Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1997-06-04 - AGENDA REPORTS - NEWHALL PROJ (2)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: a r *ty mbers of the City Council FRO eor aManager DATE: June 4, 1997 SUBJECT: Overview - Newhall Redevelopment Project BACKGROUND At this study session, GRC Redevelopment Consultants and staff will be providing the City Council with an overview of the Newhall Redevelopment Project. Copies of the Draft Redevelopment Plan and Preliminary Report have been distributed to the Council with this memorandum. The purpose of this study session is to "walk" the City Council through the documents prepared for the Newhall Redevelopment Project. The Draft Redevelopment Plan, Preliminary Report and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the. Newhall Redevelopment Project have been presented to the Newhall Redevelopment Committee and the Planning Commission. Comments from both the Committee and Commission have been incorporated into these documents, where applicable. The Newhall Redevelopment Committee has been especially helpful to staff and GRC in the formulation of the Draft Redevelopment Plan and Preliminary Report. On June 24, 1997, the City Council/Redevelopment Agency will conduct the Joint Public Hearing for the Newhall Redevelopment Project. The item will be brought back to the City Council/Redevelopment Agency on July 1, 1997 and July 8, 1997 for final action. The Redevelopment Plan must be adopted by the City Council/Redevelopment Agency prior to July 20, 1997, or the Redevelopment Agency will not be eligible for tax increment money until 1999. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY The Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) requires the Redevelopment Plan to be in conformance with the General Plan. Specifically, the Planning Commission must make this finding. The Planning Commission is scheduled to make this finding on June 17, 1997, Chapter II of the Redevelopment Plan deals with development in the Project Area. Specifically, Subsection 210 is drafted so that all projects included within the Redevelopment Plan must be in conformance with the Santa Clarita General Plan, as it now exists or may be amended in the future. The Redevelopment Plan does not propose to amend the General Plan or change project area zoning. The Redevelopment Plan is not a specific plan for the development of the Project '� I Area. Rather, the Redevelopment Plan is an authorizing document that allows the Redevelopment Agency to utilize a variety of financing and implementation tools to promote redevelopment of the Project Area in a manner consistent with the General Plan. PRELIMINARY REPORT Also enclosed with the proposed Redevelopment Plan is a revised draft of the Preliminary Report. This document is required by the CRL, and documents various conditions of blight, authorized redevelopment programs, estimated costs, and anticipated revenue. This Report is primarily meant for the use of the various taxing agencies, but it is also an ideal background document for reviewing the Redevelopment Plan. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) should also be reviewed by the City Council/Redevelopment Agency as background material in its review of the Redevelopment Plan. Copies of this document have also been distributed with this memo. The purpose of the DEIR is to provide a detailed description of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. The DEIR is somewhat different from previous EIR's reviewed by the City Council. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the preparation of a Program EIR, for Redevelopment Plans. A Program EIR is an EIR which is prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project. The Program EIR can be used to simplify the task of preparing subsequent environmental documents on later projects included within the overall program. RECOMMENDATION Receive the report and presentation. GAC:GEA:lep nwh1ydv\srcc6.4.gca Draft Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project SCH # 97021002 April, 1997 Santa Cladta Redevelopment Agenq Draft Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project SCH # 97021002 City of Santa Clarity Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency 23920 Valencia Boulevard Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 April, 1997 Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. Urban and Environmental Planning Consultants to the City #949.00 Contents Executive Summary .................................................... vii Introduction.......................................................... xxiii 1.0 Project Description.......................................................1 2.0 Environmental Setting ................................................... 13 3.0 Environmental Impact Assessment .......................................... 15 3.1 Land Use and Planning..............................................17 3.2 Population and Housing .............................................. 27 3.3 Environmental Hazards .............................................. 31 3.4 Air Quality ........................................................41 3.5 Transportation and Circulation ........................................ 55 3.6 Biological Resources ................................................ 73 3.7 Noise............................................................77 3.8 Public Services ..................................................... 81 3.9 Utilities and Service Systems .......................................... 97 3.10 Aesthetics ........................................................107 3.11 Historic Resources.................................................111 3.12 Parks and Recreation ............................................... 115 4.0. Alternatives........................................................... 119 5.0. Cumulative, Growth -Inducing, and Long -Term Effects ......................... 129 5.1 Relationship Between Local Short -Term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long -Term Productivity .......... 129 5.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes .......................... 129 5.3 Growth -Inducing Impact ............................................ 130 5.4 Cumulative Effects ................................................. 131 6.0 Effects Found Not to be Significant ........................................ 133 7.0. Preparers of the EIR.................................................... 139 Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarito 1 Appendices Appendix A. Notice of Preparation and Responses Appendix B. Traffic Analysis Appendix C. Revised. Negative Declaration, Construciton of a Metrolink Station and Recon- struction of Railroad Avenue Appendix D. Calculation Worksheets Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project ii City of Santa Clarita i I I Tables ES -1 Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures ................... xiii 1. Public Improvements Included in Newhall Redevelopment Project ................. 6 2. Uses of the EIR.........................................................12 3. Existing Land Uses in Project Area ......................................... 18 4. Potential Employment Generation .......................................... 28 5. Air Pollution Sources, Effects and Standards .................................. 42 6. Number of Days State Ambient Air Quality Standards Exceeded, Santa Clarita Monitoring Station ........................................... 44 7. Number of Days Federal Air Quality Standards Exceeded, Santa Clarita Monitoring Station ........................................... 44 8. SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance for Significant Contribution to Regional Air Pollution ................................................. 46 9. Thresholds of Significance for Change in Air Pollutant Concentrations ............. 47 10. Long -Term Air Pollutant Emissions in Newhall Redevelopment Project Area ........ 50 11. Level of Service Description ............................................... 56 12. Trip Generation from Development in Project Area ............................ 62 13. PM Peak Hour Intersection Volume/Capacity Ratio and Level of Service Impacts for Entire Candidate Project Area .................................... 64 14." PM Peak Hour Intersection Volume/Capacity Ratio and Level of Service Impacts for Reduced Project Area .......................................... 65 15. School Enrollment and Capacity ........................................... 86 16. Housing Demand from New Development in Newhall Redevelopment Project Area ... 88 17. Students and Fees Generated by Project -Related Development .................... 91 18. School Impacts Summary ................................................. 92 19. Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Project Alternatives ................... 127 Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarito iii Figures Figure Page 1. Project Location......................................................... 2 2. Opportunity Sites ....................................................... 11 3. Existing Land Uses in Project Area ......................................... 19 4. General Plan Land Uses for Project Area .................................... 22 5. Location of Sensitive Receptors ........................................... 45 6. Regional Circulation System .............................................. 57 7. Existing Intersection Level of Service ....................................... 58 8. Intersection Level of Service for Proposed Project ............................. 60 9. Intersection Level of Service for Reduced Project Area ......................... 61 10. Proposed Metrolink Station and Related Improvements ......................... 66 11. Intersection Level of Service, Reduced Project Area with Mitigation Measures ...... 67 12. Historic Resources Within the Project Area ................................. 112 13. Park Service Areas ..................................................... 116 14. Reduced Project Area ................................................... 123 Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project iv City of Santa Clarita i Executive Summary iThis Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes the potentially significant environmental effects of the adoption and implementation of the Newhall Redevelopment Project. The report also outlines mitigation measures included in the proposed project to avoid or minimize these effects, and discusses project alternatives which could reduce or eliminate these effects. The Project The Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency as the lead agency for this project proposes to adopt and implement the Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area. In April, 1996, the Santa Clarita City Council gave conceptual approval to the Downtown Newhall Improvement Program, which identified a variety of funding sources for the revital- ization program, including tax increment revenue that would become available by including portions of Newhall in a redevelopment project area. The Newhall Redevelopment Project will involve a number of subsequent actions over a long period of time to implement the redevelopment plan. These actions may include approvals required for development of land in the private development market, actions to acquire and develop properties for public uses, construction of a wide variety of public improvements, public facilities and infrastructure, approval of agreements with owners and developers for the development of land in accordance with the plan, and other actions. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita v I Preliminary evaluation resulted in the establishment of a Newhall Redevelopment Candidate Area as designated by the Planning Commission in 1996. This Candidate Area, consisting of approximately 1,350 acres of land, is the primary project area analyzed in the Draft EIR. On April 8, 1997, as preparation of the Draft EIR was nearly complete, the Redevelopment Agency formally reduced the Candidate Area boundaries. This reduced area includes approxi- mately 900 acres of land, and corresponds to the boundaries of the "Reduced Area Alternative" analyzed in Section 4 below. This alternative will be analyzed in sufficient detail to allow it to be adopted as a redevelopment project area based on this EIR. The area will be further ' evaluated to determine whether the entire area or portions of the area will be established as a redevelopment area. project The Newhall Redevelopment Project is an implementation program for much of the revitaliza- tion program for Downtown Newhall and the City's General Plan objectives. It provides redevelopment powers and resources to implement the General Plan and Downtown Newhall r revitalization policies within its boundaries. The Newhall Redevelopment Project will involve a number of subsequent actions over a long period of time to implement the redevelopment plan. These actions may include approvals required for development of land in the private development market, actions to acquire and develop properties for public uses, construction of a wide variety of public improvements, public facilities and infrastructure, approval of agreements with owners and developers for the development of land in accordance with the plan, and other actions. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita v I Executive Summary Project Objectives The objectives of the Newhall Redevelopment Project include the following, as outlined in the Preliminary Plan • Implement the revitalization goals and strategies identified in the Downtown Newhall Improvement Program. • Provide for the various public improvements identified in the Downtown Newhall Improvement Program. • Provide for public improvements as needed to eliminate blight in those portions of the Project Area located outside of the immediate downtown Newhall area. • Using tax increment revenues set aside for housing, develop and implement citywide housing programs as needed to meet the needs of very low, low- and moderate -income residents in Provide for a general program of redevelopment incentives that will serve to eliminate blight and strengthen the commercial and industrial base in the project area, and thereby create lasting improvements to the community's tax and employment bases. General objectives to be met in the project area based on the objectives of California Redevel- opment Law include the following: • Alleviate the causes and effects of blight • Construct needed infrastructure improvements including, but not limited to, streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, sewer lines, water lines, drainage systems, and similar improvements needed to support the removal of blighting influences. • Where appropriate, assist in the consolidation of lots or sites for the development of new uses or the relocation of existing uses in a manner that is consistent with the Downtown Newhall Revitalization Strategy and the Santa Clarita General Plan. • Promote rehabilitation or other improvements to privately owned buildings and properties in commercial, industrial and residential areas, that will expand the City's economic base and further reduce blight. • Improve, increase and preserve the community's housing stock through rehabilitation or other means. • Preserve and enhance the historical character of the project area as appropriate. The proposed redevelopment project will be implemented as sufficient financial resources become available. The major feature of the project is a program of possible public improve- ments and programs to correct existing deficiencies and provide adequate support for future development in the project area. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project vi City of Santa Clarita Ll I ;, I I 5 I I I I 1 11 I Project Area Development Potential Executive Summary ' The land uses and intensity of development permitted at buildout in the project area under the proposed project will be the same as that under the General Plan. However, the redevelopment project would be expected to result in somewhat more intensive development; development of larger, more coordinated projects, and a somewhat more rapid pace of development and redevelopment than would have taken place without the use of redevelopment powers. One of the purposes of the redevelopment project is to stimulate development in the project area and eliminate obstacles to development that prevent the area from achieving General Plan goals and building intensities. Potential development anticipated to occur in the 1350 -acre Project Area over the 30 -year life of the proposed redevelopment project includes: Development of approximately 500 new residential units, primarily on parcels designated for residential development, but also within mixed-use and commercial districts. • Development of a net increase in office, industrial, business park space of up to 2.5 million square feet of such uses, on opportunity sites and as replacement or infill in existing industrial and commercial areas. • Development of new retail commercial uses at commercial nodes and in Downtown Newhall with up to 1.0 million square of additional development. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita vii I • Conversion of 20 to 50 pre-existing legal residential units to industrial and commercial uses in areas designated for industrial and commercial development. This conversion is expected to take place in the private development market without direct Agency involve- ment. The proposed plan does not permit the Agency to condemn property on which people reside, or to undertake projects which would displace a substantial number of low - or moderate -income persons. • Development of major circulation improvements, including a variety of intersection and roadway improvements. • Development of streetscape improvements along principal corridors within the project area. • Development of water, sewer, and drainage improvements to support the above develop- ment. This anticipated development includes all development within the project area, not just the development induced through redevelopment action. The new development will primarily infill vacant sites in the project area, which currently account for about one-fourth of the land Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita vii I Executive Summary area. Those areas are considered major opportunity sites for future development (see Figure in Project description). In addition, some of the underutilized, old, obsolete, marginal, or incompatible _ industrial and commercial uses are also anticipated to recycle to residential, commercial, and modem business and industrial park uses. Relation to General Plan and Zoning As required by California Redevelopment Law, the land uses designated in the Redevelopment Plan will be consistent with those called for by the City's General Plan. To assure continued conformity between the Redevelopment Plan and the General Plan, the Redevelopment Plan will be drafted so that the land use policy of the General Plan is incorporated by reference, and that in the event of an inconsistency between the General Plan and the Redevelopment Plan, the General Plan will govern. Environmental Impacts This EIR has been prepared to examine potentially significant environmental impacts that could result from the development anticipated to occur within the project area, and to identify mitigation measures capable of avoiding or substantially reducing those impacts. A summary of the findings of this environmental analysis and mitigation measures is presented in Table ES -1. The analysis contained in this EIR uses words "significant" and "less than significant". These words specifically define the degree of impact and coincide with language used in the CEQA Guidelines. As required by CEQA, mitigation measures have been included into the project to avoid or reduce significant impacts. When these impacts, even with the inclusion of mitigation measures, cannot be completely mitigated, they are identified as "unavoidable significant impacts." CEQA defines a significant impact on the environment as "...a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within an area affected by the project, including land, air, water, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic and aesthetic significance." Approval of a project with significant non-mitigable impacts requires adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations by the Lead Agency. In making such a statement, the Lead Agency finds that it has reviewed the EIR, has balanced the benefits of the project against its significant effects, and has concluded that the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, and thus, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 [a]). Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project viii City of Santa Clariia Unavoidable Significant Impacts Executive Summary The EIR identifies the following unavoidable significant impacts of the project: • Air pollutant emissions from construction and operation of new development in the Newhall project area. IPotential Significant Impacts That Can Be Avoided or Mitigated The EIR identifies the following potentially significant impacts of the project that can be avoided or substantially reduced. Measures have been required in the EIR to mitigate these impacts to a less than significant level. These are: • Addition of traffic to the local circulation system. • Need for protection from flooding hazards. • Construction of public improvements within and new development in the vicinity of biologically sensitive areas. • Noise from construction and additional vehicular traffic. • Generation of additional students in school districts which currently have schools which are over capacity. • Demolition or alterations of structures that may be of historical interest. Less than Significant Impacts The EIR identifies the following project impacts which are less than significant. Geologic constraints and hazardous material impacts are less than significant as a result of existing standard City, state, or federal regulations applicable through standard development review and approval process to all new development, including the development within the Newhall project area; and/or the use of existing standard engineering techniques. The following project impacts are found to result in a less than significant effect on physical environment: • Land use and planning • Population and housing Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita ix I Executive Summary • Public Utilities • Recreation Beneficial Impacts The EIR identifies the following impacts of the project that are beneficial: • Provision of additional housing units, including affordable housing. • Provision of employment opportunities for the residents of Santa Clarita and surrounding communities. • Facilitation of transition to modem commercial, office, and industrial uses that are economically viable, compatible, and of high quality of design. • Improvement of needed public facilities, including library. • Provision of needed public improvements including roadways and utility infrastructure. • Increased safety and security in the Newhall project area due toeliminationof blighting conditions, and recycling of old and unsafe industrial and commercial uses and structures to modem "clean" uses and structures constructed in accordance with current fire codes and equipped with safety and security features. • Acceleration of hazardous materials cleanup on redevelopment sites Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project X City of Santa Clarita i I I n I I I I I I I I Executive Summary Table ES -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ImpactPotential Environ- I Significance Category meni Mitigation Measures with Mitigation 1. Unavoidable Significant Environmental Impacts (Lead Agency must issue "Statement of Overriding Considerations' under Section 15093 and 15126(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines if the agency determines these effects are significant and approves the project). Alr Quality Short-term PM10 1. For all individual development projects, construction- Significant emissions from grad- related exhaust and dust emissions will be controlled. ing and excavation All unpaved demolition and construction areas shall be activities could affect wetted as necessary during excavation to reduce dust sensitive uses. emissions and meet SCAQMD Rule 403. Wetting twice a day will reduce particulate emissions (dust) by about 50 percent. All grading activities shall cease when wind speed exceeds 25 mph. To the maximum extent feasi- ble, reclaimed water will be used for this purpose. 2. All grading, excavation, and other activities involving the use of fossil -fuel powered equipment shall cease during second and third stage smog alerts as designated by the SCAQMD. 3. Individual development projects shall be designed and operated to conserve energy in keeping with Title 24 requirements. Long-term emissions 1. Implementation of the following Transportation Systems Significant. of air pollutants pri- Management actions will minimize the air pollution im- marily from vehicles pact of new development and reduce trip making from will be added to the existing development: Basin's air, which is a non -attainment area - Transit signal synchronization of all major arterials for federal and state and collectors in coordination with the County of air quality standards. Los Angeles, and surrounding cities; - Development of park and ride facilities to encourage transit use; - Traffic flow improvements; - Bus transit improvements in the form of pads, shel- ters, and lighting; and • Bicycle routes. Transpor- Addition of traffic to 4.3. Orchard Village Road/Lyons Avenue Significant tation local street network This intersection is projected to worsen form a V/C of 0.91 (LOS E) to 0.99 during the PM peak -hour due to project -related traffic. Future -year analysis of this inter- section already assumed that it would be fully built out. No additional geometric improvements are feasible. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita xi Executive Summary Impact Potential Environ- Significance Category mental Impact Mitigation Measures with Mitigation 2. Significant Environmental Impacts That Can Be Avoided or Mitigated (Section 15126(c) of the State CEOA Guidelines) Hazards Potential contamina- A Phase II environmental site characteriztion will be con- Less than signifi- tion on Metrolink site ducted and necessary site remediation will be conducted cant prior to construction Transpor- Addition of traffic to 1. Overall Program Implementation. Prior to approval tation local street network of any major development project (any project greater than 100,000 square feet in floor area, greater than 100 dwelling units, or greater than 100 peak -hour trips in- bound and outbound) the City will have in place a circu- lation improvements plan for projects within the Newhall Redevelopment Project area. 2. Implementation Funding. The City will fund the im- provements below based on funding available from development fees or other revenues as appropriate, based on the need considering the location of projects from which fees were collected, development within the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area, and other criteria as outlined in a public improvements program for the project area. 3. Regular Program Review. Every five years, or after development of projects resulting in a total of 2,000 peak -hour trips since the most recent major traffic study revision, the City will comprehensively evaluate the remaining capital improvements required to provide an acceptable level of traffic service within and to the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area, and adjust the list of improvement projects and development fees as appropriate to achieve the level of service objectives outlined in the City's General Plan. 4. Capital Improvements to Support Newhall Redevelop- ment Project. The following specific traffic improve - mens are needed to provide the level of service out- lined in this EIR. These measures shall be Included in a capital improvements program with associated develop- ment fees, and shall be implemented as their need is identified and as development takes place in the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area so that the full list of improvements can be completed at the time the anticipated development is complete. The need for these improvements shall be evaluated in each regular program review, and the improvements list and devel- oper fee modified as appropriate based on current conditions at the time of the review. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project xii City of Santa Clarita I i I I I i t I 1 I I I I I I I j I F1 Ll I i I ,i I L I Executive Summary Impact Category Potential Environ- mental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance with Mitigation Transpor. 4.1. 1.5 SB off-ramp/Lyons Avenue tation This intersection is projected to worsen from a V/C of 1.26 (continued) (LOS F) to 1.27 during the PM peak hour due to project - related traffic. In order to mitigate this impact, the off -ramp should be restriped from one left -tum land, one through/left- turn land, one right -turn lane to two left -turn lanes and one through/right-turn lane. Implementing this mitigation will improve the projected V/C ratio to 1.18 during the evening peak hour. 4.2. 1-5 NB ramps/Lyons Avenue This intersection is projected to worsen from a V/C of 0.99 (LOS E) to 1.01 (LOS F) during the PM peak hour due to project -related traffic. In order to mitigate this impact, a right -tum only land onto the ramp should be provided in the westbound direction. Implementing this mitigation will im- prove the projected V/C ratio to 1.18 during the evening peak hour. 4.4. Via Princessa/Circle J Ranch Road This intersection was assumed to contain two through lanes in the eastbound and westbound directions in the future. Under this configuration, the intersection would operate with a V/C of 0.82 (LOS D) and 0.85 without and with project - related traffic, respectively. Providing a third eastbound and westbound through land would improve the projected V/C ratio to 0.63 during the evening peak hour. 4.5. Lyons Avenue/San Fernando Road This intersection is projected to worsen from a V/C of 0.94 (LOS E) to 1.08 (LOS F) during the PM peak hour due to project -related traffic. Railroad Avenue runs just east of San Fernando Road and just west of the MTA railroad tracks: This parallel facility to San Fernando Road is planned to be improved to become a two- or four -lane upgraded roadway. This improvement will provide additional capacity along the San Fernando Road corridor in this area. Sufficient traffic should divert from San Fernando Road to Railroad Avenue to improve the projected operation of Lyons Avenue/San Fernando Road such that add8ional geometric improve- ments would not be necessary. 4.6. SR -14 SB ramps/San Fernando Road This intersection is projected to worsen form a V/C of 1.59 (LOS F) to 1.66 during the PM peak hour due to project - related traffic. In order to mitigate this impact, a third through land in the westbound direction would be needed to accommodate the projected traffic volumes exiting the northbound off -ramp. Implementing the mitigation would improve the projected V/C ratio to 1.23 during the evening peak hour. 4.7. SR -14 NB off-ramp/San Fernando Road This intersection.is projected to worsen from a V/C of 1.99 (LOS F) to 2.09 during the PM peak hour due to project - related traffic. Projected off -ramp volumes indicate a need for three lanes. This is probably not feasible. If three lanes were provided on the off -ramp, the projected evening peak hour V/C ratio would improve to 1.64. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita ilii Executive Summary Impact Category Potential Environ- mental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance with Mitigation Transpor- 5. Mitigation Measures for Reduced Project Area tation Alternative (continued) 5.1. I-5 off-ramp/Lyons Avenue This intersection is projected to worsen from a V/C of 1.26 (LOS F) to 1.27 during the PM peak hour due to project - related traffic. Implementing the proposed mitigation will improve the projected V/C ratio to 1.17 during the evening peak hour. 5.2. Orchard Village Road/Lyons Avenue This intersection is projected to worsen from a V/C of 0.91 (LOS E) to 0.95 during the PM peak hour due to project - related traffic. Future -year analysis of this intersection al- ready assumed that it would be fully built out. No additional geometric improvements are feasible. 5.3. Via Princesse/Circle J Ranch Road This intersection was assumed to contain two through lanes in the eastbound and westbound directions in the future. Under this configuration, the intersection would operate with a V/C of 0.82 (LOS D) and 0.85 without and with project - related traffic, respectively. Providing a third eastbound and westbound through lane would improve the projected V/C ratio to 0.63 during the evening peak hour. 5.4. Lyons Avenue/San Fernando Road This intersection is projected to worsen from a V/C of 0.94 (LOS E) to 1.01 (LOS F) during the PM peak hour due to project -related traffic. Railroad Avenue runs just east of San Fernando Road and just west of the MTA railroad tracks. This parallel facility to San Fernando Road is planned to be improved to become a two. or four -land upgraded roadway. This improvement will provide additional capacity along the San Fernando Road corridor in this area. Sufficient traffic should divert from San Fernando Road to Railroad Avenue to improve the projected operation of Lyons Avenue/San Fernando such that additional geometric improvements would not be necessary. 5.5.SR-14 SB ramps/San Fernando Road This intersection is projected to worsen from a V/C of 1.59 (LOS F) to 1.62 during the PM peak hour due to project - related traffic. Implementing the proposed mitigation would improve the projected V/C ratio to 1.20 during the evening peak hour. 5.6. SR -14 NB off-ramp/San Fernando Road This Intersection in projected to worsen from a V/C of 1.99 (LOS F) to 2.04 during the PM peak hour due to project - related traffic. Projected off -ramp volumes indicate a need for three lanes. This is probably not feasible. If three lanes were provided on the off -ramp, the projected evening peak hour V/C ratio would improve to 1.61. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project xiv City of Santa Clarita I i I u I I I A I I 1, I I I I I 1, lI I i FI i I a Executive Summary Impact Potential Environ- Significance Category mental Impact Mitigation Measures with Mitigation Transpor- Construction of street 6. Transit Compatibility of Development and Public Beneficial impact tation improvements and Improvement Projects. Each development project, street on transit ser - (continued) development projects widening or improvement project, and streetscape project vice, where transit -related will be reviewed with attention to the need for transit im- improvements are provements such as bus bays, transit shelters, waiting areas needed. and information systems; pedestrian access and circulation to transit; shuttle/circulator access and drop off/waiting areas; preferential HOV parking areas and other design aspects to.encourage use of public transportation and discourage use of individual motor vehicles. All major pro- jects and all projects along existing or anticipated transit or shuttle/circulator routes will be coordinated with MTA and other transit agencies as appropriate to ensure that project designs anticipate existing and future transit needs. Construction near 7. MTA and SCRRA Right -of -Way Impacts. All develop- Not significant MTA right-of-way ment projects and public improvements along the Metrolink rail lines will be coordinated with MTA to ensure that safety and operation of the rail line are maintained. Biological Potential for construc- 1. Each individual development proposal shall provide Less than signifi- Resources tion of public improve- setbacks, buffering , or any other features on sites cant ments within Santa within, adjacent to, or in close vicinity to natural riparian, Clara River drainage live oak, sage scrub, and other habitat, to the satisfac- channels. Future de- tion of the Director of Community Development. velopment may occur 2. Each individual development shall preserve natural on sites adjacent to riparian, live oak, sage scrub, or other habitat on the site natural habitat areas. as determined appropriate by the Director of Commu- nity Development. Any loss of habitat shall be compen- sated through the provision of habitat off-site or other measures determined appropriate and satisfactory by the Director of Community Development. 3. Any grading, construction, or other activity associated With public improvement projects and private develop- ment projects within the Santa Clara River drainage channels or easements shall be required to revegetate all graded and disturbed areas with native vegetation as determined appropriate by the Director of Community Development. Revegetation plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Community De- velopment. 4. The City will ensure that drainage improvements do not result in the elimination of watercourses or their channel- ization or conversion to subsurface drains, as deter- mined appropriate by the City in consultation with ap- propriate state and federal agencies. Al wetlands and watercourses, intermittent or perennial, shall be retained and provided with setbacks which preserve the riparian and aquatic habitat value and maintain their value to on- site and off-site wildlife populations. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarity acV Executive Summary Impact Potential Environ- Significance Category mental Impact Mitigation Measures with Mitigation Biological Potential for construc- 5. Each individual development shall incorporate native Less than Resources tion of public improve- species into landscape plans to the extent feasible. All significant (continued) ments within Santa landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval Clara River drainage by the Director of Community Development. channels. Future de- 6. The City shall continue to participate in the regional velopment may occur Santa Clara River Study. Upon completion of the study, on sites adjacent to the City shall implement the study's recommendations natural habitat areas. as appropriate. 7. All development is required to comply with the City's Oak Tree Ordinance and guidelines. Noise Construction noise will The following mitigation measures will reduce noise impacts Less than be generated near associated with construction of development projects, significant. sensitive receptors for public facilities, streets and utilities occurring within the some development Project Area. All projects must comply with the City's noise projects in the ordinance, which restricts the hours of construction. Newhall redevelop- 1. To the extent feasible, construction activities expected ment project area. to last two weeks or more will be screened from adja- cent noise -sensitive land uses with a solid barrier. 2. All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1000 feet of a dwelling unit, school, hospital or other noise -sensitive land use shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffler exhaust systems. 3. Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from occupied dwellings or other sensitive receptors. 4. Construction routes should be established where nec- essary and practicable to prevent noise impacts on sensitive receptors 5. Locations where widening of arterial streets is con- ducted adjacent to sensitive receptors located near the roadway and cumulative traffic increases will result in noise increases of 3 dB or more, sound insulation miti- gation will be evaluated for installation at th etime of street widening. If building construction of sensitive uses is such that sound insulation is determined to be necessary and appropriate to provide acceptable inte- rior noise levels, sound insulation to compensate for the noise increase resulting from traffic and street widening will be evaluated. If sound insulation mitigation is deter- mined to be feasible and justified based on the specific conditions, insulation will be made available at the op- tion of the owner of the sensitive use. Sufficient addi- tional sound insulation would normally be provided by improving weatherstripping, providing heavier doors, and by providing a second pane of glass or other win- dow material over single -pane windows. Traffic increases will 1. Projects involving major street widening and significant Less than increase noise levels increases in traffic volume will be required to mitigate significant along arterial streets impacts on existing sensitive receptors to the extent feasible. Residential develop- 1. Title 24 building code standards will provide acceptable Less than ment is permitted in noise levels for new residential construction in high- significant. high noise areas noise areas. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project xvi City of Santa Cladta I I [1 1 I I I I a I I Executive Summary ImpactPotential Category Environ- mental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance with Mitigation Public Project will generate 1. The Agency will pay pass-through revenue as estab- Less than Services - additional need for lished by law to school districts. The Newhall School Significant. Schools school facilities be- District and William S. Hart Union High School District yond those that can should utilize mandatory redevelopment tax increment be financed with de- pass-throughs to accommodate additional students by velopment impact adding portable classrooms or constructing permanent fees. facilities. 2. When applicable, the school districts should levy addi- tional fees above the state statutory limit or require additional mitigation measures for new residential devel- opment, and the maximum amount of developer fees for all industrial and commercial construction allowed by State law to help fund new or temporary facilities con- struction. 3. The school districts should continue to make regular and timely application to the State of California for fund- ing to construct new classrooms and other facilities in response to enrollment growth. 4. To the extent that alternate means of financing new schools are made available to the districts through changes in state law, the district will vigorously pursue these methods to provide adequate facilities to support enrollment growth. 5. The districts will use year-round schedules and double sessions as necessary and appropriate to maximize the capacity of existing facilities if funding is not available for new school or classroom construction. 6. The State of California should continue to finance con- struction of new schools and classrooms in response to enrollment increases. 7. The Redevelopment Agency will include public benefit projects which also benefit the school districts among the projects eligible for tax increment financing from the Newhall Redevelopment Project. Cultural Some properties in 1. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the City shall Less than Resources the project area may examine building records to determine whether a struc- significant. be of historical value; ture is 50 years or older and if so, whether such struc- the proposed project ture is of potential historic significance. For structures has the potential to determined to be of potential historic significance, the result in a significant City shall forward the application for a demolition permit impact on historic re- to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for sources. further evaluation. Based upon the SHPO's evaluation the City shall either issue a demolition permit, require the project proponent to provide archival documentation including photos and existing records pertaining to history and architecture of the structure(s) prior to de- molition, consider reuse and integration of such struc- tures) into the project, or implement any other recom- mendations of the SHPO as determined appropriate by the City. I Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita xvii 11 Executive Summary Impact Category Potential Environ- mental Impact Mitigation Measures Significance with Mitigation Parks and Additional recreation 1. The Agency and the City shall encourage proponents of Less than Recreation demand in project individual development projects to provide pocket significant area parks, mini -parks or other open spaces on-site for use by residents and/or employees. 2. The Agency will make recreational amenities and a permanent community center in Downtown Newhall projects eligible for tax increment financing. 3. Environmental Impacts That Are Less Than Significant (Section 15126 and 15128 of the State CEQA Guidelines) Geologic constraints; land use andplanning; population and housing: public services; utilities. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project xviii City of Santa Clorita I Executive Summury Alternatives to the Project The EIR considers a number of alternatives to the proposed project. These alternatives range from doing nothing to implementing alternative development strategies within the Newhall redevelopment project area. The discussion of alternatives may. be found in Section 4 of the EIR. The principal alternatives to the proposed project include the following: 1. "No Project" Alternative. The "No Project" alternative under CEQA has two aspects. First is the examination of existing conditions in the environment, and the impact on the environment if those existing conditions persisted into the future without any change. The environmental impact of this condition is the baseline against which the environmental effects of the proposed project and all other alternatives are to be measured. 1 Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarito xix I "No Project": Continuation of Expected Development under Current Regulations. The second "No Project" alternative considers the development that would be expected to continue in the Newhall redevelopment project area under the current General Plan and Zoning for the area. The implementation powers of the Newhall redevelopment project would not be enacted. In the absence of the redevelopment project, that development would be anticipated to be about 60% of the total development expected to occur under the proposed project by the year 2015. Without the tax increment funds for necessary public improvements, the implementation of the revitalization plan for Downtown Newhall would be severely constrained, or economically infeasible. 2. Reduced Project Area. The candidate project area would be reduced in accordance with the April 8, 1997 action of the Redevelopment Agency. The project area would be reduced to approximately 900 acres, or about 67% of the candidate project area. The areas not in immediate need of public action would be excluded. Potential net increase in development in the project area would be reduced to approximately 62 housing units, 0.95 million square feet of retail/commercial and 2.0 million square feet of business and industrial parks. 3. Development with Emphasis on Additional Employment. Under this alternative, maximum effort would be placed on creating additional employment through developing more research and development, business parks, and office, rather than lower employment -generating industrial parks. 4. Alternate Redevelopment Project Areas. The Newhall Redevelopment Project Area includes most of the physically and economically blighted areas in the City of Santa Clarita. The project area was developed as a result of evaluation of the areas of the City which are most blighted and in need of public assistance for revitalization, including Downtown Newhall. 1 Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarito xix I Executive Summary Alternative project areas could include a substantially smaller project area focusing only on the Downtown Newhall planning area. This area would include substantially less development potential than the proposed project and would not provide sufficient tax increment financing to support the improvements needed to revitalize the project area. A substantially larger project area was initially investigated. This area included additional areas to the east of the selected project area as well as substantial additional residential areas. The redevelopment candidate area was developed to focus this specific project on an integrated and related project area in need of revitalization. Areas of Controversy and Issues To Be Resolved To date, no major areas of controversy have been raised by the public or public agencies regarding environmental impacts associated with the proposed Newhall Redevelopment Project. Issues raised by public agencies during the Notice of Preparation review period primarily addressed mitigation for traffic, utilities and biological resources, preservation of the available railroad right-of-way, and measures to avoid conflict between traffic and train activity at rail crossings. Mitigation Monitoring Program In accordance with Section 21081.6 of CEQA, a mitigation monitoring program will be adopted by the Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency if the project is approved. The monitor- ing program is designed to ensure compliance with the measures in this EIR adopted by the City and the Agency. A mitigation monitoring program for the proposed Newhall Redevelop- ment Project is developed as a separate document, and is available for public review at the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project xx City of Santa Clarita I I I i I I U I I I I I Introduction This EIR is considered a Program EIR under the State CEQA Guidelines [Sections 15168 and 15180(b)]. It is an information document to be used by decision makers, public agencies, and the general public. It is nota policy document of the Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency or City of Santa Clarita about the desirability of the project or any of the potential alternatives discussed. The EIR makes a number of references to the City's 1991 General Plan and EIR for back- ground information about existing environmental conditions and overall impacts of develop- ment within the City. Where appropriate, relevant information in the General Plan EIR is summarized within this document. The General Plan and General Plan EIR may be obtained from the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. This EIR will be used by the Agency and the City in assessing impacts of the proposed project. Alternatives and mitigation measures identified in the EIR will be applied as appropriate to individual future projects within the Newhall redevelopment project area. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita xxi I Purpose of the EIR fThis environmental impact report (EIR) has been prepared to analyze the potential environmen- tal impacts associated with the proposed redevelopment plan for the Newhall Project Area in the City of Santa Clarita. The redevelopment plan is intended to revitalize the currently stagnant area by implementing the adopted Downtown Newhall Improvement Program, and assisting with other improvement and revitalization activities, consistent with land use designations of the City's General Plan. The EIR is intended to provide information to public agencies and the general public regarding the potential short-term and long-term impacts related to the project. Under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the purpose of an EIR "is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which significant effects can be mitigated or avoided." For the purpose of this EIR, the adoption and implementation of the proposed redevelopment plan is considered "the project " Because the redevelopment plan is an area -wide plan and financing mechanism L for revitalization and public improvement activities, however, the EIR examines all of the anticipated future development in the Project Area, whether or not it is attributable to redevel- opment activity. Certain potential redevelopment actions outside the project area, including affordable housing and public improvements, are also analyzed. This EIR is considered a Program EIR under the State CEQA Guidelines [Sections 15168 and 15180(b)]. It is an information document to be used by decision makers, public agencies, and the general public. It is nota policy document of the Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency or City of Santa Clarita about the desirability of the project or any of the potential alternatives discussed. The EIR makes a number of references to the City's 1991 General Plan and EIR for back- ground information about existing environmental conditions and overall impacts of develop- ment within the City. Where appropriate, relevant information in the General Plan EIR is summarized within this document. The General Plan and General Plan EIR may be obtained from the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. This EIR will be used by the Agency and the City in assessing impacts of the proposed project. Alternatives and mitigation measures identified in the EIR will be applied as appropriate to individual future projects within the Newhall redevelopment project area. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita xxi I r �J Introduction Contact Person The primary contact person is Glenn Adamick, Economic Development Associate, Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Mr. Adamick can be reached at (805) 255-4352 or (805) 255-4330. Legal Requirements I Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, an Initial Study was prepared for this project. The Initial Study concluded that the proposed project might have a significant effect on the environment. The Initial Study checklist and determinations are included in Appendix A and incorporated herein by this reference. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued by the Agency on January 31, 1997 in accordance with the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15082(a), 15103, and 15375. The NOP indicated that an EIR was being prepared and invited comments on the proposed project from public agencies and the general public. This EIR has been prepared in accordance with the CEQA (Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15000 et seq.), and in accordance with the City's local CEQA guidelines (Resolution 91-50). Public Review and Comment The Draft EIR is available for public inspection at the Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Reference copies of the report can be reviewed at the County branch Newhall library at 22704 West 9th Street. Organizations and individuals are invited to comment on the Draft EIR. Where possible, respondents are asked to provide additional information which they feel is not contained in the Draft EIR, or indicate where the information may be found. Following a 45 -day period of circulation and review of the Draft EIR, all comments and the Agency responses to those comments will be incorporated into a Final EIR prior to certification of the document by the City. Contents of the EIR I This EIR contains nine separate parts. The first two parts are this introduction and an executive summary. The Executive Summary briefly describes the project, the impacts associated with long-term project. implementation, and if needed, mitigation measures developed to reduce Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project xxii City of Santa Clarita I I Introdadion significant impacts.. Following the Executive Summary is Section 1, Project Description, which defines the project in detail. Section 2, Environmental Setting, describes general environmental conditions in the City and the project area, and the projeefs regional setting. Section 3, Environmental Impact Analysis, provides detailed descriptions of existing physical conditions for each area found to be potentially significant through the Notice of Preparation process (See Appendix A), analyzes impacts, and outlines the mitigation measures, if any, required to minimize impacts. Sections 4 through 6 address topics required by CEQA. Section 4 discusses alternatives to the proposed project, while Section 5 discusses long -tern and growth -inducing impacts related to the project: Section 6 lists issues of no significant impact. Section 7 lists the preparers of the EIR. Throughout this EIR, references and persons contacted are cited at the end of each EIR section. I I Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarito xxiii i� Appendix A contains the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the project, as well as comment letters received in response to the NOP. Other reference documents cited in the EIR are on file at Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency. Certain technical references used in the EIR which are not available at the City are available for review at Cotton/ Beland/ Associates 747 E. Green Street, Suite 400, Pasadena, California, 91101. Call (818) 304-0102 to make an appointment with Irena Finkelstein or Pat Mann to review these documents or for assistance in identifying other places where they may be found. Intended Uses of the EIR Information in this Program EIR can be used with subsequent environmental review for specific development proposals in the Newhall Project Area to determine whether a specific 1 project may have significant effects beyond those evaluated in this EIR, and to focus environ- mental documentation on any such new effects. Due to the general nature of the proposed redevelopment plan, some individual development proposals within the Newhall project area may require additional environmental review. Other uses of this EIR are listed in Section 1, Project Description. I I Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarito xxiii i� I 7.0 Project Description 1.1 Background In April, 1996, the Santa Clarita City Council gave conceptual approval to the Downtown Newhall Improvement Program, as developed by Freedman, Tung and Bottomley'. The plan identified a variety of funding sources for the revitalization program, including tax increment revenue that would become available by including portions of Newhall in a redevelopment project area. I Preliminary evaluation conducted by the City and by GRC Redevelopment Consultants resulted in the establishment of a Newhall Redevelopment Candidate Area. Preliminary evaluation resulted in the establishment of a Newhall Redevelopment Candidate Area as designated by the Planning Commission in 1996. This Candidate Area, consisting of approxi- mately 1,350 acres of land, is the primary project area analyzed in the Draft EIR. On April 8, 1997, as preparation of the Draft EIR was nearly complete, the Redevelopment Agency formally reduced the Candidate. Area boundaries. This reduced area includes approximately 900 acres, and corresponds to the boundaries of the "Reduced Area Alternative" analyzed in Section 4 below. This alternative will be analyzed in sufficient detail to allow it to be adopted as a redevelopment project area based on this EIR. This area will be further evaluated to determine whether the entire area or portions of the area will be established as a redevelopment project area. The project area ultimately approved is expected to be similar to the reduced project area alternative (Alternative 2) described on page 121 of the EIR. Area outside the Redevelopment Candidate Area cannot be included within a redevelopment project area 1 without re -initiating the redevelopment plan adoption process. This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) considers the environmental effects of the establish- ment of the entire Redevelopment Candidate Area as a redevelopment project area under California Redevelopment Law. The Candidate Area is illustrated in Figure 1 on page 2. 1.2 Location and Boundaries The proposed candidate Newhall Redevelopment Project Area is located in the southwestern part of the City of Santa Clarita. It encompasses the downtown Newhall area, the immediately surrounding residential neighborhoods, and the frontage properties on the three arterial streets providing access to the downtown area. These include Lyons Avenue to the I-5 Freeway, San Fernando Road north to Magic Mountain Parkway, and San Fernando Road south to the ' California 14 Freeway (see Figure 1). Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 1 I project Description 'North Figure 1 ■ rb 0 5,0ODfeet Project Location , Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project i City of Santa Clarito I LJ I iI I Int u Project Description 1.3 Existing and Surrounding Uses The proposed project is located within a developed, urbanized area. It is surrounded primarily by residential land uses and undeveloped hillside and canyon areas. The South Fork of the Santa Clara River runs in an open -bottom channel along the west side of San Fernando Road adjacent to the northern section of the project area. West of the Santa Clara River channel and north of the extension of the project area along Lyons Avenue is a single-family residential area. East of the project area is predominately undeveloped hillside areas: South of the project area along Lyons Avenue and San Fernando Road are some residential areas and undeveloped hillside areas. Placenta Creek and Newhall Creek drain into the South Fork of the Santa Clara River and pass through the project area near downtown Newhall. The candidate redevelopment project area includes a wide variety of land uses, including residential, strip commercial along major arterials, and industrial uses. Figure 3 on page 19 shows existing land uses within the project area. Based on information provided in the Preliminary Report for the Newhall Redevelopment Project,2 approximately 21% of the land is residential, 12% is commercial, 10% is industrial, 17% is public (including schools, utilities and flood control), 26% is currently vacant, and 13% is street rights-of-way. Vacant land includes parcels that have been developed in the past, parcels that are of irregular size and shape, and parcels that are integral to urban areas2. 