.3 74.2 65.6 69.0 68.6 62.2 #NUMI #NUMI Existing • Project 65.2 67.2 73.3 74.2 65.6 69.0 68.6 62.2 #NUMI #NUMI Future Cumulative • Project 65.2 67.2 73.3 74.2 65.6 69.0 68.6 62.2 #DIV101 #DIV/01 Change in Noise Levels Due to Project 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #NUMI #NUMI Due to All Future Growth 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #DIV101 #DIV/0l Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Existing Distance to 70 CNEL #WA 33 82 95 26 43 40 #NIA #NUMI #NUMI Existing Distance to 65 CNEL 52 71 178 205 55 92 87 33 #NUMI #NUMI Future Distance to 70 CNEL #NIA 33 82 95 26 43 40 #NIA #DN/01 #DN/01 Future Distance to 65 CNEL 52 71 178 205 55 92 87 33 #DIV/til #DIV/01 *NOTES: Based on methods of Federal Highway Administration "Highway Traffic Noise Madel", FHWA-RD-77-108, December,1978. #N/A = Not Applicable ROADWAY TRAFFIC NOISE Project Sanaa Cladta Circulation Element -Alternative 2 Date: 8 -May -97 dBA PROJECT DATA and ASSUMPTIONS dBA Vehicle Noise Emission Levels (CALVENO or FHWA) FHWA Distance to Receptor: 50 feet Site Condition (Hard or Soft): Soft Upgrade longer than 1 mile: 0% Ambient Growth Facto: 0.0% Future Year: 2020 Source of Traffic Data: Meyer Moheddea 68.6 Roadway: Existing Total Traffic Volume (ADT): Total Project Volume (ADT): Total Cumulative Growth Volume (ADT): Street Dally Vehicle Mix Automobile Medium Truck Heavy Truck Average Speed, mph Project No. 96-1770 _ Project Daily Vehicle Mix Automobile 97.5% Medium Truck 1.8% Heavy Truck 0.7% Rye Canyon Road Golden Valleys Golden Valley Newhall Rand, Rd l Newhall Ranch Rd 53,000 14,000 30,000 46,000 Na M w = i Magic Mtn Same Clantel Santa Clarila2 Via Pdncessa1 Via Pdncessa2 43,000 42,000 22,000 52,000 32,000 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.0% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 28 27 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LEVEL (CNEL) *NOTES: Based on methods of Federal Highway Administration "Highway Traffic Noise Model", FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978. #NIA = Not Applicable dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA Existing 69.8 63.7 67.3 69.2 #VALUE] 68.9 68.6 66.0 69.7 67.6 Existing + Project 69.8 63.7 67.3 69.2 #VALUE] 68.9 58.8 66.0 69.7 67.6 Future Cumulative + Project 69.8 63.7 67.3 69.2 #VALUEI 68.9 68.8 66.0 69.7 67.6 Change In Noise Levels Due to Project 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #VALUE] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Due to All Future Growth 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #VALUE] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feel Feel Feet Existing Distance to 70 CNEL 49 #WA 33 44 #VALUEI 42 42 27 48 35 Existing Distance to 65 CNEL 105 41 72 95 #VALUE[ 91 90 58 103 75 Future Distance to 70 CNEL 49 #NIA 33 44 #VALUE] 42 42 27 48 35 Future Distance to 65 CNEL 105 41 72 95 #VALUEI 91 90 58 103 75 *NOTES: Based on methods of Federal Highway Administration "Highway Traffic Noise Model", FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978. #NIA = Not Applicable ROADWAY TRAFFIC NOISE Project Santa Cladla Circulation Element -Altemative2 Project No. 961770 Date: 8 -May -97 PROJECT DATA and ASSUMPTIONS Vehicle Noise Emission Levels (CALVENO or FHWA) FHWA Project Dally Vehicle Mix Distance to Receptor: 5o feet Automobile 97.6% Site Condition (Hard or Soft): Soft Medium Truck 1.8% Upgrade longer than 1 mile: 0% Heavy Truck 0.7% Ambient Growth Factor. 0.0% Future Year. 2020 Source of Traffic Data: Meyer Mohaddes Roadway: Lyons Old Rd. Newhall3 Newha04 Tourney ViaP.3 Golden My Copper Hill na na Existing Total Traffic Volume (ADT): 26,000 27,000 50,000 55,000 23,0130 51,000 52,000 15,000 Total Project Volume (ADTI: Total Cumulative Growth Volume (ADT): Street Dally Vehicle Mix Automobile 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 960 Medium Truck 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 2.0% Heavy Truck 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 2.0% Average Speed, mph 28 28 28 28 27 28 28 27 35 40 COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LEVEL (CNEL) dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dSA dBA dSA dBA Existing 66.7 66.9 69.6 70.0 65.8 69.6 69.7 64.0 #NUMI #NUMI Existing i Project 66.7 66.9 69.6 70.0 65.8 69.6 69.7 64.0 #NUMI #NUMI Future Cumulative * Project 65.7 66.9 69.6 70.0 65.8 69.6 69.7 64.0 #DIVI01 #DIV/01 Change in Noise Levels Due to Project 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #NUMI #NUMI Due to All Future Growth 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #DIV/O! #DIVIOI Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feel Existing Distance to 70 CNEL 30 31 47 50 26 47 48 #N/A #NUM! - #NUM! Existing Distance to 65 CNEL 65 67 101 107 57 102 103 43 #NUMI #NUM! Future Distance to 70 CNEL 30 31 47 So 26 47 48 Ill #DN/01 #DVI01 Future Distance to 65 CNEL 65 67 101 107 57 102 103 43 #DIV/0! #DIV/01 • 'NOTES: Based on methods of Federal Highway Administration "Highway Traffic ' Noise Model", FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978. #WA = Not Appficabte M M M M M M M M M M== M M M i M M M ROADWAY TRAFFIC NOISE Project'. Santa Cladta Circulation Element - Alternative 3 Project No. 96-1770 Date: 84ay-97 PROJECT DATA and ASSUMPTIONS Vehicle Noise Emission Levels (CALVENO or FHWA) FHWA Project Daily Vehicle Mix Distance to Receptor. 50 feet Automobile 97.5% Site Condition (Hard or Soft): Soft Medium Truck 1.8 Upgrade longer than 1 mile: 0% Heavy Truck 0.7% Ambient Growth Factor. 0.0% Future Year : 2020 Source of Traffic Data: Meyer Mchaddes Roadway: Rye Canyon Road Golden Valley 1 Golden Valley 2 N.hall Ranoh Rd 1 Newhall Ranch Rd 2 Magic Mln Santa Clanta 1 Santa Clanta 2 Via Pdncessa t Via Rincessa 2 Existing Total Traffic Volume (ADT): 54,000 15,000 30,000 13,000 n/a 40,000 48,000 12,000 52,000 36,000 Total Project Volume (ADT): Total Cumulative Growth Volume (ADT): Street Daily Vehicle Mix 'Automobile 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% Medium Truck 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.5% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% Heavy Truck 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% Average Speed, mph 28 27 28 28 n/a 28 28 28 28 28 COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LEVEL (CNEL) d8A deA dBA dBA d8A deA dBA dBA dBA dBA Existing 69.9 64.0 67.3 63.7 #VALUE[ 68.6 69.4 63.4 69.7 68.1 Existing + Project 69.9 64.0 67.3 63.7 #VALUE( 68.6 69.4 63.4 69.7 68.1 Future Cumulative + Project 69.9 64.0 67.3 63.7 #VALUEI 68.6 69.4 63.4 69.7 68.1 Change in Noise Levels Due to Project 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #VALUE! 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Due to All Future Growth 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #VALUEI 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Fact Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Existing Distance to 70 CNEL 49 #WA 33 #N/A #VALUE[ 40 45 #NIA 46 38 Existing Distance to 65 CNEL 106 43 72 41 #VALUE! 87 98 39 103 81 Future Distance to 70 CNEL 49 #NIA 33 #MIA #VALUE[ 40 45 #N/A 48 38 Future Distance to 65 CNEL 106 43 72 41 fVALUEI 87 98 39 103 81 "NCrFES: Based on methods of federal Highway Administration "HighwayTraffic Noise Model", FHWA-RD-77.108, December, 1978. #NIA = Not Applicable 1 ROADWAY TRAFFIC NOISE Project Santa Clanta Circulation Element -Altemanve 3 Project No. 96-1770 Date: 8 -May -97 PROJECT DATA and ASSUMPTIONS Vehicle Noise Emission Levels (CALVENO or FHWA) FHWA Project Daily Vehicle Mix Distance to Receptor. 50 feet Automobile 97.5% Site Condition (Hard or Soft): Soft Medium Truck 1.8% Upgrade longer than 1 mile: 0% Heavy Truck 0.7% Ambient Growth Factor. 0.0% Future Year: 2020 Source of Traffic Data: Meyer Mdiaddes Roadway. Lyons Old Rd. Newnall 3 Newhall 4 Tourney Ma Pms. 3 Odden My. 3 Copper Hin na na Existing Total Traffic Volume (ADT): 26,000 33,000 50,000 57,000 24,000 48,000 55,000 16.000 Total Project Volume (ADT): Total Cumulative Growth Volume (ADT): Street Dally Vehicle Mix Automobile 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 96.0% 97.5% 97.5% 96.0% Medium Truck 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 2.0% 1.8% 1.8% 2.0% Heavy Truck 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 2.0% 0.7% 0.7% 2.0% Average Speed, mph 28 28 28 28 27 28 28 27 35 40 COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LEVEL (CNEL) dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA Existing 66.7 67.8 69.6 70.1 68.0 69.4 71.8 64.2 #NUM! #NUMI Existing • Project 66.7 67.8 69.8 70.1 66.0 69.4 71.8 64.2 #NUM! #NUM! Future Cumulative • Project 66.7 67.8 69.6 70.1 66.0 69.4 71.8 64.2 #DIV/01 #DIV/01 Change in Noise Levels Due to Project 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #NUMI #NUMI Due to All Future Growth 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #DIVI01 #DIV/01 Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Existing Distance to 70 CNEL 30 35 47 51 27 45 66 #N/A #NUMI #NUMI Existing Distance to 65 CNEL 65 76 101 110 58 98 142 44 #NUMI #NUM! Future Distance to 70 CNEL 30 35 47 51 27 45 66 #NIA #DIV101 #DIV/01 Future Distance to 65 CNEL 65 76 101 110 58 98 142 44 #DIV/01 #DNPoI 'NOTES: Based on methods of Federal Highway Administration "Highway Traffic Noise Model", FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978. #NIA = Not Applicable M ROADWAY TRAFFIC NOISE Project: Santa Cladla Circulation Element - Altemative 4 Project No. 96.1770 Date: 8 -May -97 PROJECT DATA and ASSUMPTIONS Vehicle Noise Emission Levels (CALVENO or FHWA) FHWA Project Dally Vehicle Mix Distance to Receptor. 50 feet Automobile 97.5% Site Condition (Hard or Soft): Soft Medium Truck 1.8% Upgrade longer than 1 mile: 0% Heavy Truck 0.7% Ambient Growth Factor. 0.0% Future Year: 2020 Source of Traffic Data: Mayer Mohaddes Roadway: Rye Canyon Road Golden Valley l Golden Valley 2 Newhall Ran& Rd l Newhall Ran& Rd 2 Maglcmin Santa Clenta 1 Santa Clanta 2 Ya Pnncesea l Via Pdnoessa 2 Existing Total Traffic Volume (ADT): 53,000 12,000 30,000 50,000 n1a 40,000 38,000 22,000 53,000 30,000 Total Project Volume (ADT): Total Cumulative Growth Volume (ADT): Street Daily Vehicle Mix Automobile 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.6% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% Medium Truck 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% Heavy Truck 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% Average Speed, mph 31 28 31 31 35 31 31 31 31 31 COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LEVEL (CNEL) dBA dSA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA cIBA dBA dBA Existing 70.9 63.4 68.4 70.6 #VALUEI 69.6 69.4 67.0 70.9 68.4 Existing + Project 70.9 63.4 68.4 70.6 #VALUE! 69.6 69.4 67.0 70.9 68.4 Future Cumulative+ Project 70.9 63.4 68.4 70.6 #VALUEI 69.6 69.4 67.0 70.9 68.4 Change in Noise Levels . Due to Project 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #VALUE! 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Due to All Future Growth 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #VALUEI 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Feet Feet Feel Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Existing Distance to 70 CNEL 57 #N/A 39 55 #VALUEI 47 46 32 57 39 Existing Distance to 65 CNEL 123 39 84 118 #VALUE! 102 99 68 123 84 Future Distance to 70 CNEL 57 #NIA 39 55 #VALUEI 47 46 32 57 39 Future Distance to 65 CNEL 123 39 84 118 #VALUEI 102 99 68 123 84 'NOTES: Based on methods df Federal Highway Administration "Highway Trathc ' Noise Model", FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978. #NIA=Not Applicable ROADWAY TRAFFIC NOISE Project Santa Cradle Circulation Element - Altemative 4 Project No. 96-1770 Date: O W ay -97 PROJECT DATA and ASSUMPTIONS Vehicle Noise Emission Levels (CALVENO or FHWA) FHWA Project Daily Vehicle Mix Distance to Receptor. 50 feet Automobile 97.5% Site Condition (Hard or Soft): Soft Medium Truck 1.8% Upgrade longer than 1 mile: 0% Heavy Truck 0.7% Ambient Growth Factor: 0.0% Future Year: 2020 Source of Traffic Data: Meyer Mohaddes Roadway: Lyons Cid Rd. Newhall3 Newhall4 Tourney Ma Pms.3 Golden Yly3 Copper Hda na na Existing Total Traffic Volume (ADT): 24,000 30,000 43,000 50,000 10,000 54,000 54,000 14,000 Total Project Volume (ADT): Total Cumulative Growth Volume (ADT): Street Daily Vehicle Mix Automobile 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 96.0% Medium Truck 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.6% 1.8% 1.8% 2.0% Heavy Truck 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 2.0% Average Speed, mph 31 31 31 31 28 31 31 28 35 40 COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LEVEL (CNEL) dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA d&4 dBA dBA dRA dBA Existing 67.4 68.4 70.0 70.6 62.6 70.9 70.9 64.0 #NUMI #NUMI Existing + Project 67.4 68.4 70.0 70.6 62.6 70.9 70.9 64.0 #NUM! #NUMI Future Cumulabve+ Project 67.4 68.4 70.0 70.6 62.6 70.9 70.9 64.0 #DMOI #DIV/OI Change in Noise Levels Due to Project 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #NUMI #NUMI Due to All Future Growth 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #DIV/01 #DIV/01 Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Existing Distance to 70 CNEL 34 39 50 55 #NIA 58 58 #N/A #NUMI #NUMI Existing Distance to 65 CNEL 73 84 107 118 34 125 125 43 #NUM! #NUM! Future Distance to 70 CNEL 34 39 50 55 #NIA 58 58 #NIA #DIVI01 #DIV/01 Future Distance to 65 CNEL 73 84 107 118 34 125 125 43 #DIVIOI #DIV/01 ' 'NOTES: Based on methods of Federal Highway Administration "Highway Traffic Noise Model", FHWA-RD-77.108, December, 1978. # WA - Not Applicable M= M ! == M== i M M== M ROADWAY TRAFFIC NOISE Project Santa Clanta Circulation Element - Alternative 5 Date: 20 -May -97 PROJECT DATA and ASSUMPTIONS Project No. 96-1770 Vehicle Noise Emission Levels (CALVENO or FHWA) FHWA Project Daily Vehicle Mix dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA Distance to Receptor: dBA 50 feet Automobile 97.5% 68.4 65.1 #VALUEI 69.4 70.3 Site Condition (Hard or Soft): 71.0 Soil Medium Truck 1.8% 64.3 68.4 65.1 #VALUEI 69.4 Upgrade longer than 1 mile: 65.1 0 % Heavy Truck 0.7% 71.0 64.3 68.4 65.1 #VALUEI Ambient Growth Factor: 70.3 0.0% 71.0 68.7 Change in Noise Levels Future Year: 2020 Due to Project 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source of Traffic Data: Meyer Mohaddes 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Due to All Future Growth 0.0 0.0 Roadway: Rye Canyon Road Golden Valley i Golden Valley 2 Newhall Ranch Rd 1 Newhall Ranch Rd 2 Magic Mtn Santa Clanta t Santa Claire 2 Via Pnncessa 1 - we Princessa 2 Existing Total Traffic Volume (ADT): 55,000 15,000 30,000 14.000 Na 38,000 46,000 14,000 55,000 32,000 Total Project Volume (ADT): #N/A 39 #N/A #VALUEI 46 52 #NIA 59 41 Total Cumulative Growth Volume (ADT): 126 45 64 51 #VALUEI 99 112 51 - 126 Street Daily Vehicle Mix Future Distance to 70 CNEL 59 #N/A 39 #WA #VALUEI 46 52 #N/A Automobile 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% Medium Truck 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% - 1.8% 1.8% Heavy Truck 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% Average Speed, mph 31 28 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LEVEL (CNEL) *NOTES: Based on methods of Federal Highway Administration "Highway Traffic Noise Moder', FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978, #WA = Not Applicable dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA Existing 71.0 64.3 68.4 65.1 #VALUEI 69.4 70.3 65.1 71.0 68.7 Existing t- Project 71.0 64.3 68.4 65.1 #VALUEI 69.4 70.3 65.1 71.0 68.7 Future Cumulative * Project 71.0 64.3 68.4 65.1 #VALUEI 69.4 70.3 65.1 71.0 68.7 Change in Noise Levels Due to Project 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #VALUEI 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Due to All Future Growth 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #VALUEI 0.0 0.0 O.D 0.0 0.0 Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Existing Distance to 70 CNEL 59 #N/A 39 #N/A #VALUEI 46 52 #NIA 59 41 Existing Distance to 65 CNEL 126 45 64 51 #VALUEI 99 112 51 - 126 88 Future Distance to 70 CNEL 59 #N/A 39 #WA #VALUEI 46 52 #N/A 59 41 Future Distance to 65 CNEL 126 45 84 51 #VALUEI 99 112 51 126 88 *NOTES: Based on methods of Federal Highway Administration "Highway Traffic Noise Moder', FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978, #WA = Not Applicable ROADWAY TRAFFIC NOISE Project Santa Cladta Circulation Element -Alternative 5 Project No. 96-1770 Date: 8 -May -97 PROJECT DATA and ASSUMPTIONS Vehicle Noise Emission Levels (CALVENO or FHWA) FHWA Project Daily Vehicle Mix Distance to Receptor: 50 feet Automobile 97.5% Site Condition (Hard or Soft): Soft Medium Truck 1.8% Upgrade longer than 1 mile: 0% Heavy Truck 0.7% Ambient Growth Factor. 0.0% Future Year; 2020 Source of Traffic Data: Meyer Molraddea Roadway: Lyons Old Rd. Newhall3 Newhall4 Toomey Ma Pms.3 Golden Ny 3 Copper Hill na na Existing Total Traffic Volume (ADT): 24,000 29,000 43,000 - 50,000 10,000 51,000 59,000 14,000 Total Project Volume (ADT): Total Cumulative Growth Volume (ADT): Street Daily Vehicle Mix Automobile 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 97.5% 96.0% Medium Truck 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 2.0% Heavy Truck 0.7% 0.7% 0.7/, 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 2.0% Average Speed, mph 30 31 31 31 28 31 31 28 35 40 COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LEVEL (CNEL) dBA dBA dSA dBA dBA (ISA dBA dBA dBA dBA Existing 67.1 68.2 70.0 70.6 62.6 70.7 71.3 64.0 #NUMI #NUM! Existing+Project 87.1 68.2 70.0 70.6 62.6 70.7 71.3 64.0 #NUMI #NUM! Future Cumulative + Project 67.1 68.2 70.0 70.6 62.6 70.7 71.3 64.0 #DIV101 #DIV/01 Change In Noise Levels Due to Project 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #NUM! #NUMI Due to All Future Growth 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #DIV/01 #DN/01 Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Existing Distance to 70 CNEL 32 38 50 55 #N/A 56 61 #N/A #NUMI #NUMI Existing Distance to 65 CNEL 69 82 107 118 34 120 132 43 #NUMI #NUM! Future Distance to 70 CNEL 32 38 50 55 #WA 56 61 #WA #DN/0! #DIV/0! Future Distance to 65 CNEL 69 82 107 118 - 34 120 132 43 #DIV/01 #DIV101 'NOTES: Based on methods of Federal Highway Administration "HighwayTraBic ' Noise Madel", FHWA-RD-77-106, December, 1978. #NIA=Not Applicable M = i M = = = M M = M = = = = i ROADWAY TRAFFIC NOISE Project: Santa Clara Circulation Element- Altemative a Project No. 96-1770 Date: 19-May-97 PROJECT DATA and ASSUMP77ONS Vehicle Noise Emission Levels (CALVENO or FHWA) FHWA Project Daily Vehicle Mix Distance to Receptor. 50 feel Automobile 97.3% Site Condition (Hard or Soft): Soft Medium Truck 2.0% Upgrade longer than l mile: 0% Heavy Truck 0.7% Ambient Growth Factor: 0.0% Future Year: 2020 Source 01 Trak Data: Meyer Mohaddes Roadway: Rye Canyon Road Golden Valley t Golden Valley 2 Newhall Ranch Rd 1 Newhall Ranch Rd 2 Magic Mut Santa clams 1 Saha Ctaraa 2 Via Pdnoessa 1 Ma Pdncessa 2 Existing Total Traffic Volume (ADT): 53,000 13,000 29,000 44,000 n/a 41,000 4D,000 21,000 49,000 31,000 Total Project Volume (ADT): Total Cumulative Growth Volume (ADT): Street Dally Vehicle Mix Automobile 97.3% 97.3% 97.3% 97.3% 97.3% 97.3% 97.3% 97.3% 97.3% 97.3% Medium Truck 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Heavy Truck D.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% D.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% Average Speed, mph 31 28 31 31 35 31 31 31 31 31 COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LEVEL (CNEL) dBA dBA d9A dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dRA dBA Existing 70.9 63.8 68.3 70.1 #VALUEI 69.8 69.7 66.9 70.6 68.6 Existing + Project 70.9 63.8 68.3 70.1 #VALUEI 69.6 69.7 66.9 70.6 68.6 Future Cumulative + Project 70.9 63.8 68.3 7D.1 #VALUE! 69.8 69.7 66.9 70.6 68.6 Change in Noise Levels Due to Project 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #VALUEI 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Due to All Future Granth 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #VALUEI 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Feet Feet Feel Feet Feel Feet Feet Feet Feel Feet Existing Distance to 70 CNEL 58 #N/A 39 51 #VALUEI 49 48 31 55 40 Existing Distance to 65 CNEL 124 41 83 110 #VALUEI 105 103 67 118 87 Future Distance to 70 CNEL 58 #N/A 39 51 #VALUEI 49 48 31 55 40 Future Distance to 65 CNEL 124 41 83 110 #VALUEI 105 103 67 118 87 "NOTES: Based on methods of Federal Highway Administration "Highway Traffic Noise Model", FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978. #WA = Not Applicable ROADWAY TRAFFIC.NOISE Project Santa Cladta Circulation Element -Alternative 6 Project No. 96-1770 Date: 19Way-97 PROJECT DATA and ASSUMPTIONS Vehicle Noise Emission Levels (CALVENO or FHWA) FHWA Project Dally Vehicle Mix Distance to Receptor. 50 feet Automobile 97.3% Site Condition (Hard or Soft): Soft Medium Truck 2.0% Upgrade longer than 1 mile: 0% Heavy Truck 0.7% , Ambient Growth Factor 0.0% Future Year; 2020 Source of Traffic Data: Meyer Mohaddes Roadway: Lyons Old Rd. Nevha113 Newhall4 Tourney Me Pens. 3 Golden My.3 Copper Hill no no Existing Total Traffic Volume (ADT): 26,000 31,000 48,000 53,000 20,000 49,000 49,000 15,000 Total Project Volume (ADT): Total Cumulative Growth Volume (ADT): Street Daily Vehicle Mix Automobile 97.3% 97.3% 97.3% 97.3% 97.3% 97.3% 97.3% 97.3% 97,3% 97.3% Medium Truck 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Heavy Truck 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% Average Speed, mph 28 28 28 28 27 28 28 27 35 40 COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LEVEL (CNEL) dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA Existing 66.8 67.6 69.5 69.9 65.3 69.5 69.5 64.0 #NUMI #NUMI Existing + Project 66.8 67.6 69.5 69.9 65.3 69.5 69.5 64.0 #NUM! #NUMI Future Cumulative + Project 66.8 67.6 69.5 69.9 65.3 69.5 69.5 64.0 #DIV101 #DIV101 Change in Noise Levels Due to Project 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #NUMI #NUM! Due to All Future Growth 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #DIV/01 #DIV10! Feet Feet Feet Feet Feel Feet Feet Feet Feet Feel Existing Distance to 70 CNEL 31 34 46 49 #N/A 47 47 #N!A #NUMI #NUMI Existing Distance to 65 CNEL 66 74 99 106 52 100 100 43 #NUMI #NUMI Future Distance t0 70 CNEL 31 34 46 49 #N/A 47 47 #N/A #DN101 #DIV10! Future Distance to 65 CNEL 66 74 99 106 52 100 100 43 #DN101 #DIV/01 'NOTES: Based on methods of Federal Highway Administration "Highway Traffic Noise Model", FHWA-RD-77.108, December,1978. - #NfA = Not Applicable M= i M M M M M== M== M== M Z•Z� Zrr[_� � ccs � r� s•�3 y Project: Santa Clanta Circulation Element - Alternative? Project No. 96-1770 Date: 19 -May -97 PROJECT DATA and ASSUMPTIONS Vehicle Noise Emission Levels (CALVENO or FHWA) FHWA Project Daily Vehicle Mix Distance to Receptor: 50 feet Autornobile 97.3% Site Condition (Hard or Soft): Soft Medium Truck 2.0% Upgrade longer than 1 mile: 0 % Heavy Truck 0.7% Ambient Growth Factor: 0,0% Future Year: 2020 Source of Traffic Data: Meyer Mohaddes Roadway: Rye Carryon Road Golden Valley t Gddan Valky 2 Newhall Ranch Rd 1 Newhall Ranch Rd 2 Magic Mtn Santa Carne 2 Sema Clanta 2 via pdncessa 1 Via Pdnmsse 2 Existing Total Traffic Volume (ADT): 54.000 15,000 29,000 12,000 Na 40,000 46,000 12,000 52,000 34,000 Total Project Volume (ADT): Total Cumulative Growth Volume (ADT): Street Daily Vehicle Mix Automobile - 97.3% 97.3% 97.3% 97.3% 97.3% 97.3% 97.3% 97.3% 97.3% 97.3% Medium Truck 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Heavy Truck 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% OJ% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% Average Speed, mph 28 27 28 28 35 28 28 28 28 28 COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LEVEL (CNEL) dSA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA Existing 70.0 64.0 67.3 63.4 #VALUE! 68.7 69.3 63.4 69.8 68.0 Existing + Project 70.0 64.0 67.3 63.4 #VALUEI 66.7 69.3 63.4 69.8 68.0 Future Cumulative + Project 70.0 64.0 67.3 63.4 #VALUEI 68.7 69.3 63.4 69.8 68.0 Change in Noise Levels Due to Project 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #VALUE! 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Due to All Future Growth 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #VALUEI 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Feet Existing Distance to 70 CNEL 50 #N/A 33 #N/A #VALUEI 41 45 #N/A 48 37 Existing Distance to 65 CNEL 107 43 71 39 #VALUEI 88 96 39 104 79 Future Distance to 70 CNEL 50 #WA 33 #N/A #VALUEI 41 45 #NIA 48 37 Future Distance to 65 CNEL 107 43 71 39 #VALUEI 88 96 39 104 79 'NOTES: Based on methods of Federal Highway Administration "Highway Traffic Noise Model", FHWA-RO-77-108, December, 1978. #NIA = Not Applicable ROADWAY TRAFFIC NOISE Project: Santa Clanta Circulation Element - Alternative 7 Project No. 96-1770 Date: 19 -May -97 PROJECT DATA and ASSUMPTIONS Vehicle Noise Emission Levels (CALVENO or FHWA) FHWA Project Daily Vehicle Mix Distance to Receptor. 50 feet Automobile 97.3% Site Condition (Hard or Soft): Soft Medium Truck 2.0% Upgrade longer than 1 mile: 0% Heavy Truck 0.7% Ambient Growth Factor. - 0.0% Future Year: 2020 Source of Traffic Data: Meyer Mohaddes Roadway: Lyons The Old Rd. Newhall3 Nawhall4 Tourney Ya Pins. 3 Golden My Copper Hill ns na Existing Total Traffic Volume (ADT): 25,000 32,000 49,000 52,000 22,000 48,000 54,000 15,000 Total Project Volume (ADT): Total Cumulative Growth Volume (ADT): Street Dally Vehicle Mix Automobile 97.3% 973% 97.3% 97.3% 97.3% 97.3% 97.3% 97.3% 97.3% 97.3% Medium Truck 2.0% 2.0% 2.00/6 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Heavy Truck 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% Average Speed, mph 28 28 28 28 27 28 28 27 35 40 COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LEVEL (CNEL) dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA dBA Existing 66.6 67.7 69.5 69.8 65.7 69.5 70.0 64.0 #NUMI #NUMI Existing * Project 56.6 67.7 69.5 69.8 65.7 69.5 70.0 64.0 #NUMI #NUM! Future Cumulative+ Project - 66.6 67.7 69.5 69.8 55.7 69.5 70.0 64.0 #DIV/01 #DN701 Change in Noise Levels Due to Project 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #NUMI #NUM! Due to All Future Growth 0.0 OA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 D.0 0.0 #DIV/0! #DIV/01 Feel Feet Feet Feel Feet Feet Feet Feet Feel Feet Existing Distance to 70 CNEL 30 35 47 48 26 46 50 #N/A #NUM! #NUMI Existing Distance to 65 CNEL 64 76 100 104 66 99 107 43 #NUMI #NUMI Future Distance to 70 CNEL 30 35 47 48 26 46 50 #N/A #DIV70! #DIV/0! Future Distance to 65 CNEL 64 76 100 104 66 99 107 43 #DIV/0! #DIV/01 .NOTES: Based on methods of Federal Highway Administration "Highway Traffic Noise Model", FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978. #WA = Not Applicable California Environmental Protection Agency Deparunent of Toxic Substance Control wli=AKER CORPORATION, HERMIT£ FAcu TY (Bermite) Santa Clarita Status of Remedial Investigation FACT SHEET #2 AUGUST 1996 LMODUC77ON Fieldwork associated with the remedial investigation (RI) at the former Whittaker Corporation (Whittaker), Hermit: facility (Bermite) in Santa Clarita is ongoing. Whittaker formerly used the property at 22116 West SoIedad Canyon Road for manufacturing explosive products and is funding RI activities. Th: California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is the governing agency overseeing the investigation and remediation. . Areas previously identified by Whittaker and DTSC as possibly contaminated with hazardous waste have been investigated. 'The investigation has detected several areas with elevated levels of hazardous waste. Contaminants include solvents, heavy metals, a small area with small fragments of depleted uranium, and chemical by-products associated with munitions manufacturing and testing. Many of the substances may be considered harmful to public health in certain concentrations and require future cleanup. Areas requiring additional investigation have also been identified. This fact sheet is one in a series of updates regarding progress of the Rl; and includes a summary of fieldwork activities, findings to date, proposed interim remedial measures (IBMs), and the site mitigation process. A public meeting to discuss findings to date will be held in August or September. (A flier publicizing the meeting will be trailed to tba public and will be published in local netispapers). A second meeting will be field later in the year to receive public comment on proposed MMs. 1. public notice will be published in Ictal newspapers prior to the beginning of the comment period, and a fact sheet obout the eommem period will be mailed tv those on the mailing list. Whittaker has contracted with Acton • Mickelson • Environmental, Inc. (AME), to perform specific fieldwork activities at the site. For more information on the RI and additional activities planned, please we the 'Fieldwork Activities` and 'Findings to Datta' sections of this fact sheet. FIELDWORK ACTIVITIES Fieldwork for the RI began the week of September i, 1995, when the fust survey crew began . marking sampling locations. The purpose of the initial fieldwork was to identify arras on the site containing hazardous materials. Following completion of initial RI field activities in January 1996, Whittaker began conducting follow-up investigations at areas where hazardous materials or residues of bazardous materials were encountered. Rl field activities have included the following tasks: • maGeophysical y ha e� surveying of are that Of waste. used for the disposal magnetometer "is as included measmagnetic the differences in the �th•s ferrous m field (i.e., detect buried electro etalhc obJ'Wts) to 18 areas: measure magnetic netic surveys, which indu in thmt4gt»tude of currents bu ed conductive rials. incl�tect metallic objects, and low dm conductivity soil) and high ground.pehetratin � and provides locationg rnd' which Uri ob' data for .shallow lects, in two areas. �eigaging more than 200 trenches in 30 mat disposalY have been used for of waste majority materials. The identified jty of these locations. were surveys.from the $eophysical • Analyzing soil vapor samples fr more om than ],2pp locations in 47 8anicccompounto assess the dsca of volatile 4t�r surveys were Performed at VOCs wsuch potential releases of (TCE) and t trichloroethylene tetrachloroethylene (1'ERC) may have occurred. . Drilling obt�r than 100 soil borfngs chemicalg soil samples for analysis from 34 different "'WYzed forareas. Selected Samples weer includ' V�svanous constituents, compounds • setttivolatile organic dioxins/futar(s VOCs)' heavy met$js, compounds. end nitrnaromatic L1sL*'dl�8 three additional soil vapor monitoring Probes and continueed of ground water 2 '(the one remai . tea 1-317 Surface 1mPoundment CoASmationecovmg Resource aPProzitnatUnitjely v mRAJ Ibis e erY Act �ile Pounds of TCE vapor tie banPer month the soil by a g rtmoved from SPProved in RC xtraction system RA Plan �o� which rdous dealtwith some pf the review And JLste Areas Ott the subject to public lic comment in lanuuy,1989. • Ground water had also for the presence of monitored mals m former hazardous Portion faste Area , located in the southern two bathe site, wllich consisted of hem red Phosphorus store wash water to off-site sphmen prooeSsins prior Ground war fitment and dispose EWI monitorin approval Pproin � f 5 :ember 1993�the materials were d a�f no hazardous Locations of the arras of investigation are' shown on the site map on page S. FD1NGS TO DATE 771e map on page S shows that the tluough a series Of dots , Inthedivided Intotion 76 atUdyv�atiTO has been has mdtr2ted elevated levels of Contaminants cant o*v� study mss, the M p and described in tin hich are mown on the °n and destub either o Of contamination and na, or lesser amounts debt's, were found. Continuing RI activities willthe help the f,g amsextent,!>� :nation in assessment will also determine whether r the contamination may poe a isskto hum health or the environment, and will bclp establish cleanup levels. (Definitions of existing contaminants can be found in the Glossary on page 8.) Significant Findings: 1. Area 13—New lead Azide Arca, near Formcr$uilding 207. Approximately 300 cubic yards of soil are contaminated with stabilized red phosphorus, a smoke generator used in signal cartridges. This area was used to stabilize red phosphorus. 2. Area 16r -Hula Bowls. Rel phosphorus, metals, metal debris, polynuclear aromatic bydrocarbons (PAHs), and dioxins/furans (a by- product of incomplete combustion), were found. 3. Area 34—Near Former Building 313. Approximately 30 cubic yards of soil are contaminated with solid rocket propellant and chemical oxidizers. Area 57—Test Range. Gamma radiation above background levels was found in approximately one-half acre on Test Range Road and the adjacent slope leading to Area 14, the Bum Area Valley. The source of the gamma radiation is depleted uranium used in 30 -mm ammunition tested at the Test Range site. Levels for gamma radiation do not exceed acceptable community exposure levels. The radiation emitted is approximately 10 times below the allowable community exposure level. However, . background levels for gamma radiation were exceeded. Therefore, the depleted uranium is proposed for removal as an IRM. The investigation also checked for 3 alpha radiation, of which none was detected. DISC and AME conducted a survey of the drainage leading from Area 57, past the site boundary, to the edge of the Circle J Ranch residential area. No levels of gamma radiation above background levels were measured. 5. Area W -Burn Area Valley. Eevated concentrations of VOCs such as PERC and TCE were detected as were PAHs, dioxinslfurans, Ash, red phosphorus, metals and metal debris. 6. Area 3—Pond Flat. Buried metallic waste and polymerized resin were discovered. Drums of polymerized resin, drum lids, conduit and rusted metal debris were removed to facilitate investigation of contamination at depths greater than 10 feet. 7. Area 55—Near Former Building 327. Volatile organic compounds such as PERC and ?CE were discovered. 8. Area 17—East Fork Landfill. Buried metal debris was found. fx6110)17.Lb�►ar 9 DISC will require Whittaker to complete the current investigation, document results in an RI report, and then prepare a Feasibility Study (FS) outlining cleanup options. This will be followed by preparation of a draft Remedial Action Plan (RAP), which summarizes the RI results and selects cleanup proposals for the site. The public will be kept apprised of regulatory developments, and .will have the opportunity to comment on the draft RAP. The draft RAP is scheduled for public comment next year. Following: is a more detailed explanation of future: site activities: Interim Remedial Measurss Whittaker has proposed Interim Remedial Measures (MMs) to temporarily stabilize contamination found in several areas prior to final cleanup. In addition, IRMs arc being considered to clear other areas for further investigation. IRMs are subject to public review and public comment before they are approved by DTSC and implemented. Below is a brief explanation of IRMs, and why they are needed at specific locations: Area . 13 contains stabilized red phosphorus, which • is anignition ignition hazard. • Area 34 contains solid rocket propellant and chemical oxidizers which are flammable. • Area 57 contains levels of gamma radiation above natural background. An environmental review discussing potential impacts of the IRMs will be available for public comment in the neat future. Draft copies of the environmental review will be placed in the information repositories at the beginning of the public comment period (see page 7 for information repository locations). Following a written response to public comments and DTSC approval of the proposed IRMs, the public wiU be notified of IRM implementation through notices in local newspapers and notice by mail. Completion of Remedial Investigation The RI will continue until the extent of contamination is delineated both vertically and. horizontally in each study area. 'I his 4 may include axil vapor surveys, soil sampling, trenching and assessment of impacts to ground water. t• • . :rar RI results will be documented in an R1 report. Human health and environmental concerns will be identified based on data collected during the investigation. Following completion of the RI (scbeduled for March 1997), a Feasibility Study (FS) will be prepared to outline various remedies which may be appropriate for cleanup of the contamination. Following FS approval by DISC, a draft Remedial Action Plan (RAP) will be prepared summarizing results of the RI/FS and recommending. appropriate cleanup remedies. The draft RAP is scheduled for a 30day public review period in October -November 1997, prior to final approval. A public meeting will be bold during this review period. Following public comments and finalization of the RAP. Whittaker will implement the appropriate remedies selected. Tentative scheduling now calls for cleanup at the site to be finishes, and a certification issued, by the year 2001. A tentative project schedule is presented on page 6. Coordination will .occur among Whittaker, DISC and Santa Clarita City officials during the site mitigation process and during subsequent development of the site. As has been stated previously, the goal of Whittaker and DTSC is to remediate. the engirt site. Representatives of Whittaker will be on site during grading activities associated with site development. If hazardous substances are encountered during development, DTSC will be notified and will overwe all remedial activities. DAD CAW" %r SANTA CLARITA SAUCUS % I COMMUTER RAIL SPEEDWAY CENTER r •• •. i •\', AREA 13 1 NEW EEAO AZIDE AREA • • . . \ (HEAR FORMER BUILDING 207) 1 •• • • • • �� _ AREA 1 • • • • BURN AREA VALLEY •woo AREA 17 -� • • EAST FORX LANDFILL • �.. - - �•'7 AREA 57 � 1 t[5* RANGE • • (FORMER BUfL01NG5 102 h 107) L AREA SS AREA 16 - • • • I NEAR FORMER BUILO.IG 327 INN 9WL CARTONS 1-9 •� • •• 1 AREA 34 • • • • • . '1 NEAR FORMER BVILOING 313 GROIE J . • • �r RANCH • • • • • ' I I AREA 9 CIRCLE J AREA 3 roRmER 317 SURFACE TMC0VNO11EI:T ESTATES POND TUT PLACERrt4 CANYON NORTH A LI [0,� 14. k Pli RII m Elo title Appendix F Traffic Volume Maps -ro i i i i a Ii i i i i i i i i i i i i 0 t PLCO IIo /_ t1 to N Projected Daily Traffic Volumes (in thousands) Alternative 1 1 a0 O 47 30 F P 37 to/�, 0 ro � a ro°vP� n N 90 zOL O O 1� 04 t y � s N 3 II II PLACEAITA PICO 34 Projected Daily Traffic Volumes (in thousands) Alternative 2 P 13 PLACERS♦A } N r r r■n r r a r� i r a o�:r r r r r r r r ilii!. r r r r r r� r� r r rr r r r r■ �■ Projected Daily Traffic Volumes (in thousands) Alternative 3 M z Ntl 40 _ tlN•93 o]!>b 9tln!] 6 • b fb92N o9 uf W ✓Ntl!] ]] ]] � m _ a p>pay ✓ oN w 0 o mi9O � to � OAS J Ot > W 99 O b2 ea BCIM^,� N 1 VI PICO 3 ] 2 2 PLACEAZIA 9 THF Ott �D m= m m m � = m� m m= r m== m ! u a -9"y0 91-t PICO a Projected Daily Traffic Volumes (in thousands) Alternative 5 N tea �� po !+ r1*1t. A9 �� @�° �� °y00 3T39 J 39 60 t4 1 11 9 53 6 t] 9'' T9a@ 2 > II q 01 p e a + PIAL@PITA W 3 + Projected Daily Traffic Volumes (in thousands) Alternative 6 - f9 ti m fm ^n N sf N p p u + n ro p a o p p a n n ° J rym p p a tl 34 as mOA 2m 2f 20 rA !a A 2 b tl N + a3 pa 4gN� N u o a ii n Ae ha n nI o ^ 5A N ♦ a 33 fd ]2 N ' a 10 f O n q A ti ,4 JO®d tl N J 1. 4� f Ng M12g r2 7d® N atla `'!f -' a O 1 2p� N 0 a elm• p of ID a �f N n 4„g m0 °� f a3 �NJfO O 0 m~ d Jig �'0� tl a •' ' 2'10 J J ID V G 49 38 PICO O n Tyle A+ O� ° ao A ID 12 gA 3 PIACEAIIA I 1 2O 2 M A H Q I O 2 9' 20 eve 0 Projected Daily Traffic Volumes (in thousands) Alternative 7 A RO. 2 �z 2 PUCERITA b n ' � tl 3 d b o tl °. 0 n tl 12 11 yb ��9pf�F 0 0 B ryryo o 2B m % ? as bo DO• 34 NO 21 20 Mb 14 Ja 0 ry? W Q •' 02 o a s z° 4 °g n3 o tl zb ® J oo a R 1 f3 O 1z0 fU 1Z AO f'lL 14 9°o a �0J 4 N O s 4� 14 � b tl13 w 54 a 0 3f oO 88 4 R° v 2 4 03i3 f' O ry 3d N Ila b o0 000e 02 M1 Qui �'Ep°O it 'Q0 R 3 Eo a a 23 a2 ° 5� 12 36''® O goo v9 4ti 0 z W s oba N. Al 4 y 02 92 4 sow A d W n OS 03 1a tl �,0 h 2 A> S U by " 04 40 „ 1° A RO. 2 �z 2 PUCERITA Resolution No. 97-112 Exhibit B Responses to comments on the draft EIR and MitigationMonitoringand Reporting Program A City of Santa Clarita r Circulation Element Amendment r Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments • Workshop Summary Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program r September 1997 �r 'r CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT FINAL EIR Responses to Comments Circulation Element Amendment/EIR Workshop Summary Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Contents Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Appendix H Summary of Circulation Element/ EIR Workshops Appendix I Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Appendix G Responses to Comments on the. Draft EIR II Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Appendix. G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR This appendix provides written responses to each of the comment letters received on the Draft Circulation Element and EIR, as required by CEQA. The City received 39 individual comment letters during the Draft EIR circulation period. This period originally ran from June 15 to July 31, but was extended for about one week because of the large number of letters that were received after the July 31 deadline. Responses to each individual comment contained in the letters were prepared and are included herein. The majority of the comments pertain not to the Draft EIR, but to the alternatives being considered as part of the Draft Circulation Element Amendment. CEQA does not require the preparation of written responses that do not pertain to the EIR itself. Nevertheless, because the proposed project is a public plan, comments about the alternatives were also addressed whenever possible. Following are the responses to each of these comment letters. Each letter is included and numbered as below. For letters with more than one comment, specific comments are lettered. Immediately following each comment letter are the responses to specific comments, numbered in accordance with the scheme described above (lA, for example). The commentors on the Draft EIR include: Commentor Pace 1. Antero A. Rivasplata, Chief, State Clearinghouse G-3 2. Stephen Buswell, IGR/CEQA Program Manager, Caltrans G-6 3. Viviane Doche-Boulos, Manager, Intergovernmental Review, SCAG G-12 4. Marie L. Pagenkopp, County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County G-24 5. David Yamahara, County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works G-26 6. Charles C. Holloway, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power G-33 7. Santa Clarita Citizens' Transportation Committee G-49 8. Connie Worden-Roberts and Bob Kellar, Santa Clarita Telecommuting Center G-59 9. Connie Worden-Roberts, SCV Transportation Management Association G-65 10. Michael A. Kotch, Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment G-75 11. Robert L. Hotton, Vice President for Operations, The Master's College G-80 12. Daniel M. Goetz, Vice President, UltraViolet Devices, Inc. G-82 13. Randy Wheeler, Vice President, The Newhall Land and Farming Company G-86 14. Salvatore (Sam) J. Veltri, on behalf of Whittaker Porta Bella Development, Inc. G-135 15. Carl J. Kanowsky G-146 16. John C. Becker, Vice -President, R.C..Becker & Sons, Inc. G-149 17. Valerie Thomas G-151 18. Form letter submitted by three residents G-153 19. Denice Schelling G-157 20. Stephen H. Schafhausen G-159 21. Robert Lathrop G-161 22. Penny Upton G-166 23. Art and Glo Donnelly G-173 24. Charles and Cathy Lueder G-175 City of Santa Clarita G-1 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 25. Michelle and Paul Pappas G-177 26. Duffy Donnelly G-179 27. Beverly Wexler G-181 28. Jean Mahony G-183 29. Violet Cyongyos G-185 30. Sean Donnelly G-187 31. No Name G-189 32. Signed by an estimated 37 citizens G-191 33. Form letter submitted by 15 individuals G-195 34. Darryl Finesilver G-211 35. Tom Frew G-213 36. Laura L Hauser G-215 37. Dennis K Ostrom, President, Sand Canyon Homeowners Association G-217 38. Linda Johnson G-219 39. Chris Detlefson G-221 City of Santa Clarita G-2 Subject: GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT SCH #: 96112028 Dear LAURA STOTLER: ' The State Clearinghouse submitted the above.named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period 1 is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental 1 documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call Kristen Derscheid at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. When ' contacting the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight - digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. 1 Sincerely, 1 ANTERO A. RIVASPLATA Chief,'Szate Clearinghouse 1 Ii � 1 G-3 �tate of (falifornia '�`_ OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH GOVERNOR'S OFFICE ,17, 1400 TENTH STREET OF 1 PETE WILSON GOVERNOR SACRAMENTO 95814 RECEIVED LEE GRISSOM DIRECTOR AUG 0 ; 1997 July 31, OS�'KITYOEVELOPMENT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA LAURA STOTLER CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 23920 VALENCIA BLVD. STE 300 SANTA CLARITA, CA 91355 Subject: GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT SCH #: 96112028 Dear LAURA STOTLER: ' The State Clearinghouse submitted the above.named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period 1 is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental 1 documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call Kristen Derscheid at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. When ' contacting the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight - digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. 1 Sincerely, 1 ANTERO A. RIVASPLATA Chief,'Szate Clearinghouse 1 Ii � 1 G-3 Notice of Completion Phass rante/SDC[H/Yumhee�o�e teal-lyCo�m"'-m�enn ' � ~� i. Mode:State Claringhau,,, Ia00Tath Sweet --�� Saaansam, CA 9581a 91bu5-0517 BC1 � f�. (n � � � n� Please y') d✓`-"-/ the Ctad Agrpry Pe)eee Tuar C,'r La�0^lr!•f1 C1Gry+d.. ✓' '1 U d E t �12 L—s Atmr)e I!P:: 1- Carne F.- 714 c:q:C PwSS :r5-4-557 7+.S 5 -5 C-mr. J tae r,AoIer ! Pre)aee leeaeen - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - Ciryl):uw Commwury: 2 r� . r L ?•' Cmu Saana: I •.f✓ -Code w125 Twat Asea: A.raw'a Pura N. Wide l Mike �� T`P' Rang'. A+rAu:�- ______ Deounvas.l Tytaa - - - - -- � �- clak. ONO? Q Spplvnmrl5u6apisru 0ErR(P. SCH Ih) C. NEPA: eENO.,t plr: Q`muresl)�ay rC. Q O�allrasns.m vUri, + 'k>�6 EOL ❑QN IIS ---------------------------- Q FOHSI lead Ante Ty"- - - - - - - ------ rC C—a P. l)pdaa CSpecin Pla Aireadrmee, C Mura P.n OR.PW QAmvaim C p�tar Q Rdraopuu.a Gera Par Elenas CU. Pana _Commwury Pe O Tu Plm�1y'�P^a'rr Q(: I'mnia ❑ tae Di.iace(Suhd)riafaa 00h ___-__- Peed Ma, Tae Ma. m) Dardopewet Typo CReidnua: Urea Aon C onse.- S6/1. Ane_ Waanle>,i c Q TIIr MCO E,' Y- CCemmrrei.k Sell.— Anew E -p4, — QT �e r%Pt '� .. �. hrcun;a: Sell, _� Ann Fduc.eena .�_ PNhen� C MAWW MueW Pow: �; Racusnnal Qwaall Tramana Trp �• M Haaxeea, wawa Tap JkChrr, (-I F"",, 7T Pr Ol laeoaa DlamaWd Ie ISOCaaMee My aN lad v�ifleod PlrhdFlmd'rg ❑SmrplaNr.eliyn Q tb Q�Wky ' $y�9aEa ff�prter° QSpercp it pavan spar,Gmmre.un Are.dot>OI,IuAical pyOse.e Upeey Could Z. M�ah IJ SoLdW nCevq.cdun•GtlhV s��j{Y des Mu�adas trdvrv,g ., tiPedaAtmwaBa.e �7 SaridFaairia gTearnctwim L F a y�Y C1wuLivr Et:sn etr,mn v Y�+W.aaral 00�- ----------------------------------- PEM U. I' ��F.-- - E- -------------------------- Q- USES taroi.ct rKt1w �NE ?tsed n+ w l E t;; -r t \fit 5 Ce t Qi Ci';tt(ai _ �,rilc.Y'�9 �E'.stt '{.T, Sale C;<arv:gyouse Cower. Mr. Chris Belsky ' Lr --1 I (/716) "3.0613 S'are Review Began: lfyn 1 & .Q' / Dort. Review to Agency 17 •••rrr uuu_''/""" •LL '- ASeaty Rtvio SCH <J SCH COMPLIANCE I II Project Sent to the following State Agencies Raourcq Baaling Coaeal Comm Coavzl Co'. Colorado Rw Bd �Commatioa Fish&Game a'_ Nk, Protection — Forestry Park, & Rec/OHP =R -kw,, ioo —BCDC DR'R CES Bus Tnn,p Hoo, � Aeerosuor)c, Y Caltrans e 2 Trac, Planning Housing & Davel Htallh & wait.,, Drinking H20 — Medical Wast, Srat0Cee,umer S, es General Services CaVEPA yy ARB SCA WMI<MSmI Bd �_SWRCB: Gran = a SWRCB: Dela �SURce: Wu Quality SWRCR: wor Pi s -S_RB. WOCil DTSCCTc YIWAdlt Corrections Corrections Indeptndent Comm Energy Cemm -K,NAHC PUC Santa Me Mms ,_%, State (ands Gomm — Tahoe Rsl Plan Other. G-3 Phass rante/SDC[H/Yumhee�o�e teal-lyCo�m"'-m�enn ' /r�enu Please y') d✓`-"-/ the Ctad Agrpry AC±1D'APCD�(Resour:es:�� I II Project Sent to the following State Agencies Raourcq Baaling Coaeal Comm Coavzl Co'. Colorado Rw Bd �Commatioa Fish&Game a'_ Nk, Protection — Forestry Park, & Rec/OHP =R -kw,, ioo —BCDC DR'R CES Bus Tnn,p Hoo, � Aeerosuor)c, Y Caltrans e 2 Trac, Planning Housing & Davel Htallh & wait.,, Drinking H20 — Medical Wast, Srat0Cee,umer S, es General Services CaVEPA yy ARB SCA WMI<MSmI Bd �_SWRCB: Gran = a SWRCB: Dela �SURce: Wu Quality SWRCR: wor Pi s -S_RB. WOCil DTSCCTc YIWAdlt Corrections Corrections Indeptndent Comm Energy Cemm -K,NAHC PUC Santa Me Mms ,_%, State (ands Gomm — Tahoe Rsl Plan Other. G-3 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 1 COMMENTOR: Antero A. Rivasplata, Chief, State Clearinghouse State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research DATE: July 31, 1997 RESPONSE: The commentor acknowledges that the City has complied with State Clearinghouse review requirements. No response is necessary. City of Santa Clarita G-5 i STATE �OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY PETE WI1561J, Gowiner DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7, 120 $O. SPRING ST. LOS ANGELES, CA 90012.7606 TDO (213) 897-6610 July 23, 1997 'RECEIVED IGR/CEQA cs/970645 DEIR AUG 0 7 1997 Santa Clarita ' Circulation Element COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Amendment CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Vic. LA -5/126/14 -VAR SCH# 96112028 'Ms. Laura Stotler City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Ms. Stotler: Thank.you for including Caltrans in the environmental review process for the above-mentioned document. Based on the information received, we have the following comments: ' 1. We have reviewed the proposed east -west arterial roadway concepts. We recommend that the facility, which will serve as A A the major east -west arterial, be a controlled access roadway. Such a facility would ensure the City a greater degree of safety should evacuation (fire/earthquake) ever be necessary. 2. SR -126 between the Ventura County Line to I-5 is being ' developed to full freeway standard which would require that new on/off ramps, such as extension of Backer Rd., would need to meet access spacing requirements. Any bridge over -crossing ' would also need to be reviewed and approved.by Caltrans. 3. Two critical intersections were not included in the discussion relating to V/C analysis. These were San Fernando Road (SR- 126)/Sierra Highway (SR -14U) and San Fernando Road/Antelope C Valley Freeway (SR -14). These are important intersections serving the Newhall area. Table 5.8-2 on Page 5.8-4 appears to be over -calculated by 1 digit. 4. Because the Circulation Element, in general, will facilitate trips to I-5 and SR -14, please discuss the potential influence that added traffic volumes will have on these facilities (mainline and ramps) and identify, including costs any T1 D improvements to them. The following freeway on/off ramps should be evaluated: I-5/Lyons Avenue; I-5/McBean Parkway; I- 5/Magic` Mountain Parkway; SR-14/San Fernando Roadv SR- 14/Placerita Canyon Rd.; SR-14/Golden Valley Rd.; SR-14/Sierra Highway; SR-14/Via Princessa .and any other freeway on/off ramps affected by roadway extensions. G-6 STATE JP CAUFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY PETE WILSON, Gow.m. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7, 120 SO. SPRING ST. LOS ANGEIE24-4A IMtlt mStotler • TDD (213) 897Mtpy 23, 1997 ' Page Two 5. Any work performed within or adjacent to Caltrans Right -of -Way may need a Caltrans Encroachment Permit. Grade Separation E projects affecting State Highways will need to be reviewed and approved by Caltrans. ) 6. We support Policy 4-7 to investigate.the locations of suitable) r park -n -ride lots. near Interstate 5, Page C-23, Executive f Summary If you have any questions regarding our response, please refer to Caltrans IGR/CEQA Record# 970645, and please do not hesitate to contact me at (213) 897-4429. sincerely, STEPHEN BUSWELL IGR/CEQA Program Manager cc: Mr. Chris Belsky, State Clearinghouse ;37 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 2 COMMENTOR: Stephen Buswell, IGR/CEQA Program Manager State of California, Department of Transportation DATE: July 23,1997 RESPONSE: Response 2A The commentor recommends that the major east -west arterial in the City be a controlled access roadway, which would ensure a greater degree of safety if evacuation is necessary due to fires or earthquakes. Although the Draft EIR Project Description states that the Newhall Ranch Road extension analyzed in Alternative 1 is classified as a "major arterial", the extension actually analyzed in the Draft EIR is designated as an eight -lane "expressway" with limited access. The text of the Project Description will be corrected in the Final EIR. Alternative 2, the major east - west facility is the combination of the Newhall Ranch Road extension and Golden Valley Road; in Alternative 3, the major east -west arterial is the combination of the Newhall Ranch Road extension, Santa Clarita Parkway, and Golden Valley Road. In both Alternatives 2 and 3, this continuous east -west facility is classified as a "major highway' through its entire length and will have an ultimate design of six lanes, with limited vehicular access control. Such a facility should be able to serve regional and freeway connecting traffic with adequate capacity. Response 2B The commentor states that new on/ off ramps onto SR -126 between I-5 and the Ventura County line will need to meet access spacing requirements and will need to be reviewed and approved by Caltrans. The referenced portion of SR -126 is outside the City of Santa Clarita, within unincoporated Los Angeles County. It is not governed by the Santa Clarita Circulation Element This comment should be directed to Los Angeles County Public Works and Regional Planning agencies for incorporation into their master plan of highways for this area. Response 2C The commentor states an opinion that two critical intersections on San Fernando Road were not analyzed in the Draft EIR. The Circulation Element EIR quantifies traffic and circulation impacts of the various alternatives by comparing the performance of the overall circulation system in each case with the "No Project" alternative (the adopted Circulation Element - Altemative 1). The methodology utilizes traffic projections developed by a travel demand forecast model, and analyzes systemwide performance indicators such as overall average speeds, vehicle miles of travel, highway link -level analysis on average daily traffic (ADT) volumes, and volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratios. Specific intersection -level analysis is beyond the general scope of the Citywide Circulation Element analysis and was not conducted. City of Santa Clarita G-8 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Response 2D The commentor requests that the impact of additional trips on I-5 and SR -14 be discussed. The EIR analyzes only the traffic impacts of the alternative Circulation Element concepts against the existing Circulation Element (Alternative 1). Traffic forecasts for all alternatives are based on the same general plan land uses and the total number of trips on the system are identical for Alternatives 1 through 5 (Alternatives 6 and 7 are assumed to have 15 percent fewer trips due to the implementation of aggressive TDM strategies - see Section 2.0, Project Description). Therefore, none of the alternatives would generate additional trips on the overall regional transportation system beyond those generated by the adopted Circulation Element. There will, however, be some shifting of trips between interchanges from one alternative to another, due to the configuration of th proposed arterial system in each alternative, lack or availability of alternative routes, and the projected levels of congestion on the arterial system. The table below summarizes projected volumes on the I-5 and SR -14 freeway interchanges and illustrates the changes in freeway interchange volumes for each alternative as compared to Alternative 1. Santa Clarita Circulation Element EIR Daily Freeway Ramp Volumes Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6 Scenario 7 Augmented Augmente Newhall Golden Existing Newhall Golden Newhall d Golden I Ranch Rd. Valley Rd. Plan Ranch Rd. Valley Rd. Ranch Rd. Valley Rd. w/TDM wl TDM Interstate 5 Lyons Avenue NB off 16,000 15,500 15,800 16,100 16,300 16,100 16,000 NB on 9,000 12,000 11,800 10,000 9,700 11,300 11,300 SB off 11,900 13,400 13,900 12,900 12,900 13,900 13,400 SB on 10,400 10,800 11,200 13,100 13,400 10,800 11,100 Interchange 47,300 51,700 52,700 52,100 52,300 52,100 51,800 Total McBean Pkwy. NB off 12,900 14,100 14,300 14,500 14,500 13,900 14,100 NB on 12,000 13,300 13,400 14,500 14,300 12,900 13,100 SB off 12,200 14,100 13,600 14,900 14,000 13,900 13,700 SB on 7,400 7,300 7,400 6,300 5,900 7,400 7,500 Interchange 44,500 48,800 48,700 50,200 48,700 48,100, 48,400 Total Valencia Blvd. - NB off 15,400 15,000 15,500 15,500 15,700 15,300 15,600 NB on 6,200 9,700 9,400 8,600 8,400 9,400 9,400 SB off 9,800 11,600 11,600 11,500 11,300 11,300 11,400 SB on 18,200 17,100 17,300 18,800 18,400 17,000 17,700 Interchange 49,600 53,400 53,800 54,400 53,800 53,000 54,100 Total Magic Mtn. Pkwy. 18,000 18,800 18,700 18,500 18,600 18,600 18,400 NB off 12,800 16,300 16,800 1,600 17,100 16,800 16,800 NB on 14,600 16,900 16,200 16,200 15,800 16,400 15,900 SB off 16,600 16,800 17,100 16,400 16,500 16,800 16,900 SB on Interchange 62,000 68,800 68,800 67,700 68,000 68,600 68,000 Total City of Santa Clarita G-9 Santa Clanta Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Santa Clarita Circulation Element EIR Daily Freeway Ramp Volumes Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6 Scenario 7 Augmented Augmente lw/TDM Newhall Golden - Existing Newhall Golden Newhall d Golden Ranch Rd. Valley Rd. Plan Ranch Rd. Valley Rd. Ranch Rd. Valle Rd. wf TDM State Route 14 San Fernando Rd. 32,000 34,000 32,300 36,000 40,100 33,900 32,200 NB off 4,200 7,000 4,000 4,700 3,700 6,600 3,800 NB on 4,800 5,800 5,400 6,400 5,500 5,600 5,000 SB off 19,000 19,300 19,600 19,100 19,300 19,200 19,400 SB on Interchange 60,000 66,100 61,300 66,200 68,600 65,300 60,400 Total Placenta Cyn. Rd. 7,600 7,600 5,900 10,300 9,800 7,100 5,700 NB off 6,600 6,900 7,100 11,100 21,100 7,200 6,900 NB on 15,500 15,600 9,200 15,200 13,500 15,500 9,300 SB on Interchange 29,700 30,100 22,200 36,600 44,400 29,800 21,900 Total Sierra Hwy. SB off 9,400 12,800 12,800 10,400 10,700 12,400 .12,600 SB on 11,600 11,600 1 14,700 12,200 11,900 11,300 14,500 Interchange 21,000 24,400 27,500 22,600 22,600 23,700 27,100 Total Golden Valley Rd. 2,800 2,700 2.000 1,900 1,300 2,300 2,000 NB off 8,500 13,600 13,700 13,400 13,600 13,000 13,700 NB on 7,600 11,300 11,800 12,000 12.900 11,100 11.900 SB off 2,200 2,300 2,700 2,300 2,300 2,200 2,400 SB on Interchange 21,100 29,900 30,200 29,600 30,100 28,600 30,000 Total Via Princessa NB off 10,200 10,700 10,700 10,300 11,200 10,400 10,700 NS on 3,500 5,000 4,900 4,100 4,800 4,800 5,600 SS off 3,400 5,200 5,700 5,000 5,500 5,200 5,600 SS on 19,800 22,500 22,500 21,600 21,900 22,100 22.500 Interchange 36,900 43,400 43,800 41,000 43,400 42,500 44,400 Total 1-5 Fwy Total 203,400 222,700 224,000 224,400 222,800 221,800 222,300 %change from 9.5% 10.1% 10.3% 9.5% 9.0% 9.3% Alt. 1 Rte.14 Fwy. 168,700 193,900 185,000 196,000 209,100 189,900 183,800 Total %change from 14.9% 9.7% 16.2% 23.9% 12.6% 9.0% Alt. 1 Both 372,100 416,600 409,000 420,400 431,900 411,700 406,100 Freeways %change from 12.0% 9.9% 13.0% 16.1% 10.6% 9.1% Alt. 1 Operation of any of the six alternatives (2 through 7) would involve more trips on Freeway interchanges as compared to Alternative 1 and would therefore have fewer beneficial impacts City of Santa Clarita G-10 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR to the operation of freeway interchanges than would the Existing Planned Circulation System. This is consistent with the analysis contained in the Draft EIR, which concluded that Alternative 1 would have the greatest overall circulation benefits among the studied alternatives. However, any of the alternatives (1 through 7) would improve the operation of freeway interchanges as compared to the existing arterial system because all would offer ' additional options for travelers. Therefore, the overall effect of any alternative would be beneficial, with Alternative 1 having the greatest overall benefit. Response 2E The commenter states that any worked performed within or adjacent to Caltrans rights-of-way may need Caltrans permits, while grade separation projects will need to be reviewed and approved by Caltrans. This comment is noted. ' Response 2F 7 1 '1 L: The commenter supports Policy 4-7, which encourages the investigation of locations for park- and-ride lots. This comment is noted. G-11 City II II II SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 'ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS II 'Main Office SLS West Seventh Street ' t(213)236-1800 f(213) 236.1825 ' wwwscag.ca.gov •:ra m_:�T• En„a Anae xn:aen:. �ea.,, r.,n •:� a 9:rz arte 6vse. Lw Y.8•'e. [Lwary of tmpaW; Lm Sharp. ;.-per.J Cauvp act ]Slion. Ei Cenr:o unp'of lq Angrb: Aanne gra: ¢9ur u, Angein♦ nti•Rx M1uL.la.Yea �x Ang[n ^^� C a!nnr:,, Lm Angrun • Aieen inn. 3,... Bo! •is Lnxr.Lkndan•tial0[I vx vedo • B:a:m B- uuz Lor k.,e • Aaban nrn. Aaumno • !Ewa C.:rck. loi '. Boo • Crruas • n<.:w Oe V Fa.^e. 5um0 ?-ug 'Jrvnt.'il long Bexb • ,n F -am. La ogees • NRbuk - Et. oRGrorn • Pa:.•. Laiac:er. Ins ingeies Eken Lntm. Ve •;xce Goidl4:g.Im.An�b • Laai-! .•nC�.T:n. ing!e u:ud mue I;eaa:Mec Lw :.ge:n • \rte *!olden. io. .,';"' • tnuna. , '1rnbn • mnd \s.m NITca:r C, 'A.. Twnae •Pam O'CUeea. lama 1R.'.. r Oropeu. Lang Bn<h • 9n::rce oo: Prca Men B!uk Andler�Thama>. lm geln • Rehud .Cardin. RCUhm. LmmnAag<iryn • 5Imo<n1Lo. 'aAiaB.da • wBud, L. 0. - !m Pao: le. so.:h hodal oay of Orange: u'mnm 5nuaee. Owge ••' • 5ne.e.Awadan. La Ceneau • Ron B.aA. J A:aeemf `L—. Brwn. B.. 3k. N D *. e o Bexh • Reba:d Onron. W, horn CG:kne Hauk,Yuna. V Alma • g hm: Bea ry of Riwslde: lama :enable. Rnewde m, • Ge:vx nrxger. 4bneu • Trk Cean,. .T eR ` RLLoK.n n dge. an�nde . Annrei ga. Caron. Rai ROMw.Temecu4 Cnmry a Ban Beevrd:.m I-- W.tkIt. Bu: h:nuL,no Con . BLil A :. Rmaho :weg' 4m B,g'.-� hn n e Pa'vvs - rceAr..xn.fMo •hand Ea�e:nan. Fonnana Chw. CLnrean evnudino • Gx,an 1MW .rs I'amlh countyn!A ww:udyNab. Ceewn Gwms :•.Caw P, n.uc rIo O.ka • k -b 1• b.. Saran 'Hula • Tnn. Ynmp Wn Hwneme PmiN.m 0.mJa2 P:r a.t S.u: 3 July 15, 1997 Ms. Laura Stotler, Associate Planner City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 PF: Comments on the City of Rmla Clafsta Cirmlarian Element Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report- SCAG No. 19700310 Dear Ms. Stotler: Thank you for submitting the City of Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report to SCAG for review- and comment. As areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG assists cities, counties and other agencies in reviewing projects and plans for consistency with regional plans. - The attached detailed comments are meant to provide guidance for considering the proposed project within the context of our regional goals and policies. If you have any questions regarding the attached comments, please contact Bill Boyd at (213) 236-1960. I 1,7 K 14 Kw •-= it i G-12 1211 11001 ' Los Angeles. California 90017'3435 ' t(213)236-1800 f(213) 236.1825 ' wwwscag.ca.gov •:ra m_:�T• En„a Anae xn:aen:. �ea.,, r.,n •:� a 9:rz arte 6vse. Lw Y.8•'e. [Lwary of tmpaW; Lm Sharp. ;.-per.J Cauvp act ]Slion. Ei Cenr:o unp'of lq Angrb: Aanne gra: ¢9ur u, Angein♦ nti•Rx M1uL.la.Yea �x Ang[n ^^� C a!nnr:,, Lm Angrun • Aieen inn. 3,... Bo! •is Lnxr.Lkndan•tial0[I vx vedo • B:a:m B- uuz Lor k.,e • Aaban nrn. Aaumno • !Ewa C.:rck. loi '. Boo • Crruas • n<.:w Oe V Fa.^e. 5um0 ?-ug 'Jrvnt.'il long Bexb • ,n F -am. La ogees • NRbuk - Et. oRGrorn • Pa:.•. Laiac:er. Ins ingeies Eken Lntm. Ve •;xce Goidl4:g.Im.An�b • Laai-! .•nC�.T:n. ing!e u:ud mue I;eaa:Mec Lw :.ge:n • \rte *!olden. io. .,';"' • tnuna. , '1rnbn • mnd \s.m NITca:r C, 'A.. Twnae •Pam O'CUeea. lama 1R.'.. r Oropeu. Lang Bn<h • 9n::rce oo: Prca Men B!uk Andler�Thama>. lm geln • Rehud .Cardin. RCUhm. LmmnAag<iryn • 5Imo<n1Lo. 'aAiaB.da • wBud, L. 0. - !m Pao: le. so.:h hodal oay of Orange: u'mnm 5nuaee. Owge ••' • 5ne.e.Awadan. La Ceneau • Ron B.aA. J A:aeemf `L—. Brwn. B.. 3k. N D *. e o Bexh • Reba:d Onron. W, horn CG:kne Hauk,Yuna. V Alma • g hm: Bea ry of Riwslde: lama :enable. Rnewde m, • Ge:vx nrxger. 4bneu • Trk Cean,. .T eR ` RLLoK.n n dge. an�nde . Annrei ga. Caron. Rai ROMw.Temecu4 Cnmry a Ban Beevrd:.m I-- W.tkIt. Bu: h:nuL,no Con . BLil A :. Rmaho :weg' 4m B,g'.-� hn n e Pa'vvs - rceAr..xn.fMo •hand Ea�e:nan. Fonnana Chw. CLnrean evnudino • Gx,an 1MW .rs I'amlh countyn!A ww:udyNab. Ceewn Gwms :•.Caw P, n.uc rIo O.ka • k -b 1• b.. Saran 'Hula • Tnn. Ynmp Wn Hwneme PmiN.m 0.mJa2 P:r a.t S.u: 3 July 15, 1997 Ms. Laura Stotler, Associate Planner City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 PF: Comments on the City of Rmla Clafsta Cirmlarian Element Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report- SCAG No. 19700310 Dear Ms. Stotler: Thank you for submitting the City of Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report to SCAG for review- and comment. As areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG assists cities, counties and other agencies in reviewing projects and plans for consistency with regional plans. - The attached detailed comments are meant to provide guidance for considering the proposed project within the context of our regional goals and policies. If you have any questions regarding the attached comments, please contact Bill Boyd at (213) 236-1960. I 1,7 K 14 Kw •-= it i G-12 Ms. Laura Stotler July 15, 1997 Page 2 ' COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR FOR TBE SANTA CLARITA CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT TfIATIT TTC.lTTT1TfA1T 1 The Circulation Element amendment guides the development of all components. of the City's circulation system, which includes roadways, public transit, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. It also guides City policy on transportation issues such as parking and transportation demand management. The primary impetus behind the Circulation Element changes is the City's desire to find an appropriate alternative to the State Route 126 Expressway that was part of the ity's first Circulation Element. The Element considers seven transportation system alternatives that could address the City's transportation needs. These alternatives include: Alt. 1 — The Existing Planner Circulation System, Alt. 2 — The Newhall Ranch Road Reduction, Alt. 3 — Alt. 3 — The Golden Valley Network, Alt. 4 — Augmented Newhall Ranch Road Reduction, Alt. 5 — Augmented ' Golden Valley Road Network, Alt. 6 — Newhall Ranch/Reduced Trip, and Alt. 7 Golden Valley/Reduced Trip.. The latter two alternatives include a set of aggressive TDM measures including a range of approaches above and beyond those envisioned in Altemativesl, 2 and 3, including use of the City and business sponsored incentives and disincentives to encourage use of alternatives to the single passenger automobile. The proposed amendment represents a shift in City transportation policy toward the development of alternatives to the single passenger automobile. ' INTRODUCTION TO SCAG REVIEW PROCESS The document that provides the primary reference for SCAG's project review activity is the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG). The RCPG chapters fall into three categories: core, ancillary, and bridge. The Growth Management (adopted June 1994), Regional Mobility (adopted June 1994), Air Quality (adopted October 1995), Hazardous Waste Management (adopted November 1994), and Water Quality (adopted January 1995) chapters constitute the core chapters. These core chapters respond directly to federal and state planning requirements. The core chapters constitute the base on which local governments ensure consistency of their plans with applicable regional plans under CEQA. The Air Quality and Growth Management chapters contain both core and ancillary policies, which are differentiated in the comment portion of this letter. The Regional Mobility Element (RMB) constitutes the region's Transportation Plan. The RME policies are incorporated into the RCPG. ' Ancillary chapters are those on the Economy, Housing, Human Resources and Services, Finance, Open Space and Conservation, Water Resources, Energy, and Integrated Solid Waste Management. ' These chapters address important issues facing the region and may reflect other regional plans. Ancillary chapters, however, do not contain actions or policies required of local government. Hence, they are entirely advisory and establish no new mandates or policies for the region. Bridge chapters include the Strategy and Implementation chapters, functioning as links between the Core and Ancillary chapters of the RCPG. I I G•13 ' Ms. Laura Stotler July 15, 1997 Page 3 Each of the applicable policies related to the proposed project are identified by number and reproduced below in italics followed by SCAG staff comments regarding the consistency of the project with those policies. Consistency With Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide Policies ' 1. The Growth Management Chapter (GMC) of the Regional Comprehensive Plan contains a number of policies that are particularly applicable to this Project. ' a. Core Growth Management Policies 3.01 The population, housing, and. jobs forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG's Regional Council and that rejlect local plans and policies, shall be used by SCAG in all phases of implementation and review. ' SCAG staff comments. As SCAG has designated subregions, the project is situated in the North Los Angeles County subregion. The transportation infrastructure is designed to A accommodate projected growth in the City of Santa Clarita as outlined in SCAG's growth forecasts, as noted on page 4-6 of the Draft EIR. The Project is consistent with this RCPG policy. 3.03 The timing, financing, and location of public facilities, utility systems, and transportation systems shall be used by SCAG to implement the region's growth policies. SCAG staff comments: The Draft EIR, on page 4-6, notes.that the Project is designed to I f accommodate projected growth. The Project is consistent with this RCPG policy. b. Ancillary Growth Management Policies 3.09 Support local jurisdictions' efforts to minimize the cost of infrastructure and public service delivery, and efforts to seek new sources of funding for development and the provision of services. rSCAG staff comments: The Draft EIR identifies a number of alternatives approaches to meeting traffic needs in the State Route 126 Expressway corridor that do not require expensive construction to expressway standards. Two of the alternatives focus on aggressive TDM strategies to help minimize trips. Alternatives 6 and 7 incorporate the use of City and business -sponsored financial incentives and disincentives, to encourage the use of alteratives to the single passenger vehicles. The Project is supportive of this RCPG ' policy. 3.12 Oicourage existing or proposed local jurisdictions' programs aimed at designing land uses which encourage the use of transit and thus the need for roadm y expansion, reduce the I' G-14 C II ' Ms. Laura Stotler July 15, 1997 Page 4 number of auto trips and vehicle miles traveled, and create opportunities for residents to wnik and bike. SCAG staff comments: The Draft EIR references Goal 6 and Policies 6.1 through 6.11 which focus on reducing trip generation through alternative transportation (transit), land D use planning and other strategies. All of the alternatives to address transportation in the I State Route 126 corridor include a base level of TDM strategies, whereas Alternatives 6 and 7 implement more aggressive TDM strategies. The Project is supportive of this RCPG policy. ' 3.13 Encourage local jurisdictions' plans that maximize the use of existing urbanized areas accessible to transit through infill and redevelopment. 3.14 Support local plans to increase density offuture development located at strategic points along the regional commuter rail, transit systems, and activity centers. 3.15 Support local jurisdictions' to establish mixed-use clusters and other transit -oriented developments around transit stations and along transit corridors. 3.16 Encourage developments in and around activity centers, transportation node corridors, undenuilized infrastructure systems, and areas needing recycling and redevelopment. SCAG Staff comments. See staff comments under policy 3.12 which also address policies C 3.13 through 3.16. Also the Circulation Element addresses transit and land use support policies under Goals 2 through 4 and supporting policies. The Project is supportive of these four RCPG policies. 3.23 Encourage mitigation measures that reduce noise in certain locations, measures aimed at preservation of biological and ecological resources, measures that would reduce exposure to seismic hazards, minimize earthquake damage, and to develop emergency response and recoveryplans. SCAG staff comments. Discussion of mitigation measures for geological and seismic F hai21!&, air quality, hydrology/flooding, biological resources, noise, risk of upsets to l human health and safety, and cultural resources is addressed in the Draft EIR The Projectll is supportive of this RCPG policy. 2. The Regional Mobility �h ter (RMC) also has policies, all of which are core, that pertain to the proposed project. This chapter links the goal of sustaining mobility with the goals of fostering economic development, enhancing the environment, reducing energy consumption. promoting transportation -friendly development patterns, and encouraging fair and equitable access to residents affected by socio-economic, geographic and commercial limitations. Among the relevant policies in this chapter are the following: r� L II ' G-15 Ms. Laura Stotler July 15, 1997 Page 5 ' ��portation Demand Management and Regional_ Transit Program Policies 4.01 Promote Transportation Demard Management programs along with transit and ndeshanng ' facilities as a viable and. desirable pan of the overall progran while recognizing the particular needs of individual subregions. 4.02 Support the development of public seed fouling for new and innovative demonstration programs. I4.03 Support the extension of 7DM progran implementation to non -commute trips for public and private sector activities. 4.04 Support the coordination of land use and transportation decisions with land use and transportation capacity, taking into account the potential for demand management strategies to mitigate travel demand if provided for as a pan of the entire package. 4.05 Support the use of market incentives as a mechanisms to affea and modify behavior toward the use of alemative modes for both commute and non -commute travel. 4.05 Support effort to educate the public on the efficacy of demand management strategies and increase the use of alternative transportation. 4.07 Public transportation programs should be considered an essential public service because of their social, economic, and environmental benefits. 4.08 Implementation of new transit service or improvements in existing transit service should be supportive of the Centers Based Transit Network (cbtn) concept. 4.09 Specific service types, levels and configuration should be determined by the local transit providers, transit users, local jurisdictions, and applicable county transportation commissions. a o Public transit services shall be designed to provide the madmu m availability at tithes convenient for use. b o Public transit services shall be designed to be available for use without impedinnents. O Public transit services should be designed to provide maximum user utility. d O New and expansion transit . programs wfuch are designed to meet the objectives of 7}ansponation Control Measures contained in the AQMP shall G-16 it Ms. Laura Stotler July 15, 1997 Page 6 receive priority for funding. o Local fimding resources for transit should be used to leverage all available federalfaiding sources as applicable. f o All existing and new public transportation services, facilities, and/or systems shall be fully accessible to persons with disabilities as defined, nzandated, and required under the applicable 77des and Sections of the Americans Wuh Disabilities Act, 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act, 1974. g o All existing and new public transit services shall be provided in a mariner which does not preclude use on the basis of race, color, and/or national origin as defined, nwndated and required under Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act,1964. h o All existing and new public transit services, facilities, and/or systems shall evaluate the potential for private sector participation through the use of competitive procurement based on Fully Allocated Costing methodologies. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR acknowledges that the Circulation Element incorporates a series of Goals and Policies that are supportive of TDM and transit, as G referenced in our comments on policy 3.12. The Draft EIR (Sections 4.2.2 a and b). discuss the consistency between TDM and transit goals, policies and strategies in the Circulation Element and SCAG policies. All seven of the State Route 126 Alternatives encourage TDM and Transit at varying levels of service. The Project is consistent with these nine RCPG policies. My= IMMUMMMIMIZIMM 4.10 Potential down stream congestion impacts from capacity enhancing projects will be studied SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR's "Transportation/Circulation" section (5.8) includes a full assessment of the down -stream- congestion impacts under the seven H alternative scenarios for the State Route 126 corridor. Although Alternative 1 would appear to result in the best overall levels of service, due to increased roadway speed, the other alternative offer significant benefits, while minimizing land use and other conflicts. The Project is consistent with this RCPG policy. 4.12 In addition to increasing occupancy thresholds on HOV facilities, consideration should be given to additional or a 9wded HDV capacity in the corridor. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR acknowledges that the: Circulation Element includes) ••��- Policy 5.6 which encourages the creation of HOV lanes and otter methods to increase the .L G-17 F1 I Ms. Laura Stotler July 15, 1997 Page 7 capacity of State Route 14 and Interstate facilities are addressed in Section 4.2.2 c. this RCPG policy. 5. These actions and supporting park-and-ride I I of the Draft EIR. The Project is consistent with (G', 14) 4.20 E pmmded transponanon system management by local jurisdictions mU be encouraged. 4.23 TSM activities throughout the region shall be coordinated among jurisdictions. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR (Section 4.2.2 c.) acknowledges that the various State Route 126 alternatives are supportive of SCAG's TSM policies. The Project isI J consistent with these two RCPG policies. ' Rtional Non -Motorized Transportation Program Policies 4.25 The development of the regional transportation system should include a non -motorized ' transportation system that provides an effective alternative to auto travel for appropriate trips.. The planning and development of transportation projects and systems should incorporate the following, as appropriate. ' a O Provision of safe, convenient, and continuous bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure to and throughout areas with existing and potential demand such as activity areas, schools, recreational areas Including those areas served by trails), which will ultimately offer the same or better accessibility provided to the motorized vehicle, b o Accessibility to and on transit (bus terminals, tail stations, Park -And -Ride lou), where there is demand and where transit boarding time will not be significantly delayed. c a Maintenance of safe, convenient, and continuous non-mororized travel during and after the construction of transportation and general development project. Existing bikeways and pedestrian walkways should not be removed w hour mitigation that is as effective as the original facility. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR (Section 4.2.2 d.)acknowledges that the Circulation Element policies 3.3 and 6.2 support and promote bicycle and pedestrian accessibility to all f� commercial, industrial, multi -family residential and public facility development. It also K aclawwledges that Alternatives 6 and 7 would best implement this regional goal by incorporate programs that promote non -motorized transportation. The Project is consistent ' with this RCPG policy. 4.27 Urban form, land use and site -design policies should include requirement for safe and convenient non motorized transportation, including thedevelopment of bicycle and II ' G•18 F1 Ms. Laura Stotler July 15, 1997 Page 8 ' pedestrian; friendly environments near transit. SCAG staff comments. The Circulation Element includes urban form, land use and site -I ' design policies that support non -motorized transportation as noted previously under SCAG t.. policies 3.12 and 4.25. The Project is consistent with this RCPG policy. Goods Movement Proz= Policies 4.28 Growth in the demand for goods movement will be accommodated through the provision of adequate multi modal and intermodal infrastructure that is consistent with overall regional goals. 4.31 Demand for increased goods movement will be given consideration in corridors where system connectivity and gap closure projects are being planned. 4.36 Arterial truck routes will be coordinated for the purpose of improving system connectivity, eliminating circuitous routings, and reducing delays. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR (Section 4.2.2 'e.) acknowledges that the Circulation Element is intended to facilitate and improve vehicular movement while providing for the M movement of people, goods and services. It similarly states that the seven alternative scenarios for the State Route 126 corridor. The Project is consistent with these three RCPG policies. 4.59 Support long-range corridors that will employ multi-modaland inter -modal strategies designed to maintain mobility for people, goods, services, and information in MVS that are safe, efficient, cost-effective, meet environmental mandates, and foster economic development. 4.60 Support long-range projects and rights-oflvwy preservation programs that foster the development of an urban form conducive to reducing single occupant vehicle trips.. ' SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR (Section 4.2.2 f.) acknowledges that the Circulation Element (Policies 2.4 and 3.9) is directed at developing multi -modal transit facilities and corridors that are strategically located in the City. Policy 2.10 calls for ongoing study of ' the reestablishment of rail service between Ventura County and the Santa Clarita Valley and encourages high-speed rail connections through the Valley. The Project is consistent with these two RCPG policies. ' 3. The Air Quality Chanter (AOC) core actions that are generally applicable to the Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment are as follows: ' 5.07 Determine specific programs and associated actions needed (e.g., indirect source rules, enhanced use of telecommunications, provision of community based shuttle services, provision of demand management based programs, or vehicle-miles-traveled/emission fees) so that options to command and control regulations can be assessed. 1 SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR acknowledges that the Circulation Elementl 0 G-19 11 Ms. Laura Stotler July 15, 1997 Page 9 incorporated policies which support alternative transportation systems (Policies 3.5, 5.611 O 6.9, and 6.11). The Project is consistent with this RCPG policy. Condusions and Recommendations: (1) As noted in the staff comments, the proposed Santa Clarity Circulation Element ' Amendment and Draft Environmental; Impact Report is consistent with or supportive of appropriate policies of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. (2) All mitigation measures associated with the project should be monitored in accordance with p AB 3180 requirements and reported to SCAG through the Annual Reasonable Further Progress Reports. .i 1 [_1 G -2o II Ms. Laura Stotler July 15, 1997 Page 10 ' SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Roles and Authorities THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS is a Joint Powers Agency established under California Government Code Section 6502 et seq. Under federal and state law, the Association is designated as a Council of Governments (COG), a Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), and a ' Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Among its other mandated roles and responsibilities, the Association is: • Designated by the federal government as the Region's Metropolitan Planning Organization and mandated to maintain a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process resulting in a Regional Transportation Plan and a Regional Transportation Improvement Program pursuant to 23 U.S.C. §134(8) (h), 49 U.S.C. §1607(f) -(g) et seq., 23 C.F.R. §450, and 49 C.F.R. §613. The Association is also the designated Regional IYansportadon Planning Agency, and as such is responsible for both preparation of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) under California Government Code Section 65080. • Responsible for developing the demographic projections and the integrated land use, housing, employment, and transportation programs, measures, and strategies portions of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code. Section 40460(b){c). The Association is also designated under 42 U.S.C. §7504(x) as a Co -Lead Agency for air quality planning for the Central Coast and Southeast Desert Air 1 Basin District. • Responsible under the Federal Clean Air Act for determining Conformity of Projects, Plass and Programs to the State Implementation Plan, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §7506. ' • Responsible, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65089.2, for reviewing all Congestion Management Plans (CMPs) for consistency with regional transportation plans required by Section 65080 of the Government Code. The Association must also evaluate the consistency and compatibility of such programs within the region. • The authorized regional agency for Inter -Governmental Review of Programs proposed for federal financial assistance and direct development activities, pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 12,372 (replacing A-95 Review). • Responsible for reviewing, pursuant to Sections 15125(b) and 15206 of the CEQA Guidelines, Environmental Impact Reports of projects of regional significance for consistency with regional plans. • The authorized Areawfde Waste Treatment Management Planning Agency, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. §1288(a)(2) (Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act) ' • Responsible for preparation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584(a). ' • Responsible (along with the San Diego Association of Governments and the Santa Barbara County/Cities Area Planning Council) for preparing the Southern Calfornia Hazardous Waste Management Plan pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 25135.3. a.a.alm..r tS tsnr G-21 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 3 COMMENTOR: Viviane Doche-Boulos, Manager, Intergovernmental Review Southern California Association of Governments DATE: July 15,1997 RESPONSE: Response 3A SCAG comments that the project is consistent with RCPG policy 3.01. No response is necessary. Response 3B SCAG comments that the project is consistent with RCPG policy 3.03. No response is necessary. Response 3C SCAG comments that the project is supportive of RCPG policy 3.09. No response is necessary. Response 3D SCAG comments that the project is supportive of RCPG policy 3.12. No response is necessary. Response 3E SCAG comments that the project is supportive of RCPG policies 3.13 through 3.16. No response is necessary. Response 3F SCAG comments that the project is supportive of RCPG policy 3.23. No response is necessary. Response 3G SCAG comments that the project is consistent with RCPG policies 4.01 through 4.09. No response is necessary. Response 3H SCAG comments that the project is consistent with RCPG policy 4.10. No response is necessary. City of Santa Clarita G-22 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Response 3I SCAG comments that the project is consistent with RCPG policy 4.12. No response is. necessary. Response 3i SCAG comments that the project is consistent with RCPG policies 4.20 and 4.23. No response is necessary. Response 3K SCAG comments that the project is consistent with RCPG policy 4.25. No response is necessary. Response 3L SCAG comments that the project is consistent with RCPG policy 4.27. No response is necessary. Response 3M SCAG comments that the project is consistent with RCPG policies 4.28, 4.31, and 4.36. No response is necessary. Response 3N SCAG comments that the project is consistent with RCPG policies 4.59 and 4.60. No response is necessary. Response 30 SCAG comments that the project is consistent with RCPG polity. 5.07, No response is necessary. Response 3P ' SCAG recommends that mitigation measures be monitored and reported to SCAG via Annual Reasonable Further Progress Reports. In compliance with AB -3180, mitigation measures will be monitored through a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Additional mitigation monitoring requirements for individual roadway and other infrastructure projects that are constructed in accordance with the proposed Circulation Element amendment will be specified in subsequent environmental documentation. II Cify of Santa Clarita ' G-23 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS '1955 Workman Mill Road, Whittier, CA 90601-1400 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4998, Whittier, CA 90607-4998 Telephone: (310) 699-7411, FAX: (310) 695-6139 IrI,II Ll ' Ms. Laura Stotler ' WASTF WATER RECLAMATION ' SOUD WASTE MANAGEMENT COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS '1955 Workman Mill Road, Whittier, CA 90601-1400 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4998, Whittier, CA 90607-4998 Telephone: (310) 699-7411, FAX: (310) 695-6139 IrI,II Ll ' Ms. Laura Stotler City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Ste. 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Ms. Stotler: I 1 OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY CHARLES W. CARRY Chief Engineer and General Manager July 2, 1997 File No: 26-00.04-00 32-00.04-00 Citv of Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment The County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Districts) received a Draft Environmental Imoact Report for the subject project on June 18, 1997. We offer the following comments regarding sewerage service: The proposed project will impact several existing and/or proposed Districts' trunk sewers over which it will be constructed. Existing and proposed Districts' trunk sewers are located directly p under and/or cross directly beneath the proposed project alignment. The Districts cannot issue f1 a detailed response to or permit construction of the proposed project until project plans and specifications which incorporate Districts' sewer lines are submitted. In order to prepare these plans, you will need to submit a map of the proposed project alignment, when available, to the attention of Calvin Jin of the Districts' Sewer Design Section at the address shown above. The Districts will then provide you with the plans for all Districts' facilities which will be impacted by the proposed project. Then, when revised plans which incorporate our sewers have been prepared, please submit copies of the same for our review and comment. The Districts maintain facilities within the project area which may be affected by the proposed project. Approval to construct improvements within a Districts' sewer easement and over a Districts' sewer is required before construction may begin. For specific information regarding the buildover procedure, please contact Sean Christian at (562) 699-7411, extension 2707. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (562) 699-7411, extension 2717. 1 ' MLP:eg LAWILLSEMW P60\LETTEMC0F$CCI R. LTR Recycled Psoe, G-24 Very truly yours, Charles W. Carry, Marie . Pagenkopp Engineering Technician Planning & Property Management Section �i II II �i It Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 4 COMMENTOR: Marie L. Pagenkopp, Engineering Technician, Plarming & Property Mgmt. County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County DATE: July 2,1997 RESPONSE: Response 4A The District notes that roadways that would be constructed under the Circulation Element would cross several existing and/or proposed District trunk sewers. The proposed roadway alignments are only conceptual at this time. No specific road alignments have been determined. At the time that individual roadway projects are proposed, detailed plans and specifications will be developed and submitted to the Sanitation Districts. Impacts associated with specific roadway projects will also be evaluated as part of subsequent environmental review. Response 4B The District notes that approval must be obtained from the District prior to construction. See response 4A above. All necessary approvals will be obtained prior to the construction of any roadway or other transportation facility in Santa Clarita. G-25 City of Santa Clarita HARRY W. STONE, Director August 6, 1997 5 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE ALHAMBRA. CALIFORNIA�9p1�803.1331 Tde"'01 _(6V5lit I V E D AUG 1 1 1997 COMMUNITY SANTA CDEVELOPMENT ARITA Ms. Laura Stotler Associate Planner City of Santa Clarita 23928 Valencia Street, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Ms. Stotler: ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO: P.O. BOX 1460 ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802-1460 IN REPLY PLEASE P-2 REFER TO FILE: RESPONSE TO A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) - PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the DEIR for the proposed General Plan Circulation Element Amendment. We have reviewed the DEIR and offer the following comments: Among the seven alternatives discussed in the document, we prefer Alternative 1. The proposed Newhall Ranch Road extension under A this option would best accommodate the demand for a major east -west A cross -valley route between Interstate 5 and State Route 14. Based on the analysis in the document, we believe Alternative 4 is the next best solution to provide the needed circulation capacity. This alternative would provide a major east -west route by continuing the easterly extension of Newhall Ranch Road along Golden Valley Road. The proposed Santa Clarita Parkway would remain a through route from Bouquet Canyon Road to State Route 14 and provide relief to. the Bouquet Canyon Road -San Fernando Road corridor. The proposed augmentation would improve the level of service at key intersections. Alternative 4 is also superior to other alternatives in several detailed traffic impact analyses as shown in Section 5.8. We agree that the proposed intersection widenings may reduce safety for pedestrians and bicyclist. To reduce this impact, your City may want to consider providing pedestrian/bicycle overcrossings or other means to separate them from vehicular traffic. Page 5.8-4, Table 5.8-2 - `per lane per hour' should be revised tol C `per lane per day'. We also have comments on the Proposed Circulation Element Text as follows: Page C-7, fifth line from the top - `level "F"' should be revised D to `level "E"'. G-26 II C Ms. Laura Stotler August 6, 1997 Page 2 Page C-29 - Bouquet Canyon Road from Vasquez Canyon Road to the c Angeles National Forest boundary should be designated as a L secondary highway. The projected buildout volume for this stretch of Bouquet Canyon Road is about 3,000 ADT, which is well within the capacity of a secondary highway. Also, it would provide a better transition to the portion of Bouquet Canyon Road north of the Angeles National Forest boundary, which is classified as a limited secondary highway. Page C-37 - Parker Road from Sloan Canyon Road to Ridge Route RoadH should be deleted from the list of limited secondary highways t' because Parker Road is fully covered under listings for major and secondary highways. Page C-37 - Under.limited secondary highway listing, the limits for Ridge Route Road should be revised to `north of North Lake Boulevard'. Ridge Route Road south of North Lake Boulevard is included in the list for secondary highways. We recommend including typical section(s) for limited secondary J highways in the proposed Circulation Element, similar to the sections included for major and secondary highways, to provide standards and guidance for roadway design. If you have any question regarding the above comments, please contact Mr. Hubert Seto of our Planning Division at (626) 458-4349. Environmental Programs The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, as amended, requires each "development project" to provide an adequate storage area for collection and removal of recyclable materials. The EIR should include/discuss standards to provide adequate "waste storage areas" for collection/storage of recyclable and green waste materials for this project. Current estimates indicate that a shortfall in permitted daily land disposal capacity in Los Angeles County will occur within the next few years. The proposed project will increase the. generation of construction and demolition waste and other solid waste, and will negatively impact solid waste management facilities in the County. G-27 M Page C-31 - There are two pages marked C-31 in the text. The second page C-31 is redundant and should be removed. l Page C-33 - The limits for Castaic Road should be `from Newhall G ' Ranch Road to Lake Hughes Road' instead of `from SR -126 to Lake Hughes Road'. This would be consistent with other portions of the text which named the extension of SR -126 east of Interstate 5 as Newhall Ranch Road. Page C-37 - Parker Road from Sloan Canyon Road to Ridge Route RoadH should be deleted from the list of limited secondary highways t' because Parker Road is fully covered under listings for major and secondary highways. Page C-37 - Under.limited secondary highway listing, the limits for Ridge Route Road should be revised to `north of North Lake Boulevard'. Ridge Route Road south of North Lake Boulevard is included in the list for secondary highways. We recommend including typical section(s) for limited secondary J highways in the proposed Circulation Element, similar to the sections included for major and secondary highways, to provide standards and guidance for roadway design. If you have any question regarding the above comments, please contact Mr. Hubert Seto of our Planning Division at (626) 458-4349. Environmental Programs The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, as amended, requires each "development project" to provide an adequate storage area for collection and removal of recyclable materials. The EIR should include/discuss standards to provide adequate "waste storage areas" for collection/storage of recyclable and green waste materials for this project. Current estimates indicate that a shortfall in permitted daily land disposal capacity in Los Angeles County will occur within the next few years. The proposed project will increase the. generation of construction and demolition waste and other solid waste, and will negatively impact solid waste management facilities in the County. G-27 M II Ms. Laura Stotler August 6, 1997 Page 3 ' Therefore, the proposed EIR must identify what measures the projet V proponent will implement to mitigate the impact. These measurecs K may include, but are not limited to, implementation of waste (aAi1Ctt) reduction, recycling and composting programs, as well as programs to divert the generated construction, demolition, and other solid waste from the landfills. The EIR needs to fully assess the impact of this project on the quality of stormwater runoff. The EIR should reference Order Number 96054, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit CAS614001 issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board to the .County and local agencies. The EIR should also indicate compliance of the Project with all relevant stormwater quality management programs of the Federal, State, County, and local agencies. L Should any operation within the subject project include the ti{ modification, removal, or installation of underground storage tanks M and/or industrial waste control or disposal facilities, our Environmental Programs Division must be contacted for required approvals and operating permits. If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact Mr. Tom Brachko of our Environmental Programs Division at (626) 458-3567. We agree with the document that Alternative 1 will provide the best overall city-wide service among the seven alternatives analyzed. Alternative 1 examines the circulation system planned in the existing Circulation Element except that the SR -126 Expressway will be downgraded to an eight -lane major arterial known as Newhall Ranch Road. Because SR -126 Expressway would be downgraded to an.eight-lane Major arterial in the existing Circulation Element, the future traffic conditions will not be the same because the capacity for the SR -126 Expressway would be significantly larger than the capacity of the Major arterial Newhall Ranch Road. Therefore, Alternative. 1 should not be considered as the "No -Project" alternative as indicated on page 2-8 of the`DEIR. I We agree with the document that all the alternatives analyzed will O improve overall traffic Levels of Service as compared to future traffic conditions without circulation system improvements. However, circulation system improvements are currently planned under the existing City Circulation Element. A comparative analysis .of the future traffic condition with the roadway system in the current Circulation Element versus the roadway system of each G-28 Ms. Laura Stotler August 6, 1997 Page 4 of the seven alternatives would be beneficial for review and Q evaluation. We recommend the State of California Department of Transportationlp review this document for significant impacts/mitigation within their jurisdiction. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Hector Rodriguez of our Traffic and Lighting Division at (626) 458-5909. If you have any questions regarding the environmental reviewing process of this Department, please contact Mr. Vik Bapna at the address on the first page or at (626) 458-4363. Very truly yours, HARRY W. STONE Director of Public Works DAVID YAMAHARA Assistant Deputy Director Planning Division V33: km 575 G-29 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 5 COMMENTOR: David Yamahara, Assistant Deputy Director County of Los Angeles; Department of Public Works DATE: August 6, 1997 RESPONSE: Response 5A The commentor states a preference for Alternative 1 among the studied alternatives and believes that Alternative 4 is the next best solution to the Santa Clarita Valley's circulation needs. The traffic analysis conducted in conjunction with the preparation of the Draft EIR did find that the Alternative 1 roadway network would improve traffic levels of service more than any other alternative. The Draft EIR also found that the Alternative 4 network would result in the best traffic service levels among the remaining alternatives. Response 5B The commentor agrees with the Draft EIR conclusion regarding pedestrian and bicycle safety impacts associated with intersection augmentation and suggests consideration of pedestrian/bicycle overcrossings at intersections. The feasibility of implementing overcrossings would need to be considered in conjunction with specific roadway projects. In response to this comment, the following policy will be added to the text of the proposed Circulation Element amendment: • The City shall consider the use of pedestrian and bicycle overcrossings at busy intersections rolrere pedestrian bicycle safety concerns exist. Response 5C The commentor notes that the term "per lane hour' in Table 5.8-2 should read "per lane day." The text of the Draft EIR will be corrected in response to this comment. Response 5D The commentor notes that the level F on the fifth line of Circulation Element page C-7 should be level E. This error will be corrected in the recommended Circulation Element text. Response 5E The commentor states that Bouquet Canyon Road from Vasquez Canyon Road to the Angeles National Forest boundary should be designated a secondary highway. This change will be incorporated into the recommended Circulation Element text and will be considered by City decisionmakers as they evaluate the project. City I IF G-30 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Response 5F The commentor notes that two pages in the Draft Circulation Element are numbered C-31. This error will be corrected in the recommended Circulation Element Text and will be considered by the decision-making body. Response 5G The commentor states that the Omits for Castaic Road should be from Newhall Ranch Road to Lake Hughes Road. This change will be incorporated into the recommended Circulation EIement text and will be considered by City decisionmakers. Response 5H The commentor notes that Parker Road from Sloan Canyon Road to Ridge Route Road should be deleted from the list of limited secondary highways contained in the Draft Circulation Element. This error will be corrected in the recommended Circulation Element Text and will be considered by the decision-making body. Response 5I The commentor notes that the limits for Ridge Route Road should be revised to north of North Lake Boulevard. This change will.be incorporated into the recommended Circulation Element text and will be considered by City decisonmakers. Response 5T The commentor recommends include typical sections for limited secondary highways in the proposed Circulation Element. This suggested change will be considered by the decision- making body. Response 5K The commentor states an opinion that the EIR should discuss standards to provide adequate waste storage areas for the collection and storage of recyclable materials and green waste. Potential impacts to solid waste disposal facilities were discussed in the Initial Study for the proposed Circulation Element and were found to be less than significant (see Appendix A of the Draft EIR). Long-term operation of roads and other circulation infrastructure would not directly generate solid waste on a regular basis. Although solid waste would be generated during construction activity, appropriate recycling and waste reduction programs will be developed on a case-by-case basis for individual construction projects. Response 5L The commentor states an opinion that the Draft EIR should assess the project's impact upon stormwater runoff, including a discussion of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The proposed Circulation Element amendment's impacts upon City of Santa Clarita G-31 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR ' surface water quality, including the requirements of the NPDES permit, are discussed in Draft EIR Section 5.2, Hydrology and FIooding. All roadway infrastructure constructed under the City's Circulation Element would comply with all relevant federal, state, county, and local regulations. The specific impacts of individual roadway projects will be addressed on a case- by-case basis as such projects are proposed. Response SM The commentor notes that the Environmental Programs Division must be contacted prior to any construction activity that requires the modification, removal, or installation of underground storage tanks and/or industrial waste handling. The Division will be contacted as needed as individual construction projects are proposed under the Circulation Element. Potential impacts relating to underground tanks and hazardous materials handling are addressed in Draft EIR Section 5.6, Risk of Upset/Hunan Health and Safety. Specific impacts ' associated with individual roadway projects will be addressed on a case-by-case basis as part of subsequent environmental review of such projects. II Response 5N The commentor states agreement that Alternative 1 would provide the best overall future traffic service levels, but states an opinion that it should not be considered the "no project" alternative because it includes an 8 -lane arterial Newhall Ranch Road, rather than the 8 -lane expressway in the current Circulation Element. The roadway network analyzed in the Draft EIR traffic analysis actually considers an 8 -lane expressway for Newhall Ranch Road, rather than the S- lane arterial described in the Draft EIR Project Description. At one time, the City considered analyzing an arterial road rather than the expressway because of the City's Council's previous determination that it would like to find an alternative to the planned expressway. However, in order to comply with CEQA's requirement that the "No Project" scenario be analyzed, it was determined that the network with the Newhall Ranch Road expressway should be studied. The analysis of Alternative 1's impacts is based upon the 8 -lane expressway scenario. The discussion of the 8 -lane arterial Newhall Ranch Road should have been omitted from the Draft EIR but was inadvertently left in. The text of the Final EIR will be corrected in response to this comment. Response 50 The commentor states an opinion that a comparative analysis of the current Circulation Element network and each alternative would be beneficial. The entire Draft EIR compares the currently planned roadway network (Alternative 1) to several alternative roadway networks (Alternatives 2 through 7). As discussed in Response 5N, the roadway network studied as Alternative 1 is actually the network described in the current Circulation Element. Response 5P The commentor states an opinion that the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) should review the Draft EIR. Caltrans has reviewed the Draft EIR and has provided several comments on the document (see Letter 2). G-32 City of Santa 11 el RICHARD 1. RIORD.A.N cmmmssion Mayor CAROLYN L GREEN, President MARCLA F. VOLPERT. Vue Pmsidem RICK 1. CARUSO JOSE DE JESUS LEGASPI JUDY M. MILLER IRENE N. KISHL Sm=7 HARRY M. SIZEMORE GewaJMa ger KE.'NbT H S. MTYOSHL Assistam General Mawgerand ChieJEngineer VACA.r.7. Asrls=r Genen71 Manoger-Fs Lv Servicer JAMES F. WTCKSER. Auistam General Manager-WoerSesvices THOMAS M. MCCLOSKEY. Amstaa General Manager -Marketing & Cwt~ Service M. FAYE WASHINGTON. Assistom General Ma 9,dChwfAdministrotive Offcer PHYLLIS E CURRIE. Chi#Financial Officer ' Ms. Laura Stotler, Associate Planner RECEIVED City of -Santa Clarita Department of Community Development JUL 2 1997 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 COMMUNITY DEVELOPIAEN? CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Dear Ms. Stotler: City of Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment (Plan) ' Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) July 24, 1997 The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) welcomes the opportunity to provide comments on the Plan DEIR as requested on June 13, 1997. LADWP is looking forward to working with the City of.Santa Clarita as the Plan is built out. I LADWP's Energy Services Organization (ESO) provides the following discussion for your consideration: Traversing the City of Santa Clarita, as shown on the enclosed Thomas Guide pages 4461, 4551, and 4641, .are five LADWP high- voltage electrical transmission lines (TLs) which include both direct current (DC) and alternating current (AC) TLs. These TLs are contained in two right-of-way utility corridors. Corridor A, typically 305 feet wide, is shaded in yellow and corridor B, typically 330 feet wide, is shaded in pink on the enclosed copies of the Thomas Guide pages. Corridor A contains the following three TLs: Line 1. Sylmar-Celilo + 500 -kV DC Line 2. Power Plant 1 and Power Plant 2 to Olive Switching Station 115 -kV AC Line 3. Castaic-Olive 230 -kV AC Castaic-Sylmar 230 -kV AC Castaic-Northridge 230 -kV AC Inyo-Rinaldi 230 -kV AC Water and Power Conservation... a way of life 111 Nonh Hope Sacet. Los Angeles. Calltomia ❑Mailing address: Boz 51111. Los Angeles 90051-0100 Telephone: (213) 367-4211 Cable address: DEWAP0LA FAX: (213) 367-3287 G-33 'I Ms. Laura Stotler -2- ICorridor B contains the following two TLs: July 24, 1997 Line 1. Victorville-Rinaldi 500 -kV AC Line 2. Adelanto-Rinaldi 500 -kV AC During development of Plan areas near TLs, excessive dust buildup on insulators could result in maintenance problems and lead to outages. As Plan projects are developed, mitigative measures that will ensure that this dust buildup on.TL insulators does not occur will need to be implemented. Additionally, to ensure reliability, safety, and security of the TLs, any proposed projects within or adjacent to the TL corridors must be pre - approved through LADWP's ESO. Enclosed are general information guidelines and requirements regarding secondary land use on LADWP's TL R/W for construction, nursery , landscape, greenbelt, and agricultural purposes, and for trucking and storage operations. LADWP staff is available for consultation and review of any specific proposals involving the TL R/W. If you have any questions regarding the aforementioned comments, please contact Mr. Richard P. Franklin at (213) 367-0338. Sincerely, CHARLES C. HOLLOW Y Supervisor of Environmental Assessment and EMF Enclosures c: Mr. Richard P. Franklin w/Enclosures G-34 i 1 1 J j[I a62 N� Z. l 1- \ i I QG T'Y-R3m1:9 � y ` : L__� _'• ginT � i i II !! .13.1 'r•sCJ ' 0$ NOA.VCJ .. --. - w/• q .N U'A?ixr. i ,E+ s� Si --------- 7 j/vf 4P4 IF ON v y t3 9}I `! � `:.T: M1i-A ^ •. -.iK� ' �__, JJ^¢ Vp x_ a��:�'o�PO: �: Fes•+o-•'g J ar € .s.: - _� b ,\ XI z F' I 1 I 1 _ i 1''�i•�`LEg _i ��' Sr - '' �.. \..