1.4 Project Actions A redevelopment project under California Redevelopment Law is a comprehensive program for revitalization of a blighted area. The redevelopment plan has a number of required compo- nents. The effects of each component need to be considered in determining the project's environmental effects. The redevelopment plan and related actions will include: • land use plan, consistent with the General Plan. • An owner participation program, indicating how existing property owners and businesses in the project area will be given preference in future development in the project area. • A relocation program, indicating how the Agency will relocate businesses and residents who may be affected by Agency activities in the project area. • A five-year implementation plan containing Agency goals and a program of specific proposed actions and expenditures. • A low- and moderate -income housing program, indicating how the Agency will provide for replacement housing and will increase, preserve and improve the supply of low- and Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 3 i Project Description moderate -income housing. Not less than 20% of the Agency's annual tax increment revenues shall be set aside for such uses. Funds may be used anywhere in the city of Santa Clarita with appropriate agency findings. As required by California Redevelopment Law, the land uses designated in the Redevelopment Plan will be consistent with those called for by the City's General Plan. To assure continued conformity between the Redevelopment Plan and the General Plan, the Redevelopment Plan will be drafted so that the land use policy of the General Plan is incorporated by reference, and that in the event of an inconsistency between the General Plan and the Redevelopment Plan, the General Plan will govern. The City's zoning and General Plan are consistent, so no zone . changes are currently proposed to implement the Redevelopment Plan. The City's Housing , Element of the General Plan is expected to be amended to take advantage of the programs made possible by the Redevelopment Project. The Newhall Redevelopment Project will involve a number of subsequent actions over a long period of time to implement the redevelopment plan. These actions may include approvals required for development of land in the private development market, actions to acquire and , develop properties for public uses, construction of a wide variety of public improvements, public facilities and infrastructure, approval of agreements with owners and developers for the development of land in accordance with the plan, and other actions. 1.5 Project Objectives The objectives of the Newhall Redevelopment Project include the following, as outlined in the Preliminary Plane: I • Implement the revitalization goals and strategies identified in the Downtown Newhall Improvement Program (the "Freedman Plan"). • Provide for the various public improvements identified in the Downtown Newhall Improvement Program. • Provide for public improvements as needed to eliminate blight in those portions of the Project Area located outside of the immediate downtown Newhall area. • Using tax increment revenues set aside for housing, develop and implement housing programs as needed to meet the needs of very low, low- and moderate -income residents in the Project Area. • Provide for a general program of redevelopment incentives that will serve to eliminate blight and strengthen the commercial and industrial base in the project area, and thereby create lasting improvements to the community's tax and employment bases. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 4 City of Santa Clarita I I Project Description General objectives to be met in the project area based on the objectives of California Redevel- opment Law include the following: • Alleviate the causes and effects of blight. • Construct needed infrastructure improvements including, but not limited to, streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, sewer lines, water lines, drainage systems, and similar improvements needed to support the removal of blighting influences. I I I I I The proposed redevelopment project will be implemented as sufficient financial resources become available. The major feature of the project is an extensive program of possible public improvements and programs to correct existing deficiencies and provide adequate support for future development in the project area. The proposed project includes the public improvement and facility programs and projects listed in Table 1. Newhall Redevelopment City of Santa Clarita 5 Environmental Impact Report • Where appropriate, assist in the consolidation of lots or sites for the development of new uses or the relocation of existing uses in a manner that is consistent with the Downtown Newhall Revitalization Strategy and the Santa Clarita General Plan. • Promote improvements rehabilitation or other to privately owned buildings and properties in commercial, industrial and residential areas, that will expand the City's economic base and further reduce blight. • Improve, increase and preserve the community's housing stock through rehabilitation or other means. • Preserve and enhance the historical character of the project area as appropriate. 1.6 Public Improvements I I I I I The proposed redevelopment project will be implemented as sufficient financial resources become available. The major feature of the project is an extensive program of possible public improvements and programs to correct existing deficiencies and provide adequate support for future development in the project area. The proposed project includes the public improvement and facility programs and projects listed in Table 1. Newhall Redevelopment City of Santa Clarita 5 Environmental Impact Report Pyoied Description Table 1 List of Public Improvements Construct community theater in downtown Newhall Construct permanent community center in downtown Newhall Expand/rehabilitate library in downtown Newhall Reconstruct Newhall Park Community Building Various improvements to Newhall Creek as needed Various improvements to Placerita Creek as needed Potential recreation improvements on 90 -acre site east of San Fernando Road and north of 13th Street Improve trails and landscaping on Metropolitan Water District property Restroom improvements atCreekview Park Improve median on Sierra Highway (Placerita Canyon Road to City limits) Improvements as identified in the Santa Clarita Capital Improvement Program: • Construct landscaping improvements and median modifications as needed throughout the Project Area. • Install Lyons Avenue signal interconnect. • Construct transit maintenance and administration facility. • Construct Wiley Canyon Road bridge. • Construct the realigned Wiley Canyon Road (including drainage improvements). • Construct Newhall Metrolink Station and Transit Center • Improve Sierra Highway slope erosion • Construcl/repair curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and drainage improvements as needed throughout the Project Area. • Make various improvements to facilitate the Railroad Avenue Improvement Project • Make various spot repairs caused by Northridge earthquake • Construct crosswalks, median modifications, and walkways as necessary to enhance convenience and safety for pedestrians. Improvements as identified in the Freedman Plan • Various streetscape improvements on San Fernando Road and Lyons Avenue • Construct Gateway/Clock Tower • Construct Downtown Plaza • Various circulation improvements on Railroad Avenue • Various improvements to drainage, circulation, landscaping, building facades, parking and sewers as needed. • Improve road, landscaping, and facades at the East San Fernando Road entry. • Improve road, landscaping and facades at the West San Fernando Road entry. • Various improvements as part of the Lyons Avenue Improvement Plan • Rehabilitation of the Hart Plan Mansion • Construct 500 -space parking structure in Downtown Newhall. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project , 6 City of Santa Clarito I U I I I I I I 9 I I tJ I I I I I Project Description Improvement to public schools as necessary • Various drainage improvements (Hart High School through Newhall Park) • Restore auditorium (Hart High School) • Modernize buildings and facilities as needed (Hart High School, Newhall Elementary School, and Placerita Junior High School) • Improve library (Hart High School) • Construct cafeteria (Hart High School) • Convert existing structure to auditorium (Newhall Elementary School) • Various circulation improvements as needed for pedestrian safety (Hart High School, Newhall Elementary School, and Placenta Junior High School). • Construct sidewalks as needed (Placenta Junior High School). • Various parking lot improvements as needed (Hart High School, and Placerita Junior High School). • Various lighting improvements as needed (Hart High School, and Placerita Junior High School) • Provide infrastructure for energy plant (Hart High School) • Construct new tennis and handball courts with lighting (Hart High School) Construct curbs, gutters and sidewalks throughout the project area. Repair and replace sidewalks at specific locations identified in the Preliminary Report Construct miscellaneous street improvements, some of which may require roadway widening: • Add third through lane on San Fernando Road at Sierra Highway • Add third through land on San Fernando Road at Newhall Avenue • Add third through lane on San Fernando Road at 13th Street, and restripe as needed (one side) • Add third through land on San Fernando Road at Circle J Ranch Road, restripe as needed, and add right turn lane. • Add right turn lane on Wiley Canyon Road to Lyons Avenue (both sides). • Add second through land on Orchard Village Road at Lyons Avenue, and add right tum lane from Lyons Avenue to Valley Street. • Add second through lane on Newhall Avenue at Lyons Avenue, and add right turn lane from Lyons Avenue to Newhall Avenue. • Add third through lane on San Fernando Road at San Fernando Avenue (both sides). Construct sidewalks, curbs and gutters, medians, landscaping and bike lanes as appropriate at the following locations: • Lyons Avenue from 1-5 to eastern terminus. • San Fernando Road from Lyons Avenue to SR -14 • Newhall Avenue from San Fernando Road to Lyons Avenue • . Wiley Canyon Road from Calgrove Boulevard to Lyons Avenue • Calgrove Boulevard from 1-5 to 230 feet east of Creekside Drive • San Fernando Road from Magic Mountain Parkway to Lyons Avenue • Newhall Avenue from Lyons Avenue to 16th Street. Construct handicapped ramps throughout the project area as needed at locations identified in the Preliminary Report. Signalize the following intersections: • Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard • Lyons Avenue and Valley Street/Orchard Village Road (replacement) Construct the following parks: • South Fork River Park (near Orchard Village Road and the South Fork of the Santa Clara River • Newhall Creek Park between east Newhall and San Fernando Road. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 7 Project Description Acquire rights-of-way and construct the following multi-purpose trails: • Newhall Creek Trail (generally from Sierra Highway to the South Fork River Park). • Placerita Canyon/Hart Park Trail (generally from the Masters College to Hart Park). • South Fork River Trail Extension (generally from the South. Fork River Park to the intersection of Interstate 5 and Calgrove Boulevard. Construct Metrolink Station at Market Street and Railroad Avenue and adjacent to the present and future Pine Street. Implement related Railroad Avenue improvements. Construct the following bike paths: • Connection between the Soledad Canyon Metrolink Rail Station to the Newhall Metrolink Rail Station. • Lyons Avenue (may require street widening). • Wiley Canyon Road (may require street widening). • San Fernando Road (may require street widening). Undertake the following miscellaneous projects: • Construct the eastern extension of Lyons Avenue • Alleviate hill erosion at Meadowridge Drive • Improve irrigation drainage at San Fernando Road and Sierra Highway • Improve handicapped clearance at San Fernando Road and Sierra Highway • Improve flowline problem at Race Street across from 24257 • Construct trails as needed throughout the Project Area as identified in the General Plan • Make various improvements to the water distribution system as needed throughout the Project Area. • Underground utilities as needed throughout the Project Area. Changes in circumstances or design may alter the location of facilities described or may require other related facilities. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 8 City of Santa Clarita I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1-1 I I I I a 1 I Project Description 1.7 Development Anticipated Under the Newhall Redevelopment Project The land uses and intensity of development permitted at buildout in the project area under the proposed project will be no more than that contemplated under the General Plan. However, the redevelopment project would be expected to result in development of larger, more coordinated projects, and a somewhat more rapid pace of development and redevelopment than would take place without the use of redevelopment powers. One of the.purposes of the redevelopment project is to stimulate development in the project area and eliminate obstacles to development that prevent the area from achieving General Plan goals and building intensities. Potential development anticipated to occur in the 1,350 -acre candidate Project Area over the 30 -year life of the proposed redevelopment project includes I: • Development of approximately 500 new residential units, primarily on parcels designated for residential development, but also within mixed-use and commercial districts. • Development of a net increase in office, industrial, business park space of up to 2.5 million square feet of such uses, on opportunity sites and as replacement or infill in existing industrial and commercial areas. • Development of new retail commercial uses at commercial nodes and in Downtown Newhall with up to 1.0 million square of additional development. • Conversion of 20 to 50 pre-existing legal residential units to industrial and commercial uses in areas designated for industrial and commercial development. This conversion is expected to take place in the private development market without direct Agency involve- ment. The proposed plan does not permit the Agency to condemn property on which people reside, or to undertake projects which would displace a substantial number of low - or moderate -income persons. • Development of major circulation improvements, including a variety of intersection and roadway improvements. • Development of streetscape improvements along principal corridors within the project area. • Development of water, sewer, and drainage improvements to support the above develop- ment. • Development of public improvements outside the project area but which benefit the project area. • Construction or rehabilitation of housing citywide using housing setaside funds. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 9 n L! Project Description This anticipated development includes all development within the project area, not just the development induced through redevelopment actions alone. The new development will primarily infill vacant sites in the project area, which currently account for about one-fourth of the land area. In addition, some of the underutilized, old, obsolete, marginal, or incompatible uses are also anticipated to recycle to residential, commercial, and modem business and industrial park uses. Major opportunity sites for future development in the project area are illustrated in Figure 2. Public improvements included in the proposed projected are summarized in Table 1 on page 6. 1.8 Relation to Existing Plans a The redevelopment plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area proposes to adopt the City's General Plan land use designations for the project area by reference, so that the plan will always remain consistent with the General Plan. The redevelopment plan is consistent with, and is intended to implement in part, the 1996 Downtown Newhall Improvement Program. The City's zoning for the proposed Project Area is consistent with the City's General Plan, so no changes to zoning are proposed. 1.9 Uses of the EIR This Environmental Impact Report will be used by the City of Santa Clarita and the Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency, and other agencies as appropriate, to provide documentation required under the California Environmental Quality Act for the actions outlined in Table 2 on page 12. References 1. Preliminary Report for the Newhall Redevelopment Project. GRC Redevelopment Consultants. Draft, April 4, 1997. 2. Downtown Newhall Improvement Program. Freedman Tung & Bottomley. April 1996. 3. City of Santa Clarita General Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report. City , of Santa Clarita. 1991. I I Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 10 City of Santa Clarita H MMMW M M s M s M M M w yrs W r WA MM YYl Project Boundary r///A (1nnnAuniN Sitws ._ source: t,iry u aanca Marna ��r�,�� TNo(th I l�R) 0 i I ' (�(�IjZ000 feet Environmental Impact Report Vacantto M u lti-Fafflly Residentlal Figure 2 Opportunity Sites Newhall Redevelopment Project City of Santa Clarita project Description Table 2 Uses of the EIR Agency Activity Santa Clarita Formation of Newhall Redevelopment Project Area City Council Subsequent approval of various actions to adopt improvement plans, streetscape plans, design guidelines and standards, and other plans or pro- grams for Newhall Redevelopment Project Area. Subsequent approval of various actions necessary to construct individual public works and public facilities projects, including approval of plans and specifica- tions and advertising for bids. Subsequent approval of individual development projects consistent with the Newhall Redevelopment Plan, including necessary conditional use permits, design review approvals, zone variances, and other actions. Santa Clarita Adoption of Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area. Redevelopment Agency Approval of Owner Participation Agreements, Disposition and Development Agreements, Exclusive Rights to Negotiate, and other actions to encourage development in accordance with the Newhall Redevelopment Project. Acquisition and disposal of property for development in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area. Subsequent approval of various actions to adopt improvement plans, streetscape plans, design guidelines and standards, and other plans or pro- grams for the Project Area. Various City Implementation of public improvements, major mitigation measures, streetscape Departments improvements and other public works projects, and other projects, consistent with the Newhall Redevelopment Plan, Newhall School School facility improvements in and around the project area. District William S. Hart School facility improvements in and around the project area. High School District Metropolitan Improvements associated with the Newhall Metrolink Station and roadway Transportation projects that may affect rail lines. Agency/SCRRA Caltrans Approval of circulation improvements and mitigation measures involving Caltrans facilities. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project , 12 City of Santa Clarita I 2.0 Environmental Setting The Project Area is located in and around the Newhall area of the City of Santa Clarita. It includes areas adjacent to San Fernando Road from Magic Mountain Parkway to the Antelope Valley Freeway (State Route 14) and along Lyons Avenue and nearby areas from Interstate 5 to San Fernando Road. I The proposed project is located within a developed, urbanized area. It is surrounded primarily by residential land uses, and undeveloped hillside and canyon areas. The South Fork of the Santa Clara River, designated as a "Significant Ecological Area" (SEA) by LosAngeles County, runs in an open -bottom channel along San Fernando Road in the northern section of the project area. Placenta Creek and Newhall Creek drain into the South Fork and pass through the project area near downtown Newhall. Most of the biologically sensitive areas of the City are in undeveloped river or canyon bottoms and in hillside areas. The proposed project includes some sensitive habitat in river bottoms and adjacent areas. Most of these habitat areas are within public ownership for flood control purposes. The remainder of the proposed project area has been developed for many years with urban uses or used for agricul- ture, and does not include substantial undisturbed habitat. Some areas of habitat may exist on sites with development potential. The southern part of the project area is in a wildland fire hazard area because of the proximity of undeveloped hillside areas with natural vegetation. Because most of the project area has been urbanized for a number of years, it is served by a network of public facilities and utilities including streets, water and sewer systems, drainage facilities, schools, parks, and other public facilities. Some of these systems are old and may not be adequate to serve current or future development anticipated in the project area. Portions of the project area are subject to flooding, and drainage deficiencies, together with other deficiencies such as impacted roadways, limited parkland, and overcrowded schools. Santa Clarita is located in the South Coast Air Basin which has the worst ozone pollution problem in the United States. This problem results from low wind speeds and a normal temperature inversion which combine to trap the pollutants. Vehicular traffic is the major source of pollutant emissions in the Basin. tSanta Clarita is subject to severe ground shaking from earthquakes on a number of local faults. The San Gabriel Fault runs north of the north end of the proposed project area, but the City's General Plan identifies no active faults within the project area. Ground shaking from an earthquake on the San Gabriel fault or other faults affecting Santa Clarita, can result in slope and ground failure or liquefaction. Much of the northern part of the project area is on alluvial soils along the South Fork of the Santa Clarita River and has a high potential for liquefaction in the event of extended ground shaking. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 13 I Environmenfal Setting The primary sources of water for the City and the project are include the State Water Project and groundwater pumped from the upper alluvial aquifer. The groundwater resources rely heavily on groundwater recharge areas. The Santa Clara River and its tributaries serve as the primary groundwater recharge areas for the Santa Clarita Valley. Treated wastewater is currently discharged into the Santa Clara River just west of Bouquet Junction, and provides additional water recharge benefits as it flows west. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 14 City of Santa Clarito I [J 3.0. Environmental Impact This section of the EIR describes each of the potentially significant effects of the proposed project. Each environmental issue for which the Initial Study (Appendix A) identified a potentially significant impact, is discussed in greater detail to determine whether in fact impacts may be significant. Each impact category is discussed in four sections: 1. Environmental Setting. For each environmental issue, this section describes the existing conditions in the environment in the vicinity of the project, as it exists before the com- mencement of the project, from both a local and regional perspective. I I Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarito 15 I 2. Thresholds Used to Determine Significance of Impact. This section describes what level of impact is considered potentially significant for each environmental category. Significance is determined based on Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines, by reference local, state, federal or other standards which may be applicable to that impact area, by officially established thresholds of significance, and by reference to guidelines and standards established in the City's General Plan or General Plan EIR, or Resolution 91-50 (City of Santa Clarita Local Guidelines and Procedures for Implementation of the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended.) 3. Environmental Impact. This section discusses the potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed project. 4. Mitigation Measures. In the case in which impacts are determined to be potentially significant, mitigation measures are identified which -could avoid or reduce the potentially significant effects. This section may also discuss mitigation measures which are included in existing development standards or normal project review procedures which make project -specific mitigation measures unnecessary. 5. Level of Significance After Mitigation. This section indicates what effects remain after application of mitigation measures. I I Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarito 15 I i 3.1 Land Use and Planning Land Use and Planning impacts of a proposed project are project effects that would change the way land is now used for human activities, or would change the way land is proposed to be used. In addition, land use impacts may result if the project's existing or proposed land uses would conflict with nearby existing or proposed uses. I Environmental Setting The proposed project is located within a developed, urbanized area. It is surrounded primarily by residential land uses and undeveloped hillside and canyon areas. The project area is crisscrossed with flood control channels, railroad tracks, and various drainage, pipeline, and other easements, which both divide the area and constrain the pattern of existing land uses. The project area includes a wide variety of land uses. It includes the Downtown Newhall commercial core that is a remnant of the past "main street" shopping development, strip commercial development, and small shopping malls along major arterials. Much of the area was developed along arterials as commercial strips in a piecemeal fashion, without attention to long-term development of the area. Stagnant and deteriorating conditions are present in much of the existing commercial and industrial development, particularly in downtown Newhall and along San Fernando Road. Small parcels not well related to each other, frequent curb cuts, inadequate parking and loading areas, poor buffering between commercial and adjacent residential uses, incompatible mix of commercial industrial uses, vacant and underutilized parcels, and parking, circulation and other infrastructure deficiencies, characterize the project areal. Downtown Newhall commercial areas are surrounded by older residential neighborhoods on i modestly sized lots that are a mix of single family and higher density housing. Many of the residential buildings are old and display signs of deteriorations. OIn addition to Downtown Newhall, the project area includes three segments along major transportation corridors: south and north San Fernando Road and Lyons Avenue. The uses along the south San Fernando Road are primarily a mixture of strip commercial and industrial development on land between the Santa Clara River on the west and the railroad right-of-way along San Fernando Road to the east. San Fernando Road between downtown and Sierra Highway to the south is primarily developed with highway commercial uses. Industrial uses are concentrated along Pine Street and the northerly section of the San Fernando Road. Residential uses within this portion of the project area include homes interspaced with trailer and mobile homes parks. The portion of the project area on the southerly portion of Lyons Avenue frontage is primarily retail and office strip commercial development. Most of the ' northerly frontage is not included in the project area. Some residential areas behind the commercial frontage are included in the area. Public and institutional uses in the project Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarity 17 I Environmental Impact Assessment project area include elementary, junior high school, and senior high schools, churches, a fire station, flood control and utility facilities, and ride and park facilities. Only one park, the Newhall Memorial Park, is located within the project area. Figure 3 illustrates, and Table 3 summarizes, existing land use based on information provided in the Preliminary Report for the Newhall Redevelopment Project'. Of the total land area in , the project area, approximately 21% is residential, 12% is commercial, 10% is industrial, 17% w is public (including schools, utilities and flood control), 26% is currently vacant, and 13% is street rights-of-way. Table 3 Existing Land Uses in Project Area Land Use Dwelling Units Area (acres) Percent of Total Area Residential Single -Family .1,173 207.69 15.39% Multi -Family 1,450 55.42 4.11% Mobile Home 194 15.55 1.15% Total Residential 2,817 278.66 20.64% Nonresidential Commercial 147.02 10.89% Office/Professional 15.40 1.14% Mixed Residential/Commercial 0.35 0.03% Industrial 132.25 9.80% Public/Institutional 223.83 16.58% Agricultural 24.32 1.80% Currently vacant 348.96 25.85% Total Nonresidential 892.13 66.09% Total excluding streets 2,817 1,170.79 86.73% Streets 179.07 13.27% Total including streets 2,817 1,349.86 100.00% Source: GRC Redevelopment Consultants, Preliminary Report for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area, March 4, 1997. ' Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 18 City of Santa Clarita I �C;1 -412'1� Mgl 6 DETAIL AREA Source: GRC Redevelopment Consultants, Inc. 'North rm0 12,000Jeet Environmental Impact Report C� Project Boundary 10-01 Single -Family Residential l [W Milti-Family Residential Lie] Mobile Home Park EN Commercial INOffice/Professional Vacant Figure 3 Existing Land Uses Newhall Redevelopment Project City of Santa Clarita 19 School/Church/ Public/Institution ® Utility/Railroad/ Flood Control ® Agriculture Vacant Figure 3 Existing Land Uses Newhall Redevelopment Project City of Santa Clarita 19 Land Use and Planning Vacant land includes parcels that have been developed in the past, parcels that are of irregular size and shape, and parcels that are integral to urban areas. A survey by GRC Redevelopment Consultants) identified a relatively high incidence of maintenance problems with existing structures and other deficiencies. Some of the existing development has created incompatible land uses, including existing residential units located in industrial and commercial areas, , inadequate separation and buffering between residential uses adjacent to industrial and commercial uses, incompatible mix of uses within some existing commercial and industrial areas, and inadequate parking facilities. These incompatibilities are particularly present in the north end of the project area, south side of Lyons Avenue between Wiley Canyon and Wheeler Road, around Pine Street, and the south end of East Newhall'. Downtown Newhall is in a severely deteriorated state, including poorly maintained buildings, lack of parking, lack of streetscape, incompatible land uses, and an overall economic stagnation that manifests itself in lack of activity and decline of this commercial districtl,2. Threshold Used to Determine Significance of Impacts Land use impacts are considered significant if the proposed project will result in incompatible land uses within the Project Area, conflict with existing uses in the vicinity, or conflict with the City's land use plans. Environmental Impact Compatibility of Uses Future development anticipated to occur in the Project Area will primarily focus on infilling existing vacant and underutilized sites (see Figure 2 in Project Description). This development will be consistent with the General Plan land use designations and will be within limits established by the General Plan. Each individual development will be located in an area designated and zoned for such use. Potential residential development will occur in the areas designated for residential uses and for mixed residential and commercial uses. Commercial development will occur in areas designated for commercial uses, and modern business park and industrial park development will occur in the areas designated for such development, as shown in Figure 4. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 21 ' The changes that may occur as a result of redevelopment activity will be incremental and will not change basic patterns of land uses in the project area. Commercial and industrial develop- ment will continue along major arterials and in areas currently devoted to such uses, and residential neighborhoods will remain in residential use. Downtown Newhall is expected to revitalize into a cohesive modern commercial district with distinct specialty retail, entertain- _ ment, and other pedestrian -oriented uses. I I The potential residential development with up to 500 new multifamily residential units is anticipated to occur on vacant sites designated for residential uses such as land south of Via Princessa in the northern end of the project area and within mixed residential and commercial projects. The existing housing units located in industrial and commercial areas are anticipated to recycle to nonresidential uses over time. Additional affordable units may be built in the City from the redevelopment set-aside housing funds, or/and these funds could be used to preserve, rehabilitate, and improve existing affordable housing in the City and implement affordable housing programs. Twenty percent of the tax increment generated in the project area is required to be put aside into an affordable housing fund. Overall, the new development is anticipated to reduce existing land use incompatibilities and infill the project area with compatible land uses developed in accordance with current City Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarito 23 Land Use and Planning One of the major goals of the proposed redevelopment project is to stimulate new commercial activity in the project area. Over the 30 -year life of the proposed plan, the redevelopment I activity is anticipated to stimulate new private retail commercial development of up to one million square feet, and modern business park and light industrial development of up to 2.5 million square feet. The retail commercial uses are expected to develop in Downtown Newhall and at commercial nodes primarily in the southern end of the project area in the vicinity of State Highway 14, and in the eastern portion in the vicinity of Interstate 5. Business park and industrialpark development is anticipated to infill vacant sites in the northern portion of the project area above 13th Street, and in the area south of San Fernando Road and east of Pine Street. In addition, some of the existing obsolete, marginal, and incompatible industrial and commercial uses are also expected to recycle over time to modem and viable businesses serving the needs of the community, properly utilizing their sites, and consistent with the General Plan's objectives. ' Among areas anticipated to recycle to new uses is the site currently uses for stabling and exercising mules west of Wiley Canyon Road - anticipated for future development with commercial uses; obsolete commercial and some auto -related uses in Downtown Newhall anticipated to recycle to modem specialty commercial uses envisioned in the improvement plan prepared for the areaz; and some other obsolete or marginal uses within existing shopping plazas and industrial areas anticipated to recycle to modem commercial, office, and business and industrial park uses. The tax -increment revenue generated by this new development will be used to provide necessary public improvements, including circulation and other infrastruc- ture, to correct existing deficiencies and support this potential future development. ' The changes that may occur as a result of redevelopment activity will be incremental and will not change basic patterns of land uses in the project area. Commercial and industrial develop- ment will continue along major arterials and in areas currently devoted to such uses, and residential neighborhoods will remain in residential use. Downtown Newhall is expected to revitalize into a cohesive modern commercial district with distinct specialty retail, entertain- _ ment, and other pedestrian -oriented uses. I I The potential residential development with up to 500 new multifamily residential units is anticipated to occur on vacant sites designated for residential uses such as land south of Via Princessa in the northern end of the project area and within mixed residential and commercial projects. The existing housing units located in industrial and commercial areas are anticipated to recycle to nonresidential uses over time. Additional affordable units may be built in the City from the redevelopment set-aside housing funds, or/and these funds could be used to preserve, rehabilitate, and improve existing affordable housing in the City and implement affordable housing programs. Twenty percent of the tax increment generated in the project area is required to be put aside into an affordable housing fund. Overall, the new development is anticipated to reduce existing land use incompatibilities and infill the project area with compatible land uses developed in accordance with current City Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarito 23 Environmental lmpadAssessment standards. These standards include appropriate setbacks between residential and nonresidential uses, landscaping, buffering, provision of adequate parking, access and circulation on individ- ual sites, and limits on mass, height, and scale of structures. In addition, new development in , Downtown Newhall will comply with specific design and architectural standards established for this area as recommended in the improvement program adopted for the areal. To ensure high quality, appropriate, and compatible future development, the Agency and the City will encourage the following in evaluating individual development proposals for the project area: • Development which provides neighborhood -oriented commerce and services, to the extent feasible. Pedestrian -oriented uses in new development, and design that accommodates and encourages walking and transit use. • Common architectural and landscaping themes in new development to create visually attractive, and distinctive commercial areas. In particular, the development along San Fernando Road and Lyons Avenue will be encouraged to provide architectural design, building materials, and landscaping appropriate for serving as primary business and , transportation corridors in the City. • Provision of additional parking to address existing deficiencies. , • Improved buffers between residential uses and industrial and commercial uses. • Encourage quality, appropriately designed affordable housing that becomes an asset to the community. • Construction of adequate infrastructure to serve the project area and connect existing , disjointed or deficient improvements. , In addition, the Agency and City will make an effort to develop or assist in developing open space/parks, vest-pocket parks, and green spaces within the project area, to the extent feasible. , The implementation of the proposed redevelopment project is anticipated to result in beneficial effects of revitalizing the project area, reducing existing land use conflicts, and developing the area with compatible land uses, consistent with the long-term objectives of the City, and providing needed public infrastructure and facility improvements. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project ' 24 City of Santa Clarita I I I I I 1 I 1 1 I Land Use and Planning Compatibility with Surrounding Uses The development anticipated to occur in the project area over the life of the proposed redevel- opment project will not drastically change the basic patterns of land uses, and will not significantly affect existing uses in the vicinity. The potential new development will occur gradually over time, and each new development will be located within in an area designated and zoned for such use. The existing commercial areas will generally remain commercial and the residential neighborhoods will remain residential. Any future mixed residential and commercial projects will be located in areas designated for such uses in the General Plan, and thus, be compatible with the existing and planned mix of commercial and residential develop- ment in the vicinity. The redevelopment of some sites containing obsolete or incompatible industrial or commercial uses with modern retail, business park and office development in conformance with the City's land use policies and current development standards will benefit the project area, as well as the surrounding uses. The current standards will result in more landscaping, better architectural design and facade treatment, adequate buffering between uses, and adequate parking for employees and customers of the new development. Successful redevelopment in the project area will also create sufficient tax increment funds to implement public improvements in the project area, including the area -wide improvements in Downtown Newhall, which will benefit the surrounding uses as well. The potential for more open space/parkland in the project area, if realized, will benefit the residents of project area, the vicinity, and the community. Relation to Land Use Plans The proposed redevelopment plan conforms to the City's General Plan, proposes a consistent pattern of land uses, and includes all highways and public facilities as indicated in the General Plan, as it exists today or is amended in the future. Land uses allowed under the proposed redevelopment plan will be those permitted by the General Plan and City zoning ordinances as they exist today or are amended in the future. Development limits and standards established by the City's General Plan and zoning ordinances and any amendments thereto, including community design goals and policies for residential and commercial development, height, mass, setbacks, landscaping, parking, and others, will also govern all future development in the project area. In addition, future development in Downtown Newhall will be governed by specific design guidelines and standards established in the improvement program developed for this areal. The project provides the potential to develop a Transit Village Development Zone around the proposed Newhall Metrolink station. Adoption of such a zone would provide opportunities for mixed-use development related to transit, encouraged by the regional Congestion Management Plan. Establishment of such a zone would require additional evaluation and local and inter- agency review. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 25 Environmental Impact Assessment The project will assist in implementing the General Plan's objectives for downtown Newhall. Newhall is considered distinct from the rest of the community in both age and manner of development. The General Plan (Land Use Element, page L-34) indicates that "Special standards and revitalization efforts for this area may be appropriate to preserve and enhance the "old town" atmosphere, foster a pedestrian orientation with quality shopping opportunities and to capitalize on the tourist and recreational opportunities of Hart Park. Mitigation Measures The implementation of the proposed redevelopment plan will result in overall beneficial land use effects. No mitigation measures are required. References 1. Preliminary Report for the Newhall Redevelopment Project, GRC Redevelopment Consultants. March 4, 1997. 2. Downtown Newhall Improvement Program. Freedman Tung & Bottomley. April 1996. 3. City of Santa Clarita General Plan. City of Santa Clarita. 1991. 4. City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 26 City of Santa Clarita I I J 1 I I I I I I I I L I I 7 I I I I I I I I I I I 3.2 Population and Housing Environmental Setting The State of California Department of Finance estimated the population of Santa Clarita at 129,861 people as of January 1, 1996. Since 1990, the population has increased by 19,219 residents, translating to a 2.9 percent average annual growth rate. This rate of growth reflects the City as a fast growing residential community. The City of Santa Clarita lies within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region. The SCAG region covers the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. SCAG develops plans aimed at balancing growth within this large region of Southern California, to reduce air pollution and improve mobility on the region's roadways. The plans include growth management goals to balance jobs and housing so that people will not have to commute great distances to work. Extensive commuting by people living away from their place of work generates air pollution, worsening the existing poor:air quality and delaying compliance with the Clean Air Act standards. It also results in congested roadways and reduced mobility. Providing housing in jobs -rich areas and providing jobs in housing -rich areas are the plan's means of balancing the regional growth, reducing air pollution, and improving mobility. Santa Clarity community is characterized by large numbers of commuters and relatively long commutes to work outside the City, including the City of Los Angeles and other employment centers. According to the SCAG estimates, Santa Clarita is a housing -rich community with a jobs/ housing ratio of 0.99 in 1994, i.e. there are about 0.99 jobs for each housing unit. On the average, Los Angeles County has significantly more jobs per housing unit, and a jobs/housing ratio of 1.34 in 1994. By the year 2020, the jobs/housing ratio for Santa Clarita is projected to decrease to 0.89, which is significantly below the projected ratio of 1.42 jobs per housing unit in the SCAG region. Generally, residential uses in the project area include single-family units, multi -family housing, mobilehome and trailer parks. The project area currently contains approximately 2,817 housing units. A number of residential structures are old, many show signs of deterioration and disrepair, and a number of them are overcrowded.' Based on the average household size of 2.95 persons in 1996, the residential population in the project area is approximately 8,310 persons or about 6 % of the City's population. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarity 27 Environmental Impact Assessment Thresholds Used to Determine Significance of Impact Population and housing impacts are considered significant if the project will: 1. Induce substantial growth or concentration of population through provision of employ- ment or housing that is inconsistent with regional growth management plans; 2. Create demand for housing which exceeds available supply; or 3. Substantially reduce existing housing stock. Environmental Impact Impacts from Potential Commercial and Industrial Development The proposed redevelopment project is anticipated to stimulate up to one million additional square feet of retail and other commercial development, and up to 2.5 million square feet of business park and other light industrial development in the project area. The industrial uses will also include some office development, projected at about 102,000 square feet, or about 3% of the total new development. This future development could create approximately 9,400 new jobs in the project area over the 30 -year life of the proposed redevelopment project (see Table 4 below). Table 4 Potential Employment Generation Use Development (square feet) Employees/ 1000 sq. ft. Employees Retail Commercial 1,000,000 3.0 3,000 Busness Park/ Industrial Park 2,398,000 2.5 5,995 Office 102,000 4.0 408 TOTAL 3,500,000 9,403 Source: Employment estimates by building type from Economic Practices Manual, California Office of Planning and Research, 1984, and Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 28 City of Santa Clarito I I� 1 I I I I I Population and Housing The provision of this new employment is considered a beneficial impact. It will provide some of the needed employment opportunities for the City residents, help improve the City's balance between jobs and housing, and assist in the realization of the growth management goals for the region. It can also reduce demand on the transportation system by eliminating some commut- ing as the City residents take advantage of employment opportunities in the project area. The proposed new Metrolink station within the project area in the area proposed for business park development will further support non -roadway transportation. With the existing need for employment within the City, the new jobs in the Project Area are expected to be filled primarily by the residents of Santa Clarita. Residents of surrounding communities located within a commuting distance from the Project Area, are also expected to take advantage of these job opportunities. Therefore, no substantial migration of people into the City from outside the Los Angeles County region is anticipated to occur as -a result of these new employ- ment opportunities. Additional development with up to 500 housing units in the project area, will provide housing opportunities if some employees were to move to Santa Clarita from other regions. Therefore, and this impact is considered less than significant. The proposed redevelopment plan is consistent with the City's General Plan. The employment that could be generated under the proposed redevelopment plan is an element of the city-wide growth in employment projected under the General Plan buildout. In tum, the General Plan projections are utilized in developing the SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan. Thus, the employment growth anticipated to occur under the proposed redevelopment plan is consistent with regional growth plans. This is considered a less than significant impact. Impacts from Potential Housing Development and Activity The proposed redevelopment project could result in a development with up to 500 new multi- family units within the project area. The existing legal nonconforming 20 to 50 housing units located in industrial and commercial areas are anticipated to recycle to other uses over time, without any direct Agency actions. The set-aside housing funds generated in the project area could also be used for revitalization and rehabilitation programs for existing deteriorated affordable housing and for additional affordable housing in or outside the project area. In accordance with the state law, 20 percent of tax increment generated in the project area will be set-aside for development, rehabilitation, and improvements of affordable housing. Most of the tax increment revenue, and hence, the housing set-aside fund, will be generated by new commercial and industrial development anticipated to occur in the project area. Overall, the proposed project will result in a beneficial effect on the City's existing and future stock of affordable housing. The provision of additional housing in the project area will have the potential to increase residential population in the project area by approximately 1,505 persons, based on the SCAG's projection of 3.01 persons per household for Santa Clarita by the year 2020. This potential housing growth and the resultant population growth, is an element of the projected buildout potential under the General Plan land use designations. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 29 Environmental Impact Assessment Impacts of this housing development will be distributed in relatively small projects over a substantial period of time and will not be concentrated in large projects. Impacts of housing development and population growth include local construction impacts, traffic, noise, and school demand. These impacts are discussed under those topic areas in the environmental impact and cumulative impact sections of this EIR and in the City's General Plan and General Plan EIR. The proposed Project Area includes an estimated 194 dwelling units in mobilehome parks. These parks may be converted to other land uses over the life of the project without any direct Agency action. State law provides protections to mobilehome owners when parks are closed. In addition, redevelopment law requires the Agency to replace low- and moderate -income dwelling units lost as a result of the redevelopment project. Mitigation Measures The proposed project will result in a beneficial impact of providing employment for residents of Santa Clarita and surrounding communities, and providing additional housing, including affordable housing, in the City. The proposed redevelopment project is consistent with the City's General Plan and will not result in either population or housing growth beyond the limits established by the General Plan. No mitigation is required. References 1. City of Santa Clarita General Plan and Environmental Impact Report, City of Santa Clarita, June 1991. 2. Santa Clarita Community Development Department. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 30 City of Santa Clarita I I I 11 I F, I I I I.1 I I Cl I I [J I I I Cl I I n I I I 3.3 Environmental Hazards Geological Impacts Geologic Impacts - Environmental Setting The entire Southern California region is a seismically active area with the abundance of active, potentially active, and inactive fault traces that traverse the region. No known active faults traverse the project area, and no Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones are identified in the area in the Seismic Safety Element of the City's General Plan. Potential geologic hazard present in the project area is ground liquefaction along the South Fork of the Santa Clara River in the northern portion of the area in the event of a major earthquake along major faults affecting Santa Clarita. According to the City of Santa Clarita Seismic Safety Elements, these faults are: • Big Pine • Garlock • Malibu -Santa Monica -Raymond Hill • More Ranch • Newport -Inglewood • Oak Ridge • Pleito • San Andreas • San Cayetano • Santa Ynez • Simi -Santa Susana-Northridge-San Fernando • Sierra Madre -Cucamonga • White Wolf • Whittier -Elsinore The Stevenson Ranch Fault has recently been identified by the State of California as an Alquist-Priolo special study zone. Portions of the project area along the South Fork of the Santa Clara River are constrained by high liquefaction potential. Liquefaction is the sudden loss of soil strength that occurs when loose, cohesionless, water saturated soils are subjected to strong seismic ground motion. Structures built on these soils tilt or sink when the soils liquefy. Liquefaction occurs in earthquake -prone areas underlain by alluvium where the ground water table is less than 50 feet below the surface. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 31 Environmental Impact Assessment Geologic Impacts - Thresholds Used to Determine Significance of Impact Impacts are considered significant if existing geologic conditions will substantially constrain ' the development anticipated to occur under the proposed redevelopment project by exposing people or property to substantial hazards seismic hazards, particularly the liquefaction hazards. ' Geologic Impacts - Environmental Impact ' Future development in the project area will increase the number of people working or living within a seismically active area. However, all new development, rehabilitation, and improve- , ments in the project area will be constructed in to meet or exceed current seismic safety requirements for earthquake -resistant design and construction contained in the most current Uniformed Building Code. These existing requirements together with the available established ' engineering techniques for construction in seismically active regions, will provide adequate protection. Overall, the proposed project could result in an increased level of seismic safety as new or rehabilitated structures gradually replace older buildings not equipped with current safety features The liquefaction constraints in the project area can be overcome with established standard ' engineering techniques. These techniques include filling, overexcavation, recompacfion, and stabilization of loose surficial, liquefaction -prone sediments occurring on a development site to , appropriate City standards to reduce liquefaction potential. Structural engineering design and construction techniques include specific calculations for foundations, slabs -on -grade, frictional and lateral coefficient, settlement considerations, retaining walls, and other measures tailored ' to individual sites and developments. Since liquefaction hazards depend on many factors including site-specific geotechnical conditions, the type of development proposed on a given parcel, and the intensity of groundshaking from an earthquake, site-specific geotechnical studies will be required of individual developments proposed within the liquefaction areas as determined appropriate by the City Engineer. The compliance with these existing requirements will reduce liquefaction hazards to an acceptable level of safety, and this impact is considered ' less than significant. The recent Northridge earthquake resulted in substantial damage in Santa Clarita, but resulted ' in few injuries in the City. Geologic Impacts - Mitigation Measures Impact will be less than significant and no mitigation is required. A Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project ' 32 City of Santa Clarito 1 I u 1 Irl I E] 1 I 11 1 I I Environmental Hazards Flooding Flooding - Environmental Setting Flooding is a natural attribute of any river or stream. Factors affecting the size and frequency of floods include the amount, intensity, and distribution of rainfall; soil conditions prior to storms; vegetation coverage within a watershed; and stream channel conditions. The City of Santa Clarita is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Administration (NFIA) program through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The NFIA program provides federal flood insurance subsidies and federally financed loans for property owners in flood -prone areas. A portion of the Plan Area is identified by FEMA as a Flood Hazard Area. To qualify for federal flood insurance, the City must identify flood hazard areas and implement a system of protective controls. The protective controls include stipulations regarding land uses within the designated floodplain and floodway. Encroachment is permitted within the floodway fringe, or that area in which encroachment would raise the flood level a total of up to one foot. To develop in this area, however, a structure's lowest floor elevation must be one foot above the highest estimated flood elevation. Development is prohibited within the floodway, unless encroachments would not obstruct flows and would not result in increased flood levels. The following portions of the project area are exposed to flooding: • East of San Fernando Road in East Newhall • East of San Fernando Road, north of 12th Street • West of San Fernando Road, near 16th Street • Near San Fernando Road and Sierra Highway • West of Wiley Canyon Road, south of Wabuska Street • Near Vermont Drive and Everett Drive, South of Powell Drive Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 33 F_ L. Environmental Impact Assessment , Flooding - Thresholds Used to Determine Significance of Impact Flooding impacts are considered significant if development occurs within designated 100 -year , flood zones for lakes, rivers, or major drainage channels without appropriate mitigation, or if development outside of the mapped flood zones could be significantly damaged by flooding ' from a greater than 100 -year event. Flooding - Environmental Impact Portions of the project area lie in within the designated 100- or 500 -year flood zones. Any ' development that may occur within the designated flood zones will be subjected to the potential risk of flooding during severe storms. Development in the vicinity of the South Fork of the Santa Clara River may require culverts, curbs and gutters, raised pad elevations, or other ' drainage features to reduce this impact. Future development on currently vacant sites in the project area will increase the amount of ' impervious surfaces by constructing buildings, streets, sidewalks, etc. This will result in increased rate and amount of runoff during storms. Water which would otherwise infiltrate ' into the soil will instead enter drainage channels, thereby increasing runoff levels and reducing flood protection capabilities. Development of vacant sites will increase the amount of impervious surface in the project area by up to 25 percent by developing up to 373 acres of ' land that currently contains very little impervious surfaces. Major projects may be required to retain runoff water, and all new development will construct all necessary drainage facilities and pay appropriate hookup fees to regional and local drainage facilities. In addition, the proposed ' project includes extensive programs of public improvements to existing drainage facilities serving the project area to correct existing deficiencies and adequately support future develop- ment. The proposed improvements include improvements to Newhall Creek and Placerita ' Creek, drainage improvements near schools, curbs and gutters to control local drainage, and other drainage improvements that may be needed throughout the project area. However, since future development will increase the rate and volume of runoff and locate new ' structures within the designated flood zones, this impact is considered potentially significant. Flooding - Mitigation Measures ' All projects in the City are required to provide satisfactory site drainage to the storm drainage system and to pay a portion of regional improvements at the time of development. The ' following additional mitigation measures will reduce potential flooding to less than significant levels. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 34 City of Santa Clarita I I I 1 1 11 I Environmental Hazards 1. Prior to issuance of precise grading permits for any property wholly or partially located within the Flood Hazard Area designated by FEMA, developers shall furnish to the City Engineer documentation required by FEMA for revision to the Flood Insurance Rate Map, and pay all preliminary and subsequent fees as required by FEMA. 2. All development proposed within a designated flood zone shall utilize design and site planning techniques that ensure that structures are elevated at least one foot above the Flood Hazard Area, and as provided for in the City's Floodplain Management policies. 3. All projects which modify the configuration of any of the floodways in the City shall submit a report prepared by a qualified hydrologist to the City Engineer, County Public Works Department, and their agencies as appropriate. The report will analyze potential effects on downstream and upstream properties, and on the channel characteristics of the stream for developments proposed in the floodplain. Recommendations of the report shall be implemented as determined appropriate by the City Engineer. 4. Flood control channels, storm drain improvements, and other drainage facilities will be constructed throughout the project area as needed, to the extent federal, state, City and redevelopment funds are available. Flooding - Level of Significance After Mitigation With implementation of these mitigation measures, flooding hazards will be lessened compared to existing conditions Hazardous Materials Hazardous Materials - Environmental Setting The risks associated with the release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident or disaster, and accidental'releases of hazardous substances during use or transport of in the event of upset conditions are discussed in this section. Hazardous materials can be classified into four basic categories: toxins, corrosives, reactives and ignitables. Toxins include a broad range of industrial chemicals and agricultural pesticides that may cause serious illness or death to humans. Corrosives can cause inflammation or destruction of living tissue with mild to severe effects, depending on the degree of exposure and material involved. Reactives can produce rapid chemical reactions causing damage from blast and flash fire. Ignitables pose the threat of combustion at low ignition temperatures and rapid burning properties. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 35 Environmental Impact Assessment The Newhall Redevelopment Project area is currently developed with a variety of land uses, including light and heavy industrial facilities, commercial, office, and residential uses. The majority of the industrial uses are located along San Fernando Road in the proposed project area. Some of the uses, such as gas stations, auto repair shops, and industrial facilities may use, store, transport, or produce hazardous materials. Some properties may have underground storage tanks which could constitute a hazard in the event of a leak. Also, some properties in the project area may have contaminated soils related to past use and/or storage of hazardous materials'. The following hazardous material sites, identified by the Environmental Protection Agency under the National Priorities List, are located within the project area: Keysor-Century located at 26000 Springbrook Road is a Polyvinyl Chloride manufactur- ing plant. This site has been classified as a high priority site by the EPA. Vinyl resins, ethylene dichloride (EDC) and vinyl chloride monomer (VCM) are used and manufac- tured at the site. • Thatcher Glass Manufacturing Company is located at 25655 Springbrook Road and was a medium priority site in the planning area from 1958 until 1985. During its years of operation the company experienced several hazardous waste problems such as discharge of hazardous cooling water and illegal discharge of industrial waste. HASA Chemicals, Inc. is located at 23119 Drayton Street and classified as a low priority site. Its original location at 25950 N. Springbrook Street was near the present Keyser - Century facility where it operated from 1964 until 1972. NASA manufactures, packages, and distributes swimming pool chemicals. The only product manufactured on-site is sodium hypochlorite. The company has a history of poor hazardous materials handling practices both on- and off-site. On-site problems include uncontrolled spills of rinse water contaminated with residual chemicals from bottle rinsing, small discharges of chemicals from broken railroad tank car connections, leakage from holding tanks, and discharges to cesspool or septic tanks. Off-site problems include spills occurring in transit, illegal dumping of brine in a Los Angeles sewer manhole, and chlorine gas releases. The proposed project is expected to result in the recycling of some of these old and obsolete industrial uses to "clean" and modem industrial uses in the long term. The new industries may, however, use some hazardous substances. The transport of hazardous materials and explosives through the project area is regulated by the State Department of Transportation. Interstate 5 at the west end of the project area, SR -14 at the southeast end, and SR -126 (San Fernando Road) through the Plan Area between its north and southeast ends are open to vehicles carrying hazardous materials. The Southern Pacific Railroad also transports hazardous materials through the project area, on tracks parallel to San Fernando Road. The danger of hazardous material spills during transport exists and will Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 36 City of Santa Clarita 11 I 1 1 A I 1 Irl 1 11 I 1 1 Environmental Hazards increase as industrial development in the planning area increases. The Los Angeles County Fire Department is responsible for hazardous materials accidents. Fire stations serving the project area are responsible for cleanup and evacuation procedures. Hazardous Materials - Thresholds Used to Determine Significance of Impact Impact from hazardous materials are considered significant if the project will result in: Unusual or unique risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset conditions; 2. Possible interference with an emergency response or emergency evacuation plan; 3. Creation of unavoidable health hazards or exposure of people to substantial potential health hazards beyond those which currently exist; and/or 4. Location of potentially hazardous facilities in proximity to sensitive receptors such as schools, day care facilities, hospitals and convalescent homes. Hazardous Materials - Environmental Impact The proposed project will result in development with modem industrial and business parks and the recycling of some obsolete or marginal existing to "clean" modem industrial and commer- cial uses. This change is anticipated to result in a reduction of hazardous materials risks in the project area, as well as in better buffering from residential and other sensitive uses in the vicinity. All development in the project area will be required to provide adequate setbacks and other buffering as determined appropriate by the City, in compliance with current development standards required of all new development. In addition, redevelopment provides additional powers to the Agency that can be used to abate existing hazards within the project area. With redevelopment, the cleanup of existing contamination will be accelerated, since the proposed project is expected to induce a more rapid recycling of obsolete and marginal uses, including some industrial and auto -related uses that may have contaminated sites with hazardous materials. The Agency's redevelopment powers can be used to assist in the cleanup of hazardous materials and abatement of such environmental hazards. A Phase I environmental assessment was conducted for the Metrolink project site. This assessment identified the potential for contamination of the site. Prior to development, a Phase II assessment will be required to characterize the nature and extent of such contamination. If contamination is found, the City's Transit Division will remediate the site to applicable health and safety standards prior to construction. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarito 37 Environmental Impact Assessment Therefore, the proposed project is anticipated to result in a beneficial impact by reducing the use and production of hazardous materials, as well as the risk of accidental release of such materials, within the project area. Nevertheless, some hazardous materials will be used or generated by businesses in new industrial parks. The County Fire Department, which is responsible for handling emergency responses, has a five -person hazardous materials squad operating from Station 76 that will respond to calls from the project area. This unit may need additional staff and equipment to serve the development anticipated to occur under the proposed project. Impacts on the County fire protection services and mitigation measures are discussed in Section 3.8 - Public Services. Ensuring the provision of adequate fire services and implementing other existing City requirements will adequately lessen the potential hazards. These standard requirements include: 1. Prior to new development, each development site will be assessed for the possible presence of contaminated materials. The level of inquiry will be commensurate with the current and former activities of a particular site. Where site contamination is identified, an appropriate remediation strategy will be implemented prior to project approval. The remediation activities will be performed by qualified and licensed professionals and all work will be performed under the supervision of the appropriate regulatory oversight program. 2. Individual developments will be required to meet the City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code requirements, including those of the Public Works Department and/or the Fire Department regarding chemical and hazardous materials storage, if any, including containment provisions, as well as any requirements to obtain an Industrial Waste Discharge permit or a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Industrial Storm Drain permit as appropriate. Continued implementation of existing City programs intended to minimize the risk and impact of environmental incidents and accidents in the project area, will minimize the potential impact associated with additional human activity in the area. Also, implementation of redevelopment activities that could reduce potential human exposures to hazardous material through structural rehabilitation, business relocation, or other means will further minimize potential hazards. State and federal requirements increase the level of safety and protection from an accident involving the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials on the freeways and rail lines, including the I-5 Freeway, Highway 126, Highway 14, and Southern Pacific Railroad. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), through the National Safety Standards, is the primary regulatory authority for the interstate transport of hazardous materials by highways and rail lines. The DOT regulations establish criteria for safe handling procedures, personnel qualifications and training, inspection, and equipment specifications. The railroad transport of hazardous materials is regulated by several federal and state agencies which define specific safety procedures, equipment specifications, and emergency measures and procedures. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 38 City of Santa Clarita I 11 I 1 [J F C 11 1 Environmental Hazards Development anticipated to occur in the project area will consist of typical modern light industrial, business park, commercial, and office uses, which are not expected to create any unique or unusual hazards. To ensure that truck transport of hazardous materials through the City does not create unusual hazards, the City will periodically review truck routes used for transport of hazardous materials through the City, and amend the routes as necessary to. minimize the risk of human exposures to hazardous materials in the event of an accidental spill. Hazardous Materials - Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure is included in the proposed project to mitigate the potential for adverse impacts on people of the potential contamination identified on the Metrolink site: On sites that may have been contaminated by prior uses, a Phase I hazards assessment will be conducted to determine the potential for contamination of the site by materials that may result in health or air or water pollution problems. For sites on which contamination is identified, such as the Newhall Metrolink site, a Phase II assessment will be required to characterize the nature and extent of contamination that has been identified at the Newhall Metrolink site. If contamination is found, the appropri- ate party will be required to remediate the site -to applicable health and safety standards prior to construction. The City's Transit Division will manage mitigation for the Metrolink site. Hazardous Materials - Level of Significance After Mitigation Environmental hazards impacts will be less than significant. References 1. Safety Element. City of Santa Clarita General Plan. 1991. 2. Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. Michael Brandman Associates. 1991. 3. Negative Declaration, Construction of Metrolink Station and Reconstruction of Railroad Avenue, City of Santa Clarita, April, 1997. 4. City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 39 I 3.4 Air Quality Environmental Setting ' The City of Santa Clarita lies within the boundaries of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The South Coast Air Basin is a 6,600 -square mile area bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto mountains to the north and east. The I 1 1 I 1 1 1 Basin includes the non -desert portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties, as well as all of Orange County. The Basin is a physical unit which, due to low wind speeds and a prevailing inversion layer, retains pollutants for substantial periods. The slow dispersal of pollutants results in high concentrations of primary pollutants including carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and particulates. It also supports the formation of ozone as hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen combine in sunlight. The combina- tion of these meteorological conditions and the pollutant emissions from one of the world's largest metropolitan areas has created the most difficult air pollution problem in the U.S. The Basin is a non -attainment area for national ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide and particulate matter.. Although continued reductions in pollutant concentrations are expected, the Basin is not expected to meet the air quality standard for ozone at any time in the foreseeable future. The air pollution problem is described in greater detail in the South Coast Air Quality Manage- ment District's CEQA Air Quality Handbook, May 1993, with November 1993 update, incorporated herein by reference. Air Quality Standards The State of California and the federal government have established air quality standards and emergency episode criteria for various pollutants. These standards are used to determine attainment of state and federal air quality goals and plans. Generally, state regulations have stricter standards than those at the federal level. Air quality standards are set at concentrations which provide a sufficient margin of safety to protect the public health and welfare. Episode criteria define air pollution concentrations at the level where short-term exposures may begin to affect the health of a portion of the population especially susceptible to air pollutants. The health effects are progressively more severe and widespread as pollutant concentrations increase. The current applicable state and federal standards for the most important pollutants are presented in Table S. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 41 Environmental Impact Assessment Table 5 Air Pollution Sources, Effects and Standards Air Federal Pri- Pollutant State Standard mary Standard Sources Primary Effects Ozone 0.09 ppm, 1 -hr, avg. 0.12 ppm, Atmospheric reaction of Aggravation of respiratory and (03) 1 -hr. avg. organic gases with nitro- cardiovascular diseases, irritation of gen oxides in sunlight eyes, impairment of cardiopulmonary function, plant leaf injury Carbon 9.0 ppm, 8 -hr. avg. 9 ppm, 8 -hr. Incomplete combustion Reduced tolerance for exercise, Monoxide 20 ppm, 1 -hr. avg. avg. of fuels and other impairment of mental function, (CO) 35 ppm, 1 -hr. carbon -containing sub- impairment of fetal development, avg. stances such as motor death at high levels of exposure, vehicle exhaust, natural aggravation of some heart diseases events, such as decom- (angina) position of organic mat- ter Nitrogen 0.25 ppm, 1 -hr. avg. 0.053 ppm, ann. Motor vehicle exhaust, Aggravation of respiratory illness. Dioxide avg. high-temperature sta- reduced visibility, reduced plant (NO2) tionary combustion, at- growth, formation of acid rain mos heric reactions Sulfur 0.25 ppm, 1 -hr, avg. 0.03 ppm, ann. Combustion of sulfur- Aggravation of respiratory diseases Dioxide 0.05 ppm. 24 -hr, avg. avg. containing fossil fuels, (asthma, emphysema), reduced lung (SO2) with ozone > = 0.10 0.14 ppm, 24- smelting of sulfur -bear- function, irritation of eyes, reduced ppm,1 hr, avg. or TSP hr, avg. Ing metal ores, industrial visibility, plant injury, deterioration of > = 100 ug/m3, 24 -hr. processes metals, textiles, leather, finishes, av . coatings, etc. Fine 30 ug/m3, annual 50ug/m3, an- Stationary combustion Reduced lung function, aggravation Particulate geometric mean nual arithmetic of solid fuels, construc- of the effects of gaseous pollutants, Matter > 50 ugA-0, 24 -hr. avg. mean tion activities, industrial aggravation of respiratory and (PM10) 150 ug/m3, 24- processes, industrial cardio -respiratory diseases, in - hr. avg, chemical reactions creased cough and chest discom- fort, soilin , reduced visibility Lead 1.5 ug/m3, 30 -day avg. 1.5 ug/m3, cat- Contaminated soil Increased body burden, impairment endar quarter of blood formation and nerve con- duction Visibility Sufficient to reduce vi- Visibility impairment on days when Reducing sual range to less than relative humidity is less than 70 per - Particles 10 miles at relative hu- cent midity less than 70%, 8 - hour avg 9am - 5 m . Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, May 1993 with November 1993 update. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 42 City of Santa Clarita I I 1 1 1 1 I Air Gualily Sources of Emissions Air pollution forms either directly or indirectly from pollutants emitted from a variety of sources. These sources can be natural, such as oil and tar seeps, vegetation, or windblown dust or salt spray. Emissions may also result from combustion, as in automobile engines; from evaporation of organic liquids, such as those used in coating and cleaning processes; or through abrasion, such as tires on roadways. Motor vehicles are the largest generator of air pollutant emissions in the South Coast Air Basin. Heavily traveled streets in the vicinity of the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area include the Golden State Freeway (Interstate 5), State Route 14 Freeway, San Fernando Road, Newhall Avenue, and Lyons Avenue. To a lesser extent stationary sources, such as gas stations, auto painting and repair, and other industrial uses located within the project area also contribute to local emissions. 1 Monitored Air Quality 1 The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) monitors air quality throughout the Basin from a series of monitoring stations. A monitoring station is set up in the City of Santa Clarita. According to the SCAQMD monitoring data, maximum recorded concentra- tions for the monitored air pollutants fluctuated between 1991 and 1995. Generally, air quality improved between 1991 and 1993, but worsened between 1994 and 1995. I 1 I I C [1 1 I 1 Tables 6 and 7 summarize the number of days both state and federal standards for carbon monoxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and particulates were exceeded between 1991 and 1995. Both Ozone and PMto were recorded to have exceeded state and federal levels for a large number of days. Sensitive Receptors and Health Considerations High concentrations of air pollutants pose health problems for the general population, particu- larly young children, the elderly, and the sick. Thus, areas where these people congregate are considered sensitive receptor areas. Examples of sensitive receptor areas include schools, day care centers, parks, hospitals, convalescent homes, and nursing homes. As shown in Figure 5, sensitive receptors that could be affected by the proposed redevelopment project include: Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarito 43 Environmental Impart Assessment Table 6 Number of Days State Ambient Air Quality Standards Exceeded, Santa Clarita Monitoring Station * Number of days standard was exceeded in calendar year. t State standard for carbon monoxide: 20 ppm 1 -Hour; 9.0 ppm 8 -Hour 2 State standard for ozone: 0.09 ppm 1 -Hour 3 State standard for nitrogen dioxide: 0.25 ppm 1 -Hour 4 State standard for PM10 >50 1jg/m3, 24-hour. Collected every 6 days. Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Data 1991-1995 Table 7 Number of Days Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards Exceeded, Santa Clarita Monitoring Station Fine Pa Matter Carbon Monoxide Ozone2 Nitrogen Dloxlde3 0)4 (PM;t Maximum Maximum Maximum B -hour 1 -hour 8 -hour 1 -hour % of Sam- 1 -hour concen- *Days Maximum %of concen- concen- *Days concen- *Days concen- *Days concen- samples Year tration standard tration standard tration standard tration exceeding Year (ppm) exceeded (ppm) exceeded (ppm) exceeded (ug/m) standard 1991 5.1 0 0.24 118 0.17 0 81 42.4 1992 3.7 0 0.22 127 0.11 0 84 13.3 1993 3.9 0 0.22 92 0.13 0 75 14.5 1994 3.9 0 0.26 118 0.12 0 66 22.4 1995 4,1 0 0.21 72 0.16 0 87 21.3 * Number of days standard was exceeded in calendar year. t State standard for carbon monoxide: 20 ppm 1 -Hour; 9.0 ppm 8 -Hour 2 State standard for ozone: 0.09 ppm 1 -Hour 3 State standard for nitrogen dioxide: 0.25 ppm 1 -Hour 4 State standard for PM10 >50 1jg/m3, 24-hour. Collected every 6 days. Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Data 1991-1995 Table 7 Number of Days Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards Exceeded, Santa Clarita Monitoring Station * Number of days standard was exceeded in calendar year. NM = Not Measured t Federal standard for carbon monoxide: 9.5 ppm 8 -Hour 2 Federal standard for ozone: 0.12 ppm 1 -Hour 3 Federal standard for nitrogen dioxide: Annual Arithmetic Mean greater than 0.0534 ppm 4 Federal standard for PM10 >150 ug/m3, 24-hour. Collected every 6 days. Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Data 1991-1995 . Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 44 City of Santa Clarita I I 1 u 11 I 1 1 I I 1 I 0 I I I Fine Particulate Carbon Monoxide Ozonez Nitrogen Dloxlde3 Matter (pM10)4 Maximum Maximum Maximum B -hour 1 -hour 24-hour % of Sam- concen- *Days concen- *Days Annual Days stan- concen- ples Ex- tration standard tration standard AAM dard ex- tration ceeding Year (ppm) exceeded (ppm) exceeded (ppm) ceeded (ug/m) Standard 1991 5.1 0 0.24 65 0.0324 0 81 0 1992 3.7 0 0.22 71 0.0276 0 84 0 1993 3.9 0 0.22 44 0.0289 0 75 0 1994 3.9 0 0.26 66 0.0327 0 66 0 1995 4.1 0 021 26 0.0305 0 87 0 * Number of days standard was exceeded in calendar year. NM = Not Measured t Federal standard for carbon monoxide: 9.5 ppm 8 -Hour 2 Federal standard for ozone: 0.12 ppm 1 -Hour 3 Federal standard for nitrogen dioxide: Annual Arithmetic Mean greater than 0.0534 ppm 4 Federal standard for PM10 >150 ug/m3, 24-hour. Collected every 6 days. Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Data 1991-1995 . Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 44 City of Santa Clarita I I 1 u 11 I 1 1 I I 1 I 0 I I I W ='W M MM M W MW mmr MM M! W M 1. Wiley Canyon Elementary School 2, 3. 4 5 6 7. 8. 9. 10. 11, 12, 13. 14, 15. 16. 17: U1 ����� TNo rn . School • Hospital Figure S Il�"Z ) o I 1 1 1ZOWfeet - Park Senior Housing Location of Sensitive Receptors Environmental Impact Report 45 Newhall Redevelopment Project City of Santa Clarita Environmental Impact Assessment • Hart High School • Placerita Junior High School • Newhall Elementary School • Wiley Canyon Elementary Schoo101d Orchard Elementary School • Peachland Avenue Elementary School • Newhall Memorial Park • William S. Hart Park • Old Orchard Park • Newhall Community Hospital • Crestview Park • O.L.P.H.School • Various Senior housing developments • Day care centers Typical health problems attributed to smog include respiratory ailments, eye and throat irritations, headaches, coughing and chest discomfort. Thresholds Used to Determine Significance of Impact Projects may affect regional air quality both directly and indirectly. To determine the extent of a proposed project's environmental impact and significance of such impact the project's emissions should be compared to established thresholds of significance. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has established air pollutant emission thresholds to assist lead agencies in determining whether or not the construction or operation phase of the project would result in significant impacts. If the lead agency finds that the project has the potential to exceed any of the air pollutant emission thresholds, the project should be consid- Bred to have a significant impact on air quality. The SCAQMD has established the following thresholds for projects in the South Coast Air Basin: Table 8 SCAQMD Thresholds for Significant Contribution to Regional Air Pollution Pollutant Threshold of Significant Effect Reactive Organic Gases ROG 55 lbs./da Oxides of Nitrogen NO 55 lbs./day Carbon Monoxide CO 550 lbs./da Fine Particulate Matter PM10 150 lbs./da Sulfur Oxides SO 150lbs./da Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 46 City of Santa Clarita I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Air Qualify These thresholds are recommended by SCAQMD to be used to determine whether or not a specific project has the potential to significantly contribute to regional air pollution. In determining a project's contribution to regional air pollution, all direct and indirect sources related to the proposed project located anywhere within the region are considered. A project is also considered to have significant air quality effects if it would result in pollutant concentrations that would exceed the air quality standards summarized in Table 8, or would result in a substantial increase in concentration for those pollutants for which background concentrations already exceed the threshold. Thresholds for significant impact resulting from change in concentration are established by SCAQMD in Rule 1303 and are summarized in Table 9. Table 9 Thresholds of Significance for Change in Air Pollutant Concentrations Air Contaminant Averaging Time Most Stringent Air Quality Standard Significant Change in Air Pollutant Concentration Nitrogen dioxide 1 -hour 25 pphm 500 ug/m3 1 pphm 20 ug/m3 Annual 5.3 pphm 1o0 ug/m3 0.05 pphm 1 µg/m3 Carbon monoxide 1 -hour 20 ppm 23 mg/m3 1 ppm 1.1 mg/m3 8 -hour 9.0 ppm 10 mg/m3 0.45 ppm 0.5 mg/m3 Suspended particulate matter <10um (PM1o) 24-hour 50 ug/m3 2.5 ug/m3 Annual geo- metric mean 30 ug/m3 1 µg/m3 Sulfate 24-hour 25 ug/m3 1 ug/m3 Abbreviations: mg/m3: milligrams per cubic meter; ug/m3: micrograms per cubic meter; pphm: parts per hundred million of air; ppm: parts per million of air. Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Regulation Xdl, New Source Review, Rule 1303; Requirements, Table A-2. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 47 Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental Impact Pollutant Emissions Development -related air pollution emissions are generated during the construction phase and the operation phase of individual development projects within the project area. Construction emissions include mobile source emissions from construction worker trips, construction equipment emissions, and dust resulting from grading, demolition, and earth hauling opera- tions. Operation phase emissions include on-site combustion of natural gas for space heating, cooking, and water heating; local and regional emissions from vehicles traveling to and from the project area; combustion of fossil fuels at power plants to produce electrical power used in the project area; and emissions from industrial processes. Construction Phase Emissions Typically, construction phase emissions have the potential to result in significant contributions to regional air quality for particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen, and significant contribution to local air pollutant concentrations for particulate matter. One of the goals of the proposed redevelopment project is to provide employment opportuni- ties in a housing -rich community, in order to improve the City's jobs/housing ratio, shorten 1 commute distance, and thus improve air quality. Future development anticipated to occur J� under the proposed Newhall Redevelopment Plan would involve up to 1 million square feet of commercial/retail uses, up to 2.5 million square feet of business/industrial park uses, and 500 multi -family units. Most of this development will occur on key redevelopment opportunity sites, as indicated in Figure 2 on page 11. Construction activities within the project area are expected to be phased incrementally over the twenty -plus year life of the project, with the rate of development determined by market demand and absorption of office and retail space in the project area. However, most of the development and thus, most of the construction activities are expected to occur within the first ten to fifteen years of the project. i The SCAQMD considers the quarterly threshold of potential significance for construction impacts in any calendar year to be 1,102,520 square feet of gross floor area of construction for industrial projects, 975,000 square feet for commercial projects, and 1,410,000 square feet of multi -family housing construction. For the proposed Newhall redevelopment project, it is unlikely that this much construction would occur in any one quarter. The California ambient air quality standards for fine particulate matter were exceeded in the Santa Clarita monitoring station on approximately 21 percent of the days measured in 1995 Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 48 City of Santa Clarita I I I Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 49 Air Duality (Table 6), indicating that a moderate local particulate matter problem already exists. Overall, implementation of the proposed project is expected to contribute further to particulate matter concentrations in the City; increasing the concentration of particulate matter on days that the standard is already exceeded, and increasing the number of days that the standard is exceeded ' at sensitive receptor locations. Standard SCAQMD and City requirements require regular watering of development sites, L minimizing particulate emissions (i.e., dust), and proper functioning of equipment. These actions will substantially lessen particulate emissions during construction. For example, watering a site twice a day is expected to cut particulate emissions by 50 percent. ' SCAQMD is authorized to administer rules to minimize construction activity emissions, including Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). Standard measures in Rule 403 include applying chemical stabilizers and dust suppressants, and establishing vegetative ground cover. Operational Phase Emissions In the long term, the project will generate additional automobile and truck traffic as outlined in Section 3.6 (Traffic/Circulation). This additional traffic will increase vehicular emissions throughout the region. In addition to motor vehicle emissions, pollutants will be generated by the on-site combustion of natural gas for space heating and by combustion of fuels off-site for generation of electric power. In order to estimate the change in pollutant emissions resulting from project -related development, emissions were estimated using standard SCAQMD emission factors. Table 10 shows total emissions generated by development in the Newhall redevelopment project area and associated regional travel upon buildout. As shown in the table, pollutants generated by development in the project area will be reduced for some pollutants and increased for others. Reductions in CO and reactive organic gases emissions will result from improved ' motor vehicle emission control technology, which will more than offset the increase in vehicle miles traveled. Emissions of NOX, particulates and oxides of sulfur will be increased. I I Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 49 I Environmental Impact Assessment Table 10 Long-term Air Pollutant Emissions in Newhall Redevelopment Project Area Year 2020 it Emission Source Pollutant (lbs/day) CO ROG NOX PMto SOX Total Emissions In 1997 Vehicular Emissions 20,807.9 1,809.3 2,181.3 271.0 159.4 Stationary Emissions 63.1 6.1 351.9 10.0 29.5 Total in 1997 20,871.0 1,815.4 2,533.2 281.0 188.9 Total Emissions In 2015 Vehicular Emissions 20,416.8 1,029.5 2,524.5 469.2 256.7 Stationary Emissions 135.8 12.0 770.3 22.6 67.0 Total in 2015 20,552.6 1,041.5 3,294.8 491.8 323.7 Net Change 1997 - 2015 Vehicular Emissions (391.1) (779.8) 343.2 198.2 97.3 Stationary Emissions 72.7 5.9 418.4 12.6 37.5 Net Change 1997-2015 (318.4) (773.9) 761.6 210.8 134.8 SCAQMD Daily Threshold 550 55 55 150 150 Net Change in Emissions from Project Area Development 1997- 2015 Exceeds Threshold? No No Yes Yes No Total Emissions From Net New Development 1997- 2015 Ex- ceeds Threshold? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Refer to tables in Appendix D. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 50 City of Santa ClaHta I However, since a number of sensitive receptors are located within the project area or adjacent to it, the City will require individual development projects determined to have the potential for generating high traffic volumes to conduct air pollutant concentrations (hot spots) analysis and implement measures to reduce the hot spot effects identified in the analysis. Consistency with Regional Plans a, oucfiry ' .Sensitive Receptors The proposed Newhall redevelopment project includes the potential for development in the vicinity of several schools. Additional housing units are also included in the proposed project. These uses are sensitive to air pollution, especially from construction of individual develop- ments in close vicinity. Typically, the concentration of air pollutant emissions at specific locations is more likely to occur during the construction phase when diesel -powered construc- tion equipment and vehicles generate large amounts of NOX and CO, and grading, excavation, and demolition activities generate a large amount of PMto. Standard construction requirements of watering construction sites sites, covering of dirt in hauling trucks, providing temporary wooden fences along the perimeter of construction sites, and stopping construction activity on days with high wind conditions, will reduce impacts on the sensitive receptors. The City can also require additional measures, such as cleaning or replacing air filters in the affected schools Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report to reduce effects of dust from construction. City of Santa Clarita 51 In terms of long-term effects from vehicular emissions, improving technologies in motor fuels and engines are projected by the SCAQMD to reduce air pollutant emissions to the extent that only unusual projects which generate very high volumes of traffic at a limited location, such as very large parking structures, would generate enough traffic to cause significant air pollutant concentrations. However, since a number of sensitive receptors are located within the project area or adjacent to it, the City will require individual development projects determined to have the potential for generating high traffic volumes to conduct air pollutant concentrations (hot spots) analysis and implement measures to reduce the hot spot effects identified in the analysis. I Consistency with Regional Plans The SCAQMD requires that the EIR discuss the project's consistency with the current regional ' Air Quality Management Plan and other regional plans. The purpose of the consistency finding is to determine if a project is consistent with the assumptions and objectives of the regional air quality plans, and thus if it would interfere with the region's ability to comply with federal and state air quality standards. Additional assumptions to consider include the number and location of population, housing units, and employment from the SCAG Growth Management Plan; type, size and location of transportation infrastructure from SCAG's Regional Mobility Plan; and consistency with a local government's Air Quality Element, if the local government has adopted such policy. The City of Santa Clarita's jobs/housing ratio was estimated by SCAG at 0.99 in 1994, below the SCAG regional average of 1.43 jobs per housing unit, indicating the City as a housing -rich community. According to SCAG projections, Santa Clarita would continue to grow as a bedroom community, with the projected jobs/housing ratio decreasing to 0.89 in 2020. The Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 51 I Emkonmental Impact Assessment proposed redevelopment plan is estimated to add 500 multi -family units and over 9,000 jobs in the project area, as well as temporary construction jobs. Thus, the proposed redevelopment plan is consistent with the policies of the AQMP in that it provides employment opportunities in the area that are housing -rich. The development of the Newhall Metrolink station will further contribute to AQMP goals by improving access to transit. Location of the Metrolink station in Newhall will provide a station located near both employment and housing. Provision of convenient long-distance transit will result in a reduction in regional vehicle trips, and will in particular help to reduce long-distance commute trips by individual motor vehicles. The downtown Newhall concept calls for integration of housing, commercial development and employment in the same area, minimizing the need for commuting to work. Mitigation Measures The following measures are already included in the City's standard requirements consistent with the South Coast Air Quality Management District guidelines. These measures will be applied through standard development procedures and no additional -project specific mitigation is required. For all individual development projects, construction -related exhaust and dust emissions will be controlled. All unpaved demolition and construction areas shall be wetted as necessary during excavation to reduce dust emissions and meet SCAQMD Rule 403. Wetting twice a day will reduce particulate emissions (dust) by about 50 percent. All grading activities shall cease when wind speed exceeds 25 mph. To the maximum extent feasible, reclaimed water will be used for this purpose. • All development projects are required to comply with all dust and erosion control measures in the City's Uniform Development Code. • All grading, excavation, and other activities involving the use of fossil -fuel powered equipment during second and third stage smog alerts as designated by the SCAQMD. • Individual development projects, as a condition of project approval, shall use energy efficient construction equipment, when available. • Individual development projects shall be designed and operated to conserve energy in keeping with Title 24 requirements. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 52 City of Santa Clarito 1 Air QualityLevel of Significance After Mitigation Implementing the existing measures and programs to the greatest extent feasible will lessen air quality impacts to some extent. However, even if the measures identified above were able to achieve a 20 percent reduction in overall emissions — a very successful mitigation program -- the increase in air pollutant emissions resulting from additional development in the project area would continue to exceed the.SCAQMD thresholds for significance. References 1. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, May 1993 with November update. 11 I 1j I I I I Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 53 I 11 1 3.5 Transportation/Circulation Environmental Setting This section of the EIR is based on transportation impact analysis of the Newhall Redevelop- ment Project Area conducted by Meyer Mohaddes Associates. The traffic study is documented in Appendix B. The City of Santa Clarita is served by an urban transportation system including freeways, arterial, collector and local streets, regional rail service, and regional bus service. With a few exceptions, the street network serving the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area provides excellent levels of service to those using the system. I Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarity 55 I Table 11 on the following page provides definitions of traffic levels of service. Figure 7 on page 58 illustrates the existing levels of service for key intersections serving the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area. This analysis indicates that under existing traffic conditions all the study intersections, except for one, operate at LOS D or better during the PM peak hour. The intersection of Bouquet Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road currently operates at LOS E during the evening peak hour. Transportation facilities and services are under the jurisdiction of a number of agencies. The City of Santa Clarita is responsible for all local and arterial streets. The California Department of Transportation is responsible for state highways and the freeway system. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) operates the regional bus system, and the growing local Metrorail transportation system in the region. The Southern California Regional Rail Authority operates the Metrolink regional commuter trains. Figure 6 on page 57 shows major components of the regional circulation system serving the City and the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area. Policy for circulation in the City is established in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. The City is currently in the process of revising its Circulation Element to reflect current conditions, and incremental revisions to the Land Use Element, and regional traffic circulation on the California 126 highway corridor. Analysis conducted for this EIR utilized the highway network and land use data base being used for the update of the Circulation Element. The Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) is an important program to reduce traffic congestion by a program of improvements, congestion monitoring, and land use/ transportation planning. Under the CMP, each jurisdiction in the region is responsible for balancing development with transportation improvements to reduce congestion. I Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarity 55 I Environmental Impact Assessment Table 11 Level of Service Description Level of Volume/ Service Capacity Traffic Flow and Delay Characteristics A 0.01-0.60 This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. B 0.61-0.70 This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. C 0.71-0.80 These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin t0 appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersec- tion without stopping. D 0.81-0.90 Influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. E 0.91-1.00 This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. F 1.01 This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often and up occurs with oversaturation, i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high V/C ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Highway Research Board, National Research Council, 1994. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 56 City of Santa Clarita I 11 �J I I 1, I I I I I I I Transportation and Circulation Impacts Freeway/Highway ,••' Metrolink Ilib.Stll north my Figure b Regional Transportation Newhall Redevelopment Project 57 Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita Environmental Impact Assessment Existing Level of Service Q A Q) D ® 8 Q E © C F Source: Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc., Appendix B A1 Figure 7 north Existing Level of Service OR o ' 5,000 feet at Study Area Intersections Environmental Impact Report 58 Newhall Redevelopment Project City of Santa Clarita Transportation and Circulation IThreshold For Determining Significance Traffic impacts are considered significant if the proposed project would result in a significant, unmitigable increase in volume/capacity ratio at an intersection or roadway segment where level of service is already at LOS D or worse. The City considers a significant impact to be an increase of the volume/capacity ratio (V/C) of 0.02 or more for intersections at which the final V/C ratio is 0.80 to 0.89. For intersections with a final V/C ratio of 0.90 or greater, a V/C ratio increase of 0.01 is considered significant. For locations considered regionally significant under the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program, traffic impacts are considered significant if the project would increase the volume/capacity ratio by 0.02 or more at an intersection that would operate with a vol- ume/capacity ratio of 0.85 or greater (LOS D). Traffic impacts are also considered significant if the project would result in access or safety problems for vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Transit system impacts are considered significant if the project would interfere with transit operations or create demands on transit systems which could not be met by transit service providers. Environmental Impacts Local Roadway Transportation System Impacts A detailed analysis of traffic impacts of the Newhall Redevelopment Project was conducted by Meyer Mohaddes Associates. A citywide traffic model was used to generate and distribute travel demand.from the project to the City's street network and regional transportation facilities. Model output was used to conduct intersection analysis to identify circulation problems that might result from these trips and to recommend mitigation measures. The methods and results of this analysis are presented in detail in Appendix B, Traffic and Circulation Analysis. The discussion below includes the principal conclusions of that report. future COA10nsWilhvul ftect The City's travel model assumes that 80% of buildout of the City's General Plan Land Use Element would occur by the year 2015.. Without the stimulus provided by designating the proposed Project Area for redevelopment, the project area was assumed to grow to only 60% of buildout under no -project conditions. Newhall Redevelopment Frojed Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 59 I Emironmenta! Impact Assessment Proposed Project Level of Service A ® D ® B ® E Q C Q F Source: Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc., Appendix B nth CUR0 I I I 15,000 Wt Environmental Impact Report Figure 8 Level of Service Impacts, Proposed Project 60 Newhall Redevelopment Project City of Santa Clarita Transportation and Circulation Impacts Reduced Project Area Level of Service QA I)D ® B ® E © C © F Source: Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc., Appendix B n Figure 9 r a ' 5,000 feet Level of Service Impacts, Reduced Project Area Environmental Impact Report 61 Newhall Redevelopment Project City of Santa Clarita Environmental Impact Assessment Under existing conditions, the project area is estimated to generate approximately 102,000 vehicle trips per day. Under the year 2015 no project conditions, the project area is estimated to generate approximately 145,000 trips per day. The future -year travel model includes the affects of several measures to reduce daily auto trip generation. These include the planned Newhall Metrolink station, a component of the proposed project. Other changes include improvements to local and express bus service, additional park-and-ride lots, high -occupancy vehicle lanes on Interstate 5 and State Route 14, increased telecommuting, increased commuters utilizing a compressed work week, aggressive ridesharing promotion, and improved bicycle/pedestrian facilities. future Conditions with Pioposedhojett Table 12 below summarizes trips generated by development expected within the project area by the year 2015. Table 12 Trip Generation from Development in Project Area Land Use Existing Develop- ment No Project (60% of Buildout) Proposed Project (100% of Buildout) Reduced Area (100% of Buildout) Residential 31,260 37,680 39,450 20,520 Non-residential 71,120 107,080 131,050 85,240 Total 102,380 144,760 170,500 105,760 Source: Meyer Mohaddes Associates, Appendix B to this EIR. Under the proposed project, development in the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area is expected to generate an additional 68,120 daily trips by the year 2015. Without redevelop- ment, a slower pace of development is anticipated, and approximately 42,380 additional daily trips would be expected. With a reduced project area, substantially less residential develop- ment and somewhat less commercial and industrial development would be anticipated, with less traffic impact. Table 13 on page 64 and Figure 8 on page 60 illustrate future PM peak hour intersection level of service with development in the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area as outlined in the Project Description. Under these conditions, six of the study intersections are projected to Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 62 City of Santa Clarita I I I I I I E I I PJ I 1 U I Transportation and Circulation operate at LOS D or better. One intersection is projected to operate at LOS E and six at LOS F. According to -the City's guidelines, a total of seven study intersections would be signifi- cantly impacted by project -related traffic. These intersections have been highlighted in the table. 1 Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 63 future Conditions with ReducedhojedA/iemotive. Under the reduced project area alternative, development would proceed to 100% of general plan buildout in the smaller project area described in Section 4. Total trip generation from the smaller project area is estimated at 105,760 under this alternative. Table 14 and Figure 9 illustrate the impacts on intersection level of service from this alternative. A total of six study intersections would be significantly impacted by project -related traffic under the reduced - project alternative. NewhoiiMetro/inkStotm andhilmadAvenue Improvements An important component of the proposed project is the development of the Newhall Metrolink Station and related Railroad Avenue Improvements. The Newhall Metrolink Station is proposed on the existing Metrolink line on the northeast and southeast corners of the intersec- tion of Market Street and Railroad Avenue. Figure 10 illustrates the proposed Metrolink Station site. Railroad Avenue improvements will provide an important bypass to San Fernando Road through Downtown Newhall and substantially reduce traffic on local intersections. The proposed Metrolink Station project includes the construction of a station building, platform, and 208 parking spaces. Railroad Avenue improvements would largely take place within the existing right-of-way, but some right-of-way acquisition will be required to accommodate street reconstruction. Appendix C is includes the Negative Declaration and traffic analysis for the Metrolink Station and Railroad Avenue improvements. These documents further describe the proposed project and the expected traffic impacts. The proposed project involves the widening, realignment and extension or Railroad Avenue from south of 4th Street to north of 11th Street. Railroad Avenue would connect at its northern and southern termini with San Fernando Road, thus providing an alternative to San Fernando Road for traffic traveling through the old downtown Newhall area. When completed, Railroad Avenue will consist of one travel lane in each direction, a two-way left tum lane between 1 intersections, and on -street parking. Other improvements include the installation of a storm drain to handle surface drainage, and the installation of street lights. 1 1 Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 63 Eavironmentallmpad Assessment Table 13 PM Peak Hour Intersection Volume/Capacity Ratio and Level of Service Impacts Entire Candidate Project Area Source: Meyer Mohaddes Associates, Appendix B to this EIR. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 64 City of Santa Clarita I I I r-� I I. 0 I I A I I 1] 1 5 I Future No With With Mitigation Project Redevelop - Existing Case ment Project Project Project Change changein Intersection V/C I LOS V/C I LOS V/C LOS in V/C V/CLOS V/C 1. 1-5 SB Off -ramp at Lyons Avenue 0.431 A 1.261 F 1.27 F 0.01 1.18 F -0.08 2. 1-5 NB Ramps at Lyons Avenue 0.57 A 0.991 E 1.01 F 0.02 0.84 D -0.15 3. 1-5 SB Ramos at Cal rove Avenue 0.27 A 0.70 B 1 0.67 B -0.03 4 1-5 NB Ramps at Cal rove Avenue 0.39 A 0.89 D 0.83 D -0.06 5. Orchard Village Road at 0.75 C 0.91 E 0.99 E 0.08 Lyons Avenue 6. Bouquet Canyon Road at Soledad 0.98 E 1.41 F 1.41 F 0.00 Canyon Road 7a. San Fernando Road Connector at 0.49 A 0.62B 0.63 B 0.01 Magic Mountain Parkway 7b. San Fernando Road at Magic 0.54 A 0.55 A 0.01 Mountain Par kwa Connector 8. San Fernando Road at Circle J 0.42 A 0.78 C 0.79 C 0.01 Ranch Road 8a. Circle J Ranch Road at Via 0.82 D 0.85 D 0.03 0.63 B -0.19 Princessa/Wiley Canyon Road 9. San Fernando Road at Lyons 0.58 A 0.94 E 1.08 F 0.14 C Road 10. SR -14 Freeway SS Ramps at San 0.61 B 1.59 F 1.66 F 0.07 1.23 F -0.36 Fernando Road 11. SR -14 Freeway NB Off -Ramps at 0.81 D 1.99 F 2.09 F 0.10 1.64 F -0.35 San Fernando Road Source: Meyer Mohaddes Associates, Appendix B to this EIR. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 64 City of Santa Clarita I I I r-� I I. 0 I I A I I 1] 1 5 I I I 1J I I�V P u I Transportation and Circulation Table 14 PM Peak Hour Intersection Volume/Capacity Ratio and Level of Service Impacts Reduced Project Area 11 Source: Meyer Mohaddes Associates. Appendix B to this EIR. a P I Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 65 I Future No With With Mitigation Project Redevelop - Existing Case ment Project Project Project Change changein Intersection V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS in V/C V/C LOS V/C 1. 1-5 SB Off -ramp at Lyons Avenue 0.43 A 1.26 F 1.27 F 0.01 1.18 F -0.08 2. 1-5 NB Ramps at Lyons Avenue 0.57 A 0.99 E 0.98 F -0.01 0.84 D -0.15 3. 1-5 SB Ramps at Cal rove Avenue 0.27 A 1 0.70 B 0.69 B -0.01 4 1-5 NB Ramps at Cal rove Avenue 0.39 A 0.89 D 0.85 D -0.04 5.Orchard Village Road at 0.75 C 0.91 E 0.95 E 0.04 Lyons Avenue 6. Bouquet Canyon Road at San 0.98 E 1.41 F 1.41 F 0.00 Fernando Road 7a. San Fernando Road Connector at 0.49 A 0.62 A 0.60 A -0.02 Magic Mountain Parl wa 7b. San Fernando Road at Magic 0.54 A 0.55 A 0.01 Mountain Parkway Connector 8. San Fernando Road at Circle J 0.42 A 0.78 C 0.79 C 0.01 Ranch Road 8a. Circle J Ranch Road at Via 0.82 D 0.85 D 0.03 0.63 B -0.19 Princessa/Wiley Canyon Road 9. San Fernando Road at Lyons Ave- 0.58 A 0.94 E 1.01 F 0.07 C nue 10. SR -14 Freeway SB Ramps at San 0.61 B 1.59 F 1.62 F 0.03 1.23 F -0.36 Fernando Road 11. SR -14 Freeway NB Off -Ramps at 0.81 D 1.99 F 2.04 F 0.05 1.64 I F 1 -0.35 San Fernando Road 11 Source: Meyer Mohaddes Associates. Appendix B to this EIR. a P I Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 65 I Environmental Impart Assessment I� Project Boundary Source: City of Santa Cladta 1 -North OEM) Environmental Impact Report _ Proposed Metrolink Station Railroad Avenue Improvements 2,000 feet Figure 10 Metrolink Station Newhall Redevelopment Project 66 City of Santa Clarita Transportafion and Grrulagon lmpads Mitigation Measures, Reduced Project Area Level of Service O A (p) C @ B ® E © C Q F Source: Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc., Appendix B lort rDR)0 5,000 ket Environmental Impact Report It Figure 11 Level of Service Impacts With Mitigation Measures, Reduced Project Area 67 Newhall Redevelopment Project City of Santa Clarita Environmental Import Assessment Regional Crru/alion /mparts The project is intended to encourage development patterns and land uses which encourage the use of transit and minimize individual vehicle trips. Mitigation measures to be included in the proposed project include careful review of developments to improve transit service, improve access to transit, and encourage transit use. Because the project encourages and depends on transit to provide for an increased percentage of total trips in the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area, the plan would increase the demand for transit service in the planning area. Because this is an area which already has substantial transit service, increased demand should increase the efficiency of transit service and reduce the per -rider farebox subsidy required to operate the transit system; however, total subsidy would be expected to increase since farebox revenues would not be expected to cover all transit costs. I Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures include traffic improvements assumed to be in place by the year 2015 if all the development outlined in the Project Description is constructed. If other , measures are subsequently adopted by the City, the project -specific mitigation measures outlined here may be replaced by equivalent traffic impact mitigation which incorporates these improvements, or equivalent measures, and others, into a funding program or programs. 1. Overall Program Implementation. Prior to approval of any major development project (any project greater than 100,000 square feet in floor area, greater than 100 dwelling units, , or greater than 100 peak -hour trips inbound and outbound) the City will have in place a circulation improvements plan for projects within the Newhall Redevelopment Project area. 2. Implementation Funding. The City will fund the improvements below based on funding available from development fees or other revenues as appropriate, based on the need considering the location of projects from which fees were collected, development within the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area, and other criteria as outlined in a public improvements program for the project area 3. Regular Program Review. Every five years, or after development of projects resulting in a total of 2,000 peak -hour trips since the most recent major traffic study revision, the City will comprehensively evaluate the remaining capital improvements required to provide an acceptable level of traffic service within and to the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area, and adjust the list of improvement projects and development fees as appropriate to achieve the level of service objectives outlined in the City's General Plan. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 68 City of Santa Clarita I 1 4.1. I-5 SB off-ramp/Lyons Avenue Transportation and Circulation 4. Capital Improvements to Support Newhall Redevelopment Project. The following specific traffic improvements are needed to provide the level of service outlined in this EIR. These measures shall be included in a capital improvements program with associ- ated development fees, and shall be implemented as their need is identified and as development takes place in the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area so that the full list of improvements can be completed at the time the anticipated development is complete. The need for these improvements shall be evaluated in each regular program review, and the improvements list and developer fee modified as appropriate based on current conditions at the time ofthe review. As stated above, a total of seven study intersections would be significantly impacted by project -related traffic under the full -project alternative.. The significantly impacted intersections are: II-5 SB off-ramp/Lyons Avenue • 1-5 NB ramps/Lyons Avenue • Orchard Village Road/Lyons Avenue • Via Princessa/Circle J Ranch Road* • Lyons Avenue/San Fernando Road • SR -14 SB ramps/San Fernando Road • SR -14 NB off-ramp/San Fernando Road I Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 69 I 4.1. I-5 SB off-ramp/Lyons Avenue This intersection is projected to worsen from a V/C of 1.26 (LOS F) to 1.27 during the PM peak hour due to project -related traffic. In order to mitigate this impact, the off -ramp should be restriped from one left -tum land, one through/left-tum land, one right -turn lane to two left -tum lanes and one through/right-turn lane. Implementing this mitigation will improve the projected V/C ratio to 1.18 during the evening peak hour. 4.2. I-5 NB ramps/Lyons Avenue This intersection is projected to worsen from a VIC of 0.99 (LOS E) to 1.01 (LOS F) during the PM peak hour due to project -related traffic. In order to mitigate this impact, a right -turn only land onto the ramp should be provided in the westbound direction. Implementing this mitigation will improve the projected V/C ratio to 1.18 during the evening peak hour. 4.3. Orchard Village Road/Lyons Avenue This intersection is projected to worsen form a V/C of 0.91 (LOS E) to 0.99 during the PM peak hour due to project -related traffic. Future -year analysis of this intersection already assumed that it would be fully built out. No additional geometric improvements are feasible. I Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 69 I Environmental Impact Assessment 4.4. Via Princessa/Circle J Ranch Road This intersection was assumed to contain two through lanes in the eastbound and west- bound directions in the future. Under this configuration, the intersection would operate with a V/C of 0.82 (LOS D) and 0.85 without and with project -related traffic, respec- tively. Providing a third eastbound and westbound through land would improve the projected V/C ratio to 0.63 during the evening peak hour. 4.5. Lyons Avenue/San Fernando Road This intersection is projected to worsen from a V/C of 0.94 (LOS E) to 1.08 (LOS F) during the PM peak hour due to project -related traffic. Railroad Avenue runs just east of San Fernando Road and just west of the MTA railroad tracks. This parallel facility to San Fernando Road is planned to be improved to become a two- or four -lane upgraded roadway. This improvement will provide additional capacity along the San Fernando Road corridor in this area. Sufficient traffic should divert from San Fernando Road to Railroad Avenue to improve the projected operation of Lyons Avenue/San Fernando Road such that additional geometric improvements would not be necessary. 4.6. SR -14 SB ramps/San Fernando Road This intersection is projected to worsen form a V/C of 1.59 (LOS F) to 1.66 during the PM peak hour due to project -related traffic. In order to mitigate this impact, a third through land in the westbound direction would be needed to accommodate the projected traffic volumes exiting the northbound off -ramp. Implementing the mitigation would improve the projected V/C ratio to 1.23 during the evening peak hour. 4.7. SR -14 NB off-ramp/San Fernando Road This intersection is projected to worsen from a V/C of 1.99 (LOS F) to 2.09 during the PM peak hour due to project -related traffic. Projected off -ramp volumes indicate a need for three lanes. This is probably not feasible. If three lanes were provided on the off - ramp, the projected evening peak hour V/C ratio would improve to 1.64. 5. Mitigation Measures for Reduced Project Area Alternative 5.1. I-5 off-ramp/Lyons Avenue This intersection is projected to worsen from a V/C of 1.26 (LOS F) to 1.27 during the PM peak hour due to project -related traffic. Implementing the proposed mitigation will improve the projected V/C ratio to 1.17 during the evening peak hour. 5.2. Orchard Village Road/Lyons Avenue This intersection is projected to worsen from a V/C of 0:91(LOS E) to 0.95 during the PM peak hour due to project -related traffic. Future -year analysis of this intersection already assumed that it would be fully built out. No additional geometric improvements are feasible. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 70 City of Santa Clarita , I Transportation and Circulation 5.3. Via Princessa/Circle J Ranch Road This intersection was assumed to contain two through lanes in the eastbound and west- bound directions in the future. Under this configuration, the intersection would operate with a V/C of 0.82 (LOS D) and 0.85 without and with project -related traffic, respec- tively. Providing a third eastbound and westbound through lane would improve the projected V/C ratio to 0.63 during the evening peak hour. 5.6. SR -14 NB off-ramp/San Fernando Road This intersection in projected to worsen from a V/C of 1.99 (LOS F) to 2.04 during the ' PM peak hour due to project -related traffic. Projected off -ramp volumes indicate a need for three lanes. This is probably not feasible. If three lanes were provided on the off - ramp, the projected evening peak hour V/C ratio would improve to 1.61. 6. Transit Compatibility of Development and Public Improvement Projects. Each development project, street widening or improvement project, and streetscape project will be reviewed with attention to the need for transit improvements such as bus bays, transit shelters, waiting areas and information systems; pedestrian access and circulation to transit; shuttle/circulator access and drop off/waiting areas; preferential HOV parking areas and other design aspects to encourage use of public transportation and discourage use of individual motor vehicles. All major projects and all projects along existing or anticipated transit or shuttle/circulator routes will be coordinated with MTA and other transit agencies as appropriate to ensure that project designs anticipate existing and future transit needs. 7.. MTA Right -of -Way Impacts. All development projects and public improvements along the Metrolink rail lines will be coordinated with MTA to ensure that safety and operation of the rail line are maintained. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Owita 71 I 5.4. Lyons Avenue/San Fernando Road This intersection is projected to worsen from a V/C of 0.94 (LOS E) to 1.01 (LOS F) during the PM peak hour due to project -related traffic. Railroad Avenue runs just east of San Fernando Road and just west of the MTA railroad tracks. This parallel facility to San Fernando Road is planned to be improved to become a two- or four -land upgraded roadway. This improvement will provide additional capacity along the San Fernando Road corridor in this area. Sufficient traffic should divert from San Fernando Road to Railroad Avenue to improve the projected operation of Lyons Avenue/San Fernando such that additional geometric improvements would not be necessary. 5.5. SR -14 SB ramps/San Fernando Road This intersection is projected to worsen from a V/C of 1.59 (LOS F) to 1.62 during the PM peak hour due to project -related traffic. Implementing the proposed mitigation would improve the projected V/C ratio to 1.20 during the evening peak hour. 5.6. SR -14 NB off-ramp/San Fernando Road This intersection in projected to worsen from a V/C of 1.99 (LOS F) to 2.04 during the ' PM peak hour due to project -related traffic. Projected off -ramp volumes indicate a need for three lanes. This is probably not feasible. If three lanes were provided on the off - ramp, the projected evening peak hour V/C ratio would improve to 1.61. 6. Transit Compatibility of Development and Public Improvement Projects. Each development project, street widening or improvement project, and streetscape project will be reviewed with attention to the need for transit improvements such as bus bays, transit shelters, waiting areas and information systems; pedestrian access and circulation to transit; shuttle/circulator access and drop off/waiting areas; preferential HOV parking areas and other design aspects to encourage use of public transportation and discourage use of individual motor vehicles. All major projects and all projects along existing or anticipated transit or shuttle/circulator routes will be coordinated with MTA and other transit agencies as appropriate to ensure that project designs anticipate existing and future transit needs. 7.. MTA Right -of -Way Impacts. All development projects and public improvements along the Metrolink rail lines will be coordinated with MTA to ensure that safety and operation of the rail line are maintained. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Owita 71 I Environmental Impact Assessment Significance After Mitigation , Impacts on transportation and circulation are considered significant because project impacts at the intersection of Lyons Avenue and Orchard Village Road cannot be mitigated by feasible mitigation measures. Project impacts of all other significantly impacted intersections can be mitigated to a less -than -significant level. Cumulative impacts will be significant because a number of intersections will continue to operate at an unacceptable level of service unless additional mitigaiton measures are under- taken. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 72 City of Santa Clarita I I 1 I I I I I I Threshold Used to Determine Significance of Impacts The project will have a significant impact on biological resources if it will substantially affect: 1) rare, endangered, or threatened species of animal or plant listed under the State or ' Federal Endangered Species Act, 2) significant ecological areas (SEAs), or 3) natural communities that are considered locally important. 3.6 Biological Resources ! Environmental Setting Figure 2 in Project Description section). None of these sites, nor any of the areas where The project area is located within a developed, urbanized area. The South Fork of the Santa Clara River runs in the open -bottom channel along San Fernando Road in the northern section of the project area. Placenta Creek and Newhall Creek drain into South Fork and pass through the project area near downtown Newhall. These drainage channels are identified as Riperian Woodland/Mulefat Scrub vegetation and are identified as Significant Ecological Areas (SEAS) in the Land Use and Open Space and Conservation Elements of the City General Plan. The rest of the project area is shown to be developed/disturbed land with no sensitive vegetation habitats. However, individual oak trees, considered locally important and protected under the City's Oak Tree Ordinance, could be present on some individual vacant or marginally utilized sites. ensuring that adequate setback is provided between reparian habitat and surrounding urbaniza- Vegetation in areas adjacent to the project area's boundary along the north side of San Fernando Road is identified as Riversidean Sage Scrub. On the south side of San Fernando ' Road in the vicinity of the project area, one area of Developed Coast Live Oak Woodland, and three small areas of Coast Live Woodland are also identifinedl. Threshold Used to Determine Significance of Impacts The project will have a significant impact on biological resources if it will substantially affect: 1) rare, endangered, or threatened species of animal or plant listed under the State or ' Federal Endangered Species Act, 2) significant ecological areas (SEAs), or 3) natural communities that are considered locally important. 11 Environmental Impact ! Development anticipated to occur in the project area will focus on infilling vacant sites (see Figure 2 in Project Description section). None of these sites, nor any of the areas where existing uses could recycle to modem commercial and business park uses, is identified as containing rare, endangered, threatened, or sensitive biological habitats. The Santa Clara River drainage channels - the only areas within the project boundary identified as environmen-tally sensitive riparian habitat areas, are not proposed for development. Potentially, some public drainage improvements or actions related to some specific development projects on sites adjacent to the easements could occur within the channels or easements over time. Such activities will be conducted in conformance with existing City policies and requirements which include preserving to the extent feasible natural riparian habitat and wildlife corridors and ensuring that adequate setback is provided between reparian habitat and surrounding urbaniza- tion. In addition, federal or state permits will be obtained as necessary for any activity Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 73 11 Errvironmental fmpad Assessment requiring such permits. However, since the potential exists that such activities may adversely affect natural habitats, this impact is considered potentially significant. Some of the sites developed over time may contain individual oak trees. The potential effects on such trees will be mitigated to a less than significant impact through compliance with the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. The relocation, removal, or encroachment by development, of an oak tree is not allowed without the permit. The permit conditions include specific requirements for construction around oak trees, moving the trees, and replacing lost trees. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. The proposed project will result in infill development on vacant sites, some of which are adjacent to or in the vicinity of natural habitat areas. This expansion of urban development could indirectly affect the habitat areas through an overall increased level of human activity, including nighttime lighting, traffic, noise, and pets that may be kept by future residents of new residential development. When considered together with other future urban development in the Santa Clarita Valley, this is considered a potentially significant cumulative impact. Mitigation Measures 1. Each individual development proposal shall provide setbacks, buffering, or any other features on sites within, adjacent to, or in close vicinity to natural riparian, live oak, sage scrub, and other habitat, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. 2. Each individual development shall preserve natural riparian, live oak, sage scrub, or other habitat on the site as determined appropriate by the Director of Community Development. Any loss of habitat shall be compensated through the provision of habitat off-site or other measures determined appropriate and satisfactory by the Director of Community Develop- ment. 3. Any grading, construction, or other activity associated with public improvement projects and private development projects within the Santa Clara River drainage channels or easements shall be required to revegetate all graded and distrubed areas with native vegetation as determined appropriate by the Director of Community Development. Revegetation plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development. 4. The City will ensure that drainage improvements do not result in the elimination of watercourses or their channelization or conversion to subsurface drains, as determined appropriate by the City in consultation with appropriate state and federal agencies. All wetlands and watercourses, intermittent or perennial, shall be retained and provided with Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 74 City of Santa Clarita I I I I Level of Significance After Mitigation Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the project's potential impact on biological resources to a less than significant level. Cumulative impact of urbanization on natural habitats along Santa Clara River and its drainage channels will remain significant and unavoidable. References 1. City of Santa Clarita General Plan and Environmental Impact Report. City of Santa Clarita, June, 1991. 2. City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clanta 75 Biological Resources setbacks which preserve the riparian and aquatic habitat value and maintain their value to on-site and off-site wildlife populations. 5. Each individual development shall incorporate native species into landscape plans to the extent feasible. All landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development. 6. The City shall continue to participate in thesegional Santa Clara River Study. Upon completion of the study, the City shall implement the study's recommendations as appropriate. 7. All projects are required to comply with the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. I I I Level of Significance After Mitigation Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the project's potential impact on biological resources to a less than significant level. Cumulative impact of urbanization on natural habitats along Santa Clara River and its drainage channels will remain significant and unavoidable. References 1. City of Santa Clarita General Plan and Environmental Impact Report. City of Santa Clarita, June, 1991. 2. City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clanta 75 i 3.7 Noise Environmental Setting The primary source of noise in the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area is traffic on arterials, the I-5 and SR -14 freeways and along the SCRRA.rail line. Stationary noise sources include industrial, auto repair and other commercial uses. Generally, commercial and industrial noise within the City is not considered excessive and there are no unique or unusual noise sources in the Project Area. However, a significant impact could exist where residential locations are adjacent to industrial zones, auto repair shops or commercial facilities with late-night opera- tions or off -hour deliveries. Community noise levels are commonly expressed in decibels on a scale which averages noise levels over a 24-hour period and accounts by a weighing or penalty factor for the greater importance of noise intrusions at night. Two such noise measures in common use in California are the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and day -night level (Ldn). These two measures are numerically equivalent within 0.5 decibels (dB) for most urban traffic situations. Virtually the entire Newhall Redevelopment Project Area experiences noise levels of 60dB Ldn or greater as a result of arterial street or freeway traffic. Noise Sensitive Rereptorr Residential uses, schools, hospitals and convalescent homes are considered the most common noise -sensitive land uses found in communities. Wiley Canyon Elementary School, Old Orchard Elementary School, and Newhall Community Hospital are noise -sensitive uses located along arterial streets in the project area which could be affected by increases in noise levels. Residential development is located along Lyons Avenue, San Fernando Road.and Wiley Canyon Road in the project area. Noise StandoidS The Noise Element of the General Plan establishes standards for acceptable exterior and interior noise levels. The element states that in general, exterior noise exposures at residential locations should not exceed an Ldn of 60dB. Interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed an Ldn of 45dB. New residential buildings or structures to be located within exterior CNEL or Ldn contours of 60 dB or greater of an existing or adopted freeway, expressway, parkway, major street, thoroughfare, rail line, rapid transit line, or industrial noise source shall require an acoustical analysis showing that the building has been designed to limit intruding noise to an interior CNEL or Ldn of 45 dB. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 77 I Environmental Impact Assessment Threshold For Determining Significance Noise impacts are considered to be significant if the project will increase noise or vibration levels to a level considered "normally unacceptable" for a given land use as established by the General Plan for that use. The noise impact on new development is considered significant if noise levels on the property exceed acceptable levels for the proposed use and sound insulation cannot provide adequate noise protection. If noise levels already exceed the threshold of acceptable impact, a cumulative long-term increase of 3.0 decibels is considered significant, since such an increase is sufficient to bring a substantial additional area into the "normally unacceptable" impact area. If the project contributes 1.5 decibels or more to the cumulative effect, the project's impact is considered significant. The noise impact is also significant if existing or projected noise levels on the property exceed acceptable levels for the proposed use. Environmental Impacts Shelf -Teem /mpads Construction related noise impacts near residential development may exceed acceptable levels and would have potentially significant impact on adjacent residential units. Construction equipment will generate significant levels of noise ranging from 70dB to 105 dB immediately adjacent to construction sites. Construction noise impact is difficult to mitigate. Because it is temporary, the impact is less than if the impact was permanent. By limiting construction to daytime hours, the greater impact that would result from nighttime noise exposure can be eliminated. Although street and building construction activities would represent a temporary significant impact on ambient noise levels, they will terminate upon completion of construction for each project. These short-term construction noise impacts are recognized as being consistent with an urbanized environment'. Long -Term lmpods The addition of traffic to local arterials and freeways will result in long-term increases in noise levels on these roadways which cannot be avoided. As a rule of thumb, a doubling of traffic volume generally increases noise levels by three decibels unless the type of vehicles or hours of traffic operations change substantially. While individual developments may result in a doubling of traffic at short stretches of local access roadways since these roadways carra a small volume of traffic, arterial streets have substantial volumes of through traffic, and in no case is a doubling of traffic on arterial streets anticipated. The project is expected to produce increases in noise levels of 0.5 to 1.0 decibels, based on traffic increases of up to 25 to 30%, on Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 78 City of Santa Clarita I 11 I A A I I I I A [J I LJ I I Noise certain portions of arterials within and near the project area, including San Fernando Road, Lyons Avenue, Magic Mountain Parkway, Newhall Avenue, Via Princessa, Wiley. Canyon Road, Circle J Ranch Road, and Calgrove Boulevard. When combined with growth in traffic from other development within the City by the year 2015, some sections of these roadways may experience cumulative increases in noise levels of one to three decibels. Widening of roadways adjacent to sensitive receptors will bring the noise source closer to these sensitive receptors and result in further noise increases. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures are required primarily for short-term construction related activity and residential units which have direct line -of -sight exposure to construction activities. Additional mitigation is provided for unique locations where substantial traffic increases and roadway widening are proposed at locations where sensitive receptors such as schools, convalescent homes, senior housing projects or other noise -sensitive uses are located directly adjacent to roadways. The following mitigation measures will reduce noise impacts associated with new development occurring within the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area. All projects are required to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance, which prohibits construction during nighttime hours when noise sensitivity of residential uses is greater. All new multi -family residential develop- ments are required to provide sound insulation to provide acceptable interior noise levels in high -noise areas by existing state regulations. 1. To the extent feasible, construction activities expected to last two weeks or more will be screened from adjacent noise -sensitive land uses with a solid barrier. 2. All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1000 feet of a dwelling unit, school, hospital or other noise -sensitive land use shall be equipped with properly operat- ing and maintained muffler exhaust systems. 3. Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from occupied dwellings or other sensitive receptors. 4. Construction routes should be established where necessary and practicable to prevent noise impacts on sensitive receptors. 5. Locations where widening of arterial streets is conducted adjacent to sensitive receptors located near the roadway and cumulative traffic increases will result in noise increases of 3 dB or more, sound insulation mitigation will be evaluated for installation at the time of street widening. If building construction of the sensitive use is such that sound insulation is determined to be necessary and appropriate to provide acceptable interior noise levels, sound insulation to compensate for the noise increase resulting from traffic and street Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 79 Environmentallmpad Assessment widening will be evaluated. If sound insulation mitigation is determined to be feasible and justified based on the specific conditions, insulation will be made available at the option of the owner of the sensitive use. Sufficient additional sound insulation would normally be provided by improving weatherstripping, providing heavier doors, and by providing a second pane of glass or other window material over single -pane windows. Significance After Mitigation Noise impacts will be less than significant. References 1. Noise Element, City of Santa Clarita General Plan. 2. City Noise Ordinance. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project so City of Santa Clarito I I 3.8 Public Services iPolice Protection 1 Police - Environmental Setting Police service in the City of Santa Clarita is provided by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, from the Santa Clarita station located at 23740 W. Magic Mountain Parkway in Valencia. The station currently has 142 sworn deputies, 22 sergeants, 7 lieutenants and 1 captain on staffs. The station is equipped with over 50 mobile units, with an average of 18 on patrol during any given shift. Sworn patrol officers are assigned to several regular patrol areas on a 24-hour basis. The Department maintains a 48 -prisoner holding facility. The Sheriff's Department recently opened a Newhall substation within the proposed Project Area, located at 24406 San Fernando Road in downtown. Newhall. This substation has a walk- in counter staffed by a civilian community service officer, and one deputy from the main station is assigned to the Newhall area. 1 Police - Thresholds Used to Determine Significance of Impact Impacts on police services are considered significant if the proposed project will substantially reduce the current level of police protection. The project will also be considered to have a significant impact if it substantially increases emergency response times. Police - Environmental Impact New development facilitated by the proposed project will increase demand for police protec- tion services. This development, however, is within anticipated long-term General Plan projections for development within the area. The project will not increase demand for police services above those increases in demand already anticipated. The City evaluates police protection services as part of its annual budget process and determines the need for additional equipment and staff necessary to the including serve entire city, the Newhall redevelopment project area. This process is considered adequate to provide the necessary police services to the project area. New development in the Project Area will result in growth in many City revenues to balance such project costs. Retail development would be expected to generate an average of $150 to $300 per square feet in taxable sales, with 1% of this amount returned to the City in sales taxes. Development of 1.0 million square feet of retail uses in the candidate project area has the potential to generate $1.5 to $3.0 million in sales tax revenue. The reduced project area alternative excludes some sites with retail development potential, and would be expected to include slightly less new sales tax revenue. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 81 1 n ErmronmentalImpact Assessment In addition, the redevelopment activity in the Newhall redevelopment project area will reduce the demand for police protection services within this area by eliminating blighting conditions, and encouraging new development that includes building design, lighting, and access which deter and reduce opportunities for criminal activity. In accordance with the existing City requirements, lighting, landscaping, parking and building j plans for development within the project area will be reviewed by the Sheriff's Department prior to final approval, and will be. in conformance with all applicable City codes, ordinances and regulations. Based on the above information, project impact on police protection services is considered less ' than significant. Police - Mitigation Measures Impact will be less than significant, and no additional mitigation is required beyond the provision of the additional equipment and staff necessary to serve the City through annual reviews of levels of service and needs as part of the budget review process. Police - References 1. Personal -communication with Deputy Brian Hudson, Los Angeles County Sheriff's ! Department, Valencia station. April 4, 1997. Fire Protection Fire Protection - Environmental Selling Fire protection services for the City of Santa Clarita are primarily provided by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. There are six fire stations located within the City of Santa Clarita. The Headquarters Station #73, on San Fernando Road, is located within the project area. These stations operate a total of 10 fire companies (including engines and trucks), with an , average of 3 to 4 firefighters per company. The Fire Department also has three paramedic squads, two of which regularly respond to the project area. One five -person hazardous , materials squad operates from Station 76, and will respond to calls from the project area. LI I Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 82 City of Santa Clarita F I rJ H The specific need for increased personnel, additional capital improvements, or equipment to serve the development anticipated within the project area will be determined as development occurs. The City's annual budget review process will be used to determine the needs for any additional staff and equipment to serve the city-wide development. The development antici- pated within the project area will be within the limits and projections established by the General Plan, and will not create any new or additional demand beyond that already anticipated to occur. All new development projects will be constructed in accordance with applicable development standards including clearances, driveway widths, parking lot clearance and turning radii, regulations administered by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. All projects are required to have adequate fire flow, hydrant locations and storage capacity prior to develop- ment. All fire protection systems will require the approval of the Fire Department as to installation and location, and will be subject to periodic tests as required by the Fire Chief. The City and the Fire Department have adopted a fire facility fee which is applied to new development projects in the City. It provides for future fire facility needs. Fire Protection - Mitigation Measures Impact is considered less than significant, and no mitigation measures other than application of standard Fire Department regulations for construction are required. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 83 Fire Protection - Environmental Impact Pu6fir Services Fire Protection - Thresholds Used to Determine Significance of Impact ' Impacts on fire protection are considered significant if the proposed project will substantially reduce the Fire Department's ability to provide adequate services to the City's residents and businesses. F I rJ H The specific need for increased personnel, additional capital improvements, or equipment to serve the development anticipated within the project area will be determined as development occurs. The City's annual budget review process will be used to determine the needs for any additional staff and equipment to serve the city-wide development. The development antici- pated within the project area will be within the limits and projections established by the General Plan, and will not create any new or additional demand beyond that already anticipated to occur. All new development projects will be constructed in accordance with applicable development standards including clearances, driveway widths, parking lot clearance and turning radii, regulations administered by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. All projects are required to have adequate fire flow, hydrant locations and storage capacity prior to develop- ment. All fire protection systems will require the approval of the Fire Department as to installation and location, and will be subject to periodic tests as required by the Fire Chief. The City and the Fire Department have adopted a fire facility fee which is applied to new development projects in the City. It provides for future fire facility needs. Fire Protection - Mitigation Measures Impact is considered less than significant, and no mitigation measures other than application of standard Fire Department regulations for construction are required. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 83 Fire Protection - Environmental Impact New development anticipated under the development project will not substantially reduce the Fire Department's ability to provide adequate services to the City's residents and businesses. The Fire Department currently has preliminary plans for minor improvements in service for the City, and those are anticipated to be sufficient to maintain adequate service levels in the project area. Anticipated project development is within the parameters of current Fire Department expectations for the project area. F I rJ H The specific need for increased personnel, additional capital improvements, or equipment to serve the development anticipated within the project area will be determined as development occurs. The City's annual budget review process will be used to determine the needs for any additional staff and equipment to serve the city-wide development. The development antici- pated within the project area will be within the limits and projections established by the General Plan, and will not create any new or additional demand beyond that already anticipated to occur. All new development projects will be constructed in accordance with applicable development standards including clearances, driveway widths, parking lot clearance and turning radii, regulations administered by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. All projects are required to have adequate fire flow, hydrant locations and storage capacity prior to develop- ment. All fire protection systems will require the approval of the Fire Department as to installation and location, and will be subject to periodic tests as required by the Fire Chief. The City and the Fire Department have adopted a fire facility fee which is applied to new development projects in the City. It provides for future fire facility needs. Fire Protection - Mitigation Measures Impact is considered less than significant, and no mitigation measures other than application of standard Fire Department regulations for construction are required. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 83 Environmental Impact Assessment Schools Schools - Environmental Setting , School operating expenses are funded primarily by the state based on average daily attendance in that district. Capital construction costs for new schools, school rehabilitation, and temporary classrooms are funded by the state from school bond revenues and other revenues specifically allocated to school construction, based on district enrollment projections. Local districts may also fund school construction through local bond issues. School districts are authorized by state law to collect development fees to fund school construction. In new redevelopment project areas, State law requires a pass-through of a substantial share of property tax increment revenue from the project area. Over 36% of the property tax increment resulting from the growth in assessed value in the project area will be passed through to other taxing agencies. The school districts have one of the largest shares of the property tax base and will receive one of the highest proportions of all taxing entities. This revenue can be pledged to offset impacts to the school districts. Funding and operation of schools is governed by state law. Authority for funding and operation is vested in the State and in the appropriate local school districts. State law essen- tially prohibits the city or the redevelopment agency from participating in the school funding, school location, school construction, or school operation process. Limited exceptions are specifically provided for, such as the provision that cities will collect school impact develop- ment fees on behalf of school districts. Expenditure of redevelopment funds is proposed for some projects including community facilities and utility improvements which provide general community benefit to the project area rather than specific benefit to the school districts. The Santa Clarita Valley, which includes the City of Santa Clarita and surrounding unincorpo- rated communities, is served by five public school districts - four elementary school districts and one high school district. These are: • Saugus Union School District ' • Sulpher Springs District • Castaic District • Newhall School District • William S. Hart Union High School District , The Newhall School District and William S. Hart Union High School District serve the Newhall redevelopment project area. Specifically, the William S. Hart Union High School, , Placerita Junior High School, Newhall Elementary School, and Wiley Canyon Elementary School are located within the candidate redevelopment project area. These properties are not included in the Project Area under the reduced project area alternative. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project ' 84 City of Santa Clarita 1 I I I I I I I I I I Public Services Figure 5 in Section 2.5, Air Quality Impacts, identifies the location of schools in and around the project area. Table 15 presents the current enrollment and capacity at the Newhall School District and William S. Hart Union High School District. . NewhollSrhoolDistrid The Newhall School District (NSD) is the elementary school district serving the project area. As shown in Table 15, the NSD is operating significantly above its design capacity. Portable classrooms are used in every school to provide additional capacity to accommodate the increasing enrollment. With the recent passage of the Class Size Reduction Act, the district's overall capacity has been reduced, leaving the "as used" capacity barely above the current enrollment level. According to projections prepared by the NSD, enrollment at the district is expected to increase. The district anticipates a 22 percent increase in enrollment between 1996 and 1999. The other elementary school districts are also experiencing similar overcrowding problems. The Sulpher Springs District (SSD) has a current enrollment of 4,683 students but a capacity for only 4,403. The SSD is operating at.106 percent of its capacity; over 30 teachers in the district need to share classroom facilities. Wil/iam S. AxtHighSrhoolDisirid William S. Hart Union High School District (WHUHSD) operates three junior high schools and three high schools that serve students in the Santa Clarita Valley. Based on the district's enrollment and capacity data in 1996, the district is operating above its design capacity in almost all schools. Even when portable classrooms are included, the district is still operating very close to its total capacity. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 85 Environmental Impart Assessment Table 15 School Enrollment and Capacity School Current Enrollments Design Ca- pacity As Used Capacity2 Available Capacity (Shortfall) Newhall School District (1997) Meadows 841 690 860 19 Newhall 891 690 860 (31) Old Orchard . 476 660 610 134 Peachland 850 600 880 30 Stevenson Ranch 918 930 900 (18) Valencia Valley 835 720 840 5 Wiley Canyon 823 570 840 17 Newhall School District Total 5,634 4,860 5,790 156 William S. Hart High School District (1996) Arroyo Seca Junior High (Grades 7-8) 1,298 1,002 1,358 60 La Mesa Junior High (Grades 7-8) 1,082 1,022 1,048 (34) Placenta Junior High (Grades 7-8) 1,133 899 1,211 78 Sierra Vista Junior High (Grades 7-8) 854 1,059 937 83 Canyon High School (Grades 9-12) 2,131 1,891 2,221 90 Hart High School (Grades 9-12) 2,147 1,604 2,141 (6) Saugus High School (Grades 9-12) 2,108 1,641 2,181 73 Valencia (Grades 9-12) 1,962 1,960 2,021 59 Bowman (Grades 9-12) 362 362 362 0 The Learning Post 102 102 102 0 Han Union School District Total 1 13,179 11,542 13,582 1403 Note: 1. Current enrollment data for NSD is based on 1997 2. As used capacity includes portable classrooms, multi-purpose rooms, etc., but is adjusted for class size/special use reductions. Sources: 1. Newhall School District, April 1, 1997. 2. Hart Union School District 1996 CEDES data. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 86 City of Santa Clarita ISchools - Environmental Impact Implementation of the Newhall redevelopment project will encourage additional development Public Services Schools - Thresholds Used to Determine Significance of Impact ' Impact on schools is considered significant if the project will result in generation of students and demands for school services which exceed the short- or long -tern capacity of the districts' facilities, and normal district financing sources cannot offset project -related costs of providing additional facilities and services. ISchools - Environmental Impact Implementation of the Newhall redevelopment project will encourage additional development and growth in the project area in accordance with the land use policy of the General Plan. Development may include residential, commercial, office and industrial uses. Housing development will increase the permanent population in the project area and non-residential development will increase the employment base, encouraging development of housing throughout the region. Such additional housing in the region will increase student enrollment, and may require additional facilities. These factors are discussed below. Residential De ve%pment /nduted 6y Ne w Employlnenf Table 16 summarizes the estimates housing demand generated by the commercial and industrial development the Newhall redevelopment project area. Impacts from commercial and industrial development were estimated using new employment in the project area to derive an estimate of the number of new employees expected to locate within the boundaries of affected districts. In addition, a multiplier effect of 0.5 was assumed for indirect and induced employ- ment within the region resulting from purchases of goods and services by new businesses and employees. That is, for every one direct job created in the project area, 0.5 indirect job will be created somewhere in the region, resulting in a total of about 4,700 indirect and induced jobs within the SCAG's six -county region. Based on the rough proportion of population within the Santa Clarita Valley area to the population in the SCAG region, it was assumed that about two percent of the indirect employees could locate within the Santa Clarita Valley area. The City of Santa Clarita is bordered by the Los Padres and Angeles National Forests to the north and. northwest, and ridgelines of the Santa Susanna Mountains to the southwest, and San Gabriel Mountains to the east and southeast. One of the goals of the proposed redevelopment project is to provide employment opportunities for the City's residents, most of whom currently commute to other cities for work. Given Santa Clarita's geographic location, it was assumed that 60 percent of the new employment will be taken by existing residents in the Santa Clarita Valley area, 20 percent will be taken by commuters from other areas, and the remaining 20 percent will be new residents moved to the Santa Clarita Valley due to the employment opportunities. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 87 Environmentollmpart Assessment According to the NSD, the district provides elementary school services to roughly 30 percent of the households in the Santa Clarita Valley. However, because the NSD encompasses the Project Area, impacts are likely to be more significant on the NSD than on other elementary school districts in the valley. The WHUHSD is the only high school district in the Santa Clarita Valley; it will serve all new residents of the area. It was further assumed that the new employee residents will create a demand for housing at a SCAG regional jobs/housing ratio of 1.42 jobs per housing unit in the year 2020, or conversely, at a ratio of approximately 0.70 housing unit per job. This is an average based on regional statistics for all types of jobs, and accounts for the fact that many of the new jobs will be in existing households or multi job households. In general, lower -paying jobs, such as many of the jobs in the retail sector, would not generate sufficient income to support a family, and are likely to be taken by people who are already local residents or those who have another income in the household. Table 16 indicates that the total number of housing units needed to accommodate the new resident employees is 1,321 units. Table 16 Housing Demand from New Development in Newhall Redevelopment Project Area Calculation Steps and Assumptions Step 1. Estimate Net New Employees to Santa Clarita Valley Total Santa Clarita Valley 6. Number of new employees from development in project area (from Section 2.2) 9,403 7. Total number new employees, including indirect employment (multi- plier effect) 9,497 8. Number of new employees in Santa Clarita Valley (20% of new em- ployment) 1,899 Step 2. Estimate Number of New Residential Units in Santa Clartta Valley 10. Regional number of housing units per job, year 2020 (from SCAG projections) 0.70 11. Employee housing units needed 1,321 12. Housing units provided in Project Area 500 12. Housing units provided with set-aside funds 350 13. Additional housing units needed (induced housing) 471 Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 88 City of Santa Clarita 11 I I I I I I l J I I I I F I J I I I I I Public service: Residential De yelopment Within Project Area: Residential development within the project area is estimated at up to 500 new single-family and multi -family units (see Section 3.2 Population and Housing). From Housing Set -Aside Funds: Residential development from the 20 percent set-aside funds for low and moderate income housing may be spent anywhere in the City. Funds may be used for downpayment/mortgage assistance for first-time buyers, rehabilitation, and construction assistance, etc. Assuming at least half of the set-aside funds will be used to preserve the City's existing housing stock and provide affordability to homebuyers, this analysis generally assumes the remaining housing set aside could be used to assist the provision of approximately 350 new housing units. All set-aside housing units are assumed to be multi -family units. Induced Housing Demand.• The total number of housing units needed to accommodate new resident employees is 1,321 housing units. Thus, an additional 471 units will be needed in addition to the 850 units anticipated through redevelopment. As a worst-case assumption to calculate school impacts, these additional units are assumed to be single-family units. Student Oen MAM Student generation factors used by the four elementary school districts should be comparable. Because the NSD may likely receive more direct impact from the proposed project, student generation factors for the NSD were used to estimate the number of elementary school students expected to be generated by either direct or induced housing development as a result of the redevelopment project. Generation factors: 0.368 student per single-family unit and 0.397 student per apartment unit are used. The high school student generation factors for the VIMHSD are 0.299 per single-family unit and 0.09 per multi -family unit. As shown in Table 22, development anticipated to occur in the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area will, directly and indirectly, generate approximately 511 additional elementary school students and 217 additional junior high and high school students to the Santa Clarita Valley. These additional students are generated from land development anticipated in the City's General Plan. fistallmpattr Once the number of students generated is established, the impact of the proposed Newhall redevelopment project on school facilities can be determined by estimating the expected capital costs of new facilities required to serve these students and revenues available to the districts (see Table 17). In addition to the state school construction funds, new revenue from school impact fees collected from new development in the Newhall project area, from housing ' constructed using housing set-aside redevelopment funds, and from statutory pass-through tax increment, will be available to the districts as a result of the proposed project. Certain public Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 89 Effdronmentat impartAssessment ' benefit projects which also benefit the school districts are included among the projects eligible ' for tax increment funding from the proposed project. development would be approximately $6.8 million. Based on an estimated $15,000 facility If school facility cost impacts are greater than maximum fee revenue based on Statutory Fees, then the school districts can require mitigation on a project -by -project basis for the specific impacts of that project. Current Statutory Fees are set at $1.84 per square foot of residential , development and $0.30 per square foot of non-residential development. Approximately 62% of the fee is received by the William S. Hart Union High School District, with the remainder received by the appropriate elementary school district. passed through to .the districts in accordance with the Senate Bill (SB) 1290 over the life of the On the assumption that the statutory fee will be imposed on individual projects, the proposed redevelopment project has the potential to generate approximately $3.9 million in school , impact fees. SchoollmpactsSammary Most information reported below is based on information provided by the school districts, , particularly on their impact fee studies. Table 18 summarizes calculations of impacts on the districts due to development in the project area, housing construction from set-aside funds,. and induced residential development from new employment. Given the existing overcrowding conditions in the schools, existing facilities do not have the capacity to accommodate addi- tional students generated by new development in the project area, and new facilities need to be ' constructed or existing facilities expanded. According to the Newhall School District's impact fee study, the average facility cost per elementary student is $13,365. Therefore, the cost to construct facilities to accommodate the ' 511 new elementary students generated in the Project Area by residential and nonresidential development would be approximately $6.8 million. Based on an estimated $15,000 facility cost per high school student, the cost to construct facilities to accommodate 217 high school students would be $3.3 million. This indicates a potential shortfall of approximately $6.2 million in revenue needed for the facilities for the added enrollment. ' However, the projected shortfall will be substantially reduced or eliminated by the tax - increment revenue from development in the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area that will be passed through to .the districts in accordance with the Senate Bill (SB) 1290 over the life of the redevelopment plan. Out of the entire tax increment collected, about 36 percent will be passed through to the taxing entities, including the districts. Tax increment pass-throughs to other ' agencies for the first 21 years of the project is estimated in the Draft Preliminary Report for the Newhall Redevelopment Project at approximately $19 million, based on development consis- tent with student generation estimates. , Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 90 City of Santa Clarita 'III 11 1] I I I� Public Services Table 17 Students and Fees Generated by Proiect.Related Develonmernt Calculation Steps and Assumptions Elementary School Students High School Students Step 3. Estimate of Number of New Students 1 Student generation factor per multi -family housing unit (apartment) 0.397 0.090 2. Student generation factor per single-family housing unit 0.368 0.299 3 New multi -family housing units constructed in Project Area 500 500 4 Students from new housing units in Project Area 199 45 5 New housing units constructed with set-aside funds generated in project areas (All multi-famiry units) 350 350 6 Students generated by housing constructed with set-aside 139 32 7 Induced housing demand (All single-family units) 471 471 8 Students generated by induced housing demand 173 141 9 Total resident employees housing 1,321 1,321 10 Total students generated 511 217 Step 4. Estimate of School Fees from New Dwelling Units Statutory Fees 11 Total single-family housing units (induced growth) 471 471 12 Total multi -family housing units (direct development in project area, set-aside housing) 850 850 13 Single-family dwelling unit size (square feet) 1,500 11500 14 Multi -family dwelling unit size (square feet) 1,000 1,000 15 Fee rate per square foot $0.70 $1.14 16 Fee per single-family unit $1,050 $1,710 17 Fee per multi -family unit $700 $1,140 18 Total fees from residential development $1,089,550 $1,774,410 Step 5, Estimate of Total School Fees from Nonresidential Development 19 Square footage of commercial, industrial development 3,500,000.00 3,500,000 20 Fee rate per square foot $0.30 $0.30 21 Fees from nonresidential development $1,050,000 $1,050,000 Total School Fees $2,139,550 $2,824,410 Notes: 1. Student generation factors for NSD = 0.368 student per single-family unit; 0.063 student per condo unit; and 0.397 student per apartment unit. Student generation factors for SSD = 0.398 student per single- family unit; 0.182 student per condo unit; and 0.336 student per apartment unit. Because this project was ' assumed to impact NSD more significantly than other districts, and also because NSD factors are higher for multi -family units, NSD factors are used to represent a worst-case analysis. 2. Student generation factors for WHHSD = 0.102 grade 7-8 student and 0.197 grade 9-12 student per single-family unit; 0.045 grade 7-8 student and 0.072 grade 9-12 student per condo unit; and 0.032 grade 7-8 student and 0.058 grade 9-12 student per apartment unit. ' Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 91 Environmental Impact Assessment Table 18 School Impacts Summary School Impacts Elementary School Students High School Students Project Impact Statutory Fees Step 6. Estimate of School Impacts 1. Added enrollment (direct or induced) 511 217 728 2. Average facility cost per student from school impact fee study $13,365 $15,000 3. Total Facilities Cost $6,829,265 $3,255,000 $10,084,265 4. School Impact Fee Revenues $3,913,960 5. Revenues Less Costs ($6,170,305) Redevelopment Tax Increment Pass-through Revenue $7,350,000 Net Revenue (Cost) $1,179,695 Note: Facility cost for high school students is only an estimate. This table will be revised when updated Information is available from the school district. The districts have one of the largest shares of the I% property tax base and therefore, proportionally will receive one of the largest portions of this tax increment pass-through of all taxing entities. This revenue can be used to add additional portable classrooms and/or construct new facilities to offset the impact from new project -related students. State school construction funds, including a $2 billion bond measure approved by the electorate in 1996, can also be expected to be available to support district requests for new school construction based on enrollment projections. These sources of revenue, backed up by the ability of the school districts to charge develop- ment fees or require other mitigaiton measures sufficient to make up shortfalls from other sources, will provide sufficient revenue to support school construction needed to address growth induced by the proposed project. Schools - Mitigation Measures The City and the Redevelopment Agency are limited by law in the range of actions they can take to mitigate school impacts. In general, financing of school construction and school operations are under the sole jurisdiction of school districts and the State of California. The following mitigation measures should be taken by these agencies to mitigate impacts of project -related development on schools: Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 92 City of Santa Clarita I 1 F Pubrir services The Agency will provide pass-through payments to the school districts serving the project area as established by law. The Newhall School District and William S.. Hart Union High School District should utilize these mandatory redevelopment tax increment pass-throughs to accommodate additional students by adding portable classrooms or constructing permanent facilities. 2. When applicable, the school districts should levy additional fees above the state statutory limit or require additional school mitigation measures for residential development and adjust this fee as appropriate based on current conditions. The districts should levy the maximum amount of developer fees allowed by State law for all industrial and commer- cial construction to help fund new or temporary facilities construction. 3. The school districts should continue to make regular and timely application to the State of ' California for funding to construct new classrooms and other facilities in response to enrollment growth. 1 1 4. To the extent that alternate means of financing new schools are made available to the districts through changes in state law, the district will vigorously pursue these methods to provide adequate facilities to support enrollment growth. 5. The districts will use year-round schedules and double sessions as necessary and appropri- ate to maximize the capacity of existing facilities if funding is not available for new school or classroom construction. 6. The State of California should continue to finance construction of new schools and classrooms in response to enrollment increases. 7. The Redevelopment Agency will include public benefit projects which also benefit the school districts among the projects eligible for tax increment funding from the Newhall Redevelopment Project. Schools - Level of Significance After Mitigation While the project will result in growth in enrollment in the school districts serving the project area, this growth in enrollment will occur as anticipated in the General Plan. School district revenues from a variety of sources, including substantial tax increment pass-through revenue, are expected to be available to provide facilities to meet enrollment growth. Because the districts are expected to be able to accommodate enrollment growth through their normal procedures and revenues, supplemented by project -related revenues, impacts are considered less than significant after mitigation. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 93 Environmental Impact Assessment Schools - References ' I. Newhall School District, letter from J. Michael McGradth, Ed. D., Superintendent, April ' 1, 1997. 2. Residential Development School Fee Justification Study for the Newhall School District, , David Taussing and Associates, Inc, June 10, 1994. 3. Robert C. Lee, William S. Hart Union High School District. Libraries ' Libraries - Environmental Setting ' The Los Angeles County planning standards for library resources specify 1.5 books per person ' served, 0.5 square feet per person served, and 4 books per square foot. Based on a 1996 City population of 129,861 (See Section 3.2 Population and Housing), this translates to a current demand for a library system with 195,000 books and buildings totaling 65,000 square feet. ' Library services for Santa Clarita residents are provided by the Los Angeles County Library System. The Library System has three branches in the City at the following locations: ' Valencia Library 23743 Valencia Boulevard Canyon Country Library 18536 Soledad Canyon Boulevard ' Newhall Library 22704 West Ninth Street While the City has sufficient library space overall, only the Valencia Library meets current , library standards. The General Plan identified a deficiency for the Newhall Library of approximately 12,000 square feet of library space2. This deficiency affects the level of service provided to residents, including a limitation of library source materials at all three branches of ' the system. Libraries - Thresholds Used to Determine Significance of Impact , Impact on library service and facilities is considered significant if the proposed project will result in demand for those services that substantially exceed the available and planned library resources. , Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project ' 94 City of Santa Clarita 11 �I I I 1 1 I C] 1 Public Services Libraries - Environmental Impact Development under the proposed project will increase the resident population by approxi- mately 1,400 people. This population increase will increase the demand for library services at the Newhall Library. However, the Downtown Newhall Improvement Project, an integral part of the redevelopment project, calls for the expansion and improvement of the Newhall Library. These improvements will increase the library's square footage and result in adequate level of library service. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. Libraries - Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required beyond the implementation of improvements proposed for the Newhall Library. Libraries - Significance of Impact after Mitigation Impact will be less than significant. Libraries - References 1. Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities Element. City of Santa Clarita General Plan, 1991. 2. Based on current inventory of 50,840 books and 4,842 square feet. Personal communica- tion with Judy Hist, Librarian, Newhall Library. April 4, 1997. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarito 95 I I I LSI 1 I [J 1 1 I 3.9 Utilities and Service Systems Issues of concern discussed in this section include impacts_on infrastructure and utilities serving the Newhall Redevelopment Project area including water, sewer, electricity, natural gas, solid waste, and storm drainage. Water Supply and Treatment - Environmental Setting Water Supply and Treatment - Environmental Setting The Castaic Lake Water Agency (CLWA) was formed in 1962 to obtain a supplemental water supply and provide the necessary treatment and conveyance facilities to deliver supplemental water on a wholesale basis to retail water purveyors serving the Santa Clarita Valley. The primary sources of water in the planning area are the State Water Project and local groundwater pumped from the upper alluvial aquifer. The amount of water from the State, however, is variable from year to year and may be cut drastically, as in the 1991 drought condition in which the valley's entitlement was reduced to 5% of normal. The proposed project area is served by three water purveyors: the Newhall County Water District, the Santa Clarita Water Company, and the Valencia Water Company. Water Supply and Treatment- Thresholds Used to Determine Significance of Impact Impacts on the water supply and treatment system are considered significant if the development anticipated to occur under the proposed redevelopment plan for the project area will result in the potential to create demand for water that exceeds available supply and/or exceeds the capacity of the existing or planned water distribution system. Water Supply and Treatment - Environmental Impact Short -Term Impacts Over the years, new development in the project area will consume water for dust control during construction of individual developments, and for landscape irrigation and day-to-day opera- tions upon completion of individual projects. The new development will be required to use non -potable water for construction dust control, effectively mitigating the short-term construc- tion impacts. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 97 Environmental Impact Assessment Long -Term Imparts Development anticipated to occur in the project area will increase water consumption in an area that depends on imported water to supplement local supplies. The amount of development in the project area will not cause a significant demand on water supplies in relation to regional water consumption. However, development in the Project Area will require additional water supply, additional storage and distribution facilities in order to provide water to newly developed areas. The proposed project is not expected to affect the amount of water entering local groundwater suppies. Water Supp/y and Demand /mparls Increase in water demand is anticipated to occur gradually over -the lifetime of the redevelop- ment project. Development anticipated under the project is within the growth expected under the City of Santa Clarita General Plan, and will not substantially change long-range planning and programming of the water purveyors based on the General Plan's buildout. Total water demand resulting from the new development in the project area and housing constructed outside the project area is expected to be between 1.0 and 1.5 million gallons per day by the time the development is complete in approximately 15 years. This demand estimate is based on flow rates used by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County for wastewater flows for various land uses3, plus an allowance for additional water used for irrigation which does not enter the wastewater system. Santa Clarita Water Company. The Santa Clarita Water Company has indicated in its response to the Notice of Preparation for this project that the Redevelopment Project will have little to moderate impact on the utility. The Santa Clarita Water Company has adequate water supply to meet the expected needs of the redeveloped areas, although new or upgraded infrastructure including larger pipes, water storage tanks and service connections may be required in certain areas. Castaic Lake Water Agency. The Castaic Lake Water Agency has requested that the Redevelopment EIR include an assessment of the anticipated development sufficient to site future development so that water supply can be anticipated. Development in the project area will occur in accordance with uses permitted by the City's General Plan. Because of the long time horizon and large area covered by the project, it is not possible to identify the specific phasing of the project, and it is not productive to speculate on the number of alternative ways that the area might develop. Over the next 20 years, under the most effective implementation of the Redevelopment Project, development in the Project Area should result in the development of nearly all undeveloped or underdeveloped areas as outlined Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 98 City of Santa Clarita I I I 11 I I I F f1 1 11 1 Utilities and Service Systems on the opportunity sites map, Figure 2 on page 11. Total development will be as outlined in the Project Description. Development of housing outside the project area will include up to an estimated 350 units of low- and moderate -income housing on sites established for those uses in the City's General Plan. The average rate of development for the project is approximately 40 to 50 dwelling units per year (both inside and outside the Project Area) and 150,000 to 200,000 square feet of nonresi- dential development per year. The location of this development will be determined by the development market and the efforts of the Agency to emphasize development of specific blighted areas in order to encourage development of other areas. This rate of development is expected to be somewhat higher than the rate of development that would occur under the existing General Plan without the proposed Redevelopment Project in place. (Under the General Plan without redevelopment, the development assumed in the Redevelopment Project growth assumptions is expected to be approximately 60% complete by the year 2015, and would continue after that year.) However, this increased rate of development will not substan- tially change the overall rate of growth in the community, and should be accommodated by the normal planning procedures of the water agencies serving Santa Clarita. The City's General Plan includes a significant emphasis on growth management, requiring that adequate infrastructure be available prior to development and that development projects pay their way for public services and facilities. Previously, the Castaic Lake Water Agency has objected to a redevelopment project in Santa Clarita due to concerns related to loss of tax increment funds and its effect on the ability of the CLWA to pay back bonds issued for expansion of CLWA facilities. This is not a significant environmental impact given the limited size of the redevelopment project area proposed in relation to the total CLWA benefit area. Water Supply and Treatment - Mitigation Measures Impact will be less than significant and no additional mitigation is required. Electric Power Electric Power - Environmental Setting Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 99 Environmental Impact Assessment Electricity to the project area is provided by the Southern California Edison Company (Edison). Edison expects to meet their electrical load requirements in the area for the next several years. Edison has a major transmission line running through the project area. The major fuel used in Edison's generating facilities is low sulfur fuel oil. The company believes that their low sulfur fuel oil inventory, together with their contractual commitments for delivery and their customers' conservation efforts' will permit them to meet the current forecasted demands for electricity through the next five years. It is Edison's intention to continue to do everything that can reasonably be accomplished to provide a continuous and sufficient supply of electricity to the project area. Electric Power - Threshold Used to Determine Significance of Impact Impact is considered significant if the proposed project will generate demand that exceeds the existing or planned capacity of the electrical utility infrastructure. Electric Power - Environmental Impact The electric loads of the project are within parameters of projected load growth which Edison is planning to meet in this area. Unless the demand for electrical generating capacity exceeds Edison's estimates, and provided that there are no unexpected outages to major sources of electrical supply, the company expects to meet their electrical load requirements for the next several years. Electric Power - Mitigation Measures Impact is considered less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Sewage Collection and Treatment Sewer - Environmental Setting Sewage treatment is currently provided by two Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. District 32 services most of the project area, while District 26 services the northeastern portions of the project. The Saugus Plant, operated by District No. 26, is located at 26000 Springbrook Avenue in the project area. This plant provides secondary level treatment of sewage (primary sedimentation Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 100 City of Santa Clarita U 1 1 1 Utilities and Service Systems and activated sludge processing). The effluent is chlorinated before being discharged into the Santa Clarita River. The Valencia Water Reclamation Plant, operated by District 32, is a tertiary treatment plant, which involves filtered chlorination, dechlorination, and pressed filtering of sewage before the effluent is released into the Santa Clarita River. A joint powers agreement between the two districts facilitated the connection of the Saugus Plant to the Valencia Water Reclamation Plant to accommodate the increased demand in ' District 26. Because of this interconnection, both plants can currently provide adequate service to the entire sewered area of the valley. The combined capacity of the two plants is currently 19.1 million gallons per day (mgd) of effluent. I 1 I I [J I I The Sanitation Districts are currently proposing two expansions2. The first, expected to be on- line by the year 2002, will add an additional 9 mgd to the service area. The second, to be on- line by the year 2010, will increase the service capacity by an additional 6 mgd. If these expansions are approved, the service area capacity will increase to 34.1 mgd by the year 2010. Sewer - Thresholds Used to Determine Significance of Impact Impact on the sewer system is considered significant if sewage generated by development anticipated to occur under the proposed redevelopment project will exceed the existing or planned capacity of the sewer collection or treatment system. Sewer - Environmental Impact New development anticipated to occur in the project area will generate an additional 1.0 mgd of effluent by buildout3. The Sanitation Districts plan for future demand according to General Plan buildout projections. Since new development anticipated as a result of the project will be consistent with these projections, it will not generate demand beyond that already considered by the Districts. The planned expansions of the existing facilities will be able to accommodate this demand. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. Sewer - Mitigation Measures Impact is considered less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 101 EMronmentallmpart Assessment Natural Gas Natural Gas - Environmental Setting Natural gas is supplied to the project area by the Southern California Gas Company. Peak demand tends to occur during the winter when it is the coldest. Additional supplies and distribution facilities are provided as development occurs. The company has an obligation to provide gas as needed to the entire Santa Clarita Valley. As development occurs, and as the City expands, the gas company will supply the necessary gas lines. Natural Gas - Thresholds Used to Determine Significance of Impact Impact on natural gas utilities is considered potentially significant if the proposed project will generate demand that exceeds existing or planned system capacity. Natural Gas - Environmental Impact The Gas Company has adequate service lines in place for the project area. The site-specific improvements, if any, will be determined as specific development proposals within the project area come forward. Therefore, the project impact is considered less than significant. Natural Gas - Mitigation Measures Impact will be less than significant, and no additional mitigation measures beyond the existing standard requirements for payment of fees for hook-up and service, are required. Solid Waste Solid Waste - Environmental Setting The project area is served by the Chiquita Canyon landfill, owned and operated by Laidlaw Waste Systems. Trash is collected and hauled by a private hauler who takes the trash to the landfill. The landfill has a current unused capacity of 1.5 million tons, and an operating permit good until November 1997. The landfill operator has applied for a landfill expansion that will increase the landfill's capacity to 23 million tons over the.next 22 years. This expansion has been given preliminary approval, and final approval will be decided in April, 19974. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 102 City of Santa Clarito e e Utilities and Service Systems After the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 939 that requires each jurisdiction to divert 25% of its waste from landfills by 1995 and 50% of its waste by the year 2000, the City of Santa Clarita e developed a comprehensive and integrated alternative for managing of solid waste into the twenty-first century. The alternative relies on community and regional participation in e providing public policy and procedures for source reduction, recycling, composting, and solid waste disposal. Santa Clarita's goal is to increase source reduction to 8% of all its waste by the year 2000. Short-term programs include education and encouraging the use of recyclable and e reusable materials. Long-term programs include monetary incentives, possible bans on non - recyclable plastics, and continued education. The City established a curbside recycling program in early 1991. The City is planning a composting program which will establish a local ecomposting site. It has recently implemented a program for curbside yard waste collection. Solid Waste - Threshold Used to Determine Significance of Impact Impact is considered significant if the proposed project will generated solid waste that exceed the capacity of existing or planned landfills or other solid waste disposal facilities serving the eproject. ISolid Waste - Environmental Impact e New development anticipated to occur in the project area will generate approximately 20,380 tons of solid waste per year, including about 2,130 tons from new residential developments. This additional waste will incrementally increase the City's solid waste stream and the amount e of waste disposed of at the Chiquita Canyon landfill. In compliance with existing City requirements, all new development will recycle or otherwise divert about half of this waste from the landfill disposal. All individual development projects in the project area will comply e with the City's existing standard requirements to develop and implement reduction programs consistent with the objectives, policies, and programs of the adopted Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE). Since these standard conditions and requirements are adequate to e achieve the mandated reduction in the City's waste stream level, this impact is considered less than significant. ' Solid Waste - Mitigation Measures eNo mitigation is required in addition to the existing City standard requirements of all develop- ment projects to develop and implement a recycling and reduction program consistent with the eCity's adopted SRRE. I e Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 103 I Environmental Impost Assessment Storm Drains Storm Drains - Environmental Setting The ultimate destination for storm water runoff from the project area is the Santa Clara River. The storm drainage system which currently exists in the City includes the main storm drainage collection lines and drainage channels maintained by the County Flood Control District, and the local storm drainage systems and onsite retention or detention ponds which are typically required of individual developers. Storm Drains - Thresholds Used to Determine Significance of Impact Impact on the storm drain system is considered significant if the amount and rate of water runoff generated by development anticipated to occur under the proposed redevelopment project will exceed the existing or planned capacity of the drainage system. Storm Drains : Environmental Impact One-third of the entire project area is currently vacant, pervious land. New development expected to occur on these vacant parcels will substantially increase the amount of impervious surfaces and, consequently, runoff from the project area. Drainage system capacities are currently consistent with the development projections of the City of Santa Clarita General Plans. New development anticipated under the project will be within the buildout projections of the General Plan. Individual development projects throughout the City are required to mitigate impacts on the storm drain system by providing appropriate routing of runoff to the drainage system. For projects which increase runoff, outside detention or improvements to the drainage system will be required. Storm Drains - Mitigation Measures Impacts will be less than significant. Individual developments within the project area will provide the required detention and storm drain improvements as determined by the City on a project -by -project basis. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 104 City of Santa Clarita I I I I I I I I I 1 1 0 I I Utilities and Service Systems References 1. Letter from Joe Montoya, Customer Service Planner, Southern California Edison. April 3, 1997. 2. Personal communication with Marie Pagenkopp, Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. April 2, 1997. 3. Based on 400gallons per day per housing unit, 200 gallons per day per 1,000 sq. ft. of retail commercial, and 325 gallons per day per 1,000 sq. ft. of commercial/industrial. Loadings for Each Class of Land Use. Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. April 1997. 4. Personal communication with Rodney Walter, General Manager, Chiquita Canyon Landfill. April 2, 1997. 5. Based on 2.13 tons/housing unitlyear, 4 tons/1,000 sq. ft./year for commercial, and 5.7 tons/1,000sq. ft./year for industrial. National Solid Waste Management Association Technical Bulletins. 1985 and 1987. 6. Personal communication with John Huang, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Flooding Maintenance, Drainage Planning Section. April 1997. 7. NPDES Staff, City of Santa Clarita. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clanta 105 I ' 3.10 Aesthetics The term "aesthetics" in the context of this EIR refers to visual impacts. Issues of visual ' quality are predicated on the appearance of a building or an area in terms of its visibility and the visual compatibility of the buildings within a given area. This program EIR describes the overall potential effects of future development under the proposed Newhall Redevelopment ' Project, with no specific analysis of individual sites or structures. ' Environmental Setting Currently, most of the project area exhibits visual blight. Downtown Newhall is in a severely deteriorated state, including poorly maintained buildings, lack of parking, lack of streetscape, and lack of an overall cohesive character or identification of this commercial district. Lack of economic activity and physical decline create an impression that the time has passed by this section of town. The strip development along San Fernando Road in the southern portion of the project area, is comprised of nondescript small commercial and industrial structures interspersed with vacant sites, some residential buildings, and utility easements and facilities. In the northern portion, strip development along the Road includes drab and nondescript industrial and commercial development, vacant sites, and utility easements and facilities. There is very little streetscape or landscaping, and the piecemeal character of development along this major thoroughfare is generally visually unattractive. In the eastern portion of the L project area, marginal shopping malls and some strip commercial development with little or no facade treatment or cohesive site planning, create visually unattractive street frontages. Physical deterioration of structures is apparent in many locations throughout the project area. The relative scarcity of parks or open spaces within the project boundaries, further reduces the area's aesthetic appeal. Drainage channels, utility easements, and major roadways servicing through traffic between I-5 and Highway 14, crisscross and visually divide the project area. Thresholds Used to Determine Significance of Impact Impact is considered significant, if the proposed project will result in a substantial and demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. The development of an incongruous structure relative ' to its location, loss of a major public scenic view, or loss of a major open space resource is considered a significant visual impact. Environmental Impact 1 The proposed project is expected to stimulate new development in the project area intended to create both a distinct visual identity for Downtown Newhall and improve visual quality of development along San Fernando Road and other areas. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report 1 City of Santa Clarita 107 I Srvironmentallmpad Assessment The Downtown Newhall Development Standards and Design Guidelines include architectural guidelines for new and renovated buildings to reinforce the stylistic characteristics of the area's historic Victorian, Western, and Spanish Colonial styles; special architectural features (copulas, towers, etc.) at street corners; arcades, especially for south facing frontages; attractive store- front/display windows at street level; and sign guidelines to encourage merchants to reflect the variety and color of Downtown shops and services. These standards and designs are the tools to create a distinct, attractive, high -amenity pedestrian environment for specialty and conve- nience businesses to intermix - similar in character to the Pasadena's "Old Town" or Santa Monica's 3rd Street Promenade. A streetscape plan proposes unified identity treescape with tall deciduous trees that framing widened sidewalks, pedestrian -scaled decorative streetlights, attractive new benches, planters, decorative paving and kiosks, and space for outdoor cafes and street vendors - designed to encourage pedestrian activity. This treescape is to be continuous along San Fernando Road and extend to incorporate the southerly frontage of Lyons Avenue, between San Fernando Road and Newhall. Treescape and streetscape improvements are also anticipated to occur throughout the rest of the project area and, over time, all major corridors within the area are expected to be framed by unified and attractive treescape. New development and redevelopment will also be subject to current City development standards that regulate height, mass, bulk, and setbacks of structures within the project area. These regulations will be applied through a development review of individual development proposals. The uniform standards will result in more cohesive development throughout the area. The Agency and the City will also encourage high quality and innovative architectural design in all developments within the project area, which could result in an area -wide beneficial aesthetic effects. With height and bulk of structures limited by the City's current requirements, the new development is not anticipated to block any major scenic views from residential neighborhoods since it will be adequately set back from residential properties, and will be clustered at major commercial and transportation nodes, including the potential new Metrolink station in Downtown Newhall. Each individual development project will undergo a site and develop- ment review that will examine and ensure its appropriateness in relation to the surrounding development. No massive development with massive or very tall buildings will result from the proposed project. Modem business and industrial parks are typically developed with two to four-story structures surrounded by extensive landscaping in a campus -like setting. The new office and commercial development will provide setbacks, buffers; and landscaping in compliance with current City requirements, which will significantly improve the visual character of the project area. In addition to the anticipated treescape and streetscape improvements along all major corridors in the project area, there is the potential for creating some additional open space within the project area through the Agency and City actions encouraging proponents of individual residential, commercial and industrial projects to provide pocket -parks, mini -parks, green Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 108 City of Santa Clarity 11 1 1 P I I I I i I I i I Aesfhefiss spaces, or other open/recreation spaces on-site for use by residents and employees. Should such spaces be developed, it would provide some of the needed open space and improve the aesthetic character of the project area. The proposed project will not affect any existing parks or open spaces. New development will infill existing vacant sites and will not convert any parks or designated open space areas to urban uses. The General Plan has an extensive set of goals and policies to encourage high quality design in all areas of the community. The General Plan specifically recognizes the importance of Downtown Newhall's character. Design objectives are included in the Land Use Element and the Community Design Element of the plan. Goals and policies include: Community Design Element, Goal 1. To protect and preserve the scale and character of existing neighborhoods whicl providing for new development which is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. Community Design Element, Goal 4, Policy 4.2. Encourage design measures for new develompent in historic areas, such as requiring adequate physical and visual buffers between historical areas and other land uses, and the use of compatible or similar construction materials and architectural styles so as not to detract from the integrity of historical features. Community Design Element, Goal 4, Policy 4.3. Preserve and maintain historic neighborhoods and reinforce the historic theme by requiring new development to be compatible with existing historic structures and historical points of interest. Based on the above information, the overall aesthetic impact of the proposed project is considered beneficial. Mitigation Measures Aesthetic impact will be beneficial and no mitigation is required. References 1. Downtown Newhall Recommended Development Standards and Design Guidelines. 2. Downtown Newhall Improvement Program, Freedman Tung & Bottomley, April 1996. 3. Community Design Element, Santa Clarita General Plan, 1991. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 109 3.11 Historic Resources ' Environmental Setting ' Downtown Newhall, the core of the redevelopment project area, is the historic and geographic center of a region rich in history. Like a large portion of what is now the City of Santa Clarita, Newhall was once part of the Newhall Land and Farming Company's largest holding. Newhall began as a stop along the Southern Pacific Railroad, quickly becoming the original commercial center of the Santa Clarita Valley. The historic sites and resources of the area have the potential to be combined into a tourist destination. There are 14 sites designated as State or City Points of Interest in Downtown Newhall. These sites are identified in the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City's General Plan. Figure 13 illustrates the location of these sites and structures. a No other significant historic resources have been identified within the boundaries of the proposed project area. Adjacent or in close vicinity to the project area are several historic sites, including the Hart Park and Heritage Junction Saugus Depot (State Point of Historic Interest) and Pioneer Oil Refinery (State Historic Landmark). Thresholds Used to Determine Significance of Impact Impacts on historic resources are considered significant if the project will result in demolition or -substantial alterations to structures or properties designated, or potentially eligible for a designation, as historic structures or places. Environmental Impact The revitalization plan for Downtown Newhall focuses on rehabilitation and development along San Fernando Road and Newhall Avenue. The existing historic structures along these streets identified as the City's points of historical interest, are anticipated to be either pre- served, incorporated into the new development, or relocated to Heritage Park. The require- ments of City's Unified Development Code will govem any activity that may affect existing structures in Downtown Newhall and the rest of the project area. The implementation of these requirements together with the General Plan policies aimed to protect these resources, is considered sufficient to prevent a significant impact from occurring. I Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 111 1, vv'...... G.Ia ucu., nlsWl 1O MUbWJUY Id 10 TNortn CUM)0 2,000 feet environmental Impact Reporl Figure 13 Historic Resources within the Project Area Newhall Redevelopment Project City of Santa Clarita I Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 113 11 Historic Resources Development outside Downtown Newhall will primarily infill currently vacant sites, minimiz- ing the potential of impacting structures that may be of potential historical or cultural value. Nonetheless, since the future development is anticipated to recycle old and obsolete industrial and commercial uses over time, some of which may include structures that are 50 years old or older and of potential historical value, the proposed project has the potential to result in a significant impact on historic resources. Mitigation Measures The project area contains a substantial number of recognized historic resources. In addition, there are many older structures in the project area that may be of historical or cultural value. In order to avoid adverse impacts on these resources, the following mitigation measure, applied on a project -by -project basis, is required to the for demolition prevent potential of potentially significant historic structures: 1. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the City shall examine building records to determine whether a structure is 50 years or older and if so, whether such structure is of potential historic significance. For structures determined to be of potential historic significance, the City shall forward the application for a demolition permit to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for further evaluation. Based upon SHPO's I evaluation, the City shall either issue a demolition permit, require the project proponent to provide archival documentation including photos and existing records pertaining to history and architecture of the structure(s) prior to demolition, consider reuse and integration of such structure(s) into the project, or implement any other SHPO recommen- dations as determined appropriate by the City. Level of Significance After Mitigation jImplementation of the above mitigation will reduce the potential impact to a less than signifi- cant level. References 1. Open Space and Conservation Element. City of Santa Clarita General Plan. 1991. I Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 113 11 1 3.12 Parks and Recreation Environmental Setting The City of Santa Clarita Department of Parks and Recreation currently oversees the mainte- nance of 10 city parks. Total developed City -owned parkland amounts to 62 acres. Neighbor- hood parks account for approximately 30 acres, and community parks for approximately 32 acres. The City residents are also served by County parks. The County's parkland is nearly 280 acres,. but currently, only five parks are developed for a total of about 110 acres. Three existing state parks (Castaic Lake Recreation Area, Placerita Canyon, and Towsley Canyon) are available to the City residents. Another park, the Santa Clara Woodlands State Park, is proposed west of Newhall. Newhall Memorial Park, a community park, is the only parkland located within the project area. It is adjacent to the William S. Hart High School. The William Hart Park, a regional, County -owned park, and Creekview Park and Old Orchard Park, neighborhood parks, both adjoin the project area. In addition, the Placerita Junior High School and Hart High School provide athletic field recreation facilities in the project area. These facilities are available on a limited basis through a joint use agreement with the William S. Hart High School District'. The City also operates the Newhall Community Center within the project area. This center provides recreational opportunities to residents seven days a week. Figure 14 shows park service areas for the project. According to the recreational needs assessment contained in the City's General Plane, the City is currently deficient in parkland. The developed City and County parkland within the City of Santa Clarita currently provides 172 acres, or 28 percent, of the park acreage needed to meet the City's goal of 605.8 acres for the projected population at buildout of the General Plan. Development anticipated under the redevelopment project is included within the General Plan buildout projection. Thresholds Used to Determine Significance of Impact The project will result in a significant impact on recreation if the population it generates will increase demand for parks or other recreation facilities beyond the capacity of existing or planned facilities. The City of Santa Clarita has established a standard of 5 acres of parkland per 1,000 population. I i Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 115 Environmental Impart Assessment Park Location © 1.2 mile service radius ® 2 mile service radius Source: Parks Radius Map, Santa Clarita General Plan TNarth — 0 I I I I rub—U) 5,000 feet Environmental Impact Report 116 Note: Breaks in the service radius reflect major and minor street barriers to service Figure 14 Park Service Areas Newhall Redevelopment Project i Parks and Recreation Environmental Impact Additional permanent and daytime population due to increased development will increase the demand on existing parks and recreation facilities in the City. Upon buildout, the proposed project could generate up to 500 housing units within the Project Area and 350 units in other locations. Approximately 1,500 residents could be added within the project area. According to the City's standards, this population will require approximately 7.5 acres of developed parkland consisting of City and/or County parks. Exhibits PR -6 and PR -7 of the Parks and Recreation Element of the City General Plana, 1 illustrate the proposed future neighborhood and community parks to meet planning area needs at buildout of the City's General Plan. This map indicates that the project area is not in need for additional neighborhood or community parks, and it does not fall within a zone "with extreme deficiency in currently improved parkland." The development anticipated to occur under the proposed project will be within the limits 1� established by the General Plan, it will not create any new or additional impacts beyond those ii already considered under the General Plan buildout. Since the project area is adequately served I by existing parks and recreation facilities, this impact is considered less than significant. To ensure that this impact will be less than significant, a mitigation measure requiring encourage- ment of on-site recreation opportunities is required. Mitigation Measures References = 1. Personal communication with Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation, Newhall Division. April 1997. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 117 I 1. The Agency and City shall encourage proponents of individual development projects to provide pocket -parks, mini -parks or other open/recreation spaces on-site for use by residents and/or employees. 2. The Redevelopment Agency will make recreation amenities and a permanent community center in Downtown Newhall projects eligible for redevelopment tax increment financing. Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact will be less than significant. References = 1. Personal communication with Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation, Newhall Division. April 1997. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 117 I Environmental Impart Assessment 2. Parks and Recreation Element. City of Santa Clarita General Plan. 1991. 3. Parks and Recreation Element. City of Santa Clarita General Plan. 1991. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 118 City of Santa Clarita I 4.0 Alternatives iThe California Environmental Quality Act requires lead agencies to consider alternatives to their actions when those actions have the potential for significant impact on the environment. The EIR should describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and should evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment, the discussion of alternatives is to 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. The specific alternative of "no project" must be evaluated along with its impact. The "no project" analysis is required to discuss the existing conditions, as well as what would reason- ably be 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. The discussion below describes alternatives for each of these components and for the overall program as a whole. �. 4.1 No Project" Alternative The "No Project" alternative under CEQA has two aspects. First is the examination of existing conditions in the environment, and the impact on the environment if those existing conditions persisted into the future without any change. The environmental impact of this condition is the baseline against which the environmental effects of the proposed project and all other altema- tives are to be measured. Continuation of Existing Conditions �. If existing conditions in the project area remained into the future, the intensity and types of development and their impact on the environment would remain unchanged. Blighting conditions including dilapidated and obsolete structures and utilities would remain in the area. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 119 I FJ Alternatives Because of these blighting conditions, the project area would be expected to continue to decline, with increasing vacancies and abandonment of properties, and higher public costs for operation and maintenance of utilities and services. If existing conditions remained, the project area would not include additional development or employment, and would not generate additional traffic from people traveling to and from , homes, places of employment or other destinations. Additional residents would not be able to move into the area. No additional demands on public facilities and services which depend on population, such as schools, libraries and parks, would result. This alternative would also mean that no additional revenue from redevelopment tax increment , and developer fees or increases in sales tax, property tax, or other fees would be available to fund public improvements and blight removal. In the absence of such investment, the area would be expected to continue to decline, and would not be expected to return to as high a level of productive use for employment and economic activity. This alternative would not meet the objectives of the City or the Agency for use of the area. In addition, maintaining the status quo in the area would require unusual measures to preserve existing uses, preserve vacant buildings in a vacant condition, etc.. This limitation on private activity on private property is substantially more restrictive than the City's current develop- ment regulations. If the City were to require vacant buildings and properties to remain unoccupied, this alternative would require compensation to owners of such property. There- fore, this alternative is not considered a realistic, legally or financially feasible option. Continuation of Expected Development under Current Regulations , Under this alternative, development would continue in.the project area under the current General Plan and Zoning for the area. The implementation powers of the Newhall Redevelop- ment Project would not be enacted. Under this option, development would be expected to proceed at a slower pace in the project area than under the proposed project. Although development to a similar intensity would be permitted under current regulations, development would not be expected to include the same quality of planning and design, or to happen as soon, without the redevelopment powers in place. In particular, existing blighting conditions in Downtown Newhall would be expected to continue or worsen over time in the absence 6f public redevelopment actions, since the private market by itself was found to be incapable of revitalizing and redeveloping the area. Imple- mentation of the revitalization plan for this district may be severely limited or economically infeasible. Overall, this option would be likely to xesult in less recycling of obsolete or marginal uses, less development with modern business and industrial parks, and less housing development than the proposed Newhall Redevelopment Project. The overall future develop - Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 120 City of Santa Clarita I I Alternatives ment over the next 20 to 30 years would be anticipated to be about 60 percent of the total development that could occur with the proposed redevelopment project. 4.2 Reduced Newhall Redevelopment Project Area This alternative considers reducing the project area by excluding subareas that are affected by physical and economic blight to a lesser extent that the rest of the area. This alternative represents the reduced project area approved by the Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency on April 8, 1997. The possibility exists that even greater reductions in the project area could be made prior to approval of the Project Area by the City of Santa Clarita. Such reductions would reduce the impacts resulting from development within the Project Area in proportion to the reduction in size of the project area. Development of areas removed from the Project Area would be expected to take place in accordance with the City's General Plan, but at a slower pace and with less planning and design effort than if those areas were kept within the project area. However, such reductions in the Project Area would further reduce the ability to apply redevelopment measures to elimination of blight and would further reduce the potential tax increment revenue available for revitalization of Downtown Newhall and surrounding areas. Under this alternative the following subareas would be excluded from the Newhall Redevelop- ment Project area: • Hart High School, Placenta Junior High School, Newhall Elementary School and Wiley 1 Canyon Elementary School, and Newhall Park. Exclusion of these facilities from the project area will not preclude cooperative efforts between the Agency and the school districts or City. • Property located in and near Circle J Ranch. A pending development application for a substantial portion of this subarea is moving forward creating the potential for eliminating existing blighting conditions at this location through the private market, without the need for public action. The application is for residential development with a mix of single- family and multi -family units, potentially with up to 350 units. • Green Thumb nursery property on San Fernando Road near Valle Del Oro. This property is not likely to change its use in the near fixture. Since it is not essential to the develop- ment of nearby sites, its removal from the project area will not affect the feasibility of the overall project. • Pine Street properties south of the Newhall County Water District offices. The potential for future development of these properties, even with redevelopment actions, is limited due to existing environmental constraints, including oak trees and drainage. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 121 I Alternatives • Commercial properties along the south side of Lyons Avenue, from Peachland Avenue to Apple Street. The majority of existing commercial developments at this location appear to be currently viable, reducing the need for immediate public action. Residential neighborhoods south of Lyons Avenue between Wheeler and I-5 and commer- cial developments along Lyons Avenue between Wheeler and Wiley Canyon Road. . While a number of dwelling units in the residential neighborhoods are in need of signifi- cant rehabilitation, these blighting conditions do not appear to be as widespread as to require immediate public action. The majority of commercial developments at this location appear to be currently viable, reducing the need for immediate public action. A mix of commercial, residential, and office development north of Lyons Avenue, from Wiley Canyon Road to I-5 Freeway. This mix of commercial, residential, and office developments exhibits some characteristics of blight, but overall does not appear to require immediate public action. Exclusion of these subareas would reduce the size of the project area by approximately 453 acres, from 1,350 acres to 897 acres. This represents a 37 percent decrease in the size of the project area. Figure 15 shows the smaller project area. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 122 City of Santa Clarita 11 I I t I I I I w now M M M W M M M " o t M sow M VW " r N W Source: City of Santa Glerlta 0-0)0 'North 1 I I 1-0I 0 2,000feet Environmental Impact Report Figure 14 Reduced Project Area Newhall Redevelopment Project �J Alternatives The smaller project area would basically be comprised of land designated for future commer- cial and industrial uses, with no residential neighborhoods included. Under this alternative, very limited housing development with about 62 units would occur in the project area since the potential opportunity sites for larger residential development would be excluded from redevelopment actions. The potential commercial.development could also be somewhat less due to the exclusion some commercial areas that have the potential to recycle to higher uses over time, and industrial development would be less - primarily because a site of about 15 acres in size projected to redevelop with such uses would not be included in the project area. However, since most vacant opportunity sites for commercial, office, business park and industrial park development would be retained under this alternative, it is anticipated that up to 0.95 million square feet of retail/commercial and 2.0 million square feet of business and industrial park development could occur in this smaller project area. This is approximately 16% less total square footage of potential development when compared to the proposed project. Areas removed from the project area would be expected to develop ultimately in accordance with the General Plan, but possibly at a slower pace. As with the proposed project, most of this development would be anticipated to occur within the first twenty years of the redevelopment plan. The tax increment generated in this reduced project area that would be available for necessary public infrastructure, improvements and programs, would be also be reduced in rough proportion to the reduction in land area, particularly the land that would have been redeveloped with commercial and industrial uses. Such land generates most of the tax increment. Some public improvements may, therefore, be limited under this alternative. As with the proposed project, any public improvements and programs to revitalize Downtown Newhall and areas along San Fernando Road and Interstate 5, would be constructed as redevelopment funds become available. ' The environmental effects of this alternative would be slightly less than those of the proposed project. The reduction in housing development within the project area boundaries, would be offset by private residential development on sites previously included in the project area. Therefore, while project -related population impacts would be reduced, the cumulative effects related to population growth would remain basically unchanged. However, environmental impacts resulting from future development with commercial, office, and industrial uses would be reduced in rough proportion to reduction in the square footage of future development. Vehicular trips are directly related to the square footage of development. Therefore, under this alternative, the volume of vehicular trips and the resultant vehicular air pollutant emissions would be reduced by about 16 percent. With less traffic, impacts on the area's roadways and intersections would also be somewhat reduced. Traffic impacts of this alternative are outlined in the traffic impact section of the EIR. Demand for utilities would be reduced, as less water and energy would be consumed, and less sewage and solid waste produced. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 124 City of Santa Clarito , I Alternatives However, in comparison with the proposed project, this alternative would reduce generation of employment from about 9,400 jobs to 8,000 jobsi, reducing employment opportunities for the residents of Santa Clarita, in the area which currently is, and is projected to continue to be, housing -rich and jobs -poor. This reduced employment would reduce the secondary impact of generation of housing demand in the Santa Clarita area. However, in comparison with the proposed project, this alternative would provide a lesser benefit to the region's jobs/housing balance. I Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 125 I Overall, since this alternative would slightly reduce some of the project's environmental impacts, including traffic, air pollution, and public services and utilities impacts, it is consid- ered environmentally superior to the proposed project. Nonetheless, the air quality impact under this alternative would remain significant and unavoidable, the same as with the proposed project. 4.3 Development with Emphasis on Additional Employment This alternative considers the policy emphasis on development of additional employment within the project area. To create more jobs, more redevelopment of industrial areas for more intensive employment -generating uses would be required, such as more intensive research and development for industrial parks, higher proportion of business parks versus low intensity industrial parks, and more office development within those parks. Such development would generate more jobs benefitting the region's jobs/housing balance and the City's residents. By providing jobs within the City, the amount of commuting to work outside the City could be reduced, with the resultant reduction in vehicular air pollutant emissions. The decrease in commuter travel could have a beneficial effect of reducing some traffic impacts on the City roadways. However, business and industrial parks would generate additional vehicular trips and vehicular emissions that could offset the benefits of reduced commutes. More intensive development could be more inducive to the use of commuter rail, particularly if the Metrolink station is located in Downtown Newhall. Additional employment would also generate additional demand for housing, and thus demand for schools and other public services. More intensive development could generate higher tax increment revenues which would provide for more public improvements and programs benefitting the project area and the community. Since this alternative has mixed environmental effects compared to the proposed project, it is considered neither superior nor inferior. I Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 125 I I Alternatives 4.4 Alternate Redevelopment Project Areas The Newhall Redevelopment Project Area is an interrelated project area functionally related to Downtown Newhall. It includes much of the physically and economically blighted area in the City of Santa Clarita. The project area was developed as a result of evaluation of the areas of the City which are most blighted and in need of public assistance for revitalization. While other areas may. be suitable for redevelopment, the proposed project was selected as the first focus of redevelopment activities in the City. Larger project areas could be considered which incorporate additional commercial and residential areas of older Santa Clarita. A project area was originally considered by the City which included substantialadditional area east of the proposed Newhall project area and substantial additional residential area north and south of Lyons Avenue. This area would not provide the focus on Newhall that is the focus of this proposed project. A smaller project area could be chosen which included just the area that is the focus of the Downtown Newhall Improvement Program and immediately adjacent areas. Such a small project area would not provide the tax increment revenue that is needed to provide incentives and revitalization in a declining commercial area, and would not be expected to be feasible. I 17, I I 1 11 I Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 126 City of Santa Cladta I I 11 L, I I I I EJ a I I J Alternatives Table 19 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Project Alternatives Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 127 Project Alternative - Differences In Impact from Proposed Project 1. No Project - Effects of Development 3. Employment 4. Alternate Environmental Proposed under Existing 2. Reduced Emphasis in Redevelopment Impact Category Project Regulations Project Area Project Area Project Area Land Use and Promotes devel- No change in per- No change in per- Greater business Depends on spe- Planning opment of up to mitted use. Esti- milled use. Up to park, less cific area selected 500 residential mate approxi- 62 residential retail.service and units 2.5 million mately 600/6 of de- units, 2.0 million industrial than pro - square feet of in- velopment of pro- square feet of in- posed project. dustrial and 1,0 posed project by dustrial and busi- Housing develop - million square feet 2015. ness park, 0.95 ment similar to of retail and ser- million square feet proposed project. vice uses through of retail and ser - 2015. vice uses through 2015. Population and Jobs emphasis in Somewhat less Somewhat less Somewhat less Depends on spe- Housing jobs -housing bal- residential devel- residential devel- residential than cific project area ance. opment, employ- opment, less of- proposed project ment generation fice and commer- cial development, Geological Mitigated by exist- Similar to pro- Similar to pro- Similar to pro- Similar to pro - Problems ing standards posed project posed project posed project posed project Water Increased use, not Slightly less use Slightly less use Similar to pro- Greater for larger significant than proposed than proposed posed project projects, less for project project smaller Air Quality Significant by Less development Less development Slmilar to develop- Depends on na- SCAQMD stan- means lower con- means lower con. ment under exist- ture and size of dards, consistent tribution to re- tribution to re- ing regulations. area, developmen with AQMP ' gional pollutant gional pollutant policies. levels, but less levels, but less transit use transit use Transportation/ 4,723 net new Somewhat fewer Somewhat fewer Similar to develop- Depends on spe- Circuiation trips in PM peak trips, less diver- trips, less diver- ment under exist- cific project loca- hour, promotes sion to transit Sion to transit ing regulations tion and develop - transit ment Biological Re- No impact No impact No impact No impact No impact for sources most possible project areas Energy and Min- No significant im- No significant im- No significant im- Similar to pro- Similar to pro- eral Resources pact pact pact posed project posed project Hazards Abatement Less abatement of Lass abatement of Similar to develop- Similar to develop - through redevel- existing hazards, existing hazards, ment under exist- ment under exist- opment, beneficial less conversion of less conversion of ing regulations, ing regulations, impact industrial uses industrial uses some additional some additional with hazardous _ with hazardous hazard abatement hazard abatement processes processes Noise Less than signifi- Slightly less im- Slightly less im- Similar to pro- Depends on loca- cant 1posedcttro'ect pact than pro- pact than pro- t posed project tion and ost ro'ect ment Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 127 Alternatives References 1. Based on the factors of 3 employees/1,000 square feet of retail/commercial, 2.5 em- ployee/1,000 square feet of business park and industrial park, and 4 employees/1,000 square feet of office development. 2. Preliminary Report for the Newhall Redevelopment Project. GRC Redevelopment Consultants, Inc., Draft, April 4, 1997. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 128 City of Santa Clarita Project Alternative - Differences In Impact from Proposed Project 1. No Project - Effects of Development 3. Employment 4. Alternate Environmental Proposed under Existing 2. Reduced Emphasis In Redevelopment Impact Category Project Regulations Project Area Project Area Project Area Public Services- Incremental in- Slightly less im- Slightly less im- Slightly less im- If Newhall not in - Police and Fire crease in service pact than pro. pact than pro- pact with less resi- cluded, does not demand with new posed project, posed project, dential develop- address existing development substantially less substantially less meM, less reve- problems in revenue for im- revenue for im- nue for improve- Newhall. provements provements ments Public Services - Incremental in- Somewhat lessSomewhat less Less impact with Depends on stu- Schools crease in student student generation student generation fewer residential dent generation. population with than proposed than proposed units, less impact new housing de- project, less im- project, less im- fee revenue velopment, miti- pact fee revenue. pact fee revenue. gated Utilities and Ser- Substantial up- Somewhat less Somewhat less Less impact with Most potential vice Systems grading needed, service demand, service demand, fewer residential project areas redevelopment less revenue for less revenue for units, less revenue would have mini - aids improve- system upgrading system upgrading for improvements mal impact. ments Aesthetics Large structures, Less significant Less significant Industrial strut- Most redevelop - mitigated structures, less structures, less tures generally ment projects redevelopment of redevelopment of less attractive than would improve industrial uses to industrial uses to commercial, office appearance of more attractive more attractive and residential blighted areas. commercial and commercial and office uses office uses Cultural Not significant Similar to pro- Similar to pro- Similar to pro- Similar to pro - Resources posed project posed project posed project posed project Recreation Some added de- Less added de- Less added de- Less added de- Depends on resi- mand, additional mand than pro- mand than pro- mand than pro- dential develop - park provided posed project, no posed project, no posed project, ment which cre- park provided park provided park could be pro- ates demand. vided References 1. Based on the factors of 3 employees/1,000 square feet of retail/commercial, 2.5 em- ployee/1,000 square feet of business park and industrial park, and 4 employees/1,000 square feet of office development. 2. Preliminary Report for the Newhall Redevelopment Project. GRC Redevelopment Consultants, Inc., Draft, April 4, 1997. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 128 City of Santa Clarita I 5.0 Long -Term Effects Long-term and cumulative effects of the proposed Downtown Newhall Redevelopment Project are discussed in this section. 5.1 Relationship between Local Short-term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long -Term Productivity The proposed project is intended to support and increase the long-term viability of uses within the project area and immediate vicinity. The project is justified now in order to revitalize and modernize downtown Newhall and other portions of the entire project area, prevent piecemeal development responsive to short-term economic objectives rather than long-term City objec- tives expressed in the General. Plan, and prevent the expansion of blight in the project area. 5.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes State CEQA Guidelines define "significant effects" as a substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within an area affected by the project' (CEQA Guidelines Section 15002, 15382). Impacts are not considered to be significant if potential effects are mitigated to acceptable levels. The proposed Newhall Redevelopment Project will change land uses in some portions of the area through recycling of obsolete, incompatible, and visually unattractive industrial and strip Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Cladto 129 1 The proposed Newhall Redevelopment Project involves a long-term commitment of the project area to continue in urban use. The proposed project does not compromise long-term productiv- ity of the environment for short-term gain. The proposed project is intended to improve the long-term viability of the project area by stimulating modern development to ill vacant and underutilized sites, revitalizing downtown, and recycling of obsolete or marginal uses throughout the project area. The proposed redevelopment plan will eliminate existing blighting conditions and influences and provide improvements to encourage orderly, high quality development within the project area, which will benefit the entire City. Public improvements planned throughout the area will ensure that the long-term development is adequately sup- ported by the necessary infrastructure. The development standards established by the Down- town Newhall Improvement Program together with current City standards applied to new development will ensure that new development is cohesive and compatible with the surround- ' ing uses. The proposed project is intended to support and increase the long-term viability of uses within the project area and immediate vicinity. The project is justified now in order to revitalize and modernize downtown Newhall and other portions of the entire project area, prevent piecemeal development responsive to short-term economic objectives rather than long-term City objec- tives expressed in the General. Plan, and prevent the expansion of blight in the project area. 5.