+f.Si 3rSJ .. ..— _� _' \' ?db(+F 151x: : O 6�-P K Sya 1l j rV I W Cf2 _ -� •i.:•• - �. • -_.- F>` _ _ '. pG-rERSs\, Ys`�}. NOAH; •.POP Q _ isE aC r'• [ p -......i I� \, '�-5 $. AF ry'� t:jYSYN'w >�t`f�i(`- �.q• `q �£T I F a s +JO JOca . _ .�'�,? a. l'.f>StaR' _i;_+`�F•i.�r.;�ti•"' _ _ - ! m N l7 I si` L L °3 t _9 +- w` '>:.?.'+ • 't y'°g •I • G-35 1 r ',8 li r- ii'2 � s • :{r.' a v r�y ' I � .. —__ :1 __ by _. �• > �--1 -1•V i� a_` `_ �" _____ ____-. .. _ DWP + 2 i l---f-i'. i.l <MO�Yi1gsDMM1� 5561 1•F ItlAaD] �Z— � '••' �==V (i35 c _ G-36 - ¢ � :�i-'-tom- r ,m.-� a:.s-•- - �; 3�` . ---� -:•--•�--��' ;}-"'- =-` - -- ' -- ` • tid �'" Z JCe6e.]52 \ h y{"•�' } '- ♦ _ I . ��i'O JQ� E•%i £ !u: i �. s\ �^ a a��Q%- M� '#'- s � 4 " x 49 Z k. t � :�'.✓ � sv ��: 4 I OMr'-' Ssl did 41 =t i FC t s/ 4•� �'.s •�..0 0 co Fr E � ... ns 13F\'+ Z n., .?nd = �t (S, y 1 y i �C � V ! ` f♦ pg- .a ry� J n: m -�- -p --♦` �; I J� m t ' x�urA siG,P] n n Q ' 1 ---- f�a�• -M9re.J `^ �. - - ,' -- -- Sr fir b"F" .\ ¢ m j �. (2{� Via$ _"e• -' Q ='i •'` C-7 m LLJ 8'II `"'• 'j� .3 ``f a Ari \` \�` �•� �_ ♦o" co,�}ai' i ,�• ki••s c� uaEE W i j c � `-___�_ �G/i•1 55 •..•C•;� '� I 9D: •' 8'' -7. •": I \ iw f!� 'J. t ty ,e�rt , "..____- � Rp i i d i \� o �?• moi• �� a i' �;.;9'' � •.s s� ': B Al <MO�Yi1gsDMM1� 5561 1•F ItlAaD] �Z— � '••' �==V (i35 c _ G-36 r- r - 4 ,I —FLf :T T3N R �.i IYr xA r�Irr lagr F " - H;, 294 1 r , At I .:n. ft, s .•k� do` .'4,j' IGII 17A1 it AV 1 i 'I lir 1l 179 Nk`� ' o"S a t7nSn 2aNI^ ;•�$ �•4y�1 ,. 4 6` i .. 244-7 `,� %- [Aft.-RIN 1 3 4 '� a IIx1Y Z�7 I SARK I !RU / 8 ISM ANTA (' LLL; �> 1 r4 -2 'Ai.. VAI I� YR VAI l,pgfly ' 4I ANGELES NATIONAL TOREST ' NJ, n„ . _. k y��� • •; .f!`� P �!R',;,4.'. 245- 4`' .. �Y SIS �, 4r-5 —mob / P.P.1-OI,V.1 ' l .P.2- OyV.I� Rf L 1 '•?i�l'i vr,pPMU • �1. 1 1 DAI fix: 'AS-SVL i ••+)..., -- 'aSry CESCIO" 4 V j S;;` -Oxy It82 •1. i i I 1 , I�yp41, Ixl4µ I I ''C th•I vl , j 1 1 A. 11MIMAl•AV n _ ' I •, r 4 iaEyiplrcj�'trv'. 19A9' •i:•:f�i1: 1 IAIL)R `I` I :.. ,�3•,r��R 201..3 f ...l rt. It r- r - gdp6 R —FLf :T T3N R RIr , y�. 1 /R Ivan �il-1 'rl•,�1 ,r [Aft.-RIN 1 ANGELES NATIONAL TOREST ' NJ, n„ . _. k y��� • •; .f!`� P �!R',;,4.'. �Y SIS —mob / � � '.%..k'Q.• Rf L 1 '•?i�l'i fix: 'AS-SVL i ••+)..., -- :G-RIN 7— AS -NOR 1 V j S;;` -Oxy 17 i 4 iaEyiplrcj�'trv'. •i:•:f�i1: 2,6 � :.. ,�3•,r��R ASTANDARD.GEN STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION 1. Energized transmission lines can produce electrical effects including, but not limited to, induced voltages and currents in persons and objects. Licensee hereby acknowledges a duty to conduct activities in such manner that will not expose persons to injury orproperty to damage from such effects. 2. Department personnel shall have access to the right of way at all times. 3. Unauthorized parking of vehicles or equipment shall not be allowed on the right of way at any time. 4. Unauthorized storage of equipment or material shall not be allowed on the right of way at any time. S. Fueling of vehicles or equipment shall not be allowed on the right of way at any time. 6. Patrol roads and/or the ground surfaces of the right of way shall be restored by the Licensee to original conditions, or better. 7. All trash, debris, waste, and excess earth shall be removed from the right of way.upon completion of the project, or the Department may do so at the sole risk and expense of the Licensee. S. All cut and fill slopes within the right of way shall contain adequate berms, benches, and interceptor terraces. Revegetation measures shall also be provided for dust and erosion control protection of the right -of way. 9. All paving, driveways, bridges, crossings, and substructures located within the right of way shall be designed to withstand a combined weight of 40,000 pounds in accordance with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials H2O -44 (M18) wheel loadings. 10. The location of .underground pipelines and conduits shall be marked at all points where they cross the boundaries of .the right of way and at all locations where they change direction within the right of way. The markings shall be visible and identifiable metal post markers for underground pipelines. 11. All aboveground metal structures including, but not limited to, pipes, drainage devices, fences, -and bridge structures located within or adjoining the right of way shall be properly grounded, and shall be insulated from any fencing or other conductive materials located outside of the right of way. Rev. 12/15/92 G-38 II ' 12. Licensee shall neither hold.the Department liable for nor seek indemnity from the Department for any damage to the Licensee's project due to future construction or reconstruction by the Department within the right of r way, 13. Burning shall not be allowed on the right of way. 14. Licensee shall control dust by dust -abatement procedures approved by the Department, such as the application of a dust palliative or water. 15. The right of way contains high-voltage electrical conductors; therefore, the Licensee shall utilize only such equipment, material, and construction techniques that are permitted under applicable safety ordinances and statutes, including the following: State of California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Industrial Relations, Chapter 4, Division of Industrial Safety, Subchapter 5, Electrical Safety Orders; and California Public Utilities Commission, General Order No. 95, Rules for Overhead Electric Line Construction. 16. Licensee.is hereby notified that grounding wires may be buried in ' the right of way; therefore, the Licensee shall notify the Power Operating and Maintenance Division at (818) 771-4576 at least 48 hours prior to the start of any construction activities in the right of way. 17. An area within a radius of at least 50 feet around the base.of each tower shall remain open and unobstructed for emergencies or maintenance, including periodic washing of insulators by high-pressure water spray. 18. Detailed plans for any grading, paving, and construction work within the right of way shall be submitted for approval to the Chief Real Estate Officer, Department of Water and Power, P. O. Box 111, Room 1203, Los Angeles, California 90051-0100, no later than 45 days prior to the start of any grading, paving, or construction work. Notwithstanding any other notices given by Licensee required herein, Licensee shall notify the Power Operating and Maintenance Division at (818) 771-4576 no earlier. than 14 days and no later. than two days prior to the start of any grading, paving, or construction work. 19. "As Constructed" drawings showing all plans and profiles.of the Licensee's project shall be furnished to the Chief Real Estate Officer, ' Department of Water and Power, P. O. Box.11l, Room 1203, Los Angeles, California 90051-0100, within five days after completion of Licensee's project. 20. In the event that construction within the right of way is determined upon inspection by the Department to be unsafe or hazardous to ' Department facilities, the Department may assign a line patrol mechanic at the Licensee's expense. 21. If the Department determines at any time during construction that the Licensee's efforts are hazardous or detrimental to Department facilities, the Department shall have the right to immediately terminate said construction. G-39 -NURSERY.GEN STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR SECONDARY LAND USE OF TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT OF WAY FOR NURSERY, LANDSCAPE, GREENBELT, AND AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES 1. Retail sales to the general public shall not be performed on the transmission line right of way, except for Christmas tree farms. 2. Licensee shall be responsible for maintenance of the entire right of way within the limits of the agreement in a neat, clean, and weed - free condition, including landscaping and parkways between fences and public streets. 3. A 16 -foot -wide patrol road must remain open and unobstructed, excluded from any watering, and kept as dry as possible at all times. The location of the .patrol road shall be located in the center of the right of way -unless specified elsewhere by the agreement. 4. Licensee shall take all reasonable. measures to minimize disturbances to neighboring businesses or residences, including control of ' dust from their activities, and shall assume the responsibility to resolve any complaints/disputes from adjacent property owners or the public. 5. A suitable access to the right of way through 16 -foot -wide gates must be provided to permit entrance of the Department's vehicles and equipment where necessary. I 6. Additional fencing, if installed, shall be at Licensee's expense and must be approved by the Department's Transmission Section prior to installation. Such fencing shall become the property of the Department should the agreement be terminated. No transverse fencing is permitted except as approved by the Department. If the Department requires the fence to be removed, it will be done.at Licensee's expense. Z. The installation and maintenance of any irrigation system shall be at no expense to the Department. All waterlines -shall be buried at ,a minimum depth of 24 inches where they cross the patrol road. ' 8. The Department shall not be liable for any damage to the irrigation system, planta/trees and containers, or other facilities placed on the right of way because of the Department's operation and maintenance. 9. Plants/Trees whose mature nominal height exceeds 25 feet are not permitted to be planted in the ground within the right of way area. In Addition, plants/trees must be trimmed and maintained at a height not to exceed 15 feet. (Rev. 10/26/92) G-40 II 14. Portable storage bine for nursery supplies shall be permitted only at the edge of the right of way. They shall not exceed 10 feet by 20 feet by 10 feet. Noncombustible materials shall be used for their construction. One per acre shall be permitted. 15. Overhead telephone and power cables shall be permitted only at the edge of the right of way. Communications and electric power crossings of the Department's right of way shall be underground and must be approved by the Department's Transmission Section prior to installation. 16. None of the allowed structures, appurtenances, and nursery products discussed in the foregoing shall be placed on the Department's right of way until drawings locating these items have been submitted to and approved by the Department. Structures and appurtenances not mentioned in the foregoing shall not be permitted. All metal structures shall be electrically grounded. 17. Licensee shall post a cleanup and restoration bond of $1,000 per acre. 18. All plans for grading, planting; water systems, and the nursery layout must be approved by the Department prior to any development. 19. There shall be no overnight storage or parking of vehicles on the right of way. 20. The license agreement shall contain a 30-day.written revocation clause. G-41 10. Plants/Trees larger than a 15 -gallon size shall be.permitted only in the area between 10 feet outside the conductor drip line and the adjacent side property line. 11. Shade structures shall be permitted only in the area between 10 feet outside the conductor drip line and the adjacent side property line. They shall not exceed 10 feet in height. The shade structure framing shall be constructed only of noncombustible materials and be designed for quick and easy disassembly. Wooden framing materials are not permitted. The frame covering shall be a fire retardant material. 12. Two portable toilets, as approved by appropriate governmental regulations, shall be permitted along the side of the right of way. However, on developments of three acres or larger, one toilet per acre shall be allowed. 13. Portable tool storage sheds shall be permitted only at the edge of the right of way. They shall be constructed of a noncombustible ' materials and shall not exceed 10 feet wide by 20 feet long by 10 feet high. A maximum of one per acre shall be permitted. 14. Portable storage bine for nursery supplies shall be permitted only at the edge of the right of way. They shall not exceed 10 feet by 20 feet by 10 feet. Noncombustible materials shall be used for their construction. One per acre shall be permitted. 15. Overhead telephone and power cables shall be permitted only at the edge of the right of way. Communications and electric power crossings of the Department's right of way shall be underground and must be approved by the Department's Transmission Section prior to installation. 16. None of the allowed structures, appurtenances, and nursery products discussed in the foregoing shall be placed on the Department's right of way until drawings locating these items have been submitted to and approved by the Department. Structures and appurtenances not mentioned in the foregoing shall not be permitted. All metal structures shall be electrically grounded. 17. Licensee shall post a cleanup and restoration bond of $1,000 per acre. 18. All plans for grading, planting; water systems, and the nursery layout must be approved by the Department prior to any development. 19. There shall be no overnight storage or parking of vehicles on the right of way. 20. The license agreement shall contain a 30-day.written revocation clause. G-41 T1+ 21. Should the agreement be terminated, Licensee shall return the right of way as nearly as possible to its original conditions and shall contact the Department's Transmission Section, (818) 771-4576, to make arrangements for a field inspection of the right of way. 22. Licensee shall comply with all valid laws, ordinances, rules, orders, or regulations of the State of. California, the County of Los Angeles, the City of Los Angeles, or any agencies, departments, districts, or .commissions of the State, County, or City. 23. Because of overhead electrical conductors, Licensee shall use only such equipment as is consistent with the terms of safety ordinances or statutes, and generally accepted safety practices. 24. An area at least 50 feet around the base of each tower must remain open and unobstructed for neceesary maintenance, including periodic washing of insulators by high-pressure water spray. 25. Storage of flammable liquids is not permitted within the right of way area. THE FOLLOWING APPLIES TO CHRISTMAS -TREE FARMS: 1. On-site retail sale of trees may be allowed during a 30 -day period commencing no earlier than November 26 and terminating no later than December 26 of any.given year. 2. This permission, if granted, shall not be construed as allowing any -item for sale other than whole Christmas trees grown on -the licensed area. 3. The sale of pre-cut Christmas trees is absolutely prohibited. 4. No application of flocking or other decorative material to the trees shall be allowed on the right of way. 5. Temporary advertising banners, if allowed, may only be attached to the right of way fencing. The banners may not be larger in size than the fencing and must be of flame retardant material. 6. No structural advertising signs will be allowed on the right of way. '7. No temporary lighting will be allowed unless submitted to and approved by the Department of Water and Power's Transmission Section. S. Any lighting approved by the Department of water and Power's Transmission Section shall only be allowed during the 30 -day sale period. G-42 ' TROCKING.GLS 7/21/88 GUIDELINES FOR TRUCKING OPERATIONS ' "Trucking Operations", as used in these Guidelines, are comprised of either or both of the two specific permissible categories of activities defined as follows: 1. PARKING OF VEHICLES. Vehicles are permitted to be left unattended in the approved parking area for a period not to exceed three (3) consecutive days, subject to restrictions on parking found elsewhere in these Guidelines. 2. LOADING AND UNLOADING OF VEHICLES. Vehicles are permitted to traverse under.trans.ission lines and to load and unload their contents in the approved loading area only during the applicant's normal hours of operation and in the presence of the applicant's supervisory personnel. The approved loading area may, if needed to accommodate certain tractor -trailer configurations, include small portions of area where parking is not otherwise permitted. ' Trucking operations in a right of way where the Department has fee title shall require a license; trucking operations in a right of way where the Department has an easement shall require a consent agreement. The license and the consent agreement shall.be collectively referred to herein as the "agreement". The Power System will review each request for trucking operations within ' the transmission line rights of way and determine the adequacy of such proposed plan and its compatibility with the Department's requirements and the surrounding property owners. Also, the Power System will report its findings and recommendations to its Real Estate Section for processing. Final approval of any plans and documents, including the decision to allow such uses, is the responsibility of the Power System. ' Each request for trucking operations will be reviewed individually on its own merits and must comply with the following conditions and requirements specified hereinafter. THESE CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE STRICTLY ENFORCED; ANY VIOLATION OF SUCH SHALL BE GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT. 1. The granting of an agreement for trucking operations shall apply only to rights of way that are rated below 345 W. 2. Trucking operation rights granted shall not be used to satisfy any zoning demands; zoning variances, conditional use permits, open space or parking requirements for building plans and permits, or governmental requirements. I! I G-43 (d) Landscaping may be required by the Department or other appropriate public.agencies for aesthetic ' purposes and to provide some control of the nonassigned trucking operation area. Plants may not exceed 15 feet in height. (e) A highly visible "NOTICE" sign shall be posted to specify: "Park at your own risk. Vehicles parked in this area may be subject to water spotting from occasional transmission line insulator washing operations." ' S. The Department shall not be held liable for any loss or damage, and the applicant shall be required to purchase the necessary insurance which will include the Department as additional insured. The applicant shall agree to release and hold harmless the Department against any liability for damage to persons or property. II 6. The area governed by the agreement shall not segment the right of way in such a manner that the remaining area is rendered useless for other secondary land use activities. The Department may require the applicant to apply for the entire segment of the right of way. Furthermore, the area selected shall not create a security problem for the Department. 7. Cross fencing shall not be permitted except at natural boundaries, roadways, and railroad crossings. The design and installation of such cross fencing shall be subject to Department approval. G-44 3. A detailed layout plan shall be provided to include, but not be limited to, location of towers, right of way boundaries, loading area, parking area, paved area, distances between the trucking operations areas and the towers and the conductor drip lines, landscaping areas, drainage plan, lighting scheme, and traffic barrier or devices to provide control of an orderly trucking operations plan. ' 4. The detailed plan shall require the Power System's review and approval prior to the issuance of any agreement and shall be designed to meet ' all of the following: (a) No parking shall be located within five feet of the outermost donductor drip line. (See Appendix for standard drawings for sample layouts.) (b) No parking shall be allowed within 50 feet around the base of each tower. (c) Protective barriers may be required for the tower if determined to be necessary by the Department. (d) Landscaping may be required by the Department or other appropriate public.agencies for aesthetic ' purposes and to provide some control of the nonassigned trucking operation area. Plants may not exceed 15 feet in height. (e) A highly visible "NOTICE" sign shall be posted to specify: "Park at your own risk. Vehicles parked in this area may be subject to water spotting from occasional transmission line insulator washing operations." ' S. The Department shall not be held liable for any loss or damage, and the applicant shall be required to purchase the necessary insurance which will include the Department as additional insured. The applicant shall agree to release and hold harmless the Department against any liability for damage to persons or property. II 6. The area governed by the agreement shall not segment the right of way in such a manner that the remaining area is rendered useless for other secondary land use activities. The Department may require the applicant to apply for the entire segment of the right of way. Furthermore, the area selected shall not create a security problem for the Department. 7. Cross fencing shall not be permitted except at natural boundaries, roadways, and railroad crossings. The design and installation of such cross fencing shall be subject to Department approval. G-44 k S. :lammable, explosive, or corrosive loads, including hazardous materials or hazardous wastes, or ether "placarded loads" (defined as those which are required by law or regulation to carry signs defining its contents for public safety) shall not be allowed within the right of way area at any time. 9. The agreement shall contain a 30 -day written termination clause. Similarly, the agreement shall require a surety bond provided by the applicant in the amount to be determined by the Department. Such bond shall assure restoration of the Department's facilities and compliance with all stipulated conditions. 10. Except for those vehicles used for the approved trucking operations, equipment such as campers, boats, and recreation vehicles shall not be allowed to enter the right of way. 11. A11 permits and related governmental requirements to develop the trucking operations area, such as conditional use permits, environmental impact reports, public hearings, etc., shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 12. Upon termination of the agreement for .whatever reason, the applicant shall be responsible for all cleanup cost and expense, including but not limited to, any fines, penalties, judgments, litigation costs, and attorneys' fees incurred as a result of any and all discharge, leakage, spillage, ..emission, or pollution of any type whatsoever occurring upon or from the premises due to the applicant's use and occupancy of the premises. said cleanup shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Department and any governmental body having jurisdiction thereover. 13. Vehicle repairing, vehicle refueling, as well as all activities not related to trucking operations as herein defined are prohibited. 14. Trucking operations shall be allowed only in the areas as indicated in the approved plans. 15. The applicant shall take all necessary measures to minimize disturbances to neighboring businesses or nearby residences and shall assume the responsibility to resolve any complaints/disputes from adjacent property owners or the public. 16.. When required for emergency restoration work or normal maintenance operation on the transmission system, the applicant shall cooperate promptly and diligently with the Department's effort to move vehicles out of specific areas required to perform emergency work or operation. The Department reserves all rights at any time to move or tow vehicles out of specific areas for any transmission operation or maintenance purposes. The Department shall not be responsible for any damage to applicant's vehicles, their contents, or improvements authorized in the agreement caused by the Department's paramount right to operate and maintain its facilities within the right of way. 17. All agreements are personal to the applicant and are not assignable to any third party. G-45 GUIDELINES FOR PARKING "Parking", as used in these Guicelines, is defined as leaving approved vehicles unattended for a period not to exceed 24 hours. Approved vehicles are defined as easily movable passenger, vehicles and light trucks, such as - pickup trucks and vans. Any larger vehicles or equipment, such as ' campers, boats, and trailers are not approved and shall not be allowed to enter the right of way. Each request for vehicle parking will be reviewed individually on its own merits and must at least comply with the following conditions specified hereinafter. 1. Parking rights granted shall not be used to satisfy any zoning demands, zoning variances, conditional use permits, onen space, or parking requirements for building plans and permits, or governmental requirements. A highly visible "NOTICE" sign shall be posted to specify: "Park at your own risk". 2. The Department shall not be held liable for any loss or damage due to theft or accidents, and the applicant shall be required to purchase the 'necessary insurance which will include the Department as additional insured. '.� The applicant shall agree to release and hold harmless the Department against any liability for damage to persons or property. ' 3. There shall be no storage of vehicles. Storage is defined as the parking of a vehicle for a period in excess of 24 hours. 4. All permits and related governmental requirements to develop the parking area (conditional use permits, environmental impact reports, public hearing, etc.) shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 5. Upon termination of the agreement for whatever reason, the applicant may, at the discretion of the Department, be required to remove all improvements and restore the site to its.original condition or better. ' 6. Parking shall be allowed only in the approved areas. 7. The applicant shall be responsible for all cleanup costs and expenses resulting from any pollution or. contamination. B. The applicant shall take all necessary measures to minimize disturbances to neighboring businesses or nearby residences a,id shall assume ' the responsibility of resolving any complaints/disputes from adjacent property owners or the public. 9. All requirements specified herein will be strictly enforced. The violation of any of the requirements specified herein shall terminate the agreement. ,I ' G-46 i -_ Water System's Guidelines for Parking PARKING.GEN ' New.10/26/93 GUIDELINES FOR PARKING "Parking", as used in these Guicelines, is defined as leaving approved vehicles unattended for a period not to exceed 24 hours. Approved vehicles are defined as easily movable passenger, vehicles and light trucks, such as - pickup trucks and vans. Any larger vehicles or equipment, such as ' campers, boats, and trailers are not approved and shall not be allowed to enter the right of way. Each request for vehicle parking will be reviewed individually on its own merits and must at least comply with the following conditions specified hereinafter. 1. Parking rights granted shall not be used to satisfy any zoning demands, zoning variances, conditional use permits, onen space, or parking requirements for building plans and permits, or governmental requirements. A highly visible "NOTICE" sign shall be posted to specify: "Park at your own risk". 2. The Department shall not be held liable for any loss or damage due to theft or accidents, and the applicant shall be required to purchase the 'necessary insurance which will include the Department as additional insured. '.� The applicant shall agree to release and hold harmless the Department against any liability for damage to persons or property. ' 3. There shall be no storage of vehicles. Storage is defined as the parking of a vehicle for a period in excess of 24 hours. 4. All permits and related governmental requirements to develop the parking area (conditional use permits, environmental impact reports, public hearing, etc.) shall be the responsibility of the applicant. 5. Upon termination of the agreement for whatever reason, the applicant may, at the discretion of the Department, be required to remove all improvements and restore the site to its.original condition or better. ' 6. Parking shall be allowed only in the approved areas. 7. The applicant shall be responsible for all cleanup costs and expenses resulting from any pollution or. contamination. B. The applicant shall take all necessary measures to minimize disturbances to neighboring businesses or nearby residences a,id shall assume ' the responsibility of resolving any complaints/disputes from adjacent property owners or the public. 9. All requirements specified herein will be strictly enforced. The violation of any of the requirements specified herein shall terminate the agreement. ,I ' G-46 i -_ II 22. All concentrated surface water which is draining away from the proposed facility shall be directed to an approved storm drain system where accessible, or otherwise restored to sheet flow before being released within or from the right of way. 23. Fills shall be in horizontal, uniform layers not to exceed six inches in thickness before compaction, then compacted.to 90 percent relative compaction in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials D1557. 29. A surety bond in the amount to be determined by the Department shall be supplied by the Licensee to assure restoration of the Department ' facilities and compliance with all conditions herein. 25. The Licensee shall obtain and pay for all permits and licenses required for performance of the work and shall comply with all laws, ' ordinances, rules, orders, or regulations including, but not limited to, those of any agencies, departments, districts, or commissions of the State, County, or City having jurisdiction thereover. ' 26. The term "construction", as used herein, refers only to that construction incidental .to the maintenance or repair of the existing ' (requested facility) and shall not be construed to mean permission to construct any additional (requestedfacility). [] II II 1! I [] II G-47 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 6 COMMENTOR: Charles C. Holloway, Supervisor of Environmental Assessment and EMF Department of Water and Power, City of Los Angeles DATE: July 24,1997 RESPONSE: The commentor notes that several high voltage electrical transmission lines that traverse the City could be affected by dust buildup that would occur during roadway construction. The effects of construction -related dust are discussed in Draft EIR Section 5.2, Air Quality. Several measures to control dust are recommended in that section. As individual roadway projects are proposed, additional mitigation will be developed on a case-by-case basis. If construction activity has the potential to affect LADWP transmission lines, the LADWP will be consulted for information about their construction guidelines and requirements. City of Santa Ctarita G-48 Santa Clarita Citizens' Transportation Committee A CMZa''S ADVISORY COM*ifI7EE (805) 252-5805 _ July 1, 1997 Circulation 2 states: A. "The TDM approach would provide incentives to use transportation alternatives... thereby reducing overall automobile trips and the consequent need for additional roads. ..." (emphasis added) Response to A: I. Responsible planning of arterial roads in S.C.V. is much more important than TDM and deserves adequate exchange of information to and from the community. 2. Your presentation is overwhelmingly slanted in favor of TDM and does not allow for adequate discussion of its applications and public reactions. 3. The concept of "incentives" and "disincentives" of the TDM approach are an unfair prejudice against people who drive alone. TDM cares not if a SOV is necessary for various reasons. TDM has a collectivist purpose that trample on the rights of all drivers who ride anywhere - alone! 4. The TDM apears to be a smoke and mirrors strategy that calls attention away from the failure of Santa Clarita City, Los Angeles County, and Cal Trans to implement new arterial roads and freeway upgrades commensurate with new development! Also - there is not one mention ofanyinterest in Regional roads. In fact, arterial roads are buried in "Basic Alternatives" maps so small in the newspaper they cannot be read. Circulation Update states:. 13-1. "The increased roadway capacity approach would focus on the widening of congested intersections to accommodate projected increases in auto traffic. B-2. "The traditional increase roadway capacity. approach will likely facilitate a lower density, sprawling community dependent on the automobile for the vast majority of trips." Response: We find B-1 & B-2 acceptable Circulation Update states: ' C. "The demand management [TDM] approach may facilitate denser, more compact development..." Response: We find C. un -acceptable for the Santa Clarita Valley. Yes; L.A. County and its cities are sprawling with urban, suburban, and rural sections. Rapid mass transit in L.A. ' County is very limited, and inadequate in service locations. Monorail over freeways could be the best hope for rapid mass transit some time in the next century. It is more. important to evaluate the impacts on people than the environmental impacts described in the Alternatives. G-49 V 113 C Page two Business owners have some expensive surprises in store for them in the TDM 'Strategies": 1. Formal Trio Reduction for small employers Incurs expense to "small employers" and time consuming involvement against SOV's 2. Employee Transit Subsidy Big expense to local employers to provide 508 of cost of monthly transit pass 3. Ride sharing and Non -Motorized Commute Subsidy Another big expense to employers to provide $1.00 per commute trip (each way?) any means except -SOV. 4. Parking Pricing Strategies a city ordinance imposing a $5.00 parking penalty daily, per vehicle, to employers with 25+ employees at one site. This is un -Constitutional and socialist! 5. Compressed Work Weeks All of the above are intrusive to business but this is the most ambitious. There are far more service orien companies than manufacturing. A shortened work week county wide is not feasible. City/Taxpayer funded Strategies: 1. City Sponsored Formal Telecommuting Centers Very limited application 2. Formation of Transportation Management Assoc.s This needs explanation. 3. City SDonsored Home -end Ridesharing Programs This needs explanation. Questionable items: 1. Bicycle Improvements: Bikes, bike lockers, and showers at employment centers What are employment centers? Who will fund new bikes, lockers and showers for everyone? 2. Decreases in Transit Headways. Times between buses reduced 25% If this is done without regard to demand, it will be an unmet, added expense. 3. ITS Technologies - same -comment. BASE ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE ONE - EXISTING PLANNED CIRCULATION SYSTEM SCCTC strongly affirms the removal of this "alternative" which should never have been presented as an "alternative" since the City Council voted for the removal of an 8 lane SR 126 extension. Thank you for acknowledging this at the public hearing June 26th. ALTERNATIVE TWO - NEWHALL RANCH ROAD REDUCTION SCCTC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REVISION: A. The extension of SR 126 as Newhall Ranch Rd should be eliminated from planing maps. It is a road valuable only G-50 U C F H II ' Page three to Newhall Land & Farming. Public funds should not be used to build it. The Industrial Center can have as many as nine entrances without the 126 extension heavily impacting city roads and intersections. They are: ' EAST: (5) Newhall Ranch Rd., Scott Rd., McBean Pkwy./Copperhill Rye Cyn./San Francisquito, Decoro WEST: (2) Rye Cyn., SR 126 via. Stanford NORTH: (1) Stanford from Northern By-pass SOUTH: (1) Tournament/Tibbets from Magic Mtn. Pkwy. ' Conclusion: Newhall Ranch Rd. meets Rye Cyn. Rd. and should extend eastward to Golden Valley Rd. six lanes maximum. B. Rio Vista Rd. has made groups voted C. Lyons Ave so it should D. Magic Mtn be a through should be removed. The Rio Vista un -necessary. to remove it. widening of San Fernando CTAC, SCCTC and other extension conflicts with Railroad Ave. upgrade be removed. Pkwy. extension through Porta Bella should road - not a T-intersect.with Via Princessa. ALTERNATIVE THREE - GOLDEN VALLLEY ROAD NETWORK SCCTC RECOMMENDATIONS: A. Same as Alternate Two B. Same as Alternate Two C. Same as Alternate Two D. Same as Alternative Two E. This proposes a merging of Santa Clarita Pkwy into Golden Valley Rd. north of Via Princessa (Magic/Princessa). It is counter productive to mitigating traffic impacts. Santa Clarita Pkwy. from the south T -intersects into another section of Via Princessa dividing the roadway some distance - one from the other. F. The description given in Alternative Three is erroneous and misleading. It does less, in fact, to create a continuous roadway corridor connecting Bouquet and SR 14. The city has not built any roads in 10 years. TDM appears to. be a cheap replacement - except to tax -payers and business owners. ROAD RECOMMENDATIONS -.LOCAL AND REGIONAL FOREWARD The Santa Clarita Citizens' Transportation committee has focused community attention on new road alignments since its inception in May of 1990. We have filled a need created by a vacuum in adequate arterial road planning in the Santa Clarita Valley. A regional outlook on traffic volumes from neighboring areas has always been a part of our peripheral vision for new or expanded arterial roads. The Antelope Valley is of primary concern due to its massive population growth Is IK IL M Page -four in the 1980's and a prospective resurgence by the year 2000 and beyond. As of this date Santa Clarita's City population is about 150,000 and the Antelope Valley about 350,000. By the year 2015 these figures could almost double. Provincial planning to favor special business interests cannot be tolerated. Impacted cities should work more effectively with Los Angeles County and Cal Trans if regional planning is to be at all effective. Large planned developments like Newhall Ranch with 24,000 units (at SR 126 near I-5); Ritter Ranch with 7,000 units, and its neighbor City Ranch with 5,000 units (west of Rte.14, south of Elizabeth Lake Rd. and accessing Ave. S in Palmdale) are a few prominent examples that should cause concern about future traffic impacts. It is not within our ability to present a comprehensive study of major planned development and related traffic impacts. We.have-only given a glimpse of the massive developments outside the City of Santa Clarita that will heavily impact the city. An adequate Santa Clarita Valley arterial road network must be planned to handle the daily commuter "invasions." The closest resemblance to a'Grid System is essential, (keeping in mind the multiple canyon terrain). I. OVERVIEW OF REGIONAL AREA COVERED:. map of Santa Clarita Valley arterial roads extending to South Palmdale A. Elizabeth Lake Rd. with its arterial connectors: San Francisquito Canyon Rd., Bouquet Canyon Rd., and Rte. 14. The traffic from planned City Ranch and Ritter Ranch developments with a combined 12,000 housing units west of Avenue S,in Palmdale will have. tremendous impacts on all these roads. These projects should be responsible for a substantial amount of the cost of widening from two to four lanes: Elizabeth Lake Rd., San Francisquito Cyn Rd., or an extension of Sierra Hwy through Ritter Ranch to Avenue S in Palmdale with Bridge and Thoroughfare fees. B. Northern by-pass of Santa Clarita considerations: I. Joint L.A. County/City of Santa Clarita alignment 2. SCCTC recomendation: Avenue Stanford extended north along east side of I-5 becoming Biscailuz Drive at the I-5 overpass connection'to the Old Road. At Wayside.Honor Rancho it becomes North Gate Rd. and connects to Tapia Canyon Rd. Continuing east through Tapia Canyon, the proposed highway would pass through the Tesoro del Valle development and connect to San Francisquito Canyon Rd. C. McBean Parkway Extension north to San Francisquito Canyon Rd. four lane arterial. G-52 EM Page Five D. Copper Hill: South of San Francisquito to Rye Canyon at Industrial Center (building in process) North of San Francisquito to Haskell Canyon Rd. (built) Continue east to Bouquet Cyn. Rd. (Planned) E. Plum Canyon Rd. from Bouquet Cyn. Rd. eastward recently connected to Whites Cyn. Rd. (which at its southern extremity crosses Soledad and connects to Via Princessa). F. Golden Valley Road from Plum Canyon south can connect to Newhall Ranch Rd.'s eastern terminus, bridge the Santa Clara River, intersect Soledad Cyn. Rd., Sierra Hwy., and connect to the existing Golden valley Rd. and Rte. 14 freeway interchange. G. .Newhall Ranch Rd. From the Industrial Center eastward, it now intersects Bouquet Cyn. Rd. It can intersect the future Santa Clarita Pkwy. (coming from Alamagordo through Central Park), then continue to. planned Golden Valley at its bridge across the river. H. Magic/Princessa Magic Mountain Pkwy from I-5 on the west is built to San Fernando Rd. Its extension is planned six laneseastwardto connect with existing Via Princessa. Along that route, it intersects White's .Canyon Bridge, Sierra Hwy, and Rte. 14. Magic/Princessa is to .be the 6 lane East/West Corridor through Santa Clarita without super -trucks. Magic/Princessa will intersect Golden Valley and Santa Clarita Pkwy. I. Santa Clarita Parkway This 4 to 6 lane road can begin at Sierra Hwy and the Placerita Cyn Rd. Interchange of Rte.14. It can proceed through the oil fields (due to be cleaned up and vacated in twenty years) to the eastern portion of Porta Bella. It can cross the railroad tracks and T -intersect with Soledad Cyn Rd. J. Via Princessa (in Circle J) will connect with Magic Mt., in the Porta Bella tract, and with Wylie Cyn. Rd. via the new bridge being. built. (`Wylie/Princessa') R. Tournament Rd. extension can intersect Magic Mtn. Pkwy. and bridge the river to access the Industrial Center at Tibbits Ave. L. Decoro Bridge to Dickason Street M. Railroad Avenue Upgrade - essential to the redevelopment of Historic Downtown Newhall. N. A Valley to Valley freeway alternate (Santa Clarita Valley to San Fernando Valley through the Santa Susanna Mtns. from I-5.to ?) G-53 ' Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 7 COMMENTOR: Santa Clarita Citizens' Transportation Committee DATE: July 1, 1997 RESPONSE: Response 7A 1 The commentor states an opinion that the transportation demand management (TDM) approach is biased against SOV users, and will not alleviate the need for new roadways. The commentor further states an opinion that the Draft EIR is slanted in favor of the TDM approach. The Circulation Element and EIR incorporate TDM as only one of several methods directed at reducing automobile travel. The intent of the Draft EIR is to objectively assess the relative environmental merits of each of the alternatives. It is true that the TDM approach is considered to be environmentally superior to the "augmented intersection' approach studied under Alternatives 4 and 5 in several environmental areas because it involves slightly less ground disturbance. However, as discussed throughout the Draft EIR, the difference in impact among the alternatives is only marginal and the overall level of impact is considered the same for all alternatives. In two environmental areas (traffic and air quality), the augmented intersection alternatives were found to be environmentally superior to the TDM alternatives. ' Response 7B ' The commentor agrees that the increased roadway capacity approach to addressing circulation needs (as illustrated by Alternatives 4 and 5) would result in a lower density, sprawling community than would the TDM approach (Alternatives 6 and 7). The commentor states an opinion that this is lower density development and use of the automobile for most trips is acceptable. It is not the intent of the Draft EIR to advocate one method of addressing the City's circulation needs over any other method. Rather, it is intended to serve as a planning tool that I' will allow decisionmakers and the public to make informed decisions about the results of the transportation choices that they make, which include the use of augmented intersections (Alternatives 4 and 5) and transportation demand management (Alternatives 6 and 7). Only by considering the range of options can decisionmakers and the public be aware of the relative merits of each potential approach. Also, please see Response 7A. Response 7C The commentor finds the denser, more compact development that could result from the implementation of TDM measures unacceptable because sprawl already exists and rapid mass transit is inadequate to support it. This comment is noted and will be considered by decision makers as they weigh the project alternatives. Also, please see Responses 7A and 7B. City of Santa Clarita G-54 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Response 7D The commentor states that business owners will incur costs with the implementation of TDM measures. It is true that businesses and individuals would incur certain costs if the City elects to implement the TDM measures included in Alternatives 6 and 7. As they review the alternatives, City decisionmakers will weigh the costs and benefits of TDM against the costs and benefits of the construction activity required for intersection augmentation that would occur under Alternatives 4 and 5. Res onp se 7E The commentor states an opinion that telecommute centers that would be funded by the City and taxpayers have limited application and need further explanation. The commentor also states that transportation management associations and home -end ridesharing programs need further explanation. It is true that telecommute centers would be used by only a select portion of the local population. However, this is true or all individual trip reduction strategies. In order to maximize trip reduction potential, Alternatives 6 and 7 consider all feasible strategies. Transportation management associations (TMAs) are associations of businesses, employees, or residents that are formed to manage the transportation needs of association members. Typically, TMAs serve as clearinghouses of information relating to alternative transportation modes. They might provide information about transit service, available bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and ridesharing opportunities among members. City -sponsored home -end ridesharing programs would be focused on residences. Historically, rideshare programs have focused primarily on efforts to encourage carpooling among the employees of individual businesses, with the focus of informational and outreach efforts on the businesses themselves. The home -end program would focus such efforts on a residential area, 1 wherein people who live in the same neighborhood and work close together (but not necessarily for the same company) may be able to identify rideshare opportunities. ' Response 7F The commentor asks what employment centers are wonders who will fund new bicycle facilities. Employment centers are areas with high concentrations of employment, where there is high potential to significantly increase the use of alternative transportation modes. Examples in Santa Clarita might include Magic Mountain and the industrial center. As described in Draft ' EIR Table 2-5, either the City or local employers would fund new bicycle facilities if either Alternative 6 or Alternative 7 is adopted. City decisonmakers will consider these costs as they weigh the alternatives. Response 7G The commentor states an opinion that decreases in transit headways, and implementation of ITS technologies would have Iittle benefit unless they are done with regard to demand. If either of these TDM strategies is adopted, their use would be targeted at areas of highest 1 i' G-55 City of Santa Clarita LI Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR demand. The types and locations of specific transit and ITS improvements would be determined on an as -need basis. Response 7H The commenter suggests the removal of Alternative 1 from the Circulation Element EIR. Alternative 1 is the existing Circulation Element roadway network. For purposes of CEQA, the existing planned network is the "no project" alternative. Section 15126(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires analysis of a range of reasonable alternatives, including the no project alternative. Therefore, analysis of Alternative 1 is required to comply with CEQA requirements, as well as to provide a baseline against which the alternative scenarios can be compared. It should be recognized that one of the primary purposes of the Circulation Element amendment process is to find an acceptable alternative to the existing planned network (and specifically the SR -126 extension), in accordance with the City Council's direction. Also, please see Response 5N. Response 7I The commentor does not support the extension of Newhall Ranch Road from I-5 to Rye Canyon Road and suggests that several alternative entrances to the Industrial Center are available. One of the primary purposes of the currently proposed Circulation Element amendment is to identify an acceptable alternative to the Newhall Ranch Road extension from Golden Valley Road to SR -14, as previously directed by the City Council. Therefore, the alternative scenarios examined in the Draft EIR focus upon alternative roadway networks that would replace that extension. The extension from I-5 to Rye Canyon Road is part of the roadway network of the current Circulation element and was not previously identified as a source of controversy. Therefore, it remains as part of the each of the seven circulation systems currently being considered. Nevertheless, this concern will be considered by decisonmakers as they weigh the project alternatives. Response 71 The commentor states an opinion that the widening of San Fernando Road has made Rio Vista Road unnecessary, therefore, Rio Vista should be removed. Because the primary impetus for the currently proposed Circulation Element amendment is to find an acceptable alternative to the Newhall Ranch Road extension east of Golden Valley Road, the focus of the alternative roadway networks examined in the Draft EIR is on accommodating traffic that otherwise would be on the Newhall Ranch Road extension Because Rio Vista is part of the roadway network in the current Circulation Element and was not previously identified as a source of controversy, it remains on all of the EIR alternatives. Nevertheless, this comment will be considered by decisonmakers as they weigh the project alternatives. Response 7K The commentor suggests that Lyons Avenue should be removed because it conflicts with the Railroad Avenue upgrade. The primary impetus for the Circulation Element amendment is to find an acceptable alternative to the Newhall Ranch Road extension east of Golden Valley G•56 City of Santa ' Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR ' Road. Because Lyons Avenue is part of the existing Circulation Element and has not previously been identified as a source of controversy, it remains on each of the project alternatives. Nevertheless, this comment is noted. Response 7L The commentor suggests that the extension of Magic Mountain Parkway through Porta Bella should be a through road rather than a t -intersection. The Magic-Princessa extension through ' Porta Bella is currently in the design phase. It has yet to be determined whether or not the extension will be a through road or a t -intersection. However, this comment is noted. Response 7M II The commentor makes the same comments as stated about Alternative 2 in comments 7J, 7K, and 7L, directed at Alternative 3. Please see responses 7J, 7K, and 7L. Response 7N The commentor believes merging Santa Clarita Parkway into Golden Valley Parkway, as part of Alternative Three, is counter productive to mitigating traffic impacts. This comment is consistent with the Draft EIR traffic analysis, which found that the Alternative 3 roadway network would not operate as well as the Alternative 2 network (see Draft EIR Section 5.8, Transportation/Circulation). This comment is noted and will be considered by decision makers as they weigh the project alternatives. Response 70 The commentor believes that Alternative 3 provides less of a continuous roadway corridor from Bouquet to SR 14 as compared to Alternative 2. The Alternative 3 network would provide a continuous throughway along Newhall Ranch, Santa Clarita Parkway, and Golden Valley Road, with no turns required to get from I-5 to SR -14. At least one turn (at Newhall Ranch Road/Santa Clarita Parkway) would be required to get to or from SR -14 on Santa Clarita Parkway under Alternative 2. However, it is true that no turning movement would be required along the Newhall Ranch Road/Golden Valley Road corridor under Alternative 2. This comment is noted. Response 7P The commenter raises concerns regarding the future traffic impacts resulting from increasing population and notes that an adequate arterial road network must be planned to handle daily commuter "invasions'. All of the traffic analysis presented in Draft EIR Section 5.8 considers the effects of the future development both within and outside the Santa Clarita City limits. The purpose of this planning process is to identify an acceptable circulation system that will meet the needs of the City, including accommodating traffic generated outside the City that affects the City's circulation system. G-57 City of Santa Clarita Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR ' Response 70 1 IJ 1 I I d I II The commentor notes that future planned developments (City Ranch and Ritter Ranch) will impact Elizabeth Lake Road, San Francisquito Canyon Road, Bouquet Canyon Road, and SR 14; therefore, these projects should be responsible for paying for road widenings and extensions that support the development. This comment is noted. Response 7R SCCTC recommends a series of roadway extensions and realignments not considered in the EIR, including a northern by-pass of Santa Clarita. The northern -bypass recommendation was previously considered by the City and is discussed in Section 7.0 of the Draft EIR. This alternative was found to do little to relieve traffic congestion in the Center City area; therefore, it has not been considered as an alternative scenario in the Draft EIR. The commentor's recommendations are noted and will be considered by decisionmakers as they weigh the project alternatives. G-58 City of Santa Clarita J Santa Clarita to Clarita TeIeCommuting Center 25709 Rye Canyon Road Santa Clarita, CA 91355 (805) 295-0006 Fax (805)294-8188 City of Santa Clarita City Council City of Santa Clarita Planning. Commission Principal Planner Jeff Lambert City Hall 21020 Valencia Blvd. 3`d Floor Santa Clarita, Ca. 91355 Re: CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT DRAFT EIR Dear Council Members, Commissioners and Mr. Lambert, AFor many years the Transportation Committees of the SCV Chamber of Commerce and the Valencia Industrial Association have studied transportation matters. We have taken strong positions in favor of developing a well balanced, superior system of roads and transit alternatives which would accommodate the present population and adequately address future needs. We have recognized the painful reality of the area's deficit infrastructure which the city inherited when it incorporated. Today we are faced with a deteriorating and dangerous situation in which many of our roads are at, or nearly at gridlock. It is imperative to plan to address this serious situation immediately. While many divergent opinions exist, one area on which most residents agree is that something must be done and now! The Chamber and VIA recognize and support that growth will occur in the Santa Clarita Valley. We accept as highly probable that the mid-range forecast for 270,000 residents in this area at build -out will occur. The Circulation Element must adequately address this issue. Listed below are the major routes on which the Transportation Committees and our respective Boards of Directors have agreed. Included in this communication are also some comments relative to TDM policies from me as the Executive Director of the Transportation Management Association, and suggestions of some other routes not addressed in the Circulation Element. B I 1) A major East/West corridor is imperative. We urge the City to begin informing the general public that this road will be completely different road from the eight lane freeway the City Council tamed down in 1992. G59 The Chamber of Commerce and the Industrial Association believe that a combination of Alternatives 2 and 3 with augmented corridors will help improve traffic flow. However, we believe that the north / south alignment of Santa Clarita Parkway running through CC�� ldl the Whittaker (Porta Bella) property, exiting on Placenta Canyon Road should be J dropped. There are too many environmental sensitivities associated with this particular road alignment, and exiting on Placenta Canyon would exacerbate usage on this private road. There are better alignments which will carry more traffic. The East/West Road our membership supports is the development of A SIX LANE ARTERIAL, PRECLUDING TRUCKS which would be much like McBean and Valencia Blvd. It would begin at the terminus of Newhall Ranch Road at Interstate 126 and cross to Bouquet Canyon Road. From there we urge the City to bridge the Santa Clara River (paying particular attention to the environmental concerns of crossing a :fiver), enter at a point east of the Metrolink Station and safely off of the Porta Bella property. The road should connect to Golden Valley Road and exit at State Route 14. This will allow additional access to SR14 (utilizing an area of 1.4 miles already conditioned for road widening). This alignment will enhance road capacity thus complimenting the Via Princessa connection to SR14. It is our expectation that this route can still obtain the SR designation thus being able to use Federal and State funding and taxes resulting in earlier construction than awaiting local funding. C 2) The Chamber of Commerce and VIA recognize that following the clean up of toxics, contaminated wells and other problems on the Porta Bella site, - EPA may grant approvals for construction on the nearly 1,000 acres. Early current estimates from EPA indicate clearances may be given in the year 2003 or 2004 a.d. The City Council is on record as opposing any phasing of the development, wisely preferring to wait for full clean-up before commencing any construction on the site. The safety of the citizenry is so important and the potential for extensive and expensive litigation so severe, that to do anything less is fool hardy. Therefore, the organizations request that language specific to the need to obtain a full approval from EPA, be WRITTEN into the policies for the Circulation Element. When and if the Magic Mountain Parkway to Via Princessa is built, there must be a full review of all funding, inclusive of all City bome capital costs going into its construction. In 1995 the City indicated in the early mega -redevelopment proposal that $26 Million was needed for the bridge from capital project funding alone. Analysis of which roads carry the greatest number of vehicles and improve overall traffic flow at a lesser cost may well reveal that other roads are preferable. The known contamination in the area where these roads are planned may require total repositioning of corridors in the total hierarchy of needed routes for the Santa Clarita Valley. DJ) The Chamber and VIA have endorsed the need for Federal Funding and support ^ seeking ISTEA funds for regional roads. These include the interchanges at Interstate 5 and the first phase of the East West corridor. CeE37 (conA, F At the build out of the current Valencia Industrial Center another 5,000 jobs may be added to the workforce as land area presently vacant is occupied. The Valencia Commerce Center to the immediate west of I5, will eventually have 20,000 to 25,000 workers. The total jobs in these two centers may well exceed 40,000 , plus vendor and visitor traffic. This employment base, plus the general traffic that will use the aforementioned roads require addressing these roads now. Local developers should be required to make local monetary commitments through Bridge and Thoroughfare contributions, but the regional nature of these roads will necessitate contributions from other governmental sources. 4) Wiley Canyon to Circle J, and the Lyons Avenue extension. In the mid -seventies, as a resident of Valencia Hills, I asked and received information as to the future development of Wiley Canyon Road. This information revealedthata bridge or grade crossing would access the property east of San Fernando Road. Over two decades have passed and the dynamics may have changed. Had the construction proceeded expeditiously, the very nature of the tracts of houses may have been designed or positioned differently on the land. The problem today is that a major bridge (one that lacks sufficient ramping and turn areas) will be intrusive and disruptive to two long established neighborhoods. - Does the Wiley Canyon Road connection need to be built? The answer is still "yes', but it would be more acceptable as a grade level crossing. It would retain the integrity of the neighborhoods on both sides of San Fernando Road. Closing of the more northerly grade crossing at Circle J Road and the moving of the signals would require acceptance by Cal Trans. There is precedence for this kind of procedure. A grade level connection will accommodate the future development by Beazer Properties and can connect to Via Princessa, thus another east/west link can be accomplished. 4a) Lyons Avenue bridge. Extension of Lyons Avenue to State Route 14 would aid in overall traffic movement throughout the Valley. ( When it was closed as a public road, Placenta Canyon Road accounted for the loss of 18,000 vehicle trips per day.) Extend Lyons Avenue southerly of Masters College with connections to Dockweiler where a T intersection will allow condominium residents of this area an easy egress . The main connection would be the public portion of the road which connects with the under-utilized Placenta Canyon off ramp. The design of this road would not jeopardize the private road for Placenta Canyon residents, or require the taking of any current homes, but would allow some heightened east/west traffic movement, and a better approach to the much respected Master's College which is the principal land owner of the proposed right of way. This road configuration will also bring more train traffic to the soon to be built Metrolink station on Railroad Avenue and will be far better positioned in a commercial and G-61 II U: II II G it I industrially zoned area than disturbing long established residential neighborhoods with a major bridge. 5) Future considerations for roads west of Interstate 5 5 A) The Lyons Avenue /Interstate 5 interchange will experience increasing utilization as build -out occurs in Stevenson Ranch and in the future Newhall Ranch development. Give serious consideration to convening a multi jurisdictional meeting to address the best ways of relieving current problems and addressing future congestion. Initiate an engineering analysis of potential connections to the West of Interstate 5. Can Calgrove provide relief for some of the future traffic generated by developments to the West? 5 B) Sierra Highway and Bouquet Canyon Roads will cant' increasing amounts of traffic in the future. It is essential that the City of Santa Clarita establish sound, ongoing, cooperative working relationships with the County of Los Angeles, and increase their compatibility with Cal Trans. Multi jurisdictional agreements may be required to achieve traffic relief in some areas. The dialogue may be a part of the North County Transportation Committee's efforts. If so, they may need to be expanded. In conclusion, the Transportation Committee is appreciative of the opportunity to address these vital issues, and supports the need for Circulation Element amendments. Representing businesses, industries, home owners, employers and employees, it is our desire to maintain a r high quality of lives for all residents. We remain convinced that a vital component of that quest is the establishment of a well balanced circulation system. 1 Sincerely, 01 CONNIE WORDEN-ROBERTS AND BOB KELLAR, CO CHAIRMEN, SANTA CLARITA 1 VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE. lJ I II 1 G-62 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 8 COMMENTOR: Connie Worden-Roberts and Bob Kellar Santa CIarita Telecommuting Center DATE: Undated RESPONSE: Response 8A The commentors note that traffic conditions in the City are deteriorating and that this situation must be addressed now. This comment is noted. The purpose of this the Circulation Element amendment process is to identify an adequate circulation system that will meet the City's current and future needs. Response 8B The commentors state support for a six -lane east -west arterial (precluding trucks) that would cross the Santa Clara River east of Bouquet Canyon Road, connect to Golden Valley Road, and exit at SR -14. They further state that this alignment should avoid the Porta Bella property. This alignment is similar in concept to the continuous network from I-5 to SR -14 that would be formed under Alternative 3. It should be noted that all of the alignments presented in the Draft EIR are conceptual only. The final alignments for all roads will be developed as part of subsequent planning processes; therefore, Santa CIarita Parkway could potentially be .aligned to avoid the Porta Bella. property. Response 8C The commentors note the importance of cleanup of contamination on the Porta Bella site and requests the that a requirement for full EPA approval prior to road development on the Porta Bella site be included in the Circulation Element. Section 5.6 of the Draft EIR includes several mitigation measures designed to m;ni.n;ze risks associated with roadway development on the Porta Bella site. No development will occur on the site without the approval of federal, state, and/or local regulatory authorities. Also, please see Response 8B. Response 8D The commentors note that buildout of the City will increase traffic and suggest that the City pursue funding sources other than Bridge and Thoroughfare contributions. The City will consider pursuit of all available funding sources for individual roadways as such roadways are proposed in the future. Sources may include federal funds, such as ISTEA funds. Response 8E The commentors suggest that the Wiley Canyon Road extension should be a grade level crossing rather than a bridge. The City has studied at -grade crossings as part of the Magic City of Santa Clarita G-63 L li I 1 iI iI It II Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Mountain Parkway extension during the Council's consideration of the Porta Bella EIR. An at - grade crossing at this location was rejected due to the queue that would occur during peak hour periods, particularly during train delays. An at -grade crossing at Wiley Canyon Road would lead to similar concern over queues during peak hours periods. A grade -separated crossing of Wiley Canyon Road over the railroad tracks to connect to existing Via Princessa would be necessary to serve the Circle J Ranch community and would also address concerns of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) which does not allow new at -grade railroad crossings. Response 8F The commentors suggest that the Lyons Avenue extension should connect to Placerita Canyon, with a t -intersection at Dockweiler. This alignment is one of the two alignments (the other being a direct connection to Dockweiler) that the City is considering as part of the proposed Circulation Element amendment. The City will determine which alignment will best meet the City's needs either as part of this process or during subsequent design of the Lyons Avenue extension. This comment is noted. Response SG The commentors suggest that, given the increasing amount of traffic that will be experienced on City roadways in the future, the City sho8uld initiate multi -jurisdictional meetings and agreements with other affected agencies to resolve traffic issues. The City meets with other affected agencies to resolve traffic and other issues on an ongoing basis and will continue to do so in the future. Whenever possible, the City will come to agreement with other affected agencies to provide traffic relief. G-64 City of Santa Clarita tv 7RANSPORTATION MANAGaNE NT ASSOCIATION :.O. BOX 220233 SANTA CLARITA, CA. 91322• 05) 295-0006 LA (805) 294-8185 r tFOLLOWING IS A DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED TDM STRATEGIES AND A BRIEF RECAP OF SOME POLICIES. SUBMITTED BY: Connie Worden-Roberts, Executive Director, SCV Transportation Management Association and the TeleCenter 'I ' G-65 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) STRATEGIES: Background discussion: In 1994. when the State of California was still reeling from severe recessionary businesss conditions, the State Legislature began addressing some of the regulatory excesses which merchants and businesses deemed punitive, overly expensive and those that placed them at an competitive disadvantage with other states. One of the most despised regulatory measures was Rule 1501, later changed to 1501.1 which mandated the development of Transportation Plans forcing -businesses to get employees to rideshare. Businesses acknowledged the need to have clean air, and were mindful that the quality of air had been steadily improving in California for years. While they endorsed environmental improvements, they thought some of the TDM measures were draconian and would put them out of business. This South Coast Air Quality Management Department measure literally. brought ' Transportation Management Associations into business, augmenting the Regional Rideshare agencies already in place such as Commuter Transportation Services. This regulation required that all companies with 100 or more employees must adopt a Tranportation Plan ' which AQMDhoped would (ultimately) reduce by 15% the number of employees who drove alone to their place of business. Large companies in highly urbanized areas with good transit systems and comfortable profit margins quickly developed car and vanpool programs. Some achieved the goal of SOV (single occupancy vehicle) reduction with incentives and promotional programs. In Santa Clarita Valley, not unlike other areas, 80% of the businesses have 20 or fewer employees. Generally, they subsist on a smaller profit margin and need to be very frugal to survive. Of the 40 -50 companies identified in the Santa Clarita Valley in 1992-93 who needed to. comply with the new laws, all experienced negative financial impacts from the regulations. First, they had to hire a new employee or appoint a current one to develop the plan. Incentives were a requirement and costs were borne by the businesses. Many other lesser, but costly, rules applied. (Example: One business was fined $14,000.00 by AQMD for failure to have a "fresh" transportation bulletin board! An article was posted on one bulletin board that was six months old.) Many regulations and the time consuming requirement to have a written and approved Transportation Plan was required Qf each company. Many Companies had to have focus group meetings of employees who were assembled to critique their company's incentives, which caused a widening rift of morale in many businesses. The least expensive company plan in SCV (when salaries, incentives, training, classes, etc. are included) was $20,000.00. This was right off the top from the profit, and believed to be inexcusable by most small businesses. All of the companies in Santa Clarita Valley who joined the TMA ( 40% to 50% of the total number of local companies and the only ones for whom I have statistics) achieved some improvements in their abilities to get employees to rideshare. Some firms formed totally new companies rather than develop a Transportation Plan and subject themselves to the regulations. G-66 Jul The Legislature listened to the business complaints and laws were changed. Today, a Rule 2202 applies to all companies with more than 249 employees. Fewer regulations and less stringent enforcement measures apply. Most of the companies with whom I work are willing to support a clean environment, want better roads and improved transit, and want to encourage their employees to rideshare, but ask, "Why does government want to place this extra burden of changing the behavior of employees on us?" (see attachment of Regulation 2202 for review.and comparative analyses). On whom should the need for societal changes be placed? Perhaps the answer is - All of us! No one segment of society should be singled out. Achieving behaviorial changes will require well balanced policy decisions where emphasis is placed on persuasion, encouragement, support, exploration, cooperation and coordination - not the "regulate or mandate" language that appears in most Transportation Demand Management strategies. Re: Policies : 1.19 through 1.28 - General support 2.3.6 and 2.3.7 - Newhall Ranch Road/Reduced Trip (Alternative 6) and (Alternative 7). An agressive set of trip reduction techniques in a area still suffering from a history of significant deficit of infrastructure is doomed. We are not just addressing TDM improvements for future growth, but rather are attempting to build a basic infrastructure to satisfy long term deficits. First, we must get the foundation roads, interchanges, bus and rail lines in place. As time and growth- continue we can address enhanced techniques -for reducing vehicle trips citywide. For the forseeable future the emphasis must be on voluntary efforts with the City and MTAbearing the bulk of these costs, as essential public services. f_i L 19 1r The City must investigate additional meauues such as: Intelligent Transportation Services C ' and become more knowledgeable about the "impacts" opa variety of regulatory measures before advocating them. (The public has not been given adequate explanations of these subjects at public hearings and the text is lacking in full definitions.) ■ In the interim much can and should be done to encourage and promote more Metrolink D service, including train linkages to Ventura County, expansion and constant persuasion to ' use public transit, promotion of park and ride lots, etc. Establishment of convenient and cost effective public transit will do more to get the general citizenry to leave their cars at home than any mandatory regulations. I G-67 5.3 and 5.4 " Work cooperatively with regional agencies, etc." Agree! I E 5.5 and 5.6 Encourage linkages and HOVs." Agree!!! 6.6 - Be very careful not to become overly zealous with regard to lessening the parking space requirements. Plans for adequate transit modes must be fully in place before such changes are made. What about changes in business occupancy? When the second buyer takes the. property, is he saddled with the same requirements even if the business is materially changed (A condominium business center replaces one large company at the same site. Less than adequate parking.) Who subsidizes? The City? 6.7 "Pay as you go". Does the policy imply that private business pays for public I G transportation facilities? Does the private firm under such a policy have the right to dictate I specific facilities? What if the private company prefers a park and ride lot and encourages car pooling to a bus shelter and turn out area, or a train stop? Will the City plan address flexibility? 6.9 "Develop marketing and customer service plans..... Target public agencies Chamber of Commerce, TMAs etc." Strictly encouragement, and voluntary action, not mandatory is OK. What criteria is used to target? Will the agencies be given tax dollars to implement the city's plan? Why not develop citywide transit organizations to address these issues? IF THERE IS A. SINCERE INTEREST IN TDM STRATEGIES? Do not try to divide and conquer with multiple, duplicative organizations. Why is the City not currently a member of the TMA if there is a sincere interest in the goals of such organizations? 6.10 and 6.11 Emphasis must remain on encouragement and voluntary methods to achieve trip reduction. G-68 H I THU 10:18 AM 'VALCNCrA TELECrNTER 805 294 810 P.02 South Coast Air Quality Management District 21855 E. Copley Dtive, Diamond Ear, CA 91765-4182 (909) 396-2000 RULE 2202 POLICY CLARIFICATION REVISED :\fav 15. 1997 General Implementation 1. Program Switcbing Employers may change from their current Employee Commute Reduction program (ECRP) at any time to Rule 2202 -On Road Vehicle Mitigation Options. However, once they have elected to implement the strategies in Rule 2202 and ' their Registration has been approved by the District they may rot revert back to an ECRP until their next annual due date. 2. Due Dante Rule 2202 Registration will have a new due date based on the first year registration approval date. This date will become the emplover.'s new fixed due date. The ECRP will maintain the current due dates.:? Il due dates may be changed upon written request and Director's approval. 3. Certified Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETC) The certified ETC is a requirement only when the employer chooses the Employee Commute Reduction Prograrrt,(ECRP) exemption. There is no requirement for an ETC under any other provision of Rule 2202. 4. Regulated Employee The number of regulated employees is based on the "daily average of employees reporting to work." This is the actual number of employees who report to work during the peak commute window. This number represents the actual emissions that result from employees commuting to work and is equivalent to one-fifth of the total number of employee trips (line W) used in the Employee Commute Reduction Pro.aram (ECRP) calculation ofAVR. 5. Employee Surveys If employers elect to conduct employee surveys to determine their VTECs, surveys must be completed within the six months prior to submitting the Rule 2202 Registration. I' G-69 JU'L-31-97 THU 18;19 RM VALENCIA TELECENTER 885 294 8188 Rule 2202 Policy Clarification 2 May 15, 1997 ' Air Investmentaualit._T Prog_ratn (AnIP) 1. So Mix and Match Employers participating in the AQIP are participating in lieu of implementing . any Rule 2202 options or the Employee Commute Reduction Program. If the AQIP option is chosen, no other program can be used. No credit will be given for a rideshare program at the worksite, even though the employer may choose to continue its implementation. 1 2. Annual Employee Count If the regulated employee number increases in the second and third year of the triennial AQIP, the employer pars 560 per additional employee in the window for the remaining years of the triennial option. Filing Fees Filing fees for the AQIP are paid annually per worksite at the time of registration (see Rule 311 for details). ' Credits 1. Creditable Commute Vehicle Reductions (CCVR) For First Year of Registration To establish the current credit for trip reduction (AVR), for the first year of Rule I' 2202 implementation employers may use: I' a) the District approved survey provided in the Employee Commute Reduction Program; b) . the weighted average of the most immediate past three years AVR data; ory IC) an alternative method approved in writing by the District prior to submittal. There is no 1.1 default AVR credit for the first year of registration. First year AARs may no longer be used under anv option. To claim.this credit from progress made over the years, employers must continue to implement at a minimum the fundamental strategies that will insure there is minimal negative affect on the CCVR. Although every worksite will ' have to be evaluated on a case by case basis the four basic strategies for employees are considered to be the following: ' a) Ride matching; b) Transit information provided to employees; c) Preferential parking to those who rideshare; and, ' G-70 P.83 1UL-31-977 TMU 10:19 PM VALENCIA TELECENTEP - 005 294 01.+0 Rule 2202 Policy Clarification 3 May 15, 1997 d) Guarantced ride for emergencies/overtime/etc. When an employer scales back or modifies a rideshare program this may have an adverse effect on the CCVR and may result in changes to their Emission Reduction Target (ERT) in the subsequent years. The -CCVR changes will be seen when the employer surveys the following year. 2. '%Veishted Average To calculate CCVR for the first year of registration, an employer may use the weighted average of the average vehicle ridership (AVR) survey data of the mostimmediate past three years. The term weighted average here is used to differentiate from the arithmetic average of the AVR ratio which carmOE be used for the purposes of this calculation. The daily average CCVR is calculated usine the following steps: ' (a) Divide the m -n of the total employee trips (line W of form IV of the ECRP Form) by the stun of total vehicle trips (lire TV of form IV), of the last three years. AVR = (W,+W2+W3) [ ( TV, + TV2.+ TVs) j (b) Divide the current !j average number of employees (Ecorrent) in the peak window by the result of (a) to obtain the current total daily vehicle . trips in the peak window. TVGwrent = ! Ecurrent L AVR (c) Subtract the result of (b) from the current daily average rramber of employees in the peak window to arrive at the CCVR. CCVR = ECLrTent - WCurrent Do not use the arithmetic average of AVR s (i.e., AVRt+A 3R2+AVR3 ) to 'calculate CCVR. Creditable Commute Vehicle Reductions (CCVR) For Subsequent Years In subsequent years, the employer may use the 1.1'AVR as a default value or conduct an actual AVR survey to claim vehicle trip emission reduction credits (VTEC). This is calculated as follows: i ' G•71 P.04 JUL-31-97 THU 10720 AM VALENCIA TELECENTER 305 294 313^o P.05 Rule 2202 Policy Clarification 4 hiav 15, 1997 (a) Divide the current da_ i1v average number of employees (Ecurren) in the peak uindow by the default 1.1 AVR to obtain the current total daily vehicle trips in the peak window. TuCurent Ecurrent — 11 (b) Subtract the result of (a) from the current daily average number of employees (Earren) in the peak window to arrive at the CCVR. CCVR = Ecurent - TVcurent 4. Vebicle Trip Emission Credits (VTEC) If an employer submits a triennial employee commute reduction plan; then they may list an emission reduction strategy as a miscellaneous strategy. This approach is considered a "good faith effort" on the part of the employer. Other AB3048 (Olberd) School districts are no longer exempt from paying filing fees. Emergency Legislation has been proposed (SB 113) by Senator Lewis to reinstate the exemption, covering filing fees for ECRP, ERS and AQIP submittals by school districts. ' poriq.Leoc II II II II G-72 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 9 COMMENTOR: Connie Worden-Roberts, Executive Director SCV Transportation Management Association and the TeleCenter DATE: Undated RESPONSE: Response 9A The commentor describes the burden that transportation demand management (TDM) strategies can place on small businesses and suggests that emphasis should be placed on "persuasion, encouragement, support, exploration, cooperation and coordination," not on regulation or mandates. This opinion is noted. Both the costs and benefits of TDM strategies will need to be considered by decisionmakers as they evaluate the merits of the various strategies included in Alternatives 6 and 7. These two alternatives have been examined in order to provide a full range of options for meeting the City's transportation needs. Response 9B The commentor states an opinion that aggressive TDM measures will not work until the foundation roads, interchanges, and bus/rail lines are in place. Improvements to bus and rail service are among the. strategies being considered as part of all of the project alternatives. Additional increases in bus service are considered as part of Alternatives 6 and 7. The Draft EIR traffic analysis suggests that the implementation of aggressive TDM strategies would improve traffic levels of service to some degree. However, the improvement would not be as great as that which would occur with the intersection augmentation that would occur under either Alternative 4 or Alternative 5. Response 9C The commentor suggests that the City investigate additional TDM measures, such'as intelligent transportation service (PPS) and states that better explanation of such measures is needed. ITS technologies are among the TDM strategies being considered under Alternatives 6 and 7. As described in Table 2-5 of the Draft EIR, ITS technology would involve the use of advanced systems such as information kiosks, automatic vehicle locators, "smart cards" for fare collection, and advanced traveler information systems. Because new technologies are constantly emerging, other kinds of ITS technologies would likely be developed over the life of the City s Circulation Element. Adoption of this strategy as a Circulation Element policy would involve tracking the latest available technologies on an ongoing basis and implementing those strategies that are appropriate for the City of Santa Clarita. Response 9D The commentor recommends that more be done to promote the use of public transit and park- and-ride opportunities. The proposed Circulation Element text changes that apply to all of the ' G-73 City of Santa Clarita ' Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR project alternatives encourage the use of public transit, carpooling, and other alternatives to the single occupant motor vehicle. Improvements to Santa Clarita Transit service, the provision of an additional Metrolink station, and the provision of additional park-and-ride lots along 1-5 and SR -14 are also assumed to be among the infrastructure improvements that would occur under any alternative (see Draft EIR Table 2-4). Response 9E The commentor agrees with proposed Circulation Element policies relating to cooperation with regional agencies and encouraging linkages and HOV lanes. No response is necessary. Response 9F ' Concerning proposed Policy 6.6, the commentor suggests that the City should not be overzealous in lessening parking space requirements. It is not the intent of Policy 6.6 to reduce parking requirements to the point where on-site parking will be inadequate to serve proposed ' or future development. Rather, the intent is to provide some flexibility in enforcing parking requirements, recognizing that the provision of transit facilities and carpool programs can reduce overall demand for parking. Response 9G ' The commentor asks whether the "pay as you go provision in proposed Circulation Element policy 6.7 implies that private businesses pay for transportaY,on facilities and asks if the City plan will allow flexibility in how transportation needs are addressed. Typically, developers in ' the City are required to pay their "fair share" of the cost of transportation infrastructure improvements, based upon the percentage contribution of the proposed development to overall demand on the facilities. Generally speaking, the developer would not have the right to dictate the facilities to which he/she contributes. Payments are based upon the projected level of use of specific facilities and the overall cost to construct needed improvements. However, if it can be demonstrated -that an alternative to a City planned facility would achieve similar or better I results in terms of accommodating circulation, there maybe room for flexibility on a case-by- case basis. ' Response 9H The commentor suggests that encouraging the development of TMAs is an appropriate strategy, but asks whether the City will fund TMAs and why the City doesn t develop citywide transportation organizations. If TMAs are voluntary, as suggested in Policy 6.9, it would not be expected that the City would provide funding for the development or operation of such organizations. However, among the trip reduction strategies included in Alternatives 6 and 7 is City sponsorship of new TMAs. Adoption of either of these alternatives would require a ' financial commitment from the City. Similarly, adoption of either Alternative 6 or Alternative 7 would likely involve the formation of a citywide transit organization. ' City of Santa Clarita G-74 1 II 1pmssay_uury-:i :991 ]:ie:i�N ic:ar;Sb� 0 SANTA CLARITA ORGANIZATION FOR PLANNING THE ENVIRONMENT PO BOX 1182 SANTA CLARITA. CA. 91 386 31 July 1997 City of Santa Clarita 23920 West Valencia Blvd. Ste 300 Santa Clarita. CA 913?3 _atnn: Laura Stotler Ref: Circulation Plan .amzndnnent. (SCH = 96-112023) Section 1.3 does not adequately describe the "areas of public controversy'. The mapped 1� extension of the Old Road between McBean Parkway and Valencia Boulevard invades A SEA 64 and is a matter creat of controversy due to its impacts on Significant Ecological .area 6.1 and the man. Valley Oaks that will require removal for its implementation. It is also not consistent with ilia LA County General Plan that discourages roads through SEAS. .alternate routes exist for the Old Road west of SEA 64 such as the six lane arterial Valencia Blvd. Rockwell Canyon. Magic Mountain route. All alternatives in the DEIR indicate that this route will not be a critical arterial based on traffic demand. The DEIR should consider either the elimination of this route (w$icin shows a low LOS under all alternatives) or the routing of this arterial through the highlands west of SEA 64 or ilia above alternate route East of B. to eliminate the public controversy on this matter. Since it is not in the City of Santa Clarita jurisdictional area at the present time. we question why it is even being considered by this review document. We believe the Magic Mountain Via Princessa cross-town route should be a priority to B alleviate cross to%vn traffic congestion. This route could be extended through the Bemtitz project immediately as, to our knowledge. hazardous materials were not identified as being located in the designated route. Kith regard to biota.and Significant Ecological .areas. SCOPE encourages the Cir %. to adopt plans that have the minimal "tpact on the Santa Clara River and its tributaries. Roads should not be planted through Significant Ecological .areas as they are not compatible witli the biological resources that are to be protected. River and tributary crossings should be kept to a minimum to protect Ilia natural resources, reduce urban run- off and the ensuing pollution of our potable water supply and to enhance the aesthetic and recreational values of ilia riparian habitats. These appear to be .alternatives 2 & 6. 1Ve do not support the inclusion of the Old Road extension between McBean Parkway and Valencia Blvd. or the excessive River and tributary crossings within these two alternatives. We note that these alternatives with the above caveat would have the least impact on oak woodland and riparian resources, C We do not believe that the alternatives studied provide adequate bridge span of riparian D areas (including the Santa Clara River and the South Fork tributary to provide adequate biotic and hydro geological measures for continued assured- groundwater recharge. Structures which will channelize flow in these areas and remove native biota will have all G-75 I I I G-76 •fon LyMn- MamOt" S.6PE at uy-::an:a .":u.:a Page ? o+3 7nersaay . July 5.. 1557 9.,0:05 PM ia: Sawa stone SCOPE CO\ MENTS ON CITY C_KCULATIO\ PLAN 2 adverse affect on ]rater quality and the health of native habitat in the area. Any marinade 1` stream crossings must be particularly sensitive to the Santa Clara as a local water resource and as a habitat for rare &: endangered species. Enviromnental review should occur for each individual bridge project. The DEIR failed to adequateh assess hoar circulation structures (culverts, etc.) can meet E I the- biological need for wildlife corridors. Mechanisms to enhance biota need to be incorporated into the plan. The Circulation Plan makes reference to SCAG grog th projection figures and the Regional F ' Transportation Plan. We note that SCAG population prgjections have run consistently 400 o higher than ghat actually occurred. IVe note that infrastructure construction based on such overages gill result in overbuilt facilities and significant tax burdens for local residents. IWe also note that the Regional Transportation Plan as currently being discussed by SC G G - will not meet the attainment goals of the Clean air .act. Lack of compliance with these air quality goals will result in elimination of federal funding for highxyays. It behooves us to ' adopt alternatives that will sleet the required clean air goals in our circulation element regardless of ilia proposals being debated at SCAG. Alternative transportation modes such as pedestrian, bus and bicycle transportation should �1 114 be encouraged and emphasized in all alternatives. not just alternative 6. ' Finally, we believe that the efforts for Transportation Demand Management (TDM) are not all "either or" against the other alternatives. Both the Cin• andF ilia County need to aggressively pursue traffic demand management ement efforts and intersection improvements, regardless of the other altznlatiyes: the adoption of an}- alternative in this mix must not be the excuse for discarding such efforts. Concurrent with TD\i, the Citv and the Count\• need to ensure that future land use approvals are either "traffic neutral" or are "traffic friendly". _approving additional bedroom residences without adequate and well-placed emploNment opportunities can easily erase all the intents of this general plan update. Sincerely, ' Michael A botch, President Faded 7-31-97 to comply with close of comment deadline ' Hard copy to follow by regular mail. I I I G-76 II Santa Clanta Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 10 COMMENTOR: Michael A. Kotch, President Santa CIarita Organization for Planning the Environment DATE: July 31, 1997 RESPONSE: Response 10A The commentor states an opinion that Draft EIR Section 1.3 does not adequately describe areas of public controversy because it does not discuss potential impacts to Significant Ecological Area (SEA) 64. He further states that the extension of The Old Road should be eliminated and questions why the extension is being considered in the Draft EIR. The intent of Draft EIR Section 1.3 is to describe areas of known public controversy at the time of the publication of the Draft EIR. The only known area of controversy at that time, and the primary impetus for the proposed Circulation Element amendment, was the extension of Newhall Ranch Road east of Golden Valley Road. Although it is true that The Old Road would pass through a portion of SEA 64, that extension has been part of the arterial roadway network in the City's Circulation Element since 1991. The City was unaware of any public controversy relating to The Old Road. As stated above, the primary impetus behind the proposed Circulation Element amendment was the desire to find an alternative to the extension of Newhall Ranch Road east of Golden Valley Road. Because the extension of The Old Road would not substantially affect the operation of the roadway network near the Newhall Ranch Road extension and was not the subject of any known controversy, it remains as part of all of the Circulation Element alternatives. It should, however, be recognized that the Draft EIR identifies the intrusion into SEAS, including SEA 64, as a significant and unavoidable impact of any project alternative. The commentor also questions why The Old Road extension is being considered in the EIR since it is outside the City limit. The Santa Clarita Planning Area boundaries include the entire City, as well as areas outside the current City limits that are affected by activities in the City and could be annexed into the City in the future. The Planning Area, rather than the current city limit, is the study area for the Circulation Element amendment and EIR. Response 10B The commentor states an opinion that the Magic Mountain/ Via Princessa corridor should be a priority and that hazardous materials were not identified in the planned roadway alignment. Hazardous material contamination has been identified in portions of the Bermite site through which the Magic Mountain/Via Princessa corridor would cross (see Draft EIR Section 5.6, Risk of l.Ipset/Hutnan Health and Safety). However, theDraft EIR includes several mitigation measures that, if implemented, would be expected to reduce potential hazards on the Bermite property to an insignificant level. G-77 City of Santa �I Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Response 10 The commentor encourages the adoption of plans that minimize impacts to the Santa Clara River and its tributaries (Alternatives 2 and 6) and does not support the extension of The Old Road. The Draft EIR identifies Alternatives 2 and 6 as having the least impact upon the Santa Clara River among the studied alternatives, although the difference among alternatives is only marginal. Nevertheless, biological impacts relating to intrusion into the Santa Clara River are considered significant under any alternative, as discussed in Draft EIR Section 5.4. The commentor's opposition to the extension of The Old Road is noted. Also, please see Response 10A. Response 10D The commentor states an opinion that the studied alternatives do not provide adequate bridge span of riparian areas and that river crossings will adversely affect water quality and native habitat. The proposed Circulation Element does not involve specific designs for any roadways or. bridges. As such, the actual bridge spans for future crossings over the Santa Clara River and its tributaries are not currently known. Design of individual bridges would occur at such time that individual bridges are proposed. As discussed in Sections 5.2 and 5.4 of the Draft EIR, all designs would have to comply with the requirements of regulating agencies such as the U.S. . Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game, and the California Water Quality Control Board. Nevertheless, the Section 5.4 of the Draft EIR identifies impacts to the Santa Clara River as potentially significant and unavoidable for any of the project alternatives. Response 10 The commentor states an opinion that the Draft EIR fails to adequately assess how circulation structures can meet the biological need for wildlife corridors. As discussed in Response 10D, the proposed Circulation Element is a conceptual plan that does not include specific designs for any roads, bridges, or other infrastructure. Although culverts and other structures can serve as wildlife corridors in some instances, any benefits stemming from such facilities would need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. These kinds of effects will be addressed in subsequent environmental review documents for individual bridge projects as they are proposed. Response 10F The commentor notes that basing transportation needs upon SCAG projections may result in overbuilt facilities and significant tax burdens because SCAG projections have historically been high. Although SCAG projections are certainly not perfect, they are considered the most reliable projections available for the Southern California region. Implementation of the roadway network shown in any of the Circulation Element alternatives would coincide with actual development in and around the City. Therefore, though roads may appear on the planned arterial road network, they will not necessarily be constructed until such time that they are needed to serve individual developments. G-78 Clarita Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Response1OG The commentor notes that SCAG's current Regional Transportation Plan would not comply with federal Clean Air Act goals and states an opinion that it would behoove the City to meet clean air goals.. All of the alternatives include a variety of policies designed to encourage the use of the alternative transportation modes that would reduce vehicle miles traveled and associated air emissions. Alternatives 6 and 7 include additional strategies to further reduce the use of the single occupant vehicle. As discussed in Draft EIR Section 5.2, Air Quality, the Alternatives 6 and 7 trip reduction strategies would reduce air emissions to some degree as compared to their corresponding base alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3, respectively). However, it should be noted that the improved traffic flow associated with the augmented intersection alternatives (Alternatives 4 and 5) was actually found to reduce air emissions more than the trip reduction associated with Alternatives 6 and 7. Response 10H ' The commentor suggests that alternative transportation modes should be encouraged under all project alternatives. The proposed Circulation Element text changes described in Draft EIR Section 20 relating to encouraging the use of alternative transportation modes would apply to all alternatives. Alternatives 6 and 7 include additional transportation demand management strategies designed to reduce vehicle trips to the maximum degree feasible. Response 10I The commentor states an opinion that the City should pursue both intersection improvements and transportation demand management (TDM) and states that all future land use approvals should be "traffic neutral" or "traffic friendly." All of the alternatives studied in the EIR include both roadway network improvements and TDM strategies (see Section 2.0 of the Draft EIR and Response 10H. The traffic analysis in Section 5.8 of the Draft EIR considers the effects of buildout of the currently planned land uses in and around the City. Therefore, all planned development has been accounted for in evaluating future traffic levels. City of Santa G-79 07/01/97 05:52 F.iS 505 254 1995. MASTER'S COLLEGE Z002,002 July 31, 1997 Jeff Lambert. Planning Manager City Hall, 3rd Floor 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: Lyons Avenue Extension Dear.MT. Lambert. T11 E 06 MASTERS C O L L E G E 11 As a resident of the Santa Clarita Valley and employee of The Master's College, I write this letter for your consideration in the development of a study and plan for the extension of Lyons Avenue via Dockweiller to the 14 Freeway. Roads within the valley are becoming more and more congested and this extension would be a great help. A significant portion of this roadway would pass through our property so we are very interested in how the study would benefit the valley as well as the college. Thank you for considering this very vital project. Sincerely, Robert L.Hot ton Vice President for Operations RLH:nll G-80 21^_o PI.ACHRI'1'% 1:.1\1'f1\ @nAn • i.%\'I'! /.1.AM 1.%. CALItORNIA 111:421 12011 8Ul1: :08•b°t3 605i2S-1-35i11 • 8011:288-1037 FAX • Inq�/: ex x,nla.urvJn Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter TT COMMENTOR: Robert L. Hotton, Vice President for Operations The Master's College DATE: July 31, 1997 RESPONSE: The commentor states his support for the extension of Lyons Avenue via Dockweiler to SR -14. The Lyons Avenue extension is common to each of the studied alternatives and is therefore anticipated to be part of whichever alternative is adopted by the City Council. City of Sanfa Clarita G-81 Daniel M. Goetz Vice President Business Development July 29, 1997 The Planning Commission City of Santa Clarita City Hall 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Planning Commission: I Ultra Met Devices. Inc. 12 RECEIVED AUG 011997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA The Santa Clarita Valley needs a Circulation Element which effectively guides the development of a smooth functioning system of roads, highways, transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Residents need a network that will address and resolve the very serious transportation problems of today while making adequate plans for the future development of the Santa Clarita Valley. Listed below are some of the priorities which must be included: ♦ A major priority is the construction of an East/West Corridor consisting of a six lane A arterial (the width of McBean Parkway or Valencia Blvd.) that precludes super trucks. Ii Use Newhall Ranch Road to Bouquet Canyon Road, cross the River entering east of the Metrolink Station and east of Bermite property, link to Golden Valley Road and SR14. • Expanded intersections that reduce serious congestion (described as "augmented" in the TZ text) should be designed and built for all major intersections throughout SCV to allow 1� additional left and right turn pockets. defined in Alternatives 4 and 5. These key intersections, which are identified in the Circulation Element, play an important role in the overall system and must be maintained and developed. ♦ Funding for improvements to the major highways which traverse this valley should be sought from Federal and State sources in combination with -contributions from local developers. It is vital to recognize and encourage needed interchange and construction improvements on Interstate 5 and State Route 14. Bridge and thoroughfare funds, in combination with Capital Project funding, must build local roads. Better cooperative relationships about development must be established with Los Angeles County. ♦ Recognize the serious problems associated with constructing a major bridge in long established residential neighborhoods (Wiley Canyon and Circle J areas). Build a less intrusive grade level crossing at Wiley and San Fernando. Construct the necessary 28220 Industry Drive, Valencia, CA 91355/ (805) 293.8140 / Fax (805) 295-83 50 G-82 July 29, 1997 Page 2 ' bridge at a newly aligned Lyons Avenue extension that will bridge the railroad and the Newhall Creek; then swing southerly of all homes in Placerita Canyon and connect to they t�d� public portion of the Placerita Canyon Road, connecting to the under-utilized Placerita Canyon off ramp which links SR14. Develop a "T' intersection at Dockweiler. Lyons Avenue extension at this location is commercial, will avoid all residences and extends needed East/West passage to another sector of the valley. ' • Continue the development of pedestrian, bicycle and train systems. Include language in � E the Circulation Element encouraging, not mandating, the use of transit and multi-moda transportation systems. Respectfully u mitted, Daniel Goetz G-83 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 12 COMMENTOR: Daniel M. Goetz, Vice President U1traViolet Devices, Inc. DATE: July 29,1997 RESPONSE: Response 12A The commentor states an opinion that a major priority should be the construction of an east/west corridor along Newhall Ranch Road, Santa Clarita Parkway, and Golden Valley Road, linking to SR -14. This corridor is similar to that included in Alternative 3, the Golden Valley Road Network. This corridor is also part of Alternatives 5 and 7. Alternatives 2, 4, and 6 include a continuous corridor along Newhall Ranch Road and Golden Valley Road. See Section 2.0 of the Draft EIR for a further description of each of these alternatives. Response 12B The commentor expresses support for the augmented intersection concept. Alternatives 4 and 5 both include the augmented intersection concept, which was determined to improve traffic service levels in many locations throughout the City (see Section 5.8, Transportation/ Circulation). Response 12C The commentor suggests that funding for major highways be sought from federal and state sources, as well as local developers. He also encourages better cooperation in planning with Los Angeles County. The City seeks other funding sources when they are available and will continue to do so in the future. The City works with Los Angeles County staff to resolve planning issues on an ongoing basis. Although conflicts will undoubtedly arise between the jurisdictions as the Valley builds out, this ongoing effort to cooperatively plan for the future of the Santa Clarita Valley will continue in the future. Response 12D The commentor suggests that a grade level crossing be built at Wiley Canyon and San Fernando Roads and that the Lyons Avenue extension connect to Placenta Canyon, forming a t - intersection at Dockweiler. The City is currently considering connecting Lyons Avenue at either Placerita Canyon or Dockweiler. A determination of where the Lyons Avenue extension should go will be made either as part of the Circulation Element amendment process or during subsequent review of the Lyons Avenue extension at such type that specific project is proposed. The City has studied at -grade crossings as part of the Magic Mountain Parkway extension during the Council's consideration of the Porta Bella EIR. An at -grade crossing at this location i' was rejected due to the queue that would occur during peak hour periods, particularly during ISI City of Santa Clarita G•84 ' Santa Cladta Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 1 train delays. An at -grade crossing at Wiley Canyon Road would lead to similar concern over queues during peak hours periods. A grade -separated crossing of Wiley Canyon Road over the railroad tracks to connect to existing Via Princessa would be necessary to serve the Circle J Ranch community and would also address concerns of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) tt hich does not allow new at -grade railroad crossings. Response 12E ' The commentor states support for encouraging, rather than mandating, the use of transit and multi -modal systems. The proposed Circulation Element text changes that are common to all ' alternatives include new policies encouraging the development and use of alternative transportation modes. Only Alternatives 6 and 7 include mandatory incentive and disincentive programs. I II II I 1 1 I 1 I i City of Santa Clarita G-85 13 1 N E W H A L L. L A N s 1 1 July 31, 1997 City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report for City of Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment Dear Chair and Members of the Planning Commission: RANor W4EE:Eq va,-aSaNl iESJErv"aL VAIeNCA ONSON As a major community builder in the Santa Clarita Valley, The Newhall Land and Farming Company has long had a keen interest in regional circulation issues, and has consistently supported the provision of adequate road infrastructure in the City. Therefore, we strongly favor ' amendment of the Circulation Element in order to ensure that a highway network is adopted that will permit completion of General Plan land use. We also want to emphasize we are not supportive of a limited access expressway route. As evidenced by the City General Plan and the Proposed Circulation Amendment Text ("Proposed Teri'), we know the City is pursuing an appropriate road system. Both identify a ' primary goal as being to"provide a circulation system to move people and goods safely and efficiently throughout the City of Santa Clarita and the General Planning Area." Moreover, the Land Use Element of the General Plan emphasizes that "necessary facility improvements should 1 precede or be coordinated with fitture development" (Santa Clarita General Plan, p L-33.) However, NLF believes that the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has understated the vital need for new road infrastructure which could relieve existing and anticipated congestion levels. In particular, the DEIR contains numerous deficiencies, which are described in detail in a letter to NLF, by our counsel, Steve Weston of McClintock/Weston/Benshoof/Rochefort/ Rubalcava/ MacCuish which is attached as Exhibit "A". This letter will summarize a few of these issues. (1) ALTERNATIVE ROAD NETWORKS WHICH COULD ACHIEVE THE CITY'S LEVEL -OF -SERVICE GOALS ARE NOT EXPLORED Given the fact that each of the DEIR alternatives fails to achieve the City's level -of -service goals and each has significant negative impacts on future service levels when compared to the existing 1 Circulation Element, the City is obligated under. CEQA to evaluate additional alternatives. We believe that there are alternatives that can be designed which would provide an adequate circulation system without a limited access expressway. It appears that there are at least three 1 T"e NE'.VwALE LLN: ANG FAWING CC --ANY 23623 VA;EmaA SCLICiVAFC VALENCIA CAL :1 N1- 913552191 (6051 255.1206 G-86 08,29/97 15:43 FAYL 805259 8125 CITY HALL additional alternatives which have the potential to further reduce traffic congestion including an augmented version of Alternative I and further augmentation measures to Alternatives 4 and 5. (2) THE OUR 1 %/[P.ROPERLY CONCLUDES THAT NONE OF THE STUDIED ALTERNATIVES WOULD HAVE A "SIGNIFICANT RAPACT" ON FUTURE LEVELS OF SERVICE UNDER CEQA a004/006 Although each of the alternatives would have overall traffic benefits, none of the alternatives would provide a circulation system adequate to serve General Plan land use Yet, the DEIR concludes that none of the studied alternatives would have a "significant impact" on future service levels so as to require either mitigation or a statement of overriding considerations ("SOC") trader CEQA. (DEIR, p. 5.8-5.) Given the existence of these significant impacts, if the City chooses any ofthe identified alternatives (or any other alternative which leads to new substandard road segments when compared to the existing Circulation Element), it would be required to adopt a statement of overriding consideration justifying these impacts, thereby effectively reducing the level -of -service goats for such road seements. (3) THE DEIR IS INCONSTSTENT WITH REGIONAL PLANS AND IGNORES SIGNIFICANT REGIONAL I,'v1PACTS ON CIRCULATION AND AIR QUALITY Regional impacts are particularly likely to arise in the context of a Circulation Element amendment. The City must consider such regional impacts. As a threshold matter, each of the alternatives in the DEm is inconsistent with the Los Angeles County General Plan Master Plan of Highways, which identifies Route 126 between I-5 and SR -14 as an "expressway/freeway". The alternatives are also inconsistent with the Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County. That plan calls for an extension of Route 126, between I-5 and SR -14 and identifies the present Magic Mountain Parkway/San Fernando Road alignment merely as an `.`interim route' pending that extension, (4) THE DEIR DOES NOT PROPERLY ADDRESS THE EXISTING CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND IN PARTICULAR ITS PROVISION FOR THE EXTENSION OF SR -126 AS A LIMITED ACCESS EXPRESSWAY A key deficiency under CEQA of the DEIR is its failure to evaluate the provision in the existing Circulation Element for an extension of SR -126 as a limitcd-access expressway through the City and to use this expressway as a baseline for comparison of the other alternatives. This failure has the effect of understating the substantial increase in negative circulation impacts which would result from the selection of any of the seven alternatives, and particularly from the selection of Alternatives 2, 3, 6 or 7. Although the City Council has publicly expressed its desire to find an alternative to this expressway, the General Plan has never been amended to eliminate the expressway or to revise its . designation or alignment. We assume this current effort will accomplish that goal. Nonetheless, 11 ' G-87 08/29/97 15:44 F.4S 605 259 8125 CITY &411, fZ005/006 in describing the "environmental setting" for the transportation/circulation section, the DEIR fails to describe and analyze the SR -126 extension as contained in the existing Circulation Element. This seriously undermines the description of the environmental setting. ' (5) THE .DEIR OMITS VITAL IINFORMATION CONCERNING ROADWAYS AND TRAFFIC MODELING W-MC14 IS NECESSARY TO EVALUATE THE VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES The transportation/circulation section is without question the core analysis in an EIR evaluating the amendment of a general plan circulation element. And yet, the DEIR fails to provide the public with important information which is necessary to evaluate the various alternatives_ First, it does not clearly identify the designations, (i.e. major highway, secondary highway, etc.), which are necessary to determine carrying capacity. Second, it does not describe the underlying assumptions, models used, or calculation methodology for basic traffic data used to compare the alternatives. Without this information, the reader simply cannot evaluate the analysis contained in the DEIR. The DEIR also contains no discussion of how the calculations of vehicle miles of travel ("VMT"), vehicle hours of travel ("VH'I"'), or average travel speeds were made. To the extent a traffic model was used to arrive at these figures, such model is not identified, much less described. And ' finally, there is no representation in the DEIR that the source data and/or traffic model has been provided or approved by any local or regional agency. We note that the Proposed Text promises that "a full explanation of the modeling effort is contained in the appendix to the Background Report on Circulation and in the technical appendix to the 1997 Circulation Element Amendment." (Proposed Text, p. C-4.) however, no document I' with either of these descriptions is identified in the Notice of Availability issued by the City in connection with the DEIR. r �I (6) IHE ALTERNATIVES ARE ALL BASED ON UNFOUNDED ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING AVENUE TMBITS Avenue Tibbits, which was planned as a link between the major arterials of Newhall Ranch Road and Magic Mountain Parkway, is also only partially complete, as evidenced by the DEIR maps. (DEIR, p.2-1 l.) The key remaining link would necessarily cross the Santa Clara River, and require constriction of an expensive bridge, which will need environmental scrutiny. Therefore, the only reasonable assumption is that Avenue Tibbits will not serve as a link between Newhall Ranch Road and Magic Mountain Parkway NLF has recognized in its own CEQA documents the significant possibility that Avenue Tibbits will be completed as described in the DEIR. For example, in the Newhall Ranch EIR, the transportaticn/circulation analysis analvzes the "with project' and "no project" alternatives using not only the existing Circulation ]dement roadway system, but also a hypothetical "alternative highway plan" that the remaining section of Avenue Tibbits is not constructed at all_ G-88 08/29/91 15:44 FAX 805 259 8125 CITY HALL 0006"006 (7) ALTERNATIVES 6 AND 7 COULD MISLEAD THE PUBLIC INTO BELIEVING THAT "AGGitESSiVS" TDM MEASURES CAN TAKE THE PLACE OF INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVE%d[ENTS The mere inclusion of Alternatives 6 and 7 in the DEIR analysis tends to lead the reader to believe that "aggressive" TDM measures would be successful, and accordingly that these alternatives are viable means to address the City's traffic needs. However, the DEIR never cautions the reader that even limited TDkf measures, which have already been implemented in connection with the City's Transportation Development Plan ("TDP"), lack a proven track record and are not easily quantified. Without that roundation, it certainly is not reasonable for the DEIR to make optimistic assumptions about the feasibility of additional, entirely untested TDM measures and the trip reductions they would yield. (8) THE DEIROVER-E�,IPHASIZEDNON-CIRCULATIONIIvIPACTS The DEIR does not identifv an environmentally superior alternative; rather, it leaves the selection of that alternative to the reader in light of the information presented. However, the DEIR strongly implies that while other alternatives may have slightly fewer non -circulation environmental impacts, when circulation is deemed the primary objective, Alternative 1 is superior to the other identified alternatives. It is essential that the DEIR emphasize the relative importance of circulation impacts in this comparison. As pointed out earlier. both the existing Circulation Element and the proposed text acknowledge ' that the main objective of any circulation element is to establish a road system which will "safely and efficiently accommodate existing and future transportation demands." (General Plan, p, C-36; Proposed Text, p. C-26.) In summary, we are very supportive of the City's effort to update the Circulation Element of the General Plan. However. we are concerned that the deficiencies outlined in this letter, if not corrected, could mislead the public and policy makers into adopting a severely constricted roadway network which would compound the traffic problems already plaguing the City and the region. Please feel free to contact me if we can be of assistance in any way. Best Regards, TRE I47EWHALL LAND AND FARMING COMPANY G-89 II MCCLINTOCK I WESTON BENSHOOFIROCHEFORT RUBALCAVA I MACCUISH LLP A T T O R N E Y S A T I A W July 31, 1997 Mr. Gregory Medeiros Valencia Company 23823 West Valencia Blvd. Valencia, CA 91355 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for City of Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment Dear Mr. Medeiros: We submit that the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment ("DEIR") contains deficiencies which render it inadequate under CEQA. We believe that corrections to the DEIR are necessary to comply with CEQA, and that such corrections will require the addition of significant new information. Therefore, it is our opinion that the DEIR should be revised to remedy these deficiencies and that the revised DEIR should be recirculated for public review. (See Public Resources Code § 21092.1; CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5; Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco Inc v Regents of the University of California ("Laurel HeightIIs , 6 CalAth 1112, 1130-32 (1993) (citing Stevens v. City of Glendale, 125 Cal.App.3d 986, 998-99 (198 1) (recirculation required where EIR disclosed extension of ' street through ridge line, resulting in previously unidentified adverse visual impact)).) A discussion of the inadequacies of the DEIR follows; for your convenience, it is preceded by an Executive Summary which outlines the points made in the remainder of the letter. 1 ?13530.1 L444 South Flower Street Forty Third Floor Los Angeles California 90071 Ta' 213 623 2322 Fax 213 623 0324 G-90 Mr. Gregory Medeiros July 31, 1997 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As a major provider of housing and commercial/retail development in the Santa Clarita Valley and environs. the Newhall Land and Farming Co. ("Newhall') has long had a keen interest in regional circulation issues, and has consistently supported the provision of adequate road infrastructure in the City. The City shares this concern, as evidenced by its own General Plan and the proposed amendment to the Circulation Element. Both identify a primary goal as being to "provide a circulation system to move people and goods safely and efficiently throughout the City of Santa Clarita and the general Planning Area." (DEIR p. 2-4.) Moreover, the Land Use Element of the General Plan emphasizes that "necessary facility improvements should precede or be coordinated with future development." (Santa Clarita General Plan, p. L-33.) The DEIR notes early on that lack of sufficient road infrastructure is a serious problem in the City: "[Traffic] growth, in combination. with the absence of substantial improvements in the City's circulation system, has resulted in significant traffic congestion in many parts of the City. This trend is projected to continue into the future, with generally declining levels of service on area roadways, slower traffic speeds, and increased commute times. According to SCAG, the total number of automobile trips in the Santa Clarita Valley is anticipated to increase by more than 40% by 2015. Traffic delays are projected to more than triple over the same time period." (DEIR, pp. 3-2, 3 (italics supplied).) Despite this acknowledgment, however, the DEIR has dramatically understated the vital need for new road infrastructure which could relieve existing and anticipated'congestion levels. In particular, the DEIR contains the following deficiencies: 1 113530.1 MCCLI\TOCA I \1 F.STOS I BE]SHOOF I ROCHEFORT I RCRALCACA I MACCCISH I.LP G-91 II Mr. Gregory Medeiros I July 31, 1997 Page 3 (1) It does not explore alternative road networks which could achieve the City's level -of -service goals (see pp. 4- 6); (2) It improperly concludes that none of the ' alternatives would have a "significant impact" on future levels of service under CEQA (see pp. 6-7); (3) It is inconsistent with regional circulation plans and ignores significant regional impacts on circulation and air quality (see pp. 8-9); (4) It does not properly address the existing ' Circulation Element, and in particular its provision for the extension of SR -126 as a limited access expressway (see pp. 9- 17); (5) It. omits vital information concerning roadways and traffic modeling which is necessary to evaluate the various alternatives (see pp. 17-21); I (6) The alternatives it evaluates are all based on unfounded assumptions regarding the completion of Avenue Tibbits (see pp. 21-22); (7) It contains two alternatives which could mislead the public into believing that "aggressive" TDM measures can take the place of infrastructure improvements (see pp. 22-23); I2135301 (8) It does not adequately consider the negative impact of reduced levels of service on air quality, including the creation of carbon monoxide "hot spots" (see pp. 23-24); and (9) It over -emphasizes non -circulation impacts, thereby obscuring the relative superiority of Alternative 1 (see pp. 24-25). MCCUNTOCK i WESTON I BES$HOOF I ROCHEFORT I R1 B.ALCAt"A I 1ACCCI%H SLP G-92 Mr. Gregory Medeiros July 31, 1997 Patre 4 We are concerned that these deficiencies, if not corrected, could mislead the public and policy makers into adopting a severely constricted roadway network which would compound the traffic problems already plaguing the City and the region. DISCUSSION (1) THE DEIR: DOES NOT EXPLORE ALTERNATIVE ROAD NETWORKS WHICH COULD ACHIEVE THE CITY'S LEVEL -OF - SERVICE GOALS The existing Circulation Element of the Santa Clarita General Plan provides for the extension of SR -126 from I-5 to SR -14, with the extension to be deemed an `'expressway" which is "planned to accommodate, at a minimum, eight lanes of travel with very limited access. (Santa Clarita General Plan ("General Plan"), pp. C-38, 39.) The City Council voted as early as 1992 to find an alternative to this expressway; however, the General Plan has never been amended to eliminate the expressway or to revise its designation or alignment. The elimination of the SR -126 expressway has now become an implied objective of the DEIR, in that one of its stated objectives is to identify an "alternative to an extension of SR -126". (DEIR p. 2: 21.) However, the central weakness of the DEIR is that it does not propose a single alternative roadway system which would approximate the capacity of the original plan,.,or which would meet the City's level -of -service goals. Both the existing Circulation Element and the Proposed Circulation Amendment Text ("Proposed Text") emphasize that "[t]he main objective of any circulation element is to determine and present a roadway and intersection system which will safely and efficiently accommodate existing and future transportation demands." (General Plan, p. C- 36; Proposed Text, p. C-26.) In particular, both the existing and proposed versions of the Circulation Element note that LOS -D is the minimum acceptable target for the City's roads: 213530A "... LOS C is considered a benchmark for planning purposes. In heavily urbanized areas, LOS D is an accepted, though MCCLISTOCA I WESTON I BES$HOOF I ROCHEFORT 1 RCBALCAVA I MACCCISH ILP G-93 IM II 1 Mr. Gregory Medeiros I July 31, 1997 Page 5 undesirable, condition for peak hours of vehicular travel -- particularly on freeways." (General Plan, p. C-25; Proposed Text, p. C-10.) The DEIR, meanwhile, states that a traffic study presented to the City Council in January 1995 concluded that "neither the existing Circulation Element nor any of the four ' potential alternative roadway networks would meet the City's General Plan level of service goals." (DEIR, p. 1-2.) A subsequent study in June 1995 added a fifth alternative, which the DEIR states "was determined to best meet the City's circulation goals." (DEIR, p. 1-2.) j Apparently, these five alternatives were the basis of the seven alternatives chosen for the DEIR. However, the DEIR ultimately makes an important concession: "Although any of the alternatives would have overall traffic benefits, none of the alternatives would achieve the level of service (LOS) goal outlined in the existing Circulation Element (LOS D):' (DEIR, p. 5.8-6 (italics supplied).) Indeed, even under the most comprehensive road systems contemplated by the DEIR -- Alternatives 1, 4 and 5 -- less than 60 percent of vehicle miles traveled would be at LOS A, B or C, and between 13 and 23 percent would be at LOS -F, i.e., under "gridlock" conditions. Given the fact that each of the DEIR alternatives fails to achieve the City's level -of -service goals and has significant negative impacts on future service levels when compared to the existing Circulation Element, the City is obligated under CEQA to evaluate additional alternatives: "[T]he discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to .the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly." (See CEQA Guidelines ("Guidelines") § 15126(d)(1) (emphasis supplied).) Of course, it is up to the City to identify a reasonable range of alternatives. (See Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco. Inc. v. Regents of the 213550.1 MCC.LISTOCK I WESTON I BES>HOOF I ROCHEFORT I RCBALCAN"A I MACCCISH LLP G-94 n Mr. Gregory Medeiros July 31, 1997 Page 6 University of California ("Laurel Heights I"l, 47 Cal.3d 376, 405 (1988).) That said, however, there are at least three additional alternatives which have the potential to further reduce traffic congestion and meet the City's level -of -service goals. The first would be an "augmented" version of Alternative 1, using the same road alignments but augmenting key road links to improve traffic flow. The advantages of augmentation are apparent from the DEIR itself; the two existing augmented alternatives (Alternatives 4 and 5) demonstrate significantly better performance than their non -augmented counterparts (Alternatives 2 and 3, respectively.) Presumably, then, augmentation of Alternative 1 would produce similar improvements in levels of service. An even more promising solution would be to apply further augmentation measures to Alternatives 4 and 5, respectively, and thereby create two new "enhanced" augmented alternatives. There is undoubtedly room for such enhancements; as described in the DEIR, Alternatives 4 and 5 each limit augmentation measures to extra "turn pockets" within 200 feet of congested intersections, when in fact these road links could be augmented to. an even greater extent, thereby further improving traffic flow. Indeed, Newhall has already studied, in the context of its Newhall Ranch project in adjoining Los Angeles County, an Alternative Highway Plan which resembles Alternative 5 but accomplishes significantly better traffic flows. (See Newhall Ranch Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Newhall Draft EIR" ), pp. 4.8-57 through 65.) (2) THE DEIR IMPROPERLY CONCLUDES THAT NONE OF THE ALTERNATIVES WOULD HAVE A "SIGNIFICANT IMPACT" ON FUTURE LEVELS OF SERVICE UNDER CEQA Even though each of the seven alternatives identified in the DEIR would be unable to carry the traffic volumes planned in the existing Circulation Element, and would fall short of the City's level -of -service goals, the DEIR concludes that none of the alternatives would have a "significant impact" on future service levels so as to require either mitigation or a statement of overriding considerations ('`SOC'') under CEQA. (DEIR, p. 5.8- 5.) In effect, the DEIR contends that no roadway plan would have a negative impact because any road improvements would be better than no improvements at all; "All of the project alternatives involve improvements to the City's circulation system that would improve traffic flow on the SII' _uso.I MCCLISTOCK I WESTON I BRNSHOOF I ROCHEFORT I RCBALC,AVA I MACQ'ISH LLP G-95 0 091 Mr. Gregory Medeiros July 31, 1997 Page 7 citywide arterial network as compared to conditions that would occur in the absence of any improvements. Therefore, the overall effect of implementation of any project alternative on citywide traffic levels of service can be considered beneficial." ' (DEIR, p. 5.8-6 (italics supplied).) However, The General Plan Guidelines issued by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research clearly provide that the proposed Circulation Element should be compared not only to existing built conditions, but also to the conditions anticipated under the existing Circulation Element: "When a new or updated general plan or amendment to a plan is beingconsidered, the EIR must evaluate the proposed plan's or amendment's effects on both the existing physical conditions 1 of the actual environment and the environment envisioned by the existing general plan." (General Plan Guidelines, Office of Planning and Research ("General Plan Guidelines'), p- 155 (1990) (italics supplied).) When viewed through this lens, all of the alternatives have significant impacts under CEQA, because they all reduce levels of service below the City's LOS -D target at numerous locations. (teg Guidelines § 15088.5 (recirculation is required where "a new significant environmental impact would result from the project".) Given the existence of these significant impacts, if the City chooses any of the identified alternatives (or any other alternative which leads to new substandard road segments when compared to the existing Circulation Element), it would be required to adopt a statement of overriding considerations justifying these impacts, thereby effectively reducing the level -of -service goals for such road segments. (See Guidelines § 15093.) Of course, the proper solution is not for the City to engage in a fiction about substantial impacts, or to revise its level -of -service goals through a statement of overriding tconsiderations. Rather, the City should instead meet its goals by means of a viable alternative roadway plan. ' zls;o.l WCC,LINTOCK I «'E>TON I BEIAHOOF I ROCHEFORT I RL BALCAVA I MACCCISH LLP G-96 0 Mr. Gregory Medeiros July 31, 1997 Pace 8 (3) THE DEIR IS INCONSISTENT WITH REGIONAL PLANS ANDI f+ IGNORES SIGNIFICANT REGIONAL IMPACTS ON CIRCULATION C AND AIR QUALITY Regional impacts are particularly likely to arise in the context of a element amendment. The City must consider such regional impacts: "No city or county is an island in its regional setting. It is therefore prudent for a local planning agency to coordinate its circulation element provisions with applicable state and regional transportation plans." (General Plan Guidelines, p..83.) Accordingly, regional impacts must be addressed in the DEIR. (See Guidelines § 1526(d)(5)(A) (in addressing feasibility of alternatives, "projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context'): Citizens of Goleta Vallev v Board of Supervisors (`Goleta 11"), .52 Cal.3d 553 (1990 ) ("The local agency need not, indeed it may not, ignore regional needs and cumulative impacts."). As a threshold matter, each of the alternatives in the DEIR is inconsistent with the Los Angeles County General Plan, which identifies Route 126 between I-5 and SR -14 as an"expressway/freeway". (-See- Los Angeles County General Plan, p. C-6 and referenced Transportation Policy Map.) The alternatives are also inconsistent with the Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County; adopted pursuant to Government Code §§ 65088 fueq. That plan calls for an extension of Route 126 between I-5 and SR -14, and identifies the present magic Mountain Parkway / San Fernando Road alignment merely as an "interim route" pending that extension. (See Final Draft 1995 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County, p. 22.). Meanwhile, there is a strong indication that actual significant impacts on regional circulation were not adequately considered in the DEIR. For example, maps contained in the DEIR indicate that under Alternatives 2 and 3, projected volume -to -capacity ratios along SR -126 would fall below LOS -D from Bouquet Canyon Road to the Ventura County line. (DEIR, pp. 5.8-11, 13.) Yet, it appears that no analysis was conducted of SR - 126 west of the county line. lural V CCLISTOCK I NA'BTOS I BESSHOOF I ROCHEFORT I RuBALCACA I MACCCISH LLP G-97 Mr. Gregory Medeiros July 31, 1997 Page 9 Moreover, the increased traffic congestion associated with the various alternatives does not merely implicate regional impacts on circulation. It could also be the C source of regional impacts in other categories as well. For example, as discussed in Section (4)(c) of this letter, air quality, and in particular the vehicular emissions component of air 1 quality, is directly correlated to traffic congestion because of increased idling times. And yet, I' the air quality chapter of the DEIR contains no discussion of the regional impacts of such emissions. ' (4) THE DEIR DOES NOT PROPERLY ADDRESS THE EXISTING CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND IN PARTICULAR ITS PROVISION D FOR THE EXTENSION OF SR -126 AS A LIMITED ACCESS EXPRESSWAY Another key deficiency of the DEIR -- one which pervades the entire document -- is its failure to evaluate the provision in the existing Circulation Element for an extension of SR -126 as a limited -access expressway through the City, and to use this expressway as a baseline for comparison of the other alternatives. This failure has the effect of dramatically understating the substantial increase in negative circulation impacts which would result from the selection of any of the seven alternatives, and particularly from the selection of Alternatives 2, 3, 6 or 7. (a) The Description of the Environmental Setting Omits Any tReference to the Existing Circulation Element The failure to use the SR -126 expressway plan as the baseline for comparison of the various alternatives seriously undermines the description of the "environmental setting' in the transportation circulation section of the DEIR. When a circulation element is evaluated under CEQA, the description of environmental setting must compare the proposed amendment to the existing circulation element: "An EIR must include a description of the environment in the vicinity of the project, as it exists before the commencement of the project, from both a local and regional perspective.... Knowledge of the regional setting is critical to the assessment of 213530.1 MCCLINTOCA I WESTON I BE\5HOOF I ROCHEFORT I RUBALCAVA I MACCCISH LLP G-98 'I Mr. Gregory Medeiros July 31, 1997 Page 10 environmental impacts. . . . Where a proposed project is compared with an adopted plan, the analysis shall examine the existing physical conditions as well as the potential future conditions discussed in the plan." (Guidelines § 15125 (italics supplied).) The transportation/circulation section of the DEIR merely describes the environmental setting in terms of existing physical conditions, i.e., the roadway system as it now exists. (DEIR, p. 5.8-1, 2.) There is no discussion whatsoever of the potential future conditions under the relevant already -adopted plan, i.e., the road configuration set forth in the existing Circulation Element. Therefore, the DEIR is inadequate under CEQA. (See an Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v County of Stanislaus, 27 Cal.AppAth 713, 729 (1994) (court holding that `'the description of the environmental setting is not only inadequate as a matter of law but it also renders the identification of environmental impacts legally inadequate"). (b) The True "No Project" Alternative — Buildout Under the Existing Circulation Element -- is Ignored The DEIR's failure to analyze the SR -126 extension as proposed in the existing Circulation Element does not merely compromise the description of the. environmental setting. It also has the effect of entirely depriving the DEIR of a true "no project' alternative. The CEQA Guidelines define the so-called "no project' alternative, and require that it be evaluated according to specific standards: "`No project' alternative. The specific alternative of `no project' shall also be evaluated along with its impact. The `no project' analysis shall discuss the existing conditions, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. " MCCLISTOCK I NVESTOS I BENSHOOF i ROCHEFORT I RCBALC.aVA I MACCCiSH LLP G-99 0 Mr. Gregory Medeiros July 31, 1997 Page I I (Guidelines, § 15126(d)(4) (italics supplied); see -C-Qunty of Invo v. City of Los Angeles, 71 Cal.App.3d 186, 201 (1977) ("No project alternative" must "describe what condition or program preceded the project.").) (pM The DEIR states that the no -project alternative "is typically assumed to be either a 'no build' scenario in which no further development is undertaken on [the] subject site or full buildout of the site under the existing general plan or zoning." (DEIR p. 7-1.) In fact, the Guidelines require an EIR to evaluate both the no -build scenario and the full - buildout scenario in its analysis of the no -project alternative. (Guidelines, § 15126(d)(4).) The DEIR has not met this requirement. The no -build scenario appears in the DEIR as a "considered but rejected" alternative under Guidelines § 15126(d)(2). (DEIR, p. 7-1.) The DEIR states that this no - build scenario -- which could be interpreted either as no future upgrades to the City's circulation system, or no further development in the City -- would not be "realistic" because it would constitute a de facto growth moratorium in the City. (DEIR, p. 7-1.) However, the DEIR does not consider the full -buildout scenario, i.e., buildout under the existing Circulation Element, as a no -project alternative. Rather, it sets forth an alternative which appears to be full -buildout, but which does not, in fact, correspond to the existing Circulation Element. The DEIR identifies seven different alternative roadway networks. The first of these, Alternative 1, is denominated the "Existing Planned Circulation System". (DEIR, p. 2-8.) The Alternative 1 roadway network is further described.as "that of the existing Circulation Element, in effect a 'no project' alternative." (Id.) However, as the DEIR later concedes, Alternative 1 does not, in fact, correspond to the existing Circulation Element: 2 WMI "The Existing Planned Circulation System scenario (Alternative 1) includes all of the roadways planned as part of the current Circulation Element with the exception of the extension ofSR- 126 through the city as an eight -lane limited access highway. That extension would be replaced with Newhall Ranch Road, an eight -lane major arterial that would provide a similar connection between 1-5 and SR -14." \(CCLINTOCK I WESTON I BENSHOOF I ROCHEFORT I RCBSLCAVA I MACCUISH LLP G-100 Mr. Gregory Medeiros July 31, 1997 Page 12 (DEIR, p. 2-10 (italics supplied).) The DEIR's conflicting and misleading descriptions of this crucial alternative���� ' violate CEQA. (ee Silveira v. Las Gallinas Vallev Sanitary District, 54 Cal.AppAth 980, 990 (1997)) ("An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR.... A curtailed, enigmatic or unstable project description draws a red herring across the path of public input.").) ' Indeed, the "replacement' of the SR -126 expressway with an "eight -lane majo arterial" along Newhall Ranch Road under Alternative 1 is no minor change from the statu quo. Unlike a limited -access expressway, the eight -lane major arterial would be at -grade with signalized intersections and curb cuts, thereby substantially reducing capacity. Therefore, it would significantly reduce the carrying capacity of the roadway networl identified in the.existing Circulation Element. For an acknowledgment of the magnitude of this difference, one need look no farther than the DEIR itself. Applying the Daily Capacity Criteria table, capacity for an 8 - lane expressway would be 112,000 vehicles per day,1 while an 8 -lane major arterial would handle only 72;000 vehicles -- a 35% reduction. (DEIR. p. 5.8-4.) Of course, this reduced capacity is bound to increase travel times and congestion, and would likely lead to substantial reductions in level -of- service ("LOS") designations throughout the City's road network.` In sum, the failure to include the true full -buildout no -project alternative in the DEIR is a major shortcoming in the DEIR. (See Guidelines, § 15088.5 (recirculation is required where "[a] feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different fJ 1 The referenced table actually purports to define "Daily Capacity" as "per lane per hour'. (DEIR, p. 5.84.) However, this is an error— given their size, the numbers listed must necessarily be "per day" figures. 2 Alternative 1 also presumes the implementation of new transportation demand management ("TDM') measures, including improved access to the Metrolink rail system, local and express bus service, park-and-ride lots, and high -occupancy vehicle ("HOV") lanes on area freeways. (DEIR; pp. 2-12, 13.) ' However, none of these measures appear in the existing Circulation Element. This supplementation of the purported no -project alternative further highlights the DEIR's failure to present the true no -project alternative. 1 213350.1 ' MCCLIN TOCK I WESTON I BEMHOOP I ROOHEPORT I RruALCACA I MACCCISH LLP G-101 �1 iMr. Gregory Medeiros July 31, 1997 Page 13 from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it.")3 (c) The DEIR Improperly Uses Alternative 1, Rather Than Full ' Buildout Under the Existing Circulation Element, as a Baseline For Comparing Alternatives The DEIR's assumption that Alternative I constitutes a full -buildout scenario under the existing Circulation Element skews the evaluation of the other six alternatives, because Alternative 1, rather than full buildout, is used throughout the DEIR as a baseline against which the other alternatives are measured. The General Plan Guidelines contemplate that the existing Circulation Element should be the baseline against which the seven alternative road network scenarios are evaluated. (See General Plan Guidelines, p. 155.) The failure to use the proper baseline for comparison renders the DEIR incapable of analysis by the public. (See Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v County of Stanislaw , 48 Cal.AppAth 182, 201 (1996) ("Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision -makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal ... and weigh other alternatives in the balance."). The use of Alternative I as a baseline skews the comparison of alternatives in virtually every impact category discussed in the DEIR. However, its most prominent effects are in the transportation/circulation section, where it produces an analysis underestimating the marginal negative impact on circulation associated with each of the six other alternatives. Indeed, despite the fact that each of these alternatives would significantly constrict the road network by reducing the carrying capacity of Newhall Ranch Road and eliminating most of ' Of course, the exclusion of the true no -project alternative was all but preordained, given that the DEIR identifies a project objective as being to "[i]dentify the primary east -west corridor alternative to an extension of SR -126." (DEIR, p. 2-21 (italics supplied).) However, the formulation ofa narrow project objective does not free the City from considering the full buildout alternative. ee Save the Niobara River Association Inc. v Andrus, 483 F.Supp. 844, 862 (D. Neb. 1977) (where environmental impact statement concerned construction of dam and reservoir for irrigation purposes, agency's failure to consider water conservation alternative was not excused by the fact that a project objective called for increased irrigation).) nasso.i McCu.vrocK 1 WESTON I BENSHOOF I ROCHEFOR'r I RUBALCACA I MACCL'ISH LLP G-102 Mr. Gregory Medeiros July 31, 1997 Page 14 the planned extension of that facility, the use of Alternative 1 as the baseline for measurement makes them seem relatively benign. For example, the DEIR begins with the proposition that even under Alternative 1, ten `'significant highway segments" would operate at below LOS "D", and that this alternative would therefore not meet the goals of the Circulation Element. (DEIR, pp. 5.8-6, 7.) The DEIR goes on to note that under Alternative 2 and Alternative 3, six additional segments would operate below LOS -D. Then, it points out that if Alternative 4 (an "augmented" version of Alternative 2) or Alternative 5 (an augmented version of Alternative 3) x ere chosen, four fewer segments would fall below LOS -D, and that Alternatives 6 and 7 (which each incorporate "aggressive" TDM strategies) would each bring additional segments back within the LOS -D standard. Such an analysis cannot help but lead the reader to improper conclusions. For example, one could easily conclude that Alternatives 2 and 3 are not significantly worse than ' the no -project alternative, because even the no -project alternative would leave ten significant segments below LOS -D, and Alternatives 2 and 3 would only add six additional segments to that list. Further, the reader might conclude that one or more of Alternatives 4 through 7 are roughly equivalent to the no -project alternative because they each return several segments to LOS -D or better. Of course, none of these conclusions are correct, because the true no -project alternative has not been set forth in the DEIR. Indeed, given the significant carrying capacity of the limited -access expressway identified in the existing Circulation Element, it appears likely that this expressway would leave fewer than ten "significant'' road segments below LOS -D. If this is the case, then had the existing Circulation Element been used as a baseline, the true negative circulation effects of the other six alternatives (and Alternative 1, for that matter) would have been apparent. ' Indeed, the detailed traffic study already conducted in connection with the Newhall Ranch project indicates that buildout under the existing Circulation Element would reduce congestion below that associated with Alternative 1. For example, the DEIR identifies the segment of Magic Mountain Parkway between McBean Parkway and Valencia Boulevard as operating at LOS -F ("gridlock" condition) under Alternative 1 and all other alternatives. (DEIR, pp. 5.8-6 through 21.) However, according to the Newhall Ranch EIR, if the road network proposed in the existing Circulation Element were completed, that _tsssa.i ' MCCLISTOC9 I WESTON J BESSHOOF I ROCHEFORT I RCBALCACA I MACCCLH LLP G-103 Mr. Gregory Medeiros July 31,1997 Paee 15 segment would operate at LOS -D. (Newhall Ranch EIR, p. 4.8-52.) Similarly, Alternative I and the other alternatives would cause traffic on all or part of the segment of Seco Canyon D between Decoro Road and Bouquet Canyon Road, and the segment of Rye Canyon Road from I-5 to Avenue Scott, to fall below LOS -D. (DEIR, pp. 5.8-6 through 21.) Under the existing Circulation Element, those segments would operate at LOS -D or better. (Newhall Ranch EIR, p. 4.8-52, 53.) The remainder of the transportation/circulation chapter of the DEIR is similarly compromised by the use of Alternative 1 as the no -project baseline. The DEIR notes that "Alternatives 2 and 3 show an increase in VMT [vehicle miles traveled] of 5.0% and 5.7%, respectively, as compared to Alternative 1." (DEIR, p. 5.8-24.) The DEIR also says that Alternative 1 has a "projected average arterial speed of about 30 miles per hour (mph)", while Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce that speed to about 28 mph. Again, these differences may seem relatively insignificant to some; however, this is merely because the other alternatives are measured against Alternative 1, and not the expressway identified in the existing Circulation Element. The improper use of Alternative I as a no -project alternative also affects the section on policy consistency. That section notes that the City is expected to grow in population by 40% by 2020. (DEIR, p. 4-1.) It goes onto identify a primary policy of the Land Use Element of the General Plan as follows: "7.1 Ensure demand for public facilities and services does not exceed the ability to provide and maintain such facilities and services; necessary facility improvements should precede or be coordinated with future development." (DEIR, p. 4-1.) In accordance with this policy, the policy consistency chapter emphasizes that a goal of the Circulation Element Amendment is "to upgrade transportation infrastructure in ' conjunction with this anticipated growth and development." (DEIR, p. 4-2.) However, the DEIR never addresses the potential of the true no -project alternative (or other feasible alternatives) to accomplish this goal. Instead, it uses Alternative 1 as'a baseline for ' comparison with the other alternatives, thereby minimizing the advantages of the no -project alternative: ' 313530.1 MCCLISIOCR I 11'ESTOS I BESSHOOF I ROCHEFORT I RUBALCAVA I MACCCIM LIT G-104 Mr. Gregory Medeiros July 31, 1997 Page 16 ' "Among the studied alternatives. Alternative 1 would result in the best overall future levels of service. It should, however, be noted that none of the project alternatives would result in the City's level of service of goals at all intersections in the City." ' (DEIR, p. 4-2.) Meanwhile, the air quality chapter is also compromised by the use of ' Alternative 1 as the baseline. That chapter states that because Alternative 1 would be characterized by "superior operation of the road system" and therefore a reduction in vehicle idling, it would have less impact on vehicular emissions than Alternatives 2, 3, 6 or 7. ' (DEIR, p. 5.2-11.) Meanwhile, the DEIR identifies Alternatives 4 and 5 as reducing emissions even beyond Alternative 1 because of increased speeds and reduced. idling. ' (DEIR, P. 5.2-12.) Based on this analysis, it is likely that the true no -project alternative -- i.e., the ' SR -126 limited -access expressway plan -- or other alternatives that would maintain LOS -D, would minimize idling time and thereby account for an even greater reduction in vehicular emissions than any of the identified alternatives. However, the public and decision makers are deprived of the opportunity to evaluate this potential solution. because no such alternatives has been included in the DEIR. ' (d) The DEIR Does Not Provide Sufficient Information to Determine Whether a Key Objective -- an SR -126 Alternative -- Can Be Met The failure to establish the proper baseline for comparison of the alternatives leads the DEIR to violate CEQA in a more. general sense -- by depriving the reader of the information necessary to determine whether a key objective identified in the project description has been met. As required by Guidelines § 15124(b), the project description section of the DEIR identifies numerous objectives for the draft Circulation Element Amendment. (DEIR, pp. 2-21, 22.) The first of these is to "[i]dentify the primary east -west corridor alternative to an extension of SR -126." (DEIR, pp. 2-21, 22.) 21,530.1 MCCLISTOCK I WESTON I BENSHOOF I ROCHEFOHT I RCRALCACA I MACCCi5H UP G-105 (CA) Mr. Gregory Medeiros July 31, 1997 Page 17 Of course, in order to achieve this objective, the DEIR must adequat describe the "extension of SR -126" to which an alternative is sought. However, despite fact that the referenced extension is a central component in the existing Circulation Eleme the DEIR mentions it only in passing and provides no specific information whatsoever on location, purpose, or capacity, which information is vital for the selection and comparis of possible alternatives. The courts have forbidden such omissions. Angeles, 124 Cal.App.3d 1; 9 (1981) ("An EIR may not define a purpose for a project and then remove from consideration those matters necessary to the assessment of whether the purpose can be achieved.").) (5) THE DEIR OMITS VITAL INFORMATION CONCERNING ROADWAYS AND TRAFFIC MODELING WHICH IS NECESSARY TO EVALUATE THE VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES The transportation/circulation section is without question the core analysis in an EIR evaluating the amendment of a general plan circulation element. And yet, the DEIR fails to provide important information which is necessary to evaluate the various alternatives. First, it does not clearly identify the designation of the roads in each of the seven alternatives, which designation is necessary to determine their characteristics, including carrying capacity. Second, it does not describe the underlying assumptions, models used, or calculation methodology for basic traffic data used to compare the alternatives. Without this information, the reader cannot evaluate the analysis contained in the DEIR. (-See Guidelines § 15126(d)(3) ("The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project."); Laurel Heights Improvement Association of San Francisco Inc v Regents of the University of California ("Laurel Heights I"), 47 Cal.3d 376,403 (1988) (EIR was inadequate where it referred to alternative locations with dots on a map, with a "complete lack of data to provide a factual informational underpinning" for statements about the locations); Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford, 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 734-35 (1990) (EIR for power plant was deficient where it "omit[ted] substantial information" necessary for accurate comparison of relative environmental impacts of use of different fuels; 2135M.I MCCLISTOCK I WESTON I BESSHOOF I ROCHEFORT I RCAALCAVA ! MACCCISH LLP G-1 06 L ' Mr. Gregory Medeiros ' July 31, 1997 Page 18 in particular, failure to provide comparative data regarding water consumption "preclude[d] meaningful consideration of the natural gas alternative.").) (a) The Names and Designations of Roads in the Various Alternatives Are Not Clearly Identified ` The seven alternatives examined in the DEIR together propose five different roadway systems, each with distinctly different road sizes and alignments. Nonetheless, the DEIR does not clearly identify, for each alternative, which roads are included and their respective designations (e.g., major highway (six lanes), secondary. highway (four lanes), or limited secondary highway (two lanes).) The designations are crucial, because they bear directly on both the carrying capacity of the roads and theirphysical characteristics, including ' width, access points, grade separations, bicycle lanes, and landscaping. ' The chapter entitled Description of Project Alternatives contains maps of each of the various alternative road systems, but these maps merely show alignments -- not designations -- and in any event they identify only selected street names. (See DEIR, pp. 2- 10 through 21.) Turning to the text portion of the descriptions, the DEIR states that Alternative 1 "includes all of the roadways planned as part of the current Circulation Element with the exception of the extension of SR -126 through the city as an eight -lane limited access highway." (DEIR, p. 2-10.) The DEIR then goes on to describe each of the remaining alternatives as a variation on a preceding alternative. (DEIR, pp. 2-12, 15, 21.) However, the aforementioned text conflicts with a separate section of the same chapter, which claims that the draft Circulation Element would "redesignate" a multitude of roadway segments planned in the existing Circulation Element, presumably regardless of 1 which alternative is selected. (DEIR, pp. 2-5, 6.) Many of these redesignations are downgrades from major highway to secondary highway, and would thereby have the potential to significantly impede traffic flow in the City. Further, the "redesignations" in some cases conflict with each other, leaving the reader without any clue as to what is actually intended. For example, Avenue Tibbits is defined as a major highway "from Newhall Ranch Road to Magic Mountain Parkway". zlas;a.l ' MCCLINTOCK I %VESTOS I BE]SHOOF I ROCHEFORT I RUBALCAVA I MACCCISH LLP G-107 E (CO,d4) ' Mr. Gregory Medeiros July 31, 1997 I Page 19 ' (DEIR. p. 2-5.) It is also defined as a secondary highway "from Avenue Scott to Magic E Mountain Parkway. (DEIR, p. 2-6.) However, Avenue Scott is between Newhall Ranch ' Road and Magic Mountain Parkway. Therefore, the latter segment is within the former (ConA) segment. Obviously, a road segment cannot be a major highway and a secondary highway at the same time. The shortcomings of the DEIR in this regard are not cured by the Proposed Circulation Element Text ("Proposed Text"). First, the Proposed Text is not incorporated by reference for this purpose, and therefore under CEQA it cannot be presumed to have been incorporated: "Where an EIR or Negative Declaration uses incorporation by reference, the incorporated part of the referenced document shall ' be briefly summarized where possible or briefly described if the data or information cannot be summarized. The relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document and the EIR shall be described." ' (Guidelines, § 15150(c).) Second, even were the Proposed Text deemed to be incorporated without a reference, it is far too equivocal to allow for any meaningful evaluation of the various alternatives set forth in the DEIR. For example, while the Proposed Text purports to list road ' segments by designation category, several of the listed segments are followed by the qualification that they are "to be determined through the Circulation Element Amendment process". (Proposed Text, pp. C-29, 30.) The Proposed Text never proceeds to explain how these segments differ from alternative to alternative, and so is of no use in comparing those alternatives. The preferred method for presenting summary information about the various alternative road systems would have been through detailed maps identifying streets by name ' and road designations through use of a legend. (See Guidelines § 15147 ("The information contained in an EIR shall include summarized technical data, maps, plot plans, diagrams, and similar relevant information sufficient to permit full assessment of significant environmental impacts by reviewing agencies and members of the public.") 1 213550.1 ' \If:CLI�TOCA I WESTON I BENSHOOF I Rocu.FORT I RL'A.aLCAVA I MACCL'ISH LLP c -t 08 Mr. Gregory Medeiros July 31, 1997 tPage 20 ' (b) The Underlying Assumptions, Models Used, and Calcula Methodology are Omitted The DEIR not only fails to clearly recite the identity and designation of rc proposed under the various alternatives; it also lacks vital information concerning ' underlying assumptions, the models used, and the calculation methodology for basic tr-, data contained in the transportation/circulation section. 1First, the DEIR does not state the original source of the traffic data use( throughout the transportation/circulation section. (While Appendix F includes maps wit] "Projected Daily Traffic Volumes" for each of the seven alternatives, there is no reference there or in the DEIR to the source of these figures.) Therefore, it is impossible for the reade to be assured that the analysis correctly takes into account projected growth in the region. Second, the DEIR contains no discussion of how the calculations of vehicle miles of travel ("VMT"), vehicle hours of travel ("VHT"), or average travel speeds were made. Third, to the extent a traffic model was used to arrive at these figures, such model is not identified, much less described. Fourth, there is no representation in the DEIR that the source data and/or traffic model has been provided or approved by any local or regional agency. While there is some discussion of a traffic model in the Proposed Text, such discussion is not incorporated by reference in the DEIR and must be disregarded. (Guidelines § 15150(c).) Moreover, even if it were incorporated into the DEIR, the Proposed Text would not solve the problem. It merely contends that a traffic model was used, and goes on to say that "many considerations" (some of them not even identified) were taken into account in its use. Most.tellingly, the Proposed Text states that the model was run using a roadway system described on an exhibit which does not yet exist, but rather, remains to be "determined by the City Council through the Circulation Element Amendment process." (Proposed Text, pp. C-26, 27.) ' Similarly, the Proposed Text promises that "[a] full explanation of the modeling effort is contained in the appendix to the Background Report on Circulation and in the technical appendix to the 1997 Circulation Element Amendment." (Proposed Text, p. ' C4.) However, no. document with either of these descriptions is identified in the Notice of Availability issued by the City in connection with the DEIR. Further, Newhall's inquiry with 213330.( ' MCCLI]TOCA I WESTON I BESSHOOF I RociiuoR'F I RCBALCAVA I MACCCI�H LLP G•109 E cc�qd, Mr. Gregory Medeiros July 31, 1997 Page 21 the State Clearinghouse indicated that no such documents were on file there either. Newhall accordingly inquired of the City's planning staff as to where the Background Report and technical appendix might be found, and was told that the documents are not actually separate at all, but rather, coincide with the appendices to the DEIR. However, as stated earlier, with the exception of the vague traffic volume maps contained in Appendix F, there is no reference at all in the DEIR appendices to traffic modeling. I (6) THE ALTERNATIVES ARE ALL BASED ON UNFOUNDED ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING AVENUE.TIBBITS The existing Circulation Element identifies a short, but significant, major highway segment -- Avenue Tibbits -- between Newhall Ranch Road and Magic Mountain Parkway. (General Plan, p. C-39 and Exh. C-3.) All seven of the alternatives described in 1 the DEIR apparently assume that this segment will be completed as planned. (DEIR, pp. 5.8- 6 through 21.)' However, this assumption is unfounded.. Avenue Tibbits is only partially complete, as evidenced by the DEIR maps. (DEIR, p. 2-11.) The key remaining link would necessarily cross the Santa Clara River, and require construction of an expensive bridge necessitating environmental scrutiny. Therefore, the only reasonable assumption is that Avenue Tibbits will not serve as a link between Newhall Ranch Road and Magic Mountain Parkway. y Newhall has recognized in its own CEQA documents the significant possibility that Avenue Tibbits will not be completed as described in the DEIR. For example, in the - Of course, because of the lack of adequate maps or descriptive information in the DEIR, it is impossible to know exactly what is intended for Avenue Tibbits under the various alternatives; however, all of the volume -to -capacity ratio maps include a road link which, though unnamed, appears to correspond with Avenue Tibbits as planned in the existing Circulation Element See DEIR, pp. 5.8-7, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21.) Further, because the DEIR text does not clearly indicate that this road has been downgraded from the major highway designation set forth in the existing Circulation Element, we make the assumption -- albeit without certainty -- that it retains that status in each of the alternatives. 2135;0.1 MCC1.ISTOCK I WESTON I $ES5HOOF I ROCHEFORT I RCBALCA\'A I MACCCISH LLP G-110 E ccik) F '1 Mr. Gregory Medeiros July 31, 1997 . page 22 Newhall Ranch EIR. the transportation/circulation analysis analyzes the "with project" and "no project' alternatives using not only the existing Circulation Element roadway system, but also a hypothetical "alternative highway plan" which assumes that the remaining section of Avenue Tibbits is not constructed at all. (Newhall Ranch EIR. (Newhall Ranch EIR, pp. 4.8-60, 61, 62 and figure 48-22.) In sum, the DEIR's assumption that the seven alternative roadway systems it considers would each have the benefit of a major highway link along Avenue Tibbits is unrealistic and misleading. (See County of Invo v City of Los Angeles, 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 195 ("fallacious" assumptions rendered project description defective). (7) ALTERNATIVES 6 AND 7 COULD MISLEAD THE PUBLIC INTO BELIEVING THAT "AGGRESSIVE" TDM MEASURES CAN TAKE THE PLACE OF INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS The DEIR identifies two alternatives (6 and 7) which each provide for a dramatic reduction in road capacity, but which make the assumption that "aggressive transportation demand management ("TDM'') measures would partially offset the resulting negative effect on congestion. (DEIR,.pp. 2-15, 21, 22.) An example of these measures is a City -sponsored "formal telecommuting program", which the DEIR claims would "enable a large percentage of employees to work at home or a shared satellite work center near home." (DEIR, p. 2-22.) Of course, the mere inclusion of Alternatives 6 and 7 in the analysis tends to lead the reader to believe that "aggressive" TDM measures would be successful, and accordingly that the alternatives are viable means to address the City's traffic needs. I' However, the DEIR never cautions the reader that even limited TDM measures, which have already been implemented in connection with the City's Transportation Development Plan ("TDP''), lack a proven track record and are not easily quantified. Without that foundation, it certainly is not reasonable for the DEIR to make optimistic assumptions about the feasibility of additional, entirely untested TDM measures and the trip reductions they would ' yield. I Therefore, the discussion of Alternatives 6 and 7 should be substantially revised, or these alternatives eliminated altogether. (See Public Resources Code § 21003 1 213530.1 MCCLI\TOCK I WE.STON I DENSHOOF I ROCHEFORT I RUBALCAvA I MAcCCl<H I.LP ' G-111 G Ii Mr. Gregory Medeiros July 31, 1997 Page 23 213550.1 ' MCCLISTOCC I WESTOS I BENiHOOF I ROCHEFORT I RCBALCACA I MACCCISH LLP G-112 (one. policy of CEQA is that EIRs should "omit unnecessary descriptions of projects and (•T emphasize feasible mitigation measures and feasible alternatives to projects.'); Guidelines § 15126(d)(5) ("The alternatives shall be limited to (CA,fd� ones that would avoid or substantially ' lessen any of the significant effects of the project.") t (8) THE DEIR DOES NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDER NEGATIVE H IMPACTS OF REDUCED LEVELS OF SERVICE ON AIR QUALITY, INCLUDING THE CREATION OF CARBON MONOXIDE "HOT SPOTS" iThe air quality section of the DEIR denies that vehicle emissions impacts would constitute "significant impacts' for purposes of CEQA: "None of the project alternatives would directly generate vehicle trips and, as discussed in Section 4.0, Policy Consistency, all alternatives would be generally consistent with regional objectives for improving regional air quality. Therefore, none ' would have a significant impact upon regional air quality in accordance with SCAQMD [Southern California Air Quality Management District] significance thresholds." (DEIR, p. 5.2-11.) However, while referenced in the foregoing passage, Chapter 4.0 of the DEIR in fact makes no reference whatsoever to the consistency of any alternative with regional air quality objectives. It is accordingly impossible for the reader to evaluate the consistency claim. ' Nor is there any foundation in the DEIR for the statement that none of the alternatives would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. To the contrary, it appears likely that some or all of the alternatives would exceed such thresholds, as SCAQMD deems the "designation of a new transportation corridor" as a land use which always has a potentially significant air quality impact. (SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, p. 6-11.) 213550.1 ' MCCLISTOCC I WESTOS I BENiHOOF I ROCHEFORT I RCBALCACA I MACCCISH LLP G-112 Mr. Gregory Medeiros July 31, 1997 Page 24 Indeed, the SCAQNM guidelines emphasize that there is a particular need to examine new transportation facilities for localized carbon monoxide emissions, or "hot spots", which may result from automobile idling: (Gwm) "Carbon monoxide (CO) is a localized problem requiring additional analysis when a project is likely to impact a roadway's level of service (LOS), subject sensitive receptors to CO hot spots, or the. project itself is the development of transportation infrastructure.... Transportation projects that should be analyzed for localized CO problems include ... [the] designation of [a] new transportation corridor, transportation plan or program ... " (SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, p. 9-9.) As discussed earlier, by substantially degrading levels of service, the various alternatives identified in the DEIR, and particularly Alternatives 2 and 3, will lead to increased idling times. Therefore, it is fair to assume that carbon monoxide ''hot spots" could appear throughout the road network. The traffic modeling in the DEIR supports this conclusion. For example, it indicates that under Alternatives 2 and 3, service would fall to LOS -F along established residential routes such as Soledad Canyon Road, which would bear the brunt of east -west traffic in the absence of the SR -126 extension or an equivalent corridor. Such "gridlock" conditions would be fertile ground for carbon monoxide hot spots. And yet, the DEIR includes no analysis of this potentially significant impact. (See Guidelines § 15088.5 (requiring recirculation where new significant impact would result from project.) (9) THE DEIR OVER -EMPHASIZES NON -CIRCULATION IMPACTS, I THEREBY OBSCURING THE RELATIVE SUPERIORITY OF ALTERNATIVE 1 The DEIR does not identify an environmentally superior alternative; rather, it leaves the selection of that alternative to the reader in light of the information presented. However, the DEIR strongly implies that while other alternatives may have slightly fewer 213530.1 -XICCLISTOCK I WESTON I BESSHOOF I ROCHEFORT I RCB.1LC.AVA I MACCUISH LLP G-113 Mr. Gregory Medeiros July 31, 1997 Page 25 non -circulation environmental impacts, when circulation is deemed the primary objective,( _ Alternative 1 is superior to the other identified alternatives: "[A] citizen who is primarily concerned about improving citywide traffic conditions will likely find Alternative 1 preferable.... Again, it should be noted that the difference in environmental impact among the studied alternatives is only marginal in most cases." (DEIR, p. ES -5.) ' The City apparently agrees with this proposition; both the existing Circulation Element and the proposed text acknowledge that the main objective of any circulation element is to establish a road system which will "safely and efficiently accommodate existing and future transportation demands." (General Plan, p. C-36; Proposed Text, p. C-26.) ' The DEIR also concedes that Alternative 1 comes the closest to ensuring the correlation of the Circulation Element with a key policy in the Land Use Element -- that "necessary facility improvements should precede or be coordinated with future development." (DEIR, pp. 4-1, 2.) Such correlation is imperative to maintain the internal consistency of the General Plan. (&e Concerned Citizens of Calaveras County v. Board of Supervisors, 166 Cal.App.3d 90, 100-03 (1985) (circulation element must contain sufficient roadways to accommodate future development identified in land use element).) Of course, for the reasons stated earlier, if circulation impacts are given the weight they deserve, an entirely new augmented alternative based on Alternative 1, 4 or 5, is likely to be the superior alternative. However, even if new alternatives are not considered, and the comparison is limited to the existing alternatives, it is essential that the DEIR emphasize the relative importance of circulation impacts in this comparison. I CONCLUSION ' An adequate road system is in the best interests of the City and its residents. The City should remain open to new roadway alternatives which actually have the potential to satisfy this important goal. (-See Guidelines § 15096(a) (public agency "complies with 213530.1 MCCLI\TOCA I \\ ESTON I BESSHOOP I RoCHEEORT I RCBALCACA i MACCu IiH LLP ' G•114 f Mr. Gregory Medeiros July 31, 1997 Page 26 CEQA by considering the EIR ... and by reaching its own conclusions on whether and how to approve the project involved."); Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307 (1988) ("[e]nvironmental problems should be considered at a point in the planning process 'where genuine flexibility remains."').) We recommend that the City recirculate the Draft Environmental Impact Report in accordance with these comments. Thank you for the opportunity to evaluate the DEIR and raise these issues. SW W/JAH/amf 213330.1 Very truly yours, Steven W. Weston McCLINTOCK, WESTON, BENSHOOF, ROCHEFORT, RUBALCAVA & MacCUISH LLP MCCLISTOCK I \VESTOS I BEMHOOF I ROC.HEFOR'r I RCBALCAVA I MACCCISH LLP G-115 7 CGK, d0 Santa Clarta Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter. 13 COMMENTOR: Randy Wheeler, Vice President The Newhall Land and Farming Company DATE: July 31,1997 RESPONSE: Response 13A The commentor states that the Draft EIR fails to explore alternative road networks that could achieve the City's level -of -service goals. He further asserts that several alternatives that could achieve improved traffic levels of service exist. It is true that none of the alternative circulation systems analyzed in the Draft EIR would ' achieve the desired level -of -service (LOS) D at all intersections in the City. Even the most extensive road network evaluated, the Existing Planned Circulation System (Alternative 1), is projected to fail to meet LOS D on 10 road segments. The other studied alternatives, all of ' which eliminate the extension of Newhall Ranch Road east of Golden Valley Road, are projected to fail to meet the LOS D goal on at least 12 road segments. Moreover, the four-year planning process that the City has undertaken to identify a new arterial road network has not ' identified any network that would meet the City's level of service goals at all locations within the City's planning area. However, it is not true that each of the project alternatives would have "significant negative impacts on future service levels when compared to the existing Circulation Element" For purposes of identifying the significance of environmental impacts, the impacts of the proposed project (in this case, each of the seven roadway networks) should be compared to existing conditions, rather than projected future conditions as envisioned under the existing Circulation Element. This approach is consistent with accepted CEQA practice, as well as direction from the courts. In Environmental Planning & Information Council (3d. Dist. 1982), the Court ruled that a county, in analyzing the effects of a general plan amendment, should have used existing conditions on the ground as the starting point of its environmental analysis, rather than buildout of the existing plan. Section 5.8, Transportation/Circulation, properly concludes that each of the project alternatives would improve traffic levels of service as compared to the existing roadway network, although to varying degrees. This is clearly stated in Draft EIR Section 5.8, as is the fact that, although all alternatives would improve traffic service levels, the existing planned network (Alternative 1) would have the greatest overall traffic benefits. It should be recognized that, even though the findings of significance are properly based upon a comparison of impacts to existing conditions, the EIR also includes a comparative analysis of how each new alternative (2 through 7) compares to the existing Circulation Element network (Alternative 1). This dual approach to the analysis is used consistently throughout the EIR impact analysis (See Sections 5.1 through 5.11). Summary tables comparing the impacts of all alternatives are also provided in each impact analysis section. City of Santa Clarita G-116 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Each of the project alternatives (including the existing planned roadway network) would have beneficial effects upon traffic service levels, not significant adverse effects, as the commentor suggests. Therefore, the requirement of Section 15126(d)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines that "the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives... capable of substantially lessening ' any significant effects of the project" does not apply to the transportation/ circulation issue. Rather, the focus of the alternatives should be on those issues for which the existing planned roadway network has significant and unavoidable impacts; namely, earth resources, biological resources, air quality (construction), noise (construction), and aesthetics/light and glare. Each of the alternatives to the existing plan would reduce impacts in one more of these issues for which significant and unavoidable impacts would occur. If, as the commentor suggests, only ' alternatives capable of further improving traffic service levels should be examined, impacts in other issue areas for which significant and unavoidable impacts are anticipated would be even greater, which is contrary to the direction of the State CEQA Guidelines. The commentor's ' opinion that the alternatives selection process focus solely on traffic is not appropriate under CEQA, and is particularly problematic in the analysis of a General Plan element, where a comprehensive approach to planning needs to be considered. The selection of alternatives is concerned not only with maximizing circulation benefits, but with meeting other City objectives as well (environmental preservation and quality of life, for example). It should also be noted that the City underwent an extensive planning process to identify alternatives that would achieve desirable levels of service prior to the preparation of the EIR (this process is described in detail in Section 1.0 of the Draft EIR). The alternative roadway networks studied in the Draft EIR were those that were found during this extensive process to best meet the City's traffic objectives. The augmented intersection and transportation demand management alternatives were added to the EIR to look at possible ways to further improve traffic conditions in recognition of the fact that neither Alternative 2 nor Alternative 3 would meet the desired level of service in all locations. The commentor suggests two additional alternatives that would likely improve future Ievels of service as compared to any of the alternatives studied in the Draft EIR: (1) an "augmented" version of Alternative 1; and_(2) further augmentation of Alternatives 4 and 5. Unfortunately, the augmented version of Alternative 1 would not meet the objective of eliminating the Newhall Ranch Road extension east of Golden Valley Road. As described in the Draft EIR and by the commenter, identifying an alternative network that eliminates the Newhall Ranch Road extension was the primary impetus behind the proposed Circulation Element amendment. Similarly, prior to and during the preparation of the Draft EIR (as well as at three public workshops held during the Draft EIR circulation period), members of the community have expressed the opinion that further widening of roads to increase roadway capacity is not desirable. Alternatives 1, 4, and 5 would have the best levels of service among the studied alternatives; however, even these alternatives would not meet the Circulation Element minimum level of service (LOS) goal of "D" or better for all roadways, particularly in the western portion of the City. Either a lower level of service must be deemed acceptable for certain roadways or additional capacity must be found in order to meet stated LOS goals. An additional option for improving levels of service would be to allow 8 -lane arterials, rather than the standard 6 lanes, on certain impacted road segments. Currently, the Circulation Element only identifies Bouquet City of Santa Clarita G-117 u L' I I I I I I I I I I d I II II Santa Clanta Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Canyon Road between Seco Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road as an 8 -lane major arterial. The commentor has primarily expressed interest in roadways in the western portion of the City. Other roadway segments in the western portion of the City that may be considered for 8 lanes in order to improve service levels to "D" or better are the following: • Newhall Ranch Road between Bouquet Canyon Road and I-5 • Magic Mountain Parkway between Valencia Boulevard and I-5 • Valencia Boulevard between McBean Parkway and I-5 • McBean Parkway between Valencia Boulevard and Newhall Ranch Road All of these roadway links are within, or under current review for annexation to, the City of Santa Clarita. Therefore, the City would have the ability to mitigate lower levels of service by increasing lane capacity on these roadways. This would not be the case for roadways with lower levels of service outside the City's jurisdiction. Additionally, these four roadway links are not fully constructed and may be expanded to accommodate an 8 -lane roadway with minimal impacts upon adjacent land uses. The following table has been created to review the service volumes of an 8 -lane divided major arterial in comparison to the other arterial roadways in the Circulation Element. Levels of Service, Volume -to -Capacity Ratios, and Service Volumes for Urban Arterial Highways Level of vrc Description Average Daily Traffic Service Volumes Service Ratio 8 -Lane 6 -Lane 4 -Lane 4 -Lane 2 -Lane Divided Divided Divided Undivided Undivided A <0.36 Free Flow—low 48,000 36,000 24,000 16,000 5,000 volumes; little or no (28,000) delay throughout the day or during peak hours. S <0.54 Stable Flow — relatively 54,000 40,400 27,000 18,000 7,500 low volumes; acceptable (32,000) delays experienced throughout the day; some peak hour congestion. C <0.71 Stable Flow— relatively 60,000 45,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 low volumes; acceptable (36,000) delays experienced throughout the day; some peak hour congestion. D <0.87 Approaching Unstable 66,000 49,500 33,000 22,000 12,500 Flow — poor, yet tolerable (40,000) delays experienced throughout the day; peak hours may experience significant congestion and delays._ G-118 I Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Levels of Service, Volume -to -Capacity Ratios, and Service Volumes for Urban Arterial Highways Level of wC Description Average Daily Traffic Service Volumes Service Ratio 8 -Lane 6 -Lane 4 -Lane 4 -Lane 2 -Lane Divided Divided Divided I Undivided Undivided E <1.00 Unstable Flow—heavy 72,000 54,000 36,000 24,000 15,000 congestion and delays (44,000) experienced throughout the day and during peak hours; volumes at or near capacity. F >1.00 Forced Flow— both This condition represents system breakdown and does not have speeds and flow of traffic a specific relationship to service volumes, can drop to zero; stoppages may occur for long periods with vehicles backing up from one intersection through another.(referred to as 'gridlock " condition . AUGMENTED INTERSECTIONS: Will add 15% to the above roadway capacity. SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209; KHR Associates, 1987 NOTE: (XX,XXX) = Capacity for Limited Access on 4 -Lane Divided Arterial Response 13B The commentor states an opinion that the Draft EIR improperly concludes that none of the project alternatives would have a "significant impact" upon future levels of service and that the EIR traffic analysis should compare the effects of each project alternative to those of the existing Circulation Element. As discussed in Response 13A, Section 5.8 of the Draft EIR compares projected future traffic conditions under each of seven alternative roadway network scenarios, including the "existing planned circulation system' (Alternative 1), which is the arterial roadway network in the current Circulation Element. Of course, all of the alternatives involve, circulation system infrastructure improvements that would not in themselves generate vehicle trips. Rather, all of the studied networks are specifically intended to accommodate traffic generated by development projects in and around the City of Santa Clarita. Therefore, anv alternative would improve conditions as compared to not implementing any improvements to the roadway network. Consequently, all can be considered to have beneficial effects upon transportation and circulation. If, as the commentor suggests, all alternatives other than Alternative 1 would have "significant" impacts to transportation and circulation, the EIR would also have to conclude that overall impacts of all other alternatives (2 through 7) would be "beneficial" in such areas as earth resources, hydrology/flooding, biological resources, aesthetics, and cultural resources because overall impacts in these areas are lower than those of Alternative 1. It is true that none of the studied alternatives would achieve the desired level of service D at all intersections in the City and that the level of improvement in traffic conditions that would occur varies among the alternatives. Alternative 1(the currently planned network) was found to have greater overall benefits to traffic conditions than any of the other studied alternatives. G-119 City of Santa Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR This variation in improvement is clearly stated in the Draft EIR, as acknowledged by the commentor on page 14 of his comment letter. The commentor also expresses a concern that the Draft ETR analysis does not properly compare the proposed Circulation Element amendment to both "existing physical conditions' and "the environment envisioned by the existing general plan," as required by the General Plan Guidelines. In fact, the EIR does provide both types of comparisons, as discussed in Response 14A. Each impact analysis section (5.1 through 5.11) compares the effects of each project alternative to existing conditions. All of the alternatives are considered to have significant environmental effects in areas such as earth resources and biological resources, even though the impacts associated with Alternatives 2 through 7 are in fact lower than those of the existing Circulation Element (Alternative 1) in these areas. On the other hand, although all alternatives were found to have beneficial traffic impacts, the EIR clearly states that Alternative 1 would have the greatest overall traffic benefits. Also, please note that the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, in its review of the ' Draft EIR, agrees with the conclusion that all of the alternatives analyzed would improve overall traffic levels of service (see Letter 5). II Response 13 The commentor states an opinion that the Draft EIR is inconsistent with regional plans and ignores significant regional impacts to circulation and. air quality. The Draft EIR does consider regional plans, as well as regional impacts. It is true that the roadway networks of Alternatives 2 through 7 are not consistent with that shown on the Los Angeles County General Plan or on the County's Congestion Management Program map. However, the City is not required to adopt plans consistent with those of Los Angeles County, nor does the County have any decisionmaking authority with respect to the Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element. The potential effects of adopting an amendment to the Circulation Element are thoroughly discussed in the Draft EIR. Projected future traffic conditions under all of the project alternatives are described in EIR Section 5.8, Transportation/Circulation. In addition, Section 4.0, Policy Consistency, assesses the consistency of each of the project alternatives with both City and regional government policies. The regional policy discussion focuses upon Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) policies. SCAG is the planning agency responsible for overseeing regional planning issues for the Southern California region. It should be noted that the comment letter submitted by SCAG was in complete agreement with the Draft EIR conclusions pertaining to consistency with regional policies. As a Program EIR that examines the citywide Circulation Element, the Draft EIR is indeed required to assess potential regional impacts and consider cumulative development both inside and outside the City limits. The EIR traffic analysis considers buildout under the City's General Plan, as well as major pending developments outside the City that could affect traffic conditions in the City, including Tesoro de Valle and the Newhall Ranch project proposed west of Interstate 5. However, it must be recognized that the Circulation Element roadway network would not generate vehicle trips. Rather, it would accommodate vehicle trips generated by land development projects in and around the City. Therefore, adoption of an alternative to the G-120 city II Santa Clarta Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR existing planned circulation system would not create impacts to roadways outside the City. Such impacts, if they do occur, would result from development projects that generate trips and would be assessed as part of the environmental review process for such projects. As for the concern about regional air quality issues, Section 5.2 of the Draft EIR does include a discussion of the potential regional emissions that would occur under each alternative. Estimates of regional emissions from traffic on each of the alternative roadway networks are summarized in Table 5.2-5. The variation in emissions associated with the different roadway networks considers the effects of traffic speed and idling time. Consequently, those alternatives for which idling times would be highest (Alternatives 2 and 3) were found to result in the greatest overall regional emissions. On the other hand, the alternatives projected to accommodate the best traffic flow (Alternatives 4 and 5) were found to result in the fewest overall regional air emissions. It should again be noted that none of the alternative road scenarios would directly generate vehicle trips or associated air emissions. Vehicle trips would be generated by future land development in and around the City. Impacts associated with such development would be addressed as part of the environmental review process for individual development projects. Response 13.D The commentor states an opinion that the Draft EIR does not properly address the existing Circulation Element by ignoring the true "Buildout under the Existing Circulation Element' alternative. The commentor refers to the fact that the Draft EIR Project Description incorrectly states that Newhall Ranch Road would be an 8 -lane arterial road rather than the 8 -lane expressway in the current Circulation Element. The commentor is correct that this would not be the appropriate "no project' scenario under CEQA. At one time, analysis of an 84ane arterial was considered and written into an internal draft project description. It was ultimately determined that the EIR should examine the 8 -lane expressway and all of the EIR analysis, including the traffic and related air quality and noise analyses, are in fact based upon the 8 -lane expressway scenario. However, the reference to the 8 -lane arterial scenario for Newhall Ranch Road under Alternative 1 was inadvertently not omitted from the Draft EIR text. The text of the Final EIR will be revised to correct this error. Because the Draft EIR analysis was based upon the 84ane expressway scenario (the current Circulation Element network), this correction will not affect any of the Draft EIR conclusions. Alternative 1 does assume the implementation of certain transportation demand management (TDM) measures, as do all of the studied alternatives. However, these measures are all already part of current planning efforts being undertaken by the City. Consequently, they are not really new measures. In fact, all of these measures (listed in Table 2-4 of the Project Description) are anticipated to occur regardless of whether or not an amendment to the Circulation element is adopted. Given that all of these measures are anticipated to be in place prior to buildout of any Circulation Element alternative, they were built into the EIR traffic modeling in order to enable the EIR preparers to more accurately project future traffic conditions in and around the City. The commentor also expresses a concern that the Draft EIR does not adequately describe the Newhall Ranch Road extension or provide sufficient information to determine whether an alternative to the SR -126 extension can be achieved. Section 2.0, Project Description, of the Draft G-121 City of Santa Clarita I I Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR EIR includes maps depicting the conceptual roadway networks for Alternatives 1 through 5 (please see Figures 2-4, 2-5,2-6, 2-9, and 2-10 - the roadway networks for Alternatives 6 and 7 are identical to those of Alternatives 2 and 3, respectively). The Newhall Ranch Road extension for which alternatives are being examined is that portion east of Golden Valley Road. Please note that only the segment east of Golden Valley Road has been eliminated from Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 (see Figures 2-5,2-6,2-9, and 2-10). Otherwise, the planned extension of Newhall Ranch Road (between Bouquet Canyon Road and Golden Valley Road) would remain intact except that it would be reduced from eight lanes to six. The City has undertaken an extensive planning process to identify acceptable alternatives to the current roadway network. The history of this planning process is described in Section 1.2 of the Draft EIR. As part of this process, numerous alternative networks have been identified and studied. The two networks analyzed in the Draft EIR (Alternatives 2 and 3) represent the alternatives that emerged from this lengthy process as the most viable and feasible. The Center City Circulation System Stud, prepared in 1995 and referenced in the Draft EIR, provides much more detail about the SR -126 Expressway. As described in that study and in the Draft EIR, the purpose of the SR -126 Expressway is to provide an east -west thoroughfare connecting I-5 and SR -14. The daily capacity of the expressway is estimated at 14,000 vehicles per lane. The commentor correctly notes that Draft EIR Table 5.8-2 incorrectly identifies the capacity of of various roadway types as "per lane per hour." The table subheading should read "per lane per day'. This error will be corrected in the Final EIR. Also, please see Responses 13A, 13B, and 13C. Response 13E The commentor states an opinion that the Draft EIR omits vital information concerning roadways and traffic modeling that is necessary to evaluate the various alternatives. Specifically, the commentor believes that more information about roadway designations and the underlying assumptions about the traffic modeling should have been provided. The i' roadway designation changes proposed as part of the Circulation Element amendment are described in 2.2.2 of the Draft EIR. Maps showing the designations were not included because it was felt that they were not necessary in order for decisonmakers or the public to understand the traffic implications of each of the project alternatives. Since the commentor has requested this additional information, these maps are included herein. Inclusion of these maps does not, however, change any of the Draft EIR findings or result in the identification of any new environmental impacts. I' The assumptions used to conduct the Draft EIR traffic modeling are summarized in Section 5.8, Transportation/Circulation, while the projected traffic volumes used to estimate future levels of service are presented in EIR Appendix F. However, it is true that many of the details of the modeling effort were omitted from the Draft EIR because it was felt that they were not needed in order to perform a comparative evaluation of the alternatives. Oftentimes, the inclusion of extensive and detailed technical information about assumptions used in technical analyses such as traffic serves to cause more confusion and than clarification. Nevertheless, because more information regarding the assumptions used in the traffic modeling has been requested by the City of Santa Clarita G-122 Red = Freeway/Expressway Blue = Major Arterial Green = Secondary Arterial Pink/Light Blue = Limited Secondary Arterial Orange = Local Street G-123 Roadway Facility Types Alternative 1 M M M M M� M Red = Freeway/ Expressway Blue = Major Arterial Green = Secondary Arterial Pink/ Light Blue = Limited Secondary Arterial Orange = Local Street G-125 Roadway Facility Types Alternatives 2, 4, and 6 M M S MIM M mw� r m r r M M M r M= M Red = Freeway/Expressway Blue = Major Arterial Green = Secondary Arterial Pink/Light Blue = Limited Secondary Arterial Orange = Local Street G-127 Roadway Facility Types Alternatives 3, 5, and 7 ISanta Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR a commentor, the assumptions used in the modeling are described below. Inclusion of these model assumptions will not, however, change any of the Draft EIR findings or result in the identification of any new environmental impacts. 1 The City of Santa Clarita uses a computerized travel demand model based upon TRANPLAN software to develop travel forecasts for the Santa Clarita Valley area. TRANPLAN is one of the travel demand modeling software packages that is most widely used in Southern California. I1 There are four basic phases in the travel demand forecasting process: 1. Trip Generation forecasts the number of trips that will be made. 2. Trip Distribution determines where the trips will go. 3. Mode Usage predicts how the trips will be divided among the various modes of travel (car, bus, train, walk, etc.). 4. Trip Assignment predicts the routes that travelers will take, resulting in traffic forecasts for the highway system. The Santa Clarita Model is divided into a number of traffic analysis zones (TAZs) for which land use is either collected (for existing conditions) or estimated (for future conditions). The land use consists of the number of dwelling units or square footage of non-residential uses (retail, office, industrial, etc.). Trip generation for each zone is calculated by multiplying the land use for each zone by the appropriate trip generation factor. These factors are based upon industry standard values that have been refined to reflect conditions in the Santa Clarita area. The trips generated in step one are then distributed from each origin zone to a destination zone. This process is based.on a standard formula referred to as the "gravity model" formula, which is similar to the gravity model formula used in physics. The number of trips exchanged between two zones is directly related to the relative sizes (i.e., number of trips) of each zone, and inversely related to the relative distance between the two zones. Like most areas of Southern California, the Santa Clarita Valley has a relatively low transit usage (even with the existence of Metrolink and the local bus system). Therefore, the mode usage step of the travel demand process.was not explicitly used. The effects of transit and ridesharing are, however, inherent in the trip generation rates. Trip assignment is an iterative process that utilizes roadway attributes (speeds, capacities, distances) to determine the travel paths for trips between all the TAZs in the model. First, a portion of the trips from/to each zone is loaded onto the roadway network based on the shortest path (utilizing freeflow speeds) between each zone. The congestion level of each roadway segment in the system is determined based on the revised speeds and another portion of the trips is loaded onto the network. This process is repeated until all of the trips generated by the model have been loaded onto the roadway system. This process replicates the real- world effect of decreasing speeds as congestion increases. The Santa Clarita Valley model utilizes ten iterations of ten percent each during the trip assignment process. During the entire four -step process, the computer tracks each trip loaded onto the network. It stores the origin of each trip, the destination of each trip, and route the trip took. It is possible, G-129 Clarita Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR therefore, to generate many useful travel statistics at the end of the process. These include vehicle miles of travel (VNiT), vehicle hours of travel (VHT), and average speeds, all of which are presented for each alternative in Section 5.8 of the Draft EIR. The key assumptions pertaining to land use and trip generation that were used in the traffic analysis are shown below: The commentor also notes that the EIR Project Description (Section 2.0) incorrectly designates a portion of Avenue Tibbits as both a major highway and a secondary highway. In fact, the portion of Avenue Tibbits in question is designated as a major highway for. all alternatives and was modeled as such in the EIR traffic analysis. Avenue Tibbits will be deleted from the list of secondary highways in the Final EIR. However; because all traffic modeling assumed that Avenue Tibbits was a major highway, this text correction will not affect any of the Draft EIR conclusions. Response 13F The commentor states that the analysis of all alternatives is based upon unfounded assumptions regarding Avenue Tibbits. Avenue Tibbits is part of the highway system in the current Circulation Element (Alternative 1 in the Draft EIR). Because the primary purpose of reexamining the highway system as part of the proposed Circulation Element Amendment is to identify an alternative to the Newhall Ranch Road extension east of Golden Valley Road (see City of Santa Clarita G-130 Buildout Land Use Assumptions Land Use Category Land Use Category Units City County Total SF Residential DU 41,515 67,502 109,017 MF Residential DU 29,161 30,487 59,648 Commercial KSF 14,412 8,540 22,953 Office KSF 6,235 6,329 12,564 Industrial/Business Park KSF 23,477 20,196 43,673 Golf Course Acres 307 858 1,165 Park Acres 153 264 417 The commentor also notes that the EIR Project Description (Section 2.0) incorrectly designates a portion of Avenue Tibbits as both a major highway and a secondary highway. In fact, the portion of Avenue Tibbits in question is designated as a major highway for. all alternatives and was modeled as such in the EIR traffic analysis. Avenue Tibbits will be deleted from the list of secondary highways in the Final EIR. However; because all traffic modeling assumed that Avenue Tibbits was a major highway, this text correction will not affect any of the Draft EIR conclusions. Response 13F The commentor states that the analysis of all alternatives is based upon unfounded assumptions regarding Avenue Tibbits. Avenue Tibbits is part of the highway system in the current Circulation Element (Alternative 1 in the Draft EIR). Because the primary purpose of reexamining the highway system as part of the proposed Circulation Element Amendment is to identify an alternative to the Newhall Ranch Road extension east of Golden Valley Road (see City of Santa Clarita G-130 Trip Generation Rates Land Use Category Units Total Daily Vehicle Rate Single Family Residential DU 9.8 Multi -Family Residential DU 6.8 Shopping Center> 30 acres Employees 25.3 Shopping Cener 10-30 acres Employees 33.5 Shopping Center < 10 acres Employees 51.7 Strip Retail Employees 23.5 Government Office Employees 20.2 Medical Office Employees 11.4 Other Office Employees 3.4 Industrial/Business Park Employees 3.4 The commentor also notes that the EIR Project Description (Section 2.0) incorrectly designates a portion of Avenue Tibbits as both a major highway and a secondary highway. In fact, the portion of Avenue Tibbits in question is designated as a major highway for. all alternatives and was modeled as such in the EIR traffic analysis. Avenue Tibbits will be deleted from the list of secondary highways in the Final EIR. However; because all traffic modeling assumed that Avenue Tibbits was a major highway, this text correction will not affect any of the Draft EIR conclusions. Response 13F The commentor states that the analysis of all alternatives is based upon unfounded assumptions regarding Avenue Tibbits. Avenue Tibbits is part of the highway system in the current Circulation Element (Alternative 1 in the Draft EIR). Because the primary purpose of reexamining the highway system as part of the proposed Circulation Element Amendment is to identify an alternative to the Newhall Ranch Road extension east of Golden Valley Road (see City of Santa Clarita G-130 ' Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR 1 the project objectives in Section 2.0, Project Description), neither the proposed Circulation Element Amendment nor the Draft EIR considers alternatives to the Avenue Tibbits extension. As with all roads on the master plan of highways, it may be years before the extension of Avenue Tibbits across the Santa Clara River. Further, like other roads depicting in the Circulation Element, that extension may never be completed. Road development will depend upon many factors, including need, feasibility, and availability of funding. It is true that construction of a bridge over the Santa Clara River would be expensive and may have undesirable environmental effects. However, the same is true for all of the planned bridges over the Santa Clara River, including those at Santa Clarita Parkway, Golden Valley Road, and Newhall Ranch Road (Alternative 1 only). There is no reason for the City to assume that the ' Avenue Tibbits extension will not be developed any more than the City would assume construction of any of these other bridges would not occur. Moreover, because Avenue Tibbits is included on all of the project alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR, its inclusion has no effect on the comparison of the merits of the various alternatives. The commentor also refers to the traffic analysis contained in the Newhall Ranch EIR, pointing out that the EIR examines both the existing Circulation Element roadway system and a hypothetical "alternative highway plan" that omits Avenue Tibbits. As discussed above, Avenue Tibbits is part of the current Circulation Element and there are no plans to remove it from the Element. Therefore, analysis of an alternative scenario in which Avenue Tibbits is omitted is not necessary. As of now, the Newhall Ranch EIR to which the commentor refers has not been certified. Therefore, that report's findings have not yet been validated, even by the lead agency (Los Angeles County). The City has already stated in writing its disagreement with many of that EIR's conclusions, including those relating to traffic impacts in Santa Clarita. ' Response 13G The commentor expresses an opinion that Alternatives 6 and 7 could mislead the public into ' believing that "aggressive" TDM measures can take the place of infrastructure improvements. It is not the intention of the Draft EIR to imply that TDM measures can take the place of infrastructure improvements, nor is it the intention of the Draft EIR to advocate any approach. j' Rather, the intent was to evaluate a range of solutions to the City's circulation needs. This full range includes two basic approaches: (1) increasing roadway capacity (road construction); and (2) reducing vehicle trips (TDM). As illustrated in the Draft EIR traffic analysis (Section 5.8), ' the aggressive TDM approach (as evaluated in Alternatives 6 and 7) was actually found to have fewer traffic benefits than the intersection augmentation approach (Alternatives 4 and 5). Nevertheless, implementation of an aggressive TDM approach in lieu of augmenting intersections remains an option for the City, if it is determined that the benefits of the TDM approach outweigh the relatively poor performance in terms of traffic. The assumptions regarding trip reduction that were used for Alternatives 6 and 7 are based upon empirical data obtained from various sources. As discussed in Section 2.3.6 of the Draft EIR, a primary source of data for the TDM measures was the Los Angeles County Metropolitan ' Transportation Authority's TDM Phase II Program (1994). Other sources used include "The Effects of Land Use and TDM Strategies on Commuting Behavior" (November 1994), "The Urban Transportation Monitor" (November 8, 1996), and the "Santa Clarita Transit Transportation Development Plan (October 1996). 1G-131 City of Santa Clarita F1 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Of course, as with any projection (including the projections of trip generation and estimates of roadway capacity used to assess all alternatives), the estimates of trip reduction used in the EIR are only averages. Some variation could occur, depending upon local circumstances. Nevertheless, the EIR authors believe the Draft EIR's trip reduction estimates are reasonable approximations of the trip reduction that could be achieved if the strategies listed in Table 2-5 of the Draft EIR are fully implemented. City decisionmakers will need to assess whether or not the aggressive TDM measures included in Alternatives 6 and 7 can be fully implemented and are desirable as they weigh the project alternatives. Response 13H The commentor states an opinion that the Draft EIR does not adequately consider the effects of reduced air quality, including consistency with regional air quality objectives and the creation of carbon monoxide (CO) "hot spots." The discussion of consistency with policies pertaining to air quality is actually contained in subsection 4.2.2, Regional Mobility, of the Policy Consistency section. One of the primary purposes for improving regional mobility is to reduce vehicular air emissions and improve regional air quality. It is true that this connection between regional mobility and air quality was not clearly drawn in the Draft EIR. Therefore, the text of Section 1 5.2, Air Quality, will be revised to more clearly identify the connection between regional mobility policy and improving regional air quality. The following text will be added following the last sentence of Section 5.2.2.b on page 5.2-5: 1 RCPG policies pertaining to regional air quality are those contained in the Regional Mobility Element, which are discussed in Subsection 4.2.2. All of the project alternatives mere found to be consistent with relevant RCPG policies. Therefore, the project can be assumed to be consistent With regional air quality planning policy. This text revision will not affect any of the conclusions of the Draft EIR. It should also be noted that the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has reviewed the Draft EIR and concluded that the proposed Circulation Element amendment is consistent with regional policies relating to improving regional air quality. As for the concern about the creation of CO "hot spots", it is true that high CO concentrations could be created at heavily congested intersections. Consequently, those alternatives that would result in the worst overall traffic conditions (Alternatives 2 and 3) would have the greatest potential to create CO hotspots among the studied alternatives. Alternatives 1, 4, and 5, which would result in better overall operation of the circulation system (see Section 5.8 of the Draft EIR), would have less potential to create hot spots. This is consistent with the discussion in Section 5.2, Air Quality, which identifies Alternatives 4 and 5 as the environmentally superior alternatives in terms of long-term regional air quality due to their superior overall traffic speeds and reduced idling times. ' A specific analysis of CO hot spots was not conducted for three reasons. First, any of the alternatives would be expected to relieve overall traffic congestion as compared to the existing system. Therefore, all would be expected to reduce the overall potential to create CO hot spots 1 as compared to the existing roadway network. Second, because the proposed project is a City of Santa Clarita G-132 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR citywide transportation plan, the traffic analysis conducted for the EIR considers the more general daily traffic volumes, rather than the peak hour traffic volumes generally conducted for specific development projects, and upon which CO analyses are typically based. In other words, the general nature of the program level document does not lend itself to the very specific data needed to accurately perform a CO analysis. Third, because of the long-term nature of the proposed project (with buildout potentially occur 20 years or more into the future) means that even the traffic data that has been compiled could be subject to substantial changes by the time specific projects are built. Similarly, CO emission factors for automobiles are expected to fall dramatically by the time of project buildout given the rapid development of new automobile technologies, including "zero -emission' vehicles. Therefore, to engage in a very specific assessment of individual hot spots at this stage in the planning process, years in advance of the actual construction of many of the planned roads, would be overly speculative. Section 15145 of the State CEQA Guidelines explicitly states that a Lead Agency should not engage in "idle speculation." 0 It should be noted that it is anticipated that CO hot spot analysis will be conducted as needed for individual roadways and other development projects in the City as they are proposed. Nevertheless, in response to this concern about CO hot spots the following mitigation measure will be added to the EIR: ■ AQ -2(a) Carbon monoxide "hot spot' analysis slwll be conducted as part of the environmental review for individual roadwmJs with the potential to experience poor levels of service and expose sensitive receptors such as residences or schools to elevated carbon monoxide concentrations. This measure will not, however, change any Draft EIR findings, nor will it create any new environmental impacts. Response 13I The commentor suggests that the Draft EIR over -emphasizes non -circulation impacts, thereby obscuring the relative superiority of Alternative 1. The Draft EIR does not emphasize any environmental issue over any other. Traffic is but one of the issues on the State's environmental checklist.that requires consideration under CEQA. It is true that the main objective of any circulation element is to establish a road system that will "safely and efficiently accommodate existing and future transportation needs." However, the Circulation Element must also be viewed in light of not only other City General Plan elements, but also other ' concerns about broader planning concerns, including quality of life and the environment. The notion that the Draft EIR should, as the commentor states, "emphasize the relative importance of circulation impacts" is the opinion of the commentor. Based upon this statement, it would appear that the commentor considers traffic the most important issue among those studied in the EIR. However, it would be inappropriate for the EIR preparers to ' suggest to local decisonmakers and the public which environmental issues they should consider most important. 1 City of Santa Clarita G-133 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR The EIR is intended to provide an objective analysis of the pros and cons of each studied alternative, not to suggest which issues the City Council or the community of Santa Clarita should emphasize. If City decisonmakers and the public decide that traffic is the most important issue facing the City, they may choose one of the alternatives (1, 4, or 5) that will result in superior traffic levels of service. As the commentor concedes on page 25 of his letter, the EIR acknowledges this fact, as well as the fact that the difference in overall environmental impact among the alternatives is only marginal. ' Response 13T The commentor states that the City should remain open to other alternatives and should recirculate the Draft EIR in accordance with his comments. This comment is noted, although it is the opinion of the EIR preparers that no issues warranting recirculation of the Draft EIR have i' been raised, as discussed in the previous responses. However, if City decisonmakers elect to examine an entirely new alternative not examined in the Draft EIR, additional environmental documentation will be prepared and, if necessary, circulated for public review. I] I[] 1 II iI The commentor has raised several points that are instructive to reviewers of the EIR. In some cases, the text of the Draft EIR has been revised to clarify points raised. However, none of the points that the commentor has raised affect the fundamental accuracy of the analysis presented in the Draft EIR. G-134 Clarita REcSIV f v JU`311981 ptvto",SY NTP Ci -PR SPT 011 05 SP Re: Citv of Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment; Draft Environmental Impact Report Ladies and Gentlemen: I have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") for the City of Santa Clarita Circulation Amendment on behalf of Whittaker Porta Bella Development, Inc. and submit the following comments. Whittaker Porta Bella Development, Inc. is the owner of the project known as the "Porta Bella Specific Plan" which will be located in central Santa Clarita, just southeast of the intersection of Bouquet Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road. As set forth more specifically below, we believe that the DEIR fails to adequately analyze and describe the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts of the Project on the roadway network and various land uses approved by the City of Santa Clarita as part of the Porta Bella Specific Plan, and on the Porta Bella Specific Plan Project, in particular. In addition, the DEIR fails to provide sufficient information to allow the public to determine whether all environmental impacts related to the Project have been considered and mitigated. Because of this inadequacy, we request that the DEIR be revised to address the comments set forth below and recirculated for additional public review and comment. Our specific concerns and comments are set forth below. I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES. A. Circulation Element Policy. M The DEIR analyzes certain changes to City of Santa Clarita circulation Pj policies and several proposed new policies. With respect to each of the goals listed on pages 2-4, we suggest that the following additional policy be adopted to support and complement increased transit use in the City of Santa Clarita. LA_DOCS\123260.2 G-135 14 PORTA BELLA 22116 Soledad Canyon Road Santa Clarita, California 93150 805-291-1499 July 31, 1997 City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development ' 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Attention: Jeff Lambert REcSIV f v JU`311981 ptvto",SY NTP Ci -PR SPT 011 05 SP Re: Citv of Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment; Draft Environmental Impact Report Ladies and Gentlemen: I have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") for the City of Santa Clarita Circulation Amendment on behalf of Whittaker Porta Bella Development, Inc. and submit the following comments. Whittaker Porta Bella Development, Inc. is the owner of the project known as the "Porta Bella Specific Plan" which will be located in central Santa Clarita, just southeast of the intersection of Bouquet Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road. As set forth more specifically below, we believe that the DEIR fails to adequately analyze and describe the potentially significant adverse environmental impacts of the Project on the roadway network and various land uses approved by the City of Santa Clarita as part of the Porta Bella Specific Plan, and on the Porta Bella Specific Plan Project, in particular. In addition, the DEIR fails to provide sufficient information to allow the public to determine whether all environmental impacts related to the Project have been considered and mitigated. Because of this inadequacy, we request that the DEIR be revised to address the comments set forth below and recirculated for additional public review and comment. Our specific concerns and comments are set forth below. I. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES. A. Circulation Element Policy. M The DEIR analyzes certain changes to City of Santa Clarita circulation Pj policies and several proposed new policies. With respect to each of the goals listed on pages 2-4, we suggest that the following additional policy be adopted to support and complement increased transit use in the City of Santa Clarita. LA_DOCS\123260.2 G-135 II • "Promote and support the creation of linkages between transit facilities and civic, commercial and residential areas of the city, such as shuttle services, people movers and pedestrian conveyances. We believe that such a policy is consistent with the DEIR objectives of reducing vehicle trips by making use of transit more convenient and accessible to city residents and visitors and by facilitating alternative commute options. B. Alternative Transportation Diodes. Similarly. the following objectives shall be added to the list of proposed objectives that guide long-range transit planning opportunities: • "Explore opportunities to create infrastructure linkages between transit facilities and commercial, civic and residential areas of the community." Such.a policy is important to assure that transit is accessible and convenient to Santa Clarita residents, employees and visitors. �`q e` C. Planned Physical Development. REG 1991 b CCV44 t3k I. General. oMuNts00p\,O aSo The DEIR purports to analyze the impacts of seven transportation system alternatives. The DEIR is inadequate in that the project description does not contain sufficient detail to allow the public to understand, analyze and comment on the various alternatives. Because of the lack of detail of the maps and accompanying text outlining the proposed changes to the circulation system for each of the proposed alternatives, it is not possible to understand the proposed roadway alignments and other changes to the circulation system to enable the public to understand and comment upon their effect on the environment and on the community. In particular, it is not possible to understand the impact of each of the proposed alternatives on the Porta Bella Specific Plan area and on the residential, commercial and other uses within the Porta Bella community. We request that the DEIR include a detailed description of all proposed improvements, including the location and alignment of all proposed roadways, and all other improvements that are part of each alternative. In addition, we request that all roadways, roadway alignments and other improvements and changes that are inconsistent with the roadway and transportation system that was set forth or assumed in the Porta Bella Specific Plan be identified and described in sufficient detail to allow an understanding of the impacts of each alternative on the Porta Bella Project and land uses within Porta Bella. Even though the DEIR is a program EIR, it must contain sufficient detail to allow one to analyze its consistency with an approved specific plan. Therefore, the DEIR must include project level specificity, at least with respect to those areas that affect the Porta Bella Specific Plan area. The project description should identify the number of lanes for each roadway, the location of all medians, turn pockets and bicycle lanes as well as all grade separations. All affected intersections should be. identified and improvements described. L.A DOCS\123260.2 G-136 D. Scope of Alternatives Analyzed. The DEIR is also inadequate in that it fails to analyze circulation alternatives that potentially might satisfy the project objectives with fewer environmental impacts. Because the DEIR appears to be based on the 1995 Center City Traffic Study which considered only a limited set of alternative circulation systems, feasible and environmentally superior alternatives have been omitted. Please provide the background information explaining why the 1995 Center City Traffic Study was the appropriate starting point for defining the range of alternatives that would be evaluated. The DEIR should analyze the following additional alternatives: An alternative that includes alignments that discourage traffic flow between the 5 and 14 freeways by disseminating traffic north of the Santa Clara River, such as a northern bypass to discourage traffic through the city center. An alternative that utilizes a network of smaller roadways, including collectors, to disperse traffic in the City be evaluated. !J We also request that alternatives should not be deemed infeasible hqaF�9) one or more actions are within the jurisdiction of agencies outside the City. GES - R� 1991 E. Issues Related to Specific Alternatives. 