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes State CEQA Guidelines define "significant effects" as a substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within an area affected by the project' (CEQA Guidelines Section 15002, 15382). Impacts are not considered to be significant if potential effects are mitigated to acceptable levels. The proposed Newhall Redevelopment Project will change land uses in some portions of the area through recycling of obsolete, incompatible, and visually unattractive industrial and strip Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Cladto 129 1 Population and Housing commercial uses, and by developing the remaining vacant sites. The change will be from the existing incohesive and fragmented development into a planned urban pattern of development that is compatible and viable in the long term. As such, the proposed project is intended to induce and facilitate growth and development in the area. Increased urban activity will in tum, generate additional air pollutants from vehicular emissions, dust during grading and construc- tion activities on individual sites, and from power generation to supply electricity to the area. These additional emissions are considered an irreversible significant impact on air quality in the South Coast Air Basin, a region which has not been able to meet federal or state air quality standards for ozone and carbon monoxide. In addition, the proposed project requires a substantial commitment to provide necessary public infrastructure and facility improvements in the project area. 5.3 Growth -Inducing Impacts I The ways that the development under the proposed redevelopment project could, either directly or indirectly, encourage economic or population growth, are considered. The proposed project is expected to accelerate the attainment of the City General Plan's objectives for the project area by idling vacant and underutilized sites with commercial and industrial uses planned for the project area. These objectives include will result in infill development of an already urbanized area and will not induce growth beyond that already planned for the Santa Clarita planning area. Successful redevelopment activities will encourage economic growth in the Project Area within the limits established by the City's General Plan, and will provide for orderly growth within the City of Santa Clarita. To facilitate such orderly growth, specific redevelopment improvements are intended to ensure that adequate facilities are available to support the growth associated with the potential future development in the Newhall project area. Providing specific improve- ments through tax increment financing will reduce the potential effects of growth and develop- ment anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed redevelopment project. Economic Growth The proposed redevelopment plan for the Newhall project area allow for increases in commer- cial, industrial, and mixed use building space. This additional development will expand the employment base while also providing local services, expand the economic base, and expand the revenue base for the City by generating increased tax revenues, development fees, and user fees. 1 Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 130 City of Santa Clarita Population and Housing Population Growth The proposed project will encourage additional population growth to the project area and the City by providing housing and employment opportunities. Additional employment has the potential to indirectly generate some population growth in the surrounding communities and the region. I Public Facilities The proposed project includes the expansion of public services and facilities to accommodate additional increases in population and to alleviate existing deficiencies. However, no excess capacity that could induce growth in the outlying areas, will be provided. 5.4 Cumulative Effects State CEQA Guidelines define cumulative effects as "two or more individual effects that, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts" (Section 15355). The proposed project is intended to implement long-term objectives of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. Development within the Newhall redevelopment project area is a component of future growth for the city-wide buildout under the General Plan. The City's General Plan ' considers the long-term development of the total planning area of 106,839 acres, of which 26,548 acres had been incorporated within the City in 1991 when the General Plan was published. The General Plan does not indicate the total development capacity of the planning area, but discusses the potential for development of specific plans for a number of currently undeveloped areas. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) currently projects a population of 206,761 for the City in the year 2020, compared to an estimated population of 120,565 in 1994. SCAG projects the City's households to increase from a 1994 estimate of 41,109 to a year 2020 total of 68,666, and employment to increase from a 1994 estimate of 40,795 to a year 2020 total of 61,421. ' The cumulative impacts of such buildout have been analyzed, considered, and mitigated to the extent feasible through the General Plan's goals, policies, and programs, evaluated in the General Plan EIR. The General Plan does not specifically identify the public improvements needed based on a specific future development scenario, since much of the area has not been planned for specific development. Instead, the plan takes a programmatic approach, by requiring that individual development projects ensure that public facilities and services are adequately provided at the time of development (Land Use Goal 1 and Goal 7 and related policies). - Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clorito 131 I Population and Housing Major undeveloped areas are expected to be developed under specific plans which provide for the coordinated development of land uses and supporting public infrastructure. The develop- , ment allowed under the proposed project will not increase the buildout potential of the General Plan. The proposed project provides for public improvements for streets, roadways, utility infrastructure, and public facilities to adequately serve the planned development in the Newhall project area. Transportation improvements, including the current improvements to Railroad Avenue in Newhall, coupled with the use of commuter rail and trip -reduction programs within individual commercial and industrial developments, will result in a circulation system that can accommodate increased traffic. However, increase in air pollutant emissions and demand for schools will be adverse cumulative impacts when considered together with other development anticipated for the General Plan buildout. The circulation analysis for this project includes assumptions about long-term development and the circulation network serving the project area that are consistent with regional projections for development. The analysis in this EIR did not identify impacts that create unique or unusual combinations of effects, or would have greater effect than the sum of their individual impacts, when considered together. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 132 City of Santa Clarita J I I 11 I I I I 1 6.0 Issues of No Significant Impact The Lead Agency - the City of Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency, through the Initial Study and Notice of Preparation process, has determined that the implementation of the proposed Newhall Redevelopment Project will not result in significant impacts in the following categories of environmental concern: 1 Issues of No Significant Impact Land Use and Planning • Conflict with general plan designation or zoning. • Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. j• Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or.farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses). • Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community). 1 Population and Housing • Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. Geologic Problems •. Fault rupture. • Seismic ground shaking. • Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard. • Landslides or mudflows. • Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 133 I Issues of No Significant Impact • Subsidence of the land. • Expansive soils. • Unique geologic or physical features. Water • Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff. • Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body. • Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements. • Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. • Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater. • Impacts to groundwater quality. • Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies. Air Quality • Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate. • Create objectionable odors. Tra nsportation/GrcuIation • Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment). • Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses. • Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site. • Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 134 City of Santa Clarito Issues of No Significant Impact • Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks). • Rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts. Biological Resources • Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. Energy and Mineral Resources • Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. • Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. • Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State. Hazards • A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation). • Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. • Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees. Utilities and Service Systems • Communications systems. Aesthetics • Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. Cultural Resources • Disturb paleontological resources. • Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values. Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarita 135 Issues of No Significant impact • Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. Recreation • Affect existing recreational opportunities. Explanation of this determination is presented on page 15 of the Initial Study. The Initial Study is included asAppendix A of this EIR. Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project 136 City of Santa Clarita I I L 7.0 Preparers of the EIR Lead Agency Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Ste. 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355-2196 Glenn Adamick, Economic Development Associate (805) 259-2489 M 1 Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarito 137 I Consultants to the Agency Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. Urban and Environmental Planning Project Analyst: Veronica Tam, AICP 747 East Green Street, Ste. 400 Pasadena, CA 91101 I (818)304-0102 M 1 Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarito 137 I Principal -in -Charge: P. Patrick Mann, AICP Project Manager and Principal Analyst: Irena Finkelstein, AICP Project Analyst: Veronica Tam, AICP Project Assistant Analyst: Kelly Lamkin Responsibility: Overall preparation and coordination of EIR, environmental analysis Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. Traffic Engineering 900 Wilshire Boulevard, Ste. 1200 Los Angles, CA 90017 (213)488-0345 Viggen Davidian, Principal Ian Pari, Principal Engineer Responsibility: Traffic modeling and analysis M 1 Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report City of Santa Clarito 137 I Appendix Draft Environmental Impact Report Newhall Redevelopment Project SCH # 91021002 ApA 1997 Santo Clodto Redevelopment Agency Appendix A Initial Study and Comments Initial Study Newhall Redevelopment Proj Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency January, 1997 Contact Person: Glenn Adamick 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Initial Study for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Contents Introduction ........................................... ii 1. Project Description ................................. 1 I.I. Background ................................... 1 1.2 Project Characteristics .......................... 1 1.3. Development Anticipated Under the Newhall Redevelop- mentProject................................... 6 1.4 Relation to Existing Plans ........................ 8 2. Environmental Setting ............................... 9 3. Environmental Impact........... ................ 13 References ........................................... 26 Preparers of the Initial Study ............................ 27 i Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency Initial Study for the Newhall Redevelopment Project ' introduction This Initial Study identifies the potentially significant environmental , effects of the adoption and implementation of the Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area by the Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency. Under the California Environmen- tal Quality Act, a Lead Agency that proposes to carry out a project is required to prepare an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment (California Code of , Regulations 15063(a)). The City of Santa Clarita and the Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency have determined that the Newhall Redevelopment Project will have potentially significant effects on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Report will be prepared for this project. When an agency has deters fined that an EIR is required, the Initial Study may be used to focus the EIR on effects determined to be significant, identifying the effects deter- mined not to be significant and explaining the reasons for that deter- mination, and identifying whether a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process can be used for analysis of the project's environ- mental effects. Section 15180 of the CEQA guidelines specifies that all public and private actions or undertakings pursuant to or in furtherance of a redevelopment plan constitute a single project. An EIR on a redevel- opment plan is to be treated as a program EIR, with no subsequent EIRs required for individual components of the redevelopment plan unless a subsequent EIR or supplement to an EIR would be required by Section 15162 or 15163 of the Guidelines. I I I I I Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency ii I I Initial Study for the Newhall Redevelopment Project 1 1. Project Description ' I.I. Background In April, 1996, the Santa Clarita City Council gave conceptual approval to the Downtown Newhall Improvement Program, as developed by Freedman, Tung and Bottomley'. The plan identified a variety of funding sources for the revitalization program, including ' tax increment revenue that would become available by including portions of Newhall in a redevelopment project area. I I 11 Preliminary evaluation conducted by the City and by GRC Redevel- opment Consultants resulted in the establishment of a Redevelop- ment Candidate Area. This area will be further evaluated to deter- mine whether the entire area or portions of the area will be estab- lished as a redevelopment project area. This Initial Study and the Environmental Impact Report will con- sider the environmental effects of the establishment of the entire Redevelopment Candidate Area, illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2 on pages 3 and 4, as a redevelopment project area under California Redevelopment Law. 1.2 Project Characteristics Project Location and Boundaries The proposed candidate Newhall Redevelopment Project Area is located in the southwestern part of the City of Santa Clarita. It encompasses the downtown Newhall area, the immediately sur- rounding residential neighborhoods, and the frontage properties on the three arterial streets providing access to the downtown area. These include Lyons Avenue to the I-5 Freeway, San Fernando Road north to Magic Mountain Parkway, and San Fernando Road south to the California 14 Freeway. The total candidate redevelopment project area encompasses approx- imately 1,350 acres, including approximately 179 acres of streets. The adopted redevelopment project area can be no larger than the redevelopment candidate area unless a new candidate area is adopted and the plan adoption process is re -started. Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency IJ Initial Study for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Project Actions 1 A redevelopment project under California Redevelopment Law is a ' comprehensive program for revitalization of a blighted area. A redevelopment plan has a number of required components. The effects of each component need to be considered in determining the project's environmental effects. The redevelopment plan will include: ' • A land use plan, consistent with the General Plan. redevelopment plan. These actions may include approvals required for development of land in the private development market, actions , • An owner incentive program, indicating how existing property owners and businesses in the project area will be given prefer- ence in future development in the project area. • A relocation program, indicating how the Agency will relocate businesses and residents who may be affected by Agency activi- , ties in the project area. • A low- and moderate -income housing program, indicating how ' the Agency will provide for replacement housing and will increase, preserve and improve the supply of low- and moderate -income housing. As required by California Redevelopment Law, the land uses desig- nated in the Redevelopment Plan will be consistent with those called for by the City's General Plan. To assure continued conformity between the Redevelopment Plan and the General Plan, the Redevel- opment Plan will be drafted so that the land use policy of the General Plan is incorporated by reference, and that in the event of an incon- sistency between the General Plan and the Redevelopment Plan, the General Plan will govern. The Newhall Redevelopment Project will involve a number of subsequent actions over a long period of time to implement the redevelopment plan. These actions may include approvals required for development of land in the private development market, actions , to acquire and develop properties for public uses, construction of a wide variety of public improvements, public facilities and infrastruc- ture, approval of agreements with owners and developers for the development of land in accordance with the plan, and other actions. Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency 2 I P Initial Study for the Newhall Redevelopment Project TN�t, Figure 1 0 5,0001"t Project Location 3 Santa Garita Redevelopment Agency Initial Study /or the Newhall Redevelopment Project (m AIePtojecAm Boo dm3 - Commmal3Commemlol Dion $pom Indm,W B,*. Park PM Indum6l Cammeraiol ReG&e W hudeaAol m (1.1-3.3 DU/AC) R,dd,d.l$oborbon (3.44.A DU/AC) Reddemlal Mademie RAl-15.ODWA4 -� Source: GRC Redevelopment Comuftants. Inc. T Figure 2 (G� o z.000met Proposed Land Uses for Project Area Santa Clarita Redevelopment ^gency 4 I [J LJ I LJ I J I I I Initial Study for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Project Objectives The objectives of the Newhall Redevelopment Project include the following, as outlined in the Preliminary Plana: • Implementing the revitalization goals and strategies identified in the Downtown Newhall Improvement Program. • Provide for the various public improvements identified in the Downtown Newhall Improvement Program. • Provide for public improvements as needed to eliminate blight in those portions of the Project Area located outside of the immediate downtown Newhall area. • Using tax increment revenues set aside for housing, develop and implement housing programs as needed to meet the needs of very low, low- and moderate -income residents in the Project Area. • Provide for a general program of redevelopment incentives that will serve to eliminate blight and strengthen the commercial and industrial base in the project area, and thereby create lasting improvements to the community's tax and employment bases. General objectives to be met in the project area based on the objec- tives of California Redevelopment Law include the following: • Alleviate the causes and effects of blight. • Construct needed infrastructure improvements including, but not limited to, streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, sewer lines, water lines, drainage systems, and similar improvements needed to support the removal of blighting influences. • Where appropriate, assist in the consolidation of lots or sites for the development of new uses or the relocation of existing uses in a manner that is consistent with the Downtown Newhall Revitalization Strategy and the Santa Clarita General Plan. 5 Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency Initial Study for the Newhall Redevelopment Project • Promote rehabilitation or other improvements to privately owned buildings and properties in commercial, industrial and residential areas, that will expand the City's economic base and further reduce blight. • Improve, increase and preserve the community's housing stock through rehabilitation or other means. • Preserve and enhance the historical character of the project area as appropriate. 1.3. Development Anticipated Under the Newhall Redevelop- ment Project In order to evaluate environmental effects of the proposed project, the amount of land development expected to occur within the project area was estimated. This potential development was compared to that which would be expected to take place under the existing Gen- eral Plan, without providing redevelopment powers in the proposed Newhall Redevelopment Project Area. The intensity of development permitted at buildout in the project area under the redevelopment plan will be the same as that under the General Plan. However, the redevelopment project would be ex- pected to result in somewhat more intensive development; develop- ment of larger, more coordinated projects, and a somewhat more rapid pace of development and redevelopment than would take place without the use of redevelopment powers. One of the purposes of the redevelopment project is to eliminate obstacles to development that prevent the area from achieving General Plan goals and building intensities. In general, the Santa Clarita General Plan and the Downtown Newhall Improvement Program promote and encourage the follow- ing. These estimates are subject to potential variations because of the wide range of options available for development of commercial and industrial areas, the long development period being considered, and the inability to anticipate possible new market forces that may define development potential over the long life of the project. Santa Oarita Redevelopment Agency 6 C' LI I I 7 iL 1 �I v I I 1 1 1 Initial Study for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Maximum amounts of development discussed in each land use category will not all be accomplished simultaneously. Maximum development in any one land use category could in general occur only by reducing the amount of development in other categories. These development assumptions include all development within the project area, not development induced through agency action alone: Development of residential uses and mixed-use projects includ- ing residential uses within residential, mixed-use and commer- cial districts. An estimated probable 750 to 1,000 residential units could be constructed within the project area on parcels designated for residential development through the year 2015. Development of a net increase in office, industrial, business park space, including a probable 1.0 to 2.0 million square feet of such uses, up to a probable maximum of 2.5 million square feet of such uses, on opportunity sites and as replacement or infill in existing industrial and commercial areas. Development of new retail commercial uses at commercial nodes and in Downtown Newhall. An estimated probable 150,000 to 250,000 square feet of new retail development is anticipated, with up to 1,000,000 square feet of additional development possible under a maximum retail development scenario. Conversion of 20 to 50 pre-existing legal residential units to industrial and commercial uses in areas designated for industrial and commercial development. This conversion is expected to take place in the private development market without direct Agency involvement. The proposed plan does not permit the Agency to condemn property on which people reside, or to undertake projects which would displace a substantial number of low- or moderate -income persons. • Development of major circulation improvements, including a variety of intersection and roadway improvements. Development of streetscape improvements along principal corridors within the project area. • Development of water, sewer, and drainage improvements to support the above development. Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency Initial Study for the Newhall Redevelopment Project , Development under the existing General Plan and zoning would in general permit the development of similar land uses, including the ' development of residential uses in commercial areas. However, without the encouragement of specific types of development by the ' plan, and without the provision of redevelopment powers and fund- , ing in the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area, the amount of development would be expected to be substantially less. Less invest- ' ment in public improvements would be expected without the tax ' increment revenue from the redevelopment project. ' It is difficult to estimate the exact impact that the adoption of a plan, establishment of development incentives, and public involvement in ' encouraging desirable development will have on the rate and amount of development in a large area like the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area. It is reasonable to assume that these measures will , increase the amount of development that takes place in the project area over the life of the project. Overall, development by the year 2015 under the existing General Plan and zoning is assumed to be ' between 60% and 90% of the amount of development anticipated if the proposed redevelopment project is implemented. ' 1.4 Relation to Existing Plans The plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area is proposed to ' adopt the City's General Plan land use designations for the project area by reference, so that the plan will always remain consistent with the General Plan. n �J LJ 1 I Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency 8 1 L I I �J 11 11 11 I I I 11 Initial Study for the Newhall Redevelopment Project 2. Environmental Setting The proposed project is located within a developed, urbanized area. It is surrounded primarily by residential land uses and undeveloped hillside and canyon areas. The South Fork of the Santa Clara River runs in an open -bottom channel along San Fernando Road in the northern section of the project area. Placerita Creek and Newhall Creek drain into the South Fork and pass through the project area near downtown Newhall. Existing Development. The project area includes a wide variety of land uses. Much of the area was developed along arterials as commercial strips without attention to long-term development of the area. Commercial areas are characterized by small parcels not well related to each other, frequent curb cuts, inadequate parking and loading areas, and poor buffering between commercial and adjacent residential uses. Table 1 on the following page summarizes existing land use based on infor- mation provided in the Preliminary Plan for the Newhall Redevelop- ment Project3. Of the total land area in the project area, approxi- mately 21% is residential, 12% is commercial, 10% is industrial, 17% is public (including schools, utilities and flood control), 26% is currently vacant and 13% is street rights-of-way. Vacant land includes parcels that have been developed in the past, parcels that are of irregular size and shape, and parcels that are integral to urban areas. A survey by GRC Redevelopment Consultants2 identified a rela- tively high incidence of maintenance problems with existing struc- tures. 9 Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency Initial Study for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Table 1 Existing Land. Uses in Project Area Land Use Dwelling Units Area (acres) Percent of Total Area Residential Single -Family 1,173 207.69 15.39% Multi -Family 1,450 55.42 4.11% Mobile Home 194 15.55 1.15% Total Residential 2,817 278.66 20.64% Nonresidential Commercial 147.02 10.89% Office/Professional 15.40 1.14% Mixed Residential/Commercial 0.35 0.03% Industrial 132.25 9.800/0 Public/Institutional 223.83 16.58% Agricultural 24.32 1.800/0 Currently vacant 348.96 25.85% Total Nonresidential 892.13 66.09% Total excluding streets 2,817 1,170.79 86.73% Streets 179.07 13.27% Total including streets 2,817 1,349.86 100.00% Source: GRC Redevelopment Consultants, PreliminaryPlan for the NewhallRedevelopment Project Area, November 19, 1996. 1 [_l r— L n L II r� 1 1 IA I Santa Garita Redevelopment Agency 10 1 1 F -J 7 u 11 I I 11 1 Initial Study for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Flooding A number of areas within the project area are exposed to flooding, including the following: • East of San Fernando Road in East Newhall • East of San Fernando Road, north of 12th Street • West of San Fernando Road, near 16th Street • Near San Fernando Road and Sierra Highway • Between Lyons Avenue and Powell Drive • West of Wiley Canyon Road, south of Wabuska Street • Near Vermont Drive and Everett Drive, South of Powell Drive Biology Most of the biologically sensitive areas of the City are in undevel- oped river or canyon bottoms and in hillside areas. The proposed project includes some sensitive habitat in river bottoms and adjacent areas. Most of these habitat areas are within public ownership for flood control purposes. The remainder of the proposed project area has been developed for many years with urban uses or used for agriculture, and does not include substantial undisturbed habitat. Some areas of habitat may exist on sites with development potential. Public Facilities and Services Because most of the project area has been urbanized for a number of years, it is served by a network of public facilities and utilities including streets, water and sewer systems, drainage facilities, schools, parks, and other public facilities. Some of these systems were installed long ago and may not be adequate to serve the amount and type of development anticipated in the project area. The General Plan EIR4 indicates that all the school districts serving the City are overcrowded, a number of roadways are impacted, and parks are limited. Air Quality Santa Clarita is located in the South Coast Air Basin. The South Coast Air Basin has the worst ozone pollution problem in the United States. This problem results from low wind speeds and a normal temperature inversion which combine to trap the large volume of pollutants emitted in this major metropolitan area. 11 Santa Garita Redevelopment Agency Initial Study for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Geologic Problems ' Santa Clarita is subject to severe ground shaking from earthquakes on a number of local faults. The San Gabriel Fault runs just north of ' the north end of the proposed project area. The General Plan identi- fies no active faults within the project area. Ground shaking can result in slope and ground failure or liquefaction. Much of the , northern part of the project area is on alluvial soils along the South Fork of the Santa Clarita River and has a high potential for liquefac- tion in the event of extended ground shaking. ' Wildland Fires. The southern part of the project area is in a wildland fire hazard area because of its proximity to undeveloped hillside areas with natural vegetation. , Santa Garita Redevelopment Agency 12 1 1 I I I 1 ' Initial -Study for the Newhall Redevelopment Project 3. Environmental Impact ' This section contains the Initial Study Checklist from the CEQA Guidelines, which briefly describes the project's potential effects in sixteen categories of environmental concern. ' Environmental Checklist Form (Appendix 4 California Cade of Regulations Section 15000 ff.) 1. Project Title: Newhall Redevelopment Project 11 I I 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: Only the City Council will be responsible for approval of the project itself. The following additional agencies may be involved in approvals of individual subsequent development projects, public improvement projects, or implementa- tion of environmental mitigation measures undertaken under provisions of the Newhall Redevelopment Project: • California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) • Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) • South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) • County of Los Angeles • California Regional Water Quality Control Board • Santa Clarita Unified School District • Various City of Santa Clarita departments and agencies 13 Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300, Santa Clarita, CA 91355 ' 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Glenn Adamick, (805) 255-4352 r4. Project Location: See Project Description, page 1 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency (same as lead agency) 6. General Plan Designation: A wide variety of land uses including medium and high density residential, commercial general manufacturing, restricted industry, mixed commercial/office/ residential, mixed commercial/office/industrial, and public facility. ' 7. Zoning: A wide variety of zoning designations for residential, commercial, manufacturing, mixed uses, and public facility uses. ' 8. Description of Project: See Project Description 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: See Project Description 11 I I 10. Other agencies whose approval is required: Only the City Council will be responsible for approval of the project itself. The following additional agencies may be involved in approvals of individual subsequent development projects, public improvement projects, or implementa- tion of environmental mitigation measures undertaken under provisions of the Newhall Redevelopment Project: • California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) • Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) • South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) • County of Los Angeles • California Regional Water Quality Control Board • Santa Clarita Unified School District • Various City of Santa Clarita departments and agencies 13 Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency Initial Study for the Newhall Redevelopment Project ' Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: ' The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving ' at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ® Land Use and Planning ® Transportation/Circulation ® Public Services ' ® Population and Housing ® Biological Resources ® Utilities and Service Systems ® Geological Problems ❑ Energy, Mineral Resources ® Aesthetics , ® Water ® Hazards N Cultural Resources ® Air Quality ® Noise ® Recreation ' ® Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency) ' On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, ' and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ , I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ® ' I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the , earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ , I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards ' and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. ❑ Signature Date 1 Printed Name For , Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency 14 1 1 I L1 C] initial Study for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Issues (and Supporting information Sources): 1. Land Use and Planning. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zon- ing? Potentially Significant Unless Potentially Mitigation Significant Incorpo- ImDact rated Less Than Significant No Im- ❑ ❑ ❑ The Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area proposes to incorporate the City's General Plan designations for the project area by reference, and therefore will involve no conflict with general plan or zoning designations. b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans ❑ ❑ ❑ or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdic- tion over the project? Any future development and construction of improvements within the Plan Area will comply with existing federal, state, and City of Santa Clarita environmental requirements. The Plan Area is predominately urbanized and no substantial biological or other natural resources will be affected by the implementation of the proposed Plan. The proposed Plan will not conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies, and,this issue requires no further analysis. c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the ❑ ® ❑ ❑ vicinity? Development anticipated to occur under the proposed project will intensify and modify land uses in the Project Area. The compatibility of the potential future commercial, industrial, and residential uses with existing mix of land uses in the vicinity will be examined in the EIR. d) Affect agricultural resources or operations ❑ ❑ ® ❑ (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or im- pacts from incompatible land uses)? A land use survey indicates that 24.3 acres of land in the project area located between Wiley Canyon Road and Interstate 5 between Calgrove Boulevard and Wabuska Street is currently used for agriculture but designated for Community Commercial uses by the General Plan. Because of the small size of this agricultural area, its freeway -adjacent urban location, and the probable ' ultimate development of this area for urban uses even without the proposed Redevelopment Project, thisimpact is not considered significant. This issue requires no further analysis. ' e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of ❑ ❑ ❑ an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? The proposed project does not propose changes in the structure or arrangement of the commu- ' nity which would disrupt or divide an established community. This issue requires no further analysis. 2. Population and Housing. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local ❑ ❑ ❑ population projections? Agency 15 Santa Clarita Redevelopment Initial Study for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Potentially Significant Unless Potentially Mitigation Less Than Significant incorpo- Slgnificant No Im- Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): impact rated Impact pact b) Induce substantial growth in an area either ❑ ® ❑ ❑ directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (a through b) The proposed project has the potential to directly and indirectly encourage residential and commercial development and induce economic growth in the Project area and surrounding areas. This development is consistent with the General Plan and population projections for the area, and is therefore not considered significant in itself. The secondary impacts of this development on public facilities and infrastructure will be considered in the EIR. c) Displace existing housing, especially afford- ❑ ® ❑ ❑ able housing? Even though the Agency will not have the power to condemn property on which persons reside, or to undertake public projects which would displace a substantial number of low- or moderate - income persons, implementation of the proposed project may result in the elimination of some pre-existing legal residential units in areas designated by the General Plan for non-residential development, or units in areas which are developed at higher residential densities. Redevelop- ment law mandates extensive mitigation of housing displacement impacts. This issue will be discussed in the EIR. 3. Geologic Problems. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ❑ ❑ ❑ ca b) Seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ (a through b) The project area does not include areas subject to faulting as documented in the General Plan. The City is subject to severe ground shaking from earthquakes, and building codes and development procedures include extensive mitigation measures to prevent unaccept- able levels of risk from earthquakes. Redevelopment should assist in rehabilitating existing structures to improve seismic safety. New development will be required to meet current high standards of safety. All new development, rehabilitation, and improvements in the Plan Area will be constructed in compliance with current seismic safety requirements, including the Building Code standards, City General Plan policies, and the Citys standard development requirements. These existing requirements together with the available established engineering techniques for construction in seismically active regions, will provide adequate protection. This issue requires no further analysis. c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Portions of the Plan Area along the South Fork of the Santa Clara River lie within an area of high liquefaction potential. This constraint can be overcome with existing standard engineering techniques. This issue will be discussed in the EIR. Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency 16 I 1.1 11 11 1 1 1 1 I Initial Study for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Potentially Significant Unless Potentially Mitigation Less Than Significant Incorpo- Significant No lm- Imnact rated Impact pact d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ❑ ❑ ❑ Ed e) Landslides or mudflows? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ (d through e) The City of Santa Clarita is not subject to tsunami, seiches, or volcanic hazards. The project area is in a relatively flat area of the City, and landslides and mudflows are less likely in this area than in hillside areas of the City. The Safety Element map of landslides does not show major landslides within the project area. This issue requires no further discussion. f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable ❑ ❑ ® ❑ soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? The project area does not include major terrain features that would be expected to be modified by excavation. Any localized grading or site preparation activities at specific locations will be conducted in compliance with the Citys standard requirements, and the requirements of engineering soil studies prepared for individual development projects. All grading will be required to comply with specific National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements as a condition of development. Therefore, no significant erosion, unstable soil conditions or changes in topography are anticipated to result from future development in the Plan Area. This issue requires no further analysis. g) Subsidence of the land? ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Expansive soils? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ (g through h) No subsidence hazard or significant constraints associated with expansive soils have been identified in the Plan Area. The General Plan Conservation Element soils map (Reference 4, Exhibit OS -4) on the east side of San Fernando Road are Ague. Dulce Association soils with low shrink -swell potential. On the west side of San Fernando Road, soils are predomi- nately Yolo Association soils of moderate shrink -swell potential (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey, Antelope Valley, California, January, 1970). Soil expansion issues are satisfactorily mitigated through construction in accordance with the City's building code. These issues require no further discussion. 1) Unique geologic or physical features? ❑ ❑ ❑ The Plan Area is basically flat land developed with urban uses, and it does not contain any unique geologic or physical features. This issue requires no further analysis. 4. Water. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface run- off? 17 ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency Initial Study for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Potentially Significant Unless Potentially Mitigation Less Than Significant Incorpo- Significant Nolm- Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact rated Impact pact The Plan Area is substantially developed with commercial, industrial, and residential uses which cover an estimated 30 to 50% of the surface area within the project area with impervious surfaces. Development in the project area encouraged by the proposed project will increase the amount of impervious surface to 40 to 60% of land area, increasing the rate and amount of runoff during storms unless mitigated. Major projects will be required to retain runoff water, but the cumulative impact of small developments will be adverse. Any new development will construct all necessary drainage facilities and pay appropriate hookup fees. All new construction will comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. This impact is consid- ered less than significant and no further analysis is required. b) Exposure of people or property to water re- ❑ ® ❑ ❑ lated hazards such as flooding? A number of flood control channels traverse the Plan area, and a portion of the area is identified by FEMA as a Flood Hazard Area.. The project will contribute to cumulative increases in runoff during storms. This issue will be discussed in the EIR. c) Discharge into surface waters or other alter- ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ation of surface water quality (e.g. tempera- ture, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in ❑ ❑ ❑ any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direc- ❑ ❑ ❑ tion of water movements? (c through e) The project area includes a number of water courses draining into the Santa Clara River. The project may result in construction in these water courses for roadway or bridge widening or development adjacent to the water courses. Any potential construction activity along these water courses is subject to permit requirements of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers which will prevent significant impacts on these watercourses. Development in adjacent areas must meet requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction runoff and long-term urban runoff. Each new development will comply with the City and County drainage requirements. Since these existing permitting requirements are designed to provide adequate protection, this impact is considered less than significant. No further discus- sion is required. f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, ei- ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ther through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwaterrechargecapability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwa- ❑ ❑ ❑ ter? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency 18 1 I [1 I L7 I 1 I A 11 ' Initial Study for the Newhall Redevelopment Project 1 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or cause any change in climate? The proposed project will not result in a massive increase in emissions or other changes that would significantly alter air movements across and around the Plan area. This issue requires no further discussion. d) Create objectionable odors? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 19 Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency Potentially Significant Unless ' Potentially Mitigation Less Than Significant Incorpo- Significant No Im- Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact rated Impact pact Future development in the Plan Area may include industrial uses that use some hazardous materials. Some existing sites in the project are likely to be contaminated because of previous uses. These sites pose some risk of transporting contaminants downstream from the project ' area. These issues will be discussed in the EIR. 1) Substantial reduction in the amount of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ groundwater otherwise available for public ' water supplies? Over the years, new development in the Plan Area will consume water for dust control during construction of individual developments, and for landscape irrigation and day-to-day operations ' upon completion of individual projects. The new development will be required to use non -potable water for construction dust control, effectively mitigating the short-term construction impacts. 1 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or cause any change in climate? The proposed project will not result in a massive increase in emissions or other changes that would significantly alter air movements across and around the Plan area. This issue requires no further discussion. d) Create objectionable odors? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 19 Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency Development anticipated to occur in the project area will increase water consumption in an area that depends on imported water to supplement local supples. The amount of development in the project area will not cause a significant demand on water supplies in relation to regional water ' consumption. This issue requires no further analysis. 5. Air Quality. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to ® ❑ ❑ ❑ an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ (a and b) Implementation of the proposed Plan will result in incremental intensification of land uses in the Plan Area. If much of the vacant land in the project area is developed as a single large construction project, this amount of grading would be expected to result in short-term local violations of air quality standards for particulates, and result in a contribution to regional pollutant ' emissions of oxides of nitrogen considered significant by the South Coast Air Quality Manage- ment District. Increased traffic associated with future development under the proposed Plan will generate additional exhaust emissions in the South Coast Air.Basin, The overall impact on air quality, and the potential for affecting existing sensitive receptors, including schools, within the Plan Area and the vicinity will be discussed in the EIR, 1 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or cause any change in climate? The proposed project will not result in a massive increase in emissions or other changes that would significantly alter air movements across and around the Plan area. This issue requires no further discussion. d) Create objectionable odors? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 19 Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency Initial Study for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Potentially Significant Unless Potentially Mitigation Less Than Significant Incorpo- Significant No Im- Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact rated Impact pact The proposed project intends to eliminate incompatible land uses, and recycle old and obsolete industrial parcels to modern and "clean" industrial uses. All new development proposals will be reviewed by the City for conformance with existing regulations. The existing nuisance regulations applicable to objectionable odors will reduce any potential impact to a less than significant level. This issue requires no further analysis. 6. Transportation/Circulation. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased. vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ® ❑ ❑ ❑ A number of roadways serving the project area are now congested. Development anticipated in the project area and encouraged by the proposed project will result in significant additional vehicular trips. One of the objectives of the project is to improve circulation within the Project Area. Traffic and circulation issues will be discussed in the EIR. b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. ❑ ❑ ® ❑ sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment) Individual projects will comply with existing City design safety requirements and development standards which will prevent the potential for creating hazards. This issue requires no further discussion. c) Inadequate emergency access or access to ❑ ❑ ® ❑ nearby uses? The proposed project will not result in significant changes to circulation patterns or emergency access. This issue requires no further discussion. d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off- ❑ ❑ ® ❑ site? Each future development under the proposed project will provide on-site or off-site parking as required by the City. The proposed project would provide the potential to provide additional shared parking to correct existing deficiencies. Transportation improvements may result in some loss of on -street parking as through lanes or tum lanes are added by removing on -street parking or peak -hour parking to meet existing and anticipated traffic demands. This issue will be further discussed in the EIR. e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicy- ❑ ❑ ® ❑ clists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency 20 I 1 1 I 1 1 11 1 1 I 1 1 initial Study for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Potentially Significant Unless Potentially Mitigation Less Than Significant Incorpo- Significant No lm - Issues (and Su000rtina Information Sources): Imaact rated Impact pact (e through f) The implementation of the proposed Plan will result in circulation improvements that are expected to enhance pedestrian and bicycle circulation within the Plan Area. This issue requires no further discussion. g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Future development anticipated to occur under the proposed Plan will not involve waterborne or air traffic. The Plan area contains rail lines. The use of these lines, and the Light Rail/Metrolink lines will be discussed in the EIR. I H 1 I (a through e) The project area is substantially urbanized, but includes some undeveloped areas, some of which are adjacent to natural areas and provide some natural habitat. In addition, the area includes drainage channels that provide riparian habitat and wildlife corridors. Although the project will not substantially affect drainage areas, some public improvements or development projects may involve some actions in drainage channels that will require project -specific mitiga- tion to offset or prevent adverse impacts on habitat areas or sensitive species. Some develop- ments may result in the loss of existing mature trees or natural habitat which would require project -specific mitigation measures. This issue will be further discussed in the EIR. 8. Energy and Mineral Resources. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful ❑ ❑ ® ❑ and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ ❑ ❑ mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 21 Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency 7. Biological Resources. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ their habitats Including but not limited to ' plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ' trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., ❑ ® ❑ ❑ oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and ❑ ® ❑ ❑ vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ I H 1 I (a through e) The project area is substantially urbanized, but includes some undeveloped areas, some of which are adjacent to natural areas and provide some natural habitat. In addition, the area includes drainage channels that provide riparian habitat and wildlife corridors. Although the project will not substantially affect drainage areas, some public improvements or development projects may involve some actions in drainage channels that will require project -specific mitiga- tion to offset or prevent adverse impacts on habitat areas or sensitive species. Some develop- ments may result in the loss of existing mature trees or natural habitat which would require project -specific mitigation measures. This issue will be further discussed in the EIR. 8. Energy and Mineral Resources. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation ❑ ❑ ❑ plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful ❑ ❑ ® ❑ and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ ❑ ❑ mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? 21 Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency I Initial Study for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Potentially ' Significant Unless ' Potentially Mitigation Less Than Significant Incorpo- Significant No Im- Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact rated Impact pact (a through c) Future development anticipated to occur under the proposed project will be typical ' urban uses which will not require unusually large amounts of energy. All new developments will incorporate required energy saving devices and programs which will reduce consumption of energy. A portion of the Newhall oil field near the interchange between California 14 (Antelope , Valley Freeway) and San Fernando Road is within the project area. The Conservation Element of the General Plano, Exhibit OS -5, shows the location of this oil field. Development is not expected to result in reduction of the ability to recover oil from this field. No other mineral resources are ' shown within the project area on this map. This issue requires no further analysis. 9. Hazards. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radia- tion)? ' b) Possible interference with an emergency re- ❑ ❑ OR ❑ sponse plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ' health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of ❑ ® ❑ ❑ potential health hazards? ' (a through d) The proposed project is expected to result in the recycling of old and obsolete industrial uses to "clean" and modern industrial uses in the long term. The new industries may Use some hazardous substances. The EIR will discuss the potential for a risk of upset and ' potential sources of health hazards in the Plan Area. e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable ❑ ❑ ❑ ® , brush, grass, or trees? The southern portion of the project area along San Fernando Road is within the City's potential wildland fire hazard area. Individual developments are expected to mitigate impacts of wildiand ' fires on development by providing water hydrants as needed and by providing fuel breaks from natural areas. This issue requires no further discussion. ' 10. Noise. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? O ® ❑ ❑ b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ' (a and b) The project area includes arterial streets which have generate noise levels on immedi- ately adjacent properties that are incompatible with residential development. Future development in the Plan Area will generate additional noise, primarily from additional vehicular trips. The EIR , will discuss the short- and long-term noise impacts associated with future development. Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency 22 1 I Initial Study for the Newhall Redevelopment Project I12. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the pro- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Mitigation Less Than Significant incorpo- Significant No Im- Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact rated Impact pact 11. Public Services. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following ar- eas: ❑ ® a) Fire protection? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ b) Police protection? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ' c) Schools? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ d) Maintenance of public facilities, including ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ® roads? e) Other governmental services? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ (a through e) Development anticipated to occur within the project area encouraged by the proposed project will induce population growth overtime. As a result, demand on fire and police protection, school facilities, and other public facilities will correspondingly increase. These issues d) Sewer or septic tanks? will be discussed in the EIR. ® I12. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the pro- posal result in a need for new systems or sup- plies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ b) Communications systems? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Local or regional water treatment or distribu- ❑ ® ❑ ❑ tion facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ e) Storm water drainage? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ f) Solid waste disposal? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ' g) Local or regional water supplies? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ (a through g) Additional development anticipated to occur under the proposed Plan will result in increased demand on the City's utilities and service systems. These issues will be discussed in the EIR. I I 'I J I 23 Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency Initial Study for the Newhall Redevelopment Project c) Create light or glare? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ (a through c) The potential of new development to obstruct views of the scenic local hills and riverbeds, or to create light and glare, will be discussed in the EIR. 14. Cultural Resources. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Disturb archaeological resources? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ The proposed project is located in an area that provided a migration corridor for Native American peoples, and the City has a number of known archaeological sites. Individual development projects in undeveloped areas may require archaeological surveys to determine what mitigation is necessary to preserve archaeological resources. This issue will be further discussed in the EIR. c) Affect historical resources? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ A number of historic sites of state and local interest are located in or near the project area, including Downtown Newhall; the Saugus Depot, Hart Park and Heritage Junction, and the Pioneer Oil Refinery. Individual projects which would result in the modification or demolition of historic structures will require project -specific mitigation measures. Among the goals of the plan is the preservation of the historic character of the area. This issue will be further discussed in the EIR. d) Have the potential to cause a physical change ❑ ❑ ❑ which would affect unique ethnic cultural val- ues? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses ❑ ❑ ❑ ca within the potential impact area? (d, e) Appendix K from the State CEQA Guidelines will be applied should any previously unknown resources be uncovered during construction of individual projects reducing any potential impacts to a less than significant level. 15. Recreation. Would the proposal a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ regional parks or other recreational facilities? Implementation of the proposed Plan will result in some additional population over time which will increase demand for parks and recreation facilities. This issue will be discussed in the EIR. b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ❑ ❑ to ❑ Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency 24 Potentially Significant Unless Potentially Mitigation Less Than Significant Incorpo- Significant No Im- Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact rated Impact pact 13. Aesthetics. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ❑ ® (3 ❑ b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic ef- ❑ ❑ ® . ❑ fect? c) Create light or glare? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ (a through c) The potential of new development to obstruct views of the scenic local hills and riverbeds, or to create light and glare, will be discussed in the EIR. 14. Cultural Resources. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Disturb archaeological resources? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ The proposed project is located in an area that provided a migration corridor for Native American peoples, and the City has a number of known archaeological sites. Individual development projects in undeveloped areas may require archaeological surveys to determine what mitigation is necessary to preserve archaeological resources. This issue will be further discussed in the EIR. c) Affect historical resources? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ A number of historic sites of state and local interest are located in or near the project area, including Downtown Newhall; the Saugus Depot, Hart Park and Heritage Junction, and the Pioneer Oil Refinery. Individual projects which would result in the modification or demolition of historic structures will require project -specific mitigation measures. Among the goals of the plan is the preservation of the historic character of the area. This issue will be further discussed in the EIR. d) Have the potential to cause a physical change ❑ ❑ ❑ which would affect unique ethnic cultural val- ues? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses ❑ ❑ ❑ ca within the potential impact area? (d, e) Appendix K from the State CEQA Guidelines will be applied should any previously unknown resources be uncovered during construction of individual projects reducing any potential impacts to a less than significant level. 15. Recreation. Would the proposal a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or ❑ ® ❑ ❑ regional parks or other recreational facilities? Implementation of the proposed Plan will result in some additional population over time which will increase demand for parks and recreation facilities. This issue will be discussed in the EIR. b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ❑ ❑ to ❑ Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency 24 71 I I I�iI I I I I I I I I I u I I Initial Study for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Potentially Significant Unless Potentially Mitigation Less Than Significant Incorpo- Significant No lm - Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact rated Impact pact The proposed Plan will not result in a removal or modifications of existing recreational facilities This issue requires no further discussion. 16. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a) Does the project have the potential to de- ❑ ® ❑ ❑ grade the quality of the environment, substan- tially 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 im- portant examples of the major periods of Cali- fornia history or prehistory? The project includes riparian areas which may. be affected by the project with resulting impacts on sensitive species. This impact will be further discussed in the EIR. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve ❑ ❑ ❑ short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are indi- ® ❑ ❑ ❑ vidually limited, but cumulatively consider- able? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of prob- able future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects ❑ ❑ ® ❑ which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (b through d) Potential long-term cumulative impacts of future development anticipated to occur under the proposed Newhall Redevelopment Project will be analyzed in the EIR. The analysis will focus on traffic, air quality, population, and land use impacts. 25 Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency Initial Study for the Newhall Redevelopment Project , References 1. Freedman Tung & Bottomley, Downtown Newhall Improvement Program, April, 1996. 2. GRC Redevelopment Consultants, Inc., Feasibility Study for the Newhall Redevelop- ment Project, November 19, 1996. 3. GRC Redevelopment Consultants, Inc., Preliminary Plan for the Newhall Redevelop- ment Project, November 19, 1996. 4. City of Santa Clarita, General Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report, 11 1991. 1 Santa Garita Redevelopment Agency 26 I I I I LJ I I I_d i I n 1J 1 I Initial Study for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Preparers of the Initial Study 1. City of Santa Clarita Glenn Adamick, Economic Development Specialist 2. Consultants to the City Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. Urban and Environmental Planning 747 East Green Street, Suite 400 Pasadena, CA 91101 P. Patrick Mann, AICP, Principal -in -Charge Irena Finkelstein, AICP, Senior Environmental Planner CBA project number 949.00 L.\949\ISCKUST.WPD 27 Santa Garita Redevelopment Agency I The Gas Company® RECEIVED I. U I I I I I 11 FEB 0 7 t997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY Of SANTA CLARITA February 4, 1997 Glenn Adamick City of Santa Clarita Economic Development Division 23920 Valencia Blvd Suite 300 Santa Clarita, Ca. 91355 Dear Mr. Adamick: The following is in response to your, January 29, 1997 letter requesting information relative to an Environmental Impact Report on the proposed development of the Redevelopment Plan of the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area. 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, 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, JAZ &C .4, Santa Hescia Planning Aide Somhem California Gas Company 1600 Corporate Center Dt Monterey Park, CA MailingAddresr Bar 2031 Monterey Park, CA 91754.8931 tel 213260-7789 I County of Los Angeles Public Library 7400 East Imperial H p t+ry., P.O. Box 7011, Downey, CA 90241-7011 II..0 (310) 940-8461,:TELEFAX (310) 803-3032 S4NDRA F. REUBBJ pa couNmuewava C c r? V E D February 12, 1997 � L S 1,4- i997 cohWUNliv �tvELOPrn cult SNa1FA of ARITA Glenn Adamick Economic Development Associate City of Santa Clarita It 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Adamick: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE ' NEWHALL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA This,is in response to a request for comments regarding the above -referenced document. We have reviewed the report, and following is our assessment of the impact of the redevelopment plan with regard to library services. The project area is primarily served by the Newhall Library, located at 22704 W. Ninth Street, Santa Clarita, with supplemental service available at the Valencia Library, located at 23743 W. Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita. Based on the current Department of Regional Planning figure of an average of 2.88 persons per household in the Santa Clarita Valley, the estimated construction of 750 residential units, as proposed in the project, will result in an estimated population increase of 2,160 new residents. As a result of this population increase, we estimate the need for an additional 756 square feet of library facility based on a Library planning standard of 0.35 square foot per capita. In addition, based on a Library planning standard of 2.0 library items per capita, we estimate the need for 4,320 additional items of library books and materials. Currently, the square foot per capita in the Santa Clarita Valley is far below the Library's planning standard. The cumulative effect of this redevelopment project and housing development projects planned for and in progress in the Santa Clarita Valley creates a very significant impact on the present library infrastructure which is inadequate to keep pace with the rapid growth occurring Serving the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County and the cities of: Agoura Hills • Artesia . Avalon Baldwin Park • Bell Bell Gardens • Bellflower • Bradbury • Calabasas . Carson • Claremont • Compton . Cudahy • Culver City Diamond Bar . Duarte . EI Monte • Gardena • Hawaiian Gardens Hawthorne . Hermosa Beach • Hidden Hills • Huntington Park La Canada Flintridge • La Habra Heights • Lakewood La Mirada Lancaster . La Puente . La Verne Lawndale • Lomita Lynwood . Malibu . Manhattan Beach . Maywood Montebello Norwalk . Paramount • Pico Rivera . Rosemead • San Dimas • San Fernando San Gabriel • Santa Clarita . South EI Monte South Gate • Temple City . Walnut • West Covina • West Hollywood • Westlake Village Mr. Glenn Adamick February 12, 1997 Page 2 throughout this area. The County of Los Angeles Public Library does not have funds to provide required capital projects; and, at present, there are no applicable fees established by the Board of Supervisors to minimize the impact upon the County Library as a result of this proposed redevelopment project. Therefore, should construction of these residential units occur, in order to mitigate the impact of the increased population, the County Library would request funding by the Redevelopment Agency in order to offset the required increase in library infrastructure. The County Library is currently using a construction cost estimate of $220 per square foot and an average cost of $30 per item for library materials. Using these cost estimates, we calculate the impact of the residential development, in terms of library facility space requirements and additional library materials, to be $295,920. As indicated above, the County has not formally adopted a permanent development fee or other specific requirement relating to the impact of development projects on County Library services. However, the Board of Supervisors has adopted in principle an agreement for an interim developer fee for a specific development project and recommended that similar agreements be concluded with other developers with projects that have an impact on County Library services. Payment of an interim fee of $336 per unit, or other mutually agreed upon amount with the Redevelopment Agency, under an agreement similar to the prototype agreement endorsed by the Board of Supervisors, would be acceptable to and recommended by the County Library. This interim fee will substantially lessen the project's impacts on County Library requirements: Plans are underway to adopt a permanent development impact fee which could impose a different requirement upon a developer than this interim fee agreement. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Notice of Preparation for the redevelopment L project. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at (562)940-8450. rVery truly yours, Fred Hungerford Head, Staff Services FH:sh c: David Flint Sandy Duncan 11 13709 Varm an ;treat. P.00m 218 Van Nuys, Cahfonua 91405 February 13, 1997 City of Palmdale Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard Suite 300 Santa ClaH ta, CA 91355 Attention: Laura Stotler Planning Technician RE: Newhall Redevelopment Project San Fernando Road L Lyons Avenue Dear Ms. Stotler: PACIFIC"A BELL. VAA A Pacific Tnlnsis Company This is with reference to your letter dated January 29, 1997, regarding the above -referenced pending project. Pacific Bell has reviewed the map and application, and has no recommendations or comments to submit at this time. Thank you for notifying us. If you have any questions, please call this office or the Engineer, Bob Szoke on (805) 251-0093. Sincerely, S.' C1i-5s'old- Right of way Administrator (818) 373-5968 wSC:plc RECEIVED SANTA CLARITA WATER COMPANY FEB 2 6 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT *L;t CITY OF SANTA CLARITA SC 22722 WEST SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD • SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA 91350 • 805-259-2737 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 903 • SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA 91380-9003 February 24, 1997 City of Santa Clarita Dept. of Community Development 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Attn: Mr. Glenn Adamick Economic Development Associate Re: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Newhall Redevelopment Plan Dear Mr. Adamick: This is in response to a request for comments in referenced notice. We have reviewed your proposed project and believe it will have little to moderate impact on this utility. We have an adequate water supply to meet the expected needs of the redeveloped areas. However, additional infrastructure such as larger pipes, water storage tanks and service connections may be required in certain areas in the plan. At the time more detailed information becomes available, we will be able to advise you of the costs associated with the required infrastructure. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Very truly yours, W. J. Manetta, Jr. President WJM/naf wASlFwalE4 EFCLAMAiION SOLID WASTE MANAOEMENT 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 Mr. Glenn Adamick City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development Economic Development Division 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA - 91355 Dear Mr. Adamick: OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY CHARLES W. CARRY Chief Engineer and General Manager February 27, 1997 File No: 26-00.04-00 32-00.04-00 Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area The County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Districts) received a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the subject project on February 3, 1997. We offer the following comments regarding sewerage service: 1. Portions of the area in question is outside the jurisdictional boundaries of the Districts and will require annexation into District No. 26 and/or District No. 32 before sewerage service can be provided to the proposed development. For specific information regarding the .annexation procedure and fees, please contact Ms. Margarita Cabrera, extension 2708. 2. Wastewater generated within the project boundaries will discharge to local sewers not maintained by the Districts for conveyance to a Districts' trunk sewer or may discharge directly to a Districts' trunk sewer. A direct connection to a Districts' trunk sewer requires a Trunk Sewer Connection Permit, issued by the Districts. For information regarding the permit, please contact Mr. Charles Ryee at (562) 699-7411, extension 1205. The following is a list of Districts' trunk sewers that service the project area. Design Peak Size Capacity now Last Name (dia.) (mgd) (mgd) Measured District 32 Main Trunk Sewer. Section 3 18" 3.2 .3 1996 Newhall Trunk Sewer, Section 1 21" 4 1.7 1996 San Fernando Road Extension Trunk Sewer 18" 4.6 .9 1996 Mr. Glenn Adamick 2 February 27, 1997 • If no local sewer lines currently exist, it is the responsibility of the developer to convey any 3 IN 5. 1.1 wastewater generated by the project to the nearest local sewer and/or Districts' trunk sewer. The Districts provide wastewater treatment in the Santa Clarita Valley by operating two water reclamation plants (WRPs), the Saugus WRP and the Valencia WRP. These facilities have been interconnected to form a regional treatment system known as the Santa Clarita Valley Joint Sewerage System (SCVJSS). The Saugus WRP has a permitted capacity of 6.5 million gallons per day (mgd) and the Valencia WRP has,a permitted capacity of 12.6 mgd. All solids and any wastewater flows which cannot be treated at the Saugus WRP are conveyed to the Valencia WRP for treatment. The SCVJSS has a permitted treatment capacity of 19.1 mgd (12.6 + 6.5) and currently treats an average flow of 15 mgd. A copy of the Districts' average wastewater generation factors is enclosed to allow you to estimate the volume of wastewater the project will generate. The Districts are empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee for the privilege of connecting (directly or indirectly) to the Districts' Sewerage System or increasing the existing strength and/or quantity of wastewater attributable to a particular parcel or operation already connected. This connection fee is required to construct an incremental expansion of the Sewerage System to accommodate the proposed project which will mitigate the impact of this project on the present Sewerage System. Payment of a connection fee will be required before a permit to connect to the sewer is issued. The design capacities of the Districts' wastewater treatment facilities are based on population forecasts adopted in the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) 1994 Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG). The RCPG is part of the 1994 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The AQMP and RCPG are jointly prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and SCAG as a requirement of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA). In order to conform with the AQMP, all expansions of Districts' facilities must be sized and service phased in a manner which will be consistent with the Growth Management Element of the RCPG. The Growth Management Element contains a regional growth forecast for the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial which Mr. Glenn Adamick 3 February 27, 1997 was prepared by SLAG. Specific policies included in the RCPG which deal with the management of growth will be incorporated into the AQMP strategies to improve air quality in the South Coast Air Basin. The available capacity of the Districts' treatment facilities will, therefore, be limited to levels associated with approved growth identified in the RCPG. As such, this letter does not constitute a guarantee of wastewater service, but is to advise you that the Districts intend to provide this service up to the levels which are legally permitted and to inform you of the currently existing capacity and any proposed expansion of the Districts' facilities. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (310) 699-7411, extension 2717. Very truly yours, Charles W. Carry 'F-1- la,-/ . Pagenkopp Engineering Technician Planning & Property Management Section MLP:eg Enclosure L:\W ILLSERVXWP6MLErrERS\REDEVNEW.LTR TABLET LOADINGS FOR EACH CLASS OF LAND USE y 7• ac.tr �t, COMMERCIAL Hotel/Motel/Roaming House Room FLOW COD SOLIDS DESCRrMON UNIT OF MEASURE (Gallons per Day) (Pounds per Day) (Pounds ver Dav RESIDENTIAL 1000 ft= 150 2.00 , Single Family Home Parcel 260 1.22 0.59 Duplex Parcel 312 1.46 0.70 Triplex parcel 468 2.19 1.05 Fourplex Parcel 624 2.92 1.40 Condominiums Parcel 182 0.85 0.41 Single Family Home Parcel 156 0.73 0.35 (reduced rate) Five Units or More No. of Dwlg. Units 156 0.73 0.35 Mobile Home Parks No. of Spaces 156 0.73 0.35 COMMERCIAL Hotel/Motel/Roaming House Room 125 0.54 0,28 Store 1000 ft= 100 0.43 0,23 Supermarket 1000 ft= 150 2.00 1,00 Whopping Center 1000 ftt 325 3.00 1.17 Regional Mall 1000 ftr 150 2.10 0,77 Office Building 1000 f2 200 0.86 0.45 Professional Building 1000 ft= 300 1.29 0.68 Restaurant 1000 ft, 1,000 16.68 5,00 Indoor Theatre 1000 W 125 0.54 0.Z8 Car Wash Tunnel - No Recycling 1000 ft' 3,700 15.86 8.33 Tunnel - Recycling 1000 fe 2,700 11.74 6.16 Wand 1000 ftt 700 3.00 1.58 Financial Institution 1000 ftt 100 0.43 0,23 Service Shop - 1004 ft= 100 0.43 0,23 Animal Kennels 1000 ftr 100 0.43 0,23 Service Station 1000 ftZ 100 0.43 0,23 Auto Sales/Repair 1000 ft= 100 0.43 0,23 Wholesale Outlet 1000 ft= 100 0.43 0.23 Nursery/Greenhouse 1000 ftr 25 0.11 0.06 Manufacturing 1000 ftr 200 1.86 0.70 Dry Manufacturing 1000 ftt 25 0.23 0.09 Lumber Yard 1000 ftt 25 0.23 0.09 Warehousing 1000 ftt 25 0.23 0.09 Open Storage 1000 ftZ 25 0.23 0.09 Drive-in Theatre 1000 ft2 20 0.09 0.05 Night Club 1000 ft 350 1.50 0,79 Bowling/Skating 1000 ft= 150 1.76 0.55 TABLET (continued) LOADINGS FOR EACH CLASS OF LAND USE ,7 '[Jal.[0a1, FLOW COD SOLIDS (Gallons (Pounds (Pounds DESCRIPTION UNIT OF MEASURE per Day) r DavPer Dav COMMERCIAL Club , 1000 ft 125 0.54 0.27 Auditorium, Amusement 1000 fir 350 1.50 0.79 Golf Course, Camp, and 1000 ft= 104 G.43 0.23 Park (Structures and Improvements) Recreational Vehicle Park No. of Spaces 55 0.34 0.14 Convalescent Home Bed 125 0.54 0.28 Amy 1000 &r 3,825 16.40 8.61 Mortuary/Cemetery 1000 ft: 100 1.33 0.67 Health Spa, Gymnasium. With Showers 1000 ft= 600 2.58 1.35 Without Showers 1000 fc 300 1.29 0.68 Convention Center, Fairground, Racetrack, Average Daily Sports Stadium/Arena Attendance 10 0.04 0.02 INSTITUTIONAL College/University Studcn[ 20 0.09 0.05 Private School 1000 ft= 200 0.86 0.45 Church 1000 ft' 50 0.21 0.11 I I I I I I I I Ir L I I I I I KANE, BALLMEB _ & BEI:KMAN A LAW CORPORATION 515 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET, SUITE 1850 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 00071 TELEPHONE (213) 617.0480 MURRAY O. KANE FAX (213) 625-0931 BRUCE 0. BALLMER GLENN F. WASSERMAN March 4, 1997 R. BRUCE TEPPER. JR. JOSEPH W. PANNONE ROYCE K. JONES STEPHANIE R. SCHER PRINCIPALS BY FACSIMILE Glenn Adamick Economic Development Associate City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development Economic Development Division 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 ROBERT P. BERKMAN RETIRED EUGENE B. JACOBS A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION OF COUNSEL Re: Response to Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Mr. Adamick: Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21080.4, et seq., and CEQA Guidelines § 15082, et seq., Castaic Lake Water Agency hereby responds to the Notice of Preparation [which it received on February 3, 1997] of a Draft Environmental Impact Report concerning the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area. Castaic Lake Water Agency makes this response as a supplier of water to the Santa Clarita Valley and to the proposed project areas thereby, as well as a responsible agency pursuant to and CEQA Guidelines § 15381. Castaic Lake Water Agency hereby requests that the Environmental Impact Report to be prepared for the proposed Project include analyses of the following issues: An assessment of the impact of growth as contemplated under the General Plan of the City of Santa Clarita and the Proposed Redevelopment Plan on the supply of water, both to the City and to the proposed Project Area, as well as to the Santa Clarita Valley. 2. A project description of sufficient adequacy to site both public projects contemplated under the Proposed Redevelopment Project, as well as quasi -public projects such as low- and moderate -income housing situs in order that the Castaic Lake Water Agency may adequately provide for the supply of water. The Project description should clearly specify whether Redevelopment -funded housing will be constructed outside the Prc j ect Area and, if so, where and to what extent the housing will be constructed outside the Project Area. Glenn Adamick March 4, 1997 Page 2 3. Alternative scenarios to the growth rates suggested by the Proposed Redevelopment Plan which, if occurring as contemplated, suggest an 11-12% annualized growth rate in tax increment monies. 4. Cumulative impact analysis on a regional basis in order to assess compatibility of this proposed Project with projects and developments outside the City, but within the Santa Clarita Valley in order that Castaic Lake Water Agency may adequately provide for the supply of water. These issues are not exhaustive. If you have any questions concerning the foregoing, please contact us forthwith. Respectfully submitted ROBERT H. CLARK KANE, BALLMER & BERKMAN Murray Kane R. Bruce Tepper, Jr. June Ailin ��. NO -of- I I I I I SCOPE RECEWEW MAR 17 1997 CCITT Or SAITY MA C ARITAT Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment To Promote, Protect and Preserve the Environment, Ecology and Quality of Life in the Santa Clarita Valley P.O. Box 1182, Santa Clarita, CA 91386 13 March 1997 City of Santa Clarita Dept. of Conununity Development 23920 West Valencia Blvd., Ste 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Ann. Glenn Adandek XL Notice_gfPreparation tor the Newhall Redevelopment P e ect Dear Mr. Adamick: SCOPE feels that the City has correctly addressed the subject matter For a Draft Enviromnental Impact Report for this project. SCOPE supports the redevelopment of downtown Newhall: the blighted residential areas in the Newhall area, and along San Fernando Road; the blighted cotmnercial areas along San Fernando L; Road and Lyons Canyon Road (including those areas that are "on -the -edge" and can be reasonably be expected to become vacant and blighted with continued development of commercial areas outside of the city - such as the Valencia Marketplace - that are displacing local merchants with national chains that remove their profits and the sales tax revenues front the community; and the blighted industrial and business use% along San Fernando Road and Pine Street. We caution, however, that City needs to be very !LarLfLI to be confident that is has delineated the boundaries of the project, as permitted under State law, in a manner which is defensible if challenged. We expect that this project will be placed under close scrutiny by one or more taxing agencies, who may have future property tax revenues dirninklied or truncated by the City's action. If the projected loss of utcreased revenues over the period of the redevelopment project is high ertuugh, some public agencies may, for good reasons or bad, litigatethisproject on any number of points. As the delineation of boundaries for redevelopment is, unlike general planning, parcel specific, we advise that the City conduct a final review of project boundaries before engaging the CLQA process on this matter. Contact persons are myself, 257-2131 (It), 3884707(w), and Lynne Plambeck, 818-845-7651(w). Sincere y, Michael A Kutch, President I STAYS OF C.LLIFORNtA-THC RESOURCES AGENCY PETE W LSON. QaVnO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Region 5 330 Golden Shore, S uite 50 Long Beach, California 90802 (562)590-5113 March 13,1997 Mr. GlannAdamick Santa Clarita RedevelopmentAgency 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 DearMr. Adamick: Nance of Preparation of DraftEnvironmental Impact Report Nawhall Redevelopment Project SCH 97021002, Los Angeles County The Department of Fish and Game (Department) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the above -referenced project, relative to irnpacts; to biologic2l 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: Acomplete assessment of flora andfaunawithin and adjacentto the project area, with particularomphasis upon identifying endangered, threatened, and locally unique species and sensitive habitats. a. Athorough assessmentof rare plants and rare natural communities, following the department's May 1984 Guidelines forAssessing Impacts to Rare Plants and Rare Natural Communities (Attachment 1). b. Acomplete assessmentof sensitivefish, wildlife, reptile, and amphibian species. Seasonal variations in use of the project area should also 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. Fishand Wildlife Service. c. Rare,threatened, and endangered species to be addressed should include all those which meet the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) definition (see CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). G�.r i'iifi•` c�J�❑.�i Nance of Preparation of DraftEnvironmental Impact Report Nawhall Redevelopment Project SCH 97021002, Los Angeles County The Department of Fish and Game (Department) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the above -referenced project, relative to irnpacts; to biologic2l 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: Acomplete assessment of flora andfaunawithin and adjacentto the project area, with particularomphasis upon identifying endangered, threatened, and locally unique species and sensitive habitats. a. Athorough assessmentof rare plants and rare natural communities, following the department's May 1984 Guidelines forAssessing Impacts to Rare Plants and Rare Natural Communities (Attachment 1). b. Acomplete assessmentof sensitivefish, wildlife, reptile, and amphibian species. Seasonal variations in use of the project area should also 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. Fishand Wildlife Service. c. Rare,threatened, and endangered species to be addressed should include all those which meet the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) definition (see CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). d. Acumulative effects analysis should be developed as described under CEQA Guidelines, § 15130. General and specifieplans, as well as past, present, and anticipated future projects, should be analyzed relative to their impacts on similarplantcommunitiea and wildlife habitats. 3. A range cf alternatives should be analyzed to ensure that alternatives to the proposed project are fully considered and evaluated. Arange of alternatives which avoid orotherwise minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources should be included. Specific alternative locations should also be evaluated in areas with 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. Mr. GlennAdamick March 13,1997 Page Two Base Sacramento d. The Departments California Natural Diversity Data in should be contacted at (916) 327-5960 to obtain current information on any previouslyreported sensitive species and habitats, including Significant 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 orany areas that are cons:dared sensitive by the localjurisdiction that are located in oradjacentto the projectarea must be addressed. 2. Athoroughdiscussion ofdirect indirect, and cumulative impacts expected to adversely affect biological resources, with specific measures to offset such impacts. a. CEQA Guidelines, § 151 25(a), directthatknowledge of the regional setting Is critical to an assessmentofenvironmental impacts and that special emphasis should be placed on resources that are rare orunique to the region. b. Project impacts should also be analyzed relativetotheireffectsonoff-site habitats and populations. Specifically, this should include nearby public lands, open space, adjacent natural habitats, and riparian ecosystems. Impacts to and maintenance ofwildlife corridor/movement areas, including access to undisturbed habitat in adjacent areas, should be fully evaluated and provided. C. The zoning of areas for developmentprojects orother use's thatare nearby or adjacent to natural areas may inadvertently contribute to wil0life-human interactions. Adiscussion of possible conflicts and mitigation measures to reduce these conflicts should be included in the environmental document. d. Acumulative effects analysis should be developed as described under CEQA Guidelines, § 15130. General and specifieplans, as well as past, present, and anticipated future projects, should be analyzed relative to their impacts on similarplantcommunitiea and wildlife habitats. 3. A range cf alternatives should be analyzed to ensure that alternatives to the proposed project are fully considered and evaluated. Arange of alternatives which avoid orotherwise minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources should be included. Specific alternative locations should also be evaluated in areas with 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. Mr. GlennAdamick March 13,1997 Page Three b, The Department considers Rare Natural Communities as threatened habitats having both regional and local significance. Thus, these communities should befully avoided and otherwise protected from project - related impacts (Attachment2). c. The Department generally does not supportthe use of relocation, salvagd, and/or transplantation as mitigation for 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 cranimals listed under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), eitherduring construction or nvPrfhaliftsoffhnnrryPrt.ACFSA-MamnrandirmofIIMP.r. tandino(r:FRA_Mr)l1) must be obtained under § 2081 of the Fish and Game Code. CESA-MOD's are issued to conserve, protect, enhance, and restore State -listed threatened or endangered species and theirhabitats. Early consultation is encouraged, as significant modifications to a project and mitigation measures may be required in order to obtain a CSh_A-MOU. a. Biological mitigation proposals should be of sufficient detail and resolution to satisfy the requirementsfor a CESA-MOU. ADepartment-approved Mitigation agreement and Mitigation Plan are required forplants listed as rare under the Native Plant Protection Act. 5. The Department opposestheelimination ofwatercoursesand/ortheir channel ization or conversion to subsurface drains. All wetlands and watercourses, whether intermittent or perennial, must be retained and provided with substantial setbackswhich 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 flowor change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake. Early consultation is recommended, since modification of the proposed project maybe required to avoid or reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources. b. Adiscussion of potential adverseimpacts from any increased runoff, sedimentation, sail 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. I I I I LJ I 'J I I I I I I I1 Mr. Glenn Adamick March 13,1997 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. Chanel le Davis, Wildlife Biologist, at (909) 627-1613. 1 Ij Attachments cc; Ms. Chanelle Davis Department of Fish and Game Chino Mills, California Mr. Ray Ally Department of Fish and Game Long Beach, California Ms, MaryMeyer Department of Fish and Game Ojai, California Ms. Leslie MacNair Department of Fish and Game Long Beach, California U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Corlabad, California II S 6', Y CeOpe of r'A'0iAeero LOS Angeles, California State Clearinghouse Samarnento. California 1 P I Sincerely, h,4 Patricis wolf Acting Regional Manager ATTACHMENT State of California THE RESOURCES AGENCY Department of Fish and Game May 4,1984 GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING THE EFFECTS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS ON RARE AND ENDANGERED PLANTS AND PLANT COMMUNITIES The following recommendations are intended to help those who prepare and review environmental documents determine when a botanical survey is needed, wta should be considered qualified to conduct such surveys, how field surveys should be conducted and t= information should be contained in the survey report. Botanical surveys that are conducted to determine the environmental effects of a proposed development should be directed to all rare and endangered plants and plant communities. Rare and endangered plants are not necessarily limited to those species which have been "listed" by state and federal agencies but should include any species that, based on all available data, can be shown to be rare and/or endangered under the following definitions. A species, subspecies or variety of plant is "endangered" when the prospects of its survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy form one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, over -exploitation, predation, competition or disease. A plant is'rare when, although not presently threatened with extinction, the species, subspecies or variety is found in such small numbers throughout its range that it may be endangered if its environment worsens. Rare plant communities are those communities that are of highly limited distribution. These communities may or may not contain rare or endangered species. The most current version of the California Natural Diversity Data Base's Outline of Terrestrial Communities in California may be used as a_guide to the names of communities. 2. It is appropriate to conduct a botanical field survey to determine if, or the extent that, rare plants will be affected by a proposed project when: I I 11 C] I 11 a. Based on an initial biological assessment, it appears that the project may damage potential rare plant habitat; b. Rare plants have historically been identified on the project site, but adequate information of impact assessment is lacking; or C. No initial biological assessment has been conducted and it is unknown whether or not rare plants or their habitat exist on the site, order of 3. Botanical consultants should be selected on the basis of possession of the following qualifications (in importance): a. Experience as a botanicat field investigator with experience in field sampling design and field methods; b. Taxonomic experience and a knowledge of plant ecology; and C. Familiarity with the plants of the area, including rare species; d. Familiarity with the appropriate state and federal statutes related to rare plants and plant collecting. 4. Field surveys should be conducted in s manner that Will locate any rare or endangered species that may be present. Specifically, rare or endangered plant surveys should be: both "evident" and identifiable. a. Conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are known flowering periods, and/or (2) during periods of Field surveys should be scheduled (1) to coincide with I 1 1 phenological development that are necessary to identify the plant species of concern. b. Floristic In nature. "Predictive surveys" (which predict the occurrence of rare species based on the features rather than actual field inspection) should be reserved for occurrence of habitat or other physical ecological studies, not for impact assessment. Every species noted In the field should be identified to the extent necessary to determine whether it Is rare or endangered. C. Conducted in a manner that Is consistent with conservation ethics. Collection of rare or suspected rare species (voucher specimens) should be made only when such actions would not jeopardize the continued existence or the population and in accordance with applicable state and federal permit regulations. Voucher specimens should be deposited at recognized public herbaria for future reference. Photography should be used to document plant identification and habitat whenever possible, but especially when the population cannot withstand collection of voucher specimens. d. Conducted using systematic field techniques in all habitats of the site to ensure a reasonably thorough coverage of potential impact areas. 1 e. Well documented. When a rare or endangered plant (or rare plant community) Is located, a California Native Species (or Community) Field Survey Form or equivalent written form should be completed and submitted to the Natural Diversity Data Base. 5. Reports of botanical field surveys should be included in or with environmental assessments, negative declarations, EIR's and EIS's, should contain the following information: A. Project description, including a detailed map of the project location and study area. b. A written description of biological setting referencing the community nomenclature used and a vegetation map. C. Detailed description of survey methpdology. d. Dates of field surveys. e. Results of survey (including detailed maps). �. f. An assessment of potential impacts. g. Discussion of the importance of rare plant populations with consideration of nearby populations and total species distribution. h. Recommended mitigation measures to reduce or avoid impacts. I. list of all species identified_ t. Copies of all California Native Species Field Survey Forms or Natural Community Field Survey Forms. k. Name of field investigator(s). I. References cited, persons contacted, herbaria visited, and disposition of voucher specimens. I I SENSITIVITY of TOP PRIORITY RARE NATURAL COMMUNITIES IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA' Sensitivity rankings are determined by the Department of Fish and Game, California Natural Diversity Data Base and based on either number of known occutrences (locations) andfor amount of habitat remaining (acreage). The three rankings used for these top priority rare natural communities are as follows: SJ.- Less than known locations andfor on less than 2,000 acres of hWW remaining. 92.- Occurs in 6-20 known locations and/or 2,000.10,000 acres of habdat remaining. P-- Occurs in 21-100 known locations and/or 10,000-50,000 acres of habitat remaining. The number to the right of the decimal point after the ranking refers to the, degree of threat posed to the natural community regardless of the ranking. For example: S1.1 = vervthreatened S2.2threatene S3.$ = no current threeta known Sensitivity RankinaS (February 1292) Rank S1.1 Mojave Riparian Forest Sonoran Cottonwood Willow Riparian Mesquite Bosque Elephant Tree Woodland Crucifixion Thom Woodland AIIthom Woodland Arizonan Woodland Southern California Walnut Forest Mainland Cherry Forest Southern Bishop Pine Forest Torrey Pine Forest Desert Mountaln White Fir Forest S1.2 Southern Foredunes Mono Pumice Flat Southern interior Basalt F1. Vernal Pool S2.1 Venturer Coastal Sage Scrub Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Riversidian Upland Coastal Sage Scrub Riversidian Desert Sage Scrub Sagebrush Steppe Desert Sink Scrub Matic Southern Mixed Chaparral San Diego Mesa Hardpan Vernal P. San Diego Mesa Claypan Vernal P. Alkari Meadow Southern Coastal Salt Marsh Coastal Brackish Marsh Transmontane Alkali Marsh S2.2 Active Coastal Dunes Activva Desert Dunes Stab. and Part Stab. Desert Dunes Stab, and Part, Stab. Desert Sandfield Mojave Mixed Stepp* Transmontane Freshwater Marsh Coulter Pine Forest S. California Fellfield Community Name Southern Dune Scrub Soutnem Coastal Bluff Scrub Maritime Succulent Scrub Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub Southern Maritime Chaparral Valley Needlegrass Grassland Great Basin Grassland Mojave Desert Graceland Pebble Plains Southern Sedge Bog Cismontane AlkaliMarsh Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh S. Arroyo Willow Riparian Forest Southern Willow Scrub Modor-G. Bas. Cottonwood Willow Rip. ModooGrest Basin Riparian Scrub Mojave Desert Wash Scrub Engelmann Oak Woodland Open Engelmann Oak Woodland Closed Engelmann Oak Woodland Island Ironwood Forest Wand Cherry Forest S. Interior Cypress Forest Bigcone Spruce -Canyon Oak Forest White Mountains Fellfeid 52.3 Bristlecone Pine Forest Limber Pine Forest ...........................................................................GLOBAL RANKING ............................................ The global rank (G -tank) is a reflection of the overall condition of an element throughout its global range. SPECIES OR NATURAL COMMUNITY LEVEL Gl - Less than 6 vlabla EOs OR Iasi than 1000 individuals OR less than 2000 acres. G2 - 6.20 EOa OR 1000-3000 individuals OR 2000.10,000 acres. G3 — 21-100 Eos OR 3000.10.000 individuals OR 10,000.50,000 acros. G4 — Apparently secure; this rank is clearly lower than 03 but factors exist to cause soma concern; i.e. there is some threat, or somewhat nertow habitat. GS — Population or stand demonstrably secure to ineradicable due to being commonly found in the world. SUBSPECIES LEVET Subspecies receive a Ttank attached to the G -rank. With the subspecies, the G -rank rsnacta the condition of the entire s sties whstese the T -rank reflects the global situation of just the subspeciaa or eerie . For example: Chorizanthe robust$ var. hartwepp. This plant is ranked G2TI. The G -tank refers to the whole species range i.e. Chorizarrthe robusta. The T -rank refers only to the global condition of ver. hahwspZ ............................................................................ ............................................................................. STATE RANKING The stab rank is assigned much the same way as the global rank, except state ranks in California often also contain a threat designation attached to the 5 -rank. - S1 Less than 6 EOs OR loss then 1000 individuals OR less Than 2000 acres S1.1 a very threatened S1.2 - threatened S1.3 - no currant threats known S2- 6-20 Me OR 1000-3000 individuals OR 2000.10,000 acres S2.1 a vary threatened 1 S2.2 a threatened S2.3 - no current threats known 93- 21-100 EOs or 3000.10.000 individuals OR 10,000-50.000 aeras 63.1 -vary threatened ' S3.2 - threatened - S3.3 w no current threats known S4 - Apparently secure within California; this renis is clearly lower than S3 but factors exist to cause some concern; i.e. there is lame threat. or somewhat narrow habitat. NO THREAT RANK. Sri - Demonstrably secure to insrsdicable in California. NO THREAT RANK. ..... ................... »...................... ..... ...... .......................... «.................................... ............... »....... .......................... Noun. 1. Other considerations used when ranking a 3. Other symbols species or natural community include the pattern of distribution of the element on the landscape. GH Ag sites are historical: the element has not been Iragmentation'of the population/stands, and seen for at least 20 years but suitable habitat historical eMont as competed to its modern still exists (SH w All California sites are range. It is important to take a bird's eye or historical). aerial view when ranking sensitive elements GX All sites are extirpated; this element is extinct it rather than simply counting EOs. ' the wild (SX - All California sites are extirpated). 2. Uncertainty about the rank of an element is expressed GXC Extinct in the wild; exists in cultivation. in two major ways: G1O The element is very rare, but there is a taxonomic question associated with it. By expressing the tank as a range of values: ex. SM means the rank is somewhat& between S2 and S3. By adding a 7 to the rank: ex. S27 This represanis more certainty then $253, but less than S2. NDDS rare communities R•5 Feb. 1992 Page 1 Top Priority Rare Natural Communities From Region Five 11 Code Number location Few Records Name S1.1 Rank Cis Y Venturan Coastal Sage Scrub 21330 Cis Southern Dune Scrub 31200 Cis Y Southern Coastal Scrub 32400 Cis Y Maritime Succulent Scrub , 32720 Cis Y Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub 37030 Cis Y Southern Maritime Chaparral 42110 Cis Y Valley Needlegrass Grassland 43000 Des Y Great Basin Grassland 43777 Des Y Mojave Desert Grassland 47000 Cis Pebble Plains 51177 Cis Y Southern Sedge Bog 52310 Cis Cismontane Alkali Marsh 61700 Des Mojave Riparian Forest 61810 Des Sonoran Cottonwood Willow Riparian B1820 Des Mesquite Basque 75100 Des Y Elephant Tree Woodland 75200 Des Y Cruc6don Thorn Woodland 75300 Des Y AAthom Woodland 75400 Des Y Arizonan Woodland 81600 Cis Southern Cafdomia Walnut Forest 61820 Cia Y Mainland Cherry Forest 83122' cis Y Southern Bishop Pine Forest 83140 Cis Torrey Pine Forest 85330 Des Y Desert Mountain White Fir Forest S7.2 Rank 1 21230 Cis Southern Foredunes 35410 Des Mono Pumice Flat 44310 Cis Southern Interior Basalt F7. Vernal Pool 521 Rank 32300 Cis Y Venturan Coastal Sage Scrub 32500 Cis Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 32710 Cis Y Riversidian upland Coastal Sage Scr. 32730 Cis Y Riversidian Desert Sage Scrub 35300 Des Y Sagebrush Steppe 35120 Des Y Desert Sink Scrub 37122 Cis Y MAc Southern Mtted Chaparral 44321 Cis San Diego Mesa Hardpan Vernal P. 44322 Cis San Diego Mesa Claypan Vernal P. 45310 Des Alkali Meadow 52120 Cis Southern Coastal San Marsh 52320 Cis Coastal Brackish Mamh 52410 Des Transmontane Alkali Mamh Coded as either cis (tor cismontane) or des (for desert) U I Fi [! I 1 NODS rare communities R-5 Feb.1992 page 2 1 Coda Number Location Few Records Name Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh 52410 Cls S. Arroyo Willow Riparian Forest 61320 Cis Southern Wilow Scrub 63320 Cie Modoc-G Bas Cottonwood W Aow Rip. 61610 Des Y Modoo.Great basin Riparian Scrub 63600 Des Y Mojave Desert Wash Scrub 63700 Des Cis Y Engelmann Oak Wood 71180 Y Open Engelmann Oak Wood 71181 Cls V Closed Engelmann Oak woodland 71182 Cls Cis Y Islandnia 71190 Cls WalnutWoodland CaliforniaCaliforniaWWalnut Woodland 71210 81700 Cls Y bl and Irom+ood Forest 81810 Cis !stand Cherry Forest S. interior Cypress Forest 83230 Cis Y Bigcone Spruce -Canyon Oak Foreat 64150 Cls S2.2 Rank 21100 Cls Y Active Coastal Dunes Desert Dunes 22100 Des Active Stab. and Part Stab. Desert Dunes 22200 Des Y Stab. and Part Stab. Desert Sandfield 22300 34220 Des Des Y Mojave Muted Steppe Transmontane Freshwater Marsh $2420 Des Y Y Coulter Pine Forest 84140 81130 Cis Cis Y S. California Fellfield Y White Mountains FellBeld 81140 Des S2.3 Rank Rnatlecone Pine Forest 86400 Des Y timber Pine Forest 86700 Des Fi [! I 1 P. MICHAEL FREEMAN FIRE CHIEF FORESTER 6 FIRE WARDEN March 18, 1997 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES RRL- DEPARTMENT 1320 NORTH £ASTEPN AVENUE LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90OM-3'294 (2,13) 881-2481 Mr. Glen Adamick, Economic Devell City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Developm Economic Development Division 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Adamick: SUBJECT: ENVMONMENTAL OF A DRAFT Els REDEVELOPMENT RECEIVED MAR 2 4 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Post-1tOFax Note 7671 OW94- aa°oec► To kl nn From LcklkEk C... 1e. COJDQPL CO. Phone a Phone FM 0 Fall N t Associate REPORT — NOTICE OF PREPARATION ENTAL IMPACT REPORT NEWHALL P AREA (EIR #41111997) We have reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Newhall Redevelopment Project areaJocated along San Fernando Road and Lyons Avenue and adjacent areas, in the vicinity of Newh101, in the City of Santa Clarita. i Any development will increase the service demand on existing resources. Although this development would be in proximity coexisting fire stations, it would increase service demand on the existing fire protection resources in the general area. Additional manpower, equipment, and facilities are needed in the area noIk. However, the degree of impact created by this project cannot bedetermined at this time. Tax increment financing of the proposed project will place a financial burden on the Consolidated Fire Protection District. Any financial loss will impede the District's ability to provide adequate fire protection and emergency medical services to the communities served. Although existing legislation allows the use of tax increment financing of redevelopment projects and mandates a partial pass-through of those tax increments to affected taxing agencies, the result is the District will realize a loss of approximately sixty percent (60%) of tax increment revenue otherwise received from within the project area had the project not been created. Since pass- through of tax increment is statutorily set, the District will require the agency to set forth an agreement for reporting and payment procedures. I I 1. I I I I I I I I 11 SIGNAL H.U. :OUTH El. VFNTE SOI; -H GATE TEMnILECIT SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF' PA"ILLS PRAOeUSY 11WVoN0 SAA IOWINDALE LDM:TA PICC RNEAA :SIA CALASAGAS CNAME LA CAN ADA FLINTR:DGE MA'JGU RANr,HO PALO$ VERDES iA CARSON GLENDOaA LAKEWOOD MAYWDQD POI LING HIL.$ MIN PARK CE9AITD5 -A'WAIIAN G>ADCI'IG LA M.9ADA A'ORWALA FOL':NG H!LLS ESI'ATES P I Mr. Glen Adamick March 18, 1997 Page 2 Due to the fact that only limited information is available on this project at the present time, we are not able to respond completely as to how this project will affect our Department. We would like to reserve the right to respond further at a future date when more specific information is available. The development of this project must comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants. Single-family detached homes shall require a fire flow of 1,250 gallons per minute at 20 pounds persquare inch residual pressure for a five-hour duration. Commercial, multiple -residential fire flows shall be 5,000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for a five- hour duration. Final fire flow will be based on the size of the building, its relationship to other structures and property lines, and the tyl of construction used. Specific fire and life safety requirements fJr the construction phases will be addressed at the plan check stage. A fire prevention suggestion that will reduce potential fire and life losses would be the installation of fire sprinkler systenis in the project's residential swellings. Systems are now technically and economically feasibl� for residential use. All on-site driveways shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet clear to the sky to to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building. - The minimum width of 26 feet shall be increased when any of the following conditions exist for Commercial/Industrial developments: 28 feet - When buildings are more than three stories in height or 35 feet in height above ground level. The centerline of the access roadway shall be located parallel to. and within 30 feet of the exterior wall on one side of the proposed structure. 34 feet - Parallel parking is allowed on one side on the access roadway/driveway. Preference is; that such parking is not adjacent to the structure. Additionally, if parallel parking is requested on both sides of the proposed access roadway/driveway, in order to ensure the clear width of 26 feet, the drive shall be 42 feet in width. u I L, I i Mr. Glen Adamick March 18, 1997 Page 3 a High density residential (apartments, condominiums, etc.) shall provide a minimum clear width i signage. 26 feet which allows parking and .shall be designated as a fire lane with appropriate signage. 34 feet - Allows parallel parking on one side of the access way. , 36 feet - Allows parallel parking on both sides of the access way, except in front of fire hydrants. j All driveways shall be labeled as "Fire Lane" on the final building plans. Labeling is necessary to ensure access for Fire Department use. Additional -fire life safety requirements will be addressed at building plan check. _ Fire Department requirements for access, fire flow and hydrants are addressed at the Los Angeles County Subdivision Committee meeting when approval for tentative subdivision maps are considered. The statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department includes erosion control, watershed management, tare and endangered species, vegetation, fuel modification for high fire severity areas, archeological and cultural resources and the County Oak Tree Ordinance. Potential impacts in these areas should be addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Repot. The applicant should incorporate innovative design to reduce or eliminate the impact to the Oak resources. A fuel management/modification and fin: hazard reduction plan should be developed and , implemented prior to construction. Due to the wildland fire hazard surrounding the project, we do not recommend using highly flammable and heavy -fuel volume eucalyptus, Pines, Junipers or Cypress plant species. I L 1 I Mr. Glen Adamick March 18, 1997 Page 4 i The flora and fauna analysis should address any rare, endangered and/or sensitive species that exist on the project site. The preservation, relocation and/or construction impacting any of these species should be fully explained in the Environmental Impact Report. An archaeological and historical records check and field survey should be conducted to determine potential impacts to these resources. If. you have any additional questions, please contact this office at (213) 881-2481. Very truly yon. DAVID R. LEININGER, ASSISTANT CHIEF, FORESTRY FORESTRY DIVISION, PREVENTION BUREAU DRL:jmb I I }}i LI I I I I L 1995 CMP TIA Guidelines. 1•0 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 fieeway 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 TIA Guidelines; • Projections of proposed prt?lect traffic generation; POat-lt' Pax Nota 7871 nate r� To From CoMDe°ter March27, 1997 ' e.�. co. Phone "�L".Ga.� • ` /�V phone "ZZ 'eGsg City of Santa Clarita a. rt ' Community Development Department — Los Angeles County _ Economic Development Division Metropolitan 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355-2196 Transportation Authority Attention: Glenn Adamick, Economic Development Associate One Gateway Plaza Subjoct: Newhall Ranch Redevelopment Project Area Draft EIR - r Los Angeles, CA 90ou Dear Mr. Adamiek, :13.9;..6000 It is out pleasure to provide these comments regarding the scope and content of all. EIR that you will be preparing for the City of Santa Clarita's Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area. For these cormnents we have discussed tate project with the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) and various divisions of the MTA. While most of our comments foots on the requirements of the state -mandated Congestion Management Program (CMP), comments regarding other issues are also provided, In 1993, the City of Santa Clarita joined other Los Angeles County local jurisdictions in adopting an ordinance requiring that EIRs incorporate an analysis of potential project impact(s) on the CIMP regional highway system. This ordinance implerrrenied the CMP Land Use Analysis Program, which 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 Appendix "D" of the 1995 CMP provide a detailed discussion of issues that are required to be addressed, and should be consulted during preparation of the EIR. A summary of the TIA Guidelines requirements follows: L 1995 CMP TIA Guidelines. 1•0 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 fieeway 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 TIA Guidelines; • Projections of proposed prt?lect traffic generation; I City of Santa Clanla Redevelopmmt Flan for Newhall RPA NOP 0317.7/97 Paget • Projections of trip distribution consistent with the TIA procedures; • Project impact analysis, including intersection LOS, freeway segment analysis, and transit impact analysis, and; • Identification and evaluation of mitigation measures for significant impacts on the CMP system, including fair share cost estimates and implementation responsibilities. • If the EIR concludes that project impacts will be mitigated by future regional transportation improvements, such as rail transit or high occupancy vehicles, 1 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 EIR must substantiate these conclusions and list the specific actions to be implemented by the project. 13. An analysis of potential project impacts on local and regional transit, including: • A summary of existing transit services its the project area; • Trip generation and mode assignment information for both am 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/arralyses that were used to determine the munber/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 TDIM Ordinance measures, but other project specific measures, and; • Expected transit impacts and proposed mitigation measures. 