'OM'MupF ePNiP GL Alternatives 3 and 5 appear to be inconsistent with the Porta Bella Specific E Plan roadway alignment. The DEIR is inadequate in that it fails to identify and analyze the inconsistencies between those alternatives and the Porta Bella Specific Plan. All roadway alignments within the Porta Bella Specific Plan area should be identified, analyzed and funding to compensate Porta Bella property owners for impacts on the Porta Bella property and for impacts on the development schedule must be discussed and analyzed. Air quality, noise, aesthetic, land use, economic and other impacts must be analyzed. While Alternatives 2 and 4 appear to be closer to the approved Porta Belli transportation system, the DEIR does not provide sufficient detail to analyze impacts and increased costs to the Porta Bella Project. A detailed analysis comparing alternatives I through with the Porta Bella Project must be included in the DEIR and made available to the public for ' additional public review and comment. Each figure indicates that "additional intersections along primary or secondary arteriales may be augmented." Each of such improvements must be identified and analyzed. Because the DEIR does not contain sufficient specificity to allow the 1 public to determine how the various alternatives affect them, their property and the environment, the DEIR is inadequate under CEQA. IA_DOCS\123260.2 G-137 F. TDRI Measures. Table 2-5 includes a list of "aggressive" trip reduction measures. The DEIR is inadequate in that it fails to describe or analyze the feasibility of such measures. For example, the DEIR should identify how the city will enforce and implement each measure and the financial and political feasibility for each measure. The funding source for each measure should be identified. G. Other Issues. Via Porta Bella is not a major roadway and therefore reference in the DEIR to Via Porta Bella in the maps describing Alternatives 2 and 3 should be corrected to remove this roadway. II. POLICY CONSISTENCY. F led The DEIR is inadequate in that it fails to analyze the Project consistency with approved and proposed specific plans within or near the project area. In particular, the DEIR fails to analyze consistency with the Porta Bella Specific Plan. Each alternative should include detailed discussion of consistency with the Porta Bella Specific Plan. Q In addition, the DEIR fails to include an analysis of consistency Al outth Coast Air Quality Management District's Air Quality Management Plan. Sr}c i nalysi 199 should be performed for each alternative. III. EARTH RESOURCES. It is not possible for the public to understand and comment on the impacts of each alternative on Earth Resources given the lack of specificity regarding roadway alignment and the location of other improvements for each alternative. A detailed map overlay of geologic and seismic hazards should be provided for each of the seven alternatives together with the additions alternative described above. IV. AIR QUALITY. The air quality impact analysis set forth in the DEIR fails to meet the requirements of CEQA in several important respects. First, the DEIR fails to analyze the significance of long-term emissions of the various project alternatives related to mobile sources. The DEIR is incorrect in stating at pages 5.2-4 that the "SCAQMD has not developed significance thresholds for program level EIR's." In fact, the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook's significance criteria apply to all EIR's. These criteria include significance thresholds for construction, regional and local impacts. The DEIR fails to analyze the impacts on regional air quality related to each of the seven alternatives. In addition, the DEIR fails to analyze the impact of the Project on "local" air LA DOM123260.2 G-138 N I quality. All affected intersections must be identified and a carbon monoxide "hot spot' analysis must be prepared for each alternative. Because the air quality analysis set forth in the DEIR fails to follow SCAQMD recommended methodology, the conclusions set forth in the DEIR are erroneous. In fact, based on SCAQMD significance thresholds. a number of the alternatives are likely to result in significant air quality impacts that have not been identified in the DEIR. V. HYDROLOGY/FLOODING. Because of the lack of specificity of the Project Description, it is not possible to analyze and compare the impacts on Hydrology and Flooding on the Porta Bella Project area with respect to the various alternatives. The DEIR should analyze the locations of earth disturbance. increased potential soil erosion and the impact on surface water quality on the Porta Bella Specific Plan area of each Project alternative. VI. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. The DEIR analysis fails to include a full analysis of the roadway alignment included or assumed in the Porta Bella Specific Plan which were developed to decrease impacts on the Santa Clara River SEA. Contrary to the summary discussion in the DEIR, the various alternatives are likely to have significantly different impacts on the Santa Clara River. Because the analysis of such impacts set forth in the DEIR is of such a summary nature, these differences are not discussed in sufficient detail to allow the public to understand and comment on the differences between the various alternatives. Such a detailed analysis should be included in the DEIR. VII. NOISE. The DEIR is inadequate in that it fails to identify the location of roadway alignments and improvements within the Porta Bella Project area with sufficient specificity to enable the public to understand and comment on potential noise impacts. A detailed noise analysis should be conducted identifying impacts on residential, civic, commercial and sensitive receptors within the Porta Bella Project. The maximally impacted receptors should be identified for each project improvement in the Porta Bella project area and noise levels should be analyzed. Such an analysis should be conducted for each alternative. The noise analysis should include both construction and operating scenarios. - VIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Because the DEIR fails to include a project description for each alternative that includes sufficient specificity, it is not possible to understand the impact on population and housing in the Porta Bella Specific Plan project area. The DEIR should identify all residential and other uses that will be displaced because of inconsistencies between the DEIR and the Porta Bella Specific Plan. Funding to provide compensation for impacted uses should be identified LA DOCSU23260.2 G-139 (C', dl W L M M and the adequacy discussed. All intersections and other improvements in the Porta Bella Project area should be identified and analyzed. IX. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION. A comparison of the traffic and circulation analysis between the Porta Bella Specific Plan and each of the seven alternatives should be conducted and recirculated for public review and comment. A similar comparative analysis should be conducted between each alternative and the city's 1995 analysis prepared by Austin Faust and with the Civic Center Traffic study. All inconsistencies should be identified and analyzed. All differences in traffic assumptions and methodologies with these various studies should be identified and explained. X. AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE. Because specific transportation improvements within the Porta Bella Project area have not been identified in the DEIR, it is not possible to understand the impacts on aesthetics/light and glare of the various alternatives on the Porta Bella project. The locations of all such improvements with Porta Bella must be identified and an aesthetics/light and glare analysis on Porta Bella land uses must be conducted. y M 0 XI. OTHER ISSUES. n If traffic is generated from projects outside the City of Santa Clarita and funding contributions cannot be achieved, how will sufficient road capacity be built related to the demand generated by new development outside the City. Has a financial evaluation of the available revenue from new development which will contribute to the road cost been estimated and compared to transportation programs being contemplated under the various proposals? If the roads require advancement of funds what is the mechanism to assure that there is reimbursement from developments outside the city? In addition, the economic feasibility of each of the seven alternatives should be discussed and funding sources identified and evaluated. ' XII. CONCLUSION. The DEIR lacks sufficient specificity to allow property owners, and residents, visitors, employers and employees of the Porto Bella Project area to understand how the various alternatives will affect them and their environment. Because the DEIR fails to adequately analyze the impacts of the various alternatives generally and on the Porta Bella Project specifically, we request that the DEIR analysis be supplemented and circulated for additional public review and comment. F 'l' LA_DOCS\123260.2 Very truly yours, Salvatore (Sam) J. Veltri G•140 REGEXvSD � tt� 31 19g atAl �ab�MUof SPNSP Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 14 COMMENTOR: Salvatore (Sam) J. Veltri On Behalf of Whittaker Porta Bella Development, Inc. DATE: July 31, 1997 RESPONSE: Response 14A The commentor makes a non-specific comment that the Draft EIR fails to adequately disclose the potentially significant impacts of the project and requests that the EIR be recirculated. This comment is noted. The specific points raised by the commentor are addressed in the responses below. Response 14B The commentor suggests adding a policy and objective to the Circulation Element regarding the promotion of linkages between transit facilities and civic, commercial, and residential areas. These text changes will be added to the text of the Circulation Element amendment. Response 14C The commentor states an opinion that the Draft EIR does not provide sufficient detail to understand the various project alternatives. The Draft EIR is a Program EIR that analyzes the potential effects of buildout of seven alternative conceptual circulation systems. The roadway corridors depicted on the maps contained in the Draft EIR are conceptual only. No specific roadway alignments have been developed at this point. Consequently, it would be premature to attempt to assess individual components of the circulation system infrastructure in "project specific" detail. One of the primary purposes of the Draft EIR is to provide a comparison of the I' project alternatives to allow City decisonmakers an informed decision about the effects of the alternative that they select. The EIR preparers consider the Ievel of detail provided to be adequate to make this comparison and appropriate given the current status of the Circulation I' Element planning process. As stated in Section 15146 of the State CEQA Guidelines, "The degree of specificity required in an EIR will correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR." Nevertheless, the number of lanes and ' potential locations for tum pockets are described for roadways in Section 2.0, Project Description. The Circulation Element Amendment EIR represents only the first tier in the environmental review process for individual projects planned as part of the Circulation Element. Specific infrastructure projects proposed in the future under the guise of the Circulation Element will require separate environmental review under CEQA. Any impacts specific to those individual projects that were not fully addressed in the Circulation Element EIR would be discussed as part of this subsequent documentation. As for the Porta Bella property, the Magic Mountain Parkway/ Via Princessa corridor is the only planned corridor that is currently known to pass I I City of Santa Clarita ' G•141 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR through the Specific Plan area. That corridor is currently undergoing roadway design and is ' not expected to conflict with any development proposed for the Porta Bella property. In any event, the Magic Mountain/ Via Princessa corridor is common to all of the alternatives, so the potential for impacts would be similar regardless of the alternative chosen. II Response 14D The commentor states an opinion that the Draft EIR is inadequate because it does not consider alternatives that would improve traffic conditions as compared to the existing planned circulation system (Alternative 1) and suggests evaluation of two additional alternatives. As the commentor notes, the alternatives chosen for evaluation in the EIR were initially analyzed as part of the Center City Circulation System Stud. That study was part of a four-year planning process that the City has undertaken to attempt to find an acceptable alternative to the extension of Newhall Ranch Road east of Golden Valley Road. The alternative roadway networks analyzed (Alternatives 2 and 3) were chosen for consideration in the EIR because they had been identified as best meeting the City's needs among the alternatives studied to date. The "northern by-pass' alternative that the commentor suggests should be evaluated was studied as part of the Center City study. However, that alternative was found not to carry sufficient traffic to justify its construction or to significantly relieve traffic congestion in the Center City area. Therefore, it was dropped from further consideration. The alternative is, however, discussed in Section 7.0 of the Draft EIR and is still under study by the County of Los Angeles. The alternative of smaller roadways that the commentor suggests may hold some promise for relieving traffic congestion in some parts of the City. However, the Circulation Element only includes a network of major arterial roads. Smaller roads such as residential collectors will be developed on a case-by-case basis as specific developments that require such roads are proposed. The potential for collectors to relieve traffic congestion on major arterials and highways will be assessed as part of the environmental review process for individual development projects. No alternatives were rejected because they require actions by agencies outside the City: In fact, all of the project alternatives include roadway corridors that are within the Santa Clarita PIanning Area, but outside the current City limits. Response14E The commentor states an opinion that the Draft EIR is inadequate because it does not provide sufficient detail to determine impacts to the Porta Bella property and states a concern that Alternatives 3 and appear to be inconsistent with the Porta Bella Specific Plan. Please see Response 14C. Also, the commenter may be concerned that the alignment of Santa Clarita Parkway for Alternatives 3, 5, and 7 appears to potentially conflict with the Porta Bella property. However, it should be recognized that the roadway corridors depicted on all maps in the Draft EIR are conceptual only. No specific road alignments have been determined at this time. The future alignment of Santa Clarita Parkway is not anticipated to affect development within the Porta Bella Specific Plan area under any of the project alternatives. Nevertheless, G-142 City of Santa ' Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR subsequent environmental review of Santa Clarita Parkway will be conducted at such time that construction of the roadway is proposed. Specific issues relating to that road will be addressed at that time. ' Response 14F The commentor states an opinion that the Draft EIR is inadequate because it fails to analyze the ' feasibility of TDM measures. The tentative sources of funding for the aggressive TDM measures included in Alternatives 6 and 7 are identified in Table 2-5 of the Draft EIR. In most cases, the source would be either the City or local businesses. However, as with the roadway 1 alignments for all alternatives, the aggressive TDM measures for Alternatives 6 and 7 are only conceptual at this stage of planning. Response 14G The commentor states that Via Porta Bella is not a major roadway and should therefore be removed from the maps depicting Alternatives 2 and 3. The maps in the EIR will be corrected in response to this comment. Response 14H The commentor states that the Draft EIR is inadequate is inadequate because it does not assess I' consistency with the Porta Bella Specific Plan or the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). As discussed in Responses 14C and 14E, none of the alternatives are anticipated to conflict with the Porta Bella Specific Plan. The project does not include a specific analysis of consistency with the AQMP. However, because none of the alternatives involves any increase in population beyond that envisioned in the current Santa Clarita General Plan, none are expected to result in additional air emissions beyond that envisioned in the AQMP. In addition, the EIR does discuss consistency with the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) Regional PIan and Guide, which is the planning document that guides planning for the Southern California region. SCAG is in fact responsible for reviewing local plans for consistency with state, federal, and regional planning mandates, including those pertaining to air quality. SCAG has reviewed the Draft EIR and found all of the project alternatives to be consistent with SCAG policies pertaining to i the attainment of regional air quality goals (see Letter 3). Response 14I * The commentor states an opinion that it is not possible to understand the impacts to earth resources without detailed road alignments and a map overlay showing geologic and seismic ' hazards. Please see Response 14C. Also, the map overlay requested is shown on Figure 5.1-1 of the Draft EIR. Response 141 The commentor states an opinion that the Draft EIR air quality analysis is inadequate because it fails to analyze the significance of long-term emissions in accordance with SCAQMD ' G•143 City of Santa Clarita Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR thresholds and fails to examine the potential to create carbon monoxide hot spots. The thresholds that the SCAQMD has developed are intended to be used to analyze the effects of development projects that generate air emissions through, among other means, creating vehicle trips. The proposed project is a circulation system that acconinsodates, rather than generates vehicular trips. As such, it would not directly generate air emissions in the long term. Rather, any air emissions that would be generated on the City's roadway system would actually be generated by development projects in and around the City, all of which would be subject to t independent environmental review. Nevertheless, because the various alternatives would have different operational characteristics (including varying average travel speeds, average delays, and levels of service), it was determined that it would be appropriate to estimate the effect of ' these variations upon regional air quality. Therefore, the analysis focuses upon the regional effects of operation of the citywide roadway network. For a discussion of carbon monoxide hot' spots, please see Response 13H. Response 14K The commentor states an opinion that greater specificity is required to assess hydrology and flooding. impacts on the Porta Bella area and suggests that the document examine areas of earth disturbance, increased soil erosion, and water quality. Areas of earth disturbance are mapped ' on Figures 5.1-2 through 5.1-4. Soil erosion potential is discussed in Section 5.1 of the Draft EIR while water quality impacts are discussed in Section 5.2. Also, please see Response 14C. 'Response 14L The commentor states an opinion that the Draft EIR fails to include a full analysis of biological impacts and believes that the various alternatives would have significantly different impacts upon the Santa Clara River. Please see Response 14C. As discussed under Effect B-2, the alternatives would have somewhat different effects upon the Santa Clara River. Alternative 1 includes an additional river crossing that is not part of any other alternative. Alternatives 3, 5, and 7 were found to require additional fill at the Newhall Ranch Road/Santa Clarita Parkway river crossing as compared to Alternatives, 2, 4, and 6; therefore, they would have somewhat ' greater impacts upon biological resources of the river. Nevertheless, all of the alternatives were found to have potentially significant and unavoidable impacts upon the Santa Clara River. Response 14M The commentor states that the Draft EIR is inadequate because it fails to adequately address noise impacts in the Porta Bella project area. Please see Response 14C. Response 14N The commentor states an opinion that the Draft EIR should provide additional detail regarding population and housing impacts in the Porta Bella area. Please see Response 14C. City of Santa Clarita G-144 LJ Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Response 140 The commentor suggests that a comparison of the traffic analysis for Porta Bella Specific Plan and each alternative should be conducted and recirculated. The traffic analysis for the Circulation Element Amendment was coordinated with the analysis conducted for the Porta Bella Specific Plan. Therefore, reevaluation and recirculation is not necessary. Response 14P The commentor states an opinion that the aesthetic/light and glare impacts upon the Porta Bella area have not been fully identified. Please see Response 14C. Response 140 The commentor suggests that the EIR should identify funding sources for specific roads and should include an analysis of the economic feasibility of each alternative. Funding sources have not yet been identified for specific roads. Such sources will be identified at such time as specific roadways are needed to serve new development in the City. An analysis of economic feasibility is beyond the scope of the EIR. Such feasibility studies will need to be conducted on a case-by-case basis as individual road projects are proposed. Response 14R The commentor states an opinion that the Draft EIR generally lacks the specificity needed to adequately analyze the various alternatives and recommends recirculation. This comment is noted. Please see Response 14C. G-145 THE LAW OFFICES �C, of 0o ✓G CARL J. KANOWSKY, ESQ. C!0 % 23929 Valencia Blvd., Suite 411 lyP�9�yr Santa Clarita, CA 91355-2109 (805) 290-2656 (805) 290-2714 or 287-3605 FAX ' July 31, 1997 VIA FAX (805) 259-8125 AND HAND -DELIVERED Mayor and City Council Planning Commission c/o Mr. Jeff Lambert Planning Manager 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 411 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: EIR on Amendment to Circulation Element ' c-146 Dear Gentlepeople: Any plan that is based upon a road going through the Bermite site of the future Porta Bella development p is wishful thinking. Such alternatives are not viable or realistic as the !� ' California Department of Toxic Substances Control believes that the earliest date for clearance of the site is September 2001. That estimate was -calculated prior to the ' problems with the Newhall Water District's water were known or discovered. We must be looking at alternatives that can be begun and finished within the next few years, not five to ten years from now. The fact that Whittaker is attempting to sell the site only compounds the delay we can anticipate on any development at the Bermite site. Along that line, no roads should be started outside the Bermite site which will need to go B througli that location. Otherwise, we will wind up with a road that goes nowhere. For instance, there has been discussion of beginning the Magic/Princessa Bridge that would go over San Fernando/Bouquet Canyon and the railroad tracks prior to clearance of the site ' by the State of California. Such a bridge serves no purpose but to expend public funds while not getting the public any place. There are better alternatives to spending the money there, such as the Lyons Avenue extension. The proposed. extension of Via Princessa to Wiley Canyon byway of a fly over crossing the C railroad tracks and San Fernando Road will create more problems than it solves, while not ' effectively addressing the problems it was intended to solve. Some of the negatives of the fly over include ' c-146 • All traffic using the fly over must go through Circle J, an established neighborhood. Traffic in Circle J will dramatically increase. • Via Princessa will become a major truck route as it will be the most direct connection between the 14 and 5. • Getting in and out of Circle J will be much more difficult as cars which would not normally be in Circle J must go in and out of it to get where they are going. The only on and off ramps for the Wiley Canyon Bridge will be in Circle J, resulting in the stop light at Circle J and San Fernando Road being over -utilized. • As the amount of cars and trucks increase, so will the noise level. There has been no study of this impact. • As the building of the Bridge will require 80,000 cubic yards of grading, the surrounding hillsides will be destroyed, resulting in increased noise and a destruction of the view shed for the residents. • Light and glare from the additional cars' headlights and the street lights will increase glare significantly in the Circle J neighborhood. • The Bridge begins within one hundred yards of the planned location for the sole park in Circle J, making use of the park dangerous. All of these points regarding the fly over have not yet been addressed by the City in any environmental document. These are significant environmental impacts. As such, they should be eliminated. There are reasonable alternatives to the flyover, such as an at -grade crossing, which would still allow for the connection but not increase the traffic flow, noise,', light, glare, trucks; or decrease the safety in the area. These should be considered. Sincerely, Carl']. Kanowsky G-147 C \ (COn{� 1 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 15 COMMENTOR: Carl J. Kanowsky The Law Offices of Carl J. Kanowsky, Esq. DATE: July 22,1997 RESPONSE: Response 15A The commentor states an opinion that road development will not be able to occur on the Bem-dte Property for many years and suggests looking at alternatives that can be completed sooner. It is true that remediation of contamination on the Bermite site could delay any construction on the site. No schedule for cleanup or for future road construction has been determined at this time. Construction of all roads planned under the Circulation Element will occur in conjunction with development served by those roads and as funding is available. Response 15B The commentor states an opinion that no roads that would need to go through the Bermite site should be started until development of roads on the Bermite site is possible and recommends construction of the Lyons Avenue extension prior to the Magic/Princessa bridge. This comment is noted. There is currently no schedule or formal prioritization for the construction of roads on the master plan of arterial highways. Construction of individual roads in the City will occur in conjunction with the need created by local development projects and as funds become available. Response 15C The commentor states an opinion that the proposed extension of Via Princessa to Wiley Canyon ' will cause more problems than it solves and states that the environmental impacts (grading, traffic, noise, light and glare) of the proposed fly over crossing have not been adequately addressed in any environmental document. The commentor also recommends a grade level crossing in lieu of the fly over crossing. The commentor's opinion is noted. It is true that the Draft EIR analysis is focused largely on the areas in which changes to the master of plan of highways have been proposed (the Center City area - see EIR Section 2.0, Project Description). Nevertheless, the Draft EIR addresses the environmental effects of the Wiley Canyon bridge and all other roads on the master plan of arterial highways were addressed in a general sense. As required by Section 15146 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the degree of specificity in the EIR analysis corresponds to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity described in the EIR. II II II G-148 City of Santa Clarita 07/15/9T 15:40 F:4SM /�. C.echer Son Snc. GRADING & PAVING CONTRACTOR UcenseeNo. 258762 July 15, 1997 16 ' Mr. Jeff Lambert ' Planning Manager City Hall, 3rd Floor 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Jeri:, ' As a business owner for over 30 years in the Santa Clarita Valley, we are strongly in favor of the implementation of an efficient roadway system that will provide for and safely move people and commerce throughout our valley. While we are in favor of an overall plan for roadway impravemt_nt, we are especially I' supportive of an extension of Lyons Avenue to State Route 14 utilizing the Placenta Canyon off tamp. This road would be south of the Masters College (who also favors this project), connecting to Dockweiller with a "T" intersection. There would also be a main connection to the vastly underutilized Placerita Canyon off ramp. As a construction company specializing in excavation, grading and paving, I can tell you I' that the.design of this road would not jeopardize the private road for Placerita Canyon residents, and would also allow some heightened eastlwest traffic movement, in addition to a better approach to The Masters College. In addition, we strongly favor this extension due to the recent Placerita Canyon fire, and the closure of. State Route 14. Surely you remember the hours of bottle -necked traffic on San Fernando Road. ' We respectfully request that the Lyons extension be given your most serious consideration. Sincerely John C. Becker Vice -President cc: City Council of Santa Clarita ' All Planning Commissioners 22422 -12th Street , Newhall. Califomia 91321 (805) 259-4845 - (818) 361-0201 - FAX (805) 259-9669 G-149 o: Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 16 COMMENTOR: DATE: RESPONSE: John C. Becker, Vice -President R. C. Becker & Sons Inc. Grading and Paving Contractor July 15,1997 Commentor supports the extension of Lyons Avenue toStateRoute 14 utilizing the Placenta Canyon off ramp and creating a t -intersection at Dockweiler. This is one of the two alignments being considered for the Lyons Avenue Extension. This comment is noted and will be considered by decisionmakers as they consider the project alternatives. City of Santa Clarita G•150 17 REC�1�►ED J" NNING COMMS FtfOfA C�1N OF SANTA CLA t .,-'e---.=G. ¢+�sa1 :.JI ti'? tfe _: ift_t?iE?'�iEd inLci +=r .`,i. IS :.1?dl -. •Jy _i=_ ,00 t arr-,t •a:ld st-Lck o!n a ter n ti �e fc-i-ITIS LJ t4_ _ i'tsi ti ti sm: pGi"tatioil. i do f%,tsupport ansi roi;ds crc.ssii-Qthe Whi takee'-ne; mi to ]!--: li- C+.i --=:ty untl i such tits _ as = the ri? 'n o-ves te .:isan null Co heal th. ' P.ni 1 , -L=.g1:Sz the de Je I QL.'t1e_ n 1'n app ovEd• S vic iI1J di�V -left c!t;—. ~t that the City CotJrlci1 11_is voted that thele �#il1 be .I_ _t:7=. it. --__,o iltltiA the EPA nes pro'nouriced the j_e GGes t ' clsa:- - I contamination. In lig.7 of that "vote, i Lirge the Fianning Commaission to delete -eferereces to roads crossing the Forta Sella 1&nd Linn, Such time as they can he funded and built. If the Pl i:enii:g Commission declines to delete these roads. Fl Lease usea `Ji_TIal method to indicate to the community the necs_sai y delays to building tmese roads. (This can be _.....cmolished by having _. dashed line of a lighter line than Foaois across aanraved land.) 1 CC. Mayor Smyth City Council II 1 G-151 L 40: s_•rry=:?Errir,gt�_'��, -ha is man �'i clT:'1 i6'Q LCnTr.Ttl SS loll -. iati -'n Gly_ r.>•11 �: l.�?1'�J E_ t. e s_ a nrL= c .=tTi •er, �s ."naxe --a e C7 -le .il. •..'t11-=i_+n Oil __ii. t .,-'e---.=G. ¢+�sa1 :.JI ti'? tfe _: ift_t?iE?'�iEd inLci +=r .`,i. IS :.1?dl -. •Jy _i=_ ,00 t arr-,t •a:ld st-Lck o!n a ter n ti �e fc-i-ITIS LJ t4_ _ i'tsi ti ti sm: pGi"tatioil. i do f%,tsupport ansi roi;ds crc.ssii-Qthe Whi takee'-ne; mi to ]!--: li- C+.i --=:ty untl i such tits _ as = the ri? 'n o-ves te .:isan null Co heal th. ' P.ni 1 , -L=.g1:Sz the de Je I QL.'t1e_ n 1'n app ovEd• S vic iI1J di�V -left c!t;—. ~t that the City CotJrlci1 11_is voted that thele �#il1 be .I_ _t:7=. it. --__,o iltltiA the EPA nes pro'nouriced the j_e GGes t ' clsa:- - I contamination. In lig.7 of that "vote, i Lirge the Fianning Commaission to delete -eferereces to roads crossing the Forta Sella 1&nd Linn, Such time as they can he funded and built. If the Pl i:enii:g Commission declines to delete these roads. Fl Lease usea `Ji_TIal method to indicate to the community the necs_sai y delays to building tmese roads. (This can be _.....cmolished by having _. dashed line of a lighter line than Foaois across aanraved land.) 1 CC. Mayor Smyth City Council II 1 G-151 L ' Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 17 ' COMMENTOR: Valerie Thomas DATE: July 28, 1997 RESPONSE: Response17A The comentor expresses support for the Lyons Avenue Extension. This comment is noted and will be considered by decisionmakers. Response 17B The commentor expresses support for Alternative 3 with augmented intersections (Alternative ' 5), with a heavy emphasis on alternative transportation. This comment is noted and will be considered by decionmakers. Response 17 The commentor asks that the Planning Commission delete references to roads crossing Porta Bella until contamination is cleaned up and such roads can be funded and built. The presence of roads crossing Porta Bella (or any other roads) on the map of arterial highways does not imply that construction is imminent. Construction will occur as funding becomes available and/or development requiring new roads is proposed. No road construction in contaminated areas would occur on the Porta Bella property until such time that remediation is conducted to the satisfaction of the appropriate regulatory authorities. City of Santa Clarita G-152 THE CITY COUNCIL,THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND JEFF LAMBERT ' CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,CITY HALL 23920 VALENCIA BLVD. SANTA CLARITA, CA. 91355 is Dear Council Members, Planning Commission and Mr. Lambert, ' The Santa Clarita Valley needs a Circulation Element which effectively guides the development of a smooth functioning system of roads, highways, transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Residents need a network that. will address and resolve the very serious transportation problems of today while making adequate plans for the future development of the Santa Clarita Valley. Listed below are some of the priorities which MUST be included: " A major priority is the construction of an East/West Corridor consisting of a six lane arterial (the width of McBean Parkway or Valencia Blvd.) that precludes super trucks. Use Newhall RanchRoad to Bouquet Canyon Road. cross the River entering east of the Metrolink Station and east of Bermite property, link to Golden Valley Rd and SR14. Expanded intersections that reduce serious congestion (described as "augmented" in the text) should be designed and built for all major intersections throughout SCV to q allow additional left and right rum pockets defined in Alternatives 4 and 5. These key intersections, which are identified in the Circulation Element, play an important role in the overall system and must be maintained and developed. * Funding for improvements to the major highways which traverse this valley should be sought from Federal and State sources in combination with contributions from local developers. It is vital to recognize and encourage needed interchange and construction improvements on Interstate 5 and State Route 14. Bridge and Thoroughfare funds, in combination with Capital Project funding must build local roads. Better cooperative relationships about development must be established with Los Angeles County. * Recognize the serious problems associated with constructing a major bridge in long established residential neighborhoods (Wiley Canyon and the Circle J areas). Build a less intrusive grade level crossing at Wiley and San Fernando. Construct the necessary bridge at a newly aligned Lyons Avenue extension that will bridge the railroad and the Newhall Creek, then swing southerly of all homes in Placenta Canyon and connect to the public portion of the Placenta Canyon Road connecting to the under-utilized Placenta Canyon off -ramp which links to SR14. Develop a "T" intersection at Dockweiler. Lyons Avenue extension at this location is commercial, will avoid all residences and extends needed East/West passage to another sector of the valley. * Continue the development language in' the circulation element multi -modal transportation syst RESPECTFULLY C kal EJ of pedestrian, bicycle and trail systems. Include I E encouraging, not mandating, the use of transit and G-153 ' THE CITY COUNCIL,THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND JEFF LAMBERT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,CITY HALL 23920 VALENCIA BLVD. RECEIVED SANTA CLARITA, CA. 91355 JUL 2 5 1997 ' Dear Council Members, Planning Commission and Mr. Lambert, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA The Santa CMra Valley needs a Circulation Element which effectively guides the development of a smooth functioning system of roads, highways, transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Residents need a network that will address and resolve the very serious ' transportation problems of today while making adequate plans for the future development of the Santa Claris Valley. Listed below are some of the priorities which MUST be included: * A major priority is the construction of an East/West Corridor consisting of a six lane arterial (the width of McBean Parkway or Valencia Blvd.) that precludes super trucks. Use Newhall Ranch Road to Bouquet Canyon Road, cross the River entering east of the Metrolink Station and east of Be -'mite property. link to Golden Valley Rd and SR14. Expanded intersections that reduce serious congestion (described as "augmented" in the text) should be designed and built for all major intersections throughout SCV to allow additional left and right rum pockets defined in Alternatives 4 and 5. These key intersections, which are identified in the Circulation Element, play an important role in the overall system and must be maintained and developed. Funding for improvements to the major highways which traverse this valley should be sought from Federal and State sources in combinaron with contributions from local developers. It is vital to recognize and encourage needed interchange and construction 1 improvements on Interstate 5 and State Route 14. Bridge and Thoroughfare funds, in combination with Capital Project funding must build local roads. Better cooperative relationships about development must be established with Los Angeles County. * Recognize the serious problems associated with constructing a major bridge in I long established residential neighborhoods (Wiley Canyon and the Circle J areas). Build a less intrusive grade level crossing at Wiley and San Fernando. Construct the necessary bridge at a newly aligned Lyons Avenue extension that will bridge the railroad and the ' Newhall Creek, then swing southerly of all homes in Placerita.Canyon and connect to the public portion of the Placenta Canvon Road connecting to the under-utilized Placenta Canyon off -ramp which links to SR14. Develop a "T"intersection at Dockweiler. Lyons Avenue extension at this location is commercial, will avoid all residences and extends needed East/West passage to another sector of the valley. * Continue the development of pedestrian, bicycle and trail systems. Include language - in the circulation element encouraging, not mandatin the use of transit and multi -modal transportation systems. RESPECTFULLYSUBMTITED,� G-154 THE CITY COUNCIL,THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND JEFF LAMBERT ' CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,CITY HALL R E CE 1 v E D 33920 VALENCIA BLVD. SANTA CLARITA, CA. 91355 JUL 2 5 1997 Dear Council Members, Planning Commission and Mr. Lambert, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA The Santa Clarity Valley needs a Circulation Element which effectively guides the development of a smooth functioning system of roads, highways, transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Residents need a network that will address and resolve the very serious transportation problems of today while making adequate plans for the future development of the Santa Clarity Valley. ' Listed below are some of rhe priorities which MUST be.included: A major priority is the construction of an Easr/West Corridor consisting of a six lane arterial (the width of McBean Parkwav or Valencia Blvd.) that precludes super trucks. Use Newhall Ranch Road to Bouquet Canyon Road. cross the River entering east of the Metroiink- Station and east of Bermite property, link to Golden Valley Rd and SR14. . Expanded intersections that reduce serious congestion (described as "augmented" in the text) should be designed and built for all major intersections throughout SCV to allow additional left and right turn pockets defined in Alternatives 4 and . These key intersections, which are identified in the Circulation Element, play an important role in the overall system and must be maintained and developed. Funding for improvements to the major highways which traverse this valley should be sought from Federal and State sources in combination with contributions from local developers. It is vital to recognize and encourage needed interchange and construction improvements on Interstate .5 and State Route 14. Bridge and Thoroughfare funds, in combination with Capital Project funding must build local roads. Better cooperative relationships about development must be established with Los Angeles County. * Recognize the serious problems associated with constructing a major bridge in long established residential neighborhoods (Wiley Canyon and the Circle J areas). Build a less intrusive grade level crossing at Wiley and San Fernando.- Construct the necessary bridge at a newly aligned Lyons Avenue extension that will bridge the railroad and the Newhall Creek, then swing southerly of all homes in Placenta Canvon and connect to the public portion of the Placenta Canyon Road connecting to the under-utilized Placenta Canyon off -ramp which links to SR14. Develop a "T" intersection at Dockweiler. Lyons Avenue extension at this location is commercial, will avoid all residences and extends needed East/West passage to another sector of the valley. * Continue the development of pedestrian, bicycle and trail systems. Include language in the circulation element encouraging, not mandating,the use of transit and multi -modal transportation systems. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED G-155 II Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 18 COMMENTOR: Form letter submitted by three residents DATE: Undated RESPONSE: Response 18A The commentor states an opinion that a priority is an east/west corridor that follows Newhall Ranch Road to Bouquet Canyon Road, then crosses the river and links to Golden Valley Road and SR -14. Response 18B The commentor expresses support for the augmented intersection concept included in Alternatives 4 and 5. This comment is noted and will be considered by decisionmakers. Response 18C The commentor suggests that federal and state funding sources for roads be sought and urges better cooperative relationships with Los Angeles County. Various funding sources will be investigated for individual road projects as they are proposed. The City will continue to work cooperatively with Los Angeles County in the planning of the regional transportation system Response 18D The commentor asks for a Iess intrusive grade level crossing on Wiley Canyon Road and supports the Lyons Avenue Extension, with a connection at Placerita Canyon. These comments are noted and will be considered by decisionmakers. Response 18E The commentor urges the development of pedestrian, bicycle, and trail systems and asks that language encourage, rather than mandating, alternatives transportation modes be included in the Circulation Element. This comment is noted and will be considered by decisonmakers. GA 56 City ofSants RECEIVED AUG 0 7 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Santa Clarity City Hall 19 23920 Valencia Blvd. Third Floor, Planning Department Attn: Jeff Lambert, Planning Manager August 6, 1997 Dear. ;%Ir. Lambert: With regards to the proposed new road systems for the Santa Clarita Valley, I would like to comment as follows: 1. I am completely opposed to the Existing Planned Circulation System (Alternative 1) Abecause of the size of the road dissecting Canyon Country, the noise and pollution it would create, the horrible impact it would have on the river bed and the town that I moved to in order to escape the urban overdevelopment of the San Fernando Valley. 2 Of alternatives 2 and 3, if one must be ' chosen, I lean towards #3 if only to eliminate any future possibility of extending \ewhall Ranch Road into Canyon Country. 3. I hope you will consider only putting one more road over the river: it is the most Cstriking and beautifni feature we have and to surround and cross it with so many roads is wrong from many aspects of the environment and very inconsistant with the values of many people who moved here. In general, I have many objections to simply building as many roads as possible through the ' D limited space we have left. Part of the city's responsibility is to balance growth within it and I feel too many roads are being proposed and that some of the ideas in Alternatives 6 and 7 might be in the better interest of us all. Thank you for your time in this matter. I welcome any further information or comments you might have. Sincerely,' I ,�, a CLS Dente Schelling ` 28219 Stanley Court . Canyon Country, CA 91351 G-157 Santa Clarity Circulation Element Update EIR ' Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 19 COMMENTOR: Denice Schelling DATE: August 6,1997 RESPONSE: Response 19A ' The commentor expresses opposition to Alternative 1 because of its impacts upon the Santa CIara River and Canyon Country. This opinion is noted and will be considered by decisionmakers. ' Response 19B The commentor expresses support for Alternative 3 over Alternative 2, if only to eliminate any future possibility of extending Newhall Ranch Road into Canyon Country. This opinion is noted. It should be recognized that once an alternative is adopted by the City, a change to the arterial highway network can only be made through adoption of another Circulation Element amendment. �1 II Response 19C The commentor expresses hope that only one more road will be built across the Santa Clara River. Actually, six of the seven studied alternatives (Alternatives 2 through 7) include three additional crossings over the Santa Clara River, while Alternative 1 includes four river crossings. Response 19D The commentor expresses concern about the need to balance growth and states an opinion that some of the ideas in Alternatives 6 and 7 may be in the better interest of the community. This opinion is noted and will be considered by decisonmakers. G-158 Clarita I t eZ,0411997 14:27 FROM 05 CORP 20 TO 2598125 STEPHEN H. SCHAFHAUSEN 21911 Placerita Cyn. Newhall, CA 91321 Home: (805) 255-63 10 July 30, 1997 Mr. Jeff Lambert, Planning Manager City HaII, 34 Floor 23920 Valencia Blvd_ Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Re: Circulation Element of General Plan It•_., u �r• a. I am writing to you to urge you and the city staff to upgrade the development priority of the Lyons Extension as a critical east/west link in the next five years. This is an cast/west link that already has a portion built (Dockweiler) and could easily connect to the Placerita Canyon interchange of Hwy 14. There is no toxic waste land to deal with (Bermite/Porta Bella), the cut and fill is substantially Iess than other proposed roadways and the impact to neighborhoods minimal. Yet in fire emergencies this east/west link is critical both in its absence today and in its existence hopefully soon The Lyons Extension, beyond making sense from a circulation standpoint, is an important element to the downtown Newhall revitalization process. It would provide much needed access and visibility to the area while helping the area generate the enthusiasm and sales tax return to make the road investment well worth while. 1 Sincerely, ' Stephen H. Schafhausen Resident cc: City Council SHS:tmr II G-159 P. 02 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Lefter 20 COMMENTOR: Stephen H. Schafhausen DATE: July 30, 1997 RESPONSE: The commentor expresses support for the Lyons Avenue extension, connecting to Placerita Canyon. This opinion is noted and will be considered by decisionmakers. City of Santa Clarita G-160 1 9735 RECEIVED JUL 2 8 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOFMC14T To: Laura Stotler CITY OF SANTACLA*ITAf rom: Robert Lathrop City of Santa Clarita 25105 Highspring Ave. 23920 Valencia Blvd. Newhall, 91321 Valencia, 91355-2196 July 24, 1997 :300 Re: Response to draft EIR of Circulation Element The Bridges of San Fernando Road Theproposed circulation element for the city considers three A bridges across San Fernando Road. One of them, at Magic Mountain /1 Parkway, deserves expediting. The second, long known as the Wiley Canyon Bridge, is of highly dubious merit, and the third, known as the Lyons Avenue Extension, I believe would be a calamity. The Magic Mountain bridge will be huge and expensive. It must cross the railroad and San Fernando Road and meld from the hills into Magic :Mountain Parkway. It will serve, though, to enable the creation of the Magic "fountain -Via Princesses link through Porta Bella connecting Saugus and Valencia to Canyon Country. This will be a most important and useful road that will pretty much parallel Soledad Canyon road and, barring uncontrolled development, should effectively unload that road for years to come. This bridge, as overpasses do, will tend to blight the area around it. But, since that area is already largely commercial and industrial, the additional adverse effect on the larger community in terms of architectural and aesthetical concerns will be minimal while it will be great for traffic relief and cross-town access. Its construction should.be expedited along with the Magic Mountain -Via Princessa Road sometimes known as Johnson Road. The proposed Wiley Canyon bride has had a 'long and convoluted history. It was conceptualized by county functionaries more than a decade ago who visualized it as providing a necessary second access to the Circle J development. The developer was conditioned to set aside funds to help with the cost of the bridge and later developments may have contributed to the kitty. The alternative of an extension of Via Princessa to provide a second access for Circle J did not seem feasible at the time because of cost. Presently, G-161 H C however, assuming reasonably prompt construction of the already Planned and approved Via Princessa Parkway -(Johnson Road), that' road will suffice as the second access and there will then be no statutory need. for the bridge. Since the bridge would have to cross the railroad and San Fernando Road, and then a wide stretch of river, it would be pretty long. A big problem is that there is insufficient room for a decent cloverleaf connection at the bridge and San Fernando Road, and the resulting traffic connections would be a nightmare. Another problem, a nice one, is ---who would get the funds already set aside for the bridge? The residents of Circle J formerly championed the bridge as a sort of relatively private access route to their community via Wiley Canyon Road. Now they rightly realize that it would draw substantial traffic from Via Princessa and might lead to undesirable traffic noise and congestion, especially at a strangled San Fernando Road interconnection. The Wiley bridge idea should be promptly relegated to the bin of great but out -dated ideas, particularly as opposition by local residents of Circle J and Valencia continues. The third bridge proposal is for an easterly extension of Lyons Avenue rising west of San Fernando Road and crossing it and Railroad Avenue and the railroad. If Wiley Bridge is a half-baked idea, Lyons Bridge must be fresh uprisen dough. One proposal is to have Lyons Avenue jump across the tracks and climb a steep hill to connect to Dockweiler on the south and an unbuilt strandedremnant of Rio Vista on the north. At a short distance to. the south, Dockweiler dead -ends at a tee on Sierra Highway. To the north the stub of Rio Vista, if ever built, would go nowhere, yet this arrangement is, seriously proposed. Neither of these routes constitutes a meaningful effort at traffic relief. They appear to have originated mainly in a political quid pro quo designed to give access to commercial property courtesy of .the taxpayers. Both the Rio Vista stub and the Lyons bridge and its connection plainly should be promptly removed from the circulation element of the general plan for reasons discussed above and in the folowing. To arrive at Dockweiler and Sierra via a Lyons Avenue Extension bridge and to ascend a steep hill to access the residential street 2 G-162 M ` of Dockweiler and then descend along Dockweiler to Sierra highway ID is ceertainly a grossly inferior route to the existing less hilly San Fernando road -to Sierra Highway -to Dockweiler route. C6' A somewhat indefinite alternate listed in the circulation element plan is one that would similarly connect to Lyons Avenue and travel in an undefined easterly direction through the hills and connecting to Placerita Canyon Road near its intersection with route a14. Since this is presented as an alternate to the Dockweiler connection, it should be assumed that its indicated utilization would be similar to that of Dockweiler. Indeed, it can be posited Ili that both of these connections would either carry very little traffic or carry a lot. In the former case, they clearly do not qualify for serious consideration, and in the latter, the downside of noise, congestion, and destruction of the ambience of the redevelopment of downtown Newhall would prevail as dominant effects sufficent to disqualify their further consideration. The downside would additionally be an ugly overpass several blocks long, with its attendant car and truck engine and braking noise. There would also be, pervading the area, the stench of exhaust from vehicles contending with a long six percent grade. This would become a dominant representation of downtown Newhall. Such a bridge at the east end of Lyons avenue would likely signal the death -knell of meaningful redevelopment of downtown Newhall. I It would be very difficult for such an overpass to accommodate properly the complex traffic patterns of the intersections of Lyons avenue and the San Fernando Rd -Railroad Ave couplet, and the looming structure would further assult the hoped-for ambience of downtown Newhall. It would be a real nightmare. Fortunately, the plans have not progressed much and can be promptly relegated to the bin of great but impractical ideas, and should be done so promptly. May Heaven protect redeveloping Newhall from such a zany plan! Icc: Mayor Clyde Smythe '1 II G-163 II Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 21 COMMENTOR: DATE: RESPONSE: Response 21A Robert Lathrop July 24,1997 The commentor expresses support for the Magic Mountain Parkway crossing over San Fernando Road, has doubts about the Wiley Canyon Road bridge, and opposes the Lyons Avenue Extension. These opinions are noted and will be considered by decisonmakers. Response 21B The commentor supports the Magic Mountain bridge over San Fernando Road and states an opinion that construction of this facility should be expedited; along with the Magic Mountain/ Via Princessa corridor. Portions of the Magic Mountain/ Via Princessa corridor are already in the design phase. This is likely to be one of the first Circulation Element roadway corridors to be constructed, unless concerns about soil and/or groundwater contamination on the Porta Bella property delay action on this facility. Contamination issues are discussed in Section 4.6 of the Draft EIR. Response 21C The commentor states an opinion that the Wiley Canyon Road bridge should be eliminated from the Circulation Element because it is no longer needed and because it would increase traffic noise and congestion for nearby residents. This opinion is noted. It is true that the bridge would accommodate additional traffic along Wiley Canyon Road. Projected traffic levels and associated noise impacts are discussed in Draft EIR Sections 5.8 and 5.5, respectively. The extension of Wiley Canyon Road to connect with Via Princessa is necessary to provide an alternative access route for the Circle J Ranch community and is necessary for public safety. The extension of this roadway is part of the conditions of approval for the Circle J Ranch as approved by the County of Los Angeles. Response 21D The commentor expresses opposition to the Lyons Avenue Extension, stating an opinion that this segment would have little traffic benefit while adversely affecting the redevelopment of downtown Newhall. According to the EIR traffic analysis, the Lyons Avenue Extension would carry over 20,000 daily vehicle trips under any of the alternative traffic scenarios studied. It would be expected to ease traffic on portions of San Fernando Road. The introduction of additional traffic sources could adversely affect noise levels in the Newhall area, as discussed in EIR Section 5.5, Noise. Specific impacts relating to the Lyons Avenue Extension will be G-164 City of Santa Clarita II, Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR addressed as part of the subsequent environmental review of that specific roadway at such time 1 that it is proposed. 11 II iI li 1 'I U 1 City of Santa Clarita G-165 V/20/1397 07:42 221E-EE2-3939 ELCON ELECTRONICS 22 FAX TO: City of Sama Cla ita FAX # [805] 259-8125 FROM: Penury Upton FAX # [818] 882-3939 ATTN: Laura Stotler, Associate Planner, Community Development 4 pages to follow Ms. Stotler In order to meet your July 31` deadline, I am FAXING my letter and copies of maps referred to in my letter. I have also mailed my letter and copies of maps. I will be out of town until August 1'. You can reach me after then at: [805] 251-2840. Thank You, Penury Upton G-166 PAGE 01 July 28, 1997 Laura H. Stotler, M.P.A. Associate Planner Catmnmity Development City of Santa Claris 23920 Valencia Blvd. - Suite 300 Santa Claris, CalifIImia 91355 Dear Ms. StrY3er; c_.. -a.a_TCS PAGE a2 As 1 explained during our recent phone conversaum. I am concerned with the road shown on all three of the arrmt Circulation Element Ahem=ve maps that extends from the most southern portion of Via Prmcessa, across the 14 Freeway, east through the riverbed, co=wmg wrth Sand Canyon Rd. This line of dots shown on the City maps as a Plumed road is not ide rtifled or named. This represents Inst Can}ca Rd. and should be identifed as such from this point forward an all maps displayed to the public. While looking through the Circulation Element Draft EIK I could find no mferaua to Last Canyon Rd. If I understand your explanation, toads shown on the traps that were adopted from the Canty General Plan were not included in this EIR. I feel this should be clearly explained at all the following Circulation Elenwit Public Hearings. I have been aware B>r sever:l years that Last Canyon Rd. is planned to be a Major Highway. The maps I received from Santa Chants City shows a 104 foot road with no onstnas parking [in fruR of 2 schools] 6 lanes, landscaped median and bike lanes. this Highway is to be alongside a two lane fimtage road in front of Sulphur Springs Elementary School and Pinecrest Elementary School. I have questioned several City and Cmity Pla>ming and Traffic staff and have been told the the cortphtion of this read is conditioned to future Housing develcpmatis located south of the 14 Freeway at the cad of Golden Valley Rd. and Via Princessa. These develops and a portion of the urz ewloped Lost Canyon Rd are within the Cc=y. However, the most eastern part of this proposed highway is already a developed road within the City boundaries. My harm is less than 100 feet Sun this planned Major Highway this obviously concerns me. The plans I received from the City show my quiet, rural cul-de-sac becoming what locks like an "on-ramp" to this Major Highway. Developing this Major Highway through the Santa Clara riverbed concerns me even more. Engineers have told me they believe this will be alongside the river. I have hved next to this river for 27 years, I know where the river nems. I envision this .plarmed road, through the flood zone, becorniag mother Sepulveda Basin. Obviously this Highway would forever ruin the natural environmmn. My biggest concem, and I believe this would also bring SUMS Proaat from thousands of residents, is a Major Highway within feet of Sulphur Springs Elementary School classrooms This school is over 120 years old. It is one of the oldest schools in Los Angeles County. We have just witnessed bulldozers tearing down Soledad Elerrrentary School as a result of that road developing from 2 lanes to a 6 lane Major Highway over 20 years. Since the purpose of the Circulation Element Hearings is to amend the General Plan, perhaps this is the time to remove the portim of Lot Cya Rd., withm the City, Sun the General Plan. This may not appear to have an immediate need but if Lost Cyn Rd. is c=Vleted as planned it will cornea to all the Major roads planned to bunk throughout our cormtnmi y- it will atmect commuters to dee ktaustrw cc=, the Town Center, City Hall, all the existing and planned major shopping areas, hneratate 5 and Highway 126. The result would have a devastating effect on bah Elementary Schools, the Rim esvirmmorn and a rural neighborhood. A second access to future residents may be necessary. This Major Highway is not necessary and would be unhealthy and unsafe for our y. ' Sincerely, Peery Upton Santa Clarita, CA �I G-167 11 1 1 1 1 1 ■ 1 1 i 1 } N S; I �' G-170 -C- I zz- ;1. 7 AGE .47 < V. 7 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. 7. P A IN t tAi! H f)IRtdTI0N:', - NO ONSTREETIPARKING'.':'RAISED-.`' i.LANDSCAPE`-'ME( PAIN.' -z- I; _7 :P. P—WET :- .0, di W-rwd;4A N IURMSFS -0_1(Ly.*:ACTUAL$rC NFICURATION ]dAT;.v .. .. ... - Ile_ IIWILL -BE' M C4 or ax J% !gnw -­��g­ -,.L0r, z 7 It a liz art. G-171 �1 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 22 COMMENTOR: Penny Upton DATE: July 28,1997 RESPONSE: The commentor expresses concern about the possible effects of the planned extension of Lost Canyon Road, between SR -14 and Sand Canyon Road and suggests that the City should consider removing that extension from the Circulation Element. The Lost Canyon Road extension has been on the arterial highway map contained in the Circulation Element since the adoption of the first Cit},s first Circulation Element in 1991. It was a carryover from the Los Angeles County General Plan. Because the focus of the currently proposed Circulation Element Amendment is on identifying an acceptable alternative to the Newhall Ranch Road extension east of Golden Valley Road, the Lost Canyon Road extension continues to appear on all of the alternative roadway networks analyzed in the Draft EIR. As shown in Appendix F of the Draft EIR, Lost Canyon Road could cant' up to 13,000 daily vehicle trips at buildout of the City's General Plan and other neighboring areas of Los Angeles County. However, the actual traffic levels that would occur on Lost Canyon Road would depend upon the amount of development that occurs in that portion of the City, as well as in adjacent County areas. Upgrade of the road to Major Highway.status would occur only as warranted by development of the area and associated increases in traffic_ It is true that upgrades could adversely affect nearby residences in terms of noise, as well as altering the natural environment in the area. The specific impacts of any upgrades to Lost Canyon Road would be addressed as part of a separate environmental review process for the specific upgrades proposed. This concern is noted and will be considered by decisionmakers. The maps in the EIR will be amended to label Lost Canyon Road. G-172 City of Santa Clarita I0r/sir 155e is:Z, II I 605155462a CD VIST4 SN''TA CLIK1TH RAGE 15 FROM THE DESK OF Art & G o Donnelly Jeff Lambert, Planning Manager 23 City Hall, 3rd Floor 23924 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA. 91355 REGARDING: CIRCULATION ELEMENT Dear Mr, Lamben, 1 am writing to you to urge that you place the planning and construction of east/west A traffic arteries in the City as your top priority. I believe that the Lyons extension and the Newhall Ranch Road connection to Golden Valley Road should be our highest l ' priorities. Furthermore, I support ,your proposals to augment intersections. This alone B should be very helpful in relieving congestion at major intersections but it will not resolve the east/west road crises. I 'I II II A six lane east/west corridor extending on from the terminus of Newhall Ranch at Bouquet Canyon Road and traveling on to Interstate 5 could cross the Santa Clara River at a point east of the Metrolink station off of the Bermite/Porta Bella property. If this extension connected to a the future extension of Golden Valley Road it could act as access with State Route 14. C Extension of Lyons Avenue to State Route 14 at the Placerita off ramp south of D Masters College should intersect with Dockweiler to allow those residents another way out, but have its main connection continue on to utilize the existing Placerita Canyon off ramp. This proposed Lyons Avenue extension will compliment the revitalization of downtown Newhall by providing better access to the area. The recent fire in Placerita Canyon shows the inadequacy of our east/west roadways. I E Much of our City became a temporary parking lot and that alone should prove the desperate need. Thanks for your efforts to make our City a good place to work and live. Please help us to make it a better place to be in by listening to what we need. Sincerely. Art and Glo Donnelly, 25571 Via Brava Valencia, CA 91355 I cc I City Council Planning Commission G-173 c II Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update El Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 23 COMMENTOR: Art and Glo Donnelly DATE: Undated RESPONSE: Response 23A The commentors express an opinion that the Lyons Avenue Extension and the Newhall Ranch Road connection to Golden Valley Road should be the City's highest priorities. This opinion is noted. Priorities for roadway construction will depend largely upon the types and locations of development proposed in the City, as well as on the availability of funding for specific roadway projects. Response 23B The commentor supports the concept of augmented intersections, as contained in Alternatives 4 and 5. This opinion is noted and will be considered by decisionmakers as they weigh the project alternatives. Response 23C The commentor suggests that a six -lane arterial extending from Newhall Ranch/Bouquet Canyon Road, crossing the Santa Clara River, and extending to Golden Valley Road could provide access to SR -14. This roadway is similar in concept to the continuous throughway that would be provided by the Santa Clarita Parkway/Golden Valley Road corridor under Alternative 3. Response 23D The commentor states an opinion that the Lyons Avenue Extension should intersect Dockweiler and connect to Placerita Canyon. This is one of the options being considered for the Lyons Avenue Extension. This opinion is noted. Response 23E The commentor states an opinion that the recent fire in Placerita Canyon shows the inadequacy of east/west roadways in the City. This opinion is noted. G-174 City of Santa ' SENT BY:KI.NHO'S COPIES : 7-31-97 : 4:12PN4 : Santa Clarity 805 259 8125: 1: 1 II ' Jeff Lambert, Planning Manager July 30, 1997 City Hall, 3rd Floor 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA. 91355 SUBJECT MATTER: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA CIRCULATION ELEMENT Dear Mr. Lambert, ' Everyone knows that the City wants to annex Castaic so I'm going to give you some input A from our area. When you were incorporated all the candidates for City Council were going to build the roads that the bad County hadn't built. The people in Castaic are still waiting to see what you do to build new roads, especially Highway 126. Stop planning and start building some streets. Why don't you bridge over the railroad at the east end of Lyons Avenue and run it over to $ the Placerita Canyon off ramp at the Antelope Valley Freeway. As far as roads go that wouldn't be too big a job and It would replace some of the roads you've been taking off the plans or closing. ' Try looking for some other ways to get traffic from one side of Santa Clarita over to the C other side. Be innovative, be bold but be effective. 1 ask you for the sake of the citizens you already have and those you wish to annex that you take a serious aggressive approach to new road construction. [1 II '1 Sincerely Yours, Charles and Cathy Luedgr 27552 Amethyst Way Castaic, CA 91384 c: Santa Clarita City Council Santa Clarita Planning Commissioners G-175 RECEIVED 1111 1 1 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 11 II II Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 24 COMMENTOR: DATE: RESPONSE: Response 24A Charles and Cathy Lueder July 30,1997 The commentor urges the City to stop planning roads and start building them. This opinion is noted. Response 24B The commentor suggests constructing the Lyons Avenue Extension, connecting it to the Placerita Canyon offramp. This roadway corridor is shown on all of the alternatives being considered in the Draft EIR (please see Draft EIR Section 2.0, Project Description). Response 24C The commentor suggests trying to find new ways to get traffic from one side of Santa Clarita to the other. The primary impetus for the proposed Circulation Element Amendment is to find an acceptable alternative east/west link to the 126 Expressway that is currently part of.the Circulation Element. G-176 City of 07/31!9i 16:02 F.4-1 &05 255 6065 BURROW ESCROW Michelle and Paul Pappas 20853 Plum Canyon Road Saugus, CA 91350 zs Jeff Lambert, Planning Manager July 30, 1997 City Hall, 3rd Floor 23920 Valencia Blvd. R E C E I V E D Santa Clarita, CA. 91355 All. -4 1 1997 SUBJECT: CITY CIRCULATION ELEMENT PUBLIC INPUT `ciy. NIT OF a°TpOLAVE Dear Mr. I ambcrt, I want to explain why I can't pick from the alternatives you are givin. us to choose from. AI'm certain that Calf. EPA will not be giving Porta Bella any clearances for a long time so most of yuur roads can't be built safely or soon. Your roadways need to be moved off Porta Bella property. In the mean time, you shouldbuild the streets that are noL in that project or better yet move some others off the Bermitc site. BWhy don't you extend Lyons Avenue over to the Placerita Canyon off ramp at the Antelope Valley Freeway (14) It would at least replace the one that was closed a few years ago. Try looking for a better way to get Newhall Ranch Road over to the 14 freeway too. Maybe you could build something nice like they have over in Valencia. I know you can't plan C outside (lie city but you might try working with the County to build a road up north over to Sierra Highway. I ask you for the sake of the cnmmunity to do some serious rethinking of your plan and.come back with real proposals. Thanks for the opportunity to make these suggestions. Respectfully yours, Michelle and Paul Pappas cc: City Council and Planning Commission G-177 ry „ DATE: RESPONSE: Response 25A July 30,1997 The commentors do not support any of the alternatives because roads on the Porta Bella property will not be able to be built any time soon. They suggest moving some roads or building roads outside that property. It is true that contamination issues on the Porta Bella ' property may delay construction of roads that cross the property. Contamination issues are discussed in Draft EIR Section 5.6. However, portions of the Magic Mountain Parkway/Via Princessa corridor are currently being designed. Priorities for construction of roads will ' depend largely upon needs created by proposed new development and the availability of funding for specific roadway projects. II Response 25B The commentors suggest extending the. Lyons Avenue Extension to Placerita Canyon. This is one of the options being considered for the Lyons Avenue Extension. Response 25C The commentors suggest that the City try working with the County to build a road up north over the Sierra Highway. The commentor may be referring to the "Northern By -Pass" alternative connecting I-5 and SR -14 that has been considered by the City and is currently being studied by the County of Los Angeles. The City previously determined that such a road would not meet the City's traffic needs. That alternative is discussed in Section 7.0 of the Draft EIR. G-178 of Santa Ganta Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 25 COMMENTORS: Michelle and Paul Pappas DATE: RESPONSE: Response 25A July 30,1997 The commentors do not support any of the alternatives because roads on the Porta Bella property will not be able to be built any time soon. They suggest moving some roads or building roads outside that property. It is true that contamination issues on the Porta Bella ' property may delay construction of roads that cross the property. Contamination issues are discussed in Draft EIR Section 5.6. However, portions of the Magic Mountain Parkway/Via Princessa corridor are currently being designed. Priorities for construction of roads will ' depend largely upon needs created by proposed new development and the availability of funding for specific roadway projects. II Response 25B The commentors suggest extending the. Lyons Avenue Extension to Placerita Canyon. This is one of the options being considered for the Lyons Avenue Extension. Response 25C The commentors suggest that the City try working with the County to build a road up north over the Sierra Highway. The commentor may be referring to the "Northern By -Pass" alternative connecting I-5 and SR -14 that has been considered by the City and is currently being studied by the County of Los Angeles. The City previously determined that such a road would not meet the City's traffic needs. That alternative is discussed in Section 7.0 of the Draft EIR. G-178 of Santa Ganta ' 07/31!1997 15:38 IJuly 28, 1997 6952554620 Jeff Lambert, Planning Manager Citc Hall, 3rd Floor 2392o Valercia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA-. 91355 CB 'J.STS SNTA CLRITI 26 PAG_ 14 ' Dear Mr. Lambert, 1 want to comment on the Cities proposal to revise the circulation element for the Santa Clarita Valley. 1 Why don't we just extend Lyons Avenue over to the Placenta Canyon off ramp at the Antelope ValleyFreeway (Route 14) and Newhall Ranch Road over to Golden Valley Road so that it can take you back to Antelope Valley Freeway too. Are these solutions too obvious or what? ' Peoples live are involved here, especially during emergencies. I hope this doesn't fall on deaf ears, because it makes sense and we don't have time to play road games.anymore. Lncerely, 4-"- Duffy Donnell,' cc: City Council and Planning Commission G-179 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 26 COMMENTOR: Duffy Donnelly DATE: July 28,1997 RESPONSE: The commentor suggests extending Lyons Avenue to the Placerita Canyon offramp. This is one of the options that is being considered for the Lyons Avenue Extension under all of the project alternatives. City of Santa Clarita G-180 07,33,1997 :..lr P'n:n • . +.�.._+._.�. -59212 P. 01 z7 July 29, 1997 Mr. Jun' Lamb:r, Manager of the Planning Commission City Hall 23920 Valencia Bl.•d., 3rd Floor Santa Clarita. CA 91355 Dcar Mr. Lan7l IlPC We really need the Lytrss Extension to get apprcm'd as las po551b1C. his [M:mst nta:asary and k)Ilicai snlutian Considering how many consequential probIzms aitliated with consirwaing a ntaicstic bridge. connecting Wiley Canyon across the river bled and San Fernando Rd. To Circle J is absurd. Thcse Ilam been Iong-time established (as well a� peaceful) neighborhoods end du not nerd a m4jor intrusion of traf£c thorovgbfW.c' Please 0= 10 t!n the most logical solution by cort;tructislg Clic necessary br idge looted at the the newly aligned Lyons AYrnue extension coapting Railroad va., etc.; construct the'; intersection at Dockwiler, cold finally wtutecl to the PlaceritC:anyon olrramp on the 14 Fr" -way. As you krinw, reshlul is and in actualay, framework d sam not disturb the eace i orany il;sc3tablishcd 11cUborkiods. Mr. Lambert, you too, would not waut to accept any other proposal ,f yen, yourreif, were well ectahlished in arty of those neighborhoods. Do the only right tf i tg by making the LYMs extension a reality! Respectfuljy yours, J Beverley Wcxrcr / 25317 Via Arline Valencia. CA 4135; (805)259-8277 CC: City Council G-181 I IIIYI ✓.Ml Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 27 COMMENTOR: Beverly Wexler DATE: July 29, 1997 RESPONSE: The commentor suggests extending Lyons Avenue to the Placenta Canyon offramp,but opposes the construction of the Wiley Canyon Road Bridge. The suggested alignment for the Lyons Avenue Extension is one of the options that is being considered under all of the project alternatives. The Wiley Canyon Bridge is part of all seven alternatives as well. The commentor s opinions are noted and will be considered by decisionmakers. City of Santa Clarita G-182 II 1 07 /31/3447 19:33 Fn OR City Hall Planning Commission 23920 Valencia Blvd., 3rd fir. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 I' Dear Mr. Lambert, Planning Commission and City Council: P. el July 30, 1997 A As a resident of Wiley Canyon Road, it is ludicrous to even think you would ever consider erecting a large, monstrous bridge across the river bed con- necting Circle J with Wiley. Can you imagine what a disturbance this would ' cause these amiable, long time neighborhoods? You already have the solu- tion of choice, the Lyons Extensionl BThe extension of Lyons Ave. to the 14 Antolope Valley Frwy., without going , into all the detail of which you are aware, is the right thing to implement. This is exactly why we became a city! This is why we voted for our City Councill To have control to do the right thing. for our communities. We earned it, we have it, so now, let us do the right ting which leads to my main point: "It is imperative you do the right thing!" Yours Truly, (fJean9M4aho 23500 Wiley Canyon Road Apt. 211 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 805-253-0915 G-183 DATE: RESPONSE: Response 28A July 30, 1997 ' The commentor opposes construction of the Wiley Canyon Road bridge. This bridge has been part of the City's Circulation Element since the adoption of the original Element in 1991. Because the primary impetus for the currently proposed amendment is the identification of an acceptable alternative to the 126 Expressway, the Wiley Canyon Road bridge remains in all of the project alternatives. Nevertheless, this opinion is noted. Response 28B The commentor expresses support for the Lyons Avenue Extension. This opinion is noted. City G•184 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 28 COMMENTOR: Jean Mahony DATE: RESPONSE: Response 28A July 30, 1997 ' The commentor opposes construction of the Wiley Canyon Road bridge. This bridge has been part of the City's Circulation Element since the adoption of the original Element in 1991. Because the primary impetus for the currently proposed amendment is the identification of an acceptable alternative to the 126 Expressway, the Wiley Canyon Road bridge remains in all of the project alternatives. Nevertheless, this opinion is noted. Response 28B The commentor expresses support for the Lyons Avenue Extension. This opinion is noted. City G•184 Z9 Jeff Lambert, Planning Manager City Hall, 3rd Floor 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA. 91355 July 29, 1997 CITY PROPOSAL TO REVISE THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT Dear Mr. Lambert, 1 want to comment on the definite lack ofeast!w•est arterials in the Santa Clarita Valley. I especially want to emphasize the importance of two road corridors that seem like they could be built relatively soon.. AMy first suggestion would be an extension of Lyons Avenue traveling over to the Placenta Canyon off ramp at the 14 freeway. It's about time that we replace the connector road that was eliminated by the closing of Placenta Canyon Road. The City's adoption of the Newhall Redevelopment Plan should make this roadway an even higher priority. Placenta Canyon off ramp is now under utilized and tax payers should not be asked to construct other on/off ramps when this one already exists. BSecondly, an easthvest extension of Newhall Ranch Road from Interstate 5 to State Route 14 would help out in the north part of the City. This could be designed like our roads in Valencia as an impressive green tree lined corridor. Starting from the current termination of Newhall Ranch near Bouquet Canyon it could cross the Santa Clara River east of the Porta Bella propeny and connect as an extension of Golden Valley Road. CUse of the Porta Bella property for a traffic corridor isn't going to happen for a long time. I'm certain that they will not be getting any clearance of that property from EPA any time soon. Continued consideration of this route for east!, -vest traffic relief will only further risk our entire circulation system. I therefore respectfully request that these concerns be given very serious consideration. Sincerely yours, i'� !/1 i./%r .:�',(�/7'. /fir/-;/'� '✓ (0 Violet Gyongyos 25475 Langston Valencia, CA 91355 cc: City of Santa Clarita City Council City of Santa Clarita Planting Commission G-185 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 29 COMMENTOR: Violet Cyongyos DATE: July 29,1997 RESPONSE: Response 29A The commentor expresses support for extending Lyons Avenue to the Placerita Canyon offramp. This is one of the options that is being considered for the Lyons Avenue Extension under all of the project alternatives. The Lyons Avenue Extension is included in all seven project alternatives. Response 29B The commentor suggests that an east/west arterial extending from Newhall Ranch/Bouquet Canyon Road, crossing the Santa Clara River, and extending to Golden Valley Road be constructed. This roadway is similar in concept to the continuous throughway that would be provided by the Santa Clarita Parkway/Golden Valley Road corridor under Alternative 3. Reponse 29C The commentor states that use of the Porta Bella property for a traffic corridor will not happen ' for a Iong time because of contamination problems on the property. The Iength of the delay in construction that would occur due to soil and groundwater contamination on the Porta Bella property is not currently known. However, it is true that any construction on-site could be delayed by health and safety concerns. Contamination issues are addressed in Section 5.6 of the Draft EIR. 7 City of Santa Clarita G-186 30 Jeff Lambert, Planning Manager City Nall, 3rd Floor 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita. CA. 91355 TOPIC: SANTA CLARITA CIRCULATION ELEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Dear Mr. Lambert, AI was raised here in the Santa Clarita Valley. I remember when we became a City that the first thing we were going to get from Cityhood were new roads. East/west traffic arteries in the City were the top priority. We keep hearing how Porta Bella is going to bail us out. It hasn't happened and probably won't for a long time. I think it's time for us to do something now. B Lyons extension and the Newhall Ranch Road connection to Golden Valley Road should become our highest priorities. I think that your proposals to augment intersections may help but they are not new roads. Two additional east/west roads at these locations can be.done now. C IWhen something unusual happens in town everything comes to a halt, like the recent fire in Placerita. I can't make you listen, but you should. It isn't too late to try something different. 1 LJJl 1 Y4O pjava Valencia, CA 91355 cc: City Council And Planning Commission G-187 II Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 30 COMMENTOR: DATE: RESPONSE: Response 30A Sean Donnelly July 30,1997 The commentor states that it is time to do something about traffic problems in the City. This comment is noted. The purpose for the proposed Circulation Element Amendment is to attempt to develop a circulation system that will better meet the City's needs. Response 30B The commentor states an opinion that the Lyons Avenue Extension and the Newhall Ranch Road connection to Golden Valley Road should become the City's highest priorities. This opinion is noted. Response 30C The commentor notes that when unusual events such as the fire in Placerita Canyon occur, traffic comes to a halt in the City. One of the purposes of developing a better circulation' system infrastructure is to provide more transportation options in the event of an occurrence that affects one or more roads. G-188 City of Santa Clarita July 31, 1997 1 c�`��v Mr. Glenn Adamick Rs Associate Planner CommunityDevelCity of Santa Claroapment o 'po-O e sa �P, ` �5 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarta, California 91355.2195 Re: General Plan Amendment, Rio Vista South of Via Princessa Dear Mr. Adamick: Please remove Rio Vista south of Via Princessa from your General Plan Circulation Element: • The number of trips to be carried by Rio Vista does notjustify its classification as a major or secondary highway. • Construction of Rio Vista would violate the city's Ridgeline Preservation ordinance by destroying a significant portion of a protected ridge line. • Construction of Rio Vista would disturb Placenta Creek with construction of a major bridge. As a resident, I appreciate your concern for providing an appropriate system of highways for the C; ty. However, proposed Rio Vista no longer warrants highway status and should be removed from the General Plan. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. I 1 I 1 G-189 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 31 COMMENTOR: No Name DATE: July 31,1997 RESPONSE: The commentor requests that the Rio Vista south of Via Princessa be removed from the Circulation Element because it would carry few vehicles and would violate the City's Ridgeline Ordinance and disturb Placerita Creek. Rio Vista is projected to carry 5,000 to 6,000 daily vehicle trips, depending upon which alternative is selected (see Draft EIR Appendix F). As illustrated on Draft EIR Figure 5.10-1, Rio Vista would not affect any City protected ridgeline. Construction activity could affect the creek. Section 5.4 of the Draft EIR addresses the general biological impacts associated with river and creek crossings and identifies such impacts as unavoidably significant under any alternative. Specific impacts associated with Rio Vista will be addressed in a separate environmental review document for that specific road link at such time that it is proposed. City of Santa Ciarits G-190 July 30/ /997 g 32- RECE,yEp AUG 0 `-v L� �+1� l n" C COMMUHIh 1 1997 OE ELOPMENT l A PIan &t n Ca r /(/�SA�TA CLANI7A k lti�� ,lie u�ders`�hea', are ht z 91� vjh y rur J st �Lcf�id e!�el y tc t a /^cz5. are h�mev�;e �-s d,4d i �5lGI�P�7 s C'lC,%�h_UrG�vpG, u,'!� fila ce .) C 1 //L -)Ci -)L �L- `ay our 4tXe6 ilae 67Z«. / 614''fy, /! - Lc J Cc✓�d Su �� sedl ��a� 5 -file c .LGA17 /�z — e4Aer- ;s�6ie Fo Our 1�e 1,,2510 1f����G �Yiocr`7�tm e.5 if are �Lh � `� herz. Glee �Q �k��ernat�ve i e '� 4I 1111a Pah rc6L 07 62111 yr 1-e ilk 6'1 � 0 5 �-jyY���v1�✓1 f �� �s�r�vrJl% - irJe ru7,c,<o ' as 0u.%sz -Ilya 1�� PGf �rylC fi ve ply(&/7 � G-191 1)�'���Xtf I �Z-° VO4-2 ft,rJo 1 de?l Va Pel 20ad gg� d the, i'I ellv'll)czi ll 3. Scc�p�.r �rD`'Z2�ss�b/e 1 M� 10i'C7/N ��-i V�e /S�941�( tv<ri �itii ��� ii2G,g32 1�fad i . h CC. r�Y�� /e Al f� G{ B d K % 61i y6g3 z %iJa��a.. CL' z S%- 6891 6oSZS'���33- -t�_ uu.�dcs"u S--ynr�C�obtv�sor� l2'to3 1u���< CC 2.Sl�iS33 NAliLi /--AN15¢ / d"Z�S 1-?/i�LL �•�L' oFsa�� ��: Co��EEi✓v�`- 197D8 (.��c ,�.�C.�SD-8575 /'VORh,anl /7 PS� � ��✓.c�'�.vw� �=��-f� G{'h✓�S 1�.� j-r,�� l�'� 18 Tc�.sr� Dr. �L sc: y�i.� icehJ'87- A"ctrre ,Cave 70 � . ` ,1 I �, � �—�-�-�,�y HZ.�� l �1 '1 � �j 1 �✓i �� . ���� �l lCl i0 �J; a s 9T i�r 1 751 `(-757 ZfCt ?_5G—�f j / G-192 II II r /i, :�c. �'-�c�: (�.� ,' • f',Ctil � � r f �i aS'� T �lr' .J�/ 1:1,5 v 'IV <, 97-7.a. itll':e Cir � j�\-r-�� - T �`�L3'�'��%.G t�✓i,�-�--fir-�?�/�c` s-. r, •l�,(? %� -( /' i �%.� �� , �i��} �^' rK��J% l �-� Li_i l fir^ / �^� r/ `�- i : �Y �" �ili� pHtl /7�,: i%l.tiilJ.,•,:�i'�����•il�::/ 771..Q.YWi•e.�Ez��iJS /� � �/-`��;'•�; CJ r...y: .moi ::.i.i . �•� f ..•_ / si D e � ,:: r ia�-t 4>,='1':; ei � i,-` �... ✓'. ._ y(7�`'ip; � x-57 5 ?�� ��•i`% 5 -f ztt, �'r a`���' -3`� L Ll ' �,.�4 ) y c, 1 t �,`, �TT �R�� Vs7` '/��v f Ter II I [1 II G-193 INC •l�,(? %� -( /' i �%.� �� , �i��} �^' rK��J% l �-� Li_i l fir^ / �^� r/ `�- i : �Y �" �ili� pHtl /7�,: i%l.tiilJ.,•,:�i'�����•il�::/ 771..Q.YWi•e.�Ez��iJS /� � �/-`��;'•�; CJ r...y: .moi ::.i.i . �•� f ..•_ / si D e � ,:: r ia�-t 4>,='1':; ei � i,-` �... ✓'. ._ y(7�`'ip; � x-57 5 ?�� ��•i`% 5 -f ztt, �'r a`���' -3`� L Ll ' �,.�4 ) y c, 1 t �,`, �TT �R�� Vs7` '/��v f Ter II I [1 II G-193 II Santa Clanta Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 32 COMMENTOR: Signed by an estimated 37 citizens DATE: July 30,1997 RESPONSE: The commentors are opposed to the Newhall Ranch Road extension east of Golden Valley Road that would occur under Alternative 1. The commentors support the Golden Valley Road Network alternative with augmented intersections (Alternative 5) and also find the Newhall Ranch Road Reduction alternative acceptable. These opinions are noted. It should be recognized, as discussed in the Draft EIR, that one of the primary purposes of the proposed Circulation Element Amendment is to identify an acceptable alternative to the Newhall Ranch Road extension. G-194 clarita JUL-15-97 02:25 PM INDUSTRIAL ARTISTS INC 33 JEFF LAMBERT, PLANNI\G IN NAGER CITY HALL, 3R= FLOOR 23920 VALENCIA BLVD. SANTA CLARITA, CA. 91355 SUBJECT: CIRCULATION ELENl iE'`T Dear Mr. Lamlcrt, 8052227906 As residents and business persons in the Santa Clarita Valley, we are strongly zn favor of the in4wvement and adoption of a smooth functioning circulation systern that will safely move people and goods throughout the Sarna Clarita Valley. While we are very interested at the addition of many new arterials and the extension of existing roadways: we are especially supportive of the following two and ask that they be built as soon as Possible: A1) A six lane East West corridor which we envision as the Newhall Ranch Road from the terminus at Taterstate 5 to Bouquet Canyon Road, it will cross the Santa Clara River and enter the land area at a point east ofth-- Ml etrolink station safely off of the BcmuteTorta Bella property, This road would be the future extension of Golden Valley Road and exit at State Route 14. This proposal would be a combination of the Alternatives 2 and 3. Furthermore, we support the augmented intersections Which will be vers helpful in relieving congestion at major intersections. pp 2) Extension of Lyons Avenue to State Route 1.3 at the Placerita off rwnp. This road would be 1] southerly of Masters College connect with a T intersection to Dockweiler (allowing residents an easy way out), but the amain connection -would be the under utilized Placerifa Canyon off ramp. The design of this road would not jeopardize the private road for P':acerita Canyon residents, but -would allow some heightened east/west traffic movement, and a better approach to Masters College. Becaysc of the gravity of contamination at the Be,rrdte/Potta Bella property; wve ask that Clanguage be included in the Circulation Element stating that "no development whatsoever will take place oil the aforementioned land until full clears up and approvals for all the 1,000 acres have been granted by EPA" City Councils may come mid go, and the resolve by a new Council may w'at'er or change. The citizens of Santa Clarita Valley deserve the utmost protection. Sixty Pius years of munitions production and the disposal of ordnatrce byproducts over this extensive land Brea is too critical a concern to take smy chances with development. We respectfully request that these roads he given your most serious consideration Sincerely, JeffeyBentz 23665 Via Corsa, Valencia, Ca. 91355 cc. City of Santa Clarita Phi.nning Commission City of Santa Clarita City Council . G-195 P.01 I07/31/139+ 15:0 c052554520 VISTA SNT. CLRITA PAGE 02 JEFF LAMBERT, PLANNING MANAGER CITY HALL, 3"n FLOOR 23920 VALENCIA BLVD. i' SANTA CLARITA, CA. 91355 SUBJECT: CIRCULATION ELEMENT Dear Mr. Lambert, ' As residents and business persons in the Santa CIarita Valley, we are strongly in favor of the improvement and adoption of a smooth functioning circulation system that will safely move ' people and goods throughout the Santa Clarita Valley. While we are very interested in the addition of many new arterials and the extension of existing roadways, we are especially supportive of the following two and ask that they be built as soon as possible: ' 1) A six lane East West corridor which we envision as the Newhall Ranch Road from the terminus at Interstate 5 to Bouquet Canyon Road, it will cross the Santa Clara River and enter the land area at a point east of the Metrolink station safely off of the Bermite/Porta Bella property, This road would be the future extension of Golden Valley Road and exit at State Route 14. This proposal would be a combination of the Alternatives 2 and 3. Furthermore, we support the augmented intersections which will be very helpful in relieving congestion at major intersections. 9 2) Extension of Lyons Avenue to State Route 14 at the Placerita off ramp, This road would be southerly of Masters College connect with a T intersection to Dockweiler (allowing residents an easy way out), but the main connection would be the under utilized Placerita Canyon off ramp: The design of this road would not jeopardize the private road for Placerita Canyon residents, but would allow some heightened east/west traffic movement, and a better approach to Masters College. ' This proposed Lyons Ave. extension will compliment the revitalization of downtown Newhall by providing better visibility and access to the area and the new Metrolink Station. Because of the gravity of contamination at the Bermite/Porta Bella property, we ask that language be included in the Circulation Element stating that "no development whatsoever will take place on the aforementioned land until full clean up and approvals for all the 1,000 acres have been granted by EPA." City Councils may come and go, and the resolve by a new Council may waver or change.. The citizens of Santa CIarita Valley deserve the utmost protection.. Sixty plus years of munitions production and the disposal of ordnance byproducts over this extensive land area is too critical a concern to. take any. chances with development. We respectfully request that these roads be given your most serious consideration. Sincerely, cc. City of Santa Clarita City Council and the Planning Co ission Z &�s3D M sc >J l?me u l ­,a -1 c196JvtCrfL/c_/A, �- 4 5r3SS 1 07/31/1557 153E E052554525 C3 VISTA SNTA CLRiTA PAGE 03 I JEFF LAMBERT, PLANT NIIv'G MANAGER CITY HALL, 3` FLOOR 23920 VALENCIA BLVD. SANTA CLARITA, CA. 91355 SUBJECT: CIRCULATION ELEMENT Dear Mr. Lambert, As residents and business persons in the Santa Clarita Valley, we are strongly in favor of the improvement and adoption of a smooth functionirg circulation system that will safely move people and goods throughout the Santa Clarita Valley. While we are very imcrested in the addition of many new arterials and the extension of existing roadways, we are especially supporive of the fol!owing two and ask that they be built as soon as possible: 1) A six lane East West corridor which we envision as the Newhall Ranch Road from the terminus at Interstate 5 to Bouquet Canyon Road, it will cross the Santa Clara River and enter the land area at a point east of the Lletrolink station safely off of the Bermite/Porta Bella property. This road would be the future extension of Golden Valley Road and exit at State Route 14. This proposal would be a combination of the Alternatives 2 and 3. Furthermore, we support the augmented intersections which will be very helpful in relieving congestion at major intersections. 2) Extension of Lyons Avenue to State Route 14 at the Nacerita off ramp. This road would be southerly of Masters College con-iect .with a T intersection to Dockweiler (allowing residents an easy way out), but the main connection would be the under utilized Placenta Canyon off ramp. The design of this road would not jeopardize the private road for Placenta Canyon residents, but would allow some heightened cast/west traffic movement, and a better approach to Masters College. This proposed Lyons Ave. extension will compliment the revitalization of downtown Newhall by providing better visibility and access to the area and the new Metrolink Station. Because of the gravity of contamination at the Bermite/Porta Bella property, we ask that language be included in the Circulation Element stating that "no development whatsoever will take place on the aforementioned land until full clean up and approvals for all the 1,000 acres have been granted by EPA." City Councils may come and go, and the resolve by a new Council may waver or change. The citizens of Santa Clarita Valley deserve the utmost protection. Sixty plus years of munitions production and the disposal of ordnance byproducts over this extensive land area is too critical a concern to take any chances with development. We respectfully request that these roads be given your most serious consideration. Sincerely, cc. City of Santa Clarita City Council and the Planning Commission z>r33o,Vr-etfah PLL 4NY l�AiC�r.c�.<-/ L-rr G-197 @7j 11/i.77 15: i I C5 ,y-Tn JNT,; 0-R1TA JEFF LAMBERT, PLANNING MANAGER CITY HALL, 3A1' FLOOR t 23920 VALENCIA BLVD. SA, ITA CLARITA, CA. 91355 SUBJECT: CIRCULATION ELEMENT Dear Mr. Lambert. As residents and business persons in the Santa Clarita Valley, we are strongly in favor of the improvement and adoption of a smooth functioning circulation system that will safely move people and goods throughout the Santa Clarita Valley. While we are very interested in the addition of many new arterials and the extension of existing roadways. we are especially supportive of the following two and ask that they be built as soon as ' possible: 1) A six lane East West corridor which we envision as the �ewhall Ranch Road from the ' ' terminus at Interstate 5 to Bouquet Canyon Road, it will cross the Santa Clara River and enter the land area at a point east of the L.Setrolink s'zation safely off of the Bermite/Porta Bella property. This road would be the nature extension of Golden Valley Road and exit at ' State Route 14. This proposal would be a combination of the Altemativcs 2 and 3. Furthermore, we support the augmented intersections which will be very helpful in relieving congestion at major intersections. 2) Extension of Lyons Avenue to State Route 14 at the Placerita off ramp. This road would be southerly of i`4asters College connect with a T intersection. to Dockw•eiler (allowing residents an easy way out), but the main connection would be the under utilized Placerita Canyon off ramp. The design of this road would not jeopardize the private road for Placerita Canyon residents, but would allow some heightened east/west traffic movement, and a better ' approach to Masters College. This proposed Lyons Ave. extension will compliment the revitalization of downtown Newhall by providingbetter visibility and access to the area and the new Metrolink Station. II 11 Because of the gravity of contamination at the Bennite/Porta Bella property, we ask that language be included in the Circulation Element stating that "no development whatsoever will take place on the aforementioned land until full clean up and approvals for all the 1,000 acres have been granted by EPA." City Councils may come and go, and the resolve by a new Council may waver or change. The citizens of Santa Clarita Valley deserve the utmost protection. Sixty plus years of munitions production and the disposal of ordnance byproducts over this extensive land area is too critical a concern to take any chances with development. We respectfully request that these roads given en mconsideration. Sint] y cc. City of Santa Clarita City Council and the Planning 60mmissiontl- 07/31/1997 15:36 6052554620 CB 'V737SNTA CiR1TA PAGE C5 ' JEFF LAMBERT, PLANNING MANAGER CITY HAIL, 3m FLOOR 23920 VALENCIA BLVD. SANTA CLARITA, CA. 91355 SUBJECT: CIRCULATION ELEMENT Dear Mr. Lambert, I' As residents and business persons in the Santa Clarita Valley, we are strongly in favor of the 1 improvement and adoption of a smooth functioning circulation system that will safely move people and goods throughout the Santa Clarita Valley. While we are veru interested in the addition of many new arterials and the extension of existing roadways, we are especially supportive of the following two and ask that they be built as soon as possible.- 1) ossible: 1) A six lane East West corridor which we envision as the Newhall Ranch Road from the terminus at Interstate 5 to Bouquet Canyon Road, it will cross the Santa Clara River and enter the land arca at a point east of the Metrolink station safely off of the Bermite!Pona Bella property. This road would be the future extension of Golden Valley Road and exit at State Route 11. This proposal would be a combination of the Alternatives 2 and 3. Furthermore, we support the augmented intersections which will be very helpful in relieving congestion at major intersections. 2) Extension of Lyons Avenue to State Route 14 at the Placenta off ramp. This road would be southerly of Masters College connect with a T intersection to Dockweiler (allowing residents an easy way out). but the main connection would be the under utilized Placenta Canyon off ramp. The design of this road would not jeopardize the private road for Placerita Canyon residents, but would allow some heightened cast/west traffic movement, and a better approach to Masters College. This proposed Lyons Ave. extension will compliment the revitalization of downtown Newhall by providing better visibility and access to the area and the new Metrolink Station. Because of the gravity of contamination at the Bermite/Pona Bella property, we ask that language be included in the Circulation Element stating that "no development whatsoever will take place on the aforementioned land until full clean up and approvals for all the 1,000 acres have been granted by EPA." City Councils may come and go, and the resolve by a new Council may waver or change. The citizens of Santa Clarita Valley deserve the utmost protection. Sixty plus years of munitions production and the disposal of ordnance byproducts over this extensive land area is too critical a concern to take any chances with development. We respectfully request that these roads be given your most serious consideration. S' ce ely, cc. City of Santa Clarita City Council ndd Planning Commission A L'aa P�Rl 9/,SSS G-199 07/31/1997 i6: 3E 66052554620 JEFF LAMBERT, PLANNING MANAGER CITY HAIL, 3RD FLOOR 23920 VALENCIA BLVD. SANTA CLARITA, CA. 91355 Dear Mr. Lambert, CB VISTA SNTA CLRITA SUBJECT: CIRCULATION ELEMENT PAGE 06 As residents and business persons in the Santa Clarita Valley, we are strongly in favor of the improvement and adoption of a smooth functioning circulation system that will safely move people and goods throughout the Santa Clarita Valley. I' While we are very interested in the addition of many new arterials and the extension of existing roadways, we are especially supportive of the following two and ask that they be built as soon as possible: 1) A six lane East West corridor which we envision as the Newhall Ranch Road from the terminus at Interstate 5 to Bouquet Canyon Road, it will cross the Santa Clara River and enter the land area at a point east of the Metrolink station safely off of the Bermite/Porta Bella property. This road would be the future extension of Golden Valley Road and exit at State Route 14. This proposal would be a combination of the Alternatives 2 and 3. Furthermore, we support the augmented intersections which will be very helpful in relieving congestion at major intersections. 2) Extension of Lyons Avenue to State Route 14 at the Placenta .off ramp. This road would be southerly of Masters College connect with a T intersection to Dockweiler (allowing residents an easy way out), but the main connection would be the under utilized Placenta Canyon off ramp. The design of this road would not jeopardize the private road for Placerita Canyon residents, but would allow some heightened east/west traffic movement, and a better approach to Masters College. This proposed Lyons Ave. extension will compliment the revitalization of downtown Newhall by providing better visibility and access to the area and the new Metrolink Station. Because of the gravity of contamination at the Bermitei?orta Bella property, we ask that language be included in the Circulation Element stating that "no development whatsoever will take place on the aforementioned land until full clean up and approvals for all the 1,000 acres have been granted by EPA." City Councils may come and go, and the resolve by a new Council may waver or change. The citizens of Santa Clarita Valley deserve the utmost protection. Sixty plus years of munitions production and the disposal of ordnance byproducts over this extensive land area is too critical a concern to take any chances with development. We respectfully request that these roads be given your most serious consideration. Sincerely, cc. City of Santa Clarita City Council and the Planning Commission I 6@52554520 CE VISTA SNTA CLRITA PAGE 07 JEFF LAMBERT, PLANNING MANAGER CITY HALL, 3`0 FLOOR 23920 VALENCIA BLVD. SANTA CLARITA, CA. 91355 SUBJECT: CIRCULATION ELEMENT Dear Mr. Lambert, As residents and business persons in the Santa Clarita Valley, we are strongly in favor of the improvement and adoption of a smooth functioning circulation system that will safely move people and goods throughout the Santa Clarita Valley. ' While we are very interested in the addition of many new arterials and the extension of existing roadways, we are especially supportive of the following two and ask that they be built as soon as possible: 1) A six lane East West corridor which we envision as the Newhall Ranch Road from the terminus at Interstate 5 to Bouquet Canyon Road, it will cross the Santa Clara River and enter the land area at a point east of the Nletrolink station safely off of the Bermite/Porta Bella property. This road would be the future extension of Golden Valley Road and exit at State Route 14. This proposal would be a combination of the Alternatives 2 and 3. Furthermore, we support the augmented intersections which will be very helpful in relieving congestion at major intersections. 2) Extension of Lyons Avenue to State Route 14 at the Placenta off ramp. This road would be southerly of Masters College connect with a T intersection to Dockw•eiler (allowing residents'an easy way out), but the main connection would be the under utilized Placerita Canyon off ramp. The design of this road would not jeopardize the private road for Placerita Canyon residents, but would allow some heightened cast/west traffic movement; and a better approach to Masters College. This proposed Lyons Ave. extension will compliment the revitalization of downtown Newhall by providing better visibility and access to the area and the new Metrolink Station. Because of the gravity of contamination at the Bermite!Porta Bella property, we ask that language be included in the Circulation Element stating that "no development whatsoever will take place on the aforementioned land until full clean up and approvals for all the 1,000 acres have been granted by EPA." City Councils may come and go, and the resolve by a new Council may waver or change. The citizens of Santa Clarita Valley deserve the utmost protection. Sixty plus years of munitions production and the disposal of ordnance byproducts over this extensive land area is too critical a concern to take any chances with development. We respectfully request that these roads be given your most serious consideration. j Si�ncerelt�ry Y,.., d cc. City of Santa Clarita City C cil and e 1 ng Commission / `+ G-201 II JEFF LAMBERT, PLANNING MANAGER CITY HALL, 3''3 FLOOR 23920 VALENCIA BLVD - CD VISTI: SNT;: CLRIIa SANTA CLARITA, CA. 91355 SUBJECT: CIRCULATION ELEMENT Dear Mr. Lambert, .As residents and business persons in the Santa Clarity Valley, we are strongly in favor of the improvement and adoption of a smooth functioning circulation system that will safely move people and goods throughout the Santa Clarita Valley. P:ac_ a8 While we are very interested in the addition of many nein arterials and the extension of existing roadways, we are especially supportive of the following two and ask that theybe built as soon as possible: 1) A six lane East West corridor which we envision as the Newhall Ranch Road from the terminus at Interstate 5 to Bouquet Canyon Road, it will cross the Santa Clara River and enter the land area at a point east of the vletrolink- station safely off of the Bermite,'Porta Bella property. This road would be the future extension of Golden Valley Road and exit at State Route 14. This proposal would be a combination of the Alternatives 2 and 3. Furthermore, we support the augmented intersections which will be very helpful in relieving congestion at major intersections. 2) Extension of Lyons Avenue to State Route 14 at the Placerita off ramp. This road would be southerly of Masters College connect.with a T intersection to Dockweiler (allowing residents an easy way out), but the main connection would be the under utilized Placerita Canyon off ramp. The design of this road would not jeopardize the private road for Placerita Canyon residents, but would allow some heightened east1west traffic movement, and abetter approach to Masters College. This proposed Lyons Ave. extension will compliment the revitalization of downtown Newhall by providing better visibility and access to the area and the new Metrolink Station. Because of the gravity of contamination at the Bermite/Porta Bella property, we ask that language be included in the Circulation Element stating that "no development whatsoever will take place on the aforementioned land until full clean up and approvals for all the 1,000 acres have been granted by EPA." City Councils may come and go, and the resolve by a new Council may waver or change. The citizens of Santa Clarita Valley deserve the utmost protection. Sixty plus years of munitions production and the disposal of ordnance byproducts over this extensive land area is too critical a concern to take any chances with development. We respectfully request that these roads be given your most serious consideration. Sincerely, .;.7//`/ .% ^w� cc. City of Santa Clarita City Council and t ' Plann ngi Commission /�Q:>, .�'2 f✓ �j�j.S G-202 CB vic-TA SNTA CLR17:. P c 09 I JEFF LAMBERT, PLANNING "MANAGER CITY HALL, 3RD FLOOR 23920 VALENCIA BLVD. R SA -NTA CLARITA; CA. 91355 SUBJECT: CIRCULATION ELEMENT Dear Mr. Lambert, As residents and business persons in the Santa Clarita Valley, we are strongly in favor of the improvement and adoption of a smooth functioning circulation system that will safely move people and goods throughout the Santa Clarita Valley. `.''nile xe are very interested in the addition of many new arerials and the extension of existing roadways, we are especially supportive of the following Two and ask that they be built as soon as 1) A. six lane East West corridor which we envision as the Newhall Ranch Road from the terminus at Interstate 5 to Bouquet Canyon Road, it will cross the Santa Clara River and =er the land area at.a point east of the Metrolink station safely off of the Bennite/Poria Bella property. This road would be the future extension of Golden Valley Road and exit at State Route 14. This proposal would be a combination of the Alternatives 2 and 3. Furthermore, w•e.supoort the augmented intersections which will be very helpful in relieving congestion at major intersections. :) Extension of Lyons Avenue to State Route 14 at the Nacerita off ramp. This road would be southerly of Masters College connect with a T intersection to Dockweiler (allowing residents an easy way out), but the main connection would be the under utilized Placenta Canyon off ramp. The design of this road would not jeopardize the private road for Placenta Canyon residents, but would allow some heightened east/west traffic movement, and abetter approach to Masters College. This proposed Lyons Ave. extension will compliment the revitalization of downtown Newhall by providing better visibility and access to the area and the new Metrolink Station. Because of the gravity of contamination at the Bermite/Porta Bella property, we ask that language be included in the Circulation Element stating that "no development whatsoever will take place on the aforementioned land until full clean up and approvals for all the 1,000 acres have been granted by EPA." City Councils may come and go, and the resolve by a new Council may waver or change. The citizens of Santa Clarita Valley deserve the utmost protection. Sixty plus years of munitions production and the disposal of ordnance byproducts over this extensive land area is too critical a concern to take any chances with development. We respectfully request that these roads be given your most serious consideration. Sincerely, cc. City of Santa Clarita City Council and the Planning Commission G-203 0:/�1/199i 15:�E 605=554520 C3 VISTA SnTA CLRITA PA= 10 JEFF LAMBERT, PLANNING MANAGER CITY HALL, 3x'' FLOOR 23920 VALENCIA BLVD, SANTA CLARITA, CA. 91355 SUBJECT: CIRCULATION ELEMENT Dear Mr. Lambert, As residents and business persons in the Santa Clarita Valley, we are strongly in favor of the ' improvement and adoption of a smooth functioning circulation system that will safely move people and goods throughout the Santa Clarita Valley. While we are eery interested in the addition of many new arterials and the extension of existing roadways. we are especially supportive of the following two and ask that they be built as soon as possible: 1) A six lane East West corridor .vhich, ,.%•e envision as the Newhall Ranch Road from the terminus at Interstate 5 to Bouquet Canyon Road, it will cross the Santa Clara River and enter the land area at a point east of the Metrolink station safely off of the Bermite/Porta Bella property. This road would be the future extension of Golden Valley Road and exit at State Route 14. This proposal would be a combination of the Alternatives 2 and 3. ' Furthermore, we support the augmented intersections which will be very helpful in relieving congestion at major intersections. 2) Extension of Lyons Avenue to State Route 14 at the Placenta off ramp. This road would be southerly of Masters College connect with a T intersection to Dockweiler (allowing residents an easy way out), but the main connection would be the under utilized Placenta Canyon off ramp. The design of this road would not jeopardize the private road for Placenta Canyon residents,.but would allow some heightened cast/west traffic movement, and a better approach to Masters College. This proposed Lyons Ave. extension will compliment the revitalization of downtown Newhall by providing better visibility and access to the area and the new Metrolink Station. Because of the gravity of contamination at the Bermite/Porta Bella properT, we ask that language be included in the Circulation Element stating that "no development whatsoever will take place on the aforementioned land until full clean up and approvals for all the 1,000 acres have been granted by EPA." City Councils may come and go, and the resolve by a new Council may waver or change. The citizens of Santa Clarita Valley deserve the utmost protection. Sixty plus years of munitions production and the disposal of ordnance byproducts over this extensive land area is too critical a concern to take any chances with development. We respectfully request that these roads be given your m sen�ideration. Sincerely, cc. City of Santa Clarita City Council and the Planning Commission i17S; iS:C.. -_ •J:bi:, SN7_� CLRI'.. PAGE 11 JEFF LAMBERT, PLAlr^NPNIG MANAGER CITY HALL, 3"p FLOOR 23920 VALENCIA BLVD. SANTA CLARITA, CA. 91355 SUBJECT: CIRCULATION ELEMENT Dear Mr. Lambert, As residents and business persons in the Santa Clarita Valley, we are strongly in favor of the improvement and adoption of a smooth functioning circulation system that will safely move ' people and goods throughout the Santa Clarita Valley. While we are very interested in the addition of many new arterials and the extension of existing roadways, we are especially supportive of the following two and ask that they be built as soon as possible: 1) A six lane East West corridor which we envision as the Newhall Ranch Road from the terminus at Interstate 5 to Bouquet Canyon Road, it will cross the Santa Clara River and enter the land area at a point east of the Metrolink station safely off of the Bermite/Porta ' Bella property. This road would be the future extension of Golden Valley Road and exit at State Route 14. This proposal would be a combination of the Alternatives 2 and 3. Furthermore, we support the augmented intersections which will be very helpful in relieving congestion at major intersections. ' 2) Extension of Lyons Avenue to State Route 14 at the Placerita off ramp. This road would be southerly of Masters College connect with a T intersection to Dockweiler (allowing residents an easy way out), but the main connection would be the under utilized Placerita 1 Canyon off ramp. The design of this road would not jeopardize the private road for Placerita Canyon residents, but would allow some heightened cast/west traffic movement, and a better approach to Masters College. This proposed Lyons Ave, extension will compliment the revitalizntion of downtown Newhall by providing better visibility and access to the area and the new Metrolink Station. Because of the gravity of contamination at the Bermite/Porta Bella property, we ask that lariguage be included in the Circulation Element stating that "no development whatsoever will take place on the aforementioned land until full clean up and approvals for all the 1,000 acres have been granted by EPA." City Councils may come and go, and the resolve by a new Council, may waver or change. The citizens of Santa Clarita Valley deserve the utmost protection. Sixty plus years of munitions production and the disposal of ordnance byproducts over this extensive land area is too critical a concern to take any chances with development. We respectfully request that these roads be given your most serious consideration. incere ((3 cc. City of Santa Clarita City Council and the Planning Commissr i� Gly �` G-205 U ' 07/3111°i7 a7:;,0 U7 -255462a Ci VISTA SN7:: CLRITA FAGF 12 JEFF LAMBERT, PLANNING MANAGER ' CITY HALL, 3RD FLOOR 23920 VALENCIA BLVD. SANTA CLARITA, CA. 91355 SUBJECT: CIRCULATION ELEMENT Dear Mr. Lambert, As residents and business persons in the Santa Clarita Valley, we are strongly in favor of the improvement and adoption of a smooth functioning circulation system that will safely move people and goods throughout the Santa Clarita Valley. - While we are very interested in the addition of many new arterials and the extension of existing roadways, we are especially supportive of the following two and ask that they be built as soon as possible: I) A six lane East West corridor which we envision as the Newhall Ranch Road from the terminus at Interstate 5 to Bouquet Canyon Road, it will cross the Santa Clara River and enter the land area at a point east of the Metrolink station safely off of the Bermite/Porta Bella property. This road would be the future extension of Golden Valley Road and exit at State Route 14. This proposal would be a combination of the Alternatives 2 and 3. Furthermore, we support the augmented intersections which will be very helpful in relieving congestion at major intersections. 2) Extension of Lyons Avenue to State Route 14 at the Placerita off ramp. This road would be southerly of Masters College connect with a T intersection to Dockweiler (allowing residents an easy way out), but the main connection would be the under utilized PIacerim Canyon off ramp. The design of this road would not jeopardize the private road for Placerita Canyon residents, but would allow some heightened eastlwest traffic movement, and a better approach to Masters College. This proposed Lyons Ave. extension will compliment the revitalization of downtown Newhall by providing better visibility and access to the area and the new Metrolink Station. Because of the gravity of contamination at the Bermite/Porta Bella property, we ask that language be included in the Circulation Element stating that "no development whatsoever will. take place on the aforementioned land until full clean up and approvals for all the 1,000 acres have been granted by EPA." City Councils may come and go, and the resolve by a nzw Council may waver or change. The citizens of Santa Clarita Valley deserve the utmost protection. Sixty plus years of munitions production and the disposal of ordnance byproducts over this extensive land area is too critical a concern to take any chances with development. We respectfully request that these roads be given your most serious consideration. Sincerely, , ce. City of Santa Clarita City Council and the Plan'n/i�n Comm� sion <e 3 G-206 07/31/IS:% 15:26 ',@K=5452-3 - (3 VISTA SkT: - A AGc 13 CLR.T P JEFF LAMBERT, PLANNING MANAGER CITY HALL, 3AD FLOOR 23920 VALENCIA BLVD. SANTA CLARITA, CA. 91355 SUBJECT: CIRCULATION ELEMENT Dear Mr. Lambert, ' As residents and business persons in the Santa Clarita Valley, we are strongly in favor of the improvement and adoption of a smooth functioning circulation system that will safely move people and goods throughout the Santa Clarita Valley. While we are very interested in the addition of many new arterials and the extension of existing roadways, we are especially supponive of the following two and ask that they be built as soon.as possible: ' 1) A six lane East West corridor which we envision as the Newhall Ranch Road from the terminus at Interstate 5 to Bouquet Canyon Road, it will cross the Santa Clara River and enter the land area at a point east of the Metrolink station safely off of the Betmite/Porta Bella property. This road would be the future extension of Golden Valley Road and exit at State Route 14. This proposal would be a combination of the Alternatives 2 and 3. Furthermore, we support the augmented intersections which will be very helpful in relieving congestion at major intersections. 2) Extension of Lyons Avenue to State Route 14 at the Placerita off ramp. This road would be southerly of Masters College connect with a T intersection to Dockweiler (allowing residents an easy way out), but the main connection would be the under utilized Placerita Canyon off ramp. The design of this road would not jeopardize the private road for Placerita Canyon residents, but would allow some heightened cast/west traffic movement, and a better approach to Masters College. This proposed Lyons Ave. extension will compliment the revitalization of downtown Newhall by providing better visibility and access to the area and the new Metrolink Station. Because of the gravity of contamination at the Bermite/Porta Bella property, we ask that language be included in the Circulation Element stating that "no development whatsoever will take place on the aforementioned land until full clean up and approvals for all the 1,000 acres have been granted by EPA." City Councils may come and go, and the resolve by a new Council may waver or change. The citizens of Santa Clarita Valley deserve the utmost protection. Sixty plus years of munitions production and the disposal of ordnance byproducts over this extensive land area is too critical a concern to take any chances with development. We respectfully request that these roads be given your most serious consideration. Sincerely, cc. City of Santa Clarita City Council and the Planning Co Sion JEFF LAMBERT, PLANNING MANAGER CITY HALL, 3t`a FLOOR 23920 VALENCIA BLVD. SANTA CLARITA, CA. 91355 SUBJECT: CIRCULATION ELEMENT Dcar Mr. Lambert, As residents and business persons in the Santa Clarita Valley, we are strongly in favor of the improvement and adoption of a smooth functioning circulation system that will safely move people and goods throughout the Santa Clarita Valley. While we are very interested in the addition of many new arterials and the extension of existing roadways, we are especially supportive of the following rico and ask that they be built as soon as possible: 1) -A six lane East west corridor which we envision as the Newhall Ranch Road from the terminus at Interstate 5 to Bouquet Canyon Road, it will cross the Santa Clara River and enter the land area at a point east of the ;Metrolink station safely off of the Bermite/Porta Bella property. This road would be the future extension of Golden Valley Road and exit at State Route 14. This proposal would be a combination of the Alternatives 2 and 3. Furthermore, we support the augmented intersections which will be very helpful in relieving congestion at major intersections. 2) Extension of Lyons Avenue to State Route 14 at the Placerita off ramp. This road would be southerly of Masters College connect with a T intersection to Dockweiler (allowing residents as easy way out), but the main connection would be the under utilized Placerita Canyon off ramp. The design of this road would not jeopardize the private road for Placerita Canyon residents, but would allow some heightened cast/west traffic movement, and a better approach to Masters) College. /� J .� f pro/:�`1'r'�i,.S KCJCL C�%10 GJ.��''�?�4.%•=c. ls���SISJi'�.51. �-„�te.'�...Gn. T tis posed Lyons Ave. extension will compliment the revitalization of downtown F'f4,5c� Newhall by providing better visibility and access to the area and the new Metrolink Station. 4s, Because of the gravity of contamination at the.Bermite/Porta Bella property, we ask that '�� language be included in the Circulation Element stating that "no development whatsoever will take place on the aforementioned land until full clean up and approvals for all the 1,000 acres have been granted by EPA.” City Councils may come and go, and the resolve by a new Council may waver or change. The citizens of Santa Clarita Valley deserve the utmost protection. Sixty plus years of munitions production and the disposal of ordnance byproducts over this extensive land area is too critical a concern to take any chances with development. We respectfully request that these roads be given yotir most serious consideration. Sincerely, cc. City of Santa Clarita gy Council and the Planning Commission 15339 / G•208 JEFF LAMBERT, PLANNING MANAGER CITY HALL, 3RD FLOOR 23920 VALENCIA BLVD. SANTA CLARITA, CA: 91355 Dear Mr. Lambert, SUBJECT: CIRCULATION ELEMENT As residents and business persons in the Santa Clarita Valley, we are strongly in favor of the improvement and adoption of a smooth functioning circulation system that will safely move people and goods throughout the Santa Clarita Valley. While we are very interested in the addition of many new arterials and the extension of existing roadways, we are especially supportive of the following two and ask that they be built as soon as possible: 1) A six lane East West corridor which we envision as the Newhall Ranch Road from the terminus at interstate 5 to Bouquet Canyon Road, it will cross the Santa Clara River and enter the land area at a point east of the Metrolink station safely off of the Bermite/Porta Bella property. This road would be the future extension of Golden Valley Road and exit at State Route 14. This proposal would be a combination of the Alternatives 2 and 3. Furthermore, we support the augmented intersections which will be very helpful in relieving congestion at major intersections. 2) Extension of Lyons Avenue to State Route 14 at the Placerita off ramp. This road would be southerly of Masters College connect with a T intersection to Dockw•eiler (allowing residents an easy way out), but the main connection would be the under utilized Placerita Canyon off ramp. The design of this road would not jeopardize the private road for Placerita Canyon residents, but would allow some heightened cast/west traffic movement, and a better approach to Masters College. -Net?Cl k,SQOCd%70C✓•�('•s1�4%�t• This proposed Lyons Ave. extension will compliment the revitalization of downtown Fc.1 f4,so Newhall by providing better visibility and access to the area and the new Metrolink Station. ��• 4 5„ Because of the gravity of contamination at the Bermite/Porta Bella property, we ask that language be included in the Circulation Element stating that "no development whatsoever will take place on the aforementioned land until full clean up and approvals for all the 1,000 acres have been granted by EPA." City Councils may come and go, and the resolve by a new Council may waver or change. The citizens of Santa Clarita Valley deserve the utmost protection. Sixty plus years of munitions production and the disposal of ordnance byproducts over this extensive land area is too critical a concern to take any chances with development. We respectfully request that these roads be given your most serious consideration. Sincerely, cc. City of Santa Clarita y Council and the Planning Commission /mss 1533Y ,Qpn tcC 0.209 L; .a i ..._ t JEFF LAMBERT, PLANNING MANAGER CITY HALL, 3RD FLOOR 23920 VALENCIA BLVD. SANTA CLARITA, CA: 91355 Dear Mr. Lambert, SUBJECT: CIRCULATION ELEMENT As residents and business persons in the Santa Clarita Valley, we are strongly in favor of the improvement and adoption of a smooth functioning circulation system that will safely move people and goods throughout the Santa Clarita Valley. While we are very interested in the addition of many new arterials and the extension of existing roadways, we are especially supportive of the following two and ask that they be built as soon as possible: 1) A six lane East West corridor which we envision as the Newhall Ranch Road from the terminus at interstate 5 to Bouquet Canyon Road, it will cross the Santa Clara River and enter the land area at a point east of the Metrolink station safely off of the Bermite/Porta Bella property. This road would be the future extension of Golden Valley Road and exit at State Route 14. This proposal would be a combination of the Alternatives 2 and 3. Furthermore, we support the augmented intersections which will be very helpful in relieving congestion at major intersections. 2) Extension of Lyons Avenue to State Route 14 at the Placerita off ramp. This road would be southerly of Masters College connect with a T intersection to Dockw•eiler (allowing residents an easy way out), but the main connection would be the under utilized Placerita Canyon off ramp. The design of this road would not jeopardize the private road for Placerita Canyon residents, but would allow some heightened cast/west traffic movement, and a better approach to Masters College. -Net?Cl k,SQOCd%70C✓•�('•s1�4%�t• This proposed Lyons Ave. extension will compliment the revitalization of downtown Fc.1 f4,so Newhall by providing better visibility and access to the area and the new Metrolink Station. ��• 4 5„ Because of the gravity of contamination at the Bermite/Porta Bella property, we ask that language be included in the Circulation Element stating that "no development whatsoever will take place on the aforementioned land until full clean up and approvals for all the 1,000 acres have been granted by EPA." City Councils may come and go, and the resolve by a new Council may waver or change. The citizens of Santa Clarita Valley deserve the utmost protection. Sixty plus years of munitions production and the disposal of ordnance byproducts over this extensive land area is too critical a concern to take any chances with development. We respectfully request that these roads be given your most serious consideration. Sincerely, cc. City of Santa Clarita y Council and the Planning Commission /mss 1533Y ,Qpn tcC 0.209 I Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR ' Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 33 COMMENTOR: I DATE: RESPONSE: Response 33A Form letter submitted by 15 individuals Undated The commentor states his support for an east/west arterial extending from Newhall Ranch/Bouquet Canyon Road, crossing the Santa Clara River, and extending to Golden Valley Road be constructed. This roadway is actually similar in concept to the continuous throughway that would be provided by the Santa Clarita Parkway/ Golden Valley Road corridor under Alternative 3. The commentor also states support for the augmented intersection concept. Augmented intersections would be implemented under either Alternative 4 or Alternative 5. Response 33B The commentor supports the Lyons Avenue extension, with the main connection at Placerita Canyon. This comment is noted and will be considered by decision makers as they consider the project alternatives. Response 33C The commentor requests that language be added to ensure that.no roadways are developed on the former Bermite Plant property until full clean up and approvals have been obtained by the EPA. Several mitigation measures included in the EIR are directed at investigating the Bermite property and remediating any contamination in proposed roadway corridors (see mitigation measures RU -la, RU -lb, and RU -1d). During the environmental review for specific roadway alignments, the appropriate regulatory agencies will be contacted to coordinate current remediation activities with proposed roadway locations. In addition, any proposed roadway corridors found to have contamination above regulatory action levels will be remediated to the satisfaction of regulatory authorities prior to road development. City of Santa Clarita G-210 ' -From: Chx1Y 6 Darryl Fneslver To: Jeff Lambert • Santa Clarka JUST THE FAX MAN - i 3 A` Jeff Lambert, Planning Manager City Hall. 3rd Floor 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: CiRCM ATiON F.I.F.\IRNT: Planning Commission Meeting Agenda item -42 Dear Mr. Lambert. It is at great length I wish to comment on this subject of such grave importance; but I will limit my comments to a shortstatement; While there is a definate lack of arterials in the Santa Clarita Valley, I will address the two most important road corridors. /t THE FIRST \LITTER: the extension of Lyons Avenue to State Route 14 at the Placenta !1 Cytt. off ramp. It is imperative that we replace the EAST.'WEST connector road that has been eliminated h}- the closing of Placenta Cvn Road. Rased on the City's adoption of The ' NEWH ALL REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, this should be a PRIORITY. Placenta Cyn off ramp is the most under utilized access in the City. This is a major point because of the cost to build new on uff ramps. THE SECOND MATTER: the six lane F.ASTAVF.ST Condor proposed at the Newhall Ranch Road from I-5 to State Route 13. There is no wav around this ISSUE! The residents and business owners in dna Santa Clarita Valley are at great risk of losing their ability to improve and prusper! We all NEED to have what was promised when we became a CITY: R -O -.A -D -S' NOW you know how we spell relief. Without this connection our beautiful City will strangle itself in did turmoil of traffic. This could be the most impressive tree -lined promenade in the entire Valley. `` IAs to the Bermite. Porta Bella property, and the proposed circulation of traffic through this corridor, dee Vallev can not afford to wait for die results of die EPA to give a stamp of approval for contamination clarification_ This consideration would put all of the residents of the entire valley at THE risk of NEVER CREATING AN E 3STAVEST ACCESS. In closing, please consider these requests for the CIRCtLATION, ELEMENT from a concerned resident and business operator in die City of Santa Clarita. Respectfully. ' Darrvl Finesilver 21906 Jeffers i.ane Santa Clarits. CA 91350 cc: Planing Commission II II G-211 Page 1 or 1 'I Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 34 COMMENTOR: Darryl Finesilver DATE: Undated RESPONSE: Response 34A The commentor expresses support for extending Lyons Avenue to the Placenta Canyon offramp. This is one of the options that is being considered for the Lyons Avenue Extension under all of the project alternatives. The Lyons Avenue Extension is included in all seven project alternatives. Response 34B The commentor supports a six -lane east/west corridor that will provide much needed access for residents and business owners. The commentor may be referring to either the Newhall Ranch Road extension east of Golden Valley that is part of Alternative 1 or a corridor simiilar to the Santa Clarita Parkway/Golden Valley Road continuous throughway that would be created under Alternative 3. This comment is noted and will be considered by decision makers as they weigh the project alternatives. Response 34C The commentor states that the construction of the east/west access through the former Bermite Plant property may be jeopardized by waiting for EPA approvals. It is true that on-site remediation of soil and/or groundwater contamination could delay construction of roadways through the Bermite property. At this point, no schedule for roadway construction has been developed. G-212 City of Santa Clarita �I II [1 II July 14, 1997 Jeff Lambert Planning Manager City Hall, 3RD Floor 23920 Valencia Bled. Santa Clarita, CA.91355 Dear Mr. Lambert: I am writing you regarding the circulation element of the general plan. I strongly support the rapid adoption and construction of a functioning circulation system that is practical. With the adoption of the Old Newhall Revitalization Plan it is critical for the City to construct an extension of Lyons Avenue along a portion of Docicweiler dropping to State Route 14 and intersecting at the Placenta off ramp. A roadway situated south of Masters College would greatly enhance freeway access to Old Newhall aiding everyone in their access to the community and the freeway. By connecting to the now under utilized Placerita off ramp you place it at a point that it will have the least impact and the greatest potential use. This design would not impact Placerita Canyon and would permit a better east/west traffic circulation. B Because off the amount of problems ive are going to have building any road across the old Bermite property I suggest that you prioritize this road and do something to break the logjam taking place on our City streets. We really need this east'west since Placerita Canyon Road Is closed. Sincerely, Tom Frew .2 S -f - ;w Z' Heritage Lane, Newhall cc Ala G-213 Agenda Item• 35 �I II [1 II July 14, 1997 Jeff Lambert Planning Manager City Hall, 3RD Floor 23920 Valencia Bled. Santa Clarita, CA.91355 Dear Mr. Lambert: I am writing you regarding the circulation element of the general plan. I strongly support the rapid adoption and construction of a functioning circulation system that is practical. With the adoption of the Old Newhall Revitalization Plan it is critical for the City to construct an extension of Lyons Avenue along a portion of Docicweiler dropping to State Route 14 and intersecting at the Placenta off ramp. A roadway situated south of Masters College would greatly enhance freeway access to Old Newhall aiding everyone in their access to the community and the freeway. By connecting to the now under utilized Placerita off ramp you place it at a point that it will have the least impact and the greatest potential use. This design would not impact Placerita Canyon and would permit a better east/west traffic circulation. B Because off the amount of problems ive are going to have building any road across the old Bermite property I suggest that you prioritize this road and do something to break the logjam taking place on our City streets. We really need this east'west since Placerita Canyon Road Is closed. Sincerely, Tom Frew .2 S -f - ;w Z' Heritage Lane, Newhall cc Ala G-213 Agenda Item• II Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 35 COMMENTOR: DATE: RESPONSE: Response 35A Tom Frew July 14,1997 The commentor supports the Lyons Avenue extension, interecting at the Placenta Canyon offramp and creating a t -intersection at Dockweiler. This is one of the options being considered for the Lyons Avenue extension. This comment is noted and will be considered by decision makers. Response35B The commentor would like a priority to be placed on constructing roads through the former Bermite Plant property to provide an east/ west route. This comment is noted and will be considered by decisionmakers. However, the schedule for construction will depend upon a variety of factors, including the schedule for remediating on-site soil contamination and the availability of funding. G-214 City JUL-13-10-57 15:45 LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES INT 3� 15555 Bronco Drive Canyon Country, CA 91351 July 14, 1997 City of Santa Clarity Planning Commissioners C/o Jerry Cherrington, Chairperson 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Commissioner: As you know, our great community is in serious need of roads that would efficiently link our communities and enable us to easily use the valuable resources available throughout the City. P.02 A, Currently, it is very difficult to travel from my home in Canyon Country to Valencia, especially since the shut down of Placenta Canyon. My family and neighbors in Canyon Country want to support our local retailers, (such as the Valencia Mall), support our local public services (such as Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital) and our tourist industry (such as Magic Mountain). With our current road conditions, it is often easier for me to travel to the Northridge Mall and to Holy Cross Hospital than it is to use our City's local services. 131 We are also in urgent need of roads that would provide safe access (in, out, and through our communities) in case of emergencies, such as we recently experienced with the . freeway fire near Via Princessa earlier this month. t C I respectfully and urgently request that the Planning Commission help connect the residents and businesses of Santa Clarita through the continued thoughtful and efficient planning of roads. You can help resolve some of our City's road problems by supporting the Lyons Avenue extension, and by supporting the extension of Newhall Ranch Road that would connect I-5 to Via Princessa. Sincerely, 0710 Laura L. Hauser home owner (805)251-4917 II G-215 ' DATE: July 14,1997 RESPONSE: Response 36A The commentor states that although she would like to support local services, current traffic and roadway conditions make it easier for her to travel to adjacent City's rather than travel across Santa Clarita. This comment is noted. Response36B The commentor states an opinion that City of Santa Clarita needs more roads for emergency access. This comment is noted. Buildout of any of the circulation system alternatives would be expected to improve emergency access to many parts of the City. ' Response 36C ' Commentor supports the Lyons Avenue extension and a roadway corridor that would connect I-5 and Via Princessa. The Lyons Avenue extension is part of all of the project alternatives being considered. All of the alternatives also include one or more road corridors that would directly or indirectly connect I-5 to Via Princessa (please see Section 2.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR). I I II G•216 Clarita Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 36 COMMENTOR: Laura L. Hauser ' DATE: July 14,1997 RESPONSE: Response 36A The commentor states that although she would like to support local services, current traffic and roadway conditions make it easier for her to travel to adjacent City's rather than travel across Santa Clarita. This comment is noted. Response36B The commentor states an opinion that City of Santa Clarita needs more roads for emergency access. This comment is noted. Buildout of any of the circulation system alternatives would be expected to improve emergency access to many parts of the City. ' Response 36C ' Commentor supports the Lyons Avenue extension and a roadway corridor that would connect I-5 and Via Princessa. The Lyons Avenue extension is part of all of the project alternatives being considered. All of the alternatives also include one or more road corridors that would directly or indirectly connect I-5 to Via Princessa (please see Section 2.0, Project Description, of the Draft EIR). I I II G•216 Clarita .1111 -IS-q7 TIIF Al.:77 CM r1FNNTA fICTRnM RIR 7S17AA7 P -A1 37 July 14, 1997 City of Sawa Clalita Plmmiug Conurusaiun City of Santa Clarita To: Jerry Cherrington, Chairman and Commissioners Re: Traffic patterns within the City of Santa Clarita A I am writing to ,you and urging each of you to place the planning and construction of east/west traffic arteries within the city of Santa Clarita a.t highest Priority I believe that the Lyons extension on the south and the Newhall Ranch Road on the north are the most logical right-of-ways fnr an additional two east/west main arteries through the City of Santa Clarita. Recent events, 4`s of July traffic and fire near Placerita Nature Center, only enforces the need for adequate east/west travel arteries. The Iong traveling times cast/w•cst through the B City of Santa Clarita many times during the day proves the need. Tlrnk you for your workAnd efforts toward our great place to live. Canyon Home Owners Association G-217 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 37 COMMENTOR: Dennis K. Ostrom, President Sand Canyon Home Owners Association DATE: July 14,1997 RESPONSE: Response 37A The commentor supports the establishment of east/west traffic arteries, specifically the Lyons Avenue and Newhall Ranch Road extensions. The Lyons Avenue extension is included in all project alternatives. The Newhall Ranch Road extension east of Golden Valley Road is only included in Alternative 1. Response 37B The commentor states that holiday traffic and fire emergencies further prove the need for increased east/west travel corridors. This comment is noted. City of Santa Clarita G-218 Mr. Jerry Cherrington Chairman Planning Commission 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, California 91355 NI 17 I -C7 July 16, 1997 ' Dear Mr. Cherrington, I attended the meeting of July 15, 1997, and listened to the consultants' presentation of the ' proposed alternatives for the Circulation Element Arrer_drnen t. The City Planning Manager, Jeff Lambert, and his staff have done a fine job of bringing a creditable proposal to the citizens and to the Planning Commission. A 'I I I I concur with two of the speakers from the community who spoke to the issue of the Porta Bella development. It is my opinion that Commissioner Brathwaite was somewhat remiss in grilling Valerie Thomas about who would pay for the roads if they are prevented from being built in the Porta Bella development. It is highly unlikely even the Porta Bella developers can pay for the roads considering any further progress in that project will be predicated on the environmental cleanup work still to be done. A clean bill of health for all that property is very unlikely in the foreseeable future. To think that the road from Magic Mountain Parkway to Via Princess, a likely alternative, will be built on "dirty" land is highly objectionable to me. BWhitaker Corporation is now looking for buyers of the entitlements granted by the City of Santa Clarita and will likely sell off portions in phases. If sold before the cleanup process is begun, those buyers would incur the costs of the cleanup as well as the costs of any roads, making a quick sale highly unlikely. I encourage you not to be transfixed with the notion that the roads will be paid for through the Porta Bella project. If is' a fair assumption by. many in Sacramento and herein our own City, that the environmental cleanup process for the old Bennite site will take an indeterminate amount of time and money to pass the test of acceptability for roads, or homes, or businesses, or any city facilities to be built there. IPlease proceed with caution and prudence regarding the Porta Bella land. II 021/7�1i a Agenda Item: ! I Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 38 COMMENTOR: Linda Johnson DATE: July 16,1997 RESPONSE: Response 38A The commentor does not believe that the Porta Bella land will be cleaned up in the foreseeable future and objects to the construction of the Magic Mountain Parkway extension on contaminated land. The schedule for construction of the Magic Mountain Parkway extension has not been determined yet. It is true that remediation of on-site soil contamination could delay construction for an indefinite period. However, no road construction would occur until such time that any on-site contamination has been remediated to the satisfaction of the regulatory authorities. Resl2onse38B The commentor states that roads in the former Bermite Plant property will not likely be paid for by Porta Bella project as the environmental cleanup will be costly and take an indefinite amount of time. The time frame for any needed cleanup is not known. However, road development will not occur until needed remediation is conducted to the satisfaction of the appropriate regulatory authorities. G-220 City of Santa Clarita I 0723/1997 16:50 FROM July 22, 1997 39 FOR MY ELECTED CITY COUNCIL OF SANJ'A CLARITA AND MR. JEFF LAMBERT, MANAGER OF THE PLANNING COMMISSSION Dear Mr. Lambert and City Council: Regarding. the ongoing agenda item for Tra is Circulation within t;:e City of Santa Clarita I can only say one thing...°L is get it done!' What are we waiting for? We all know how we have needed the proposed circulation elements decades agog These road implementations would have been next to impossible with L.�,: County but should not be so with the City of Santa Clarita. One of the main reasons I voted for Cityhood was to specifically make traffic circulation much more efficient- It fficientIt is also the main reason I voted for our current City Council! You are already aware of the details regardipg the Lyons extension as well as the 6 lane East and West corridor connecting the 5 frwy. to the 14 frwy. so there is no need to dublicate this effort. • It is now time to implement the pian! • It is now time to start! • It is now time to take action! After all, have we not waited long enough ... 11-et's get it done!' As always, I thank you for all your hard work to make Santa Clarita the best and safest place to live. Resp ctfuily, Chris Detlefson 28137 Robin Ave. Santa Clarita, CA 91350 805-251-1207 G-221 Agenda Item:-- L Santa Clarita Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix G Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Letter 39 COMMENTOR: DATE: RESPONSE: Chris Detlefson July 22, 1997 The commenter supports the proposed Circulation Element and states that the roadways are needed immediately. This comment is noted. City of Santa G-222 Appendix H Summary of Circulation Element/ EIR Workshops Santa Clanta Circulation Element Update EIR Appendix H Summary of Circulation Element Amendment Workshops Appendix H 1 Summary of Circulation Element Amendment/ EIR Workshops The City of Santa Clarita held three public workshops during the 45 -day circulation period for ' the Draft EIR in order to garner additional public input on the EIR and the Draft Circulation Element Amendment. The purpose of these workshops was threefold: (1) to explain the alternative circulation systems being considered for the Circulation Element Amendment; (2) to describe the overall findings of the Draft EIR; and (3) to solicit public comment on both the Draft EIR and the alternative circulation systems. This appendix provides a summary of the proceedings of these three workshops. �I �t iI �,I II II H-1 '1 �1 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Community Workshops j Summary Report I. , Introduction The purpose of the Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Community Workshops was to: • Provide the Santa Clarita community an opportunity to better understand the results of the EIR process; • Gather feedback from the community on the Draft EIR, including the base plan and the six Circulation System Alternatives proposed for the City's roadway system; and • Answer questions from the public about the Circulation Element and EIR. This summary memorandum includes an overview of the Community Workshops' process and summary of participants' comments from the Community Workshops, held on three different days and in three different locations in the City of Santa Clarita. Information about these workshops follows: Thursday; June 26, 1997 Boys and Girls Club Newhall Attendance: 36 people Saturday, June 28, 1997 Sierra Vista Junior High School Canyon Country Attendance: 31 people Thursday, July 10, 1997 Arroyo Seco Junior High School Saugus Attendance: 20 people This memorandum is divided into three sections: Introduction, Community Workshop Overview, and Summary of the Community Workshop Comments. H3 Santa Clarita circulation Element Amendment EIR MIG, 7=4uly 1997 Community Workshops • Summary Memorandum Page 2 II. Community Workshop Overview The three Community Workshops followed an identical format. Each workshop began with an Open House segment where participants were able to view informational and "hands-on" display panels and learn more about the EIR process, the base plan, the six Circulation System Alternatives, and their potential environmental impacts. Participants could make comments by writing their questions and concerns on post -it notes and placing them on the display boards or by writing them on comment forms handed out at the registration table. City staff and Consultant team members were present to answer any questions and assist participants as they reviewed and commented on the display board information. The Presentation segment of the Open House began with Jeff Lambert, Planning Manager of the City of Santa Clarita, welcoming participants and explaining the purpose of the Community Workshop. - Next, Jim Oswald, of MIG, reviewed the Presentation agenda. He then introduced Joe Power, of Rincon Consultants, who gave a slide presentation, describing the project background and purpose and EIR purpose and process, and providing an overview of the Circulation System Alternatives with their key environmental impacts. Following the Presentation segment, Mr. Oswald and Mr. Power facilitated a question and answer period and group discussion on each of the alternatives. Mr. Oswald graphically recorded participants' comments on large sheets of paper at the front of the room (see attachments). (Note that at the July 10 workshop, Mr. Power facilitated the discussion and Kim Diamond, of MIG, graphically recorded the discussion.) City staff persons and Consultant Team members answered participants' questions during the course of the discussion. III. Summary of the Community Workshop Comments Below is a summary of participant comments from the three Community Workshops, relating to the Draft EIR for the Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment. The summary is divided into three sections. These sections include comments made at each of the Community Workshops: June 26, June 28 and July 10. Within each of these sections, participant comments are separated into four sub -sections: Base Alternatives, Increased Roadway Capacity Approach, Transportation Demand Management Approach, and Other Comments. A more detailed description of each of the sub -sections follows: Base Alternatives includes written and verbal comments pertaining to the base plan and the following Circulation System AIternatives: Alternative 1: Existing Planned Circulation System (Base Plan) Alternative 2: Newhalll Ranch Road Reduction Alternative 3: Golden Valley Road Network H-4 Santa Clarita Circulation ElementAmendmenl EIR MIG, 1=4uly 2997 Community Workshops - Summary Memorandum Page 3 Increased Roadway Capacity Approach includes written and verbal comments pertaining to the following Circulation System Alternatives: Alternative 4: Augmented Newhall Ranch Road Alternative 5: Augmented Golden Valley Road Network Transportation Demand Management Approach includes written and verbal comments pertaining to the following Circulation System Alternatives: Alternative 6: Newhall Ranch Road/Reduced Trip Alternative 7: Golden Valley Road/Reduced Trip Other Comments includes written and verbal comments that were more general in nature and did not pertain to specific Circulation System Alternatives. Note that participants' comments within each of these sub -sections are preceded by summary statements, which highlight participants' key issues and concerns relating to those Circulation System Alternatives. IA. June 26 Community Workshop Base Alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2 and 3) Alternative I (Base Plan) Many participants were opposed to extending State.Route 126 through the Santa Clarita Valley, citing various reasons for their opposition. The two most significant concerns were the alternative's negative impacts on local businesses, residences, and the Santa Clara River and the fact that the City Council previously voted down this circulation option. Alternative 2 Several participants supported this alternative and considered it the best option because it would provide the potential to improve traffic flow and has fewer environmental impacts than other alternatives. In addition, some participants made specific suggestion for local roads. Alternative 3 There were few comments made relating to Alternative 3. Alternative 1(Base Plan) Written Comments • Recognize that this alternative is "completely unacceptable." Recognize that an eight lane extension of Newhall Ranch Road is "absolutely unacceptable." H-5 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendmmt EIR MIG,Inc4j.1y 1997 Community Workshops - summary Memorandum Page 4 • Given that this alternative appears to be "dead," clarify why it is still being presented. • Clarify why public input is being solicited on an alternative that is not in fact a circulation option. Eliminate this alternative from future meetings or make dear to the public that it is not a choice. • Be aware that this alternative would negatively impact the City. Be aware that the Newhall Ranch Road extension should be avoided because it would "go through and uproot homes and businesses that have been here for years." • Note that it is not acceptable to remove existing housing and "spoil" the river habitat. • Be aware that the "road will go right over my house on Cottonwood Drive." In addition, do not destroy the "river, wildlife, and people's lives." • "I don't like this plan; it takes out my house. We love the Santa Clara River also." • Note that this alternative negatively impacts the Santa Clara River. • Consider having Newhall develop its own roads given that the roads will only serve the Newhall Industrial Center. • Recognize that only "outsiders" would be using the eight lane Newhall Ranch Road. • Note that this was not supposed to be an alternative. Be aware an eight lane road is only good for "folks passing through" and will serve to limit access to local residents. • Note that this alternative has "inappropriate segments." For example, Rio Vista and Lyons bridge would negatively impact downtown Newhall. Note that this comment applies to all the alternatives. Discussion Comments • Note that Alternative 1 should be eliminated as a possible alternative. Clarify why this alternative is still being considered as an option for the City's roadway network; the City Council eliminated it five years ago. Staff response: Alternative 1 is the currently adopted roadway network. This is why it is still being presented. Consultant response: Note that the purpose of this exercise is to find an alternative to Alternative 1's roadway network. Note that the 126 to Rye Canyon Rd. should not be opened up; there are alternatives to this. MP �r Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR MIG,1nc4u1y I997 Community Workshops- Summary Memorandum Pages • Clarify if Alternative 1 is the "no project" alternative. In other words, if the public chooses this alternative, clarify if this would lead to nothing (no changes) being done. Staff response: Choosing this alternative means that there would not be a change to the ' 1991 General Plan. Note, however, that the purpose of this process is to do something else with the roadway network. ' Explain which alternative participants should choose if they do not want any changes or any impacts. Consultant response: Note that in Section 7 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), the idea of no development was rejected because it is an unrealistic choice in the ' context of Santa CIarita's growth and development. In reality, choosing no alternative would mean that the existing Circulation Element (with Alternative 1's roadway network) would remain in place. Alternative 2 Written Comments • Note support for this alternative and its potential to improve traffic flow, specifically that the proposed design of Golden Valley Road and Santa Clarita Parkway. r • Recognize that along with Alternative 6, this alternative has the fewest environmental impacts and provides more road choices by which to travel across town. ' • Note that this alternative provides the best plan. However, also consider taking limited growth and building measures. • Note that this alternative is the "best choice as a basic roadway." • Note that this alternative appears to be the best because it has fewer lanes, good ' traffic flow, and lesser impacts on mountains. Note that Alternative 3 is the second best alternative. • Consider having Newhall Ranch Road cross the Santa Clara River at a narrow junction and then join Via Princessa in a short, direct manner. • Consider moving Via Princessa south out of the Bermite property. r• Recognize that Santa Clarita Parkway's crossing of the canyons and the oil fields is not feasible nor doable. ' • Note that routing Santa Clarita Parkway straight to State Route 14 would enable traffic to "flow more easily." • Note that Lyons Ave. should be "a more direct access" route and should not run perpendicular (create a "T") into Rio Vista. H-7 r Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR MIG, Inc4uly 1997 rCommunity Workshops- summary Memorandum Page • Note that the Santa Clarita Parkway should be "dropped" due to the many environmental problems it would cause (i.e., toxics, impacts to ridgelines). It should not go into Placerita Canyon. ' • Consider "realigning Lyons Ave. to the Placerita Canyon off ramp, swinging the road south of Masters College, and creating a "T" intersection with Dockweiler." • Note that the community wants a network of roads. rDiscussion Comments • Clarify if there are any bridges included in Alternative 2 and the impact of an ' earthquake on those bridges. Consultant response: There are three bridges over the Santa Clarita River in AIternative 2. All of the alternatives include bridges. Note that the EIR includes a seismic analysis. Alternative 3 Written Comments • Consider the naming of the Whites Canyon Road extension. • Note that people may become confused by routing Santa Clarita Parkway on two roadways. • Consider combining Alternatives 2 and 3 into a "smoother flowing" east -west corridor and dropping the Northern Pass area (north of river). Note the importance of staying off the Bermite property. Use Golden Valley extension instead to State Route 14. • Note that this alternative is inferior to Alternative 2 because it creates only one north -south corridor, as opposed to the.generation of two north -south corridors under Alternative 2. • Note that this alternative is "second best' to Alternative 1, because it has more impacts to the mountains. Note that there will not be "any more canyons in Canyon Country." Discussion Comments • Note that the proposal under Alternative 3 for a six -lane Golden Valley Rd. is not feasible. H•8 r Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR MIG,1nc47uly 1997 ' Community Workshops- Summary Memorandum Pagel Increased Roadway Capacity Alternatives (Alternatives 4 and 5) rNote that while most of the following comments regarding augmented intersections fall under AIternative 4, the issues and concerns expressed also apply to Alternative 5's augmented r intersections. Augmented Intersections ' Several participants supported the idea of augmented intersections. Some indicated that there may be potential negative impacts to adjacent homes and businesses. In addition, some participants advocated the augmentation of specific intersections. ' Alternative 4 Written Comments • Note that Magic Mountain Parkway, from McBean Parkway to Tourney, currently experiences traffic bottlenecks and thus needs widening. • Note support for the idea of augmented intersections in order to improve the flow of traffic. • Note that all future roads will probably be augmented. • Clarify how the augmentation of roads in existing (built) neighborhood will occur r without causing significant impacts to homes and businesses. • Be aware that this alternative would impact existing businesses. • "I don't like all of the lanes as offshoots, because the roadway will be too full of cars." (This comment applies to Alternative 5 as well.) ' Consider using the ridge line and meeting Sierra Highway to the south off Wiley Canyon Road. • Recognize that Alternatives 6 and 7 (and Alternatives 4 and 5) are impractical. rThey "want us out of our cars and onto buses ... they have been trying to get Californians out of their cars for 50 years. We are in love with our autos. I don't . ' think this will fly." • Note agreement for above comment. Discussion Comments • Note that the number of augmented intersections needs to be indicated. It appears that there are 40 augmented intersections in Valencia, Saugus, and Newhall and only a few in Canyon Country. There are many intersections in Canyon Country that suffer from traffic congestion. Consultant response: We found that the worst traffic problems did not occur in Canyon Country, but in other parts of the City. However, the augmented intersections shown in the EIR do not necessarily reflect all of the intersections that could be augmented if Alter- native 4 or 5 is adopted. Other intersections could be augmented if feasible. M Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment E1R Community Workshops - summary Memorandum Alternative 5 Written Comments MIG,IncJluly 1997 Page 8 • Note that this alternative provides a "very poor plan of joining Santa Clarita Parkway and Golden Valley Rd." Transportation Demand Management Alternatives (Alternatives 6 and 7) Note that very few comments were made relating to Alternatives 6 and 7. ■ Alternative 6 Written Comments ' • "Through the process of elimination, this (alternative) seems to cover what I believe is the best." • Note that this alternative has the fewest overall environmental impacts. • Note that Newhall Ranch Rd. needs to begin at Rye Canyon Rd. and progress westward only to Golden Valley Rd. Alternative 7 Written Comments Note that Golden Valley Rd. should remain a 4 to 6 lane road from Plum Canyon to Sierra Highway and State Route 14. Other Comments The following comments were general in nature and consisted of questions and concerns not relating to particular Circulation System Alternatives. Written Comments • Note that there are only nine (9) roads that lead to the Valley Industrial Center. "We need not put in 126 through our City." • Be aware that future earthquakes could negatively impact any existing or proposed bridges and roads. • Note that CALTRANS should not be involved in any of these road network improvements. Historically, they have been "remiss in maintenance of the present roads in our valley." Discussion Comments • Clarify if the northern route of the 126 was considered as an alternative. H-10 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR MIG, Inc4.1y 1997 ' Community Workshops- Summary Memorandum Page Consultant response: The City considered this alternative as well and rejected it, because ' it does not address the objectives of an amended Circulation Amendment. A northern route would carry some through traffic, but not enough to alleviate Center City traffic. • Do not forget the role the north -south corridors and the freeways play in promoting the health of the Santa Clarita community. Staff response: Note that the Santa Clarita Parkway and Golden Valley Road are both ' north -south corridors in the Plan. • Consider other alternative roadways (north -south corridors, in particular) to bring people into the City Center. Note that it is important to continue this discussion on the City's roads. • Clarify what will happen to 126. Staff response: This process does not change 126, which is currently Magic Mountain Parkway. ' Note that the 126 should stop at I5. 15 and CALTRANS "have no business being in our community." • Clarify when the first road would be built. Staff response: Roads will be built as development projects occur in the City. • Explain where Magic Princessa is in the alternatives. Staff response: Magic Princessa is on all of the alternatives' maps. Note that is not highlighted on the maps because it is common to all alternatives and is already being designed. Note that there is money for design, but not as much funding for construction. • Magic Mountain Parkway should not "T" into Via Princessa, but should be a straight route through this road.' • Clarify if some roads in the alternatives are carry-overs from the General Plan (i.e., Rio Vista) and whether a specific action would have to be taken to eliminate them from the General Plan. Clarify the process for deleting these roads. Staff response: The only roads that vary among the alternatives are those in the Center City area. All other roads are carryovers from the existing Circulation Element. Any road could be eliminated through adoption of an amendment to the Element. • Explain why it has taken so long to make changes to the Master Plan, specifically the elimination of five miles of the Plan's roadway network. Staff response: It has been a difficult process to figure out what alternative roadway networks would work. In addition, it has been difficult to reach community consensus on what roadway networks to have. • Explain how land use and population changes were factored into this analysis. Staff response: Note that the traffic model used included fitture development projects both within and outside the City, including the proposed Newhall Ranch project west of the City. H-11 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR MIG, Inc4uly 1997 Community Workshops. Summary Memorandum Page 10 • Explain if local traffic impacts from these development projects were considered (i.e., increased traffic on Wiley Canyon Rd., increased traffic from cut-throughs). Staff response: It is expected that improvements to the arterial system would generally reduce through traffic on residential streets. However, we modeled major streets, not small streets. Consultant response: Note that this is a "program" EIR. Specific impacts associated with individual roads will be addressed in subsequent environmental reviews. • Clarify which alternatives' roads will go through Significant Ecological Areas (SEAS) and which would have the greatest impact. Staff response: Roads in all of the alternatives will go through and SEAS. Alternative 1 includes one additional crossing through the Santa Clara River SEA. • Explain if there are measurements available that assess the improvements that will be made to other roads as a result of the alternatives. Consultant response: Traffic analysis does look at the level of improvement of each alter- native (Section 5 in the DEIR)• • Clarify if there will be any state money and influence in the Circulation Element. Staff response: It is the decision of the City Council only. • Clarify the purpose of this planning process. Consider allowing developers to do what they want and need. Staff response: The City wants to adopt a network of planned roads so that when a devel- oper builds in the City, s/he will have base roadway network to follow. Consultant response: The purpose of adopting a network of roads and other transportation infrastructure is to assure that future development occurs in an orderly manner. B. June 28 Community Workshop Base Alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2 and 3) Alternative 1(Base Plan) rSimilar to the June 26 Community Workshop, many participants opposed Alternative 1 on the grounds that it would displace businesses and homes and negatively impact the Santa Clara River. In addition, participants noted that the plan to construct an eight lane arterial through the City was previously rejected by the City Council. Alternative 2 Nearly all participants supported this alternative, commending it for a variety of reasons. For example, several stated that it would offer the best transportation and circulation system by providing adequate roads and access through the Valley. Alternative 3 Several participants considered Alternative 3 as the second best choice behind Alternative 2.. This second place status can be partially attributed to the fact that the I H-12 Santa Clarita Circulation E/emmt Ammdmmt EIR Community Workshops • Summary Memorandum MIG,Inc4luly 3997 Page 11 alternative only provides one north -south corridor as opposed to Alternative 2's two north -south corridors. Alternative 1(Base Plan) Written Comments • Clarify why this alternative is an option when the City Council rejected its proposal for an eight lane major arterial highway several years ago. • "I can think of nothing good about a plan that includes an eight lane expressway." • Note a lack of support for an eight lane thoroughfare designed to move trucks and other fast traffic through the Valley. • Note that the Newhall Ranch Road extension is the same route the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers opposed in October 1992 on environmental grounds. • "The Newhall Ranch Road extension from Golden Valley Rd. to Route 14 must go. It is unconscionable to consider it." • Be aware that the proposed extension of Newhall Ranch Road through Canyon Country would eliminate homes and businesses that have been in the City for years. • "I thought this alternative was dead. The road goes right through our house." • Recognize that this plan displaces old established neighborhoods (businesses and at least one church displaced) and will endanger the Santa Clara River, the only natural river in Southern California. Consider removing this alternative from the General Plan. • "Take this alternative off of the General Plan." • Be aware that the proposed road extension will "go right through my home on Cottonwood Drive" and will "ruin the river." • "It takes out my house. I live on Edgewater Drive. We love the peaceful area by the Santa Clara River." • Be aware that this alternative displaces existing homes and destroys the river ecology. • Clarify if any studies have been done to estimate the probability of increased crime and vandalism that would result from the introduction of an eight lane major arterial through a community. • Clarify the difference between an "eight lane major arterial" and an "eight lane expressway" (proposed in 1992). Discussion Comments • Explain the status of Alternative 1. II I Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Community Workshops - Summary Memorandum MIG,Incw7uly 1997 Page 12 Staff response: The City Council has stated its intention to find an alternative roadway network. However, until an alternative network is adopted; the Alternative 1 network remains in place. • Note that this decision was already finalized with over 100 people. ' Staff response: It was decided to find an alternative network. We are currently in the process of identifying a feasible network. ' Note the importance of taking the needs of the current residents into consideration, not the residents of the proposed development. Alternative 2 Written Comments • Note that Alternatives 2 & 3 are well thought out and are "excellent alternatives." • Recognize that this alternative is the "easiest to understand." ' • Note that this alternative provides the "best overall concept." • "This seems like the best basic plan." • Note that this alternative is good because it provides adequate roads. • Recognize that this plan gives more access through the valley and is "by far the ' best planned system offered." • Note support for this alternative more than Alternative 3 because of its circulation ' and traffic flow. • Recognize that this alternative comes closest to providing a "sensible infrastructure of roads for Santa Clarita Valley residents." Note that this alternative provides the best circulation and transportation plan. • Note that this alternative would have the least impact environmentally. • Note that this alternative is good, but needs augmented intersections. • Note that this alternative does not appear to have the "worst traffic service levels" (as was stated in the Workshop display boards) because it provides so many alternatives to the roads now in use. Alternative 3 ' Written Comments • Note that Alternatives 2 & 3 are well thought out and are "excellent alternatives." • Recognize that the routing of Santa Clarita Parkway is confusing. • Explain why an alternative that would "result in the worst overall traffic service levels" (taken from Display Boards) is being considered. ' H-14 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR MIG, lncJJuly 1997 Community Workshops- summary Memorandum Page 13 • Note that this alternative displays "poor planning" because it only allow one north -south access across the valley. • Note that this alternative seems to be a bit more "choppy," not flowing as easily as Alternative 2. In addition, be aware that it crosses the mountains. • Note a concern with crossing additional designated ridgelines Discussion Comments • Clarify why the Santa Clarita Parkway, south of Via Princessa, is connected to the main (northern) part of the parkway. Note that this will be confusing for the community. Consider giving this southern part a different name. Increased Roadway Capacity Alternatives (Alternatives 4 and 5) t Note that while most of the following comments regarding augmented intersections fall under Alternative 4, the issues and concerns expressed also apply to Alternative 5's augmented intersections. Augmented Intersections Although most participants supported the idea of augmented intersections, several expressed concern about their potential negative impacts. Some participants were concerned that augmented intersections would displace homes and businesses. Others voiced a concern that the construction of augmented intersections would open up a window for CALTRANS to come in, widen the length of the road (not just the intersection), and eventually turn the road into a freeway. Alternative 4 Written Comments • Note that this alternative "makes sense." • Note that this alternative "adds frosting to Alternative 2." • Note that this alternative possesses "some merit." • Note that this alternative is the "best of the seven alternatives." • Although participant "likes this plan the best," recognize that less "access" to the northern portion of Santa Clara River would be more acceptable. • "I like the idea of augmented intersections." (Alternatives 4 and 5) • Note that this alternative would enable good traffic flow, but may be "overkill - more than we really need." In addition, it may be considerably more expensive than Alternative 2: (Participant expressed same opinion of Alternative 5) • Note that this alternative seems to be a very viable alternative except for the potential displacement of existing residential development and businesses. H-15 ti �I II II Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Community Workshops - Summary Memorandum MIG, Inc.4uly 1997 Page 14 Explain what compensation would be given to the displaced businesses and residences. Note that this alternative is acceptable except for the fact that it may displace homes and businesses. Discussion Comments • Note that augmented intersections are very important. iStaff response: The City will consider constructing more augmented intersections in Canyon Country if Alternative 4 or 5 is adopted. • Note that over one-third of the Valley lives in Canyon Country, and yet there are only a few proposed augmented intersections in this area. • Recognize that there is a general distrust of government. For example, augmented intersections could work. However, participant is skeptical that the widening of the road now could eventually lead to that road becoming a freeway. Staff response: If augmented intersections are adopted, roads could be widened between intersections only if another Circulation Element Amendment is adopted to allow widen- ing between intersections. • Note a concern that the road would turn into a truck route. Staff response: These roads should be local service roads. • Note support for an augmented intersection, but ensure that the road does not become a freeway. Note the importance of working with CALTRANS up front. "Keep CALTRANS out." (There was support for this participant's comment.) • Note that it already takes a long time to travel to City Hall (20+ traffic lights) and adding onto intersections would slow down this journey even more. Staff response: Note that augmented intersections will probably speed up the trip although the additional traffic lights may slow traffic to some degree on some roads. Alternative 5 ` Written Comments Explain why an alternative with the "worst overall traffic service levels" is being considered. • Because this alternative is based on the roadway network of Alternative 3, it has its limitations and negative impacts, specifically that it will disturb ridgelines. • Since the EIR shows a significant negative impact on population and housing, consider other alternatives which appear to be more viable. H-16 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR MIG, Inc4uly 1997 Community Workshops - Summary Memorandum Page is Transportation Demand Management Alternatives (Alternatives 6 and 7) Note that while most of the following comments regarding TDM strategies fall under Alternative 6, the issues and concerns expressed also apply to Alternative 7. AIternatives 6 and 7 propose the same TDM strategies. Transportation Demand Management Strategies Several participants were supportive of the TDM strategies and measures but voiced concerns regarding their implementation. Some simply viewed them as unrealistic and requiring of major public behavioral changes towards transportation. Some participants viewed the TDM measures as being "unfriendly" and "restrictive" and specifically discouraged use of any disincentive strategies (i.e., parking charges). Alternative 6 Written Comments • Note support for this alternative. • Note that this alternative "could be done with caution." ' • Be aware that TDM measures are unrealistic. • Recognize that public behavioral changes would need to take place in order to ' implement the TDM measures. • While some of the TDM suggestions are good, in general, the alternative is too restrictive. • Be aware that people enjoy their cars and many need them for work. Note that the people who can rely on public transportation already utilize it and that ■ incentives will not work. j Discussion Comments ' • Note that businesses' adherence to TDM measures is lacking. • Note that transit will be more heavily utilized when it is more convenient and cheap. People use their vehicles for the little trips they make throughout the day; transit is not convenient and available for these types of trips. • Note that compressed work weeks are not yet possible. • Consider an incentive system, not a disincentive system. • Do not implement employee parking charges; this is a penalty for those who can not take public transportation. Staff response: We are hearing that incentives are better than disincentives. • Consider above ground people movers, aligned with and above roadways. • Be aware that the Newhall -Metrolink station will be highly utilized. However, tthere needs to be a north -south trail to reach the station. I H-17 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Community Workshops - Summary Memorandum AUG, Inc,Quly 1997 Page 16 Consider that there needs to be a better south trail corridor for bicycles. Staff response: There needs to be a better off-road network. Note that the bus system could be improved. There is only one bus company operating in the Valley. Staff response: There is a proposal to increase bus service in the Transit Plan. • Note that some bus drivers are nicer and more helpful than others. Alternative 7 Written Comments • Recognize that this alternative's TDM recommendations create a "type of environment that goes against the friendly community feeling which residents like and which brought people to.the Valley in the first place." • Note that compressed work weeks are a "great idea," but businesses and employers should not be penalized if that type of system does not work for them. • Consider having a city -sponsored program which focuses on landscaping and beautifying the new roads as they are built. Other Comments The following comments were general in nature and consisted of questions and concerns not relating to particular Circulation System Alternatives. Several participants expressed a desire to maintain their current quality of life in the Valley, stating that they wanted preservation of open space, natural resources (i.e., the Santa Clara River), and bike paths; mitigation of noise; and lessening of local traffic problems. In addition, some participants raised concerns regarding the roadway system adjacent to and within the Porta Bella development and made roadway suggestions for this area. Written Comments • "I am very worried that wonderful, safe, 'homey' Santa Clarita will in 20 years become Panorama City or Van Nuys." • Clarify if there will be a proportional amount of "public, safe, and landscaped usable space" in the City in twenty years. Note the importance of safeguarding the existence of such space as well as the "well designed, beautiful, and practical" bikepaths. • Ensure the protection of the Santa Clara River. Note that it is a great natural resource and the recreational areas and bike paths surrounding it are great. • "I like the bike trail system." ISM Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR MIG, Inc4uly 1997 Community Workshops - Summary Memorandum Page 17 • Note opposition to large bridge crossings over the Santa Clara River. • Consider that there will be noise generated from the six lane roadways. Clarify how noise problems will be addressed. • Explain how the current automobile speeding problem will be addressed. • Note concern that a map with residential street names was not available and the lack of such detail made it difficult to "envision the proposed roads." • Consider making more through roads with limited access, such as the Old Orchard Parkway, in order to enable traffic to move more smoothly. • Note that it is not necessary to design roads to act as shortcuts from I5 to State Route 14, but is more important to design roads to relieve city traffic and guide traffic from city streets to the existing freeways. • Note that 126 coming from the west should end at I5. Discussion Comments Note that all the alternatives result in LOS that are on the high end. Clarify what ' would need to be done to lower these service levels. Staff response: We may end up with a combination or hybrid of alternatives. Further study on this is needed. Consultant response: We could take Alternatives 4 and 5 and combine some of the Trans- portation Demand Management strategies from Alternative 617. Further modeling needs to be done or a rethinking or what constitutes feasible levels of service. Be aware that there are no roadway networks proposed for the area east of Bouquet Canyon. Staff response:. East of Bouquet Canyon is not the area where the thrust of the changes are occurring. Most of the growth is in the Central City area and west of the City. Traffic modeling shows that most of the traffic concerns are on the western side of the City and that a lot more arterial roadway planning on the eastside is not necessary. Recognize that Soledad Canyon Rd. is the only road that moves people from Canyon Country to Valencia. Consultant response: We can consider traffic improvements in the Mid -Canyon area and Soledad Canyon area. Staff response: Note that no roads go directly east, only southeast. • Be aware that taking people from the northwest to the southeast part of the City (i.e. to State Route 14) will lead to traffic problems. There will be more traffic moving through the City as well as increased traffic on SR 14 which already has traffic problems. • Recognize that there is no need to connect I5 and State Route 14. H-19 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Communify Workshops - Summary Memorandum MIG, rncd7uly 1997 Page Is • With the Porta Bella development coming in soon, note that there needs to be a better east -west connection across the City. • Note that the Santa Clarita Parkway should be dropped as it traverses the Porta Bello property and should be straightened out. • Note that in the Porta Bella area, Via Princessa should be dropped. Instead, the road should cross at the widest points of the area outside of Porta Bello. In addition, consider that Lyons Ave. could be straightened out and dropped to an existing intersection. Staff response: We are still considering where to connect the Lyons Ave. extension. It could connect at either Dockweiler or PIacerita Canyon. • Consider extending Lyons Ave. to State Route 14 (not as it currently connects to Dockweiler). • Recognize that the Wiley Canyon Bridge needs to be built. • Note that some of the proposed east -west roads will relieve the pressure on Soledad. • Consider incorporating a trail network component, specifically in the Wiley Canyon neighborhood. Staff response: We have addressed bike lanes in the policy document. • Do not allow the Santa Clarita Parkway to run right through the middle of the Center City area. Staff response: The City has just started on a Specific PIan for the Center City area. Roads will be designed in conjunction with land uses. • Clarify whether roadway river crossings are prohibitive as well as expensive. Clarify if the money could be used elsewhere, such as on other alternatives. Staff response: Yes, they are expensive. Note that other alternatives were studied in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR explains why certain alternatives were ruled out. • Consider constructing only one river crossing; both may be unnecessary. • Note support for the last participant's comments. Staff response: The City will be doing a cost estimate on these river crossings to better assess the expense. • Be aware that the river can be very powerful (i.e., the 1971-72 floods) and could potentially destroy a river overpass. • Clarify why the Santa Clara River bridge, included in Alternative 1, needs to go over the wide part of the river. Staff response: The purpose is to serve the planned development; however, other alterna- tives do not include this bridge, • Clarify whether Magic-Princessa is considered and calculated into the study. H-20 Santa Clarita circulation Element Amendment EIR MIG, Ine./july 1997 ' Community Workshops- Summary Memorandum Page 19 Staff response: Yes, Magic-Princessa has been taken into consideration. ' • Clarify whether any bridges cross over the railroads. Staff response: Yes, they would go over the railroad, just south of Soledad. • Recognize the importance of having as many connections to the freeway as possible in order to get traffic onto the freeways and off of city streets. Consider ' designing the streets like Orchard. Parkway. Staff response: We understand there is a need to maximize access to the freeway and provide limited access points to the street. • Note that Newhall Ranch Rd., Via Princessa, and Plum Canyon should all be six lanes. • Clarify if there are any state funds being used to build the roads. Staff response: We have not gotten to thefunding stage yet. C. July 10 Community Workshop Base Alternatives (Alternatives 1, 2 and 3) Alternative 1 (Base Plan) Most participants were opposed to the construction of an eight lane expressway through the City, citing similar reasons verbalized at the previous two Community Workshops (CALTRANS' potential involvement, the highway's inability to improve traffic circulation, and the high cost of construction). Alternative 2 ' Several participants supported this alternative, specifically approving of its roadway extensions. Alternative 3 Most participants did not support this alternative, stating that it could potentially negatively impact and exacerbate traffic problems in the Valley. Alternative 1(Base Plan) Written Comments • Note that this alternative enables existing roads to continue in a "well planned order." In addition, note that Santa Clarita Parkway is an excellent cut -through to Newhall Ranch Rd. and that the alternative would create needed roads (i.e., Via Princessa across Santa Clara River to Wiley Canyon Rd.). • Note that this alternative is superior to all the others because "it provides the best traffic circulation needs of the City." II ' H-21 �i 1 'I 1 ii Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Community Workshops - Summary Memorandum MIG, Inc47uly 1997 Page 20 • Note that the terminus of Santa Clarita Parkway at Bouquet Canyon Rd. is unknown and could potentially interfere with land designated for recreation and park facilities. • Note that the proposed eight lane Newhall Ranch Rd. will destroy homes in the Valley and negatively impact the Santa Clara River and Canyon Country. Note that there should not be a limited access expressway crossing through the Valley. The I5 and SR 14 are connected 10 minutes south of the 15. There is no justification to spend more than 100 million dollars to save ten minutes of travel time. Instead, there should be six lane surface street arterials that will have a maximum speed of 50 mph and are truck restricted. Consider building the following as six lane arterials: Magic Princessa, Newhall Ranch Road, Plum Canyon, and Golden Valley Rd. (north -south). • Note that trucks should not be allowed through the City. • The City should immediately. request CALTRANS' termination of 126 at I5. Note that the City has no control over CALTRANS and that has caused problems in the community. • Note opposition to any limited access expressway through the City. The construction of such a road would involve CALTRANS and this agency has been difficult to work with in the past. In addition, such a road would not help the circulation of Santa Clarita Valley and would be very expensive. 1 • Note that everything except the Newhall Ranch Rd. extension through Canyon Country is acceptable. The Santa Clara River should not be disturbed for the sake of a "super highway" to serve special interest groups. 1 • Explain how the City can guarantee that Highway 126 will not be built. • Note that the extension of SR 126 as Newhall Ranch Rd. should be eliminated 1 from planning maps because it is a road valuable only to Newhall Land and Farming. Public funds should not be used to build it. 1 Alternative 2 Written Comments ' Note that this alternative provides reasonable roadway extensions with fewer miles constructed. ' Note that this alternative provides an ideal local east -west arterial, staying north of the river and terminating in the Golden Valley Rd. This route only requires one bridge over the Santa Clara River (east of Bouquet) and is a simpler bridge ' than those proposed. • Consider implementing this alternative first and Alternative 4 second. ' • Recognize that Alternatives 2 and 4 are the best. ' H-22 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment £IR MIG, Inc4uly I997 ' community Workshops- Summary Memorandum Page 21 • Note that this alternative "seems to be the most workable network of roads." ' Alternative 3 is a "good second choice." • Note that Alternative 2 is the first choice, with Alternative 3 being the second L' choice. Alternative 3 is the second choice because it provides only one north -south arterial, as opposed to Alternative 2's two arterials. • Recognize that LOS D is too low. The service level should be "A" or "B" even ' though reaching these service levels would require increasing the construction costs. • Note that this alternative does not provide for the critical east -west traffic circulation needs of the City. (Alternative 2 and 3) • Note that Newhall Ranch Rd. should end at Golden Valley. Note the following: the widening of San Fernando Rd. has made Rio Vista unnecessary and gives enough reason for its removal; Lyons Ave. extension conflicts with the Railroad Ave. upgrade and thus should be removed; and Magic Mountain Parkway extension through Porta Bello should be a through road, not a T -intersection with Via Princessa. (Same comment applies to Alternative 3) Discussion Comments Clarify if Whites Canyon T -intersects at Plum Canyon. Staff response. Yes, this is what the road does. Clarify if there is an alternative to extending Santa Clarita Parkway through Central Park. Alternative 3 Written Comments • Note that the Golden Valley Rd., combining with Santa Clarita Parkway, would "dump crosstown traffic" onto SR 14 at its most crowded point. Note participant's lack of support for this alternative. This option requires a large, very expensive bridge, angling across the Santa Clara River, rising high into the air (eye pollution) above Soledad Canyon Rd., above the S.P.A.R. and onto Bermite property. Recognize all of the environmental impacts associated with this alternative (i.e., impacts to the river, aesthetics). • Be aware that this alternative impacts the roadway network excessively. Recognize that this alternative creates a major intersection at Santa Clarita Parkway and Golden Valley Rd. Note that this alternative's proposal to merge Santa Clarita Parkway into Golden Valley Rd. is counter productive to mitigating traffic impacts. Santa Clarita Parkway from the south T -intersects into another section of Via Princessa dividing the roadway some distance from the other segment. H-23 i Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR MIG, Incw7uly 1997 Community Workshops- Summary Memorandum Page 22 • Be aware that Alternative 3 does less to create a continuous roadway corridor ' connecting Bouquet Canyon Rd. and SR 14. • Note support for Via Princessa crossing San Fernando Rd. and Golden Valley Rd. cutting across where a cut is in fact needed. • Note that Santa Clarita Parkway is not contiguous; it does not carry Newhall Ranch Rd. to Via Princessa. ' Discussion Comments • Note that Alternative 3 offers more flexibility. 1 Increased Roadway Capacity Alternatives (Alternatives 4 and 5) Note that while most of the following comments regarding augmented intersections fall tinder ' Alternative 4, the issues and concerns expressed also apply to Alternative 5's augmented intersections. Augmented Intersections Some participants supported the idea of augmented intersections, but wanted to ensure that the widened roads would not endanger pedestrians utilizing the roads. Alternative 4 Written Comments • Recognize that this option is the only other alternative that addresses traffic circulation problems, other than Alternative 1. • Note opposition to augmented intersections because their purpose is to provide a "way off for cars so trucks can speed through." (Alternatives.4 and 5) • Note that the augmented intersections will alleviate traffic for those using the roads earmarked for augmentation. • Recognize that augmented intersections could create problems for pedestrians near these intersections. Consider pedestrian bridges. (Alternatives 4 and 5) • Consider pedestrian overpasses at major intersections. • Note that this alternative appears to accommodate the most people and give the most options. Consider applying some of Alternative 6's TDM strategies as well as adding pedestrian overpasses at major intersections. • Consider adopting some of Alternative 6's incentive -based TDM strategies. Note that incentives always work better than penalties. • Note that Bouquet Canyon Road is certainly inadequate as it now stands as a two lane road. H-24 'i Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR MIG,1=47uly 1997 Community Workshops . summary' Memorandum Page 23 • Note that it maybe possible to connect Copperhill Rd., Plum Canyon Rd., and Sand Canyon Rd. to create a northern surface street bypass. Recognize that the Copperhill extension comes into Bouquet Canyon in a ' dangerous curve. Discussion Comments • Recognize that augmented intersections only address automobile traffic congestion, but do not consider pedestrian needs. • Consider connecting Whites Canyon and Camp Plenty (via a pedestrian bridge). • Clarify if an augmented intersection has nine lanes for the length of the street (not just at the intersection). • Be aware that some intersections are not practical (i.e., San Fernando Rd., Lyons Ave.). Note that augmented intersections can lead to a reduction in business activity in developed areas. • Note that Alternative 4 has the least effect on air pollution. • Clarify whether it is possible to add to existing roads without intersection augmentation. Alternative 5 Note that there were no comments made pertaining specifically to Alternative 5. However, note that the comments relating to augmented intersections under Alternative 4 apply to this alternative as well. Transportation Demand Management Alternatives (Alternatives 6 and 7) Note that while most of the following comments regarding TDM strategies fall under Alternative 6, the issues and concerns expressed also apply to Alternative 7. Alternatives 6 and 7 propose the same TDM strategies. Transportation Demand Management Strategies There was mixed opinion on the TDM strategies. While some participants viewed the measures as too "restrictive" and "intrusive," others saw the need for some incentive -based TDM strategies and encouraged the City to continue to search for ways to get people out of their cars. Alternative 6 ■ Written Comments • "This plan will not work." 1 • Consider the Louis Bill, which mandates Transportation Demand Management. ' H-25 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR MIG, Inc./July 1997 Community Workshops - summary Memorandum Page 24 • Note that Alternatives 6 and 7 are "too intrusive." • Note that people who can take public transportation or carpool already do so. Note that there should not be a "punishment' for driving cars. • 'Responsible planning of arterial roads in the Valley is much more important than TDM and deserves adequate exchange of information to and from the community." • Note that the "concept of incentives and disincentives of the TDM approach is an unfair prejudice against people who drive alone. TDM cares not if a single occupant vehicle is necessary for various reasons." • Alternative 6 and 7 "can work through an educational approach. Discussion Comments • Note that the Louis Bill, a state law prohibiting TDM requirements, should be studied. • Note opposition for employees paying a fee to drive alone. • Recognize the need to continue to search for ways to get people out of their cars. • Recognize that these somewhat "futuristic" TDM strategies can work. • Note support for many of the TDM strategies (i.e., compressed work weeks). • Clarify who the TDM measures would benefit (i.e., residents). • Note the need to expand transit service to outside the City, in the outlying areas. • Note that it takes too much time to use public transit. • Note the importance of educating businesses and employees about TDM strategies. • Be aware that tax credit types of TDM programs would capture the attention of small businesses. • Note support for.incentives which encourage employees to telecommute and to adhere to compressed work weeks. • Consider constructing carpool lanes on streets. • Note the need for bike lanes. • Consider other modes of transit (i.e., electric rail). Alternative 7 Written Comments • Implement the TDM changes now in addition to more convenient buses and fares. TWI Santa Clarita Circulation Element Ammdmmt EIR MIG,Inc4uly 1997 Community Workshops - Summary Memorandum Page 25 • Note that Alternatives 6 and 7 are "pipedreams." Other Comments The following comments were general in nature and consisted of questions and concerns not relating to particular Circulation System Alternatives. Written Comments • "Alternatives 2 - 7 are all well thought out and each one has possibilities." • Consider the impacts on people; these impacts are more important than the environmental impacts described in the alternatives. • Note that "we have always asked for a network of roads and a northern bypass." • Note that Magic-Princessa will serve the City and its community. • In addition to Metrolink going out of the Valley, consider electric rail within the City. • Note that the Santa Clarita Parkway should not cut through the park on the Castaic Lake Water Agency property. • Consider pursuing the far north extension of Vasquez Canyon Rd. to Highways 14 and 5. Discussion Comments • Clarify what the time frame will be for the construction of the roads. • Explain how buildout and road construction fit together. In addition, clarify the end point for buildout. Staff response: Buildout of the roadway network wiII occur in conjunction with buildout of the City. We have not assumed any specific buildout date. • Explain how the synchronization of lights will work and how this system will affect pedestrians. Note that light synchronization is a "pie in the sky" idea. • Clarify why the alternatives are all below the desired levels of service (LOS) and whether this is unusual. Staff/Consultant response: The desired LOS is a goal. However, it is not unusual that a Circulation Element does not achieve this goal in all instances. The City is constrained by other concerns, as well as the effects of development outside the City over which the City has no control. • Clarify if there are any projections for the limited use of trucks on streets. In addition, note that the trucks which one typically sees are shorthaul. H-27 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Community Workshops - Summary Memorandum MIG, Inc,4uly I997 Page 26 • Explain how the City can prevent trucks or freeway traffic from cutting across the Valley. • Clarify the weight limits. for trucks. • Explain if development from outside the City limits was considered in the Draft EIR document. • Recognize the need to protect the City from traffic generated from newly developed properties. • Clarify where the money from development outside City boundaries goes. • Explain why Valencia was left out of and seemingly avoided in all of the alternatives. Note the importance of Valencia and all of its resources. • Clarify whether there are any plans or protective measures to ensure the safety of children when crossing (or playing) near widened roads, particularly if such a widened road is in close proximity to a school site. • Explain the differences in the roadway networks between Alternatives 2,3 and 4 and Alternatives 4 and 5. • Clarify if Magic-Princessa is funded. Staff response: It is partially paid for. • Clarify if Whites Canyon is being extended to State Route 14. • . Consider ending the northern portion of Newhall Ranch Road at Rye Canyon. • Consider extending Plum Canyon past Sierra Highway to Sand Canyon Rd. • Explain why a northern bypass is not included in the plans. "It's a good idea ... People would use it." Staff response: This alternative was considered but rejected because it would not meet the City's objectives. Note that the County is still studying this option. • Consider gating the roads at the City boundary in order to keep out outside traffic. • Clarify what population projections have been done. c\kd%1444 nclar\Cworkshops\summary4.lwp\8.12.97 H-28 m sp �' � 00 -5�?-441/ Ate%. lar- Fo'.Oii'.,.' I� .;.— - IIR'r ,I U/vlt� • •t ``� Ful tli�j�� y, d.o `S � �r4L- �Ne i / "Nor �� WtGE`C I c t 7-4� 4 �'� c 10. Mb t%m at- ` SANTA CLARITA CIRCULATION AMENDMENT EIR Community Workshop Sierra Vista Junior High School Saturday, June 28, 1997 H-30 II It II 11 II 1 29, 193-7 lop S iI '1 1 ntsj... Mp�� tom"% It <.. i F K"1� ... WYi T:a V-/-' I w .. j c45EF S4 of 10 ;.ems l`� --I- VXLL- M— eR� I;7 I i unl� • ., ``��uluii� .J --AHC' SANTA CLARITA CIRCULATION A1IENDD7E\TEIR Commu?zkY Workshop Sierra Vista Junior High School Saturday, June 28, 1997 H-30 II i I 5.4 fA CLAR11k ■ CiRL LII AT►pIdMEW A1D 1DMV-NT ■ c� 4ZCY ARRo�� � Su�Y ►a,w+ww`1 0 �'T1M8 SMS? '�'JADS . r I 1 I I I �;Z5d RoN- q [Aiv c5 �1Z N ' RGhl17a4T! TS , tcR. �.�'rs�lAitS.._ ,� yiDC'LS- Lou,.ts 5ThW-- LAW Mo"i&T5> ftoW WUL'SyN(�}{20NIZp- -rM REQV%FEMEN S,• T'ON GF C"-NALS WORD? 1 ow VQI---s 5UI -D OAT i F P- (�NSTRttGTlot.J c�J�ND(�INTf�ReUILDOt�; * uMrr v Across 0v -Ar .zt,3. ??�wsdTlcNS 7a LIMIT'iRUC'KS j2z T Grrl ccNsm=--zE�? ALTERN. afe5: � H{T>� YDN �DI�RcNG�'SN✓ -�1rc�R�c-iiotJ 1i3f Lk kt+v use k H�tv�itzKS ,�{� � l�bt �1 TtfE �S FUINDED? Z-iic#t�ll� .V*IP.-M 60 DI=Y oaTStOE �X.►►R-�=�j a ► PmTECTA�t"t FROM EWL DPMI fRoP�iZl1�-S - ► ANN PLAr(S a\ tv5 f�T SG1-iGd_ To wto�R��S 10. 1F;.�- OF �.Ai�}17�i1ly -SRRV . •.•.. .•ms's.• •�, �i. . AaeloL LA t5 1 C�SIf�RN TNAT ���WnLT 4� AGGR-TRRFflG srmt4t IN4 �,VJ7{tT _`SdN Ta l`t, -!!�` ► t�t_ A.M LARCH ( Sf9 1110. fir( Doyon 1c�P ► Ko !�b►C.� ON b ,VL OR, ►(CRJl1�RN �RTlchl � �� uc�ALLVMl% 'CpO C. ��F�r,a �N•G N��rjttku`RrtiNG1k tCoNS1VEY.�L�No -vb cpaNw SME :m i cKGf-a- C\L.tn`lu�2wk� !.. 1n do 4S�' ► COM11 %cam( cX7 &vw-S s rm'sT. SANTA CLARITA CII2CULATION A -N ENEIMENT EIR Community Workshop Arroyo Seco Junior High School Thursdav, July 10, 1997 H-31 II I T.71�:tSCM� Qk` Ke�� fi1�1 tia �i+yoK. t`- ' PioP'{1t61 nf?- vI k �° \Nms ion Ktom. ��,'jw�j �`s�i�•hkh`� e5. o � �rC.�G I r b; esti. III 01TV( VVV-K VX CN; CZ 1 -� �ga`-� SMPRoY��T ✓ - _ gtiKZS i�lD1t� 1 �r� -ro use PVg1 tG (�' TRANS? SANTA CLARITA CIRCULATION AMENDMENT EIR Community Workshop Arroyo Seco Junior High School Thursday, July 10, 1997 H-32 Appendix I Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program w w w �w w� w w w w w w w� w ■■i► w iw Iw iw Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Appendix I Mitigatibn Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation• . of Acilon When Monitoring Responsible Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or OccurApproval Initial Date Comments EARTH ER -1(a) Appropriate soils and geotechnical Conduct soils and During design/ Once for each OGM investigations shall be conducted for all geotechnical environmental road project specific roadway alignments prior to the investigations and review for individual design and construction of each roadway. review of soils and road projects Any additional recommendations contained geological in such investigations beyond compliance investigations in with standard UBC requirements shall be conjunction with fully implemented, environmental review ER -1(b) An appropriate watering system, a. Design plan a. During design/ a. Once for a. PBD such as drip irrigation, shall be established check environmental each road for cul slopes to minimize the volume of review for individual project water used during the establishment of road projects vegetation, thus reducing the potential of erosion during this period. b. Field check of b. After completion b. Once for b. OEM installed system of system each road project Key: PBD -City of Santa Clarita Planning and Building Services Department TED- City of Santa Clarita Transportation & Engineering Services Department MSD - City of Santa Clarita Maintenance Services Department RWQCB - Regional Water Quality Control Board OEM - Onsitc Environmental Monitor/Independent Biologist OCM — Onsite Grading Monitor/Independent Geotechnical or Engineering Firm City of Santa Clarita I-1 m m m! mom M M W M m m m m m ■s m Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Appendix I Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation.. e Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency • In t a I Date Comments ER -1(c) Grading shall not be performed a. Grading plan a. During design/ a. Once for a. PBD during the rainy period (October 1 to April check to verity environmental each road 15) unless the grading plans include compliance review for individual project provisions to mitigate erosion, flooding, or road projects the deposition of sediment or debris. b. Field check to b. Prior to rainy b. As needed b. OEM verify installations of season during BMPs grading ER -3(a) Whenever feasible, individual Preparation of During alignment Once for each PBD roadway alignments shall avoid areas of high alignment studies for studies/ road project landslide potential, as illustrated in the 1991 individual roads environmental General Plan Safety Element. review for individual roads ER -5(a) If, during grading, faults are a. Field a. During grading for a. Daily a. OGM observed that could be active or potentially observations during each construction active, the project design shall be modified to grading project account for the possibility of ground rupture. Roads that cross known active fault lines b. Plan check to b. Final plan check b. Once prior to b. PBD/TED shall be designed in accordance with the verify compliance for all subsequent final design most current accepted engineering with design road projects approval technology available and feasible in order to requirements minimize catastrophic failure of the facilities. ER -6(a) It liquefiable soils are encountered a. Field a. During grading a. Periodically a. OGM during grading, then proper re-engineering of observations during during each the soils shall be performed or the proposed grading construction structures are to be moved or designed with project the most current accepted design features to withstand the effects of liquefaction. b. Verification of b. Final plan check b. Once prior to b. PBDffED compliance with for all subsequent final design design requirements road projects approval Key. PBD -City of Santa Clarita Planning and Building Services Department TED—City of Santa Clarita Transportation & Engineering Services Department MSD— City of Santa Clarita Maintenance Services Department RW QCB -Regional Water Quality Control Board OEM - Onsite Environmental Monitor/Independent Biologist OGM—Onsite Grading Monitor/Independent Geotechnical or Engineering Firm city of Santa cfarlta 1-2 r� t� �r ri �� r r a■i r r r ■■r r r� r r r I. Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Appendix I Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program AIR QUALITY AQ -1(a) Water trucks shall be used during Construction During road Periodically OGM all roadway construction to keep all areas of monitoring to verify construction during each vehicle movement sufficiently damp to dust control construction prevent dust from leaving the construction project site. At a minimum, this will require twice daily applications (once in late morning and once at the end of the workday). Increased watering is required whenever wind speed exceeds 15 miles per hour. Grading shall be suspended whenever wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour. AQ -1(b) Whenever importation, exportation, Construction During road Periodically OGM or stockpiling of fill material Is involved in monitoring to verify construction during each roadway construction activity, soil that is dust control construction stockpiled for more than two days shall be project covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. Trucks transporting material shall be tarped from the point of origin or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard. AQ -1(c) After clearing, grading, earth- Construction During road Periodically OGM moving, or excavation is completed for any monitoring to verify construction during each road construction project, the disturbed area dust control construction shall be treated by watering or revegetalion, project or by spreading soil binders until the area Is paved or otherwise developed. AQ -2(a) Carbon monoxide "hot spot" Analysis of carbon Environmental Once for each PBD analysis shall be conducted as part of the monoxide review for individual road project environmental review for individual roadways concentrations from road projects with the with the potential to experience poor levels individual roads potential to Key: PBD- City orsanla Clarita Planning and Building Serviecs Department TED — City of Santa Clarita Transportation & Engineering Services Department MSD — City of Santa Clarita Maintenance Services Department RWQCB-Regional Water Quality Control Board OEM - Onsite Environmental MonitorBndependent Biologist OGM—Onsite Grading Mondor/Independent Geotechnical or Engineering Firm _ 1-3 rr r �■r r� r� r r rr s �r *r r s r r rr r Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Appendix I Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure/Condition of Action. . . Responsible Compliance Verification ApprovalAgency• Inal Date Comments of service and expose sensitive receptors create CO "hot such as residences or schools to elevated spots' carbon monoxide concentrations. HYDROLOGY/FLOODING HF -1(a) An SWMP shall be developed for all a. Plans to be a. Plan check a. Once for a. PBD/ roadway construction activity In the City and submitted prior to each individual RWQCB Implemented for all construction that occurs final design construction to implement the Santa Clarita Circulation approval project Element. The SWMP shall include specific temporary BMPs to control the export of b. Field check for b. During grading in b. Weekly b. OEM material from construction sites and into implementation of rainy season during rainy local drainages. BMP methods may include, temporary BMPs season but would not be limited to, the use of during grading temporary sediment basins, hay bales, sand bagging, and soil stabilizers. Additional c. Field check for c. After construction c. Once for c. OEM BMPs shall be implemented for any fuel installation of each storage or fuel handling that could occur on permanent BMPs construction construction sites. Permanent BMPs may project Include extensive revegetation and construction of pollutant trapping devices. HF -1(b) Grading shall not be performed a. Grading plan a. At final plan a. Once for a. PBD during the rainy period (October 1 to April check to verify check each 15) unless.the grading plans include compliance construction provisions to mitigate erosion, flooding, or project the deposition of sediment or debris. Grading performed during the rest of the b. Field check to b. During grading b. As needed b. OEM year shall contain a provision for dust verify installation of suppression. BMPs Key: PBD- City or Santa Clarita Planning and Building Services Department TED— City of Santa Clarita Transportation & Engineering Services Department MSD—Cily of Santa Clarita Maintenance Services Department BWQCB - Regional Water Quality Control Board OEM - Onsite Environmental Monitornndcpendent Biologist OGM — Onsite Grading Monitor/Independent Geotechnical or Engineering Firm City of Santa 1-4 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Appendix I Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation.. e Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency • Initial Date Comments HF -1(c) Large sediment loads shall be Final design plans At final design Once prior to PBD/TED mitigated through proper engineering control. that show final review final plan As required by Los Angeles County Flood drainage control approval Control District, debris basins are to be ' specifications constructed and maintained to handle the debris that could be generated during rain events. The debris basins are to be Integrated with the local flood control network to ensure that the runoff is properly controlled and the risk of flooding is minimized. Design criteria are to follow Los Angeles County Flood Control District and City of Santa Clarita requirements - HF -2(a) Construct oil and grease traps within the catch basins for the roadways. a. Final design plan to show oil and a. At final plan check a. Once for each new road a. PBD The catch basin shall include a trap that grease traps prevents floatables from discharging with the drainage water. The City Maintenance b. Field check of b. End of b. Once for b. OEM department shall be responsible for installed traps construction each new road monitoring and periodically cleaning out the catch basins. c- Catch basins to c. End of c. Periodically c. MSD be cleaned out construction as needed HF -2(b) Spills along roadways shall be Remove spills and After construction On-going as MSD removed as quickly as practical. Hazardous conduct subsequent needed materials and motor vehicle fluids shall be remediation removed from the site. Contaminated soil shall also be removed or remediated as soon as practical. Cleanup priorities shall include human health and safety and protection of streams and other habitats. Key: PDD- City of Santa Clarita Planning and Building Services Department TED—City of Santa Clarita Transportation & Engineering Services Departmcnl MSD — City of Santa Clarita Maintenance Services Department RWQCD - Regional Water Quality Control Board OEM - Onsile Environmental Manitor/Indcpendent Biologist OGM — Onsite Grading Monitor/Independent Geolechnical or Engineering Firm 1-5 .r w ass r■r t� r air M 111111111011111110 r IMI 11111110 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Appendix I Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MitigationResponsible Approval.• Occur Initial Date Comments HF -3(a) Roadway segments within the 100- Plan check to verify Final plan check Once for each PBD/rED year Flood zone shall be constructed to compliance with proposed road withstand the 100 -year flood event. All UBC design requirements prior to final codes applicable to Flood hazards and roads design approval shall be implemented. Stream crossings shall be designed to minimize the impact to the watercourse and minimize the risk of damage to the structure. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES B -2(a) Bridge all significant riparian habitat Develop design Road alignment Once for each PBD within the Santa Clara River and San plans for bridges studies/ subsequent Francisquito Canyon, maintaining natural that maintain natural environmental study streamflow. stream flow review for specific roads B -2(b) Develop and Implement riparian Submittal and Environmental Once for each PBD restoration plans in consultation with the review of plan. Plan review and at final subsequent CDFG and ACOE for all disturbed would be forwarded plan check study vegetation. Plans shall use native species for review to CDFG appropriate to the region and habitat. and ACOE. B -2(c) Maintain natural bottom drainages, Develop plans for Road alignment Once for each PBD providing greenbelt buffers along riparian maintenance of studies/ subsequent corridors for flood protection in lieu of natural bottom environmental study channelization. drainages review for specific road alignments B -2(d) Avoid vernal pool habitat. Provide Prior to final Prior to final plan Full time during PBD/OEM ample buffers to prevent any alterations to roadway design• the approval for specific project vernal pool hydrology. location of vernal road projects and construction pool habitat shall be during construction activity in defined and vicinity of vernal appropriate buffers pool habitat established Key: PBD- City orsanta Clarita Planning and Building Services Department TED —City of Santa Clarila Transportation & Engineering Services Department MSD—City of Santa Clarita Maintenance Services Department RWQCB - Regional Water Quality Control Board OEM - Onsite Environmental Monitor/Independent Biologist OGM — Onsite Grading Monitor/Independent Geotechnical or Engineering Firm Ilfd r rr rr �. it r� .■� r r r r r r r r �■■ r r �. Santa Clarita'Circulation Element Amendment EIR Appendix I Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MitigationResponsible Approval:. Monitoriq to Occur Frequency Agency Initial Date Comments B -2(e) Adopt a policy encouraging the Adopt policy Prior to Circulation Once for each PBD alignment of Dickason Road within San Element subsequent Fransquito Canyon to be outside the SEA Amendment study boundaries. Provide for a single road approval crossing of San Fransquito Canyon as nearly perpendicular as possible to minimize the loss of riparian habitat. It should be recognized that the portion of Dickason Road within San Francisquito Canyon is currently outside the City limits. Therefore, the City does not currently have direct control over the alignment of the road. B -2(f) For Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Evaluate alternative Alignment studies/ Once for each PBD align the intersection of Golden Valley Road alignments for environmental subsequent and Newhall Ranch Road as far to the north roadway design review for specific study as possible to minimize the impact on road alignments riparian resources to the extent feasible. 8-2(g) For Alternatives 3, 5, and 7 conduct a. Conduct field a. Alignment a. Once for a. OEM specific roadway alignment studies intended Investigations studies/ each to choose an alignment that minimizes the environmental subsequent effect on cottonwood woodland at the review for specific study intersection of Newhall Ranch Road and road alignments Santa Clarita Parkway. b. Field investigation b. Environmental b. Once for b. PBD review review for specific each road alignments subsequent stud B-3 At the time that detailed design for a. Field a. Alignment a. Once for a. PBD specific roadways is conducted, the site investigation review studies/ each specific design shall avoid disturbance within to verify avoidance environmental subsequent the dripline of native oak trees whenever of oak trees review for specific study possible. Each roadway that passes through road alignments Key: PBD -city or Santa Clarita Planning and Building Services Department TED— City of Santa Clarita Transportation & Engineering Services Department MSD —city orsanta Clarita Maintenance Services Department RWQCB- Regional Water Quality Control Board OEM - Onsite Environmental Monitor/Indepcndenl Biologist OGM — Onsite Grading Monitor/Independent Geotechnical or Engineering Firm 1-7 Clarita Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Appendix I Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation . . . of Action. . . Responsible Compliance Verification Approval.• Occur Initial Date Comments oak tree habitat shall comply with the City's b. Verification of b. Prior to approval b. Once for b. PBD Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. Trees replacement plan of specific roads each removed as a result of improvements shall subsequent be replaced in accordance with the City's study Ordinance. B -4(a) A site specific survey for sensitive Conduct field Prior to construction Once for each OEM plant species should be conducted along all investigations in subsequent routes during the appropriate time of the conjunction with study year at the time when they are proposed for environmental actual development. Surveys must be review for specific floristic in nature, identifying all species road alignment encountered. B4(b) Avoid populations of sensitive plant species if located. Develop and implement a. Verify avoidance of sensitive plant a. Environmental review for specific a. Once for each a. PBD restoration plans, in consultation with the species road alignment subsequent CDFG and USFWS (as appropriate) only if study avoidance is not possible. Restoration plans shall contain a monitoring program for a b. Submittal and b. Prior to approval b. Once for b. PBD minimum of 5 years. review of restoration of specific road each plan (if necessary). projects subsequent Plan would be study forwarded for review to CDFG and USFWS. c. Field check c. After construction of Individual roads c. Periodically after c. OEM construction Key: PBD - City of Santa Clarita Planning and Building Services Department TED —City of Santa Clarita Transportation & Engineering Services Department MSD —City of Santa Clarita Maintenance Services Department RW QCB - Regional Water Quality Control Board OEM - Onsite Environmental Monitor/Independent Biologist OCM—Onsite Grading Monitor/Independent Geotechnical or Engineering Firm City of Santa Clarita 1-8 Santa Ciarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Appendix I Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation . . . of Action. . . Responsible ComplianceVerification ApprovalAgency• Initial Date Comments B -5(a) A site specific survey for sensitive animal species should be conducted along a. Conduct field investigations in a. Road alignment studies/ a. Once for each road a. OEM all routes during the appropriate time of the conjunction with environmental project year at the time when they are proposed for subsequent review for specific actual development. If species are environmental roads encountered, the location where they are review found shall be avoided. If avoidance is not possible, a relocation or habitat restoration b. Submittal and b. Prior to project b. Once for b. CDFG/ plan shall be implemented on lands that review of restoration approval each road USFWS have been set aside for long term plan (if necessary). project preservation as open space. Plan would be forwarded to CDFG and USFWS for review B -5(b) All road crossing construction of the Santa Clara River and San Francisquito a. Grading plan check to verify a. At final plan check a. Once a. PBD Canyon Creek shall be done during the compliance summer during low flow periods. In the event that flow is occurring during b. Field check to b. During b. As needed b. OEM construction, silt traps and other facilities verify installations of construction shall be employed to avoid the creation of BMPs downstream impacts on unarmored threespine stickleback populations. All diversions shall be done in accordance with Fish and Game and Army Corps of Engineers permit conditions. Key: PTSD- City of Santa Clarila Planning and Building Services Department TED — City of Santa Clartta Transportation & Engineering Services Department MSD — City of Santa Clarita Maintenance Services Department RW QCB - Regional Water Quality Control Board OEM - Onsite Environmental Monitor/Independent Biologist OGM — Onsite Grading Monitor/Independent Geotechnicat or Engineering Firm I1] Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Appendix I Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation . . . of Action. .. .le Compliance Verification Approval.• Occur Initial Date Comments NOISE N -1(a) Grading and construction operations Review and monitor During construction Periodically OEM shall be limited to between 7:00 am and 7:00 construction of individual roads during PM on non -holiday weekdays and scheduling to construction of Saturdays, mitigate construction all road projects noise N -1(b) Whenever feasible, electrical power Field observations During construction Periodically OEM shall be used to run air compressors and for compliance of individual roads similar power tools rather than diesel equipment. N -1(c) All diesel equipment shall be Field observations During construction Periodically OEM operated with closed engine covers and shall for compliance of individual roads be equipped with factory -recommended mufflers and other silencing features. N -1(d) The City shall review all roadway Review noise During Prior to PBD projects to determine the necessity and mitigation in environmental review construction and feasibility of additional construction noise subsequent for specific road approval of mitigation. Additional mitigation may include, environmental projects project but is not limited to, the use of temporary documentation to noise barriers to shield nearby sensitive determine adequacy receptors and additional restrictions on the phasing or timing of noise generating activities such as grading. N -2(a) A traffic noise study shall be Prepare noise study During Prior to PBD/rED prepared by an individual qualified in as part of environmental review construction and acoustical analysis for all specific roadway subsequent for specific road approval of alignments at the time that specific alignment environmental projects individual road is proposed. Any recommendations review projects contained in the study for alleviating significant noise problems will be adhered to. Mitigation may include• but is not limited to, Key: PBD -city or Santa Clarita Planning and Building Services Department TED—Clty of Santa Clarita Transportation & Engineering Services Department MSD— City of Santa Clarita Maintenance Services Department RWQCB - Regional Water Quality Control Board OEM - Onsite Environmental Monitor/Independent Biologist OGM—Onsite Grading Monitor/independent Geoleehnical or Engineering hlrm 1-10 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Appendix I Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation . . . of Action. . . Responsible ComplianceVerification Approval.• Occur Initial Date Comments the use of sound walls, berms, and/or appropriate setbacks. N -2(b) On new road segments with the Examine the need During Once for each TED/PBD potential to expose adjacent uses to noise for, and feasibility, of environmental review subsequent exceeding "normally acceptable" levels, the using rubberized for individual road environmental City shall consider and, if feasible, use rubberized asphalt paving material for street asphalt paving material projects review paving. Studies have demonstrated that this type of paving materials can substantially reduce roadway noise. A 1992 noise study In the City of Thousand Oaks by Acoustical Analysis Associates, Inc. indicated that the use of an asphalt rubber overlay can achieve a noise reduction of from 2 to 5 dBA as compared to standard asphalt. RISK OF UPSET/HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY RU -1(a) The Department of Toxic Substances verify compliance in During Once for each PBD Control (DTSC) shall be contacted regarding conjunction with environmental review subsequent the current investigative/remediation status of subsequent for individual road environmental the former Bermlte Plant property. The locations of the proposed roadways that pass environmental review projects review through the former Bermite Plant property shall be coordinated with the person in charge of investigationtremediation for the former plant at the DTSC. Key: PDD -City or Santa Clarita Planning and Building Services Department TED— City of Santa Clarita Transportation & Engineering Services Department MSD — C11y of Santa Clarha Maintenance Services Department RWQCD - Regional Water Quality Control Board OEM - Onsite Environmental Monilor/Indepcndent Dialogist OGM — Onsite Grading Mmdlor/Independent Geotechnical or Engineering Firm City of Santa t-11 r it M f r Ijl it r r Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Appendix I Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation MeasuMeasure/Condition of Action. . . Responsible Compliance Approval.• Occur Initial Date Comments RU -1(b) No roadways shall pass through Verify avoidance of Environmental Once for each PBD areas of known radioactive contamination radioactive review for specific road project that within the former Bermite Plant property contamination road projects passes through boundaries. All identified radioactive the Bermile contamination at the former Bermile Plant plant property must be removed or remediated, prior to any type of construction related to the development of the proposed roadways. RU -1(c) All construction personnel working Field verification During construction Periodically OEM or PBD within parts of the former Bermite Plant, of Individual roads during individual identified by the DTSC as formerly having soil projects within the construction and/or groundwater contamination other than Bermile Plant projects as radioactive contamination, shall participate in personnel 40 -Hour Occupational Health and Safety change Training or the equivalent at a minimum, and shall be outfitted with appropriate protective equipment should contamination be encountered. RU4 (d) A release shall be obtained from the Verify compliance Prior to construction Once for each PBD DTSC guaranteeing that remediation activities during environmental of individual roads subsequent at the former Bermite Plant will not result in air review for specific environmental emissions or radioactive emissions that would adversely affect humans in slow-moving or road projects review stopped vehicles with the windows rolled down; OR areas for proposed roadway construction on the former Bermite facility shall be certified "clean" by the DTSC prior to construction of the proposed roadways. Key: PDD- City of Santa Clarita Planning and Building Services Department TED — City of Santa Clarita Transportation & Engineering Services Department MSD - City of Santa Clarita Maintenance Services Department RW QCD - Regional Water Quality Control Board OEM - Onsitc Environmental Monitor/Independent Biologist OGM — Onsite Grading Monitor/Independent Geotechnical or Engineering firm 1.12 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Appendix i Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation . . . of Action. . . Responsible ComplianceVerification ApprovalAgency• Initial Date Comments RU -1(e) City or County file reviews shall be Perform file reviews Prior to approval of Once for each PBD performed for all LUST sites identified herein in conjunction with specific road projects subsequent that have affected soil and groundwater, and environmental review environmental for all CHMIRS sites which have affected soil for specific road review outside the boundaries of each identified projects facility. The file reviews shall be performed to ascertain the extent of contamination in soil and/or groundwater from each of the specified facilities, and to evaluate whether or not the identified contamination would adversely affect construction workers during development of the proposed roadways. The only proposed roadways that do not have identified hazardous release sites within one half mile from the roadway are Decoro Road; Copperhill Road; Whites Canyon Road; and Avenue Scott. RU -2(a) All of the proposed roadways shall be Verify during During road Once for each PBD located on a current topographic map, to environmental review alignment studies/ subsequent scale, and their locations identified relative to environmental review environmental the abandoned Saugus and Bouquet Canyon Oil Fields and the active Placenta Oil Field. for specific road projects review RU -2(b) All abandoned dry holes, or Verify compliance During road Once for each PBD abandoned or active oil or natural gas wells during environmental alignment studies/ subsequent within the boundaries of any proposed review environmental review environmental roadway, shall be identified utilizing the Slate of California, Department of Conservation, for specific road projects review Division of Oil and Gas Maps. Key: PBD- City of Santa Clarita Planning and Building Services Department TED— City orsanta Clarita Transportation &i Engineering Services Department MSD—City orsanta Clarila Maintenance Services Department R'*YQCB - Regional Water Quality Control Board OEM - Onsite Environmental Monitor/Indepcndent Biologist OGM — Onslle Grading Monitor/independent Geotechnical or Engineering Firm City of Santa Clarita 1-13 w w �w I■l� w a�li■ �ll� w w w w w >, w sl! � w �s w� Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Appendix I Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measu. . . of Action. . . Responsible ComplianceVerification ApprovalAgency• Initial Date Comments RU -2(c) The Stale of California, Department Contact regulatory During Once for each PBD of Conservation, DOG shall be contacted authorities and, if environmental review road project regarding any abandoned dry holes or oil wells necessary, conduct for specific roads in an abandoned oil field and unidentified oil re -abandonment of wells that lie in the pathway of any of the wells in accordance proposed roadways. The DOG shall be with Stale. contacted to identify the hoIe/wetl and to requirements evaluate whether or not the hole/vrell has been properly abandoned. The DOG will require proper abandonment or re -abandonment of an oil well if the well is to be located under any proposed structure. If the well is found to have been properly abandoned, and will not be located under a proposed structure, the DOG may not require re -abandonment. Any abandoned dry holes or oil wells may have to be re -abandoned according to current State of California requirements prior to the development of the proposed roadways. RU -2(d) Proposed roadways shall be aligned Design roads to During road Once for each PBD so as to avoid Identified active oil wells, avoid active oil wells alignment studies/ road project pumps• derricks, or other oil facilities. environmental review for specific road projects RU -2(e) The Placerita Oil Production Ensure comments, if During Once for each PBD Company, and TOSCO Enhanced Oil any, from Placerita environmental review road project Recycling Corporation, shall be notified of any Oil Production proposed roadway planned through the active Company and Placerita Oil Field, but which does not TOSCO Enhanced encroach upon any active oil wells or facilities. Oil Recycling These companies or their affiliations should be Corporation are able to Identify any risk of upset related to the incorporated into Key: PBD- City of Santa Clarks Planning and Building Services Department TED—City of Santa Clarlla Transportation & Engineering Services Department MSD — City of Santa Clariia Maintenance Services Department RWQCB- Regional Water Quality Control Board - OEM - Onsite Environmental Monitor/independent Biologist OGM—Onsite Grading Monitorflndependent Geotechnical or Engineering Firm Birt i i i i i t i i i i 1 1 i i i i i i i Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Appendix I Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MitigationResponsible Approval:.Agencyccur • Party Initial I Date Comments construction of the proposed roadways which subsequent may include, but is not limited to: 1) gas or oil environmental product lines which cross through the oil field; documentation for 2) air emissions from the oil production specific road projects facility(ies) which may be problematic to humans in vehicles on the proposed roadways; 3) sail and/or groundwater contamination resultant from oil production activities within the boundaries of the oil field; and 4) human safety risks associated with active oil wells, such as hydrogen sulfide vapors and possible explosion hazards. POPULATION AND HOUSING PH -1(a) The Santa Clarita Parkway, Golden Align specific roads During alignment Once for each PBD Valley Road, and Copperhili Road to avoid existing and studies/ road project extensions shall be planned for alignments future development environmental review though existing undeveloped corridors for specific road available in the vicinities of the proposed projects roadways to the extent feasible to avoid existing and future development. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION TC -1(a) The City should investigate Investigate During planning for Ongoing PBDITED adopting the transit village plans for transit opportunities to future development districts around major transit adopt transit developmentl nodes in the City, as outlined in the Transit village plans transportation Village Development Planning Act of 1994 projects in the City (Section 65460 et. seq. of the California Administrative Code). The purpose of creating a transit village development district is to Increase transit ridership and reduce Key: FDD - City of Santa Clarita Planning and Building Services Department TED — City of Santa Clarita Transportation & Engineering Services Department MSD — City of Santa Ciarila Maintenance Services Department RWQCB - Regional Water Quality Control Board OEM - Onsile Environmental Monitorflndependent Biologist OGM — Onsite Grading Monilor/Independent Gcolechnical or Engineering Firm 1-15 e M e e e e e w= Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Appendix I Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agency or OccurMitigation Initial Date Comments vehicle traffic on highways by creating mixed use neighborhoods centered around transit stations that make use of transit convenient and attractive, thereby reducing dependence upon the automobile. PUBLIC SERVICES/UTILITIES/ENERGY PS -1(a) The City of Santa Clarita shall a. Submit preliminary a. Upon completion Once for each a. PBD submit preliminary design drawings or design drawing or of preliminary design road project improvements plans to the CLWA for any Improvement plans drawings or plans for roadway with the potential to affect CLWA individual road pipelines. Any LADWP specifications for the projects design of crossings over CLWA facilities shall be adhered to by the City. b. Verify final design b. At final plan check b. Once for b. PBD plans to ensure for individual road each road LADWP projects project specifications are incorporated PS -1(b) The City of Santa Clarita shall a. Submit preliminary a. Upon completion Once for each a. PBD submit preliminary design drawings or design drawing or of preliminary design road project improvement plans to the MWD for any improvement plans drawings or plans for roadway with the potential to affect MWD individual roads pipelines or rights-of-way prior to approval of the design for any specific roadway for b. Verify final design b. At final plan check b. Once for b. PBD review and input. The design of roadways plans to ensure for individual roads each road with the potential to affect MWD facilities will MWD project consider the Guidelines for Development in recommendations the Area of Facilities, Fee Properties, and/or are incorporated Easements of the Metropolitan Water District of southern California. Key! PBD -CityofSanta Clarita Planning and Building Services Department TED —City of Santa Clarita Transportation& Engineering Services Department MSD — City of Santa Clarita Maintenance Services Department RW QCB - Regional Water Quality Control Board OEM - Onsile Environmental Monitor/Independent Biologist OGM1f — Onsile Grading Monitor/Independent Geotechnical or Engineering Firm 1-16 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Appendix 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitoring to Frequency Agencyor OccurMitigation initial Date Comments PS -1(c) The City of Santa Clarita shall submit preliminary design drawings or a. Submit preliminary design drawing or a. Upon completion of preliminary design Once for each road project a. PBD improvement plans to the LADWP for improvement plans drawings or plans for Newhall Ranch Road, Santa Clarita specific road projects Parkway, and Via Princessa. Any LADWP specifications for the design of Los Angeles b. Verify final design b. At final plan check b. Once for b. PBD Aqueduct crossings shall be adhered to by plans to ensure for specific road each road the City. LADWP projects project specifications are Incorporated PS -2(a) The City of Santa Clarita shall a. Obtain BOA from a. Upon completion b. Once for a. PBD obtain a buildover agreement (BOA) from the CSDs of Los of preliminary design each road CSDs of Los Angeles County prior to Angeles County drawings or plans for project construction of any road segment that would specific road projects cross a Sanitation Districts sewer line. The City shall comply with any conditions set b. Verify final design b. At final plan check b. Once for b. PBD forth in the BOA regarding roadway design plans to ensure for specific road each road or alignment. conditions of design projects project are incorporated PS -3(a) The City shall provide design drawings of planned roads to the Los a. Submit preliminary design drawing or a. Upon completion of preliminary design Once for each road project a. PBD Angeles County Public Works Department plans drawings or plans for as early as possible to effectively address specific road projects the potential for adverse Impacts to the operation of drainage facilities during b. Verify final design b. At final plan check b. Once for b. PBD construction. The City shall comply with any plans to ensure for specific road each road recommendations from the County Public recommendations projects project Works Department with respect to drainage are incorporated facilities. Key: PBD- City of Santa Clarita Planning and Building Services Department TED—City of Santa Clarita Transportation & Engineering Services Department MSD— City of Santa Clarita Maintenance Services Department RWQCD - Regional Water Quality Control Board OEM - Onsile Environmental Monitor/independent Biologist OCM—Onsi(e Grading Monitor/independent Gcotechnieal or Engineering Firm 1-17 M = = = = M M ! ! = = = = Ili = i i = r Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Appendix I Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measu. . . of Action. . . Responsible ComplianceVerification ApprovalAgency• I_1`nTtTaFl Date I Comments AESTHETICS/LIGHT AND GLARE AES -1(a) Recommendations forthcoming Implementation of During alignment/ Once prior to PBD from the Community Development Director City design studies for final approval of regarding ridgeline protection, as provided recommendations in specific road projects specific road for in Section 17.80.030 of the Unified designing individual projects Development Code, shall be implemented. roads AES -1(b) If grading leads to exposure of Covering of sandy During construction Periodically OEM low cohesion sandy soils four feet or greater soils with jute matting of specific roads during in height, slopes shall be protected with jute or other BMPs construction of matting and landscaping to the satisfaction specific roads of the City Engineer. AES•1(c) If grading leads to exposure of a. Submittal of final a. During alignment/ a. Once for a. PBD bedrock or hard -packed soils that resist landscape design design studies for each road revegetalion, landscaping shall be plan for approval specific roads prpject implemented through the excavation of plant holes in a random pattern with an average of b. Field check of b. Upon completion b. Once for b. OEM five feet on center. Plantings shall come landscape of landscaping for each road from the palette included in the City's installation individual roads project Ridgeline Ordinance or as otherwise approved for the site. AES -1(d) All graded slopes shall be a. Review a. During alignment/ a.- Once for a. PBD revegetated with native plant materials that revegetation plans design studies for each road visually blend with the colors and textures of for compliance individual roads project the natural slopes. b. Field check to b. First three years b. Annually for b. OEM verify compliance after planting each road project Key: PDD -City of Santa Clarita Planning and building Services Department TED—City of Santa Clarita Transportation & Engineering Services Department MSD — City of Santa Clarita Mainteoanct Services Department RWQCD - Regional Water Quality Control Board OEM - Onsile Environmental Monitor/Independent Biologist OGM — Onsile Grading Monitor/independent Geotechnical or Engineering Pirm 1-18 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Appendix I Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MitigationResponsible ApprovalAgency• Initial I Date Comments AES -2(a) Individual projects shall have detailed landscaping plans. Landscaped a. Preparation of landscaping plans a. During design studies/ a. Once for each road a. PBD areas shall include manufactured slopes and environmental review project street medians. All landscaped areas shall for individual roads be maintained in good condition. b. Field check to b. First three years b. Annually for b. OEM monitor success of after planting for each road landscaping plans individual roads project c. Maintain c. After construction c. Periodically c. MSD landscaped areas as needed for each road project AES -2(b) Crosswalks and pedestrian areas Verify compliance During design/ Once for each PBD at major intersections shall be marked. They with requirements environmental review road project may be tinted or have a textured surface that for individual roads contrasts with the rest of the sidewalk where appropriate. AES -2(c) Decorative design elements, such Check for During design/ Once for each PBD as the tile treatment shown in Figure 5.10-9, compliance with environmental review road project Photo 13, shall be incorporated where design requirements for individual roads feasible and appropriate. AES -2(d) Street furniture, public art, transit Check for During design/ Once for each PBD stops, and vegetation that aid in integrating compliance with environmental review road project roadways and bridges into the community design requirements for individual roads shall be used where feasible. AES -3(a) Low sodium lights shall be used Check for During design/ Once for each PBD on all roadways to reduce glare. compliance with environmental review road project lighting requirements for individual roads Key: PBD - City of Santa Clarita Planning and Building Services Department TED — City orSanta Clarlla Transportation & Engineering Services Department MSD — City of Santa Clarita Maintenance Services Department RWQCB- Regional Water Quality Control Board OEM - Onsite Environmental Monilor/independcnl Biologist OGM — Onsite Grading Monimr/Independent Gcoicchnlcal or Engineering Firm 1-19 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Appendix I Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation . . . of Action. . . Responsible ComplianceVerification ApprovalAgency• Initial Date Comments AES -3(b) Street light poles shall be of an appropriate height to reduce the glare and a. Check for compliance with a. During design/ environmental review a. Once for each road project a. PBD pooling of light into adjacent surrounding lighting requirements for individual roads areas. b. Check of lighting b. After construction b. Once for each b. OEM standards after of individual roads road project installation AES -3(c) Street light elements shall be a. Check for a. During design/ a. Once a. PBD recessed or hoods shall be used to reduce compliance with environmental review glare impacts on surrounding areas. lighting requirements for Individual roads b. Check of lighting b..After construction b. Once for b. OEM standards after of individual roads each road installation project CULTURAL RESOURCES CR -1(a) Areas that have not been Conduct study in During alignment Once for each PBD systematically surveyed by a qualified conjunction with studies/ road project archaeologist will require a Phase 1 subsequent environmental review archaeological study prior to construction of environmental review for individual road new roadways. for individual roads projects A Phase 1 Archaeological Study represents the first step in the planning process to Identify potentially significant heritage remains within a project area. The study shall encompasses the performance of a formal records search; a surface reconnaissance of the entire project area; and report detailing the results of the archaeological study. The report shall conform to the Preservation Planning Key: PDO- City of Santa Clarita Planning and Building Services Department TED — City of Santa Clarita Transportation & Engineering Services Department MSD—City of Santa Clarita Maintenance Services Department RWQCB- Regional Water Quality Control Board OEM - Onsile Environmental Monitor/Independent Biologist OCM — Onsite Grading Monitor/Independent Geotechnical or Engineering Firm 1-20 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Appendix 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Measure/Condition of Action When Monitoring Responsible Compliance Verification Approval Required Monitorin g to Frequency Agency or OccurMitigation ' Initial Date Comments Bulletin Number 4(a), Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Formal prepared by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) in 1989. Minimally, the report shall contain a preface, acknowledgments, statement of confidentiality if resources are encountered, table of contents, cover letter, title page, management abstract/summary, description of the scope of work and project description, environmental setting, cultural and historical overview, research design, methodology, findings, discussionfinterpretation, management considerations, references, appendices, and references. CR -1(b) For areas that have previously Consult identified During alignment Once for each PBD been systematically surveyed by a qualified reports in conjunction studies/ road project archaeologist and no cultural resources of a with subsequent environmental review prehistoric and/or historic archaeological environmental review for individual road resources were encountered, the appropriate projects file number for reports on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, UCLA Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, shall be consulted (see the Cultural Resource Sensitivity Map on file at the Community Development Department for file numbers). Area specific recommendations per that report shall be implemented. In most cases, areas in which surveys have been conducted and no cultural resources were encountered will not require further work. However, on Key: PBD -city or Santa Clarks Planning and Building Services Department TED — City of Santa Clarita Transportation & Engineering Services Department MSD — City of Santa Clarita Maintenance Services Department RWQCB - Regional Water Quality Control Board OEM -Onsite Environmental Monitor/ludcpendent Biologist OGM — Onsite Grading Monitor/independent Geotechnical or Engineering Firm 1-21 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Appendix 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation . . . of Action. . . Responsible Compliance ApprovalAgency• Initial Date Comments occasion, an archaeologist may have included a monitoring clause for a portion, or all of the project area due to the extreme cultural resource sensitivity of the area, or the fact that a cultural resource lies close, or adjacent to the subject parcel. CR -1(c) For areas that have been Consult identified During alignment Once for each PBD systematically surveyed by a professional reports and perform studies/ road project archaeologist and in which a cultural additional studies in environmental review resource(s) was/were encountered, the conjunction with for individual road appropriate file number for reports on file at subsequent projects the South Central Coastal Information environmental review Center, UCLA Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, shall be consulted (file numbers are available on the Cultural Resource Sensitivity Map on file with the Community Development Department). Any area - specific recommendations contained in that report shall be implemented. A review of the cultural resource document may provide additional recommendations according to Appendix K of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In some Instances, additional studies (Phase 2 - archaeological assessment, and/or, a Phase 3 - mitigation) have already been performed and no further work is required. In other instances, additional work (Phase 2 or Phase 3 testing) will be required to meet CEQA requirements as well as County and/or City guidelines, policies, and procedures as they pertain to Key: PBD. City of Santa Clarita Planning and Building Services Department TED— City of Santa Clarita Transportation & Engineering Services Department MSD — City of Santa Clarita Maintenance Services Department RWQCB — Regional Water Quality Control Board OEM - Onsite Environmental Monitor/Indcpendent Biologist OCM — Onsite Grading Monitor/Independent Geotechnical or Engineering Firm 16PI, M M M= IM== M M M M MI M MIMI M w M M Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Appendix 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program enhancement of cultural resources. A Phase 2 Archaeological Study represents a detailed assessment of heritage resource(s) encountered during a Phase 1 Archaeological Study. A scope of work and research design must approved prior to the initiation of the field work. Native American involvement must be secured and documented, and a report must include the results of all data obtained during the study. The primary intent of this study is to address the significance of the resource(s) based upon CEQA or Section 106 criteria. The results of this study will directly affect the next phase of. planning. Either mitigation through avoidance and preservation, or additional work will be recommended. If the heritage resource is determined not to be significant, it will be up to the Community Development Department to ensure that the level of work performed conformed to the scope of work and was sufficient to ensure the quality and quantity of data obtained necessary to make a determination of "non- significance." In extreme cases, if this finding is questionable, or concerns are raised by other scientists over the results, an outside consulting source shall be consulted for a second opinion. Key: PBD- City of Santa Clarila Planning and Building Services Department TED — City of Santa Clarity Transportation & Engineering Services Department MSD — City of Santa Clarila Maintenance Services Department RWQCB- Regional Water Quality Control Board OE51. Onsite Environmental Monitorflndependcnt Biologist OGM — Onsite Grading Monitor/Independent Geotechnical or Engineering Firm 1-23 Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Appendix 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Responsible Compliance Verification Approval .• Occur Initial Date Comments A Phase 3 Archaeological Study represents a focused program aimed at data recovery for a significant heritage resource(s) assessed during a Phase 2 Archaeological Study or identified at some point during the planning process as being significant. A Phase 3 Archaeological study must be directed by a pre -approved scope of work, and provide a detailed report which expands on the information obtained during the Phase 2 Archaeological Study. Additionally, Native American involvement must be documented. The results of this study shall result in a final document that synthesizes all extant data likely to be retrieved from the resource(s). If a likelihood for encountering burials and or features is sufficiently justified by the archaeologist, then monitoring may be required to ensure that buried resources encountered during excavation are identified, recorded and studied. if burials are encountered, work must stop and the coroner must be notified immediately. CRA (d) Environmentally sensitive areas Incorporate report During alignment Once for each PBD represent the approximate location of a recommendations studies/ road project recorded prehistoric or historic cultural and perform environmental review resource. For environmentally sensitive additional studies in for individual road areas that could be encountered by planned conjunction with projects roadway corridors and that are within a subsequent previously surveyed area, report environmental review Key: PBD • City of Santa Clarita Planning and Building Services Department TED —City of Santa Clarita Transportation & Engineering Services Department MSD —City or Santa Clarita Maintenance Services Department RWQCB - Regional water Quality Control Board OEM -Onsite Environmental Monhor/lndepcndent Biologist OGM —Onsite Grading Monitorlindependent Geolechnical or Engineering firm 1-24 Clarita w w +� w i w w w w w w �■■ w w w w w w w Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment EIR Appendix I Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Key: PBD - City of Santa Clarita Planning and Building Services Department TED — City of Santa Clarita Transportation & Engineering Services Department MSD— City orsanta Clarita Maintenance Services Department RWQCD - Regional Water Quality Control Board OEM - Onsile Environmental Monitor/Indcpendenl Biologist OCM — Onsite Grading Monitor/Independent Geotechnical or Engineering Firm 1-25 Resolution No. 97_ Exhibit g 113' Proposed Circulation Element Text Resolution No. 97-112 i DRAFT CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT ,i II li II JUNE 1997 I Prepared by the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department CITY COUNCIL Hamilton C. Smyth, Mayor Jan Heidt, Mayor Pro Tem (Steering Committee) Jill Klajic Carl Boyer Jo Anne Darcy (Steering Committee) PLANNING COMMISSION Louis Brathwaite, Chairman (Steering Committee) Jerry Cherrington, Vice Chairperson Michael Berger Darla Hoback Ralph Killmeyer (Steering Committee) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PROJECT STAFF I! 1 Ken Pulskamp, Assistant City Manager/Director of Community Development Tony Nisich, Director of Building and Engineering Services Jeff Lambert, Planning Manager ' Bahman Janka, City Traffic Engineer Laura Stotler, Associate Planner (Project Manager) Rabie Rahman, Associate Traffic Engineer Conal McNamara, Assistant Planner II Cindy.Chau, Planning Technician Nicole Kvarda, Administrative Analyst -Transit Joe Inch, Park Development Coordinator Lori Powell, Planning Commission Secretary I! 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PLY9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES INTRODUCTION C-1 ROLE OF THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT C-1 DEVELOPMENT OF THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT C-3 ORGANIZATION OF THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT C-4 EXISTING CONDITIONS C-5 REGIONAL FACILITIES C-5 ARTERIAL STREET SYSTEM C-6 MAJOR HIGHWAYS C-6 SECONDARY HIGHWAYS C-7 LIMITED SECONDARY HIGHWAYS C-7 COLLECTOR C-8 LOCAL STREETS C-8 KEY INTERSECTIONS C-8 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN ROADWAYS C-9 EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES C-9 EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE C-10 MULTI -USE CORRIDORS AND BIKEWAYS C-11 BUS SERVICE AND DIAL -A -RIDE C-14 METROLINK C-15 REGIONAL COOPERATION C-15 STATEMENT OF ISSUES C-15 GOALS AND POLICIES C-18 GOAL 1: Need for Arterial Street System C-18 Policies 1.1 through 1.26 GOAL 2: Need for Local and Regional Transit Services C-21 Policies 2.1 through 2.10 GOAL 3: Transportation Alternatives C-22 Policies 3.1 through 3.9 GOAL 4: Parking Facilities C-23 Policies 4.4 through 4.7 GOAL 5: Regional System. Impacts C-23 Policies 5.1 through 5.6 GOAL 6: Trip Reduction Methods C-24 Policies 6.1 through 6.11 PROJECTED CONDITIONS C-26 CIRCULATION PLAN C-27 PEDESTRIAN -FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT C-27 MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS (MPAH) C-28 MAJOR HIGHWAYS C-28 SECONDARY HIGHWAYS C-32 LIMITED SECONDARY HIGHWAYS C-36 COLLECTOR AND LOCAL STREETS C-38 AUGMENTED INTERSECTIONS C-38 MULTI -USE CORRIDORS AND THE BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN C-39 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION C-41 Fixed Route and Commuter Service C-41 Lieht Rail and Hieh Sr)eed Rail C-41 TRUCK ROUTES C-43 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN OF THE CIRCULATION EL NT C-43 Circulation Element List of Exhibits and Tables After Pase Exhibit C-1 Existing Network of Arterial C-2 Highways and Road System Exhibit C-2 Proposed Master Plan of Arterial C-4 Highways Table C-1 Levels of Service (LOS), Volume to C-12 Capacity Ratios (VIC) & Service Volumes for Urban Arterial Highways Table C-2 Levels of Service and Volume to C-13 Capacity Ratios for Intersections Exhibit C-3 Future Average Daily Traffic Volume C-27 Exhibit C-4 Major Arterial Highway C-31 Exhibit C-4a Major Arterial Highway C-31 Exhibit C-5 Major Arterial Highway Alternative - 8 Lane C-31 Exhibit C-5a Major Arterial Highway Alternative - 8 Lane C-31 Exhibit C-6 Urban Secondary Arterial Highway C-34 Exhibit C-6a Urban Secondary Arterial Highway C-34 Exhibit C-7 Sub-Urban Secondary Arterial Highway C-34 Exhibit C-7a Sub-Urban Secondary Arterial Highway C-34 Exhibit C-8 Proposed Multi-Use Corridors C-39 Exhibit C-8a Typical Path and Multi-Use Trail Sections C-39 Exhibit C-9 Proposed Master Plan of Bikeways C-39 Exhibit C-10 Truck Routes and Supertruck Route (STAR) C-43 II BACKGROUND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 1992 the City Council directed City staff to reassess the center City circulation network as ' a result of a Caltrans study to extend State Route 126 through the City. A City Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) was formed to study the roadway system and gather public input on an alternative east -west corridor through the City. In 1993, CTAC presented its findings to the City Planning Commission. The Planning Commission' subsequently held public hearings on the circulation issue to further solicit public input on east -west roadway system options. In December, 1993, the network recommendations of both CTAC and the Planning Commission were presented to the Council the purpose of identifying a roadway network to use as the basis of study for a Circulation Element amendment. In September 1994, the City Council authorized the Center City Traffic and Modeling Study to review the existing planned circulation system and four alternative roadway networks as earlier identified by CTAC, the Planning Commission and Council. The study was completed in January 1995 and concluded that neither the existing circulation system nor any of the four networks studied would meet the City's General Plan level of service goals. In an effort to find a superior alternative, an additional two alternative networks were studied in the Draft Final Center City Circulation Element Study which was prepared June 1995. ' In November 1995, a community meeting was held to present a recommended circulation network and to identify an appropriate community public participation process prior to proceeding with the amendment. Due to public comments received, it was determined that the environmental review process would review various circulation element amendment alternatives at an equal level of detail. In September 1996, the Council created a Steering Committee with members of the City Council and Planning Commission to work with staff ' and consultants to direct preparation of the environmental document, Circulation Element amendment text, and an extensive public participation process. The Steering Committee held a scoping meeting in December 1996 an information from this public input became the basis for the seven circulation alternatives studied in the environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for this project. In addition to the environmental scoping meeting, the community participation process includes three public workshops to discuss the alternatives and their environmental impacts, two newsletters distributed to the public and published in the newspaper, and public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. SUNIIVIARY OF TEXT CHANGES 1 Suggested changes in the Circulation Element received through the various public meetings, in-house staff review, consultation with other agencies, and the Steering Committee have been incorporated into the proposed amendment. Although the primary purpose of the Circulation Element amendment is to resolve the issue of the removal of SR 126 and identify an east -west corridor between I-5 and SR 14, the amendment text includes a comprehensive update on various transportation issues and new policies. The changes include minor 1 ' ES -1 ' clarifications and corrections, as well as substantive alterations and additions to City circulation policy. New circulation topics addressed include enhancement of the pedestrian ' environment, Metrolink, transit, dial -a -ride, multi -use corridors, Congestion Management Plan (CMP) roadways, bikeways, light rail and high speed rail discussions have been added. For purposes of the text amendment, Newhall Ranch Road replaces SR 126. The following tables summarize the changes in Circulation Element goals and policies and proposed ' . changes to the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. I H I I I ] 1 I 1 1 ES -2 `1"jILAN IN ,ftl* sYvl�3 £i ..:. To provide a circulation system to move people and 1.19 Maximize use of all major, secondary and goods safely and efficiently throughout the City of limited secondary roadways while - Santa Clarita and the general planning area. minimizing use of all collectors and local streets. Encourage development design that ensures that local streets function as designed and not as collector streets or other - higher capacity roadways. • 1.28 Discourage the creation of new gated private roadways that block area -wide through - routes. Promote a diversified public transportation system 2.2 Provide for the mobility of City residents to that is safe, convenient, efficient, and meets the access local services and employment, identified needs of the City of Santa Clarita and the particularly for those who may experience general planning area. - mobility difficulties, including the elderly, disabled, low income residents and youth. 2.4 Develop multi -modal -transit facilities that are strategically located in the City, convenient to major local residential and employment centers. 2.10 Explore the expansion of rail service to Ventura County, to Los Angeles, and to the Antelope Valley. Encourage connections to - - future high-speed rail that maybe located through the Santa Clarita Valley. To promote safe and effective alternatives to the 3.3 Promote bicycle and pedestrian accessibility personal automobile that will meet the needs of all to all commercial, industrial, multi -family planning area residents residential, and public facilities, including parks, schools, and centers of civic activity. Pursue an aggressive posture in the region in 5.3 Work cooperatively with regional advocating a regional transportation system. transportation agencies to develop and improve mass transit system connections - - between the City, metropolitan Los Angeles, Los Angeles International Airport, the Antelope Valley and Ventura County. ES -2 (Continued) 5.4 Encourage the development and utilization of the Metrolink commuter rail and high Pursue an aggressive posture in the region in advocating a regional transportation system._ speed rail. 5.5 Encourage linkages between the City's transportation system, regional rail and - high-speed rail. 5.6 Encourage the creation of High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes and other methods to increase the capacity of the SR-14 and I-5. Encourage the implementation of trio reduction 6.1 Develop coordinated plans for land use, methods to reduce daily auto trip generation through circulation, and transit with City and land use planning and other strategies. County departments to concentrate high density housing, employment and - commercial areas close to transit corridors. 6.2 Encourage "transit-friendly" commercial and industrial development that provides - convenient pedestrian and bicycle access. 6.3 Encourage new development to use Pedestrian "zippers" or walkways to provide a convenient link between different residential neighborhoods and commercial centers. 6.4 Encourage the location of convenience services, such as day care, at Transit Centers. 6.5 Encourage implementation of the City's General Plan. Transportation Development Plan, Bikeway Plan, Infrastructure Master Plan and other documents with transportation policies through new development and redevelopment.. 6.6 Encourage flexibility in development standards to permit a higher floor area ratio and lower parking requirements for - commercial development that provide and maintain transit facilities and that subsidize - - shared-ride programs. - LI Synchronize the expansion of public transportation facilities with new development with implementation of"pay as you go" for expansion of public transportation facilities. 6.8 Support improvements to Congestion Management Plan (CMP) facilities and aid in the implementation of the CMP to improve mobility corridors in the Santa - Clarita Valley and North Los Angeles - County Region. - 6.9 Develop marketing and customerservice . plans to promote widespread use of alternatives to the auto. Target public _agencies, major employers, the Chamber of Commerce. Transportation Management Associations (TMAs), etc., to encourage commute patterns using public transit. ES -3 �1 U (Continued) _ 6.10 Encourage the implementation of trip reduction methods to reduce dailyauto trio generation through 6.11 land use planning and other strategies. text is or.n..d to Use bus stops and transfer points to promote transit with attractive and readable information and schedules. Encourage implementation of travel demand management strategies including - telecommuting. compressed work weeks. and aggressive ride -sharing promotion. The proposed Circulation Element amendment includes several changes to the Master Plan of Arterial Highways, which identifies Major Highways (at least 6 lanes), Secondary Highways (4 lanes), and Limited Secondary Highways, The proposed changes include ' upgrading or downgrading roadway designations, changing the limits of roadways, and adding new roadways. The following table shows the roadways to be changed on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways: ES -4 ...................................... Roadway Limits Roadway Limits Ave Tibbits Newhall Ranch Rd to "A" Street Poe Pkwy to Valencia Magic Mountain Blvd Parkway ' Backer Rd Castaic Rd to SR 126 Ave Scott McBean Pkwy to Hillsborough Pkwy Bouquet Cyn Rd Magic Mnt Pkwy to Biscailuz Dr The Old Road to Castaic Soledad Cyn Rd and Rd Seco Cyn Rd to the Angeles Forest boundary Castaic Rd Ridge Route to Lake Copperhill Dr Seco Cyn to Bouquet Cyn Hughes Rd Rd Copperhill Dr Rye Cyn Rd to Seco Cyn Decoro Dr Copperhill Dr to Seco Rd Cyn Rd Golden Valley Rd* SR 14 to Newhall Ranch Dickason Dr Newhall Ranch Rd to Rd* - Decoro Dr Lake Hughes Rd I-5 to the Angeles Forest Golden Valley Rd Newhall Ranch Rd to boundary Plum Cyn Rd Lyons Ave The Old Road to Hillcrest Pkwy Sloan Cyn Rd to The Old Dockweiller or Placenta Road Cyn Rd*. Magic Mountain Pkwy I-5 to Via Princessa Jake's Way Sierra Hwy to Lost Cyn Rd McBean Pkwy I-5 to Copperhill Dr Parker Rd Sloan Cyn Rd to The Old Road Newhall Ranch Rd* I-5 to Golden Valley* Poe Pkwy Valencia Blvd to Stevenson Ranch Pwky ES -4 (Continued) The Old Road to Castaic Ridge Route I-5 to Northlake Blvd Rd Parker Rd - Valencia Blvd to west of Sand Cyn Rd Soledad Cyn Rd to Sierra Pico Cyn Rd The Old Road Hwy Rio Vista Dr - Lyons Ave Ext to Via. The Old Road - Pico Cyn Rd to Calgrove Princessa Blvd and Backer Rd to no. of Sloan Cyn Rd Sand Cyn Rd Placerita Cyn to Soledad 16th Street Orchard Village Rd to Cyn Rd San Fernando Rd Santa Clarita Pkwy Bouquet Cyn Rd to SR1(��ij fey ee�b��i8ry...... =s 14 Stevenson Ranch Pwky I-5 to Pico Cyn Rd Chiquito Cyn Rd SR 126 to Del Valle Rd The Old Rd Pico Cyn Rd to Backer Henry Mayo Dr The Old Road to Magic Rd and so. of Calgrove Mountain Pkwy Blvd. Route I-5 to no. of Northlake Blvd IENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ' The Circulation Element Draft environmental impact report (EIR) is under preparation and is anticipated to be released for public review on June 17, 1997. Seven alternative circulation systems will be analyzed in the Draft EIR. These include Alternative 1- the ' existing planned circulation system that includes all of the roadways planned as part of the current Circulation Element with the exception that the extension of SR 126 through the City would be replaced with Newhall Ranch Road as a 6 -lane major arterial highway. Alternative 2 (Newhall Ranch Road Reduction) and Alternative 3 (Golden Valley Road Network) propose additional roadways. Alternative 4 and Alternative 5 (based upon Alternatives 2 and 3) seek to add additional capacity to the base roadway network through ' the augmentation of intersections to provide additional turn lanes which aid traffic flow. Finally, Alternative 6 and Alternative 7 (based on Alternatives 2 and 3) contain aggressive transportation demand management (TDM) measures, such as parking pricing strategies, to reduce the number of automobile trips. The EIR will provide the environmental information necessary for evaluating alternatives and provide a basis for decision-making. Please contact Laura Stotler of the City's Community Development Department at (805) 255-4330 for information on obtaining copies of the Proposed Circulation Element Text and the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Circulation Element Amendment. s: \cd\advance\cirelmt4lhs ES -5 CIRCULATION ELEMENT The Circulation Element of the General Plan is a comprehensive plan for vehicular and non -vehicular circulation and transportation within the City of Santa Clarita and its "Planning Area." The Circulation Element of the General Plan is required by Government Code Section No. 65302(b), which dictates that "the General Plan shall have a circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the General Plan." These subjects are all contained within this element with the exception of public utilities and facilities. These subjects are fully addressed in the City's optional element, the Public Services, Facilities and Utilities Element and are hereby incorporated by reference in the Circulation Element for consistency purposes. ROLE OF THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT It is the intent of the Circulation Element to identify major circulation and transportation resources within and adjacent to the City of Santa Clarita, address potential issues and present a plan to meet and accommodate present and projected circulation and transportation needs. Additionally, it is the intent of the circulation element to provide the City with the mechanism necessary to plan, develop and enhance the City's' vehicular and non -vehicular circulation and transportation resources, all in close correlation with the Land Use Element. The Circulation Element is one of the major elements of the General Plan which is directly responsible for the physical development patterns occurring within and adjacent to the City .tune 199'7 bmf L'`it�ul¢tanr� lerraenE L`zty;`a�`�arct�a,laratu C-1 of Santa Clarita. The needs and capacity of the City's intersection and roadway system, along with other facilities, are governed by the type, density and location of the various existing and proposed land uses within the Planning Area. Due to the physical location of the City within the Valley, the intersection and roadway system is further subjected to a substantial amount of regional cross traffic. Consequently, mechanisms for the maximization of existing and projected intersection and roadway capacities, alternative transportation modes, alternative work programs (i.e., staggered work hours) and the approval and placement of alternative land uses must be investigated for their potential impacts in the Planning Area. For General Plan purposes, the overall circulation system has been examined at the "macro" level to verify that projected future traffic volumes can be accommodated. Existing and new roadway corridors would carry this traffic. The Circulation Element system identified in the proposed master plan of arterial highways is a projection of long-term circulation needs to accommodate full development of the land uses identified in this Plan. It is anticipated that the City's capital improvement program and other implementation programs will address the short-term circulation needs. The existing network of arterial highways in Santa Clarita is shown in Exhibit C-1. (This exhibit will be modified to reflect the network existing at the time the Circulation Element Amendment is adopted). Specific alignment and configuration studies for new and improved roadways are not a part of the General Plan level of analysis. Detailed corridor, alignment and improvement studies will follow the General Plan. These subsequent detailed studies will consider a variety of alternatives to achieve the general objectives of the Plan and will take into account constraints or impediments to specific alignments and improvements not considered at the General Plan level. Such impediments or constraints should include, but not be limited to, topography, ridgelines, oak trees and other impacts to significant vegetation, floodways, existing or future gated roads and communities, visual impacts, neighborhood impact and sentiment, previous construction, costs, and other considerations. Junei 19917: XJrccft ��iFcreiat�art r<�errzent C-2 Czty.;o�`,S'anfa,�lartta m m= m m m= m m m r m= m m m m m a ary npnwgr NOTE: THIS EXHIBIT WILL BE MODIFIED TO REFLECT Existing Network of Arterial Highways THE ADOPTED CIRCULATIONNEnVORK ALTERNATIVE Exhibit C-1 The City's Circulation Element identifies and regulates a hierarchy of transportation corridors with specific development standards prescribed for each classification of roadway. The element also identifies and regulates other transportation facilities and issues including, but not limited to, intersections, bikeways, equestrian trails, truck routes, railways, parking, transit operations, and pedestrian activities. The Circulation Element is often reviewed and utilized to determine how planning and development activities both outside and within the City's boundaries may affect circulation and transportation conditions. The projected land uses themselves are also governed by the ability to provide an adequate circulation system to accommodate new development. In the event that adequate access and circulation cannot be provided or properly mitigated due to constraints, impediments or timing delays, proposed development as designated in this Plan willneed to be correspondingly impeded, delayed or modified. The element also identifies daily and peak travel demands on key transportation corridors and presents potential mitigation measures necessary to ensure that roadways and intersections within the City will be able to accommodate present and future transportation demands. In addition, potential impacts relative to existing conditions or regional traffic patterns are identified and appropriate strategies are proposed to mitigate these potential impacts. These mitigating strategies are further supported by the element's goals and objectives. DEVELOPMENT OF THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT The City's Circulation Element has been prepared in close correlation with the Land Use Element using a state-of-the-art computerized traffic model specifically designed for the Planning Area. This travel demand forecasting model is based upon the widely used TRANPLAN modelling software. The modelling process produces results which include levels of service, volume to capacity ratios, average daily traffic on the basis of a 24-hour ' dungy 1�9? C-3 CttjrD¢a'�ar�a`a. iar�t: period, and the most likely routes to a destination. The base traffic model was validated against actual traffic counts to assure an accurate model calibration prior to inputting the future land use traffic generation of the plan. The model assumes a total trip generation based on the build -out of the General Plan Land Use Element. In 1994 the City and County of Los Angeles developed a joint City -County consolidated traffic model to assess the traffic network and traffic impacts of planned land use in the Santa Clarita Valley area. This model was developed assuming development will occur based upon the land use designations of the City's General Plan and the Santa Clarita Valley Area -wide Plan and has been tested to accurately calibrate and validate the model. This planned circulation system for the City of Santa Clarita Circulation Plan (Exhibit C-2) is projected to operate well within acceptable levels of service. (This Exhibit is to be modified to reflect the adopted amendment.) A full explanation of the modelling effort is contained in the appendix to the Background Report on Circulation and in the technical appendix to the 1997 Circulation Element Amendment. ORGANIZATION OF THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT The Circulation Element is organized by first providing a description of the City's existing circulation and transportation system conditions. The Statement of Issues Section provides issues and a brief analysis of these conditions and presents potential impacts and constraints. The Goals and Policies Section of the element responds to the potential impacts and constraints by providing direction by which the Circulation Element Plan may be implemented. Following the goals and policies is the Circulation Element Plan which describes the City's overall present and future circulation system. The Projected Conditions Section presents the projected traffic conditions for the City and the Planning Area. Finally, the Circulation Plan and Implementation Plan Sections present specific proposals and actions for the implementation and success of the Circulation Plan. lune 1997 %C r atlaratf,MW C-4 G'cIy':rssarrca;Gbarisa EXCEPTIONS as NOTED Proposed Master Plan of Arterial Highways Exhibit C-2 EXISTING CONDI'T`IONS The City of Santa Clarita is located in the northern portion of the County of Los Angeles and is served by an existing network of roadways, multi -use trails and commuter rail. Situated just north of the San Fernando Valley, access to Santa Clarita is limited to two primary freeway corridors: Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route 14 (SR -14). Interstate 5 delineates the western boundary of the City, while SR -14 generally lies along the southeastern boundary of the City. Although Interstate 5 provides an important link between the southern and northern portions of California, it also serves as a vital link for commuter traffic between the cities of Santa Clarita and Los Angeles. SR -14 is also utilized by a substantial amount of commuter traffic and provides a regional link between the Los Angeles basin area and the high desert communities of Palmdale and Lancaster. The Metrolink commuter rail provides a commuter link between Santa Clarita and downtown Los Angeles, Glendale, Burbank, San Fernando and the Antelope Valley. REGIONAL FACILITIES The two regional freeway facilities which service the City accommodate significant commuter traffic volumes as well as provide regional access to the general Santa Clarita area. Interstate 5 traverses the general area in a north/south direction along the western boundary of the City and is delineated with eight (8) travel lanes. SR -14 traverses the City in a northeasterly direction and accommodates between 4 and 10 travel lanes. Limited secondary regional access is provided to motorists in the western portion of the Planning Area via State Route 126 (SR -126). SR -126 traverses the western portion of the Planning Area in an east/west direction and currently extends from the City of Ventura at the Pacific Ocean to the Interstate 5/SR-126 interchange. The existing SR -126 route is located along portions of San Fernando Road and Magic Mountain Parkway running northwest/southeast between Interstate 5 and SR -14. lune 19 G AR4�tao ; %rezen row M6 $TccW`Clar'ita The Santa Clarita Metrolink is part of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) rail system which provides service between downtown Los Angeles and the Antelope Valley. There are two Metrolink stations in Santa Clarita: Santa Clarita Station on Soledad Canyon Road which opened in October 1992 and the Santa Clarita\Princessa Station which opened in February 1994 as an emergency measure following the Northridge Earthquake. ARTERIAL STREET SYSTEM The existing circulation system for the Planning Area is the transportation backbone of the internal and through traffic circulation network. This system consists of five roadway types which include major highways, secondary highways, limited secondary highways, collector and local streets. The major and secondary highways provide through access to large volumes of traffic between major activity locations and generators while direct and indirect access into residential and community areas is provided from limited secondaries, collectors and local streets. Many roadways are further classified as "divided" or "undivided." This separation is critical since divided roadways have the ability to incorporate turning lanes to improve the vehicular capacity of the roadway. Furthermore, dedicated roadways may incorporate raised medians to restrict random or excessive access from driveways and cross streets. Divided roadways are the most efficient roadway type since conflicts at intersections are minimized permitting traffic volumes and flows to be constant. Undivided roadways usually require less right-of- way, do not provide refuge areas for turning vehicles and have been found to be less efficient than divided roadways. The existing circulation system is illustrated in Exhibit C-1. MAJOR HIGHWAYS Within the City of Santa Clarita Planning Area, the major highway roadway classification has an ultimate roadway design section of at least six travel lanes with limited vehicular 7utre'1997 C-6 access to the roadway through driveways and cross streets. The roadway is usually divided by a raisedlandscaped median with left turn pockets provided at limited locations. It is the intent of all major highways to accommodate the majority of traffic between different portions of the City and adjacent communities and the freeway system. Most major highways, at a maximum capacity level of service (level "F"), can accommodate approximately 54,000 vehicles per day when fully improved to design standards. Bikelanes are delineated on major highways where parallel and adjacent bikeways are not available:' SECONDARY HIGHWAYS The secondary highway roadway classification has an ultimate roadway design section of four travel lanes with limited vehicular access to the roadway from driveways and cross streets. The roadway usually accommodates a roadway median with left turn pockets being provided at limited locations (when built to appropriate standards). It is the intent of all secondary highways to service the majority of through traffic and collect traffic from limited secondary streets. Most secondary highways, at an acceptable level of service, can safely and effectively accommodate approximately 44,000 vehicles per day (at level of service "E" with limited interruptions). Bikelanes are delineated on secondary highwayswhere parallel and adjacent bikeways are not available. LD41TED SECONDARY HIGHWAYS The limited secondary highway classification has an ultimate roadway design section of four travel lanes with partial control of vehicular and pedestrian access to the roadway from driveways, cross streets and crosswalks. The roadway usually is undivided and may accommodate limited parking. activity and left turn pockets at major intersections. It is the intent of all limited secondary highways to accommodate moderate volumes of traffic and provide local access to major and secondary highways. Most limited secondary highways, at an acceptable level of service, can safely and effectively accommodate approximately 24,000 vehicles per day. Tupe 199? II II Drrif# GZrlaizrxxctemenE C-7 Catyaf.�'ccxnta �lczriz COLLECTOR In the City of Santa Clarita, the collector road classification is given to those roadways which have an ultimate roadway design section of two travel lanes with limited vehicular access to the roadway from driveways and cross streets. The roadway usually is undivided and will not accommodate left turn pockets at intersections. It is the intent of all collector roadways to service all local traffic from residential, commercial and industrial uses and to provide access to the arterial roadway system (major, secondary and limited secondary highways). Most collector roadways, at a maximum capacity level of service "E", can accommodate approximately 15,000 vehicles per day. LOCAL STREETS Typically, this classification is given to any street which must be accessed through the use of any of the four previously identified roadway types. Typical streets which are classified as local streets include residential streets, private streets, service roads and public alleys. KEY INTERSECTIONS The City's existing circulation system is comprised of several vital intersections which directly affect the safety and efficiency of the City's circulation network. These. major intersections play a key role in the maintenance and further development of the arterial roadway system and are identified as follows: ■ Bouquet Canyon Road/Newhall Ranch Road ■ Lyons Avenue/Wiley Canyon Road ■ Lyons Avenue/Orchard Village Road/Valley Street ■ Lyons Avenue/San Fernando Road - ■ Orchard Village Road/Wiley Canyon Road ■ McBean Parkway/Orchard Village Road 1440 1997 W C�ty:r}'ar�a �laratr4 ■ McBean Parkway/Valencia Boulevard ■ McBean Parkway/Magic Mountain Parkway ■ McBean Parkway/Newhall Ranch Road ■ San Fernando Road/Sierra Highway ■ San Fernando Road/Magic Mountain Parkway ■ Soledad Canyon Road/Whites Canyon Road ■ Soledad Canyon Road/Sierra Highway ■ Soledad Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road ■ Sierra Highway/Via Princessa ■. Valencia Boulevard/Magic Mountain Parkway ■ Valencia Boulevard/Soledad Canyon Road/Bouquet Canyon Road ■ Whites Canyon Road/Via Princessa CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN ROADWAYS There are four congestion management plan (CMP) roadways in the Santa Clarita Planning Area. These CMP roadways are recognized by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) as critical mobility corridors in the SCAG region. The CMP roadways are the following: ■ Interstate 5- the Golden State Freeway ■ State Route 14- the Antelope Valley Freeway ■ State Route 126 ■ Sierra Highway EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES Traffic volumes for all roadways included in the general Planning Area were obtained and utilized in developing an existing volume base for the purpose of determining level of service ratings and for comparison to projected future conditions. Average daily traffic (ADT) on a Jane 199? 'I �li C-9 C ty tf Scants. tt;h given roadway segment is an estimate of the amount of vehicular traffic carried on the average over a 24-hour period of time. The estimate of ADT is often based on an actual 24-hour traffic count taken during a mid -week day. Further information on existing ADT rates for are located in the Technical Appendix for the 1997 Circulation Element Amendment. EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE A vital component of any circulation element is the existing Level Of Service (LOS) evaluation. This evaluation determines the existing LOS for both roadway segments and intersections for the primary study area. The LOS of a roadway segment or intersection is a qualitatively defined measure of prevailing traffic, design, and operational conditions. The LOS, denoted alphabetically from "A" to "F," best to worst, is an evaluation of the degree of congestion, roadway design constraints, delay, accident potential, and driver discomfort experienced during a given period of time typically during the peak hour or on a daily basis. While LOS A represents the most desirable operational state for a roadway segment or intersection, LOS C is considered a benchmark for planning purposes. In heavily urbanized areas, LOS D is an accepted, though undesirable, condition for peak hours of vehicular travel - particularly on freeways. The LOS may be quantitatively calculated by a number of methods which generally compare traffic volumes with the physical and operational capacity of a roadway section or intersection to carry the traffic demands placed upon it. For roadway segments, the volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio is indicative of LOS. Tables C-1 and C-2 lists typical service volumes, along with corresponding V/C ratios, for various types of highways and intersections at LOS ranging from A to F. Further information on LOS rates for both roadways and intersections are located in the Technical Appendix for the 1997 Circulation Element Amendment. dane�199? 1 rW..uiid�to C-10 Cz�y of ,Saz��a �'iattta MULTIUSE CORRIDORS AND BIKEWAYS The City's Multi -use Corridor System is a trail system that serves a combination of users, including pedestrians, bicyclists and equestrians. Multi -use corridors are encouraged within and adjacent to local river and flood plain facilities. Class 1 bikeways constructed by the City are typically part of a multi -use. corridor. The minimum width for a multi -use corridor is 17 feet which provides for separation between modes of travel between bicyclists and pedestrians. A minimum width of 30 feet is desired for multi -use corridors with an equestrian component The South Fork Trail is an example of a typical minimum width multi -use corridor that accommodates pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians. A vital component of any circulation element is the bikeway system. Bikeways are not only a significant transportation resource but also can be instrumental in the implementation of an open space or park and recreation plan. The City has several types of bikeways including bike routes or lanes, which are located on -street, and bike paths, which are located off-road and are typically part of the City's multi -use corridors. The City has identified areas for bikeway development in various City documents including the Park Project Report, the Santa Clara River Water Feature Report and the Parks Master Plan. The City of Santa Clarita has constructed several bikeways since incorporation. Prior to the incorporation, the County of Los Angeles controlled the bikeway program within the City limits and the general Planning Area. The City has been active in planning for a more progressive bikeway program which would include both on -street and off-road bikeway improvements. The City supports the installation of a network of class 1, class 2 and class 3 bike lanes/routes/ paths to link the City. The City has constructed several multi -use trails that C-11 TABLE C-1 LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS), VOLUME TO CAPACITY(V/C) RATIOS &-SERVICE VOLUMES FOR URBAN ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS ' SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209; KHR Associates, 1987. +NOTE: (XX,XXX) = CapacityFor Limited Access on 4 -Lane Divided Arterial. iun 139'7 II II C-12 64 Af,�ar ' ; inrct a Average Daily Traffic Service Volumes Level of V/C 6 -Lane 4 -Lane 4 -Lane 2 -Lane Service Ratio Description Divided Divided Undivided Undivided A <0.36 Free Flow - low volumes; 136,000 24,000 16,000 5,000 little or no delay through- (28,000) out the day or during peak hours. B <0.54 Stable Flow - relatively 40,400 27,000 18,000 7,500 low volumes; acceptable (32,000) delays experienced through- out the day, some peak hour congestion. C <0.71 Stable Flow - relatively 45,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 low volumes; acceptable (36.000) delays experienced through- out the day, some peak hour congestion. D <0.87 Approaching Unstable Flow - 49,500 33,000 22,000 12,500 poor, yet tolerable delays (40,000) experienced throughout the day. Peak hours may experience significant congestion and delays. E <I.00 Unstable Flow - heavy 54,000 36,000 24,000 15,000 congestion and delays (44,000) experienced throughout the day and during peak hours. Volumes at or near capacity. F >1.00+ Forced Flow - both speeds This condition represents system and flow of traffic can drop breakdown and does not to zero. Stoppages may have a specific occur for long periods with relationship to service volumes. vehicles backing up from one intersection through another. (Referred to as "gridlock" condition.) ' SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209; KHR Associates, 1987. +NOTE: (XX,XXX) = CapacityFor Limited Access on 4 -Lane Divided Arterial. iun 139'7 II II C-12 64 Af,�ar ' ; inrct a TABLE C-2 LEVELS OF SERVICE AND VOLUME TO CAPACITY (V/C) RATIOS FOR INTERSECTIONS Level of V/C Service Ratio Description A 0.00-0.60 EXCELLENT. Vehicle delays less than one Cycle length and no approach phase is fully utilized. B 0.61-0.70 VERY GOOD. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized; drivers being to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles. C 0.71-0.80 GOOD. Occasionally drivers may be delayed through more than one Signal Cycle length and back-ups may develop behind turning vehicles. D 0.81-0.90 FAIR. Delays may be substantial during portions of the peak hours, but adequate gaps may occur to prevent excessive backups. E 0.91-1.0 POOR. Represents saturation of intersection, Motorists experience delays of several signal cycle lengths. F 1.00+ FAILURE. Backups from nearby locations or on cross streets may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles through the intersection. Tremendous delays with increasing queue lengths. SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209; KHR Associates, 1987. Jtttte 1397 i}m "Ar a.tc ra er'uht C-13 II Trail, and the Santa Clara River Trail. The City encourages class 2 bike lanes on all new segments of major and secondary highways where other convenient bikeway options do not exist. BUS SERVICE AND DIAL -A -RIDE Transit operations within a local region can play a major role in the overall composition of a circulation element. Transit service has traditionally been proven to be a convenient and cost effective transportation alternative. Presently, the City of Santa Clarita is serviced by a City owned and operated bus service. Local and regional bus service is provided by Santa Clarita Transit (SCT) which operates local routes within the Planning Area and regional service into and out of Los Angeles, Antelope Valley, Van Nuys and Warner Center. This regional service serves several park -n -ride facilities located in the southern portions of the City. The Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) provides commuter service from the Antelope Valley to Westwood and Century City. This service includes stops in the Santa Clarita Valley. Another SCT transit service available to the residents of Santa Clarita is the Dial -A -Ride service. This service is geared toward senior& citizens and disabled persons and operates daily; The City's Short Range Transit Plan outlines current transit and pedestrian opportunities in the City and is the document that identifies projects to be included on the regional transportation improvement plan. The City's Transportation Development Plan identifies long range transit planning opportunities. The Transportation Development Plan coordinates expansion of transit opportunities with other City policy documents, including the General Plan. �' .Cone 195'7 II II C-14 Cctydf,Satt.ta;c rata METROLINK The Santa Clarita Metrolink is part of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) rail system which provides service between downtown Los Angeles and the Antelope Valley. There are two Metrolink stations in Santa Clarita: Santa Clarita Station on Soledad Canyon Road and the Santa Clarita\Princessa Station. A future Metrolink site is planned in the Newhall area of the City as is an eventual linkage to Ventura County. REGIONAL COOPERATION The City of Santa Clarita actively participates in regional transportation planning efforts. The lead transportation planning agencies in the region are the Southern California Association of Governments and the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority. These agencies include the City of Santa Clarita within the North Los Angeles County Area subregion for transportation planning efforts and encourage cooperation with other subregion members including Los Angeles County, Palmdale and Lancaster. Future transportation planning efforts will include increasing interaction with Ventura County as development progresses west of Interstate 5. The development of a high speed rail link between Northern and Southern California will provide an additional opportunity for intergovernmental transportation planning. The City actively supports the development of high speed rail with a stop in the Santa Clarita Valley. STATEMENT OF ISSUES No two communities are precisely alike, therefore the General Plan for each community must address issues which are unique to each community. From these issues the goals and policies of the plan; the plan itself, and the measures necessary to implement the plan are developed. The circulation system planned by the County of Los Angeles for the Santa Clarita Valley was not completed prior to incorporation of the City. As a result, the City of 1unq: 99, C-15 G`ttytt{unia:darzti Santa Clarita experiences traffic and circulation problems which require attention. A few of the traffic and circulation conditions which plague the City today may be resolved through the implementation of planned roadway and intersection improvements. The preparation and adoption of a detailed Circulation Element allows the City to create future roadways, realign or reconfigure existing roadways, widen existing roadways and intersections, construct on and off-road bikeways, provide transit facilities and develop policies which promote progressive and realistic methods of accommodating future mobility and access needs of the Planning Area. The following represent opportunities to reduce and resolve current problems and minimize or eliminate future impacts: ■ Make sure that the pace of development matches the pace of required transportation infrastructure improvements. ■ Examine all signalized intersections for the potential to interconnect them into a network that will permit coordination and timing for maximum traffic and pedestrian flow. ' ■ Examine all major, secondary and limited secondary highways to identify points of conflict, such as excess driveways openings and street ' intersections. ■ Examine all signalized intersections for the potential to have controlled ' left turns and striping for controlled right turns. ■ Examine all major and secondary highways for the creation of bus turnout ' areas where appropriate. ■ Explore the potential for the adoption of transit demand management requirements for commercial and industrial uses who have large employee populations. ' ■ Explore the potential for restriping of major, secondary and limited secondary highways to increase traffic capacities. ' ■ Examine the feasibility of establishing a traffic mitigation fee on new developments to mitigate the impact of new development on the existing circulation network and to aid in the completion of the planned network. ' june 1997; Drcctt C'r�ulataan derrrznE Cxty�af Sart�a��lara�'u ' C-16 ■ Explore the use of Bridge and Thoroughfare fees; federal and state grants, transit funds, and the like as a source of funding for Circulation Element roadway improvements. ■ Explore the potential to improve pedestrian access to provide save, direct, attractive and convenient pedestrian linkages throughout the community. ■ Identify opportunities and maintain the ability to develop multi -use corridors in the City. ■ Encourage expansion of rail linkages in the Santa Clarita Valley, especially expansion of the Metrolink commuter service and establishment of service to Ventura County. ■ Explore opportunities for creating multi -modal transit stations throughout the Santa Clarita Valley. ■ Explore opportunities for creating `transit -friendly" development including improved pedestrian access to commercial, industrial and residential uses. Constraints to the resolution of the problems of circulation within the City of Santa Clarita and the general Planning Area will be impeded simply by the location of the City within the Valley. The City is the destination for many people within the region as a place to work and shop. The following additional items will also present constraints to the mitigation and/or resolution of the circulation and traffic problems within the City. ■ The location of existing commercial and industrial development will continue to attract trips from outside the City. ' ■ Existing street improvements are, in some cases, not able to be modified to accommodate additional traffic or circulation movements due to right-of-way limitations and existing developments. 'June,199 17m CxrauXattnt l %meat Cx j k �`anE.:;, , arida C-17 I! ' ■ Development approvals given by the Los Angeles County are beyond the control of the City, yet may result in significant, unmitigated I' transportation system impacts. ■ Because of the geographic location of the City within the Valley, the City will continue to act as a funnel for regional trips within the Valley. On a regional basis, the City on its own can do little to alleviate commuter traffic demand on the freeway network. The balance of jobs and housing within the community, as proposed in this plan, is an effective means of minimizing the need for freeway commutes. The jobs/housing issue has regional significance in that, if implemented throughout the region, could achieve positive results to reduce traffic congestion. ■ Existing and possible future gated communities can block and impede the efficient movement of traffic. GOALS AND POLICIES The following goals and supporting policies are the general policies used to guide the development of the Circulation Plan contained in the Circulation Plan and the implementation programs outlined in the Implementation Plan Section: The policies further define the goals and describe the intent of the goals. As such, the policies serve as guides by which to measure goal achievement and tailor specific programs. The Goals and Policies are a direct result of the issues discussed in the Statement of Issues Section. The general policies outlined below must be applied and implemented pursuant to the plans and implementation programs contained in the following sections, and in conjunction with the other elements of the General Plan. Need for Arterial Street System GOAL 1: To provide a circulation system to move people and goods safely and efficiently throughout the City of Santa Clarita and the general Planning Area. Policies, 1.1 Improve circulation facilities to provide improved levels of service and standards of safety over current traffic operations with a priority to lune 1 97 iirafGC 0, 04.1 t09 MOW ' C-18 I I improve local transportation patterns. 1.2 Maintain appropriate levels of service at all intersections in the City . during peak hours to ensure that traffic delays are kept to a minimum. Ilune99fi Z7ru�troaau�zr C-19 II 1.3 Preserve the quality of residential neighborhoods by discouraging the flow of truck and through traffic in these areas consistent with circulation and emergency needs. ' 1.4 Maintain a Capital Improvements Program (CIP) which incorporates a funding program for the construction of improvements to the City's roadway system. Specific improvement proposals should be determined for the entire community and all local benefit, cost, feasibility, and.safety issues should be considered. Seek alternative funding opportunities to ' provide adequate transportation and circulation improvements. 1.5 Encourage consistent through -street names. 1.6 Work cooperatively with County, regional and state agencies to integrate the City's circulation system with that of the surrounding region. 1.7 Continue to work with the County in developing and maintaining planned roadways. 1.8 Maintain the Santa Clarita Valley Consolidated Traffic Model to regularly review future traffic projections as development occurs and land uses change. 1.9 Maximize and improve the operating efficiency and safety of the existing roadway system wherever possible. ' 1.10 Limit the number of intersections and driveways on all major, secondary and limited secondary roadways to accommodate a safe, efficient and ' steady flow of traffic. 1.11 Develop and maintain an appropriate supertruck (trucks with an extended trailer length of approximately 48' to 60') and truck route ' program which will accommodate the needs of the commercial and industrial uses within the City, and the general Planning Area, but will also provide for the protection and preservation of the City's circulation system and residential areas. Avoid establishing truck routes in areas _ which contain natural, scenic or other resources. ' 1.12 Adopt a program of street and -highway landscaping (i.e., median planting Ilune99fi Z7ru�troaau�zr C-19 II I3une.1997 II II and street trees) to enhance the appearance of the City's circulation system. 1.13 Enforce dual access requirements where appropriate for safety and circulation purposes. 1.14 Require vehicular access to higher density land uses and commercial developments from major, secondary and limited secondary roadways, and not from low density residential neighborhoods. 1.15 Establish street standards which are sensitive to topographical constraints, necessary grade separations and other special needs. 1.16 Seek alternative funding opportunities to provide adequate transportation and circulation facilities. 1.17 Maintain adequate access to state highways and freeways serving the Santa Clarita Planning Area including Interstate 5 on the west, State Route 14 on the southeast and State Route 126 on the northwest. 1.18 Optimize use of all major, secondary and limited secondary roadways while minimizing use of all collectors and local streets. Encourage development design that ensures that local streets function as designed and not as collector streets or other higher capacity roadways. 1.19 Develop design standards for roadway and intersection improvements to safely and efficiently accommodate existing and projected transportation patterns and circulation. 1.20 Provide reasonable traffic flow and consider the adoption of a limited access policy which would provide guidelines and criteria by which reciprocal access and parking agreements may be provided to consolidate and minimize traffic interruptions. 1.21 Pursue and develop a Congestion Management Program (CMP) to promote and ensure realistic and feasible traffic distribution and growth throughout the City of Santa Clarita and the general Planning Area. 1.22 Establish roadway alignments and require appropriate dedication of right-of-way for all major and secondary highways. 1.23 Encourage schools and parents to use the Suggested Routes to School Plan. i�W1.1.1,i, %m > C-20 C`atq r�`S`or�ta iartt I i1.24 Establish a traffic impact "threshold of significant" condition which will require appropriate mitigation for projects contributing more than .02 to ' an existing C, D or E level of service and/or for projects contributing more than .01 to an existing level of service F. 1.25 Where alignments are known, the preservation of corridor rights-of-way should be immediately established. 1.26 Discourage the creation of new gated private roadways that block area - wide through routes. 1 Need for Local and Regional Transit Services GOAL 2: Promote a diversified public transportation system that is safe, convenient, efficient, and meets the identified needs of the City of Santa Clarita and the general Planning Area. Policies: 2.1 Incorporate accommodations and facilities to support local transit services (i.e., bus lanes, bus stops and bus shelters) in new and redeveloped projects, where feasible that are consistent with local transit planning. liirie 1997. 2.2 Provide for the mobility of City residents to access local services and employment, particularly for those who may experience mobility difficulties, including the elderly, disabled, low income residents and youth. 2.3 Coordinate local transit planning with regional transportation planning agencies and transit agencies in adjacent communities. 2.4 Develop multi -modal transit facilities that are strategically located in the Planning Area convenient to major local residential and employment centers. 2.5 Develop adequate pedestrian access and encourage the use of these systems. 2.6 Require right-of-way dedication and/or construction of appropriate facilities in support of a public transportation system in new and redeveloped projects. 2.7 Identify and reserve locations for future commuter rail stations. 2.8 Pursue the development of a local car pool information and routing C-21 II iprogram. The program can provide alternative transportation for concentrated users. 2.9 Explore the use of the railroad right-of-way for intra -valley and commuter use between SR -14 and any proposed station locations. 2.10 Explore the expansion of rail service to Ventura County, to Los Angeles, and to the Antelope Valley. Encourage connections to future high-speed rail that may be located through the Santa Clarita Valley. Transportation Alternatives 1 GOAL 3: To promote safe and effective alternatives to the personal automobile that will meet the needs of all Planning Area residents. Policies: 3.1 Maintain the Master Plan of Bikeways that is coordinated with the County plan for the Santa Clarita Valley and regional network, including Ventura County, in order to provide an adequate system for the safe and efficient movement of cyclists. 3.2 Provide a system of sidewalks or pathways, tunnels and bridges in 1 residential, commercial and industrial areas that features a safe, attractive and convenient environment, integrating pedestrians and bicycles in a manner harmonious with the surrounding neighborhoods. 3.3 Promote bicycle and pedestrian accessibility to all commercial, industrial, multi -family residential, and public facilities, including parks, schools, and centers of civic activity. 3.4 Develop an integrated system of bus service that reaches all major concentrations of residential development and employment. 3.5 Develop, with the support of other agencies, alternative transportation systems throughout the City and Planning Area. 3.6 Identify and reserve rights-of-way for local transit to connect to regional 1• systems. 3.7 Promote ride -sharing. 3.8 Consider the establishment of a pedestrian only district that is bicycle - friendly. 3.9 Establish multi -use corridors and reserve appropriate rights-of-way. tune 199'1 I�dt,Girc�da�tonderreenE Ct�yd/'Sar`�a.tnrat C-22 II II IParking Facilities GOAL 4: To provide for and ensure an adequate supply of off-street private and public parking to meet the needs of local residents and visitors to the City and the Planning Area. Policies: 4.1 Provide parking requirements for various types of land uses which consider travel patterns, mode split, and vehicle size. Periodically review and update these standards as these factors change over time. 4.2 Provide public parking resources and transportation alternatives in response to the demand for such facilities (including park-and-ride facilities), through development exactions, special assessment districts or other appropriate funding mechanisms. 4.3 Screen and/or buffer large parking areas from public view through the use of landscape setbacks, earth berms and hedge screens (to headlight level) and trees and landscaping in parking areas while providing convenient pedestrian access. 4.4 On -street parking should generally be eliminated from all major, secondary and limited secondary roadways. 4.5 Encourage enclosed bicycle lockers at major destinations. 4.6 Consider the use of shared parking and jointly operated parking structures, as appropriate. 4.7 In addition to the retention of park-and-ride opportunities near the Antelope Valley Freeway, suitable park-and-ride locations near Interstate 5 should be investigated. Regional System Impacts GOAL 5: Pursue an aggressive posture in the region in advocating a regional transportation system. Policies: 5.1 Advocate at the local, state and federal level Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and transit programs, including rail transit and local coordinated busways/routes and hike stations. I IJurit199'7 I I 5.2 Encourage intergovernmental coordination and cooperation among all agencies and levels of government for the planning, management, Thxc�x Girdatzarz�lemxr7 C-23 financing, and implementation of transportation system improvements. 5.3 Work cooperatively with regional transportation agencies to develop and improve mass transit system connections between the City, metropolitan Los Angeles, Los Angeles International Airport, the Antelope Valley and Ventura County. 5.4 Encourage the development and utilization of the Metrolink commuter rail system. 5.5 Encourage linkages between the City's transportation system, regional rail, light rail, and high speed rail. 5.6 Encourage the creation of High -Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes and other methods to increase the capacity of the SR -14 and I-5. Trip Reduction Methods GOAL 6: Encourage the implementation of trip reduction methods to reduce daily auto trip generation through alternate transportation, land use planning and other strategies. Policies: 6.1 .Develop coordinated plans for land use, circulation, and transit with City andCountydepartments to concentrate high density housing, employment and commercial areas close to transit corridors. 6.2 Encourage "transit friendly" residential, commercial and industrial development that provides convenient pedestrian and bicycle access. 6.3 Encourage new development to use pedestrian "zippers" or walkways to provide a convenient link between different residential neighborhoods and Iune1997 Ylra�t L'aro�tlation t C-24 Ibetween residential neighborhoods and commercial centers. a 6.4 Encourage the location of convenience services, such as day care, at transit centers. 6.5 Encourage implementation of the City's General Plan, Transportation tDevelopment Plan, Bikeway Master Plan, Infrastructure Master Plan and other documents with transportation policies through new development and redevelopment. 1 6.6 Encourage flexibility in development standards to permit higher floor area ratios and lower parking requirements for commercial developments that Iprovide and maintain transit facilities and that subsidize shared ride programs. 6.7 Synchronize the expansion of public transportation facilities with new development with implementation of "pay as you go" for expansion of public transportation facilities 1 6.8 Support improvements to Congestion Management Plan (CMP) facilities Iand aid in the implementation of the CMP to improve mobility corridors in the Santa Clarita Valley and North Los Angeles County region. 6.9 Develop marketing and customer service plans to promote widespread use of alternatives to the auto. Target public agencies, major employers, the Chamber of Commerce, Transportation Management Associations (TMAs), 1 etc., to encourage commute patterns using public transit. 1 6.10 Use attractive bus stops and transfer points to promote transit. ' Tc2tie 199 I ta}C O rc� 011.n' It nE C�ty'pf anEa Glccrct C-25 6.11 Encourage implementation of transportation demand management strategies including telecommuting, compressed work weeks, and aggressive ride -sharing promotion. PROJECTED CONDMON The main objective of any circulation element is to determine and present a roadway and intersection system which will safely and efficiently accommodate existing and future transportation demands. The existing traffic demands for the City of Santa Clarita were investigated and documented in the Existing Conditions Section of this report and in the Technical Appendix to the 1997 Circulation Element Amendment. In an effort to determine the projected travel demands for the City of Santa Clarita and the Planning Area, the land use build -out scenario which was determined by the Citizen General Plan Advisory Committee was evaluated. This build -out scenario was then used as the basis for the calculation of projected traffic patterns, distribution and demands. The joint City -County consolidated traffic model has been developed for the purposes of determining the projected transportation conditions. The projected build -out scenario information was integrated and processed through this computer-based traffic model. The purpose of utilizing the computer-based traffic model in this work effort was to accurately and efficiently determine future traffic conditions. Through the use of the computer-based traffic model, many considerations are taken into account in the calculation of projected traffic conditions. These considerations included, but were not limited to, land use, trip generation factors; trip distribution factors, existing and projected roadway systems, existing and projected intersection networks, travel speeds, parking activity, bus service, transportation demand management and others. For the conduct of the computer-based traffic model runs, a master plan of arterial highways was developed which envisioned the roadway system which would accommodate future 1unm 19 ..9'7 ...................... C-26 II Itraffic demands. For the computer model, the proposed Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) identified in Exhibit C-2 was utilized. (This exhibit as determined by the City Council through the Circulation Element Amendment process.). Based on the roadway system conditions presented in Exhibit C-2, projected roadway capacities, volumes and levels of service (volume -to -capacity ratios) were determined. The future average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for the City are shown on Exhibit C-3. (This figure will be provided based on the circulation network to be determined by the City Council.) The calculated capacities, volumes and levels of service are indicated in the Background Report for the General Plan and in the Technical Appendix for the 1997 Circulation Element Amendment: CIRCULATION PLAN This Section contains the proposed plan of the Circulation Element of the Santa Clarita General Plan. The previous sections introduced this element, reviewed existing conditions, presented projected conditions, and set forth major planning issues related to these subject areas. The proposals presented in this Section have been prepared in response to identified issues and projected conditions. PEDESTRIAN -FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT The concept of a liveable community includes providing a desirable environment that encourages walking. Much of the population identifies themselves with a particular transportation mode, such as the automobile or bus. While most people walk, few think of themselves as being pedestrians. Given that the majority of the community are, in fact, pedestrians, the recognition that pedestrian linkages are as important to the fabric of the community as roadway connections is a critical aspect in providing a balanced circulation network. Whether for access or recreation, new development shall provide opportunities to enhance the pedestrian environment. Well-designed urban spaces encourage pedestrians. Opportunities exist to take advantage lune 199'7' II C-27 M M s M ■rte M r M M r M" M M M M i r M NOTE: THIS EXHIBIT WILL BE MODIFIED TO REFLECT Future Average Daily 'Traffic Volume THE ADOPTED CIRCULATION NETWORK ALTERNATIVE Exhibit C-3 of the interface between public and private boundaries to encourage walking and discourage the use of the automobile. Examples of these opportunities include use of shade -giving street trees, wider sidewalks and paseos buffered from automobile traffic by landscaped parkways, placement of street furniture, and development of attractive plazas that include water features and/or public art. Development standards that encourage mixed-use and convenient pedestrian access between adjacent uses aid in reducing automobile dependence. Landscaping, individual site design that places an emphasis on easy foot access to the street, safety enhancements that separate walking areas from vehicle lanes, roadway configuration, convenience of transit opportunities and attractive destinations are all elements that contribute to making Santa Clarita pedestrian -friendly. MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS (MPAH) To obtain the necessary MPAH for projected traffic conditions in the City of Santa Clarita and the Planning Area, roadway improvements are necessary. These improvements will include work within existing rights-of-way, right-of-way acquisition, intersection redesign, and overall improvements in system management. The plan proposals for the City of Santa Clarita arterial network have been divided into the three categories of roadway (Major Highways, Secondary Highways, Limited Secondary Highways). It should be noted that the MPAH does not represent specific alignments nor does it prevent additional alignments which may be determined appropriate and feasible in the future. An example of such a new road might be a possible future major east/west thoroughfare south of Soledad Canyon Road to relieve traffic pressure on both Soledad Canyon Road and San Fernando Road. In 1991, the State of California began to study an extension of State Route 126 through the Santa Clarita Valley to link Interstate 5 on the west to State Route 14 -on the east. This roadway was'envisioned to be a limited access expressway of eight lanes. In 1992, the City Council rejected two proposed alignments for this expressway and directed that this roadway be eliminated from the City's General Plan. Toric 199'7; C-28 i t1 `rl{ uxctra gra �I ' MAJOR HIGHWAYS IMajor Highway roadways, the Planning Area's main commuter links, are intended to provide for the movement of large volumes of traffic between major traffic generating land uses, and between cities. Major highways should be designed to carry a minimum of six lanes of traffic at relatively high speeds. On -street parking along the major highways should be prohibited to maximize traffic flow. Curb -cuts, driveways and other intersections. shall be limited wherever possible to also maximize traffic flow. The following roadways have been designated by the City of Santa Clarita as major highways: ■ Avenue Scott from Rye Canyon to McBean Parkway ■ Avenue Tibbits from Newhall Ranch Road to Magic Mountain Parkway ■ Backer Road from Castaic Road to SR 126 ■ Bouquet Canyon Road from Magic Mountain Parkway to Soledad Canyon Road and from Seco Canyon Road to the Angeles National Forest boundary. The link between Soledad Canyon Road and Seco Canyon Road will be an eight lane major highway. ■ Castaic Road from Ridge Route to Lake Hughes Road ■ Copperhill Drive from Rye Canyon Road to Seco Canyon Road ■ Golden Valley Road from SR -14 to Newhall Ranch Road (Or other limit to be determined through the Circulation Element Amendment process) ■ Lake Hughes Road from I-5 to the Angeles National Forest boundary ■ Lost Canyon Road from Via Princessa to Sand Canyon Road ■ Lyons Avenue from The Old Road to Dockweiller (To be determined through the Circulation Element Amendment process) ■ Magic Mountain Parkway from I-5 to Via Princessa. WOO T lJrrrfiectdecLtnn<erxrelct C-29 ■ McBean Parkway from I-5 to Copperhill Drive ■ Newhall Ranch Road from I-5 to Golden Valley (Or other limit to be determined through the Circulation Element Amendment process) ■ Orchard Village Road from Lyons Avenue to McBean Parkway ■ Parker Road from The Old Road to Castaic Road ■ Pico Canyon Road from Valencia Boulevard to west of The Old Road ■ Plum Canyon Road from Bouquet Canyon Road to Whites Canyon Road ■ Rio Vista Drive from the Lyons Avenue Extension to Via Princessa ■ Rye Canyon Road from The Old Road to Copperhill Drive ■ Sand Canyon Road from Placerita Canyon Road to Soledad Canyon Road ■ San Fernando Road from SR -14 to Magic Mountain Parkway ■ Santa Clarita Parkway from Bouquet Canyon Road to SR -14 ■ Sierra Highway from SR -14 to north of Davenport Road ■ Soledad Canyon Road from Bouquet Canyon Road to east of SR -14 ramps ■ Stevenson Ranch Parkway from I-5 to Pico Canyon Road ■ The Old Road from Pico Canyon Road to Backer Roadandsouth of Calgrove Boulevard ■ Valencia Boulevard from Pico Canyon Road to Bouquet Canyon Road ■ Vasquez Canyon Road from Bouquet Canyon Road to Sierra Highway ■ Via Princessa from Lost Canyon Road to San Fernando Road ■ Whites Canyon Road from Via Princessa to Plum Canyon Road ■ Wiley Canyon Road from Lyons Avenue to San Fernando Road As proposed, these streets are designated to have at least six -lanes, divided, with no Tu1� I99'f C-30 O& "iarata on -street parking. The standard design width of a major highway is usually 104' to 114' from edge of right-of-way to edge of right-of-way, however, the width may be greater. An exception to this is Sand Canyon Road, south of Lost Canyon Road, where trail easements and related circulation conditions warrant additional travel lanes but where only two lanes (one in each direction) will be considered (left turn and de-celeration lanes are not considered travel lanes and may be required), and Bouquet Canyon Road (Soledad Canyon Road to Seco Canyon Road) where eight travel lanes will be considered. Standard designs for a major highway are shown in Exhibits C-4, C -4a, C-5, and C -5a. For major highways, the following circulation element standards are presented: 1. All major highways with an existing level of service lower than an "E" rating (i.e., level "F") should be considered for immediate improvement. These improvements will include, at a minimum, curb and gutter improvements to ultimate design standards, installation of required number of travel lanes and appropriate parkway and median treatments.. 2. All major highways with an existing level of service lower than a "D" rating (i.e., level "E"), and not covered under Item 1 above, should be considered for near-term improvement. These improvements will include, at a minimum, curb and gutter improvements to ultimate design standards, installation of required number of travel lanes and appropriate parkway and median treatments. 3. All major highways with an existing level of service lower than a "C" rating (i.e., level "D"), and not covered under Item 2 above, should be considered for long-range improvement. These improvements will include, at a minimum, curb and gutter improvements to ultimate design standards, installation of required number of travel lanes and appropriate parkway and median treatments. 4. As traffic growth warrants, all remaining roadways classified as major highways should be reviewed on an annual basis to determine levels of service and if improvements are necessary. This process should be integrated into the annual review of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). 5. All curbside parking should be prohibited on major highways to accommodate the installation of additional travel lanes and to minimize "Mid4boik .-M&M C-31 Cxtyt�f Saoia.; lOWd, W z J W Y C3 W z Q J W Y m n W z Q J W Y O W z Q J W Y fn 1, 6' ZT„T,zT 4:---�-,2T„T' 2-�6'�' THREE LANES IN EACH DIRECTION NO ONSTREET PARKING, RAISED LANDSCAPE MEDIAN Major Arterial Highway Exhibit C-4 10•.:a' 17 ,T THREE LANES IN EACH DIRECTION, NO ONSTREET PARKING, RAISED LANDSCAPE MEDIAN. Major Arterial Highway With Off -Street Bikepaths Exhibit Goa W Z 6 J W Y 0] W Z Q J W Y m W 2 6 J W Y iii 138' , O' --T-6' T 1 -2„1, =—TTTTT.r= FOUR LANES IN EACH DIRECTION WITHOUT ONSTREET PARKING, RAISED LANDSCAPE MEDIAN Major Arterial Highway 8 -Lane Alternative Exhibit C-5 FOUR LANES IN EACH DIRECT109 WITHOUT ONSTREET PARKING, RAISED LANDSCAPE MEDIAN. - THIS ROADMAV;=nOW R ION S UVIIATION NPOSM ONLY. AC7MAL CON- IIOURAflON NAT YANT AMD MILL a NeuND= ON A qu, ev USE RAM Major Arterial Highway 8 -Lane Alternative With Off -Street Bikepaths Exhibit C -5a 1. All major highways with an existing level of service lower than an "E" rating (i.e., level "F") should be considered for immediate improvement. These improvements will include, at a minimum, curb and gutter improvements to ultimate design standards, installation of required number of travel lanes and appropriate parkway and median treatments. 2. All major highways with an existing level of service lower than a "M rating (i.e., level "E"), and not covered under Item 1 above, should be considered for near-term improvement. These improvements will include, at a minimum, curb and gutter improvements to ultimate design standards, installation of required number of travel lanes and appropriate parkway and median treatments. 3. All major highways with an existing level of service lower than a "C" rating (i.e., level "D"), and not covered under Item 2 above, should be considered for long-range improvement. These improvements will include, at a minimum, curb and gutter improvements to ultimate design standards, installation of required number of travel lanes and appropriate parkway and median treatments. 4. As traffic growth warrants, all remaining roadways classified as major highways should be reviewed on an annual basis to determine levels of service and if improvements are necessary. This process should be integrated into the annual review of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). 5. All curbside parking should be prohibited on major highways to accommodate the installation of additional travel lanes and to minimize excessive traffic interruptions. Elimination of curbside parking will also increase vehicular safety and assist in reducing midblock accident rates. Consideration for permitting curbside parking in specific local business activity areas (i.e., downtown) may warrant investigation. ' 6. When applicable, new developments along major highways should enter into a reciprocal access agreement for the purpose of permitting future driveway elimination and consolidation. ' 7. Where possible, class one bike routes should be provided parallel to major highways. The elimination of on -street bike lanes will provide for the ' potential installation of additional travel lanes and will serve to increase vehicular and bicycle safety. 8. All new and redeveloped projects along major highways should be reviewed for potential transit facility installations. These may include, but not be limited to, bus turnouts and bus shelters. lune 197 L?ruftirru#attan 1 terxiet) G{ty df Savin#arf to ' C-31 excessive traffic interruptions. Elimination of curbside parking will also increase vehicular safety and assist in reducing midblock accident rates. Consideration for permitting curbside parking in specific local business activity areas (i.e., downtown) may warrant investigation. 6. When.applicable, new developments along major highways should enter into a reciprocal access agreement for the purpose of permitting future driveway elimination and consolidation. 7. Where possible, class one bike routes should be provided parallel to major highways. The elimination of on -street bike lanes will provide for the potential installation of additional travel lanes and will serve to increase vehicular and bicycle safety. ' 8. All new and redeveloped projects along major highways should be reviewed for potential transit facility installations. These may include, but not be limited to, bus turnouts and bus shelters. ' 9. New median island breaks should be kept at a minimum and existing breaks should be reviewed periodically to determine the safety and utilization characteristics of said median breaks. Where appropriate, ' raised median islands should be constructed to prevent unwarranted and conflicting vehicular movements and to enhance the street environment. 10. Where the road widening is necessary to meet anticipated traffic and there are existing residential homes fronting and taking vehicular access from the highway, consideration shall be given in the design of the widening to alternative safe access to the highway for the existing residents. The considerations could include but not be limited to frontage road, narrower street section, noise walls, alternating access and joint accesses. SECONDARY HIGHWAYS Secondary Highway roadways, as described earlier in the Circulation Element, provide for the movement of traffic to and from neighborhoods, and between major highways. Typically, these roadways do not provide direct access to freeways. On -street parking along these streets is commonly limited, as are curb -cuts and bike lanes. To the extent possible, residential units should not take direct access off of a secondary highway and reciprocal access agreements should be utilized to minimize driveways. Bikelanes are delineated on C-32 secondary highways where parallel and adjacent biketrails are not available. The following roadways have been designated by the City of Santa Clarita as Secondary Highways: ■ "A" Street between Poe Parkway and Valencia Boulevard ■ Avenue Scott from McBean Parkway to Hillsborough Parkway ■ Biscailuz Drive between The Old Road and Castaic Road ■ Calgrove Boulevard from The Old Road to the vicinity of Valley Street ■ Canyon Park Boulevard from Lost Canyon Road to Sierra Highway ■ Castaic Road from SR -126 to Lake Hughes Road ■ Copperhill Drive from Seco Canyon Road to Bouquet Canyon Road ■ Decoro Drive from Copperbill Drive to Seco Canyon Road ■ Dickason Drive from Newhall Ranch Road to Decoro Drive ■ Golden Valley Road from Newhall Ranch Road to Plum Canyon Road ■ Hasley Canyon Road from Sloan Canyon Road to Backer Road ■ Haskell Canyon Road from Bouquet Canyon Road to Copperhill Drive ■ Hillcrest Parkway from Sloan Canyon Road to The Old Road ■ Jake's Way from Sierra Highway to Lost Canyon Road ■ Newhall Avenue from San Fernando to 16th Street ■ Parker Road from Sloan Canyon Road to The Old Road ■ Poe Parkway from Valencia Boulevard to Stevenson Ranch Parkway ■ Ridge Route from I-5 to Nortblake Boulevard lune 7.99'7 Elm Gtit gataorL El2merit C�. u� �alxtLt ��aiEd�r C-33 ■ Rockwell Canyon Road from McBean Parkway to Valencia Boulevard ■ Sand Canyon Road from Soledad Canyon Road to Sierra Highway ■ San Francisquito Canyon Road from Copperhill Drive to Angeles National Forest ■ Seco Canyon Road from Bouquet Canyon Road to Copperhill Drive ■ Shadow Pines Boulevard from Soledad Canyon Road to Davenport Road ■ The Old Road from Pico Canyon Road to Calgrove Boulevard and from Backer Road to north of Sloan Canyon Road ■ Tournament Road from McBean Parkway to Wiley Canyon Road ■ Tourney Road from Magic Mountain Parkway to.Valencia Boulevard ■ Valley Street from Calgrove Boulevard to Lyons Avenue ■ Whites Canyon Road from Plum Canyon Road to Vasquez Canyon Road ■ Wiley Canyon Road from Calgrove Boulevard to Lyons Avenue ■ 16th Street from Orchard Village Road to San Fernando Road As proposed, these streets are designated as four -lane, divided roadways with no parking:;; Bike lanes are provided on -street where.parallel and adjacent bikeways are not available. Design standards for secondary roadways usually require raised median islands for the division of traffic flows. The standard design width of a secondary highway is 84' or 88' from right-of-way to right-of-way. The standard for a suburban secondary highway may use 88' from right-of-way to right-of-way to accommodate traffic flows. Additional right-of-way may be necessary to accommodate bicycle lanes where appropriate. Examples of standard designs for secondary highways are shown in Exhibits C-6, C -6a, C-7, and C -7a. For secondary highways the following circulation element standards are presented: !iiia 1-99'7 ...................... 1. All secondary highways with an existing level of service lower than an "E" C-34 N I W Z Q J W Y 07 W Z Q J W Y i-2 ¢W J W Y m 0 8$' 11 TWO LANES IN EACH DIRECTION WITH A TWO WAY LEFT TURN LANE WITHOUT ON STREET PARKING fl Urban Secondary Arterial Highway Exhibit C-6 100 T 11-T T TWO LANES IN EACH DIRECTION WITH A TWO WAY LEFT TURN LANE. THIS ROADWAY SECTION IS FOR LLUSTRATION PU"= ONLY- ACTU* COM— ncummm MAY VARY AND WILL It IMPLEMENTED ON A-CASt WY CASE BASIS. Urban Secondary Arterial Highway With Off -Street Bikepaths Exhibit C -6a L'i LLI z -j LLI �e 19 2' —I OT 1-12' T 12' T 14 T 12 'T 12 0 . TWO LANES IN EACH DIRECTION WTH A RAISED LANDSCAPE MEDIAN. Sub -Urban Secondary Arterial Highway Exhibit C-7 W + 14' to V is, TWO LANES IN EACH DIRECTION WITH A RAISED LANDSCAPE MEDIAN. THIS ROADWAY UIMON tS rGR KJAMTRA71ON PUPOSES ONLY. -ACTUAL COX— namnom buy vAmT Ama WILL sc impLadEhm ON A CASE IrY CLU BASOL Sub -Urban Secondary Arterial Highway With Off -Street Bikepaths Exhibit C -7a I I I MWAPP-7 I rating (i.e., level "F") should be considered for immediate improvement. These improvements will include, at a minimum, curb and gutter improvements to ultimate design standards, installation of required number of travel lanes and appropriate parkway and median treatments. 2. All secondary highways with an existing level of service lower than a "D" rating (i.e., level "E"), and not covered by Item 1 above, should be considered for near-term improvement. These improvements will include, at a minimum, curb and gutter improvements to ultimate design standards, installation of required number of travel lanes and appropriate parkway and median treatments. 3. All secondary highways with an existing level of service lower than a "C" rating (i.e., level "D"), and not covered by Item 2 above, should be considered for long-range improvement. These improvements will include, at a minimum, curb and gutter improvements to ultimate design standards, installation of required number of travel lanes and appropriate parkway and median treatments. 4. As traffic growth warrants, all remaining roadways classified as secondary highways should be reviewed on an annual basis to determine levels of service and if improvements are necessary. This process should be integrated into the annual review of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). 5. When appropriate, curbside parking should be prohibited on secondary highways to accommodate the installation of additional travel lanes and to minimize excessive traffic interruptions. Elimination of curb side parking will also increase vehicular safety and assist in reducing midblock accident rates. 6. When applicable, new developments along secondary highways should enter into a reciprocal access agreement for the purpose of permitting future driveway elimination and consolidation. 7. Where possible, class one bike routes should be provided parallel and adjacent to secondary highways. The elimination of on -street bike lanes will provide for the potential installation of additional travel lanes and will serve to increase vehicular and bicycle safety. 8. All new and redeveloped projects along secondary highways should be reviewed for potential transit facility installations. These may include, but not be limited to, bus turnouts and bus shelters. 9. The Sub -Urban secondary arterial highway, which incorporates a C-35 landscape median island, shall be the City's preferred standard. New raised median island breaks should be kept at a minimum and existing breaks should be reviewed periodically to determine the safety and utilization characteristics of said median breaks. Where appropriate, raised median islands should be constructed to prevent unwarranted and hazardous vehicular movements and to enhance.the street environment. 10. Where road widening is necessary to meet anticipated traffic and there are existing residential homes fronting and taking vehicular access from the highway, consideration shall be given in the design of the widening to alternative safe access to the highway for the existing residents. The considerations could include but not be limited to frontage road, narrower street section, noise walls, alternating andjoint accesses. LUMTED SECONDARY MGHWAYS Limited secondary highways serve primarily to provide access to major and secondary highways and to move lower volumes of traffic. As such, these streets generally serve relatively small areas such as residential neighborhoods or local employment areas. Curb -cuts may be more numerous along limited secondary highways, although they should be minimized. On -street parking may be permitted where appropriate; however, traffic needs such as turn lanes should take priority. Residential units should not take direct access from these streets where possible. Limited secondary highways have a right-of-way of 84'. The following roadways have been designated by the City of Santa Clarita as Limited Secondary Highways: x • Bouquet Canyon Road north of the Angeles National Forest boundary • Chiquito Canyon Road from SR 126 to Del Valle Road • Del Valle Road from Chiquito Canyon Road to Hasley Canyon Road • Henry Mayo Drive from The Old Road to Magic Mountain Parkway C-36 • Lake Hughes Road in Angeles National Forest • Lost Canyon Road east of Sand Canyon Road • Parker Road from Sloan Canyon Road to Ridge Route • Pico Canyon Road from SR 126 to Valencia Boulevard • Placerita Canyon Road from Sierra Highway to Sand Canyon Road • Ridge Route from 1-5 to the north of Northlake Boulevard • Sand Canyon Road south of Placerita Canyon Road • San Francisquito Canyon Road in Angeles National Forest • Sloan Canyon Road from Hasley Canyon Road to Parker Road For limited secondary highways the following circulation element standards are presented: W., 9% I I 1. All limited secondary highways with an existing level of service lower than an "E" rating (i.e., level "F") should be considered for immediate improvement. These improvements will include, at a minimum, curb and gutter improvements to ultimate design standards, installation of required number of travel lanes and appropriate parkway.and median treatments. 2. All limited secondary highways with an existing level of service lower than a "D" rating (i.e., level "E"), and not covered by Item 1 above, should be considered for near-term improvement. These improvements will include, at a minimum, curb and gutter improvements to ultimate design standards, installation of required number of travel lanes and appropriate parkway and median treatments. 3. AJI limited secondary highways with an existing level of service lower than a "C" rating (i.e., level "D"), and not covered by Item 2 above, should be considered for long-range improvement. These improvements will include, at a minimum, curb and gutter improvements to ultimate design standards, installation of required number of travel lanes and appropriate parkway and median treatments. 4. As traffic growth warrants, all roadways classified as limited secondary highways should be reviewed on an annual basis to deterniine levels of service and if improvements are necessary. If improvements are C-37 necessary, they should be implemented to the extent warranted. This process should be integrated into the annual review of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). 5. Where necessary, curbside or edge of pavement parking should be minimized. Areas where parking should be prohibited will include, but not be limited to, intersections, high generator driveways, school zones, crosswalks, fire stations, railroad crossings and adjacent to left turn pockets. 6. Where appropriate, new developments along limited secondary highways may enter into a reciprocal access agreement for the purpose of permitting future driveway elimination and consolidation. 7. Where possible, class one bike routes should be provided parallel and adjacent to limited secondary highways. The elimination of on -street bike lanes will provide for the potential installation of additional travel lanes and will serve to increase vehicular and bicycle safety. 8. When appropriate, new and redeveloped projects along limited secondary highways should be reviewed for potential. transit facility installations. These may include, but not be limited to, bus turnouts and bus shelters. 9. New median island breaks should be kept at a minimum and existing breaks should be reviewed periodically to determine the safety and utilization characteristics of said median breaks. COLLECTOR AND LOCAL STREETS Collector and local streets are not shown on any plan map. Collector and local street standards and policies are, however, maintained by the City's engineering office. In general, collector streets shall serve to link neighborhoods to the arterial streets, and should be planned to reduce street mileage while providing adequate service in accordance with the zoning and subdivision ordinances. AUGMENTED INTERSEC11ONS (This section may be added if augmented intersections are adopted through the Circulation Element Amendment process-- analyzed in EIR Alternatives 4 & 5) wiw C-38 Augmented intersections provide additional lanes at intersections to allow for turns and acceleration/deceleration. Dedicated turn lanes and acceleration/deceleration lanes allow through the through travel lanes to carry greater numbers of vehicles, thereby increasing the carrying capacity of the roadways. A major highway with augmented intersections would have six through lanes, but may widen to eight to ten lanes at intersections to accommodate the additional turning and acceleratiori/deceleration lanes. Additional rights-of-way are necessary to accommodate augmented intersections. Thus, where warranted, augmented intersections should be placed on new roadway links, and on existing links where practical. A signal interconnect is a hardwire link between traffic signals at different intersections. Interconnecting traffic signals can allow for synchronization between the timing of signals at different intersections. Synchronization of traffic signals can aid in more efficient traffic flow and minimize delays. Use of signal interconnects to improve traffic flow is desirable for major roadways throughout the Santa Clarita Valley P12nning Area. MULTI -USE CORREDORS AND THE B=WAY MASTER PLAN Bikeways are an important facet of the City's Multi -use Corridor System. These corridors allow for connections between neighborhoods, employment centers, schools and parks and provide the backbone of the City's trail system. Multi -use corridors integrate paths for bicycles, pedestrians and equestrians and are designed to serve a variety of users, from beginners to advanced, from commuters to recreationists. Exhibit C-8 shows the City's Multi -Use Corridor System and Exhibit C -8a shows typical path and multi -use corridor cross sections. The bicycle is experiencing more commuter and recreational usage today than at any other time in recent history. Bicycles, as a means of transportation, have many positive benefits, such as decreased air pollution and increased personal physical fitness. Bicycles use travel lanes as allowed by the Vehicle Code. Since the two means of transportation often come into conflict, it is recommended that bicycles and au�ornobiles be physically separated whenever N�O,� �..7 C-39 NOTE. THIS EXHIBIT WILL BE MODIFIED TO REFLECT Proposed Multi -Use Corridors THE ADOPTED CIRCULATIONNETWORK ALTERNATIVE U, xhibit C-8 j TYPICAL PATH SECTION r,,j,cj,.j %4,ere necessary MULTI - USE TRAIL 1-0(19QPo1e pitie fenciimj aridlcc �jndlpq Soft Surface' I.andscape buffcc as by the city Ocanclies rcuned to 10, mininiciq abo" trail Lc,,d 121 4 41 10 - bicycle trail hlN. eque3trlaii trail MIN Typical Path and Multi -use Trail Sections Exhibit C -8a = = = = = = m = m = = m = = m m m m = NOTE. THIS EXHIBIT WILL BE MODIFIED TO REFLECT Proposed Master Plan of Dikeways THE ADOPTED CIRCULATION NETWORK ALTERNATIVE, Exhibit c-9 possible. Th& Master Plan of Bikeways proposed through this Circulation Element identifies the need for future off-road facilities. Where practical, bike lanes should be placed on major and secondary roadways where parallel class one routes are unavailable. To be considered a parallel route, the class one bikeway must be adjacent to the roadway (e.g. the Chuck Pontius Commuter Rail Trail and Soledad Canyon Road.) Bike facilities should link regional and local recreational facilities as well multi -modal transit centers, employment areas, residential areas, and other destination points. The Master Plan of Bikeways is shown as Exhibit 9. (This exhibit will be modified as determined through the Circulation Element Amendment process.) It is the policy of this plan that hikeways link schools, park facilities, major civic uses and employment centers wherever possible. Bicycle paths should take advantage of off-road area and flood control channels as appropriate. Where a facility such as a park or school can only be accessed by a local street, directional signs for bicyclists can be posted on local streets to provide direction. The proposed Bikeway Master Plan is composed of the following three bicycle path classifications. Class I bicycle paths are separated rights-of-way and are generally included as part of a multi -use corridor. Class II bicycle lanes are reserved rights-of-way within the street itself and are designated for the use of bicycles. Class III bicycle routes are in rights-of-way shared with automobiles and designated by signs and/or stenciled pavement markings. Where reasonable, additional roadway rights-of-way should be taken where greater pavement width would facilitate installation of class II and class III bicycle routes. C-40 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Fixed Route and Commuter ServiM The City of Santa Clan;ta is currently serviced by the SCT for both local and daily commuter service to Los Angeles. The proposed plan for public transportation incorporates several additional routes within the City and the Planning Area, the creation of additional park -n -ride facilities, provisions for multi -modal transit centers, expansion of commuter rail service, implementation of several rail station stops and bus service improvements (i.e., bus shelters and bus turnout bays). Light Rail and HiL-h Speed Rail Expansion of rail transportation opportunities is anticipated in.the future. The State Rail Plan proposes to extend the San Joaquin Line from Bakersfield to Los Angeles through the Santa Clarita Valley. There is no timeline associated with the extension of this line. Continuous rail connection between the Santa Clarita Metrolink line and Ventura is desired in the future. The City will explore opportunities to re-establish this rail connection through either a freight or light rail system. High speed rail has been proposed to connect northern and southern California. The alignment for the high speed rail is likely to run through the Antelope Valley and Santa Clarita Valley on its way to its ultimate destination in San Diego. A high speed rail station is planned for the Santa Clarita Valley, however, a precise location is yet to be determined. Very High. Speed (VHS) steel -wheel -on -steel -rail technology (such as the Japanese Bullet Train and the French TGV) and magnetic levitation (maglev) technology are under consideration. The City will work with the state's Intercity High Speed Rail Authority as high speed rail implementation continues to ensure that any future high speed rail station in Santa Clarita will integrate into the existing Citi transit system. JUAC.A. PT I I OQMW06�� C-41 I IThe Circulation Element proposals for public transportation are as follows: I 1 97 d: Wi ....... ..... ........ C-42 I 1. Develop and implement additional bus routes for several roadways within increased bus pass sales outlets, ridership incentives, etc. the City limits. Expand commuter services. 2. Pursue and develop multi -modal facilities along mobility corridors which use and ensure new development and redevelopment are "transit friendly" will provide service to rail, commuter bus, local bus, Dial -a -Ride, local park -n -ride facilities, and bike stations. 8. Participate in agreements with Los Angeles County Department of Public 3. Require focused bus facilities in new developments. These "focused" of operating costs for local commuter service and Dial -a -Ride. improvements could include on-site terminal activity (i.e., mall locations), bus shelters and turnout bays adjacent to public right-of-way. 4. Provide centralized bus/rail/commuter information kiosk type posts for Santa Clarita. placement in heavy pedestrian and bus activity areas. 5. Establish commuter and high-speed rail station locations and develop and design plan for users to enhance commuter opportunities. I 1 97 d: Wi ....... ..... ........ C-42 I 6. Encourage methods to increase ridership including advertising, education, increased bus pass sales outlets, ridership incentives, etc. 7. Provide land use standards for new development that encourage tr ansit use and ensure new development and redevelopment are "transit friendly" in design. 8. Participate in agreements with Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Transit Division for Tr-ansit Services to continue funding a portion of operating costs for local commuter service and Dial -a -Ride. 9. Recognize opportunities to work with other agencies in North Los Angeles County and Ventura County to enhance transportation opportunities for Santa Clarita. I 1 97 d: Wi ....... ..... ........ C-42 I I ITRUCK ROUTES One of the primary goals of a Circulation Element is to provide for the safe and efficient movement of traffic and goods. To assist in the achievement of this goal, super -truck and regular truck routes are designated (See Exhibit C-10). Industrial uses require truck access for the delivery of raw materials or unfinished parts, the shifting of inventories and the delivery of finished products to the marketplace. Commercial uses require the delivery of sales goods to market and the transferring of commercial inventories. Designated preferred super -truck and regular truck routes within the Circulation Element Plan serve to minimize the effects of truck traffic within the circulation system, including noise and reduced roadway and intersection capacity. Additionally, truck routes serve to identify additional structural requirements imposed on the arterial roadway system and minimize the effects of structural deterioration within the circulation system. Truck routes are planned to service the commercial and industrial components of the land use plan adequately and provide sufficient access to the regional freeway system. Generally, truck routes are placed away from residential and light retail commercial uses and function along roadways leading from industrial and business park uses. Truck routes shall be appropriately designated with street signs. In order to facilitate and maintain peak commuter traffic flows, truck travel should be encouraged during off peak periods. These off peak periods generally range from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and from 9:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. 11"LEMENTATION PLAN OF THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT The City believes in and is committed to the implementation of this plan. Whereas, the goals and policies of the plan establish the general framework for future growth and development, actual realization of the plan can only be accomplished through the specific implementation of actions that the City subsequently undertakes. The primary tools with which the City implements the Circulation Element of the plan include: A valley -wide traffic model developed with a consensus approach between the City, County, and SCAG. M Standards for right-of-way dedication and acquisition. 1 0 Roadway improvement standards -and programs. I I Bikeway programs, trail standards and expanded roadway rights-of-way for bike lanes. C-43 m m = m m = = = = m m = m = m = = = m NOTE. THIS EXHIBIT WILL BE MODIFIED TO REFLECT Truck Routes and Supertruck Route (STAA) THE ADOPTED CIRCULATION NETWORK ALTERNATIVE, Exhibit C-10 • Unified Development Code which includes standards for parking and access. • Transportation Development Plan. • Congestion management programs. • Development agreements. • Capital improvement programs. • Transportation facility improvement financing programs. Review of individual development projects with attention to pedestrian, transit and bicycle access, C-44 RESOLUTION NO. 97-114 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DISAPPROVING THE COUNTYWIDE SITING ELEMENT AND SUMMARY PLAN AND THEIR RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS. WHEREAS, Section 41700 of the California Public Resources Code requires tiiat each county government prepare a countywide siting element; and WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County Countywide Siting Element has been completed under the auspices of the Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Conm-iittee/Integrated Waste Management Task Force; and WHEREAS, the Countywide Siting Element and Summary Plan must be approved by a majority of the cities within the County representing a majority of the incorporated population of the County; and, WHEREAS, if a city does not act upon the Countywide Siting Element within 90 days of receipt of the County Siting Element, it shall be deemed to have approved the Countywide Siting Element; and, WHEREAS, the County has submitted the Countywide Siting Element and Summary Plan to the City of Santa Clarita for consideration and approval together with the Environmen- tal Impact Report for those documents; and, WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita and others have questioned the adequacy of a number of the assumptions and assertions contained in the Countywide Siting Element and have previously suggested and provided revisions to same; and, WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing to consider approval or disapproval of the Countywide Siting Element and Summary Plan and associated environmental documents was duly given as required by law; and, WHEREAS, on September 30, 1997, the City Council held a public hearing at which approval or disapproval of the Countywide Siting Element was considered; and, WHEREAS, at that public hearing all interested persons were given an opportunity to appear and be heard and the City Council did receive and consider all public testimony relating to the Countywide Siting Element and Summary Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita does hereby find, determine, and declare as follows: SECTION 1. That the Countywide Siting Element (CSE) does not appear to meet the statutory requirements of the Public Resources Code (PRC) § 41701 that a CSE "shall include ... statement of goals and policies for environmentally safe transformation or disposal. . . ". SECTION 2. That the CSE does not appear to meet the statutory requirements of PRC § 41700 that a CSE "shall be concurrent and consistent with ... source reduction and recycling elements" as identified by the NRDC letter, Vol, H, p. 1336. SECTION 3. That disposal quantities and tonnage summaries for future years may be flawed in the CSE by the failure to recognize imported waste from out -of -county areas while recognizing the exportation of waste from the County. SECTION 4. That it concurs with the National Park Service in stating that it believes implementation of the Countywide Siting Element will result in significant, adverse, and irreversible environmental disruption, and that if the County allows the siting of solid waste disposal facilities in areas not thoroughly studied for ecological suitability there will be environmental impact to those sites that are adverse and significant, and that these impacts cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. SECTION 5. That approval of the. CSE would likely violate procedural provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in numerous respects. SECTION 6. That the CSE's "shortfall" analyses may be flawed as they lack realistic scope and fail to consider practical combinations and alternative methodologies for the management of solid waste which have been presented to the County through various documents, including the GBB Report of September 1996. SECTION 7. That the CSE appears to continue to place undue and unequal reliance on the landfilling of solid waste as a preferred management technique, contrary to the hierarchy identified in AB939, and as demonstrated by the fact that areas for landfill expansion and new development are specifically identified by name, location and expected capacity in the CSE, while needed future transformation facilities are not identified in any manner except that they are, in fact, needed. SECTION 8. That the CSE's information regarding solid waste management facilities is not current and should not be used as a basis for approving the CSE, as demonstrated by the fact that two major regional rail -haul projects (Mesquite, Eagle Mountain) identified therein have been approved and are moving forward as viable projects, altering the future landfill needs of Los Angeles County. SECTION 9. That the CSE does not adequately consider the regional needs and impacts as directed, specifically in that it appears to unequally distribute the burden of managing solid waste disposal on some geographic areas (the North County area, for example) while still failing to meet the needs of other geographic areas (the San Gabriel Valley, for example). SECTION 10, That the CSE does continue to identify Elsmere Canyon as a preferred site for a future landfill despite overwhelming and long-term local and regional opposition to the development of new urban landfills, and in spite of significant environmental information indicating and substantiating the unsuitability of Elsmere Canyon as a landfill site due to problems of seismicity, water and air quality, traffic congestion, biology, and other related issues. SECTION 11. That the CSE does not appear to adequately achieve the goal of identifying environmentally safe, technically feasible, and cost effective disposal, transforma- tion, and diversion facilities throughout the County. SECTION 12. That it rejects and does not approve the Countywide Siting Element or the Summary Plan. SECTION 13. That the City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause notice to be given in the time and manner prescribed by law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED —day of 1997. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK I HEREBY CERTIFY that the 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 1 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK D:\�S\CSI�0. � EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT PROPOSED CIRCULATION ELEMENT TEXT DATED JUNE 1997 0 EXECUTIVE SUNMIARY BACKGROUND In 1992 the City Council directed City staff to reassess the center City circulation network as a result of a Caltrans study to extend State Route 126 through the City. A City Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) was formed to study the roadway system and gather public input on an alternative east -west corridor through the City. In 1993, CTAC presented its findings to the City Planning Comn-dssion. The Planning Comn-dssion subsequently held public hearings on the circulation issue to further solicit public *input on east -west roadway system options. In December 1993, the network recommendations of both CTAC and the Planning Commission were presented to the Council the purpose of identifying a roadway network to use as the basis of study for a Circulation Element amendment. In September 1994, the City Council authorized the Center City Traffic and Modeling Study to review the existing planned circulation system and four alternative roadway networks as earlier identified by CTAC, the Planning Commission and Council. The study was completed in Jsnuary 1995 and concluded that neither the existing circulation system nor any of the four networks studied would meet the City's General Plan level of service goals. In an effort to find a superior alternative, an additional two alternative networks were studied in the Draft Final Center City Circulation Element Study which was prepared June 1995. In November 1995, a community meeting was held to present a recommended circulation network and to identify an appropriate community public participation process prior to proceeding with the amendment. Due to public comments received, it was determined that the environmental review process would review various circulation element amendment alternatives at an equal level of detail. In September 1996, the Council created a Steering Committee with members of the City Council and Planning Commission to work with staff and consultants to direct preparation of the environmental document, Circulation Element amendment text, and an extensive public participation process. The Steering Committee held a scoping meeting in December 1996 an information from this public input became the basis for the seven circulation alternatives studied in the environmental impact'report (EIR) prepared for this project. In addition to the environmental scoping meeting, the community participation process includes three public workshops to discuss the alternatives and their environmental impacts, two newsletters distributed to the public and published in the newspaper, and public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. SU3DL4,RY OF TEXT CHANGES Suggested changes in the Circulation Element received through the various public meetings, in-house staff review, consultation with other agencies, and the Steering Committee have been incorporated into the proposed amendment. Although the primary purpose of the Circulation Element amendment is to resolve the issue of the removal of SR 126 and identify an east -west corridor between 1-5 and SR 14, the amendment text includes a comprehensive update on various transportation issues and new policies. The changes include minor ES -1 0 clarifications and corrections, as well as substantive alterations and additions to City . circulation policy. New circulation topics addressed include enhancement of the pedestrian environment, Metrolink, transit, dial -a -ride, multi -use corridors, Congestion Management Plan (CMP) roadways, bikeways, light rail and high speed rail discussions have been added. For purposes of the text amendment, Newhall Ranch Road replaces SR 126. The following tables summarize the changes in Circulation Element goals and policies and proposed changes to the Master Plan of Arterial Highways. ES -2 To provide a circulation system to move people and 1.19 Maximize use of all major, secondary and goods safely and efficiently throughout the City of limited secondary roadways while Santa Clarita and the general planning area. minimizing use of all collpctors and local streets. Encourage development design that ensures that local streets function as designed and not as collector streets or other higher capacity roadways, 1.28 Discourage the creation of new gated private roadways that block area -wide through routes. Promote a diversified public transportation system 2.2 Provide for the mobility of City residents to that is safe, convenient, efficient, and meets the access local services and employment, identified needs of the City of Santa Clarita and the particularly for those who may experience general planning area. mobility difficulties, including the elderly, disabled, low income residents and youth 2.4 Develop multi -modal transit facilities that are strategically located in the City, convenient to major local residential and employment centers. 2.10 Explore the exoansion of rail service to Ventura County. to Los Angeles, and to the Antelope Valley. Encourage connections to future bigh-speed rail that may be located through the Santa Clattj3La� To promote safe and effective alternatives to the 3.3 Promote bicycle and Pedestrian accessibility personal automobile that will meet the needs of all to all commercial, industrial, multi -family planning area residents residential, and public facilities, including parks, schools, and centers of civic activity. Pursue an aggressive posture in the region in 5.3 Work cooperatively with regional advocating a regional transportation system. transportation agencies to develop and improve mass transit system connections between the City, metropolitan Los Angeles, Los Angeles International Airport, the Antelope Valley and Ventura County. ES -2 (Continued) Pursue an aggressive post . ore in the region in advocating a regional transportation system. 5.4 Encourage the development and utilization of the Metrolink commuter rail and high speed rail. 5.5 Encourage linkages between the City's transportation sVstem. rezional rail and high-speed rail. 5.6 Encourage the creation of High -Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes and other methods to 7— increase the capacity of the SR -14 and 1-5. Encourage the implementation of trip reduction 6.1 Develop coordinated plans for land use, circulation, and transit with City and County departments to concentrate high density housinz, employment and commercial areas close to transit corridors. 6.2 Encourage "transit -friendly" commercial and industrial development that provides methods to reduce daily auto trip veneration through land use Plannina and other stratepies. convenient pedestrian and bi(rycle access. 6.3 Encourage new development to use pedestrian "zippers" or walkways to provide a convenient link between different residential neighborhoods and commercial center%. 6.4 Encourage the location of convenience services, such as day care, at Transit Centers. 6.5 Encourage implementation of the City's General Plan, Transportation Development Plan, Bikeway Plan, Infrastructum Master Plan and other documents with transportation volicies; through new develooment and redevelopment. 6.6 Encourage fleidbility in develovinent standards to permit a bi%zher floor area ratio and lower parking requirements for commercial development that provide and maintain transit facilities and that subsidize shared -ride programs. �j Synchronize the expansion of public transportation facilities with new �evelopment with implementation of 'Pay as you go" for expansion of aublic transportation facilities. �.8 Supoort improvements to Congestion Management Plan (CMP) facilities and aid in the imolementation of the CMP to improve mobility corridors in the Santa Clarita Valley and North Los Angeles County Region. 6.9 Develop marketing and customer service plans to promote widespread use o alternatives to the auto. Target public agencies, maior employers, the Chamber of Commerce, Transportation Management Associations (TMAs), etc., to encourage commute patterns usina p2iblic transit. ES -3 0 (Continued) 6.10 Encourage the implementation of trin reduction methods to reduce daily auto trio ee eration throuLh 6.11 land use pla nning and other strateaies, I text is nrono.sed to ha Use bus stops and transfer mints to promotft transit with attractive and readable informatinn and sebedulel.. Encourage implementation of travel demand management strategies including telecommuting. comnressed work weeks. and aggressive ride-sharina promotion. The proposed Circulation Element amendment includes several changes to the Master Plan of Arterial Highways, which identifie's Major Highways (a I t least 6 lanes), Secondary Highways (4 lanes), and Limited Secondary Highways. The proposed changes include upgrading or downgrading roadway designations, changing the limits of roadways, and adding new roadways. The following table shows the roadways to be changed on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways: gp�m"�� ... ........ ........ -M —M.x- Roadway Limits Roadway Limits Ave Tibbits Newhall Ranch Rd to "A7 Street Poe Pkwy to Valencia Magic Mountain Blvd Parkway Backer Rd Castaic Rd to SR 126 Ave Scott McBean Pkwy to Hillsborough Pkwy Bouquet Cyn Rd Magic Mot Pkwy to Biscailuz Dr The Old Road to Castaic Soledad Cyn Rd and Rd Seco Cyn Rd to the Angeles Forest boundary Castaic Rd Ridge Route to Lake Copperhill Dr Seco Cyn to Bouquet Cyn Hughes Rd Rd - Copperhill Dr Rye Cyn Rd to Seco Cyn Decoro Dr Copperhill Dr to Seco Rd Cyn Rd Golden Valley Rd* SR 14 to Newhall Ranch Dickason Dr NewhAll Ranch Rd to Rd* Decoro Dr - Lake Hughes Rd 1-5 to the Angeles Forest Golden Valley Rd Newhall Ranch Rd to boundary Plum Cyn Rd Lyons Ave The Old Road to Hillcrest Pkwy Sloan Cyn Rd to The Old Dockweiller or Placerita Road Cyn Rd*. Magic Mountain Pkwy 1-5 to Via Princessa Jake's Way Sierra Hwy to Lost Cyn Rd McBean Pkwy 1-5 to Copperhill Dr Parker Rd Sloan Cyn Rd to The Old Road Newhall Ranch Rd* 1-5 to Golden Poe Pkwy Valencia Blvd to Steve onRanchPwk' y ES -4 (Continued) The Old Road to bastaic Ridge Route 1-5 to Northlake Blvd Rd Parker Rd Valencia Blvd to west of Sand Cyn Rd Soledad Cyn Rd to Sierra Pico Cyn Rd The Old Road Hwy Rio Vista Dr Lyons Ave Ext to Via The Old Road Pico Cyn Rd toCalgrove Princessa Blvd and Backer Rd to no. o S can Rd Sand Cyn Rd Placerita Cyn to Soledad 16th Street Orchard Village Rd to Cyn Rd San Fernando Rd Santa Clarita Pkwy Bouquet Cyn Rd to SR 14 . ... . ............ .. ..... .. ........... ............. Stevenson Ranch Pwky 1-5 to Pico Cyn Rd Chiquito Cyn Rd SR 126 to Del Valle Rd -The Old Rd Pico Cyn Rd to Backer Henry Mayo Dr The Old Road to Magic Rd and so. of Calgrove Mountain Pkwy Blvd. Ridge Route 1-5 to no. of Northlake Blvd The Circulation Element Draft environmental impact report (EIR) is under preparation and is anticipated to be released for public review on June 17, 1997. Seven alternative circulation systems will be analyzed in the Draft EIR. These include Alternative 1- the existing planned circulation system that includes all of the roadways planned as part of the current Circulation Element with the exception that the extension of SR 126 through the City would be replaced with Newhall Ranch Road as a 6 -lane major arterial highway. Alternative 2 (Newhall Ranch Road Reduction) and Alternative 3 (Golden Valley Road Network) propose additional roadways. . Alternative 4 and Alternative 5 (based upon Alternatives 2 and 3) seek to add additional capacity to the base roadway network through the augmentation of intersections to provide additional turn lanes which aid traffic flow. Finally, Alternative 6 and Alternative 7 (based on Alternatives 2 and 3) contain aggressive transportation demand management (TDM) measures, such as parking pricm'g strategies, to reduce the number of automobile trips. The EIR will provide the environmental information necessary for evaluating alternatives and provide a basis for decision-making. Please contact Laura Stotler of the City's Community Development Department at (805) 255-4330 for information on obtaining copies of the Proposed Circulation Element Text and the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Circulation Element Amendment. s:\ca\advance\cimlmt4lhs MW EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT PROPOSED CIRCULATION ELEMENT TEXT DATED JUNE 1997 EXECUTIVE SUAMIARY BACKGROUND In 1992 the City Council directed City staff to reassess the center City circulation network as a result of a Caltrans study to extend State Route 126 through the City. A City Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) was formed to study the roadway system and gather public input on an alternative east -west corridor through the City. In 1993, CTAC presented its findings to the City Planning Commission. The Planning Commission subsequently held public hearings on the circulation issue to further solicit public input on east -west roadway system options. In December 1993, the network recommendations of both CTAC and the Planning Commission were presented to the Council the purpose of identifying a roadway network to use as the basis of study for a Circulation Element amendment. In September 1994, the City Council authorized the Center City Traffic and Modeling Study to review the existing planned circulation system and four alternative roadway networks as earlier identified by CTAC, the Planning Commission and Council. The study was completed in January 1995 and concluded that neither the existing circulation system nor any of the four networks studied would meet the City's General Plan level of service goals. In an effort to find a superior alternative, an additional two alternative networks were studied in the Draft Final Center City Circulation Element Study which was prepared June 1995. In November 1995, a community meeting was held to present a recommended circulation network and to identify an appropriate community public participation process prior to proceeding with the amendment. Due to public comments received, it was determined that the environmental review process would review various circulation element amendment alternatives at an equal level of detail. In September 1996, the Council created a Steering Committee with members of the City Council and Planning Commission to work with staff and consultants to direct preparation of the environmental document, Circulation -Element amendment text, and an extensive public participation process. The Steering ComrrLittee held a scoping meeting in December 1996 an information from this public input became the basis for the seven circulation alternatives studied in the environmental impact report (EIR) prepared for this project. In addition to the environmental scoping meeting, the community participation process includes three public workshops to discuss the alternatives and their environmental impacts, two newsletters distributed to the public and published in the newspaper, and public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. SUAUAARY OF TEXT CHANGES Suggested changes in the Circulation Element received through the various public meetings, in-house staff review, consultation with other agencies,, and the Steering Committee have been incorporated into the proposed amendment. Although the primary purpose of the Circulation Element amendment is to resolve the issue of the removal of SR 126 and identify an east -west corridor between 1-5 and SR 14, the amendment text includes a comprehensive update on various transportation issues and new policies. The changes include minor ES -1 clarifications and corrections, as well as substantive alterations and additions to City circulation policy. New circulation topics addressed include enhancement of the pedestrian environment, Metrolink, transit, dial -a -ride, multi-use.corridors, Congestion Management Plan (CMP) roadways, bikeways, light rail and high speed rail discussions have been added. For purposes of the text amendment, Newhall Ranch Road replaces SR 126. The following tables summarize the changes in Circulation Element goals and policies and proposed changes to the Master Plan of Arterial 11ighways. MEN ANO, MM i m�a.ft MV Pfin R To provide a circulation system to move people and 1.19 Maximize use of all major, secondary and goods safely and efficiently throughout the City of limited secondary roadways while Santa Clarita and the general planning area. minimizing use of all collectors and local streets. Encourage development design that ensures that local streets function as designed and not as collector streets or othe higher capacity roadways, 1.28 Discourage the creation of new gated private roadways that block area -wide through routes. Promote a diversified public transportation system 2.2 Provide for the mobility of City residents to that is safe, convenient, efficient, and meets the access local services and employment, identified needs of the City of Santa Clarita and the particularly for those who may experience general planning area, mobility difficulties, including the elderly, disabled, low income residents and Youth 2.4 Develop multi -modal transit facilities that are strategically located in the City, convenient to major local residential and employment centers. 2.10 Exvlore the exi3ansion of rail service to Ventura County, to Los Anzeles, and to the Antelope Valley. Encourage connections to future high-speed rail that may be located throuah the Santa Claritj3:IRM To promote safe and effective alternatives to the 3.3 Promote bicycle and pedestrian accessibility personal automobile thai will meet the needs of all to all commercial, industrial. multi -family planning area residents residential, and public facilities, including parks, schools, and centers of civic activity. Pursue an aggressive posture in the region in 5.3 Work cooperatively with regional advocating a regional transportation system. transportation agencies to develop and improve mass transit system connections between the City, metropolitan Los Angeles, Los Angeles International Airport, the Antelope Valley and Ventura County. ES -2 (Continued) 5.4 Encourage the develooment and utilization he Metrolink commuter rail and high Pursue an aggressive posture in the regioni speed rail. advocating a regional transportation system. 5.5 Encourage linkages between the City's transportation system, regional rail and hizh-speed rail. 5,6 Encourage the creation of High-Occurancy Teh-icle (HOV) lanes and other methods to increase the capacity of Lhe SR -14 and 1-5. Encourage the implementation of trip reduction 6.1 Develoo coordinated plans for land use, circulation, and transit with City and inethods to reduce daily auto trin generation through Tand use Planning and other strategies. County devartments to concentrate high density housing, employment and commercial areas close to transit corridors. 6.2 Encourage "transit -friendly" commercial and Tn—dustrial development that provides convenient Pedestrian and bicycle access. 6.3 Encourage new development to use pedestrian "zippers" or walkways to provide a convenient link between different residential neie-hborhoods and commercial centers. 6.4 Tn-,ourage the location of conveniende services, such as day care, at Transit Fenters. 6.5 Encnurage implementation of the City's General Plan, Transportation Development FI -an. Bikeway Plan, Infrastructure Master Plan and other documents with transportation Policies through new Te'velooment and redevelovment. 6.6 Encourage flembilitv in development standards to permit a higher floor area ratio and lower parking requirements for commercial development that provide and maintain transit facilities and that subsidize shared -ride programs. 6.7 Synchronize the expansion of public transportation facilities with new development with implementation of"pay as you go" for expansion of Vublic transportation facilities. �L8 Support improvements to Congestio Manaaement Plan (CMP) facilities and aid in the implementation of the CNW to improve mobilitv corridors in the Santa Clarita Vallev and North Los Angeles County Region. 6.9 Develop marketiniz and customer service plans to promote widespread use o alternatives to the auto. Tarzet public ae-encies. major employers, the Chamber of Commerce, Transportation Manazement Associations (TMAs). etc., to encouraLe commute patterns using public transit. ES -3 (Continued) 6.10 Encourage the implementation of trip redUCtiGn methods to reduce daily auto trip generation through 6.11 land use Planning and other qtrateLies. I underlined text is Proposed to Use bus stons and transfer points to promote transit with attractive and readable information and schedules. Encourage implementation of travel demand management strategies including telecommutinz. compressed work weeks- and The proposed Circulation Element amendment includes several changes to the Master Plan of Arterial Highways, which identifies Major Highways (at least 6 lanes), Secondary Highways (4 lanes), and Limited Secondary Highways. The proposed changes include upgrading or downgrading roadway designations, changing the limits of roadways, and adding new roadways. The following table shows the roadways to be changed on the Master Plan of Arterial Highways: ES -4 .......... .: 3�;4 ..... ..... Limits Roadway Limits Roadway Ave Tibbits Newhall Ranch Rd to 'A"Stmet Poe Pkwy to Valencia Magic Mountain Blvd Parkway Backer Rd Castaic Rd to SR 126 Ave Scott McBean Pkwy to I-lillsborough Pkwy Bouquet Cyn Rd Magic Mnt Pkwy to Biscailuz Dr The Old Road to Castaic Soledad Cyn Rd and Rd Saco Cyn Rd to the Angeles Forest boundary Castaic Rd Ridge Route to Lake Copperhill Dr Saco Cyn to Bouquet Cyn Hughes Rd Rd Copperhill Dr Rye Cyn Rd to Saco Cyn Decoro Dr Copperhill Dr to Saco Rd Cyn Rd Golden Valley Rd* SR 14 to Newhall Ranch Dickason Dr NewhAll Ranch Rd to Rd* Decoro Dr Lake Hughes Rd 1-5 to the Angeles Forest Golden Valley Rd Newhall Ranch Rd to boundary Plum Cyn Rd Lyons Ave The Old Road to Hillcrest Pkwy Sloan Cyn Rd to The Old Dockweiller or Placerita Road Cyn Rd*. Magic Mountain Pkwy 1-5 to Via Princessa Jake's Way Sierra Hwy to Lost Cyn Rd McBean Pkwy 1-5 to Copperhill Dr Parker Rd Sloan Cyn Rd to The Old Road Newhall Ranch Rd* 1-5 to Golden Valley* PoaPkwy Valencia Blvd to IStevenson Ranch Pwky ES -4 (Continued) The Old Road to Castaic Ridge Route 1-5 to Northlake Blvd Rd Parker Rd Valencia Blvd to west of Sand Cyn Rd Soledad Cyn Rd to Sierra Pico Cyn Rd The Old Road Hwy Rio Vista Dr Lyons Ave Ext to Via The Old Road Pico Cyn Rd to Calgrove Princessa Blvd and Backer Rd to no. of Sloan Cyn Rd Sand Cyn Rd Placerita Cyn to Soledad 16th Street Orchard Village Rd to Cyn Rd San Fernando Rd Santa Clarita Pkwy Bouquet Cyn Rd to SR mmmfflff��� 14 Stevensoff Ranch Pwky 1-5 to Pico Cyn Rd Chiquito Cyn Rd SR 126 to Del Valle Rd .The Old Rd Pico Cyn Rd to Backer Henry Mayo Dr The Old Road to Magic Rd and so. of Calgrove Mountain Pkwy Blvd. .1�,�4:1������::��x�,:,..,.�����-.,ff�,���O���8mt�:..��,,�,,�.-��.�:�::�L,��K..�.���,.�- I e ' - — K Rl.,' -A'A� M.IXT-POW-1 MAO! Ridge Route 1-5 to no. of Northlake Blvd ENVIRONMENTAL ]REVIEW The Circulation Element Draft environmental impact report (EIR) is under preparation and is anticipated to be released for public review on June 17, 1997. Seven alternative circulation systems will be analyzed in the Draft EIR. These include Alternative 1- the existing planned circulation system that includes all of the roadways planned as part of the current Circulation Element with the exception that the extension of SR 126 through the City would be replaced with Newhall Ranch Road as a 6 -lane major arterial highway. Alternativ6 2 (Newhall Ranch Road Reduction) and Alternative 3 (Golden Valley Road Network) propose additional roadways. Alternative 4 and Alternative 5 (based upon Alternatives 2 and 3) seek to add additional capacity to the base roadway network through the augmentation of intersections to provide additional turn lanes which aid traffic flow. Finally, Alternative 6 and Alternative 7 (based on Alternatives 2 and 3) contain aggressive transportation demand management (TDM) measures, such as parking pricm'g strategies, to reduce the number of automobile trips. The EIR will provide the environmental information necessary for evaluating alternatives and provide a basis for decision-making. Please contact Laura Stotler of the City's Community Development Department at (805) 255-4330 for information on obtaining copies of the Proposed Circulation Element Text and the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Circulation Element Amendment. s: \cd\advance\cirelmt4lhs ES -5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Los Angeles County Countywide Integrated Waste Management Summary Plan (Summary Plan) is prepared in response to the Integrated Waste Management Act of 19 89 (known as AB 93 9), as amended, and its associated regulations that were developed by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). AB 939 and its regulations require each county in the state to prepare a Summary Plan ' that describes the steps that will be taken by local agencies, acting independently and in concert, to achieve the mandated waste diversion goals of 25 percent by 1995 and 50 percent by the year 2000. As required by State law, the purpose of the Summary Plan is to: 0 establish countywide goals and objectives for integrated solid waste management; - 0 describe the countywide system of governmental solid waste management infrastructure; 0 describe the current system of solid waste management in the cities and unincorporated County; 0 summarize the types of programs planned in the individual jurisdictions',Source Reduction, and Recycling Elements (SRREs), Household Hazardous Waste Elements (HHWEs), and Nondisposal Facility Elements (NDFEs); 0 describe programs that could be consolidated or coordinated countywide; and 0 establish an administrative structure for preparing and maintaining the Summary Plan. GOALS, POLICIES, AND OBJECTIVES The goals, policies, and objectives that are presented in Chapter 2 express plans for integrating strategies aimed toward reducing, reusing, recycling, diverting, and marketing solid waste generated within Los Angeles County. The goals are generally qualitative and will guide the general direction of countywi . de integrated waste managementprograms in the future. The policies are guidelines that delineate the types of specific actions that should be taken in order to realize the objectives and thus achieve the goals of the plan. The objectives are specific and measurable milestones that, as they are achieved, indicate progress toward the fulfillment of the goals. The goals, policies, and objectives are summarized in Table ES -1. ES -1 CURRENT INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES As discussed at length in Chapters 3 and 4, Los Angeles County has one of most complex and extensive solid waste management systems in the State and possibly in the nation. This system is comprised of over250 solid waste collectioncompanies and various municipal solid waste collection agencies, akvide variety of solid waste transfer stations, nine major landfills, five minor landfills and numerous recyclable processing facilities. This complex infrastructure provides solid waste and recyclable processing services to one of the most dynamic economies in the world. In 1995, the residents and businesses of Los Angeles County disposed of approximately 12.0 million tons of solid waste at existing permitted land disposal and transformation facilities located in and out of the County. Of this amount, approximately 10.9 million tons were disposed at'in-County Class III landfills, 530,000 tons at permitted unclassified landfills (inert waste only), 5 10,000 tons at transformation (waste -to -energy) facilities, 52,000 tons exported to out -of -County Class III landfills. The above 1995 solid waste disposal quantities exclude approximately 775,000 tons of waste imported from Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Ventura, and other counties. Each of the 89 jurisdictions in Los Angeles County collect waste in a manner best -suited for that jurisdiction, as discussed in detail in Chapter 4. For residential waste collection, the majority of the jurisdictions (58 out of 89) report having franchises with private haulers. Of the remaining jurisdictions, eight report having contracts with private haulers, seven issue permits to haulers, ten use city crews, and six use some combination of franchises, contracts, permits, and city crews. For commercial and industrial waste collection, 38 jurisdictions report having franchiseswith private haulers and 30 jurisdictions issue permits. Of the remainingjurisdictions, eight have contracts with private haulers; two use city crews; eight use a combination of franchises, contracts, permits, and city crews; and three cities (Bradbury, La Habra, and Rolling Hills) reported no commercial collection. The most commonly offered recycling program is curbside residential recycling. The most commonly offered composting programs are participation in the Christmas tree recycling program and the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts' alternative daily cover program. The most commonly offered household hazardous waste program is the Countywide Household ,Hazardous Waste Management Program. Los Angeles County has developed a variety of countywide source reduction, diversion, and household hazardous waste programs for residents of the 8 8 cities and the unincorporated areas. To reduce the amount of household hazardous waste in the wastestrearn, the County has implemented the Countywide Household Hazardous Waste Management Program. The County has also implemented the Countywide Yard Waste Management Program (formerly the Countywide Backyard Composting Program) to reduce the amount of green waste disposed in landfills. The Countywide Public Education/Awareness Program serves to promote recycling, source reduction, and material reuse among the residents and businesses in Los Angeles County. ES -2 Recycling Market Development Zones playa major role in the development of markets for diverted materials in Los Angeles.County. To date, five Recycling Market Development Zones have been established in the County. These include the cities of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Lancaster and the County of Los Angeles (v�hich includes the cities of Burbank, Carson, Cormnerce, Compton, Covina, El Monte, Glendale, Huntington Park, Lynwood, Montebello, Pasadena, South El Monte, South Gate, Vernon, and all the unincorporated areas). Other market development programs have included "buy recycled" procurement policies by cities and the County, promotion of the use of rubberized asphalt, and the sharing oT market development information among jurisdictions. JURISDICTIONAL SRREs, HHWEs, AND NDFEs AND THE SITING ELEMENT Thejurisdictional SRREs, HHWEs, and NDFEs surnmarizedin the first section of Chapter 5 of this document delineate the direction each jurisdiction proposes to go in order to reach the waste diversion goals. The Countywide Siting Element, a separate document from this Summary Plan, addresses the proper management for the residual waste remaining after all the 88 cities and the unincorporated areas in Los Angeles County have completed their reducing, reusing, recycling, composting, and otherwaste diversion activities. The Siting Element is a State-mandatedplan which provides for 15 years of disposal capacity needed by the 88 cities and the County. There are various other agencies and organizationswhose rules, regulations, policies, and guidelines affect how solid waste is managed in the. County. These include local, regional, state, and federal governmental agencies as well as solid waste management districts, authorities, joint powers authorities,. and informal groupings ofjurisdictions. POTENTIAL COUNTYWIDE PROGRAMS To continue the progress toward the 50 percent diversion goal by the year 2000, the last section of Chapter 5 of the Summary Plan identifies a range of potential countywide programs, based on the countywide goals, policies, and objectives listed in Chapter 2. These programs are designed to stimulate and support increased diversion by focusing on non-residential waste reduction; procurement of recycled -content products; sharing of inform ation and resources; communication, outreach, promotion, and education; multijurisdictional projects; and augmented services for the recycling, reuse, or proper disposal of certain specified materials. SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR DEVELOPMENT, IMPLEMENTATION, AND ADMINISTRATION OF WASTE DIVERSION PROGRAMS As required by State law, the costs of development, administration, implementation, and the requirements for programs selected in all 89 jurisdictional SRREs and HHWEs in Los Angeles County were tabulated and presented in Chapter 6. Based on projections of diversion program costs that were provided in the individual SRREs and HHWEs, jurisdictions in the County anticipated expenditures totaling approximately $97,5 00,000 (1991 dollars) to develop and implement diversion programs through 1995. ES -3 ADMINISTRATION, MAINTENANCE AND FUNDING FOR THE SUMMARY PLAN As the lead County agency advising the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on waste management issues, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works is responsible for preparation, maintenance and administration of the Summary Plan. Pursuant to Chapter 20.88 of the Los Angeles County Code, funding for these activities is provided through imposition of a "tipping fee" surcharge, referredto as the Solid Waste ManagementFee, on each ton of solid waste disposed of at landfills and/or transformationfacilities located in Los Angeles County, and on each ton of solid waste that is exported out of the County for disposal at landfills and/or transformation facilities. SUMMARY PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVAL PROCESS Under the auspices of the Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee/Integrated Waste ManagementTask Force, the Summary Plan and its Negative Declaration were prepared by the Los. Angeles County Department of Public Works. The preparation of the Preliminary Draft of the Summary Plan and its Draft Negative Declaration was completed in early 1996. Subsequently, the documents were released to cities, governmental agencies, neighboring counties, environmental organizations, and private industries for a 45 -day comment period on March 11, 1996. In order to assure availability of the documents to citizens, copies of the Preliminary Draft Summary Plan and its Draft Negative Declarationwere also delivered to over 230 County and city libraries throughout Los Angeles County, as well as the Department of Public Works Headquarters andits field offices. Additionally, the Department conducted a series of 13 community information meetings throughout Los Angeles County during the period of April I to April 22, 1996. Notices of the availability of the documents and the times and locations of the public information meetings were published in the Los Angeles Times and numerous local newspapers in an effort to maximize participation. These outreach efforts are documented in Volume III, Appendices J, K, and L of the Summary Plan. Due to the positive response by both the cities and the public, and to ensure maximum participation by all concerned, the comment period was subsequently extended twice for a total of over 200 days, ending on October 17,1996. Additionally, the Department worked with groups, such as -the Natural Resources Defense Council and Landfill Alternatives Save Environmental Resources, to gain a greater insight into areas of the Summary Plan that may be revised for greater clarity and to expand the document's information. All comments received, both at the public meetings and/or contained in letters received during the comment period, are presented with appropriate responses in Volume III, Appendices G, H, and I and the Negative Declaration's Appendices ND -A, ND -B, and ND -C. The Final Draft of the Summary Plan also includes input from the Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee/Integrated Waste Management Task Force (see Appendix P) and the County Board. of Supervisors (see Appendix 0). 'Me Final Drafts of the Summary Plan and its Negative Declaration incorporate the changes developed in response to the comments received. Section 41721 of the PRC requires the Summary Plan be "approved by the county and by a majority of the cities within the county which contain a majority of the population of the incorporated area of the county." In addition to the localjurisdictions'approvals, the Summary Plan must be reviewed and approved by the CIWMB. ES -4 M TABLEES-1 GOALS, POLICIES, AND OBJECTIVES FOR SUMMARY PLAN Carrying out the listed goals, policies, and objectives will be the responsibility of the County and other participating jurisdictions, unless otherwise noted. GOALS POLICIES OBJECTIVES Goal 1: Encourage the continued The cities in Los Angeles County, the County, Enhance the existing Christmas Tree Recycling Program by development of an integrated the Los Angeles County Solid Waste coordinating the program with participating jurisdictions. solid waste management system Management CommillealIntegrated Waste that will assist jurisdictions in Management 7ask Force (Task Force) and the Enhance the existing Countywide Backyard Composting Program by maximizing waste reduction County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles developing appropriate backyard demonstration sites into more efforts by enhancing existing County will support and contribute to: comprehensive Home Garden Learning Centers (which also programs and services. a. the implementation of programs and incorporate watenvise gardening and grasscycling). services that maximize the source reduction of waste; Enhance the existing Countywidc HHW collection program by h. the recycling ofreusable materials; identifying geographic areas that would benefit most by increasing the C. the mulching and composting of organic number of program events and by increasing the convenience of materials; collectibn for the most common HHW items (e.g., latex paint, used d. the development of environmentally safe motor oil, etc.). transformation facilities to reduce dependence on landti'llsfor the disposal Expand the existing backyard compos.tin'g demonstration program by ofihe residual solid waste; including public-private partnerships (e.g. demonstration projects in e. the continuation and expansion, as nurseries and landscape supply businesses�. necessaM ofprograms that contrihute to the reduction, reuse. recovwy. andproper Enhance cooperative efforts to site needed waste diversion facilities disposal of household hazardous waste such as Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs), composting facilities, (1111W); and and manufacturing facilities that utilize recycled materials by f fhecfforisinrevisingStatelavi,toexclitde "Iransfornunion"from promoting the RecyclingMarket Development Zones (RMDZs) in the the definition of County. disposal and.establish a solid -waste management hierarchy as listed helow: Encourage the expansion of materials reuse programs such as thrift - Source Reduction stores and materials rehabilitation organizations. - RecyclinglComposting - Transformation Prepare and introduce State legislation to promote development of - Environmentally Safe Land environmentally safe transformation facilities to reduce the amount of Disposal solid waste disposed in landfills, and to exclude'1ransformation" from the definition of disposal allowing jurisdictions to consider the use of I tranqfnmqt on facilities. M W &I TABLE ES - 1 (Continued) GOALS, POLICIES, AND OBJECTIVES FOR SUMMARY PLAN Carrying out the listed goals, policies, and objectives wil I be the responsibility or the County and other participating jurisdictions, unless otherwise noted. GOALS POLICIES OBJECTIVES - Goal 2: Encourage the continued The cities in Los Angeles County, the County Develop a technical assistance program for the private sector that will development of an integrated and the Task Force, through cooperativeefforts encourage the reduction of solid waste sent for disposal. solid waste management system and as a means to maximize waste reduction that will assist jurisdictions in efforts, will: Investigate and prepare a report on the viability of implementing a maximizing waste reduction a assist in the investigation and pilot food waste recycling program. efforts by developing new development of new diversion programs; cooperative activities and and Develop a model construction/demolitionmaterial recycling ordinance projects. b. review all existing land use policies for adoption by the participating jurisdictions and incorporate the relating to new development and solid ordinance into their building code requirements. wastefacilities. Develop a model plan to promote land use policies aimed at discouraging incompatible land uses adjacent to solid waste management facilities for use and consideration by the participating J . urisdictions. Goal 3: Eliminate or reduce barriers and The Task Force will be the primaryforum for The Task Force will support the continued existing periodic meetings promote intergovernmental and addressing solid waste issues on a countywide conducted on solid waste issues by groups such as: intersectoral cooperation among basis. a. Joint Power Authorities (JPAs); jurisdictions, agencies, and the b. informal groups of cities; and private sector in order to create The Task Force will provide aforum that will: c. joint public/private sector groups; new opportunities for development a. promote the development Of and implementation of diversion intergovernmental and intersectoral participating in such meetings whenever possible, and will expend programs. agreements that will assist with program efforts to coordinate and encourage productivity by these groups by integration; promoting the Task Force as the best forum for,jurisdictions, JPAs, h. faster communication between the public informal city groups, and the private sector forworking cooperatively andprivatesectorsto exchange ideas and to address solid waste issues on a countywide basis. experiences; and C. providefor the development ofconsistent Publish and maintain q directory of city, County, and State solid waste policies andprograms to achieve theAB personnel and programs. 939 diversion mandates. Develop an on-line computerservice for disseminatingwaste reduction I I and diversion information to jurisdictions and the public. M TABLE ES - I (Continued) GOALS, POLICIES, AND OBJECTIVES FOR SUMMARY PLAN Carrying out the listed goals, policies, and objectives will be the responsibility of the County and other participating jurisdictions, unless otherwise noted. GOALS POLICIES OBJECTIVES Goal 4: Encourage and develop stronger. The County and the Task Force will encourage Enhance the effectiveness of the commercial/ industrial technical long-term markets and demand jurisdictions and the private sector to: assistance program. for diverted materials and end a. esiablish Procurement standards to products. maximize the percent of total goods Develop a model plan giving procurement preference to goods and purchased using recycled materials, materials: easily recyclable, or packaged to reduce a. made from recycled material, and/or wasle; and b. manufactured to be easily recycled, and/or b. support the enhancement of the existing c. distributed in a manner to minimize packaging and shipping Recycling Market Development Zones' waste, (RMDZs) to assist in the development of for use and consideration by participating jurisdictions. businesses primarily involved with recycling, composting, and other waste Develop a Recycled Product Vendor Show for the public and private reduction efforts sectors to present current products containing recycled materials and state ofthe art commencialand industrial waste reduction technologies. Encourage jurisdictions to cooperate in the purchasing of recycled - content items in bulk. TABLE ES - I (Continued) GOALS, POLICIES, AND OBJECTIVES FOR SUMMARY PLAN Carrying out the listed goals, policies, and objectives wi H be the responsibility of the County and other participating jurisdictions, unless otherwise noted. GOALS POLICIES OBJECTIVES Coal 5: Increase public awareness orsolid The Task Force and County will assist Enhance and expand educational materials for the school programs to w a s t c management jurisdictions in securingpublic education and cover grades kindergarten through 12. (diversion/disposal) issues, and promotional materials addressing various their participation in source aspects of the Integrated solid waste system Develop a waste reduction exhibit for use at schools and fairs. reduction, recycling, composting, including. household hazardous waste a source reduction; Develop a program for businesses within the County of Los Angeles management programs,and other h. recycling, that provides recognition from the participating jurisdiction's waste diversion efforts. C. reuse; governing body for winners of waste reduction awards d composting; programs, includingthe California Integrated Waste Management Board's WRAP e. transformation; and program, f management of the remaining residual solid waste to ensure the protection of Expand theTask Force's "Inside Solid Waste" publication to increase public health and safety. the awareness of jurisdictions, the media, and the general public of solid waste diversion and disposal issues, Develop a countywide speakers bureau that would be available to speak at schools, businesses, civic groups, and cities, Assist in the coordination of local promotional campaigns by developing and making available standardized messages, phrases, and facts that could be incorporated by jurisdictions into local brochures and programs. For example, promote telephone directory recycling and point-of-purchase education programs to reduce HHW. I 4D TABLE ES - 1 (Continued) GOALSt POLICIES, AND OBJECTIVES FOR SUMMARY PLAN Carrying out the listed goals, policies, and objectives wi I I be the responsibi I ity of the County and other participating jurisdictions, unless otherwise noted. GOALS POLICIES OBJECTIVES Goal 6: Assure adequate long-term solid The County, the cities in Los Angeles County Adopt the Countywide Siting Element. waste disposal capacity for the and the.County Sanitation Districts of Los cities and County unincorporated Angeles County willsupporlihe developmentof Adopt the Los Angeles County Countywide Integrated Waste areas. new disposal facilities and arpansion of Management Summary Plan. exisfingfaciliiies identified in the Los Angeles County Solid Waste ManagementAction Plan Expedite, streamline and coordinate necessary permitting to address adopted onApril 5, 1988 by the County Board the State -mandated 15 -year disposal capacity need. of Supervisors (as revised by the Counlywide Siting Element), as long as they arefound to he Investigate and report on alternative techno logies and programs wh ich technically and environnientallyfeasible. have the potential for conserving in -County landfill capacity. The Task Force will actively seek and identify transformation and other alternative technologies andprogramshavingthepoicnrial to conserve capachy at in -County landfill sites. Goal 7: Demonstrate public leadership in Jurisdictions in Los Angeles County, as Each participating jurisdiction's governing body will appoint a lead all aspects of solid waste representatives of the public sector, will lead agency under its jurisdiction. that will be responsible to: management by implementing society by example by implementing a. conduct waste audits of appropriate departmental facilities in the appropriate programs and appropriate solid waste managementprograms jurisdiction; practices within public sector andpractices within their own organizational b. provide recycling and other waste diversion information, agencies. operations that reflect the applicable goals, program design and implementation assistance to each policies, and objectives ofthis Summary Plan. departmental facility, as needed; C. develop a reporting procedure to describe the effectiveness of various programsand practices implementedby the departments for submittal to the governing body and forwarding to the Task Force; and d. develop a newsletter for periodic publication and distribution to appropriate staff at each department for sharing waste reduction and diversion information (appropriate and effective electronic distribution may be utilized as a component of the jurisdiction's waste reduction program). I TABLE ES - I (Continued) GOALS, POLICIES, AND OBJECTIVES FOR SUMMARY PLAN Carrying out the listed goals, policies, and objectives will be the responsibility orthe county and other participating jurisdictions, unless otherwise noted. GOALS POLICIES OBJECTIVES Coal 8: Demonstrate public, leadership Jurisdictions in Los Angeles County svill Each participating jurisdiction's governing body will appoint a lead and accountability by assessing encourage accomplishment of the goals, agency under itsjurisdiction that will be responsible to: and reporting jurisdictiomil policies, and objectives of this Summary Plan a. develop a reporting mechanism for assessing the jurisdiction's progress In attaining the goals, by establishing an assessment and reporting progress in achieving the applicable goals, policies, and policies, and objectives listed in mechanisin for the periodic review of their objectives listed in the Summary Plan, wherever possible (for the Summary Plan. progress. instance, where they provide a measurable milestone); and b. produce a periodic status report (at least annually) for their governing body and for their residents on progress toward achievement or the goals, policies, and objectives within the jurisdittion. 9NME9 r." P=09 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 97-111 (PREVIOUS MASTER CASE NO. 93-198) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-002 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH #96112028 DATE: July 15, 1997 TO: Chairperson Cherrington and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Ken Pulskamp, Assistant City Manager CASEPLANNER: Laura Stotler AICP, Associate Planner APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita LOCATION: Citywide REQUEST: An amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element; Review and certification of - the Environmental Impact Report (SCH#96112028) prepared for this project. . BACKGROUND The intent of this meeting is to introduce the proposed Circulation Element amendment to the Commission, present the findings of the program Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), give the public an opportunity to comment on the project, and receive direction from the Commission for further processing. No formal recommendation is requested from the Commission at this time. The Planning Commission will need to make a formal recommendation to the City Council concerning the amendment, EIR certification, and Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) following the completion of the Final EIR in August 1997. It is anticipated that the City Council will consider the Coniniission�s recommendation this Fall. The preparation of the DEIR follows a planning process begun in 1992 after a proposal by Caltrans to study a proposed extension of the State Route 126 (SR 126) expressway was rejected by the City Council. In response to the proposed SR 126 extension, the Council directed staff to find an alternative east -west route and to eliminate the super -truck designation on SR 126. The Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) was formed to solicit further community input regarding an alternative east -west roadway network. The CTAC recommendations were considered by the Planning Commission in July 1993. Modifications were recommended to this network by the Commission and, in December 1993, a recommended network was presented to the City Council for consideration as an amendment to the City's Circulation Element. In September 1994, the Council commissioned a Center City Traffic and Modeling Study to examine the existing circulation network and four alternative networks as endorsed by CTAC, the Commission and Council. The findings of this study were presented to the City Council in a January 1995 study session. At that time, it was apparent that neither the existing circulation system nor any of the four afternative roadway networks would meet the General Plan minimum level of service (LOS) goal of LOS "D". Two additional alternatives were studied to find a suitable network altemative and these, along with the first four alterriatives, were included in the Draft Final City Circulation Element Stu dated June 1995. Of these additional alternatives, Scenario 5 was determined to best meet the City's circulation goals. In November 1995, a community meeting was held to present a recommended circulation element network and to identify an appropriate community participation process prior to proceeding with the amendment. Due to public comments received, it was determined that the environmental review process would review various Circulation Element amendment alterriatives at an equal level of detail. In September 1996, a Circulation Element Amendment Steering Committee represented by Councilmembers Darcy and Heidt and Commissioners Brathwaite and Kilmeyer was established. The Steering Committee met in October, November, December, March and April for the purposes of considering alternatives, discussing strategies to improve citizen participation in the process, recommending proposed Circulation Element text changes and planning for the EIR scoping meeting. The Prouosed Circulation Element Amendment Text was distributed to the Co mmission on June 3, 1997. Copies of the DEIR for this project were distributed to the Commission on June 17, 1997. A table that outlines the history of the Circulation Element Amendment is attached to this report. A rough cost analysis has been prepared to provide estimates for the costs of constructing new roadways proposed under the various scenarios. This information is provided for purposes of comparison and is included as an attachment to this report. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS In May 1996, the City sent out a Request for Proposal to prepare a program EIR for the proposed Circulation Element Amendment. In September 1996, Rincon Consultants, Inc., was retained to prepare the environmental document. A Notice of Preparation was distributed on November 4, 1996, and contained a copy of the Initial Study that identifies issues to be addressed in the EIR. A seeping meeting was held on December 4, 1997, to identify additional environmental issues and alternatives for study. Following this scoping meeting (150 attendees), staff worked with the Circulation Element Steering Committee and consultants to revise the proposed alternatives. The EIR document for this project is a program EER as identified by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is similar in level of detail to the Redevelopment Plan EIR reviewed by the Commission last month. Program EIR analysis is more general than that included in project -level EIRs. The purpose of a program EIR is to allow the City, the lead agency under CEQA, to consider broad policy alternatives and program -wide mitigation measures early in the planning process when the City has greater flexibility to deal with citywide impacts. It allows the City to examine the overall effects of the proposed course of action and serves as the first tier of the environmental review for specific future circulation system infiastracture development projects that are implemented under the City's Circulation Element. On June 16, 1997, the DEIR (SCH#96112028) for the proposed amendment was released for a 45 -day public comment period. The DEIR evaluates the impacts of the existing General Plan and six different circulation network and policy alternatives at an equal level of detail. Three community workshops were held to explain the impacts of the various DEIR alternatives studied. These workshops were held on June 26, 1997 (attendance 30 people), June 28, 1997 (attendance 20 people) and on July 10, 1997. A copy of the community workshop hand-out is attached to this report and provides an overview of the amendment process and highlights the differences among the alternatives. The DEIR public review period closes on July 31, 1997, and all written comments must be received prior to that date for inclusion in the Final EIR. The Final EIR with responses to all written comments will be prepared and presented to the Commission and recommended for certification in August 1997. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed Circulation Element Text Changes The proposed changes in the Circulation Element text were suggested through various public meetings, in-house staff review, consultation with other agencies, and the Steering Committee. Although the primary purpose of the Circulation Element Amendment is to resolve the issue of the removal of SR 126 and identify an east -west corridor, the amendment text includes a comprehensive update on various transportation issues affecting the City and new policies. The proposed changes include clarifications and corrections, as well as substantive alterations and additions to City circulation policy. New circulation topics addressed include enhancement of the pedestrian envirormient, Metrolink, transit, dial -a -ride, multi -use corridors, Congestion Management Plan (CMP) roadways, bikeways, light rail and high speed rail narratives. 7he Proposed Circulation Element Amendment Text does not include changes to any of the map exhibits since no preferred alternative has been identified. The Executive Summary of the Pronosed Circulation Element Amendment Text identifies the recommended goal and policy changes and the proposed Master Plan of Arterial Ifighway map redesignations. The proposed goal and policy changes and roadway redesignations; are also identified beginning on page 2-4 of the DEIR. EIR Alternatives The Planning Commission will receive a presentation from Rincon Consultants on the alternatives studied and the anticipated impacts identified in the DEIR. The seven circulation network alternatives are briefly described as follows and will be described in more detail during the presentation: Altl. Existing Planned Roadway Network -The "No Project" alternative analysis required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This alternative looks at the existing circulation system in the City's General Plan, except that SR 126 has been downgraded from an expressway to an 8 -lane mqjor highway known as Newhall Ranch Road. (Further description of this alternative is provided on DEIR page 2-10.) Alt 2. Newhall Ranch Road Reduction - Includes the same roadway alignments as the Existing Planned Roadway Network except that the extension of Newhall Ranch Road, east of Golden Valley Road, would be eliminated. Alt 3. Golden Valley Network - Similar to the Newhall Ranch Road Reduction alternative except for the formation of a continuous corridor east of Bouquet Canyon Road via Newhall Ranch Road, Santa Clarita Parkway, and Golden Valley Road. Alt 4. Newhall Ranch Road Reduction (Alt 2) and additional intersection widening or augmentation necessary to meet desired levels of service. Alt 5. Golden Valley Network (Alt 3) and additional intersection widening or augmentation necessary to meet desired levels of service. Alt 6. Newhall Ranch Road Reduction (Alt 2) with aggressive travel demand management (TDM) measures. Alt 7. Golden Valley Network (Alt 3) with aggressive TDM measures. As a base, all of these alternatives consider planned transit improvements included in the City's adopted Mransportation Development Plan, as well as the trip reducing effects of implementing various existing CityIDM policies. (See Table 2-4, page 2-13 in the DEIR) Alternatives 2 and 3 provide for new roadway construction. Alternatives 4 and 5 build on Alternatives 2 and 3, respectively, by adding additional roadway capacity through widening or augmenting target intersections. Alternatives 6 and 7 build on Alternatives 2 and 3, respectively, by adding aggressive TDM strategies above the existing level of TDM in order to reduce the total number of vehicle trips generated. (See Table 2-5, page 2-22 in the DEIR) The DEIR identifies the following areas of significant and unavoidable environmental effects associated with any of the seven project alternatives (DEIR page numbers are given for the corresponding sections): Earth Resources (Page 5.1-1) Air Quality (Page 5.2-1) a Biological Resources (Page 5.4-1) Noise (Page 5.5-1) Aesthetics/Light and Glare (Page 5.10-1) As part of this project, the Commission will need to consider a recommendation to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) for these issue areas and it is recommended that these issues be given particular consideration by the.Conimission. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Open the public hearing, receive the staff report, receive a presentation on the DEIR from Rincon Consultants, and receive testimony from the public; 2) Direct comments and questions to staff and Rincon Consultants concerning the DEIR and provide direction to staff, and 3) Continue the public hearing to July 23, 1997 for further discussion of the Circulation Element Amendment and public testimony. ATTACHMENTS Circulation Element Ilistory Table Circulation Alternatives Preliminary Cost Estimates Circulation Element Amendment Community Workshop Hand-out ERP:LHS:Iep pIngcomVire1sr1lbs CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 97-111 (PREVIOUS MASTER CASE NO. 93-198) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-002 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH #96112028 DATE: July 23, 1997 TO: Chairperson Cherrington and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Ken Pulskamp, Assistant City Manager CASE PLANNER: Laura Stotler AICP, Associate Planner Conal McNamara AICP, Assistant Planner 11 Jeff Hogan, Planning Technician APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita LOCATION: Citywide REQUEST: An amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element; Review and certification of the Environmental Impact Report (SCH#96112028) prepared for this project. BACKGROUND At the Planning Commission meeting of July 15, 1997, the Commission received a presentation on the Circulation Element Amendment Draft EIR from Steve Svete of Rincon Consultants, opened the public hearing and received testimony from 18 members of the public. The Commission raised concerns over balancing the need for additional roadways with the environmental impacts. TDM measures and their implementation was discussed. Several issues raised require additional staff research including: 1) The status of the Lewis Bill relating to limits on the authority of the Air Quality District to impose Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures; 2) The ability of the City to impose weight limit restrictions upon roadways within the City. 3) The impacts of proposed augmented intersections upon existing residential and business developments, The intent of this meeting is to have the Planning Commission formulate a recommendation to the City Council concerning the amendment. The formal Planning Commission recommendation may be taken following the release of the Final EIR in August 1997. It is anticipated that the Planning Commission will consider adoption of the formal recommendation to the Council at the meeting of September 2, 1997, following release. This final action will include recommendations concerning the appropriate network, TDM measures, or combination of the two, a recommendation to certify the EIR and a recommendation to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC). ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS The DEIR public review period closes on July 31, 1997, received prior to that date for inclusion in the Final EIR. written comments will be prepared and presented to the certification in September 1997 PROJECT ANALYSIS and all written comments must be The Final EIR with responses to all Commission and recommended for At the meeting of July 15, 1997, the Commission indicated that they would discuss their recommendation to.the Council at this meeting. The recommendation may be any or a combination of any of the proposed alternatives discussed in the Draft EIR. A question was raised on whether or not the Planning Commission could recommend a different network. Yes, this could be done. It should be noted, however, that over fourteen circulation alternatives have been studied as part of this process. None of these networks has met the desired minimum level of service (LOS) "D" goal of the General Plan. Therefore, any network that would remove additional links would only worsen the LOS and be counterproductive to staff efforts to find alternatives that meet the basic service goals for the community. Should the Commission recommend a network that is substantially different from the proposed alternatives (e.g. removal of a link of major highway or addition of a new major highway), this action , if supported by the City Council, would necessitate additional traffic modeling and a supplemental environmental impact report. If a new roadway network were chosen, the Council would not be able to meet their goal of having a Circulation Element adopted by the end of 1997. Concerns were raised over the impacts that augmented intersections proposed under Alternatives 4 and 5 would have upon existing businesses and residential units. No business or residential displacement is proposed as part of this project.. However, approximately 20 intersections could impact businesses or residential developments were they to be augmented. The exact number of units affected is unknown. A copy of a map showing potential business and residential displacements due to augmentation is attached. The Commission raised the issue of imposing weight limits on roadways. Staff is researching this issue and will provide information at the next meeting. Presently, the City does have weight limits on several roadways which restricts the travel of trucks over 700 tons. A copy of Ordinance No. 94-14 regarding weight limits is attached. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive the staff report, receive testimony from the public,.and discuss a recommendation for this amendment and discuss justifications for adopting a statement of overriding considerations (SOC); 2) Direct staff to prepare resolutions for this project concerning the Planning Commission recommendation; and 3) Continue the public hearing to August 19, 1997 to discuss and review the proposed recommendation resolutions and to take public testimony. ATTACHMENTS Map of Augmented Intersection and Potential Displacement of Residences and Businesses Copy of Ordinance No. 94-11 KRP:LHS:lep p1ngcom\cire1sr2.1hs CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 97-111 (PREVIOUS MASTER CASE NO. 93-198) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-002 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH #96112028 DATE: August 19, 1997 TO: Chairperson Cherrington and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Ken Pulskamp, Assistant City Manager CASE PLANNER: Laura Stotler AICP, Associate Planner Conal McNamara AICP, Assistant Planner II Jeff Hogan, Planning Technician APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita LOCATION: Citywide REQUEST: An amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element; Review and certification of the Environmental Impact Report (SCH#96112028) prepared for this project. BACKGROUND At the Planning Commission meeting of July 23, 1997, the Comniission received a brief presentation on the Circulation Element Amendment Draft EIR from staff and the consultants, received testimony from the public, and discussed justifications for adopting a statement of overriding considerations (SOC). The Commission raised concerns over the extension of Newhall Ranch Road, especially the types of trucks which would be allowed on it and discussed TDM measures and their implementation. The Planning Commission gave staff direction to prepare a recommendation of support for Alternative 4 with voluntary TDM and an elimination of parking pricing. The intent of this meeting is to discuss the issues raised at the last meeting, to which staff has responded, and have the Planning Commission formulate a recommendation to the City Council concerning the amendment. The issues raised at the last meeting included: 1) The Northerly By-T)ass. The Commission wished to see a northerly by-pass report prepared by the County. The report, which has been included as Attachment A to this staff report, concluded that the northerly by-pass does not meet the goals originally envisioned for it in that it does not carry the SR 126 traffic in an amount that justifies the cost; Circulation Element Update August 19,1997 Page 2 2) Traffic Calminz Measures. The Commission requested additional information on traffic calming measures. Staff has included a policy and exhibit as Attachment B to this staff report. Please see the analysis section of this staff report for a more detailed discussion; 3) Avenue Scott Reduction to Two Lanes. The Commission requested information on Avenue Scott being reduced to two lanes. Staff is reviewing information and will present findings at the public hearing; 4) ISTEA Fundina. The Commission requested additional information regarding ISTEA funding and ndtigation. A memorandum has been prepared and included as Attachment C to this staff report; 5) 1992 City Council Motion The Commission requested a copy of the 1992 City Council Motion, which addresses the alignment of SR 126. The motion has been included as Attachment D to this staff report; 6) Additional Information on Golden Valley Road The Commission raised concerns with Golden Valley Road relative to increased amount of traffic and its impacts on existing residents. A large exhibit will be available at the public hearing which identifies the Golden Valley Road alignment; 7) Distance of Newhall Ranch Road between Bouauet Canyon Road and 1-5. The Commission requested that the length of Newhall Ranch Road be identified. Staff has determined that the distance is approximately 4.25 miles. 8) WeizlitLimit Policy The Commission requested that staff address the issue of weight limits for trucks. Staff has prepareda policy, which has-been inchided in the Analysis section of this staff report; 9) Chart of Issues Raised by the Planning Commission. The Commission requested that a chart be prepared outlining the issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff has included a chart as Attachment E to this staff report. ENVIRONMENTALSTATUS The DEIR public review period closed on July 31, 1997. The Final EIR with responses to an written comments will be prepared and presented to the Commission and recommended for certification in September 1997. The Planning Commission will receive a summary of issues raised by correspondence and during the community meetings. Circulation Element Update August 19,1997 Page 3 PROJECT ANALYSIS At the meeting of July 23, 1997, the Commission indicated a desire to see staff investigate traffic calming measures, outline a Est of Transportation Demand Management measures, and discuss vehicle weight limits. Traffic Calming Measures Traffic Calming Measures are defined as traffic control actions that serve to minimize the undesirable impacts of motor vehicles on local human activities. They are intended to retain neighborhood liveability on local (residential) streets impacted by increased use by the motoring public. Staff has drafted a Traffic Cahning Measure Policy for inclusion under Goal I (Need for Arterial Street System) in the Circulation Element, which would read as follows: Implement traffic calming measures to slow traffic on local and collector residential streets and prioritize these measures over congestions management. Include traffic circles and other traffic calming devices among these measures. Please see Attachment B for a schematic detail of potential traffic calming measures. Alternative 4 with Voluntary TDM At the July 23, 1997, meeting, the Commission indicated that it was in support of Base Alternative 4 with the inclusion of voluntary TDM and the elirrination of the parking pricing measure. This approach would involve the Newhall Ranch Road Reduction (Alternative 2) augmented with additional lanes at heavily congested intersections in order to increase roadway capacity combined with the following voluntary trip reduction strategies: 0 Trip Reduction Program for Small Employers 0 Compressed Work Weeks 0 City Sponsored Formal Telecommuting Centers 0 Formation of Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) 0 City Sponsored Home -End Ridesharing Programs 0 Childcare Centers at Transit Stations 0 Bicycle Improvements 0 Employee Transit Subsidy 0 Ridesharing and Non -Motorized Commute Subsidy 0 Significant Decreases in Transit Headways 0 Transit Feeder Services with Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Technologies 0 Increased Transit Use to Schools Circulation Element Update August 19,1997 Page 4 Vehicle Weight Limits The Planning Commission has identified a concern with the impact of large trucks on the street system, As such, staff has drafted a policy which could ultimately lead to limiting large truck access on certain roadways for inclusion under Goal 1 (Need for Arterial Street System) in the Circulation Element. It would read as follows: Develop a weight limit plan which, when implemented, will route commercial and construction traffic so that it poses the least impact to the non -arterial street system. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive the staff report and draft resolution of approval and provide staff with direction on a final resolution; and 2) Continue the public hearing to September 2, 1997, to discuss and review the proposed recommendation resolutions. ATTACHMENTS A. County of Los Angeles Northerly By -Pass Report B. Exbibit and Proposed Policy for Traffic Calming Measures C. ISTEA Funding Memorandum D. 1992 City Council Motion Regarding SR 126 E. Chart of Issues Raised by the Planning Commission F. Summary of Comments on DEIR from Rincon Memo dated August 11, 1997 G. Summary of Comments from the DEIR Community Meetings dated August 12, 1997 H. Draft Resolution Recommending Approval of the Project I. Draft Resolution Certifying the Environmental Impact Report KRP:LHS:Iep pIngcom\cire1sr3.1hs - 9 - . CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 97-111 (PREVIOUS MASTER CASE NO. 93-198) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-002 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH #96112028 DATE: September 2, 1997 TO: Chairperson Hoback and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Ken Pulskamp, Assistant City Manager CASEPLANNER: Laura Stotler AICP, Associate Planner Conal McNamara AICP, Assistant Planner 11 Jeff Hogan, Plannin Technician APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita LOCATION: Citywide REQUEST: An amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element; Review and certification of the Environmental Impact Report (SCH#96112028) prepared for this project. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission has held public hearings on this project on July 15, 1997, July 23, 1997 and August 19, 1997. At the Planning Commission meeting of August 19,1997, the Commission received follow-up information requested at the July 23, 1997 meeting and heard testimony from the public. The Commission reviewed two draft resolutions, one recommending City Council certification of the environmental document and the other recommending City Council approval for Alternative 4 with voluntary Transportation Demand Measures (TDM) with the elimination of parking pricing. The intent of this meeting is to present the Commission with the responses to comments on the Draft EIR and the proposed Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP). Together, the Draft EIR, responses to comments on the Draft EIR and the MMRP comprise the Final EIR. As previously presented to the Commission, staff have prepared two resolutions for this project, a draft environmental resolution and an amendment approval recommendation resolution. The environmental resolution has been revised since the previous hearing to include justifications for adopting a statement of overriding considerations (SOC) which staff were unable to provide until the availability of the Final EIR. The amendment approval recommendation has been revised to provide detailed recommendations for specific roadways links that have been raised as issues by the public, the Commission and through the environmental process. The Commission will be asked to consider this Final EIR and a recommendation of approval for these resolutions as prepared. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS The Final EIR, comprised of the Draft EIR, the responses to all written comments, and the MAIRP, will be presented to the Commission on September 2, 1997. The Planning Commission will receive an overview of the response to comments and the mitigation plan. PROJECT ANALYSTS As requested at the previous meeting, the following new policy relating to traffic light synchronization has been drafted by staff and has been added as part of Goal 1: "Traffic lights shall be synchronized where advantageous for circulation" This policy is included in Attachment "B" of the approval recommendation along with the policy relating to restriction of truck traffic presented to the Commission on August 19, 1997. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Receive the staff report on the Final EIR, the proposed approval recommendation and the proposed statement of overriding considerations; take public testimony and close the public hearing; and 2) Direct staff to return to the special meeting of September 10, 1997 to adopt Resolution No. P97-15 and Resolution N. P97-16. ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Resolution P97-15 Certifying the Environmental Impact Report B. Draft Resolution P97-16 Recommending Approval of the Project JL:LHS:Iep pIngcnm\cireIsr4Jhs CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 97-111 (PREVIOUS MASTER CASE NO. 93-198) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-002 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH #96112028 DATE: September 10, 1997 TO: Chairperson Hoback and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Ken Pulskamp, Assistant City Manager CASE PLANNER: Laura Stotler AICP, Associate Planner Conal McNamara AICP, Assistant Planner II Jeff Hogan, Planning Technician APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita LOCATION: Citywide REQUEST: An amendment to the General Plan Circulation Element; Review and certification of the Environmental Impact Report (SCH#96112028) prepared for this project. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission has held public hearings on this project on July 15, 1997, July.23, 1997, August 19, 1997, and September 2, 1997. At the Planning Commission meeting of September 2, 1997, the Commission received a copy of the Final EIR for the Circulation Element and heard a presentation about this document from Joe Power, of Rincon Consultants. The Commission received a presentation and three draft resolutions, one recommending City Council certification of the environmental document, one recommending City Council approval for Alternative 4 with voluntary Transportation Demand Measures (TDM) with the elimination of parking pricing, and the third considered was a variation of the recommendation of approval resolution. The third resolution differed in that it supported the inclusion of the following four roadway links as major divided highways with eight lanes: Newhall Ranch Road between Bouquet Canyon Road and 1-5 Freeway, Magic Mountain Parkway between Valencia Boulevard and 1-5 Freeway, Valencia Boulevard between McBean Parkway and 1-5 Freeway and McBean Parkway between Valencia Boulevard and Newhall Ranch Road. The intent of this meeting is have the Commission adopt the environmental resolution with the statement of overriding considerations (SOC) and the circulation element amendment approval recommendation resolution supporting the eight -lane roadway links as prepared by staff and presented to the Comn-dssion at the September 2, 1997 hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS The Final EIR, comprised of the Draft EIR, the responses to all written comments, and the MAIRP, was presented to the Commission on September 2,1997. The Planning Commission has received an overview presentation of the Final EIR and has had time to review these documents. PROJECT ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Take public testimony, close the public hearing; adopt Resolution No. P97wl5 to recommend certification of the Final EIR and approval of a statement of overriding considerations; and adopt Resolution P97-16 to recommend approval of the proposed Circulation Element Amendment as modified. ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Resolution P97-15 Certifying the Environmental Impact Report B. Draft Resolution P97-16 Recommending Approval of the Project JL:LHS:Iep plagcom\cirelsrUhs MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Wednesday July 23, 1997 7:00 p.ru. CALL TO ORDER The special meeting of the Plsnnin Commission of the City of Santa Clarita was called to order by Chairperson Cherrington at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, First Floor, Santa Clarita, California. FLAG SALUTE The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag was led by Commissioner Hoback. ROLL CALL The secretary called the roll. Those present were Chairperson Cherrington and Commissioners Brathwaite, Berger, Hoback and Killmey'er, Also present were Jeffrey Lambert, Planning Manager; Fred Follstad, Associate Planner; Laura Stotler, Associate Planner; Jennifer Reid, Associate Planner; Jeffrey Hogan, Planning Technician; Cindy Chau, Planning Technician; Bahman Janka, City Traffic Engineer; Thomas Altmayer, Assistant City Attorney and Lori Powell, secretary. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda and it was declared approved by Chairperson Cherrington. CONTINUED PUBLIC FWARING ITEM I MASTER CASE NUM13ER 97-111 (PREVIOUS CASE NUMBER 93-198), GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-002, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH #96112028 Jeffrey Lambert, Planning Manager, introduced the item. Tom Altmayer, Assistant City Attorney, spoke about properties that could be impacted by the project. Further information was given by Joe Power of Rincon Consultants. Commissioner Mllmeyer asked Mr. Power how he would rank the alternatives overall. Mr. Power said Alternative 1 would work the best followed by Alternqti es2and3. Thiswaswith regard to circulation only. A discussion was had regarding limiting truck access. Mr. Lambert explained that if the road is a Caltrans road, the City does not have much control on limiting trucks. He stated if the roads are owned by the City, we can limit access to certain roads but cannot prevent tracks from coming into the City. Mr. Altmayer concurred with Mr. Lambert. He said the City can designate certain roadways for certain sized trucks. Mr. Altmayer said State law prevents the limiting of truck traffic to destination only. Public participation was opened at 7:40 p.m. Those speaking in favor of the item were: John Annison, 28212 Oaklar Drive, Saugus; and Connie Worden Roberts, 27075 Littlefield, Santa Clarita. Ms. Roberts was speaking on behalf of the Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of Commerce. Those speaking in opposition were: Frank Smathers, 27627 North Renwick Court, Saugus. Those making general comments on the item were: Vera Johnson, 26534 Oak Crossing Road, Newhall; Robert Lathrop, 25105 Highspring, Newhall; Allan Cameron, 27612 Ennismore Avenue, Santa Clarita; Cindy Matern, 16108 Comet Way, Santa Clarita; Frank Ferry, 25768 Miguel Court, Valencia; Jacques Sandoval, 19557 Green Mountain Dr., Santa Clarita; Dorothy Andre, 19554 Green Mountain Dr. Newhall; Douglas M. Hall, 22326 Los Tigres Drive, Saugus; and Jack Curenton, 19425 Soledad Canyon Rd., #211, Santa Clarita. Some of the comments made included eliminating Highway 126 from running through the valley, designing roads to discourage trucks� ISTEA funding, safety, cost, earthquake faults, crime attraction and having roads that will service the residents of Santa Clarita, not those from outside the City. JefFrey Lambert and Laura Stotler addressed some of the issues brought up during the Public Participation portion of the hearing. Ms. Stotler and Mr. Power also addressed ' the issue of overriding consideration. Mr. Power said adoption of any of the alternatives, or even continuation of the e3dsting plan, would require a statement of overriding consideration because all the alternatives include the same significant and unavoidable impacts. He said this is not unusual. Comniissioner Brathwaite asked Mr. Lambert to clarify the status of the resurrection of Highway 126. Clarification was given by Mr. Lambert. Commissioner Killmeyer stated that he felt the best technical solution to the circulation problem was Alternative 1. Commissioner Hoback asked about the Louis Bill. This is a bill that was passed in Sacramento that limits a city's ability to impose transportation and management requirements on businesses. Mr. Lambert said he did not have the information readily handy but would have it for the Commission later in the evening. Commissioner Hoback had a question about ISTEA/federal funding and developer's fees. Mr. Lambert said if a developer is required to pay into a Bridge and Thoroughfare District, and a project within that district receives funding through ISTEA, the developer must still pay their fee. Bahman Janka, City Traffic Engineer, said that any developer fees that are obligated for roads shall be paid, even if the roadway was fully funded by the government. Consensus was reached by the Commission that staff provide a report of the entitlements of the City and obligations of the developer under a variety of circumstances, including federal funding for all or a part of a road specified in conditions of approval on a particular project. RECESS Chairperson Cherrington called a recess at 8:55 p.m. RECONVENE The meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m. Mr. Lambert reviewed some of the issues the Commission wanted addressed at the next meeting. They were: having the Commission direct staff to add a policy in the General Plan to direct some type of truck control plan that limits access to certain roads; more information on ISIEA, provide the Conunissioners with a copy of the Resolution passed by Council in 1992 and provide a chart of the issues raised by the Commission. Ms. Stotler gave the Commissioners an overview of the Louis Bill. Chairperson Cherrington said he would like to see expanded roadways that would let people out without inconvenience and let others in to spend their money here in the City. He felt any concern with Bermite should be ignored in the Circulation Element because it is adequately covered elsewhere. Chairperson Cherrington said the six -lane cross-town road should be a part of this project. He said he preferred Alternative 1, however he felt it was not politically feasible. He said he could support Alternative 2 with this exception: that Magic Mountain Parkway from a true east/west throughway and conn etas a"Y" into Via Princessa. Chairperson Cherrington said he could also approve the augmented intersection proposal and incorporate the TDM measures. Commissioner Brathwaite said he personally would endorse Alternative 4, with the TDM to make sure that the traffic flows across freely, and is a six -lane road. Commissioner YdEmeyer said as a back-up to Alternative 1, he supported Alternative 2. Commissioner Berger supported Alternative 2 with the augmentation outlined in Alternative 4. He said he is concerned with the impacts on small businesses. He wanted the TDMs to be voluntary and the parking fee requirement deleted from the Alternatives. He also supported a truck control plan. Commissioner Hoback said she was concerned with Golden Valley Road because of the school and bus issues. She also mentioned that the residents in that area are isolated and that opens the area up to a lot of traffic and possible crime. Commissioner Hoback said she could support Alternative 2, adding the augmentations. She also supported voluntary TDMs. Along with the items previously mentioned, Mr. Lambert said more information would be given on Golden Valley Road, mileage from Bouquet to the 5 Fwy. and augmentation of Alternative 1. 3 I A motion was made by Corrunissioner Killmeyer and seconded by Commissioner Hoback to continue the Public Hearing to August 19, 1997. Said motion was carried by a vote of 5-0. ITEM 2 NORTH VALENCIA ANNEXATION - MASTER CASE NUMBERS 95-242, 96-120,97-063 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-001, SPECIFIC PLAN [PREZONEI 97-001, ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 96-001, ANNEXATION NUMBER 95-006, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51931, OAK TREE PERMIT, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH#96071077) Mr. Lambert introduced the item. He said the EIR would be out for circulation around August 1,1997. Chairperson Cherrington asked the Commissioners to look over the list of issues provided by staff so that those issues could be addressed at the August 5, 1997 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Altmayer made a presentation to the Commissioners on school mitigation. He gave the Commission a legal background on what Cities can and can!t do with school mitigation fees and laid out some of the issues that he thought would be addressed by the applicant and the school district. Mr. Altmayer said a synopsis memo would be given to the Commissioners outlining his presentation. Public Participation was opened at 10:25 p.m. Those making general comments were: Lysa Saltzman, 4920 Campus Avenue, Newport Beach, CA, legal counsel to the William S. Hart Union High School District; Robert Lathrop, 25105 Highspring, Newhall, representing SCOPE; Allan Cameron, 27612 Ennismore Avenue, Santa Clarita; Laurene Weste, 22216 Placerita Canyon Road, Santa Clarita; Frank Ferry, 25768 Miguel Court, Valencia; and Robert Lee, Superintendent of the William S. Hart Union High School District. The items discussed were school mitigation, state standards, school site size, the need for a DMS, trail issues and fee justification. There was one speaker in favor of the item: Douglas M. Hall, 22326 LosTigres, Saugus. Public Participation was closed at 10:57 p.m. A motion was made by Conurdssioner Berger and seconded by Commissioner Killmeyer to continue the Public Hearing to August 5, 1997.. Said motion passed by a vote of 5-0. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Lambert gave the Director's Report. He stated that copies of the reorganizational chart were included in the Commissioners'packets. The tour of Orange County was also discussed. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS REPORTS M Out of curiosity, Commissioner Killmeyer asked what the cost of the new light was at Wiley Canyon and Evans. Mr. Lambert said lights usually cost between $125,000 to $150,000. PUBLIC BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR There was one speaker: Allan Cameron, 27612 Ennismore Avenue, Santa Clarita. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Brathwaite to adjourn the meeting to August 5, 1997. Said motion was seconded by Commissioner Killmeyer and passed by a vote of 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 11:07 p.m. Jerry Cherrington, Chairperson Planning Commission Ken Pulskamp, Secretary Planning Commission pIngeomV-23min.lep AEINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMSSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Tuesday July 15, 1997 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita was called to order by Chairperson Cherrington at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, First Floor, Santa Clarita, California. FLAGSALUTE The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag was led by Commissioner Brathwaite. ROLL CALL The secretary called the roll. Those present were Chairperson Cherrington and Commissioners Hoback, Brathwaite, Berger, and Mllmeyer. Also present were Jeffrey Lambert, Planning Manager; Fred Follstad, Associate Planner, Laura Stotler, Associate Planner; Conal McNamara, Assistant Planner II; Jeff Hogan and Cindy Chan, Planning Technicians; Joseph Montes, Assistant City Attorney, and Lori Powell, secretary. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There being no objections to the Agenda, Chairperson Cherrington declared the Agenda approved. CONSENT CALENDAR 1`1EM 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 1, 1997 A motion was made by Commissioner.Brathwaite and seconded by Commissioner Mllmeyer to approve the Minutes of the July 1, 1997 meeting. Said motion was carried by a vote of 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM 2 MASTER CASE NUMBER 97-111 (PREVIOUS CASE NUMBER 93-198), GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97-002, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH 096112028 Both Chairperson Cherrington and Commissioner Brathwaite made opening statements regarding the General Plan and roadways. Chairperson Cherrington opened the Public Hearing at 7:10 p.m. Jeffrey Lambert, Planning Manager, stated that the purpose of the meeting was to receive comments from the Commission on the draft EIR. Mr. Lambert introduced Steve Svete, of Rincon Consultants, who gave a slide presentation and overview of the item. Chairperson Cherrington asked Mr. Svete to explain the difference between a project EIR and a program EIR. The public participation portion of the meeting was opened at 7:50 p.m. Those speaking in favor of the item were: Frank Ferry, 25768 Miguel Court, Santa Clarita, and Connie Worden Roberts, 27075 Littlefield Drive, Santa Clarita. Speaking in opposition of the item was: Frank Smathers, 27627 North Renwick Court, Santa Clarita. Those making general comments were: Sam Veltri, 22116 Soledad Canyon Road, Santa Clarita; Hunt Braly, 23929 Valencia Blvd., #411, Santa Clarita; Ed Dunn, 15414 Rhododendron Dr., Santa Clarita; Joan Dunn, 15414 Rhododendron Dr., Santa Clarita; Mary Lou Simmons, 19643 Drycliff St., Santa Clarita; Valerie 'Ihomas, 24330 McBean, Santa Clarita; Robert Lathrop, 25105 Highspring, Santa Clarita; Allan Cameron, 27612 Ennismore Avenue, Santh Clarita; Laurene Weste, 22216 Placerita Canyon Rd., Santa Clarita; Richard Trimble, 22146 Barbacoa Dr., Santa Clarita; Cameron Smyth, 23259 Maple Street, Santa Clarita; Douglas Hall, 22326 Los Tigres Drive, Santa Clarita; Carrie Seidengael, 26132 Millstream Drive, Santa Clarita; Kathy Barris 27105 No. Teton Trail; and Dick Flynn, Castaic. Some of the items discussed were the need for more augmented intersections in Canyon Country, Ilighway 126, avoiding the Bermite site until it is clean, avoid connecting with Placerita Canyon, weight limitations on roads to keep large trucks out, and the need for more connections from Interstate 5 to the 14 Freeway. Public Participation was closed at 8:47 p.m. RECESS Chairperson Cherrington called a recess at 8:51 p.m. RECONVENE The meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m. The Commissioners gave staff their comments, questions and concerns that they would like addressed. Some of the items discussed were reducing the negative ramifications, the effect on businesses, cost, pollution and environmental impacts. With reference to the Porta Bella project, Commissioner Hoback asked if roads could be built in that area before the site has been deemed "clean". Mr. Lambert said when the City Council adopted the development agreement for the Porta Bella project, it included a condition that no 2 portion of the project could be built in phases - the entire site had to be clean before any segment of the project could be built. Commissioner Hoback also had questions regarding the synchronization of signals. Bahman Janka, the City Traffic Engineer, addressed this issue. Mr. Janka said synchronization is being done segment by segment on the arterials. He said within nine months from now, 60% to 70% of the City's signals will be synchronized. Chairperson Cherrington spoke on three issues: the land use map, growth versus adequacy, and short term versus long term. A motion was made by Commissioner Killmeyer. and seconded by Commissioner Berger to continue the Public Hearing to July 23, 1997. Said motion was carried by a vote of 5-0. DIRECTOWS REPORT The Direct&s Report was given by Jeffrey Lambert. Mr. Lambert acknowledged Fred Follstad, Associate Planner, Laura Stotler, Associate Planner; and Conal McNamara, Assistant Planner II, who recently passed the AICP exam. Mr. Lambert reviewed the revised hearing schedule for North Valencia. Commissioner Brathwaite inquired about the recent reorganization at City Hall. Mr. Lambert explained some of the changes that took place and said he would provide the Commission with a new organization chart. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS REPORTS Chairperson Cherrington had a question regarding and item on the Project Summary Report. It had to do with the Terry York Used Car Dealership. Conal McNamara, Assistant Planner II, addressed the issue. Chairperson Cherrington also inquired about a new sign for Newhall Land and Farming which was being erected at McBean Parkway and Tournament Road. He asked if it would have to comply to the sign ordinance. Mr. Lambert said staff would look into this. PUBLIC BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR Allan Cameron spoke on several issues including federal road funding, and missing mitigation oaks. Ed Dunn spoke about how he is trying to get the City of Santa Clarita interested in reclaimed water. Douglas Hall spoke about the conditions of some sidewalks within the City, ADJOURNMENT 3 A motion was made by Commissioner Killmeyer to adjourn the meeting to July 23, 1997. Said motion was seconded by Con missioner Berger and passed by a vote of 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:22 p.m. Ken Pulskamp, Secretary Planning Commission pIngwmW-15minlep Jerry Cherrington, Chairperson Planning Commission El MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF TBE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TBE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Wednesday September 10, 1997 7:00 p.m- C1x1jW0W41 The special meeting of the Planning Commission of the by Chairperson Hoback at 7:01 p.m. in the Council First Floor, Santa Clarita, California. FLAG SALUTE The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag was led by ROLL CALL The secretary called the roll. Those Brathwaite, Berger, and M11meyer. Fred Follstad, Associate Planner; La Planner; Conal McNamara, Assistar Bahman Janka, City Traffic Engin&el APPROVAL OF Santa Clarita called to )back and Comn-dssioners ribert, Planning Manager; Jennifer Reid, Associate Assistant City Attorney; Amotionlwagmadeby.Coffi fi�sioner Biatliwait6 and seconded by Commissioner Berger to approv6fl*�&66da. Saia.—A.i6ipassed by�;ai vote of 4-0. —.11— ITEM I MASTER ..CASE NUMBER, 97-111 (PREVIOUS CASE NUMBER 93-198), GENERAL:�'P][AN AMENDMENT 97-002, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The staff report was giv6il b� tAura Stotler, Associate Planner. ussioner Killmeyer commented on Section 3 (a) of the Resolution P97-15. He wanted to if this statement 46:0uld be qualified to some degree. Ms. Stotler said it could be done. Mr. ert asked if.. Commissioner YiUmeyer wanted a specific change made to item (a). I Brathwaite suggested it read "Promotes an acceptable local and regional system...". Comn-dssioner Killmeyer said this was acceptable to him. With reference to Section 3 (f) it was suggested by Commissioner Brathwaite that wording be added at the end of the sentence to read "by removing that segment of 126." Commissioner Berger had questions regarding the width of the proposed median on Newhall Ranch Road. Mr. Lambert said it was planned for approximately a 24 ft. median. The total right-of-way was 144 ft. Commissioner KiUmeyer brought up the subject of limiting truck access. Chairperson Hoback said staff may want to look at having some roads where tracks would. not be allowed. Mr. Altmayer clarified what the City could and could not do regarding track restrictions. Chairperson Hoback wanted staff to come up with some different alternatives for weight limits, time constraints, etc. for trucks and provide an analysis. Commissioner Killm ' Oy , said there are now seven roads with an"F" rating. He would like those roads ini ded M'' the analysis. Chairperson Hoback wanted to discuss Valencia BoulevardIetweei'iMc'Bean and the 1-5. She said that she did not remember approving the removal of trees alon �tl , i . a I t - r6 . ,way wit the _g ad h - Woodlands project (formerly known as the North Hills project). Mr.'*Liunbert:'�saidtherem6Vai of the trees was in the Conditions of Approval for that.project.,-I.-I. -1 Chairperson Hoback asked if all of the indicated roads hadl6bemade into eight lanes.' In order to keep integrity in the valley, she preferred to keep the I V I ale"n"6a: Boulevard roadway six lanes. Commissioner Brathwaite said it would be more cost'6dectivb4d'..build the eight lanes now . I rather than building a six lane now then eight lanes la t . e . r. He fAvUeA.Valencia Boulevard with eight lanes. . ........ . A motion was made by Commissioner and 1-5 from the list of recomme Chairperson Hoback. The Commis,� Valencia Boulevard should be an experiences now. There are many t Commissioner Berger said he agreed the integrity of the valley but the �Q6n be made eiaht lanes. 01 eA6.Valencia Boulevard between McBean i : e :� rqa*ds,*.,.*,:Th . e . motion was seconded by ,his issue�. Zommissioner Brathwaite said [way because of the very heavy traffic it it will�get worse unless something is done. donor Hoback that we should try and keep look to the future and that the road should Mr. Altinayei W6rmed the �C omnussion that the Public Hearing needed to be closed before the Commissi6no6aldiake any action motion was made by Commissioner Killmeyer to table the motion until the Public Heanng ee had b n closed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Berger and passed by"'ia Vote of Public Hearing was closed at 8:11 p.m. Commissioner Iii'llmeydr. said he could see both sides of the issue. He said if the road is not made into eight lanes n"iow,�ilt could be done in the future. �n Hoback stated that she was not sure that having the road with eight lanes was the for the communifty. She felt it would change what the valley looked like and would that muc �of a difference. A roll call vote was taken on the motion made by ner Killri�8y'er to remove Valencia Boulevard between McBean and 1-5 from the list iend6d,'bight lane roads. Commissioners Hoback and Killmeyer voted yes while ne . ritrathwaite and Berger voted no. The motion failed. Air. Altmayer gave the Commission the options they could take. One option was to state to the City Council that the Commissioners approved the Resolution P97-16 with the exception of item 2 13 in which there was a 2-2 vote on the issue of whether to remove Valencia Boulevard from the list of proposed eight lane roadways. Chairperson Hoback said in her opinion she would prefer to send it to the City Council so they could see how the Commission feels and so that they could be aware of the opinions on the Commission. Commissioner Berger agreed. Aft� Lambert wanted the Comniission to know that many of the trees in that stretch of Valencia Boulevard are slated for removal without the widening of the lanes because of the addition of deceleration and acceleration lanes. A motion was made by Commissioner Killmeyer to ad( motion was seconded by Comniissioner Brathwaite and Chairperson Hoback had questions regarding Lambert. A motion was made by Commissioner Killineyer to an page 3 as follows: that the Planning Commission, along to consider as an option Alternate 1 (augmented) since. it and studies of 14 alternatives to be the technical opti Clarita Valley. The motion was seconded by Chairpen Commissioner Killmeyer clarified his rea remiss in its responsibility to the citizens solution. Commissioner Brathwaite coi as it exists. He said the augmentation) after many n A roll callypt.e.—was tal yes. hosevo gno denied. A motion was made I adopt Resolution�Pb,i disagreement on Ite a Mr. Lambert clarified roa4-links, other than but the Commission di RECESS n .119 i amended. The by a vote of 4-0. P97-16 in Section 4-a, 4, ask the City Council n by technical analyses a. system for the Santa h6:sake of discussion. Commission would be and the best technical amount to no project or solution solution of alternative 4 (with s motion. Commissioner Killmeyer voted Berger and Brathwaite. The motion was ission,O�Brathwaite and seconded by Commissioner Berger to the"amendment that the City Council would be notified of the blution P97-16, item 13, would be amended to state that the three a Boulevard, are supported by the Commission to be eight lanes on Valencia Boulevard on a vote of 2-2. A roll call vote was taken i motion. Those voting yes were Commissioners Hoback, Berger Ler Killmeyer voted no. The motion was passed by a vote of 3-1. Chairperson Hoback called a recess at 8:41 p.m. 3 RECONVENE The meeting reconvened at 8:52 p.m. Chairperson Hoback suggested the Commission reconsider the last vote taken and bring it back before the Commission so the prior vote on Resolution P97-16, could be rescinded. A new motion would be offered and that motion would � include Commissioner Killmeye?s' - motion on Alternative 1. It would also state the Commission voted 3-1 against.that one,particular item. This would let the Council know that Alternative 1 was presented but, I I t h . a Commission did not agree with that motion. Commissioner Brathwaite felt-thikwas u'urrecessary since this was already part of the record. Commissioner Berger asked Mr. Lambert to clarify Why this matter was being . reconsia6red. W. Lambert explained that after many meetings, theC6mmission had come t I o an .1 agreement on every issue of the Circulation Element, except for two pieces of the Resolution. `Hd , said staff wanted to be able to reflect to the City Council the level: of �6nsensus on the Commission but highlight where there was not consensus on the Resolutiom,,�'�',:,:..��:,, A motion was made by Chairperson Hoback and seconded by the previous motion on Resolution P97-16. The:rdllcall I yot Commissioners Killineyer, Hoback, Berger..:d6m: missione was passed by a vote of 3-1. A motion was made by Commis� that the three road -links, other be eight lanes but the Commissi and 1-5 on a vote of 2-2. The Re 4, paragraph (a) that the COT'=' that Alternative I also be"..'col the motioffy, as Passed by ITEM 2 001, A TREE 'onirffissioher Berger to reconsider was Those voting yes were Brathwia , iie voted no. The motion P97-16 with the amendment Lilevard," are supported by the Commission to ilencia'Boulevard between McBean Parkway include the addition of a sentence to Section �ainit a request by Commissioner Killmeyer ity Council. Said motion was seconded by taken. All the Commissioners voted yes and 43XATTON - MASTER CASE NUMBERS 95 -242,96 - PLAN AMENDMENT 97-001, SPECIEFIC PLAN XATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 96 - ER 95-006, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51931, OAK qMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH#96071077) report was given by Laura Stotler, Associate Planner. Ms. Stotler reviewed the new that were ` ,presented to the Commission. These included maps showing clustering, of ga ties. Ms. Stotler stated that she spoke to the school district and Yrnie school buses stop outside the gates, they do not drive in to the ly�.��Ihe school district said they do receive complaints about this. Parents are for the childrens' safety since the stops are at major streets. Commissioner YdUmeyer was concerned about the gates and the school children. Ms. Stotler said the school district has said they would prefer that no student has to walk further than 1/4 mile to a bus stop. Bahman Janka, the City Traffic Engineer, said normally, stopping is not allowed on major or 112 secondary highways. The school bus would be allowed to stop only if there is a transit bus stop. Mr. Lambert said staff would like the Commission to focus their discussion on the issues.that were highlighted on the comment sheet dated September 10, 1997. Public testimony was opened at 9:27 p.m. Commissioner Berger said he was concemed with the number of gates., -Commissioner Brathwaite said there were two locations he thought were appropriate ' for gates on the island and "B" street. His reasons were that they were isolated, nothrough.tinaffle: � 'ai, , id lower density. Chairperson Hoback was concemed about the children using the schoolh sei,.' . Ms.. Stotler the gated areas could be designed to accommodate the 6uses witht oi"1*6 Rich Knowland of the Valencia Company addresse& thc� lion . s . i . ng units south.; -of. Scott and McBeam He said they would like to have gates at diis.-location and that afte'i hearing the concerns of the school district, they could design a publieth6ioughfare with a proper turn- around area so the cliildren would be in a protected ar6wbh� t6ywait. Mr. Knowland said that on the east side, by Hillsboro, that gate could b6 taken o*ffthe:list�. they would not ask for agatethere. On the south river parcel, "E" Street,. the middl.'-collector road, would be a through street. He said it would be under privat . e : ownership b . ut 9 p en to the public. The applicant would like to have at least one gate.in t6i community. Chairperson Hoback asked if the tre it was her understanding that they issues. Mr. Knowland said "E" Stre could be handled through CC&Rs..,,, .11 , but there would be a turn-arro-umidd f go , onto pnvate streets. Ms. Stotler said ,ing on private streets because of liability a public street. He felt the liability issue idt.he through street would not be gated, r,m�ulations would be met. Mr. Lam.b,erdfsaid the seris6he.had from: thq,00fiii'nission regarding gates was that the three . , I . . . q gates prqp sed . by the applicant are ge n efally acceptable to the Commission with one Commissioner expressing a concom that one of those gates not have more than 50 to 100 units in it. I the Tour: Summary booklet that was prepared by the applicant with w I i . i bytbe Commission where certain areas of Orange County were id"to commented on the two foot setbacks. He did not like them. [ibl'iero lot lines nor the closeness of the homes to each other. Ah ought the lake front was very nice and looked good. He also liked the homes, the pocket -parks and paseos. . with Mr. Knowland and the Commission on various issues that were Summary booklet. These included the setbacks, width of the streets, Ig. etc. Mr. Lambert reviewed and brought the Comniission up to date an some of the changes made in the North Valencia Specific Plan Project Comments document. Those items discussed were 4, 10, 27, 48, 50, 51, 66, 84, 89 and 94 through 100. A motion was made by Commissioner Killmeyer and seconded by Commissioner Berger to continue the Public Hearing to a special meeting of the Planning Conuriission on September 24, W 1997. Said motion was passed by a vote of 4-0. DIRECTOWS REPORT Mr. Lambert gave the Direct&s Report. He reviewed the memo that was given to the Commission regarding the Hyatt Hotel. There will now be a total of 250 rooms and six stories instead of five. The Planning staff was not aware that what was being issued asa permit was different from what the Council had adopted. There was an error in the processing of the application and this discrepancy has now been corrected. PLANNING COADRSSIONERS'REPORTS Commissioner Brathwaite requested a copy of the video of meeting. Mr. Lambert said staff would be happy to acciommo Commissioners Killmeyer, Berger and Hoback had qi: questions were answered by Mr. Lambert, He gave a not detected earlier and what staff was doing to m.9 Chairperson Hoback stated that stop signs had.bqen placed in: Canyon by the Textron Building. She was grateful :thif they were where many accidents had occurred. PUBLIC BUSINESS FROM THE There was no public business from'th6 floor. ADJOURNMENT the Those n on why the error was not happen again. Center at Rye it was an area ait ,r Br61h* ' 6 and seconded by Commissioner Berger to 199t Tfi� motion passed by a vote of 4-0 and the meeting Darla Hoback, Chairperson Planning Commission M RESOLUTION NO. P97-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT AND ADOPT A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT MASTER CASE NO. 97-111 (PREVIOUS MASTER CASE NO. 93-198) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 95-002 THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby find and determine as follows: a. On June 25, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91�98, adopting the General Plan of the City of Santa Clarita and Certi6ring the Environmental Impact Report. b. An Initial Study was prepared for this project on November 4, 1996. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) SCH No. 96112028 was prepared for this project in accordance with the. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)by Rincon Consultants, Inc following the 30 -day public review period for the Notice of Preparation (NOP) beginning November 4, 1996 and a formal scoping meeting held on December 5, 1996. Following the scoping meeting, the NOP circulation period was extended two additional weeks to December 19,1996. The Draft EIR and Notice of Circulation (NOC) for this project was released for a 45 -day public review period on June 16, 1997. Two duly noticed public hearings on the Draft EIR were held before the Planning Commission during the public review period on July 15, 1997 and on July 23, 1997. The public review period ended on July 31, 1997. The Draft EIR analyzes seven circulation network alternatives, including Alternative 1 which is the No Project Alternative under CEQA� C. The Draft EIR, herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit A, identifies the following issue areas as significant but unavoidable: earth resources (roads crossihg active fault lines), air quality (pollutant emissions during construction), biological resources (degradation of riparian habitat; intrusion into significant ecological area), noise (during construction)and aesthetics/light and glare (alteration of important ridgelines; change in community character/viewshed alteration; community -wide change in nighttime lighting conditions). These impacts are the same level of significance for all alternatives studied in the Draft EIR. d. The Draft EIR identifies the following issue areas as significant but feasibly initigable to a less than significant level: hydrology/flooding, noise (traffic noise on new roadways), risk of upset, public services/utilities/energy, cultural resources. These impacts are the same level of significance for all alternatives studied in the Draft EIR. A mitigation monitoring reporting program has been prepared to mitigate these potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level and is included as part of the Final EIR. Reso. P97-15 Page 2 e. The Draft EIR identifies the following issue areas as less than significant: earth resources (slope destabilization due to grading; fill settling or rebounding; landslide movements; seismic ground shaking; liquefaction); air quality (San Joaquin Valley Fever; long-term vehicle emissions); hydrology/flooding (increase in flood height from construction in floodplains), population and housing (displacement; growth inducing impacts), and public services/utilities/energy. These impacts are the same level of significance for all alternatives studied in the Draft EIR. f. The Draft EIR identifies beneficial impacts for transportation/circulation. These impacts are the same level of significance for all alternatives studied in the Draft EIR. I. Duly noticed public hearings were held by the Planning Commission on July 15, 1997, July 23, 1997, August 19, 1997, September 2, 199 7, and September 10, 1997 in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m. The Response to Comments on the DEIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MAIRP) was prepared and provided to the Planning Commission on September 2, 1997. The Draft EIR together with the Responses to Comments and the MMRP, herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit B, together are considered the Final EIR. The Proposed Circulation Element Text dated June 1997, herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit C, also contains circulation policies that mitigate potential circulation impacts and was considered by the Commission. The Planning Commission has considered the Final EIR, as well as information provided in staff reports, the amendment text and through public testimony, prior to recommending project approval. SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, and upon studies and investigation made by the Plannin Commission and on its behalf, the Commission further recommends that City Council find: a. That the Final Environmental Impact Report for this project is adequate and complete. b. That the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in reaching its recommendation to the City Council. C. That changes and alterations have been required and incorporated into the circulation element amendment project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect because the policies of the element itself reduce impacts upon the transportation system and mitigation measures included in the MIVIPR are made conditions of approval for this project. SECTION 3. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, and upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission and on its behalf,.the Commission further recommends that City Council find that the Circulation Element Amendment will have the following benefits: Reso. P97-15 Page 3 a. Promotes an acceptable local and regional transportation system that accommodates land use expansion as envisioned in the City General Plan and the Los Angeles County Area Plan. b. Provides for roadways that will accommodate regional growth, including local regional housing needs, as projected by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). I C. Provides for efficient transportation including policies for reducing single -occupancy vehicle trips, trip reduction methods, roadway design (e.g. augmented intersections and cross sections for class one and class two bikeways) and technological advances (e.g. traffic light synchronization and alternate fuel vehicle usage) that minimize air quality impacts upon the Valley and the region. d. Encourages a variety of transportation options that stimulate economic development opportunities in the Santa Clarita Valley and aid in providing for the jobs -housing balance. e. Reduces Circulation Element environmental impacts because removal of SR -126 east of Golden Valley Road from the Arterial Network of Highways will reduce the need for a bridge crossing of the Santa Clara River in the Canyon Country area, reduce impacts upon biology, particularly the Santa Clara River Significant Ecological Area (SEA), reduce the amount of earth movement, and not dislocate residential units. f. Responds to the concerns of numerous residents that SR -126 would be placed through their neighborhood by removing the SR -126 designated link on Newhall Ranch Road east of Golden Valley. g. Provides policies to encourage pedestrian-ftiendly environments, encourage construction of bikeways, and encourage roadways appropriate for neighborhoods b� providing for traffic calming and vehicle weight limits. h. Identifies and encourages expansion of transit opportunities in Santa Clarita including local bus service, commuter bus service, dial -a -ride service, Metrolink commuter train service, and possible extension of light-rail and high-speed rail. SECTION 4. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, and upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission and on its behalf, the Commission fiirther finds and recommends that the City Council find that the Final EIR analyzes a whole range of project alternatives at a program level and that the environmental impacts of the proposed eight -lane divided major highway links recommended for approval are not significantly different from the impacts of six -lane divided major highways anticipated under the seven alternatives studied, particularly Alternative 4, the recommended alternative. The existing Circulation Element already identifies an eight -lane major highway cross section and identifies a portion of Bouquet Canyon Road as an eight -lane major highway, so precedent exists for the Reso. P97-15 Page 4 identification of additional eight -lane major arterials in the General Plan. The reasons for supporting the finding that the additional environmental impacts anticipated from an eight -lane rather than a six -lane major arterial are less than significant are as follows for each proposed eight -lane roadway link: a. Newhall Ranch Road between Bouquet Canyon Road and 1-5 Freeway- Alternative 1 of the Final EIR includes an analysis of Newhall Ranch Road as an eight -lane major highway. Additionally, a portion of this roadway is within the City and the remaining area is proposed for annexation into the City as part of the North Valencia annexation, presently under application at LAFCO. The portion of Newhall Ranch Road between Bouquet Canyon Road and the San Francisquito Creek Bridge is already analyzed as an eight -lane divided major highway at the project level through the North Valencia Specific Plan and Annexation EIR. b. Magic Mountain Parkway between Valencia Boulevard and 1-5 Freeway- Approximately half of this roadway link, from Citrus Street to McBean Parkway has already been constructed to accommodate an eight -lane roadway. The link between McBean Parkway to the Southern California Edison Powerline easement, approximately .5 miles, is already studied at the project level as an eight -lane arterial and is analyzed a part of the traffic analysis for the North Valencia Specific Plan EIR. This leaves less than one mile of roadway widening for further analysis. Given that this area is would not bisect a significant ecological area, ridgeline, Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone or other unique topographical or biologically unique area, widening the roadway an extra two lanes may result in additional impacts, however, these would not be significant given the program level of analysis in the Circulation Element Amendment Final EIR. As shown in the Final EIR traffic analysis for Alternative 4, changing the designation of Magic Mountain Parkway between Valencia Boulevard and 1-5 Freeway from a six -lane to an eight -lane divided major arterial would mitigate traffic impacts on this roadway link at buildout from LOS 'F" as shown in the Draft EIR, to LOS "E", thereby improving traffic circulation. C. Valencia Boulevard between McBean Parkway and 1-5 Freeway- The widening of this link of Valencia Boulevard has been analyzed in the EIR for the North Hills project and was approved in Spring 1997. Since environmental impacts of this link have already been analyzed at the project level and have been found to be less that significant as approved, the environmental impacts of this roadway link would likewise be less than significant at a program level analysis. As shown in the Final EIR traffic analysis for Alternative 4, changing the designation of Valencia Boulevard between McBean Parkway and 1-5 Freeway from a six -lane to an eight -lane divided major arterial would mitigate - traffic impacts on this roadway link at buildout from LOS "F" as shown in the Draft EIR, to LOS "E", thereby improving traffic circulation. I McBean Parkway between Valencia Boulevard and Newhall Ranch Road- Approximately half of this roadway link, from Valencia Boulevard to Creekside Drive has already been constructed to accommodate an eight -lane roadway. The link between Creekside Drive Reso. P97-15 Page 5 to Newhall Ranch Road, approximately.5 miles, is already studied at the project level as an eight -lane arterial as part of the traffic analysis for the North Valencia Specific Plan and Annexation EIR. This link includes the widening of the bridge over McBean Parkway which is already identified as a significant impact and subject to a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) under the North Valencia Specific Plan and Annexation EIR. Given that the remainder of this roadway link would not bisect a ridgeline, Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone or other unique topographical or biologically unique area, widening the roadway an extra two lanes may result *in additional impacts, however, these would not be significant given the program level of analysis of the Circulation Element Amendment Final EIR. As shown in the Final EIR traffic analysis.for Alternative 4, changing the designation of McBean Parkway between Valencia Boulevard and Newhall Ranch Road from a six -lane to an eight -lane divided major arterial would mitigate traffic impacts on this roadway link at buildout from LOS "F' as shown in the Draft EIR, to LOS "E", thereby improving traffic circulation. SECTION 5. By adoption of this Resolution, the Planning Commission finds that the Final Environmental Impact Report identifies certain significant environmental effects and feasible mitigation measures that mitigate potential significant impacts to levels less than significant for each of these impacts with the exclusion of earth resources, air quality, biological resources, noise and aesthetics/light & glare. In accordance with CEQA Sections 15091 and 15093, a description of each significant impact and rational for finding that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the -significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR is detailed below: a. Air Quality: Implementation of the proposed circulation element amendment would directly generate emissions during construction of roadways and indirectly contribute to regional air pollution by accominodating motor vehicle traffic in the City. Project - related construction activity would occur sporadically over a number of years. Alternative 4 would exceed maximum daily significance thresholds within the South Coast Air Quality Management Districts (SCAQMD) Air Quality Handbook for NOx and PM10. Although construction activity would occur only sporadically, impacts on worst- case construction days are considered significant and unavoidable even with the implementation of mitigation measures to reduce the impacts. New transportation infrastructure would not directly generate long-term air emissions but would accommodate an increase in traffic and associated air pollutant emissions. Once construction activities are concluded, the project, with mitigation measures AQ(a)-1, AQ(a)-2 and AQW-3 as identified, would not create significant long-term impacts to local air quality. Air quality impacts are significant, even though the mitigation measures identified above will provide a certain reduction in air quality impacts; however, the benefits of the project identified above in Section 3 outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects on air quality and the adverse environmental effect on air quality is considered acceptable. Reso. P97-15 Page 6 b. Earth Resources: Implementation of the proposed circulation element amendment would result in roadways across active faults which would pose a potentially significant impact from fault rupture during a seismic event. Design and construction solutions are generally available to reduce all seismic and geologic hazards to risk levels considered acceptable. . Mitigation measures ER -1(a), ER -1(b), ER -1(c), ER -3(a), ER -5(a) and ER -6(a) have been identified to reduce the significance of impacts although some risk of damage to roadway infrastructure would remain. Ground rupture on active fault lines could damage roads, which is considered a potentially significant and unavoidable impact. Earth resource impacts are significant, even though the mitigation measures identified above will provide a certain reduction 'in these impacts; however, the benefits of the project identified above in Section 3 outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects on earth resources and the adverse environmental effect on air quality is considered acceptable. C. Biological Resources: Buildout of the roadway system as envisioned under Alternative 4 for the Circulation Element would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to biological resources within the City. The most significant impacts are associated with the loss of riparian habitats and disturbance to the significant ecological areas along the Santa Clarita River, San Francisquito Creek and the oak savanna west of Interstate 5. Mitigation measures B -2(a), B -2(b), B -2(c), B -2(d), B -2(e), B -2(f), B -2(g), B-3, B -4(a), B - 4(b), B -5(a), B-5(b)are proposed to reduce the effects on plant and animal resources through realignment or elimination of certain roadways and the requirement for site specific survey and mitigation plans for sensitive plants and animals prior to construction. Nonetheless, biological impacts associated with the roadway network buildout and accompanying growth of the City is anticipated to result in unavoidable significant impacts. Overall biological resource impacts are considered lowest under Alternative 4, and are lower than those anticipated under the existing major arterial highway network. Biological resources impacts are significant, even though the mitigation measures identified above will provide a certain reduction in these impacts; however, the benefits of the project identified above in Section 3 outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects on biological resources and the adverse environmental effect on biological resources is considered acceptable. d. Noise: Construction activity associated with Alternative 4 would have the potential to generate significant impacts to sensitive receptors in the vicinity of construction sites. Traffic noise would potentially exceed normally acceptable levels on all major roadway segments and would be greater under the existing major arterial network than under Alternative 4. Mitigation measures N-I(a), N -1(b), N -1(c), N-I(d) N -2(a), and N -2(b) have been added to the project to reduce short-term roadway construction noise impacts and long-term traffic noise impacts. Long-term traffic -related noise impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level through the use of sound walls, berms, setbacks, and/or the use of rubberized asphalt in street paving. Reso. P97-15 Page 7 Short-term noise impacts from roadway construction are significant, even though the mitigation measures identified above in Section 3 will provide a certain reduction in construction noise; however, the benefits of the project identified above outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects on earth resources and the adverse environmental effect on air quality is considered acceptable. e. Aesthetics: Implementation of the proposed circulation element amendment would result in significant alteration of important ridgelines, change in community character/viewshed alteration, and communitywide change in nighttime lighting conditions. The substantial amount of grading that would occur under Alternative 4, although less than that required for the existing master plan of arterial highways, would result in substantial changes to the natural topography of the City, altering primary and secondary ridgelines. Such alteration potentially conflicts with City policies for ridgeline preservation and hillside development and is considered a significant and unavoidable impact. New roadways under Alternative 4, as under the existing planned roadway network, would result in significant and unavoidable impacts on viewsheds as well. Mtigation measures AES-I(a), AES-l(b), AES-I(c), AES-l(d), AES -2(a), AES -2(b), AES - 2(c), AES -2(d), AES -3(a), AES -3(b), AES -3@ have been added to the project to reduce the amount of landform alteration, particularly on ridgelines, to minimize the potential for roadways to affect scenic vistas and to reduce light and glare produced from development of roadways that would extend the urban lighted area of the City, alter the nighttime sky view, and produce daytime glare from reflective metallic materials and glass associated with vehicles. While these mitigation measures may reduce potential impacts to some degree, impacts relating to alteration of the overall rural nature of the public view cannot generally be mitigated, although Alternative 4 would have less impacts on public views than the existing planned roadway network because Alternative 4 proposes fewer roadway miles. Likewise, the mitigation measures may reduce the significant effects, yet the increase in artificial light and glare resulting from roadway development would remain as a significant and unavoidable under both Alternative 4 and the existing roadway network, although Alternative 4 would have lesser impacts because of its fewer roadway miles. Aesthetic impacts are significant, even though the mitigation measures identified above will provide a certain reduction in aesthetic impacts; however, the benefits of the project identified above in Section 3 outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects on aesthetics and the adverse environmental effect on aesthetics is considered acceptable. SECTION& By adoption of this Resolution, the Planning Commission has reviewed and. considered the environmental information contained in the Final EIR SCH No. 96112028 and determines that it is adequate and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.). Incompliance with CEQA Section 15093, the Planning Commission has considered the project benefits in Section 3 as balanced against the unavoidable adverse environmental effects in Section 4 and hereby determines that the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects; therefore, the Planning Commission Reso. P97-15 Page 8 determines that this resolution comprises a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) and the adverse environmental effects are considered acceptable. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council certify of the Final EIR documents and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC). SECTION 7. By the adoption of this Resolution, the Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council certify the environmental impact report and adopt an SOC that identifies the benefits of the project as balanced against its unavoidable environmental risks, but has not granted any approval or entitlement on this project. SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. S.WVLngki�sllhs Reso. P97-15 Page 9 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of September 1997_. 'D*A HOBAC�, CAAIRPERSON '�-PeANNING COMNflSSION ATTOT: 2 KEN PULSkAMP, SECRETAY PLANNING COMMISSIONV STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF SANTA CLARITA I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 10t day of Seotember 19_97 by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Hoback, Berger, Brathwaite and Killmeyer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None —AM -44, ok CITY CLERK Reso. P97-15 Page 10 Exhibit A Draft Environmental Impact Report June1997 Incorporated by Reference Reso. P97-15 Page 11 Exhibit B Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Incorporated by Reference 10 j Reso. P97-15 Page 12 Exhibit C Proposed Circulation Element Text June 1997 Incorporated by Reference RESOLUTION NO. P97-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MASTER CASE NO. 97-111 (PREVIOUS.MASTER CASE NO. 93-198) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 95-002 THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby find and determine as follows: a. On June 25, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-98, adopting the General Plan of the City of Santa Clarita and Certifying the Environmental Impact Report. b. In November 1992 the City Council adopted General Plan Amendment 92-02 (Master Case No. 92-154) that revised the Circulation Element text for clarity and added the Lyons Avenue Extension as a planned arterial roadway with a connection to Dockweiler Drive. C. On October 13, 1992 the City Council, by minute action, urged Caltrans to find an alternative route for SR 126 and then directed staff to find another east -west route through the City center. d. A City Manager's Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC) was formed to study an east -west route and presented their recommendation to the Planning Commission in July 1993. The Planning Commission recommended network was presented to the City Council in December 1993 for consideration in studying a possible Circulation Element Amendment. e. In September 1994, the City Council commissioned the Center City Traffic and Modelin Study to examine the existing General Plan circulation system and four alternative roadway networks recommended or endorsed by CTAC, the Planning Co�unission, and the City Council. f. The findings of the Center City Traffic and Modeling Study were presented to the City Council at a January 1995 study session and, subsequently, two additional alternatives were added to the study and were included in the Draft Final Center City Circulation Element Study dated June 1995. g. On November 13, 1995, a community meeting was held to present the City's recommended circulation system amendment (Scenario 5 from the Draft Final Center City Circulation Element Study , however, based on the meeting response, the Council determined that the CEQA process should be used to study various alternatives at an equal level of detail, with no preferred alternative. h. An Initial Study was prepared for this project on November 4, 1996. A Draft Reso. P97-16 Page 2 Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) SCH No. 96112028 was prepared for this project in accordance -with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA )by Rincon Consultants, Inc following the 30 -day public review period for the Notice of Preparation (NOP) beginning November 4, 1996 and a formal scoping meeting held on December 5, 1996. Following the scoping meeting, the NOP circulation period was extended two additional weeks to December 19, 1996. The Draft EIR and Notice of Circulation (NOC) for this project was released for a 45 -day public review period on June 16, 1997. Two duly noticed public hearings on the Draft EIR were held before the Planning Commission during the public review period on July 15, 1997 and on July 23, 1997. Thepublicreview period ended on July 31, 1997. The Draft EIR analyzes seven circulation network alternatives, including Alternative 1 which is the No Project Alternative under CEQA i. Duly noticed public hearings were held by the Plqnnin Commission on July 15, 1997, July 23, 1997, August 19, 1997, September 2, 1997, and September 10, 1997 in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 7:00 p.m. j. The Circulation Element identifies the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thorougliffires, transportation routes, terminals, and other local public transportation facilities all correlated with the land use element of the General Plan. The Circulation Element Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan. k. The Circulation Element Amendment includes the following project objectives: Identify the primary east -west corridor alternative to an extension of SR -126; Identify the existing and planned standards for major, secondary, and limited secondary highways in the City; Identify the primary features of the City's transit system; Reduce the level of vehicular trips in general, and specifically the use of autos for drive -alone trips; Identify alternative commute options including Metrolink, commuter buses, park-and- ride, and telecommuting; Encourage land use, planning that supports these mobility goals; Establish mobility corridors within the City. 1. The Circulation Element, as amended, may necessitate subsequent amendment of other elements of the General Plan including the noise element, air quality element, open space and conservation element and land use element. SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, and upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission and on its behalf, the Commission further finds and determines that the proposed General Plan amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan, and that the proposed amendment complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. SECTION 3. The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the environmental information contained in the Draft and Final EIR SCH No. 96112028 and determines that it is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq.) The Planning Commission has adopted Reso. P97-16 Page 3 Resolution P97-15 that recommends certification of the Draft and Final EIR documents and recommends adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC). SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval to the City Council of the following: a. The roadway network analyzed in the Draft EIR as Alternative 4 (Augmented Newhall Ranch Road Reduction) with the addition of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures as listed in the Draft EIR Table 2.5 on a voluntary basis with the exception of Parking Pricing Strategies.which would be eliminated. The Commission voted 3-1 against a motion to also encourage the City Council to consider the network analyzed in the Draft EIR as Alternative 1. b. Recommend that an acceptable Circulation Element Level of Service (LOS) for the General Plan be less than "D" for the following roadway links based on the DEIR Transportation/Circulation (Section 5.8) projected Volume -to -Capacity ratios (Figure 5.8- 4) and analysis for Alternative 4: 1. Bouquet Canyon Road, between Cinema Drive and Seco Canyon Road and between Santa Clarita Parkway and Haskell Canyon Road. 2. Newhall Ranch Road, between Bouquet Canyon Road and west of 1-5 Freeway. 3. Soledad Canyon Road, between west of Golden Valley Road and east of Sierra Highway. 4. Magic Mountain Parkway, between west of The Old Road and east of Bouquet Canyon Road. 5. Valencia Boulevard, between west of the 1-5 Freeway and east of Bouquet Canyon Road. 6. McBean Parkway, between north of Newhall Ranch Road and south of Valencia Boulevard, and north of Decoro Road. 7. Orchard Village Road, between McBean Parkway and Wiley Canyon Road. 8. Via Princessa, between west of San Fernando Road and Sierra Highway. 9. Seco Canyon Road, between north of Decoro Road and Bouquet Canyon Road. 10. Rye Canyon Road, between The Old Road and north of Newhall Ranch Road. 11. Wiley Canyon Road, between Orchard Village Road and west of San Fernando Road. 12. Pico Canyon Road, between west of Valencia Boulevard and SR -126. 13. Sierra Highway, between Dockweiler Drive and Santa Clarita Parkway. 14. SR -126, between east of Avenue Stanford and Chiquito Canyon Road. 15. The Old Road, between*Rye Canyon Road and Valencia Boulevard. 16. 1-5 Freeway, between Calgrove Boulevard and the southerly Planning Area Boundary. 17. SR -14, between San Fernando Road and 1-5 Freeway. 18. San Francisquito Canyon Road, north of Copperbill Road. 19. Lyons Avenue, between 1-5 Freeway and east of Wiley Canyon Road, and between Newhall Avenue and San Fernando Road. Reso. P97-16 Page 4 20. Copperhill Road, between Newhall Ranch Road and north of Decoro Road, and between McBean Parkway and Seco Canyon Road. C. The Proposed Circulation Element Text dated June 1997 (Attachment A), herein incorporated by reference, with the following changes: 1. Recommend the re -order of circulation policies, new traffic calming policy, new traffic synchronization policy, new truck limitation policy and new Traffic Calming text and exhibit (Attachment B). 2. Recommend inclusion of Augmented Intersection text. 3. Recommend removal of Avenue Scott as a Secondary Highway east of McBean Parkway to Hillsborough Parkway. 4. Recommend removal of the Rio Vista Drive as a Major Highway from the Lyons Avenue Extension to Via Princessa. 5. Recommend Lyons Avenue as a Major Highway from The Old Road to Dockweiler Drive as presently exists on the General Plan. 6. Recommend Golden Valley Road as a Major Highway from SR -14 to Newhall Ranch Road. Recom rn end Golden Valley Road as a Secondary Highway from Newhall Ranch Road to Phun Canyon and from Placerita Canyon to SR -14 8. Recommend Newhall Ranch Road as a Major Highway from 1-5 to Golden Valley Road. 9. Recommend the Proposed Text Major Highway discussion (Page C-7) fifth line from the top- level "F" should be corrected to level "E". 10. Recommend Bouquet Canyon Road as a Major Highway from Seco Canyon Road to the Angeles Forest Boundary be revised to be a Major Highway from Seco Canyon to Vasquez Canyon Road and a Secondary Highway from Vasquez Canyon Road to the Angeles National Forest Boundary. 11. Recommend that Castaic Road as a Secondary Highway from SR -126 to Lake Hughes Road be revised to read from Newhall Ranch Road to Lake Hughes Road. 12. Recommend that Parker Road be removed as a limited secondary highway since it is already covered under listings for major and secondary highways. 13. Recommend that the following roadway segments be designated as eight -lane Reso. P97-16 Page 5 majorhighways: Newhall Ranch Road between Bouquet Canyon Road and 1-5 Freeway. Magic Mountain Parkway between Valencia Boulevard and 1-5 Freeway. McBean Parkway between Valencia Boulevard and Newhall Ranch Road. 14. The Commission voted 2-2 on a motion to also recommend the following roadway segment be designated as eight -lane major highway: Valencia Boulevard between McBean Parkway and 1-5 Freeway. d. The proposed map exhibits of the Proposed Circulation Element Text dated June 1997 (Attachment A) should be amended to reflect the changes noted above. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shaU certify the adoption of this Resolution. SAcd\p1ng\ciraes3.1hs Reso. P97-16 Page 6 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day September 1Q_97. -=Nb HOB,6�K�CHAIRPERSON ING CUMMISSION ATTEST: OPA Its STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF SANTA CLARITA of L Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 10t day of Seipterrber I 19-97by the following vote of the Planning Comn-Lission: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Hoback, Ber�er, Brathwaite and Killmeyer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None CITY CLERK Exhibit A Proposed Circulation Element Text June1997 Lacorporated by Reference Exhibit B CIRCUIATION ELEMENT PROPOSED RE -ORDER OF POLICIES IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE TO THE CIRCUIATION SYSTEK PROPOSED NEW TRAFFIC POLICIES, PROPOSED NEW TRAFFIC CAIZVHNG TEXT The purpose of this exhibit is to respond to the Planning Commission's request to list the various policies identified under the six goal statements of the Proposed Circulation Element AmendmentTex This exhibit also includes anew traffic calming policy (Policy No. 1.22), new traffic calming text to be inserted between the 'Collector and Local Streets' and "Augmented Intersections" narratives (page C-38 of the Proposed Circulation Element AmendmentText� and an attached traffic calming graphic that will be included as part of the recommended Proposed Circulation Element Amendment Text. This exhibit also includes new policies concerning vehicle weight limits(Policy No.1.23) and traffic synchronization (Policy No. 1.24). All new proposed text is highlighted. GOALS AND POLICIES The following goals and supporting policies are the general policies used to guide the development of the Circulation Plan contained in the Circulation Plan and the implementation programs outlined in the Implementation Plan Section. The policies further define the goals and describe the intent of the goals. As such, the policies serve as guides by which to measure goal achievement and tailor specific programs. ftw��Rlx .. . ....... .. . ...... ......... ......... .... ... u iin- - iuh , —�` 'A' � *0 1 1--- 1 1 The Goals and Policies are a direct result of the issues discussed in the Statement of Issues Section - The general policies outlined below must be applied and implemented pursuant to the plans and implementation programs contained in the following sections, and in conjunction with the other elements of the General Plan. Need for Arterial Street System GOAL 1: To provide a circulation system to move people and goods safely and efficiently throughout the City of Santa Clarita and the general Planning Area. Policies: Maintain a Capital Improvements Program (CIP) which incorporates a funding program for the construction of improvements to the City's roadway system. Specific improvement proposals should be determined for the entire community and all local benefit, cost, feasibility, and safety issues should be considered. Seek alternative funding opportunities to provide adequate transportation and circulation improvements. (1.16) Seek alternative funding opportunities to provide adequate transportation and circulation facilities. P W-M-Wa - 4,00. J1.12) Adopt a program of street and highway landscaping (i.e., median planting and street trees) to enhance the appearance of the City's circulation system. Enfbrce dual access requirements where appropriate for safety and circulation purposes. Establish street standards which are sensitive to topographical constraints, necessary grade separations and other special needs. (IL.19) Develop design standards for roadwayand intersection improvements to safely and efficiently accommodate existing and projected transportation patterns and circulation. jj.(1.20) P'r'o'vide reasonable traffic flow and consider the adoption of I a limited access policy which would provide guidelines and criteria by which reciprocal access and parking agreements may be provided to consolidate and minimize traffic interruptions. 1.8(1.24) Establish a traffic impact "threshold of significant" condition which will require appropriate a pq-61 XV11 ultio 'an nol mitiaation for T)roiects 'W"R6'. `66-1-im" dincreasea 1.9(l.25) Where alignments are known, the preservation of corridor rights-of-way should be immediately established. V10 (1.21) Pu�ue and develop a Congestion Management Program (CMP) to promote and ensure realistic and feasible traffic distribution and growth throughout the City of Santa Clarita and the general Planning Area. Improve circulation facilities to provide improved levels of service and standards of safety over current traffic operations with a priority to improve local transportation patterns. , 10 (1.2) Maintain appropriate levels of service at all intersections in the City during peak hours to ensure that traffic delays are kept to a minimum. Lft (1.3) Pr-eserve the quality of residential neighborhoods by discouraging the flow of truck and through traffic in these areas consistent with circulation and emergency needs. Work cooperatively with County, regional and state agencies to integrate the City's circulation system with that of. the surrounding region. Maximize and improve the operating efficiency and safety of the existing roadway system wherever possible. mou.10) Limit the number of intersections and driveways on all major, secondary and limited secondary roadways to accommodate a safe, efficient and steady flow of traffic. Develop and maintain an appropriate supertruck (trucks with an extended trailer length of approximately 48'to 60') and truck route program which will accommodate the needs of the commercial and industrial uses within the City, and the general Planning Area, but will also provide for the protection and preservation of the City's circulation system and residential areas. Avoid establishing truck routes in areas which contain natural, scenic or other -resources. V101.14) Require vehicular access to higher density land uses and commercial developments from major, secondary and limited secondary roadways, and not fi!om low density. residential neighborhoods. (1.17) Maintain adequate access to state highways and freeways serving the Santa Clarita Planning Area including Interstate 5 on the west, State Route 14 on the southeast and State Route 126 on the northwest. ia"'Q­ (1.18) Optimize use of all major, secondary and limited secondary roadways while minimizing use of all collectors and local streets. Encourage development design that ensures that local streets function as designed and not as collector streets or other higher capacity roadways. L21(1.22) Establish roadway alignments and require appropriate dedication of right-of-way for all ,45(1.7) Continue to work with the County in developing and maintaining planned roadways. �* (1.8) Maintain the Santa CIarita Valley Consolidated Traffic Model to regularly review future traffic projections as development occurs and land uses change. (1.23) Encourage schools and parents to use the Suggested Routes to School Plan. L28 (1.26) Discourage the creation of new gated private roadways that block area -wide through routes. (1.5) Encourage consistent through -street names. Need for Local and Regional Transit Services GOAL 2; Promote a diversified public transportation system that is safe, convenient, efficient, and meets the identified needs of the City of Santa Clarita and the general Planning Area. Policies: 11 ... le- . .. . .. . .. . '*X�: .... I ... ... ..... PIM, NVMIlnplbine� . .. . ...... Coordinate local transit planning with regional transportation planning agencies and transit agencies in adjacent communities. M (2.7) Identify and reserve locations for future commuter rail stations. 94 (2.8) Pursue the development of a local car pool information and routing program. The program can provide alternative transportation for concentrated users. *X(2.9) Explore the use of the railroad right-of-way for intra -valley and commuter use between SR - 14 and any proposed station locations. (2.1) incorporate accommodations and facilities to support local transit services (i.e., bus lanes, bus stops and bus shelters) in new and redeveloped projects, where feasible that are consistent with local transit planning. $0(2.2) Provide for the mobility of City residents to access local services and employment, particularly for those who may experience mobility difficulties, including the elderly, disabled, low income residents and youth, g;l (2.4) Develop multi -modal transit facilities that are strategically located in the Planning Area convenient to major local residential and employment centers. " (2.5) Develop adequate pedestrian access and encourage the use of these systems. (2.6) Require right-of-way dedication and/or construction of appropriate facilities in support of a public transportation system in new and redeveloped projects. .... .... . .... Explore the expansion of rail service to Ventura County, to Los Angeles, and to the Antelope Valley. Encourageconnections to future high-speed rail that may.be located through the Santa Clarita Valley. Transportation Alternatives GOAL 3: To promote safe and effective alternatives to the personal automobile that will meet the needs of all Planning Area residents. Policies I -M ;MM. MhUin . g - W Develop, with the support of other agencies, alternative transportation systems throughout the City and Planning Area. i aimn Develop an integrated system of bus service that reaches all major concentrations of residential development and employment. 1M X� (3.2) Provide a system of sidewalks or pathways, tunnels and bridges in residential, commercial and industrial areas that features a safe, attractive and convenient environment, integrating pedestrians and bicycles in a manner harmonious with the surrounding neighborhoods. (3.6) ld�ntify and reserve rights-of-way for local transit to connect to regional systems. kstablish multi -use corridors and reserve appropriate rights-of-way. Maintain the Master Plan of Bikeways that is coordinated with the County plan for the Santa Clarita Valley and regional network, including Ventura County, in order to provide an adequate system for the safe and efficient movement of cyclists. (3.3) Promote bicycle and pedestrian accessibility to all commercial, industrial, multi -family residential, and public &cilities, including parks, schools, and centers of civic activity. (3.7) Promote ride -sharing. (3.8) Consider the establishment of a pedestrian only district that is bicycle -friendly. Parking Facilities GOAL 4: To provide for and ensure an adequate supply of off-street private and public parking to meet the needs of local residents and visitors to the City and the PlanningArea. Policies: 4.1 Provide parking requirements for various types of land uses which consider travel patterns, mode split, and vehicle size. Periodically review and update these standards as these factors change over time. 4.2 Provide public parking resources and transportation alternatives in response to the demand for such facilities (including park-and-ride facilities), through development exactions, special assessment districts or other appropriate funding mechanisms. 4.3 Screen and/or buffer large parking areas from public view through the use of landscape setbacks, earth berms and hedge screens (to headlight level) and trees and landscaping in parking areas while providing convenient pedestrian access. 4.4 On -street parking should generally be eliminated from all major, secondary and limited secondary roadways. (4.7) In addition to the retention of park-and-ride opportunities near the Antelope Valley Freeway, suitable park-and-ride locations near Interstate 5 should be investigated. 4�8 (4.5) En ' courage enclosed bicycle lockers at major destinations. Consider the use of shared parking and jointly operated parking structures, as appropriate. Regional System Impacts GOAL 5: Pursue an aggressive posture in the region in advocating a regional transportation system. Polices: Advocate at the local, state and federal level Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and transit programs, including rail transit and local coordinated busways/routes and bike stations. Encourage the development and utilization of the Metrolink commuter rail system. (5.5) E ncourage linkages between the City's transportation system, regional rail, light rail, and high speed rail, (5.5) Encourage the creation of High -Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes and other methods to increase the capacity of the SR -14 and 1-5. (5.2) Encourage intergovernmental coordination and cooperation among all agencies and levels of government for the planning, management, financing, and implementation of transportation system improvements. W(5.3) Work cooperatively with regional transportation agencies to develop and improve mass transit system connections between the City, metropolitan Los Angeles, Los Angeles International Airport, the Antelope Valley and Ventura County. Trip Reduction Methods GOAL 6: Encourage the implementation of trip reduction methods to reduce daily auto trip generation through alternate transportation, land use planning and other - strategies. Policies: M1 (6.9) Develop marketing and customer service plans to promote widespread use of alternatives to the auto. Target public agencies, major employers, the Chamber of Commerce, Transportation Management Associations (TMAs), etc., to encourage commute patterns using public transit. . .. . ......... .. —M.:4 4nTq9VNW Won (6.1) Develop coordinated plans for land use, circulation, and transit with City and County departments to concentrate high density housing, employment and commercial areas close to transit corridors. Encourage implementation of the City's General Plan, Transportation Development Plan, Bikeway Master Plan, Infrastructure Master Plan and other documents with transportation policies through new development and redevelopment. W6.6) Encourage flexibility in development standards to permit higher floor area ratios and lower parking requirements for commercial developments that provide and maintain transit facilities and that subsidize shared -ride programs. - PPRW�F. ".4-9-1 (6.2) Encourage "transit friendly" residential, commercial and industrial development that p vides convenient pedestrian and bicycle access. (6.3) Encourage new development to use pedestrian "zippers" or walkways to provide a convenient link between different residential neighborhoods and between residential neighborhoods and commercial centers. (6.4) -Encourage the location of convenience services, such as day care, at transit 'centers. " (6.7) Synchronize the expansion of public transportation facilities with new development with im lementation. of "pay as you go" for expansion of public transportation facilities 0. (6.10) Use attractive bus stops and transfer points to promote transit. #; 0 (6.11) Encourage implementation of transportation demand management strategies including telecommuting, compressed work weeks, and aggressive ride -sharing promotion. ...... ....... MAI t6 .. tn,j,.,p=cq Support improvements to Congestion Management Plan (CMP) facilities and aid in the implementation of the CMP to improve mobility corridors in the Santa Clarita Valley and North Los Angeles County region. New Narrative to be Inserted between the Collector and Local Streets and AuLymented Intersections Narrative on PaLre C-38 S:\cd\advance\cire1xnt5.1hs TABLE C-I(A) LEVELS OF SERVICE (LOS), VOLUME TO CAPACITY(VIC) RATIOS & SERVICE VOLUMES FOR URBAN ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS to zero. Stoppages may have a specific occur for long periods with relationship to service volumes. vehicles backing up from one intersection through another. (Referred to as "gridlock" condition.) AUGMENTED INTERSECTIONS: Will add 15% to the above roadway capacity� SOURCE: Hghway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209; KHR Associates, 1987. +NOTE: (XX,XXX) =Capacity For Limited Access on 4 -Lane Divided Arterial. Average Daily Traffic Service Volumes Level of V/C 8 -Lane 6 -Lane 4 -Lane 4 -Lane 2 -Lane Service Ratip Description Divided Divided Divided Undivided Undivided A :D,36 Free Flow - low volumes; 48,000 36,000 24,000 16,000 5,000 ' little or bo delay through- (28,000) out the day or during peak hours. B :�0.54 Stable Flow - relatively 54,000 40,400 27,000 18,000 7,500 low volumes; acceptable (32,000) delays experienced through- out the day, some peak hour congestion. C :�0.71 Stable Flow - relatively 60,000 45,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 low volumes; acceptable (36,000) delays experienced through. out the day-, some peak hour congestion. D :!�0-87 Approaching Unstable Flow - 66,000 49,500 33,000 22,000 12,500 poor, yet tolerable delays (40,000) experienced throughout the day. Peak hours may experience significant congestion and delays. <-1.00 Unstable Flow - heavy 72,000 54,000 36,000 24,000 15,000 congestion and delays (44,000) experienced throughout the day and during peak hours. Volumes at or near capacity� F >1.00+ Forced Flow - both speeds This condition represents system and flow of traffic can drop breakdown and does not to zero. Stoppages may have a specific occur for long periods with relationship to service volumes. vehicles backing up from one intersection through another. (Referred to as "gridlock" condition.) AUGMENTED INTERSECTIONS: Will add 15% to the above roadway capacity� SOURCE: Hghway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209; KHR Associates, 1987. +NOTE: (XX,XXX) =Capacity For Limited Access on 4 -Lane Divided Arterial. THE ALTERNATIVEs AT A GLANCE The Seven Alternatives Evaluated In The Environmental Review Process Are Described Below (and Graphically Depicted Where Appropriate) Base Alternatives ---------- ---- A. 0 TExisting Planned Circulation , System The Existim, planned Circulation S)stciii (Alternative 1) includes A of the new arterial road%%ays, and road"av exten- sions planned as part of the current C : irculation Flernent, II ith one exception: the extension of State Route (SK) 126, a limit - cd access high"iy connecting Interstate 5 and SR 14, would be replaced with Newhall Ranch Road, an cight-lane major arterial highway. This alternative assumes a 5-6% reduction in o%crall ciry%vide vehicle trips is existing and proposed transportation demand management (I DAI) policies are implemented. Newhall Ranch Road [-2] Reduction The Newhall Ranch Road Reduction (Alterriative 2) would include the same ruadmay network as dic Existin.-, Planned Circulation System alterinati% e %% iLh the exception of the .Newhall Ranch Road extension. Under this alternative, the Newhall Ranch Road extension mould be reduced to six lanes and limited to a two-mile segment between Bouquet (..in) on Road and Golden Valley Kcad. All of the trip reduction strategies that would be implemented tinder the Existing Planned Circulation System alternative mould also be imple- mented as part of thib alternative. g FGolden Valley Road 3 ]Network The Golden Valley Road Network (Alternative 3) is similar to the Neu hall Ranch Road Reduction alternative except that it would realign portions of Santa Clariti parkway and Golden Valley Road to create a continuous roidway corridor connect - Ing Bouquet Can) on Road and SR 14. Again, all of the trip reduLtion strategies that would be implemented under the I'Aisting planned Circulation System alternati%e would also be implemented as part of this alternative. Transportation Demand Management Approach fK—] Newhall Ranch Road/ Reduced Trip The Nem hall Ranch/Reduced Trip (Alternative 6) examines the roadway network and trip reduction strategies of the Newhall Ranch Road Reduction alternative (Alternati%e 2), in combination with a more aggressive set of trip reduction tech- niques above and beyond the core trip reduction policies pro- posed as part of the Circulation I- lenient Update. (Please see the "Alternatives 6 & 7 Trip Reduction Strategies" side bar.) This aggressive transportation demand management (YDAI) strategy is expected to achieve a 10-15% reduction in overall cirywide vehicle trips by providing incentives and disincentives to reduce single occupant vehicle (SOID use. f7A7 Golden Valley Road/ Reduced Trip The Golden Valloy/Reduced Trip (Alternative 7) examines the roadway network and trip reduction strategies of the Golden Valley Road Network (Alternative 3), in combination with the sairrie set of more aggressive trip reduction policies that are part of Alternative 6. EIR Buzzwords Below arc some of more commonly used terins and acronyms you will see as %.()It review the FJR. ADT (Average Daily Traffic) - 'U)*r is L11C avera,,c number of daily vehicle trips on a road link or it in intersection. CEQA -'I lie California Eni ircrincrital Quality Act is a state law requiring that public agencies consider the environment in their decision-making. The primary tool aLencies use to consider environmental concerns is die EIR. Circulation Element - A comprehensive plan for vehicular and non-vchiculir circulation and transportation. CMP (Congestion Management Plan) - 'I he CAIP is a state mandated progani mhich addresses congestion concerris by linking land use, transportation and air quality decisions; developing a partnership among transportation decision makers for the development of transportation solutions that include all types of travel; and prolmsing transport at ion proj ccts I% hich are eligible to compete for gas tax funds. CNEL - CNEL is the a%erage of all noise levels for a 24 hour period, with upward adjustments of 5d 13A (7:00 Imn - 10:00 pon) and I 0(113A (10:00 pill - 7:00 ani) to .account for the increased sensitivity to noise in the evening anti IlighttirTIC. General Plan - The General Plan is a long-range comprehensive policy document used to guide decisions regardin ' v future gro%%tli and the management of hunian and natural resources. It is the bluepi int for the Santa Clatita's physical, economic and cultural development over a pui iod of tu crity years. Impacts - The direct or indirect effects of an alternative on existing physical conditions. LOS (Level of Service) - LOS is the a ineasure of traffic flo" conditions "hich range from A to 1. LOS A indicates free flow conditions while LOS F indicates extremely congested conditions. LOS D is considered the minimurn acceptable level in Santa Clarita. Mitigation Measures - Actions which avoid, minimize, rcctifv�, reduce, eliminate or compensate for impacts. Uninitigable impacts are those that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. Signif icance Threshold - The level at I% hich an environmental effect becomes significant under CEQA. Thresholds can be based upon state, federal, or local standards, industry standards, or conimunirY preferences. TOM (Transportation Demand Management) -TDAI includes incentives targeted to reduce the number of vehicle trips. TDN1 includes, but is not limited to, carpools, vanpools, transit use, childcarc centers, preferential parking for rideshare vehicles, telecommuting, videoconferencing, shuttle services, and provisions for increased walking or bic�cling in licu of using an autoinobile. I The EIR Examines Four More Aggressive Alternatives That Would Further Improve Levels Of Service Increased Road a Capacity Approac f,—,] Augmented Newhall Ranch Road Reduction 'I his altcrnati�e examines the Nev,liall Ranch Road Reduction (Alternative 2) augmented with additional lanes it heavily congested intersections in order to increase roidway czpacit%. 'I he purpose is to provide additional road improve - III to achieve acceptable levels of service (LOS C or bet- ter) atall major intersections. [51 Augmented Golden Valley Road Network This alternative examines the Gulden Valley Network (AlterrI 3) augmented Nvith additional Lines it heavily congested intersccrion5. The purpose is to provide additional ruad improvements to achie%cacceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) at all Tnajor intersections. Soj Whatfs n Inte a AugMented rsection? A typical 2119mITI - and left turolanes (th Intersection would add intersections . e number of 11 ight turn laries Ahern, . in Order to d ties In, tiOnS fe. olts 4 and 5 ecrease t,affi 'y Vary) It congested C con g*' "'Icl? approximately . - gestlon- Undc, Occur in call Pk, Inter5c,ti c city in coin 21% ;Ilen .11 augnic Of AIrL tric on ith th , —1-1. interse - ----- 1, we,](] e It, of e t r,a an resp j,,��tL' ay 'in c; cl 0 nportaet ,­­o1CntS remain a in if I th Ist, note tj,at 19'rabbir t u 111 ne - " . e 1191111cred hiter. (thr In ea Section, will 171 , , direction). Please ,, tl,, I)PICal a1197"crited inte""11017: Z Environmental 60sues The following table surrimarims the environmental issue areas that are addressed and analyzed in the EIR. In the EIR, each alternative Will be measured and rated according to the andcipated level of environmental effect that it would have is ithin each issue -area. The table below - 0 lists the issue area as well as more specific itenis that are addressed within the area. Earth Resources Gwoling issues and scismic hazards Air Quality 7�7nporary consitniction impacts (i.e., dusitfi-ont coni-truction sites) and lun�q-tei­ln vehicle emissions Surface water[Flooding lVatcr quality inipactsfi-onn erosion and impacts toflood Plains Biological Resources Sensitive habitats, endangered species, and wetlands issues Noise 7�niponny construction, long- tenn vehicle noise, and effects upon noise sensitive 7TCCiZ cis (i.e., residences, schools) Land Use Policy Consistency Consistency with City and regional land use policies Risk of Upset/Human Health and Safety Conflictio (ofne-w roach) with contaminated sitesloilfields Population and Housing Dhplace-inent qj'residuntial uses and impact on population growth Transportation/ Circulation 7�offic levels and pcdesti-itrulbicycle saioe�v Public Services/ Utilities/Energy Conflicts with majoy-stoon thwin, water and se-werfircili- ties & consistency with City enerkry polig Aesthetics/ Light & Glare Impacts to riaI and consistung with City de3iguiptilicy ACultural Resources Impacts to k7town and potential archaeok�ictd 'a, and bisturical sites Alternatives 6 & 7 Trip Reduction Strategies Under Alternatives 6 and 7, the following Aggressive Trip Reduction Strategies would be taken (in conjunction with the roadway network improvements of Alternatives 2 & 3, respectively)' and are anticipated to achieve a 10-15% reduc- tion in overall city%ide vehicle trips: III Formal Trip Reduction Program for Small Employers Aggicssive m3rkcting, rideshare tratching, and financial incentives to deci�ease single occupant Vehicle usage among commuters working for small firms. • Compressed Work Weeks Employees ould work fewer days in each week, but more hours each day. • City Sponsored Formal Telecommuting Centers Employees would woirk at home or at 2 shared satellite work center near home. • Formation of Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) New T.\Iks or expansion of existing one, towt-ve all major city employers. • City Sponsored Home -End Ridesharing Programs Includes carpool, �npoul and buspool program 2t, home -end for city residents. • Childcare Centers at Transit Stations Childcare centeis at transit ficilitics & park-and-ride Ion. • Bicycle Improvements Includes bikes, bike lockers, and showcr ficilities at employment cemcn. • Employee Transit Subsidy Local employers would provide 50% of cost of month- ly transit pass or direct subsidy to employees. • Ridesharing and Non -Motorized Commute Subsidy 1,oIcal employers would provide a $1 Ixr comunute trip subsidy for use of vatiptioling, carlmling, bicycling, and walking or a direct subsidy tu critI • Significant Decreases In Transit Headways The time between buses would be dccrc2scd by 25 pcicent. • - Transit Feeder Services with Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Technologies Includes advanced technologies to improve bus dispatching, scheduling, and muting. • Parking Pricing Strategies Includes a City ordinance that would require daily parking charges uf up to S5.00/vehicIc for all cmpinyers with 25+ employees at one site. • Increase Transit Use to Schools ......... 441 J Newhall Ranch Road [-2] Reduction The Newhall Ranch Road Reduction (Alterriative 2) would include the same ruadmay network as dic Existin.-, Planned Circulation System alterinati% e %% iLh the exception of the .Newhall Ranch Road extension. Under this alternative, the Newhall Ranch Road extension mould be reduced to six lanes and limited to a two-mile segment between Bouquet (..in) on Road and Golden Valley Kcad. All of the trip reduction strategies that would be implemented tinder the Existing Planned Circulation System alternative mould also be imple- mented as part of thib alternative. g FGolden Valley Road 3 ]Network The Golden Valley Road Network (Alternative 3) is similar to the Neu hall Ranch Road Reduction alternative except that it would realign portions of Santa Clariti parkway and Golden Valley Road to create a continuous roidway corridor connect - Ing Bouquet Can) on Road and SR 14. Again, all of the trip reduLtion strategies that would be implemented under the I'Aisting planned Circulation System alternati%e would also be implemented as part of this alternative. Transportation Demand Management Approach fK—] Newhall Ranch Road/ Reduced Trip The Nem hall Ranch/Reduced Trip (Alternative 6) examines the roadway network and trip reduction strategies of the Newhall Ranch Road Reduction alternative (Alternati%e 2), in combination with a more aggressive set of trip reduction tech- niques above and beyond the core trip reduction policies pro- posed as part of the Circulation I- lenient Update. (Please see the "Alternatives 6 & 7 Trip Reduction Strategies" side bar.) This aggressive transportation demand management (YDAI) strategy is expected to achieve a 10-15% reduction in overall cirywide vehicle trips by providing incentives and disincentives to reduce single occupant vehicle (SOID use. f7A7 Golden Valley Road/ Reduced Trip The Golden Valloy/Reduced Trip (Alternative 7) examines the roadway network and trip reduction strategies of the Golden Valley Road Network (Alternative 3), in combination with the sairrie set of more aggressive trip reduction policies that are part of Alternative 6. EIR Buzzwords Below arc some of more commonly used terins and acronyms you will see as %.()It review the FJR. ADT (Average Daily Traffic) - 'U)*r is L11C avera,,c number of daily vehicle trips on a road link or it in intersection. CEQA -'I lie California Eni ircrincrital Quality Act is a state law requiring that public agencies consider the environment in their decision-making. The primary tool aLencies use to consider environmental concerns is die EIR. Circulation Element - A comprehensive plan for vehicular and non-vchiculir circulation and transportation. CMP (Congestion Management Plan) - 'I he CAIP is a state mandated progani mhich addresses congestion concerris by linking land use, transportation and air quality decisions; developing a partnership among transportation decision makers for the development of transportation solutions that include all types of travel; and prolmsing transport at ion proj ccts I% hich are eligible to compete for gas tax funds. CNEL - CNEL is the a%erage of all noise levels for a 24 hour period, with upward adjustments of 5d 13A (7:00 Imn - 10:00 pon) and I 0(113A (10:00 pill - 7:00 ani) to .account for the increased sensitivity to noise in the evening anti IlighttirTIC. General Plan - The General Plan is a long-range comprehensive policy document used to guide decisions regardin ' v future gro%%tli and the management of hunian and natural resources. It is the bluepi int for the Santa Clatita's physical, economic and cultural development over a pui iod of tu crity years. Impacts - The direct or indirect effects of an alternative on existing physical conditions. LOS (Level of Service) - LOS is the a ineasure of traffic flo" conditions "hich range from A to 1. LOS A indicates free flow conditions while LOS F indicates extremely congested conditions. LOS D is considered the minimurn acceptable level in Santa Clarita. Mitigation Measures - Actions which avoid, minimize, rcctifv�, reduce, eliminate or compensate for impacts. Uninitigable impacts are those that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. Signif icance Threshold - The level at I% hich an environmental effect becomes significant under CEQA. Thresholds can be based upon state, federal, or local standards, industry standards, or conimunirY preferences. TOM (Transportation Demand Management) -TDAI includes incentives targeted to reduce the number of vehicle trips. TDN1 includes, but is not limited to, carpools, vanpools, transit use, childcarc centers, preferential parking for rideshare vehicles, telecommuting, videoconferencing, shuttle services, and provisions for increased walking or bic�cling in licu of using an autoinobile. I The EIR Examines Four More Aggressive Alternatives That Would Further Improve Levels Of Service Increased Road a Capacity Approac f,—,] Augmented Newhall Ranch Road Reduction 'I his altcrnati�e examines the Nev,liall Ranch Road Reduction (Alternative 2) augmented with additional lanes it heavily congested intersections in order to increase roidway czpacit%. 'I he purpose is to provide additional road improve - III to achieve acceptable levels of service (LOS C or bet- ter) atall major intersections. [51 Augmented Golden Valley Road Network This alternative examines the Gulden Valley Network (AlterrI 3) augmented Nvith additional Lines it heavily congested intersccrion5. The purpose is to provide additional ruad improvements to achie%cacceptable levels of service (LOS C or better) at all Tnajor intersections. Soj Whatfs n Inte a AugMented rsection? A typical 2119mITI - and left turolanes (th Intersection would add intersections . e number of 11 ight turn laries Ahern, . in Order to d ties In, tiOnS fe. olts 4 and 5 ecrease t,affi 'y Vary) It congested C con g*' "'Icl? approximately . - gestlon- Undc, Occur in call Pk, Inter5c,ti c city in coin 21% ;Ilen .11 augnic Of AIrL tric on ith th , —1-1. interse - ----- 1, we,](] e It, of e t r,a an resp j,,��tL' ay 'in c; cl 0 nportaet ,­­o1CntS remain a in if I th Ist, note tj,at 19'rabbir t u 111 ne - " . e 1191111cred hiter. (thr In ea Section, will 171 , , direction). Please ,, tl,, I)PICal a1197"crited inte""11017: Z Environmental 60sues The following table surrimarims the environmental issue areas that are addressed and analyzed in the EIR. In the EIR, each alternative Will be measured and rated according to the andcipated level of environmental effect that it would have is ithin each issue -area. The table below - 0 lists the issue area as well as more specific itenis that are addressed within the area. Earth Resources Gwoling issues and scismic hazards Air Quality 7�7nporary consitniction impacts (i.e., dusitfi-ont coni-truction sites) and lun�q-tei­ln vehicle emissions Surface water[Flooding lVatcr quality inipactsfi-onn erosion and impacts toflood Plains Biological Resources Sensitive habitats, endangered species, and wetlands issues Noise 7�niponny construction, long- tenn vehicle noise, and effects upon noise sensitive 7TCCiZ cis (i.e., residences, schools) Land Use Policy Consistency Consistency with City and regional land use policies Risk of Upset/Human Health and Safety Conflictio (ofne-w roach) with contaminated sitesloilfields Population and Housing Dhplace-inent qj'residuntial uses and impact on population growth Transportation/ Circulation 7�offic levels and pcdesti-itrulbicycle saioe�v Public Services/ Utilities/Energy Conflicts with majoy-stoon thwin, water and se-werfircili- ties & consistency with City enerkry polig Aesthetics/ Light & Glare Impacts to riaI and consistung with City de3iguiptilicy ACultural Resources Impacts to k7town and potential archaeok�ictd 'a, and bisturical sites Alternatives 6 & 7 Trip Reduction Strategies Under Alternatives 6 and 7, the following Aggressive Trip Reduction Strategies would be taken (in conjunction with the roadway network improvements of Alternatives 2 & 3, respectively)' and are anticipated to achieve a 10-15% reduc- tion in overall city%ide vehicle trips: III Formal Trip Reduction Program for Small Employers Aggicssive m3rkcting, rideshare tratching, and financial incentives to deci�ease single occupant Vehicle usage among commuters working for small firms. • Compressed Work Weeks Employees ould work fewer days in each week, but more hours each day. • City Sponsored Formal Telecommuting Centers Employees would woirk at home or at 2 shared satellite work center near home. • Formation of Transportation Management Associations (TMAs) New T.\Iks or expansion of existing one, towt-ve all major city employers. • City Sponsored Home -End Ridesharing Programs Includes carpool, �npoul and buspool program 2t, home -end for city residents. • Childcare Centers at Transit Stations Childcare centeis at transit ficilitics & park-and-ride Ion. • Bicycle Improvements Includes bikes, bike lockers, and showcr ficilities at employment cemcn. • Employee Transit Subsidy Local employers would provide 50% of cost of month- ly transit pass or direct subsidy to employees. • Ridesharing and Non -Motorized Commute Subsidy 1,oIcal employers would provide a $1 Ixr comunute trip subsidy for use of vatiptioling, carlmling, bicycling, and walking or a direct subsidy tu critI • Significant Decreases In Transit Headways The time between buses would be dccrc2scd by 25 pcicent. • - Transit Feeder Services with Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Technologies Includes advanced technologies to improve bus dispatching, scheduling, and muting. • Parking Pricing Strategies Includes a City ordinance that would require daily parking charges uf up to S5.00/vehicIc for all cmpinyers with 25+ employees at one site. • Increase Transit Use to Schools Circu TE5 The Information Bulletin for the Santa Clarita Circulation Element Amendment Environmental Impact Report Process Upcoming Community Workshops to Review Circulation Element Amendment Draft EIR Santa Clwita Community to Fi77d Out More About Proposed Ciradation Alternatives and Draft Envirownental Impact Repon Results The Santa Clirita community is invited to attend a series of informational and "hands- on" workshops to review the results of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (ElR) which his been prepared as part of the Santa Clarita Circulation ElernentAmendment process. Three identical workshops are being offered on different days and in different locations: Thtirsdayjune 26, Saturdayjune 28, and Thursdayjuly 10. (Please see the "Mirk Your Calendars" feature box for more detailed infornia- tion.) The purpose of these workshops is to pro- vide the Santa Clarita community an opportunitl 7 to better understand the results of the EIR process, comment on the Draft EIR (including die seven circulation alternatives proposed for the City's roadway system), and ask questions of the City and Consultant team. Why an EIR? 'Ilie EIR has been prepared to ana- lyze the potential environniental itripacts of the seven circulation alternatives proposed for the new Master Plan of Arterial Roadways in the City. 'I lie EIR summarizes poteridil enNironniental impacts and identifies mitigation iticasurcs to hell) chininate or reduce those impacts. (Please see the 'F.IR Buzz Words" feature box oil the follow- ing page for the more commonly used terms found in the FIR.) The Draft FIR will be available for review on Tuesdayjune 17 in a few different locations around the City. (Please see the "Check out the Draft FIR" feature box for spe- cific locations.) Identification of a new Alastcr Plan of Arterial Roadways is only one part of the Circulation Element Amendment. The Amendment also includes policies concerning other important transportation-relited issues. These new policies seek to: clarify roadway and bikewiv development standards; encourage pedestrian -oriented development design; 11 increase rail opportunities (Aletrolink, high speed rail, light rail); and implement strategies to reduce single occupant trips. What has happened so far? At the December 4 Scoping.Nicering, the community rcvic%%cd and provided feedback oil four alternati%cs that were being studied as part of the City's Circulation Element Amendment. In summary, i-nany meeting participants sup- ported the development of in cast-ucst corridor through Santa Clirita, noting, tile current absence Of Such a cross-town roa(I,A ay. Several parLicipants emphasized the need to "just do it" and inake immediate changes in the Circulation Plan. A nurliber of participants expressed interest in improving alternatives to the single occupant vehicle. MARK YOUR CALENDARS! Please join us at any or all of the three upcoming Community Workshops. Learn more about the results of the EIR in an informal Open House/Workshop atmosphere. Following an hour-long Open I louse and a brief presentation, participants will have an opportunity to ask questions and comment oil the EIR results. We look forward to seeing you at one of the workshops listed below: ThursdayJune 26 7:00 Pin. - 9:30 pm Boys & Girls Club 24909 Newhall Avenue, iNcwhall SaturdayJune 28 1:00 pm - 4:00 pm Sierra Vista junior High School 19425 Stillmore, Canyon Country Parkinobile will be at Saturday !r worksbop to pravide ento-tainmentfor the kids! ThursdayJuly 10 7:00 pra - 9:30 pria Arroyo Seco junior IIiah School V 27171 Vista Delgado Drive Also mark your calendars for the upcoming Plann�ing Commission Public Hearing: TuesdayJuly 15, 7:00 pm Santa Clarita City Hall Council Chambers 23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor For more information or any questions you may have, please call: Jeff Lambert, Planning Man2ger or Laura Stotler, Associate Planner City of Santa Clarita (805) 255-4330 Bascd oil the comments made at die December meeting and the City and Consultant telm's review and analysis, three lie", alternatives were developed for the City's tronsportafion systerrit in midition to the fouraltcrnaLives presented at the December ineeLing. As mentioned above, the EIR's pur- pose is to analyze the environnicn- ul impacts of the seven circulation alternatives. For a detailed look at the alternatives, please see the "Alternatives at a Glance" section oil the next page. Ill addition, see I , Mobilitv in Santa Clarita" feature at the right %%hich describes .a frairie�% ork for understanding the evOlution of the alternatives and the different approaches the City can take to improve its transporti- tion system. What's next? A 45 -day public revic%v period fol- lows the completion and release of the Draft FIR. As part Of this public review period, a series of Community Workshops will be held to inform and gather feedback from the Santa Clirita community on the EIR findings. The upcom- ing Community lVorkshops N% ill begin with an Open I louse seg - merit where participants can view informational and "hands-on" dis- play panels -and learn more about the results of the ElR process, including the seven circulation alternatives. The City and Consultant team will then give a brief presentation, folloued by small group discussions ubere par- ficipints will have an opportunity to ask questions of tile City, and Consultant learn and provide their feedback on the FIR and proposed alternatives. Please attend one of the three upcoming Community Workshops (stay as long as you can) and let its know u hat you think about the proposed circulation system alternatives. e.ollilliullity feedback is critical to the process of developing and choosing the best alternative for Santa Clarila's future transportation nenk ork. Check Out The Draft EIR! Acopy of the Draft EIR 0 Santa Clarita City Hill 0 Valencia Alain Library 13 Canyon Country Libriry is available for review on 23920 Vilencia BNA. 23743 W Valencia 18536 Soledad Canyon Tuesday, J Line 17 at the Third Floor, Blvd. Road follow ing locaLions: Planning Department Please contact Laura Stotler at the City's Planning Department (805) 255-4330 to find out how to purchase )Our own copy. Please note: Informational display boards \k ill be set up at City I lall, the Nlain Library, and Call) oil Country Park to provide ) ou Nvith an overview of the FIR's purpose and the seven circulation alternatives. Mobility in Santa Clarita I Issues and Choices As it approaches the 2 1 st century, Santa Clarita finds itself at a crossroads in its devel- opment: the community is grappling with the need for a balance between sustaining eco- nomically viable development and maintaining the quality of life that makes the community a desirable place to live and work. Key to this bilancing act is the issue of mobility. IN'ithout add- quate trarisportation infrastructure, tile City mill find it ilicrcas- in.-ly difficult to attract the kinds of dc%clopnicrit thit bring jobs and revenue to tile community. The quility of life for current residents may also buffer, as increasing traffic congestion Icngth- ens commute times and fouls the local air. On the other hand, the continued construction of roads and other transportation infrastructure %%ill likclv accommodate idditional growth, which may irreversibly ilicr & very chiracteristics that have attracted people to tile area. (;iNcn that traffic congestion is already a serious problem in many parts of Santa Clariti all(] that inorc gro%%th appears to be on tile way at least in the near term, I lie City's transportation sYs- tcin is aLrcady in need of improvement. 'I lie biggest question currently facing the community is therefore not whether to improve the system, but how to improve it. '16 that end, the community has emb;irked oil a tour year planning process to determine how best to augment the existing circulation system. NN'ith input from the community and various advisory CUIT111lit- tees, the City ultimately de%eloped three "base" alternatives that "cold partially resolve traffic problems through a combination of road building and general policies that better manage traffic deniand. In order to further iinpro% c lc% els of sen ice, there are tm o funda- mental approaches that the City call take: (1) the traditionil approach of increasing roadway capacity; or (2) in approach that focuses on transportation demand management (I'DAI). (Please see "Circulation S)stern Alternatives" graphic below.) The increased roadway capacity approach would fockis on tile m iden- ing of congested intersecdons to -accommodate projected increas- es in amoinobile traffic (see Alternatives 4 & 5). 'File "I'DAI approach, oil the other hand, would provide incentives to use transportation alternatives such as malking, bicycling, carpooling, and transit, thereby reducing o%erall autoniobiie trips and the consequent need for additional roads (see Alternatives 6 & 7). The approach that Santa Clarita chooses %kill affect not onlN the transportation choices that residents will make in the future. It will also help define the type of development that will occur in the City in the years ahead. The traditional increased roadway capacity, approach %%ill likely facilitate -a lower density, sprawling coninitinity dependent upon the automobile for the vast majority of trips. The demand management approach may facilitate denser, more compact development, with larger open space areas and more transportation choices. In the end, the transportation choices the City makes now � ill be importint determinants of the type of community Santa Clarita becomes. BASE ALTERNATIVES Circulation System Circulation System Alternatives MORE AGGRESSIVE ALTERNATIVES 2 _LN1 Add,b I Newhall Roadway Capauty V U M%":d Newhall Ranch ag nCh Reduction z Road W Additional Trr 'P n 6 .�w Reduction Dernand Man nit St,atg.. Newhall Ranch Road/ Redu AWUnal 5 > I Golden R�..y ca�" Au mented Golden Valley VAal?ey Road Network z w Road W Network Adft..l �;xntat on Dmand M ment stwNws Golden Vallq Road --A .;- 1"befour more aggressive alternatives are vaHations of the three base alterwatives. I