2. CMP Crcdit Opportunities. Adoption of a plan for the redevelopment of an urban area offers unique opportunities for the City to meet its deficiency plan requirements tutder the CMP. While the mitigation measures required of land use projects and. capital improvement programs are at the local lead agency's discretion, die measures required by the City for this project can be designed to have multiple benefits. In this ease, 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 Loco] Implementation Report (LIR), which inventories the City's net new development during the year as well as the transportation improvements/progtoms it planned, designed, initiated or constructed. Appendix F of the 1995 CMP lists the mitigation strategies which give the City credits under the CMP. To take advantage of the opportunity to receive CUP credit, we recommend that the EIR evaluate the potential for including CHIP approved strategies as project mitigation tncasures. Its most cases; credit is offered at the planning stage of a project. ■ These strategies are summarized below: A. Land use strategies focus on integrating complementary land uses and on Iconcentrating activity in areas that can be effectively served by transit. I City of Sauta Clarita Redevelopment Plan for Newhall RPA NOP 03/27/97 Page B. Capital improvement strategies 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. Transportation,,7ystems dfanagementstrategies improve operational efficiency of the highway system without significantly increasing right-of-way requirements 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. E. Transportation Demand Management strategies reduce the demand for automobile use. 3. Other NOP Comments. The MTA requests that the City consider the following issues as well during this review of the environmental impacts of the City's future transportation planning policy: A. This project may have significant impact to MTA's right of way over which SCRRA operates Metrolink. This may include the need to acquire additional crossings, street widening, and other related property rights from the MTA. Additionally, some of MTA's existing tenants may be affected by the change in traffic flows, taking of property and other impacts to their leaseholds. B. The SCRRA currently has three projects being planned that fall within the Newhall Redevelopment Area. These include: • Metrolink Newall Station, to be located at Market Street and the rail right-of-way • Railroad track improvements involving the straightening out of curves that currently exist a new railroad siding, which could be expanded as a doable track through the entire area. Due to the range of proposed development in the area, the SCRRA needs to be certain that commutury-related enhancements do not reduce the right-of-way available for these three previously mentioned projects. The SORRA will provide more detailed information about each of these projects upon request. C. In addition, the SCRRA requests that any developments abutting the railroad right-of-way- include some type of effective barrier fencing (not chain link) to discourage trespassing along or across the tracks. D. SCRRA requests that the City consider grade separation or San Fernando Road at all crossings. While this cost would be substantial. there would be a City of Santa Clarirn Redevelopment Plan for Newhall RPA NOP 03/27/97 Page 4 major improvement in traffic flow, adding to the overall quality of life in the area. Increased traffic volumes as a result of the redevelopment project will intensify this need.. E. The moderate residential development proposed south of Ranch Road may potentially create conflicts due to train whistles. In operation of Metrolink- service, etrolinkservice, the SCRRA must follow mandatory minimum limits of whistle loudness. P. in addition to these comments, SCRRA makes the same comments submitted to the City regarding the Draft EIR for the EIR and Alternative Plans for the Magic Mountain Parkway Extension, as the proposed roadway improvements fall within die Newhall Redevelopment Area. These• comments included: • On -ramps and off -ramps should be considered for Magic Mountain Parkway to serve the commercial race cast of San Fernando Road and the railroad right-of-way. • The closing of two existing at -grade railroad crossings should be considered—Drayton Street and the Sanitation District Private Crossing. This would be a benefit in terms of quality of life and public safety. There is currently considerable commercial truck traffic at the Drayton Street crossing. • The requested grade separation would need to satisfy standard clearance criteria and also ensure that any future SCRRA track addition has proper clearance. A copy of the SCRRA Clearance Requirements for New Construction or Design, from the SCRRA Engineering Standards has been attached to this letter, which was previously forwarded to the City. With the City's inclusion of these improvements in the redevelopment project area's capital improvement program, the SCRRA would work closely with the project engineers to assure that the detailed design meets all railroad- related clearance and safety-related guidelines. • Spans over railroad right-of-way must not include any hinge joints. In addition, because the span to.clear San Fernando Road and the railroad right-of-way is more than 200 feet in length, we will need to review ' the proposed column locations to ensure that they are not placed where they will interfere with Metrolink, freight or spur track activity. • In terms of the Alternative Plans (for the extension of Magic Mountain Parkway), we would recommend against Alternative 2A because this plan would require the physical alteration of the Drayton Street crossing, due to the realigned curve Cor the street approach which would impair visibility for westbound traffic. • Alternative Plan 2A presents another problem for SCRRA. This option puts the new crossing on the power switch, which is not Ciry of Santa Clarita Redevelopment Plan for Newball RPA NOP 03127197 Page 5 acceptable. In order for this altemative to be bitilt, the entire track layout of the area would have to be revised.. This would include the relocation of railroad signals, which is an expensive type of item. G. Another impact which involves a related project is the City of Santa Clarita's Newhall Metrolink Station Project. Due to tlxe elimination of the Newltall Spur, which will be removed as a part of the City's aforementioned project, an increase in train activity can be expected over the Drayton Street Crossing, thoreby increasing the potential for conflicts between rail and vehicles. H. The impact of increased traffic volumes upon other at -grade railroad crossings , (including Golden Oak Road and others) in the area which would be caused by build -out of the redevelopment plan and/or the construction of the Magic Mountain Parkway Extension needs to be assessed, and improvements made where they are needed. Any new north -south roads which will be crossing railroad right-of-way should be constructed with grade separations at the railroad tracks. I. Please call John Tandy of SCRRA at (213) 452-0276 if you have any questions regarding the SORRA comments. 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) 922-7658. Sincerely. G. Williaiu Lundgr ,, AiCP , Project Manager Congestion Management Program c: Renee Berlin, Director MTA San Fcn=do Valley/North County Area Team Jolui Tandy, SCRRA I L, J SORRA CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR. NEW CONSTRUCTION OR DESIGN ANY EXCEPTION TO.THtS REOURE.IEMT MUST BE APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF CNCiMEERLNC AND CONSTRUCTKK 7_0- _,,,,1 - 2--0- I ;s -0. 17--0- 12•_,0' '-L 24_-0' i NO PARALLEL UTILITIES IMSIDE IC OF 4 OF TRACK OR INSFIE OF 1.5:1 ADP£ FROM ENO OF TIE. ' CBSTRl7CT10NS 10 GE CONSIRUCTEO ING VITHIN THIS ENVELOPE Y 111THOUT PR&M APPROVIL i OF SORRA O;RCCTOR Cf w h CONST. d1 IENGINEERING 1 Zilliv, OVEiiCAO VARE CLEARANCES SNAIL CONFORM 10 CALWORNLA V tj C GENERAL =EA 110. 95 Oi AUEMOMEMIS MEACOF. ALL SIDE CLCARANCE OA/C7TSIONS ARE FOR TANGENT TRACK. M CcMERAI, SIDE CLEARANCC FOR CURVE 3"" 10 O: 1'-0- GAEAIEA THAN THAT TOR TAACENT TRACK. RAIL/NOAAY GRADE SEPARAIGN5 N.AY hEoUAC PAOMpy1 FOR yAUrENMICE ROAD P-40^* AOpn0:IAL TRACK. MOVABLE PARTS OF DOORS. CATES. %1NOok S. ETC, THIS Ew%cLopE MUST REiINN CLEAR OF - STATI9N PLATFORM Soul6an Catifolnia Rrimd Rail AutAorit; St...p.rb SMA SWOMID QLAR.YKE IT SMXRLi3 AAA••t IM/7ApJ Cdforms\nop-redev.gene_____________________________________�_____�_===ecce=� ' I NOTICE OF PREPARATION City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development Economic Development Division �• 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 (805) 2554330 ------� -------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- TO: - SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report The City of Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency will be the lead agency and will prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the project identified below. We need to know the views , of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The project description, location, and the probable environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study [X] is, [ ] is not attached. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to Glenn Adamick, Economic Development Associate, at the address shown above. We would appreciate the name of a contact person in your agency. Project Title: Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area . Project Location: City of Santa Clarita. Map provided in Initial Study attached. Project Description: Redevelopment plan for an approximately 1,350 acre project area along ' San Fernando Road and Lyons Avenue and adjacent areas in the Newhall area of the City of Santa Clarity Potential development includes up to approximately 2.5 million square feet of office, industrial and business park uses; 1.0 million square feet of new and rehabilitated retail uses, up to 1,000 residential.units, and construction of a variety of public improvements including public facilities, streets, utilities, , landscape and hardscape ' rovements. Date: l —Z`1 � �(% Signature: i Title: aura Stotler, Asso"ate Planner Telephone: (805) 255-4330 Reference: California Administrative Code, Title 14, Sections 15082(a), 15103, 15375. Cdforms\nop-redev.gene_____________________________________�_____�_===ecce=� ' I I P I I li I 0 1 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 Appendix B Traffic Report NEWHALL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT DRAFT TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Prepared for City of Santa Clarita Prepared by Meyer, Mohaddes Associates 900 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90017 April 1997 J97-031 Newhall Redevelopment Project TYafic Impact Study , Draft Report Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ... .. ....................................1 1.1 Study Area And Project Description ................................ 1 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................................... 3 2.1 Road Network Description ...................................... 3 2.2 Intersection Analysis .......................................... 4 3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT .......................... 10 3.1 Description of Future Roadway Network ............................. 10 3.2 Intersection Analysis ......................................... 13 4.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS WrM FULL PROJECT ALTERNATIVE .............. 14 4.1 Intersection Analysis ......................................... 14 5.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH REDUCED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ........... 17 5.1 Intersection Analysis .......................................... 17 6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES ........................................ 20 6.1 Full -Project Alternative ....................................... 20 6.2 Reduced -Project Alternative .. 21 Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. i Newhall Redevelopment Project 7irrfic Impact Study Draft Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report is prepared in accordance with the City of Santa Clarita guidelines for the preparation of traffic impact reports. The report documents the potential traffic and circulation impacts of the proposed Newhall Redevelopment Project, located in the City of Santa Clarita. The project area encompasses the downtown Newhall area, the immediately surrounding residential neighborhoods, and the frontage properties on the three arterial streets providing access to the downtown area. These include Lyons Avenue to the I-5 Freeway, San Fernando Road north to Magic Mountain Parkway, and San Fernando Road south to the SR -14 Freeway. The total candidate redevelopment project area encompasses approximately 1,350 acres. This report also documents a reduced -area alternative recently proposed by the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission. The reduced project area would encompass 897- acres and exclude portions of Lyons Avenue, including the northern stretch from Briley Canyon Road to the I-5 Freeway, several shopping centers on the south side of Lyons Avenue, and residential neighborhoods on both sides of Wiley Canyon Road, south of Lyons Avenue. ' This study considered the following scenarios: 1. Existing conditions 1 2. Future (Year 2015) "No -Project" 3. Future (Year 2015) + Full Project (1,350 acres) 4. Future (Year 2015) + Reduced Project.(897 acres) The future year analysis was performed using the currently adopted future roadway network as described in the City of Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element. The details of this roadway network are described in Chapter 3 of this report. 1.1 Study Area And Project Description eAs stated above, the project area encompasses the downtown Newhall area, the immediately surrounding residential neighborhoods, and the frontage properties on the three arterial streets providing access to the downtown area. These include Lyons Avenue to the I-5 Freeway, San Fernando Road north to Magic Mountain Parkway, and San Fernando. Road south to the SR -14 Freeway. The total candidate redevelopment project area encompasses approximately 1,350 acres. Potential development anticipated to occur in the project area over the 30 -year life of the proposed redevelopment project includes: • Development of approximately 1,000 new residential units, primarily on parcels designated for residential development, but also within mixed-use and commercial districts. I 1 Meyer, Mohaddes Associates,Inc. Newhall Redevelopment Project Wc Impact Study 7 'Draft Report Development of a net increase in office, industrial, and business park space of up to 2.5 million square feet of such uses, on opportunity sites and as replacement or infill in existing industrial and commercial areas. Development of new retail commercial uses at commercial nodes and in Downtown Newhall with up to 1.0 million square feet of additional development. Conversion of 20 to 50 pre-existing legal residential units to industrial and Commercial uses in areas designated for industrial and commercial development. This conversion is expected to take place in the private development market without direct Redevelopment Agency involvement. The proposed plan does not permit the Redevelopment Agency to condemn property on which people reside, or to undertake projects which would displace a substantial number of low- or moderate -income persons. • Development of major circulation improvements, including a variety of intersection and roadway improvements. Development of streetscape improvements along principal corridors within the project area. This anticipated development includes all development within the project area, not just the development induced through redevelopment actions alone. The new development will primarily infill vacant sites in the project area, which currently account for about one-fourth of the land in the project area. In addition, some of the underutilized, old, and obsolete industrial and incompatible agricultural uses are also anticipated to recycle to residential, and modern business park and commercial uses. As stated above, the reduced project area would encompass 897 acres and exclude portions of Lyons Avenue, including the northern stretch from Wdey Canyon Road to the I-5 Freeway, several shopping centers on the south side of Lyons Avenue, and residential neighborhoods on both sides of Wiley Canyon Road, south of Lyons Avenue. Potential development anticipated to occur in the reduced project area over the 30 -year life of the proposed redevelopment project includes: ' Development of approximately 62 new multi -family residential units. Development of a net increase in office, industrial, and business park space of up to 2.0 million square feet of such uses, on opportunity sites and as replacement or infill in existing industrial and commercial areas. Development of new retail commercial uses at commercial nodes and in Downtown Newhall with up to 0.95 million square feet of additional development. Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. I I P I I 1 1 Newhall Redevelopment Project baffic Impact Study Draft Report 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS This section describes the existing traffic conditions on the road network in the general vicinity of the Newhall Redevelopment Project area. 2.1 Road Network Description San Fernando Road (S&126) is a north -south facility which extends from Magic Mountain Parkway to SR -14. This facility is classified as a major highway. It is currently a four -lane facility and carries about 30,000 vehicles per day between Lyons Avenue and Magic Mountain Parkway. The City's General Plan Circulation Element designates this roadway as a six -lane facility. Wencia Boulevard/Soledad Carryon Road is an east -west facility which extends from I-5 to SR -14, and is the primary east -west roadway through the Santa Clarita Valley. The road is currently a six -lane major highway and carries about 40,000 vehicles per day near San Fernando Road. Magic Mountain Parkway is an east -west facility which, extends from I-5 to San Fernando Road. The road is currently a four -lane major highway, though the City's General Plan designates Magic Mountain Parkway as a six -lane facility. It carries about 16,000 vehicles per day near Valencia Boulevard. The City's General Plan was recently amended as a result of a development project (Porta Bella), which requires Magic Mountain Parkway to be extended east of San Fernando Road and connect with Via Princessa. Orchard Ydlage Road extends from McBean Parkway to Lyons Avenue, where it becomes Valley Street and extends to Calgrove Boulevard. This four -lane facility is classified as a major highway and carries about 30,000 vehicles per day near Wiley Canyon Road. Lyons Avenue is an east -west facility which extends from west of I-5 to San Fernando Road. This facility is classified as a major highway. It is a fou; -lane facility and carries about 35,000 vehicles per day near San Fernando Road. Wiley Canyon Road extends from south of Lyons Avenue to east of Orchard Village Road. This four -lane facility is classified as a major highway and carries about 15,000 vehicles per day near Orchard Village Road. Circle ! Ranch Road connects San Fernando Road to Via Princessa. This roadway is classified as a collector and contains one lane each way. It carries about 5,000 vehicles per day. IMeyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. I 3 Newhall Redevelopment Project 7Ynffic Impact Snuffy Draft Report 2.2 Intersection Analysis Definitions The concept of level of service (LOS) is used to describe traffic performance at intersections. The LOS concept is a straight -forward measure of average operating conditions (delays) at intersections during an hour. Service levels range from A through E For signalized intersections, each level is further defined by a range of volume/capacity ratios. Conditions A, B, and C are considered acceptable operating conditions with only minor delays being experienced by motorists. Level of service D is the generally accepted standard for the planning and design of urban transportation facilities. It is fairly typical of urban peak hour conditions. Level of service E is considered capacity conditions and LOS F represents jammed conditions, with excessive delay being experienced by motorists. Further details of level of service definitions are shown in Table 1 on the next page. Study Intersections Thirteen intersections that may be significantly impacted by the proposed project were selected by the City of Santa Clarita for detailed capacity analysis. Three of the study intersections do not yet exist, but are planned to be constructed by the horizon year of the project (2015). The 11 intersections are listed below: 1; I-5 SB off-ramp/Lyons Avenue 2. I-5 NB ramps/Lyons Avenue 3. I-5 SB ramps/Calgrove Avenue 4. I-5 NB ramps/Calgrove Avenue 5. Orchard Village Road/Lyons Avenue 6. San Fernando Road/Soledad Canyon Road 7a: Magic, Mountain Parkway/San Fernando Road Connector 7b. Magic Mountain Parkway Connector/San Fernando Road* 8. Circle J Ranch Road/San Fernando Road 8a. Via Princessa/Circle J Ranch Road* 9. Lyons Avenue/San Fernando Road 10. SR -14 SB ramps/San Fernando Road 11. SR -14 NB off-ramp/San Fernando Road * proposed future intersection Exhibit 1 shows the location of the study. intersections. Intersection turning movement counts collected in summer 1995 were supplemented with more recent traffic counts collected in March/April 1997. The existing intersection geometries and taming movement volumes are depicted in Exhibits 2 and 3, respectively. Capacity analysis of the existing signalized intersection is based on the Critical Movement Analysis methodology for signalized intersections (Planning Application) as specified in the Interim Materials on Highway Capacity, NCHRP Circular 212. This is a standard method used by traffic engineers throughout Southern California and is approved for use in the City of Santa Clarita. . Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I L� I 1 Newhall Redevelopment Project Yirr,Q-c Impact Study Draft Report TABLE 1 LEVEL OF SERVICE INTERPRETATION A Excellent operation. All approaches to the intersection appear quite 0-.60' open, turning movements are easily made, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. B Very good operation. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted .61-.70 within platoons of vehicles. This represents stable flow. An approach to an intersection may occasionally be fully utilized and traffic queues start to form. C Good operation. Occasionally drivers may have to wait more than 60 .71-.80 seconds, and back-ups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted. D Fair operation. Cars are sometimes required to wait more than 60 .81-.90 seconds during short peaks. There are no long-standing traffic queues. . This level is typically associated with design practice for peak periods. E Poor operation. Some long-standing vehicular queues develop on .91-1.00 critical approaches to intersections. Delays may be up to several minutes. F Forced flow. Represents jammed conditions. Backups form locations Over 1.00 downstream or on the cross street may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approach lanes; therefore, volumes carried are not predictable. Potential for stop and go type traffic flow. Source: Irighmy Capacity Mamtal, Special Report 209, Tesnepoctation Research Board, Ylashington. D.C., 1985 and Interim Materials an if+ghw y Capacity, NCHRP Circular 212, 1982. Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc, 5 • 0 I I Newhall Development Project I Exhibif I M �feyeiAlahaddesAssociales, kc, * �• Study Intersections n�uuain rm w_i 7a7 M Meyer NohaddesAssocwfu ke, I Newhall Development Project I Exhibit I � ft • * Existing Intersection Lane Configuration 2 E.21.97 MNeyer Ahaddes Assodates Lt. mrtcE� • ,n eo Newhall Development Project Existing Turning Movement volumes Exhibit 3- d-22-97 I ' Newhall Redevelopment Project Daffic Impact Study Draft Report ' The analysis results indicate that under existing traffic conditions all the study intersections, except for one, operate at LOS D or better during the PM peak hour. The intersection of San Fernando Road and Soledad Canyon Road_ currently operates at LOS E during the evening peak hour. Results of the analysis are summarized in Table 2. The detailed LOS calculation sheets are included in the Appendix to this report. 1 TABLE 2 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE EXISTING CONDITIONS (1997) 1. I-5 Freeway SB Off-ramp/Lyons Avenue A 0.43 2. I-5 Freeway NB Ramps/Lyons Avenue A 0.57 3. I-5 Freeway SB Ramps/Calgrove Avenue A 0.27 4. I-5 Freeway NB Ramps/Calgrove Avenue A 0.39 5. Orchard Village Road/Lyons Avenue C 0.75 6. San Fernando Road/Soledad Canyon Road E 0.98 7. San Fernando Road/Magic Mountain Parkway A 0.49 8. San Fernando Road/Circle I Ranch Road A 0.42 9. San Fernando Road/Lyons Road A 0.58 10. SR -14 Freeway SB Ramps/San Fernando Road B 0.61 dj 11. SR -14 Freeway NB Off-ramp/San'Feraando Road D 0.81 Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. E Newhall Redevelopment Project Traffic Impact Study Draft Report 3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT In order to properly evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed project on the local street system, it is necessary to develop estimates of future traffic conditions in the area both without and with traffic due to the project. Future traffic volumes are first estimated for the study area without the project. This forecast includes increases due to general regional growth and growth_ that is expected from other developments in the City and surrounding areas. With the redevelopment plan in place, full buildout of the project area is expected to occur by the year 2015: Year 2015 traffic projections were developed using the Santa Clarita Valley traffic forecasting model. The County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Planning Division, which officially maintains this model, provided the year 2015 model for use in this study. The future -year travel model includes the affects of several measures to reduce daily auto trip generation. These include the planned Newhall Metrolink station, increased Metrolink frequency, improvements to local and express bus service, additional park-and-ride lots, high -occupancy -vehicle lanes on Interstate 5 and State Route 14, increased telecommuting, increase in commuters utilizing a compressed work week, aggressive ridesharing promotion, and improved bicycle/pedestrian facilities. The City's travel model assumes that 80 percent of buildout of the City's General Plan Land Use Element would occur by 2015. Without the stimulus provided by designating the project area a redevelopment site, the project area was assumed to grow to only 60 percent of buildout of the City's General Plan Land Use Element by 2015, under, no -project conditions. The model was used to develop growth factors to apply to the existing intersection turning movement counts to develop year 2015 traffic volumes for each of the three future year scenarios. In the case of the two proposed grade -separated intersections (San Fernando Road/Magic Mountain Parkway and San Fernando Road/Wiley Canyon Road), the City traffic model was used to directly generate turning movement volumes at each intersection. 3.1 Description of Future Roadway Network The future year analysis was performed using the currently adopted future roadway network as described in the City of Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element. The future roadway network assumes that the Wiley CanyonfVia Princessa Bridge is constructed over San Fernando Road and the Santa Clara River. The only connection between Wiley Canyon/Via Princessa and San Fernando Road would be provided via Circle J Ranch Road. The future roadway network also assumes the extension of Magic Mountain Parkway east of San Fernando Road and the striping of San Fernando Road to accommodate three through lanes each direction. Though San Fernando Road is wide enough to accommodate six through lines, it is currently striped for four lanes. It will be restriped to six lanes as the need arises by removing on -street parking and signing it No Stopping Any Time. Exhibit 4'contains the assumed future intersection geometries. Exhibit 5 contains the final PM peak hour turning movement counts used in the intersection analysis for the no -project scenario. Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. 10 MeyeiMohaddesAssociaftke. Newhall Development Project Exhibit m� T.��PW� future Intersection Lane Configuration 4 N0.1A1611 A C M A_11A7 M 9,-yeiHohaddos.4aod?tesinc. I Newhall Development ProjectI Exhibit • Tw+pabfie Pw+ Future No Project Turning Movement Volumes 5 rvew .0 t 4-22+17 ' Newhall Redevelopment Project TYa is Impact Study Dmft Report ' 3.2 Intersection Analysis ' Table 3 contains the results of the intersection analysis (with all intersections assumed to be signalized). Under no -project conditions, six of the study intersection are projected to operate at LOS D or better. Three intersections are projected to operate at LOS E and four at LOS F. The detailed LOS calculation sheets are included in the Appendix to this report. I I II u I 1 1 1 1 I J TABLE 3 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE FUTURE CONDITIONS WITHOUT PROJECT " y ; aFufure No Project 1. I-5 Freeway SB Off-ramp/Lyons Avenue F 1.26 2. I-5 Freeway NB Ramps/Lyons Avenue E 0.99 3. I-5 Freeway SB Ramps/Calgrave Avenue B 0.70 4. I-5 Freeway NB Ramps/Calgrove Avenue D 0.89 5. Orchard Village Road/Lyons Avenue E 0.91 6. San Fernando Road/Soledad Capon Road F 1.41 7a. San Fernando Road Cnctr./Magic Mountain Parkway B 0.62 7b. San Fernando Road/Magic Mountain Parkway Cnctr. A 0.54 8. San Fernando Road/Circle I Ranch Road C 0.78 8a. Circle J Ranch Road/Via Princessa/Wiiley Canyon Road D 0.82 9. San Fernando Road/Lyons Road . E 0.94 10. SR -14 Freeway SB Ramps/San Fernando Road F 1.59 11. SR -14 Freeway NB Off-ramp/San Fernando Road F 1.99 ' Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. 1 13 Newhall Redevelopment Project, Traffic Impact Study Draft Report 4.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH FULL PROJECT ALTERNATIVE This Chapter discusses the analysis of intersection operation with the addition of project -related traffic. As stated previously, the City's travel model assumes that 80 percent of buildout of the City's General Plan Land Use Element would occur by 2015: With the stimulus provided by designating the project area a redevelopment site, the project area was With to grow to 100 percent of buildout of the City's General Plan Land Use Element by 2015, under full -project conditions. Similar to the no -project scenario, the model was used to develop growth factors to apply to the existing intersection turning movement counts to develop year 2015 traffic volumes for the full -project scenario. In the case of the two proposed grade -separated intersections (San Fernando Road/Magic Mountain Parkway and San Fernando Road/Wiley Canyon Road), the City traffic model was used to directly generate turning movement volumes at each intersection. Exhibit 6 contains the projected year 2015 PM peak hour turning movement volumes with full development of the redevelopment area. 4.1 Intersection Analysis Table 4 contains the results of the intersection analysis (with all intersections assumed to be signalized). Under full -project conditions, six of the study intersection are projected to operate at LOS D or better. One intersection is projected to operate at LOS E and six at LOS F. The detailed LOS calculation sheets are included in the Appendix to this report. The City's guidelines for traffic impact studies defines an impact due to project -related traffic as significant according to the following criteria: Final V/C Proiect-Related V/C Increase 0.80-0.89 Equal to or greater than 0.02 0.90 or more Equal to or greater than 0.01 Table 4 contains a comparison of the intersection analyses both with and without project -related traffic. According to the City's guidelines, a total of seven study intersections would be significantly impacted by project -related traffic. These intersections have been highlighted in Table 4. Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. 14 1 1 1 11 1 1 E 1 1 LJ 1 1 7 �l I 1 1 1 I I Newhall Development Project I Exhibit I M Meye, MohaddesAssvtiafes, /nw 6 �� Buildout Tuming Movement Volumes Newhall Redevelopment Project Raffic Impact Study Draft Report TABLE 4 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH FULL PROJECT Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. .... ... . . ........ . . . . . . . . 1. 1-5 Fwy. SB Off-ramp/Lyons Avenue F 1.26 F 1.27 2. 1-5 Fwy. NB Ramps/Lyons Avenue E 0.99 F 1.01 3. 1-5 Fwy. SB Ramps/Calgrove Avenue B 0.70 B 0.67 -0.03 4. 1-5 Fwy. NB Ramps/Calgrove Avenue D 0.89 D 0.83 -0.06 5. Orchard Village Road/Lyons Avenue E 0.91 E 10.99 6. San Fernando Road/Soledad Canyon Road F 1.41 F 1 1.41 0.00 7a. San Fernando Road Cridr./Magic Mtn. Parkway B 0.62 B 0.63 0.01 7b. San Fernando Road/Magic Mtn. Parkway Cnctr. A 0.54 A 0.55 0.01 8. San Fernando Road/Circle I Ranch Road C 0.78 C 0.79 0.01 8a. Circle I Ranch Road/Wiley Canyon Road D 0.82 D 0.85 9. San Fernando Road/Lyons Road E 10.94 F 1.08 0 10. SR -14 Fwy. SB Ramps/San Fernando Road F 1.59 F 1.66 11. SR 14 Fwy. NB Off-ramp/San Fernando Road F 1.99 F 2.09 Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. 16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 J 11 1 11 Newhall Redevelopment Project Pu is ,Impact Study Draft Report 5.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH REDUCED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE This Chapter discusses the analysis of intersection operation with the addition of project -related traffic assuming the reduced project area as described in Chapter 1. As stated previously, the City's travel model assumes that 80 percent of buildout of the City's General Plan Land Use Element would occur by 2015. With the stimulus provided by designating the project area a redevelopment site, the reduced project area was assumed to grow to 100 percent of buildout of the City's General Plan Land Use Element by 2015. Similar to the full -project scenario, the model was used to develop growth factors to apply to the existing intersection turning movement counts to develop year 2015 traffic volumes for the reduced -project scenario. In the case of the two proposed grade -separated intersections (San Fernando Road/Magic Mountain Parkway and San Fernando Road/Wiley Canyon Road), the City traffic model was used to directly generate turning movement volumes at each intersection. Exhibit 7 contains the projected year 2015 PM peak hour turning movement volumes with full development of the reduced redevelopment area. 5.1 Intersection Analysis Table 5 contains the results of the intersection analysis (with all intersections assumed to be signalized). Under project conditions, six of the study intersection are projected to operate at LOS D or better. Two intersections are projected to operate at LOS E and five at LOS F. The detailed LOS calculation sheets are included in the Appendix to this report. Table 5 contains a comparison of the intersection analyses both with and without project -related traffic. According to the City's guidelines, a total of six study intersections mould be significantly impacted by project -related traffic, under the reduced -project alternative. These intersections have been highlighted in Table 5. Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. 17 M Meyer AfohaddesAssoM&S,111C Newhall Development Project Exhibit *��•� Reduced Buildout Turning Movement Volumes 7 I Newhall Redevelopment Project Raffic Impact Study Draft Report TABLE 5 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE FUTURE comrrms WITH REDUCED PROJECT W. R Out IN IntersectionX ME ly 1. 1-5 Fwy. SB Off-ramp/Lyons Avenue F 1.261 F 11.27 2.1-5.Fwy. NB Ramps/Lyons Avenue E 0.99 1 E 10.98 -0.01 3. 1-5 Fwy. SB Ramps/Calgrove Avenue B 0.70 B 10.69 -0.01 4.1-5 Fwy. NB Ramps/Calgrove Avenue D 0.89 D 0.85 -0.04 5. Orchard Village Road/Lyons Avenue E 0.91 E 0.95 6. San Fernando Road/Soledad Canyon Road F 1.41 F 1.41 0.00 7a. San Fernando Road Cactr./Magic Mtn. Parkway B 0.62 A 0.60 -0-02 7b. San Fernando Road/Magic Mtn. Parkway Cnm. A 0.54 A 0.55 0.01 S. San Fernando Road/Circle J Ranch Road C 0.78 C 0.79 0.01 8a. Circle J Ranch Road/Wiley Canyon Road D 0.82 D 0.85 9 03 9. San Fernando Road/Lyons Road E 0.94 F 1.01 10. SR -14 Fwy. SB Ramps/San Fernando Road= F 1.59 -1.99 Fd 1.62 11. SR -14 Fwy. NB Off-ramp/San Fernando Road F :F 2.04 Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. M Newhall Redevelopment Project Raffic Impact Study Draft Report 6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation measures were developed in coordination with City staff for each significantly impacted intersection. These are presented below. It should be noted that at each intersection, the mitigation measure would improve the level of service to better than conditions without project -related traffic. 6.1 Full -Project Alternative As stated in the Chapter 4, a total of seven study intersections would be significantly impacted by project - related traffic under the full -project alternative. The significantly impacted intersections are: • I-5 SB off-ramp/Lyons Avenue • 1-5 NB ramps/Lyons Avenue • Orchard Village Road/Lyons Avenue • Via Princessa/Circle I Ranch Road' • Lyons Avenue/San Fernando Road • SR -14 SB ramps/San Fernando Road • SR -14 NB off-ramp/San Fernando Road * 'proposed future intersection I-5 SB off-ramp/Lyons Avenue , This intersection is projected to worsen from a VIC of 1.26 (LOS F) to 1.27 during the PM peak hour due to project -related traffic. In order to mitigate this impact, the off -ramp should be restriped from one left -turn lane, one throughlleft-tum lane, one right -turn lane to two left -tum lanes and one through/right- turn lane. Implementing this mitigation will improve the projected VIC ratio to 1.18 during the evening peak hour. I-5 NB ramps/Lyons Avenue This intersection is projected to worsen from a VIC of 0.99 (LOS E) to 1.01 (LOS F) during the PM peak hour due to project -related traffic. In order to mitigate this impact, a right -tum only lane onto the ramp should be provided in the westbound direction. Implementing this mitigation will improve the projected VIC ratio to 0.84 during the evening peak hour. Orchard Village RoadaMns Avenue Ibis intersection is projected to worsen from a VIC of 0.91 (LOS E) to 0.99 during the PM peak hour due to project -related traffic. Future -year analysis of this intersection already assumed that it would be fully built out. No additional geometric improvements are feasible. Via Princessa/Circle J Ranch Road This intersection was assumed to contain two through lanes in the eastbound and westbound directions in the future. Under this configuration, the intersection would operate with a VIC of 0.82 (LOS D) and 0.85 without and with project -related traffic, respectively. Providing a third eastbound and Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. 20 I I 1 I F" 1 I 1 I LJ I I I Newhall Redevelopment Project Tiaffic Impact Study Draft Report westbound through lane would improve the projected VIC ratio to 0.63 during the evening peak hour. Lens Avenue/San Fernando Road This intersection is projected to worsen from a VIC of 0.94 (LOS E) to 1.08 (LOS F) during the PM peak hour due to project -related traffic. Railroad Avenue runs just east of San Fernando Road and just west of the MTA railroad tracks. This parallel facility to San Fernando Road is planned to be improved to become a two- or four -lane upgraded roadway. This improvement will provide additional capacity along the San Fernando Road corridor inthisarea. Sufficient traffic should divert from San Fernando Road to Railroad Avenue to improve the projected operation of Lyons Avenue/San Fernando Road such that additional geometric improvements would not be necessary. SR -14 SB ramps/San Fernando Road This intersection is projected to worsen from a VIC of 1.59 (LOS F) to 1.66 during the PM peak hour due to project -related traffic. In order to mitigate this impact, a third through lane in the westbound direction would be needed to accommodate the projected traffic volumes exiting the northbound off -ramp. Implementing this mitigation would improve the projected VIC ratio to 1.23 during the evening peak hour. SR -14 NB off-ramp/San Fernando Road This intersection is projected to worsen from a VIC of 1.99 (LOS F) to 2.09 during the PM peak hour due to project -related traffic. Projected off -ramp volumes indicate a need for three lanes. This is probably not feasible. If three lanes were provided on the off -ramp, the projected evening peak hour VIC ratio would improve to 1.64. 6.2 Reduced -Project Alternative As stated in the Chapter 4, a total of six study intersections would be significantly impacted by project - related traffic under the reduced -project alternative. The significantly impacted intersections are: • I-5 SB off-ramp/Lyons Avenue • Orchard Village Road/Lyons Avenue • Via Prineessa/Circle I Ranch Road' • Lyons Avenue/San Fernando Road • SR -14 SB ramps/San Fernando Road • SR -14 NB off-ramp/San Fernando Road • proposed future intersection The same mitigation measures proposed under the full -project alternative for each of the significantly impacted intersections would still be necessary under the reduced -project alternative. These improvements have not been repeated below. Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. 21 Newhall Redevelopment Project Rafflc Impact Study Draft Report , I-5 SB off-ramp/Lyons Avenue This intersection is projected to worsen from a V/C of 1.26 (LOS F) to 1.27 during the PM peak hour due to project -related [raffia Implementing the proposed mitigation will improve the projected V/C ratio to 1.17 during the evening peak hour. , Orchard Village Roaddans Avenue This intersection is projected to worsen from a V/C of 0.91 (LOS E) to 0.95 during the PM peak hour due to project -related traffic. Future -year analysis of this intersection already assumed that it would be fully built out. No additional geometric improvements are feasible. Via Princessa/Circle I Ranch Road This intersection was assumed to contain two through lanes in the eastbound and westbound directions in the future. Under this configuration, the intersection would operate with a V/C of 0.82 (LAS D) ' and 0.85 without and with project -related traffiq respectively. Providing a third eastbound and westbound through lane would improve the projected V/C ratio to 0.63 during the evening peak hour. Lwns Avenue/San Fernando Road ' This intersection is projected to worsen from a V/C of 0.94 (LOS E) to 1.01 (LOS F) during the PM peak hour due to project -related traffia Railroad Avenue runs just east of San Fernando Road and just west of the MTA railroad tracks. This parallel facility to San Fernando Road is planned to be improved to become a two- or four -lane upgraded roadway. This improvement will provide additional capacity along the San Fernando Road corridor in this area. Sufficient traffic should divert from San Fernando Road to Railroad Avenue to improve the projected operation of Lyons Avenue/San Fernando Road such ' that additional geometric improvements would not be necessary. SR -14 SB ramps/San Fernando Road ' This intersection is projected to worsen from a V/C of 1.59 (IAS F) to 1.62 during the PM peak hour due to project -related traffic. Implementing the proposed mitigation would improve the projected V/C ratio to 1.20 during the evening peak hour. ' SR -14 NB off-ramp/San Fernando Road This intersection is projected to worsen from a V/C of 1.99 (LOS F) to 2.04 during the PM peak hour due to project -related traffic. Projected off -ramp volumes indicate a need for three lanes. Ibis is probably not feasible. If three lanes were provided on the off -ramp, the projected evening peak hour V/C ratio would improve to 1.61. F:\USERS\M9r7-031\D0C\DRAFr.RPT I I Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. 22 i NEWHALL PROJECT REDEVELOPMENT TECHNICAL APPENDIX Prepared for City of Santa Clarita Prepared by Meyer, Mohaddes Associates 900 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA : 90017 April 1997 J97-031 I I I r L� 11 I I u PM PEAK PERIOD TURNING MOVEMENT COUNTS I I i I I Fl 1 I FROM : Accutek 909 596 6022 PHONE NO. : 19095956022 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY ACCUTEK CITY: CITY OF BANTA CLAUITA DATE: 4-2-97 UNTO -SOUTH $I1 N•fYY 85 $8 RANPi/i•MARRIOTT YAT DAY: 1EDNESDAY EAST-UECT ST: E -LYONS AYE.N-PICO CYN ROAD I'm NO. 2210 Apr. 03 1997 01:17PM P4 3 SwK LEST NORTH EAST SOUND .59 ROUND U8 801NI0 m RO:m ER 1 151 RR TIME RT TNRU LT TOTAL RT "M LT ,TOTAL RT TNRU LT TOTAL RT TNRU LT TOTAL ITOTAL TOTAL ............................................. ............................................................... AM 7SIS 1 19 44 " 16t 39 9 .209 15 2 6 M 10 85 0 93 7-.30 6 18 63 89 200 54 4 .258 19 1 6 26 . 8 97 0 105 7:45 4 14 62 80 176 36 13 2i5 9 t 4 14' 11 110 0 121 8:00 9 24 74 107 153 - 56 11 220 26 3 3 32 12 99 0 107 TOTAL 20 75 245 340 690 185 37 912 69 7 10 95 41 387 0 420 8315 S 25 28 118 191 78 5 274 20 8 2 30 7 95 O 102 8130 9. 12 59 80 160 50 6 224 If. 3 3 20 12 107 0 119 8:45 10 24 64 98 163 59 8 230 15 5 7 27 7 122 0 129 9:00 - 9 26 75 110 138 54 11 ' 203 10 3 2 7S 14 88 0 102 TOTAL 33 87 266 406 660 241 30 931 59 19 14 92 40 412. 0 452 414S 25 21 111 IST 60 118 16 194 12 4 5 21 6 132 0 138 5:00 14 27 123 164 66 1oT 12 '187 17 3 10 30• '8 133 0 141 5:15 25 27 134 186 80 177 13 270 17 2 7 26 9 142 0 131 5130 22 28 93 143 73 117 19 209 t6 S 4 25 9 134 0 143 TOTAL 86 103 "1 650 281 S19 60 '860 62. 14 26 102 32 541 0 573 5:43 26 26 113 165 91 171 19 281 13 3 5 2t 8 164 0 172 6:00 22 20 tO4 146 6l 195 16 252 IT z 6 25 7 113 0 120 6:15 19 32 89 140 63 164 19 246 11 3 5 19 6 '136 0 144 6:30 24 2E 78 130 87 t38 17 242 19 4 14 37 12 139 0 151 TOTAL 91 106 384 S81 322 628 71 1021 60 12 30 102 33 SSL 0 587 391 478 440 466 1775 524 4!3 48d 430 1881 710 5zz 631 520 2185 639 543 $49 560 2291 AK PEAK HOUR 714S-8:45 33 85 286 403 675 243 30 948 75 19 15 109- 38 419 0 457 1917 PM PEAK K" S:00-6:00 9S 111 444 640 329 620 67 10;2 63 12 22 97 33 553 0 SK6 2335 ..............................................................................•---------------..._.........__ ,r .0 Taut pAKA N M Mu LXK&c 3 2.p 920 f $ y,725 699 _ _395 � (3,926)(1,019)( j(SS/ MHK 1S•y( if;O'J NO.UJU Y.U'L N O&Ana 10WHU-P.WnAK Toru 283 3 7 I 3 1 949 ,LYONS AV0. �Y=M. S4ASh/AE fZ+ � TRANSPORTATION ►..J DISTRICT O7 • TRAFFIC BRANCH DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC COUNT CO .4.—RTE 5 — P.M"L- �_N.B. Ga/d�St�t� Fwd Rd yp� of G yens A✓e _ _ Sanfa. C.C��� -- CITY OR TOWN DAY — DATE -64--Dz4--joot -+ P.M: TOTALVOL&V67NO_HRS. A.M.Zgx- 10 g430' PEAK �.. - IFROM : Acartek 909 595 6022 PME NO. : 19095956022 Apr. 03 1997 01:17PM P3 INTERSECTION TURNING NDVENENT COLNIT SUNNARY ACWTEC CITY: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DATED 4-2.97 NORTH -506TH STD FWY 95 SB RAMPS OAYB WEDNESDAY EAST -18163 STB CALOROW BLVD. PROD No. 2210 --'--...---...-' ...................................................................................... 2 SOUTN WEST NORTH EAST I BOIm SH ROLM L9 BOU610 HB BOUND E6 1152 NR TIME ------------------ NT I= LT »......................................................................................... TOTAL BY THRU LT TOTAL RT TM LT TOTAL RT TNRU LY TOTAL ITOTAL TOTAL AN 7113 83 0 12 95 O 61 68 t29 0 0 0 0 10 25 0 I, 35 1259 WO 93 0 3 96 O 69 79 146 0 0 0 0 10 27 0 37 ( 281 7:45 70 0 9 79 0 66 34 150 0 0 0 0 13 33 0 46 ( 275 8.00 55 0 19 74 0 62 55 117 0 0 0 0 B 27 0 35 ( 226 TOTAL 301 0 43 344 0 258 286 $44 0 0 0 0 41 112 0 153 ( 1041 6:15 30 0 IS 46 0 37 66 103 0 0 0 0 7 31 0 30 I 169 Bim 14 0 19 33 0 30 69 99 0 0 0 0 17 38 0 55 ( 187 8:45 13 0 12 25 0 25 47 72 0 0 0 0 12 2? 0 39 ( 136 9:00 5 0 20 25 0 20 42 62 0 0 0 0 12 19 0 31 I 116 TOTAL 62 0 69 131 6 112 224 336 0 0 0 0 48 '115 0 163 I 630 4:45 19 0 24 43 0 39 30 69 0 0 O 0 14 70 0 I 92 ( 204 5:00 17 0 18 3S 0 32 22 S4 0 0 0 0 9 77 0 66 I 175 5-15 19 0 19 38 0 31 28 59 0 0 0 0 23 100 0 123 ( 220 5230 8 0 22 30 0 31 ZS 54 0 0 0 0' 6 96 O 92 I 176 TOTAL 63 0 63 146 O 133 103 236 0 0 0 0 52 341 0 393 I 775 SAS 11 0 24 3S 0 35 24 S9 0 0 0 0 18 108 0 126 I 220 6100 9 0 27 36 0 26 27 53 0 O 0 0 13 111 0 124 i 213 6213 16 0 26 42 0 39 30 69 0 0 0 0 11 90 0 101 ( 212 6:30 B 0 23 31 0 38 28 66 . 0 0 0 0 3 73 0 70 I 175 TOTAL 44 0 100 t44 0 138 .109 247 0 0 0 0 43 384 0 429 I 020 AN PM HOUR 7200-6100 301 0 43 34 0 256 286 SL4 0 0 0 0 41 112 0 153 I 1041 i PN I'm NOUR I 5100-6290 47 0 92 139 0 123 •102 223 0 0 0 0 60 405 0 465 ( 029 SE-1_s•r W I _sr INTERSECTION TURNING NOVENE0T COUNT SIMWY AM= CITYs CITY OF & IA CLARITA DATE: 4-2-97 IMTN-IMV STt TNY AS NO RANDS OAl2 1A:DNESDAY EASY-WM 9% CAUMM BLVD. PROD NO. 7210 Apr. 03 1997 01:16PM P2 1 PN PM HOUR 5:30.6-30 0 a 0 0 a4 183 • 0 Z67 278 0 62 340 0 283 206 489 1 10% SOUTR NEST NORTH EAST I BOUND 83 BOAID 'NS No= NN BMW ES 1 151 RR TIME ................................................. IT TNRU LT TOTAL AT THRU LT TOTAL ........................................................... ;RT TNRU LT TaTAL` AT THRU LT TOTAL ITOTAL TOTAL AN 7215 0 0 0 0 8 123 0 131 9 0 8 17 •0 22 14 36 ( 164 7:30 0 0 O 0 11 133 0 144 13 0 11 24 0 10 2A 34 I 202 7345 0 0 0 0 19 138 0 1S6 10 0 10 20 0 17 23 40 I 216 8:00 0 0 0 0 17 106 0 123 11 0 15 26 0 26 16 42 I 191 TOTAL 0 0 . 0 0 54 500 0 534 43 0 K 87 0 73 77 192 793 8:1S 0 0 0 0 16 80 0 96 is 0 11 26 0 34 18 52 i 174 8:30 0 0 0 0 10 119 0 99 23 0 12 35 0 41 19 60 I 194 8:45 0 0 0 0 12 65 0 77. 17 0 5 22 0 25 15 40 ( 139 9200 0 a 0 0 26 59 0 84 "18 0 7 25 0 23 15 38 ( 147 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 64 292 ' 0 356 73 0 35 108 0 123 67 190 ( 654 4349 0 0 0 0 73 K 0 S7 60 0 24 dS 0 65 34 I 99 ( 240 5200 0 0 0 0 13 42 0 55 70 0 15 05 0 61 38 99 I 239 5:15 0 0 0 0 18 37• 0 55 81 0 20 101 0 70 50 120 I 276 5:30 a 0 0 0 14 43 0 57 66 0 13 79 0 68 35 103 ( 239 TOTAL 0 0 0 ,0 SS 166 0 224 277 0 72 349 0 261 157 421 I 991 5:4s 0 0 a 0 23 43 0 , 66 72 0 16 88 0 68 65 133 I 287 6ta0 0 0 0 0 19 AO 0 59 76 0 11 67 0 73 65 138 ( 284 6:15 0 0 0 a - 19 49 0 6S as' 0 17 82 0 85 37 122 ( 272 6.30 0 a 0 0 23 51 0 74 65 0 18 83 0 57 39 96 ( 253 TOTAL ............................................................................................................. 0 0 0 0 84 183 0 267 278 0 62 340 0 281 206 489 I 10% AN PEAR NOW I 7:00-8.00 0 0 0 0 54 500 0 554 43 0 K 87 0 75 77 152 1 793 PN PM HOUR 5:30.6-30 0 a 0 0 a4 183 • 0 Z67 278 0 62 340 0 283 206 489 1 10% I 91 I] lU:CU7L5yL425M INTERSECTION MIND HMMEWT CWN1 SUMMARY. ACCUTEM CITYS _ SANTA CLARITA DATE: 6.5.96 MORTM•SCU7M at: ORCNARO VILLACE RD, DAYS WEDNESDAY EAST -LEST STS LYONS AVE. PROJ NO. 2130 PIHK 1J"!f 1f -4U no.UJU r.U4 SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST RO1M16 w ROUND b ROl.IC N6 201M10 ER 1 1$' MR TIME RT TNRU LT TOTAL ' RT TAM LT TOTAL RT TNRU LT TOTAL RT TMM1 IT TOTAL ITOTAL TOTAL AN 6.30 26 7 36 6-.45 25 11 u 7:00 u 16 41 - 7115 23 7 49 TOTAL 96 43 162 7.30 31 36 9S 7S4s 61 43 95 6:00 79 37 111 9:15 46 1S 62 TOTAL 217 131 363 PR 4.30 52 51 73 4:45 S9 36 73 5:00 67 52 64 SS15 66 47. 72 TOTAL 2" 166 264 5:30 S6 56 64 5:0 64 36 K 6:00 49 51 66 6:15 41 36 S7 TOTAL 212 179 293 71 24 K 9 117 6 U. 17 37 7 68 23 100 325 70 36 113 11 162 21 13 7 41 9 - 86 16 113 386 61 23 106 6 135 t2 23 16 53. 11 93 26 . 130 309 79 35. 107 12 154 18 16 20 56 11 136 22 169 ( 456 301 120 410 35 566 57 66 62 167 38 363 91 Sl2 1566 162 27 163 20 210 50 39 23 112 11 200 2S3 737 199 69 210 22 301 56 39 24 119 6 192 ,42 46 246 � 665 227 61 253 19 333 30 32 23 65 16 171 26 213 656 12s 57 243 u lu 17 19 so 66 20 .155 33 206 719 711 214 669 63 1166 153 129 100 362 55 7t8 f4T 920 3179 176 59 208 32 299 27 36 40 103 29 262. 71 s62 j 942 168 53 219 $1 323 24 (6 41 113 35 250 71 356 960 183 74 235 36 350' 26 35 54 1/S- S1 259 '75 383 1031 105 S7 220 33 X10 38 46 29 115 4T 207 . 87 341 951 714 243 SSS 154 1282 t1S 167 164 446 162 978 302 1442 •3884 196 61 235 u 328 K 39. $O - 135 K 521 DO 457 Ilu 184 67 223 24 314 42 35 30 t07 35 207 67 309 914 168 61 191 20 280 32 44 42 116 37 259 62 378 ( 944 134 52. 195 24 271 20 34 30 K 29 226 63 316 805 684 241 SU 106 1193 140 152 152 4" 147 loll 302 1460 3761 14 '7-.30 ! 30 217 131 rf63 711; 2K 99 ti 1166. 153 129 100 562 55 715 147 920 j 3179 L PN PEAR MWR n) '.. 41(5•5s45 250 191 243 734 245 912 1K 1311 134 170 174 476 179 1037 321 1537 4060 ....................T...................._............__......_....................................._...... 1U:8Ub2b924U'3 IWIERSECTION TURNING MOVE14ENI COUNT SUMMARY ACCUTER CITYf CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DATE: 6.4.96 NORTN•tCUTN BTI SOUTOUET CANYON RD. DAT1 TUESDAY EAST -WEST ST; VALENCIA SLVO. PROD NO. 2130 MHK 1-5*W 274 1(;OV f10.UJU r.uo 185 36 360 42 102 6 152 - 1 69 ............................................................................................................ 90UTN WEST NORTN EAST BOUND AN SOLID we ROUNO NB BOUND ED I 152 NR TIME RT.TNRU LT TOTAL RT TNRU LT TOTAL AT TNRU LT TOTAL AT TNRU LT TOTAL ITOTAL TOTAL ..............................................•___.......................................................... AN 6130 ZSS 274 100 609 139 185 36 360 42 102 6 152 - 1 69 32 102 1223 6:45 2" 251 114 609 798 266 65 $29 42 72 5 119 4 79. 34 117 1374 7;00 274 266 127 667 177 204 TO 451 52 68 12 132 3 101 38 14Z 1392 7:13 256 270 118 644 191 269 78 536 38 83 6 127 S 122 79 206 1515 TOTAL 1009 1061 459 2529 705 924 Z49 1678 174 325 31 530 13 371 183 567 5504 7:30 272 319 188 719 190 273 SS 518 62 88 6 1S6 6 114 .92 202 j 16SS 724E 268 263 156 689 189 318 85 592 52 103 9 164 7 tUZ 78 217 1662 StOO 246 297 152 695 139 Z36 92 SlT 45 107 10 162 1 146 62 209 1S87 8:15 192 248 149 569 168 271 91 530 47 76 9 132 6 131 46 203 1454 TOTAL 978 1127 647 2752 686 1148 323 2157 206 374 34 614 20 $23 288 631 6354 PN 4130 105 14Z 180 4ZT 171 247 56 474 80 216 14 310 9 295 175 479 1690 4:45 116 140 211 46T 197 225 108 530 103 240 13 356 15 370 262 647 ( 2000 $100 107 165 145 417 139 187 68 394 119 252 it 362 7 351 208 $66 1 1739 S21S 116 190 176 48Z 214 215 89 S18 117 266 17 400 8 421 220 649-1 2049 TOTAL 444 637 712 1793 721 874 321 1916 419 954 55 1428 39 1437 865 2341 7478 Sz30 107- 182 181 470 1S1 218 76 445 106 275 11 392 6 380 212 598 1903 5:45 115 220 186 521 190 270 82 542 110 237 12 3$9 6 397 226 629 2051 6100 105 162 186 453 163 211 86 460 75 2Z3 6 304 9. 279 276 524 ' 1741 6:15 86 136 149 371 181 208 61 450 91 221 14 326 11 311 194 516 1663 TOTAL 413 700 702 ISIS 685 9D7 303 1897 382 956 43 1381 321367 868 2267 7360 ............................................................................................................. AN PEAS NOIR 7;15.82151042'1149 616 Z80T 709 1146 310 2165- 197 387 31609 19 514 301 834 I 6413 vN vEAx xouR E Sz1S-6215 443 .............................••____....................................__._._•............................... 734 729 1926 718 914 .333 1965 408 1001 46 1455 29 1477 894 2400 7746 C�1 lll � 2fU5L5`JL42Sy INTERSECTION TURNING NOVMNT COUNT UMMARY ACOUTU PIMK 10'7( lT•41 T10.UJU Y.Ub CITY1 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DATE: 5.29.96 NORTH -SCUT. ITS MURRAY CAYOM R0. DAY: WEDNESDAY EAST -VEST ST: NACIC NDIRITAIR PKWT fROJ NO. 2130 ............................................................................................................. SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST SOUND is SOUND W8 NO= NY BOUND ES I 1S' NR TINE RT TM LT TOTAL MY TNRV LT TOTAL AT TNRU LT TOTAL RT TNRU LT TOTAL ITOTAL TOTAL .................. ........................................................................................... AN. 6130 13 236 0 247 0 0 0 0 0 113 D 140 a 0 S 13 6:41 16 294 0 310 0 0 0 0 0 111 37 14a 16 a 7 23 7100 17 263 0 300 0 0 a 0 0 129 31 166 16 0 9 23 7215 28 341 a 369 0 0 0 0 0 115 41 356 zz 0 9 31 TOTAL 74 1ISZ 0 1226 0 0 0 0 0 468 142 610 62 0 30 92 7130 32 Sol 0 337 0 0 0 0 0 151 38 189 43 0 12 5$ 7245 26 337 0 343 0 0 0 0 0 161 64 221 26 0 11 3T 6100 23 303 0 326 0 0 0 0 0 152 SO 202 36 a 16 50 1:15 22 -2u 0 266 0 0 0 0 0 122 SS 177 26 0 1S 41 TOTAL 103 1189 0 1292 0 . 0 0 0 0 Sa6 203 789 131 0 52 113 PN 4130 25 171 0 203 0 0 0 0 0 297 59 356 57 0 49 106 ISIS 29 212 0 Z41 0 0 0 0 0 za7 52 339 As 0 43 111 5:00 32 ziz o 244 0 0 0 0 0 321 77 400 72 0 37 ' 109 5115 2$ .225 0 250 0 0 0 0 0 307 S6 363 16 0 10 106 TOTAL 111 827 0 938 0 0 0 0 0 1214 244 1454" 2$3 0 179 632 5130 33 196 0 229 0 0 0 0 0 280 40 320 56 0 43 99 5s4S 34 203 0 ZST 0 0 6 0 a 26a 60 329 S7 0 44 101 6:00 - 22 215 0 237 0 0 0 a 0 312 42 354 53 0 41 94 6515 32 215 0 z4T 0 0 0 0 0 281 34 322 49 0 33 42 TOTAL 121 an 0 950 - 0 0 0 0 0 1148 176 1324 '21S 0 161 .376 AN PEAR NCA 711$-0115 109 1206 0 1595. 0 0 0 0 0 S79 189 768 u7 0 46 173 400 481 491 SS6 1928 Sat 621 $76 <a4 u6c 665 691 753 719 2828 648 666 685 651 2630 PN PEA[ NCA 1 4:30.5130 111 827 0 938 0 0 0 0 0 1214 VA 1458 253 0 179 432 1 2826 ............................................................................................................. 6 . .21 ADVANCED TRAFFIC STUDIES 2763 WEST AVENUE L. SUITE 205. LANCASTER. CA. 93536 (805) 943-2181- t f i MANUAL COUNT SUMMARY t t t Preaared for M ASSOCIATES JOBi: 072101-8 INTERSECTION CIRCLE J RANCH AND SAN FERNANDO RD. DATE, 7-25-95 ATS FILE NAME: C:072101-B.MCT - DAY : TUESDAY TIME: W-OPM - 6:30PN ABNORMAL CONDITI6N5: NONE CIRCLE J RANCH SAN FERNANDO R➢�—��Yr" ------------------___--------- --- - -------- - IOTA L NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 1/4 HR TOTALS EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 1f4 HR TOTALS VOLUMES TILE--------- ------- ------- --- _ _ ----_--- ----- -- - ------ BEGIN ---- LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU --- ---- ---- --- -- RIGHT --- HBO --- SBD BOTH LEFT THRU RIGHT --- LEFT THRU RIGHT EBB WBD BOTH 15 MIN HOURLY 14:30 - - - 18 _ 13 0 31 ---- ---- 31 34 -- - _-- 225 ---- --- - 246 -- 13 --- 259 --- 269 ---- 528 ----- 559 2188 t4:45 - - - 8 - 19 0 27 27 20 174 - - 254 33 194 287 481 508 2181 - 15:00 - - - 13 - 20 0 33 33 21 235 - - 256 44 256 300 556 iB9 2139 15:15 - - - 8 - 1B 0 26 26 22 208 - - 244 32 230 276 506 532 2113 5:30 - - - 15 - 23 0 38 30 25 220 - - 236 33 245 269 514 552 2035 5:45 - - - 10 - 19 0 29 29 26 IB3 - - 193 35 209 22B 437 466 6:00 - - - 19 - 24 0 43 43 21 206 - - 253 40 217 293 520 563 6.15 - - - 13 - 9 0 22 22 15 155 - - 226 36, 170 262 432 454 t PEAK HOUR Ins 4:30 PM TO 5:30 PM 0 0 0 47 0 70 0 117 117 97 642 0 0 1000 131 939 1132 2071 2188' 216B PEAK HOUR APPROACH DIAGRAM 70 0 1 47 � 1 1 Z 1(<+- p A A, , 97 --+ +— 132 842 ---> <-1000 SAN FERNANDO RD, r 0 —+ +-- 0 1 1 V V 0 1 0 0 CIRCLE J RANCH , Il U : M)2t)92489 u MHK 16"J( 1(:4U,IV0.UJU V.US PM PEAK MOOR 4145.5145 421 619 29 1069 36 36 5 77 6 699 195 1090 103 31 $69 702 2939 ....... ... ._•...........................................................................•-----------------'-- I D I D INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COWT SUMMARY ACCUTEK CITTt CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DATE% 6-5.1996 Md1TM-WAN ST: SAN FERMAN" R0. DAY WEDNESDAY EAST -LEST STI LYONS AVE. PROJ 00. 2130 .............................. ..............----...........................___.---........ SOUTH WEST MORTM EAST 110%MIO SC ROUMO UR "AD MR sOUMD E6 IS, MR TIME RT TMRU L7 TOTAL ' MT TMRU tT TOTAL RT 111111 LT TOTAL RT TMRO LT TOTAL ITOTAL TOTAL ... ..................................._......................_...._...._.....____.---........._.._... AN 6:30 29 227 0 255 1 D 0 1 0 139 26 164 14 1 25 40 460 AILS 42 239 2 293 1 1 0 2 0 133 30 193 12 0 37 49 SIT 7:00 32, 229 0 260 1 0 1 2 0 114 Z3 ' 137 IS 1 55 71 470 7815 46 256 3 333 0 1 0 1 0 90 29 119 24 3 34 6t 516 TOTAL" 140 9x0 - S 1133 3 2 1 6 0 495 109 603 63 5 151 221 1963 7:30 62 214 5 261 2 7 1 10 3 Ito 46 159 20 S <0 65 515 7145 97 213 7 317 3 6 1 10 2 151 69 221 22 9 67 97 64S 0:00 117 ITS 7 249 6 2 0 6 S 139 63 206 20 7 67 94 6D7 ells 109 201 1 311 3 0 0 3 1 127 54 162 20 4 112 136 I 632 'I TOTAL 395 603 20 . 1206 14 15 2 31 11 526 231 766 02 Z4 296 392 2399 ►M 4:39 92 126 6 224 12 3 0 15 2 206 46 Z56 19 1 122 142 637 4145 9S 140 13 246 16 S 1 22 1 206 39 245 31 9 141 100 695 5%00 111 136 9 256 7 S 0 12 1 23S 51 267 30 6 Its 196 763 S115 flz 155 S ZTZ 6 11 2 19 . 2 226 33 261 15 5 US 149 700 TOTAL 410 559 37 1002 41 24 3 60 6 97S 1" 1049 93 ZZ 539 6S6 2775 5%30 1C3 t96 2 2D/ 7 15 2 24 2 232 63 297 27 10 151 199 No 6845 6100 103 94 135 131 4 7 242 ZZZ 2 7 14 7 2 0 19 14 1 1 240 215 u ' 34 293 250 26 23 z. S 109 119 137 147 = 690 623 'Ails 01 ISO .2 233 5 7 0 12 1 220 49 Z69 26 S 114 145 659 TOTAL 371 602 1S 996 11 4S 4 69 S 915 199 1109 102 22 493 617 2792 .......................................-------------- ....-•_• --------------- ......... .......----------------- AM PEAK A"' P 7:30.9:30 365 903 20 1209 14 TS 2 11. 11 526 231 7" 82 24 296 392 2399 PM PEAK MOOR 4145.5145 421 619 29 1069 36 36 5 77 6 699 195 1090 103 31 $69 702 2939 ....... ... ._•...........................................................................•-----------------'-- I D I Ic D Ic INTERSECTION T1RMJNG M74KKT COUNT 1119MY ACNTEK CITY: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DATE: 4-2-97 NORTH -SOUTH ST: FWY 014 SH RAMPS DAY.- WEDNESDAY EAST -WEST ST: RAN FERIMM ROAD PRO! NO. 22t0 Rpr. 04 1997 03:03PM P3 S AM PFA% MR ' 7100.8:00 138 0 10 143 0 439 11 450 0 0 0 0 1811 172 0 19M 2581 PH MAX MOOR St1S-6115 210 2 4 216 0 1529 % 1545 0 0 Q 0 592 355 0 947 ( 2703 ............................................................................................................ SOUTH VEST NORTH EAST BOUND SS BOND 1B N4RR10 NN WOAD EB 1 15' NR TIME ............................................•__-__--____ RT TMRU LT TOTAL RT TORU LT TOTAL RT TDBN .................................................... LT TOTAL RT TNRU LT TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL AM 711S 27 0 4 31 0 -. 94 4 96 0 0 0 0 411 38 0 449 576 7:30 22 0 2 N 0 w 3 102 O 0 0 0 464 43 0 507 635 7245 38 0 3 41 0 110 2 112 0 0 •0 0 SSC 40 O 574 727 8100 51 0 1 52 0 136 2 138 0 0 O 0 402 51 0 453 643 TOTAL 138 0 10 148 0 439 11 450 0 0 0 0 1811 172 0 1983 2581 8:15 65 0 1 66 0 79 2 8/ 0 0 0 6 306 42 0 348 495 8:30 69 0 1 70 0 M 4 80 0 0 0 0 241 k 0 285 435 8145 67 0 0 67 0 96 3 99 0 0 0 0 237 32 0 269 J 435 9.00 SO 0 Q 30 0 106 0 106 0 0 0 0 209 47 0 256 j 442 TMAL 281 0 2 2M 0 357 9 366 0 0 0 0 993 165 0 1158 ( 1807 4145 56 0 0 56 0 301 3 304 0 0 0 0 140 7B 0 218 57B S. -CO 57 0 2 59 0 353 4 357 0 0 0 0 132 70 0 202 618 5:15 36 0 2 38 0 311 5 316 0 0 0 0 134 79 0 213 $67 5:10 61 0 1 62 0 390 3 393 0 0 0 0 166 117 0 233 738 TOTAL 210 0 5 215 0 1355 15 1370 0 0 0 0 572 344 0 916 2501 5345 58 0 1 59 0 471 2 473 0 0 0 0 158 82 0 240 772 6'00 50 1 0 51 0 342 8 350 0 0 0 0 120 7S 0 195 596 . 6:15 Al 1 2 44 0 326 3 329 0 0 0 0 148 81 O 229 602 6:30 46 0 1 47 0 311 2 313 0 0 0 0 130 , 78 0 208 5615 TOTAL f9S 2 4 201 0 1450 15 1465 0 0 0 0 556 316 0 672 1 25M AM PFA% MR ' 7100.8:00 138 0 10 143 0 439 11 450 0 0 0 0 1811 172 0 19M 2581 PH MAX MOOR St1S-6115 210 2 4 216 0 1529 % 1545 0 0 Q 0 592 355 0 947 ( 2703 ............................................................................................................ IFROM : Accutek 909.595 6022 I r • INTERSECTION TURNING MVMNT C"T SUSIARY ACCUTEK CITY: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DATE: 4-2.97(AN), 4-3.97(PN) NORTE-SOUTH STC FW 914 BS RAMPS DAYS YFOSEMAY. THURSDAY Mr -NEST STC SAN F'ERUMDO ROAD PROD V0. 2210 4 -------------- -------- SOUTH ......-..--••___..________.--.-.__---......-....--.-----""--`----""-----"'---- VEST NORTH EAST ROUND Sa BCIIVD 1$ BMW Na BOUND ER ( 15, HR TIME IT'TBRU LT TOTAL IT TNRU LT TOTAL AT THRU LT TOTAL RT THRU LT TOTAL ITOTAL TOTAL ............................................................................................................. AN 7115 90 0 0 90 0 4 0 4 2 0 3 5 0 6 35 41 140 7:30 94 a 0 94 0 L O 4 4 0 5 9 0 5 42 47 154 745 106 0 0 1D6 0 4 0 4 1. 0 0 1 0 5 38 43 154 8300 139 0 0 139 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 5 419 54 197 TOTAL 429 6 0 A" 0 14 0 14 9 . 0 8 17 0 21 164 18S 645 8:15 72 0 0 72 0 5 0 5 3 0 1 4 0 5 40 45 126 8:30 a1 0 0 81 a S 0 5 s 0 0 5 0 1 k is 136 8:45 a0 0 0 89 0 5 0 5 4 0 1 S 0 4 27 31 130 9:00 99 0 0- 99 a 3 0 3 3 0 0 3 0 3 45 48 153 TOTAL 341 0 0 341 0 18 0 18 15 0 2 17 0 13 156 169 545 4:45 306 0 0 306 5 Il 0 16 14 0 0 14 0 7 87 94 430 3:00 365 0 0 365 3 9 0 12 7 0 2 9 0 6 O1 87 473 505 336 0 0 336 2 11 0 13 32 0 1 33 0 6 100 106 488 5130 392 0 0 392 4 10 0 14 40 0 0 40 0. 7 tis 125 j $71 TOTAL 1399 0 0 1399 14 41 0 55 93 0 3 96• 0 26 386 412 1%2 545 487 0 0 487 4 11 6 15 73 0 1 74 0 17 86 103 679 6:00 359 0 0 359 4 20 - 0 24 a1 O 1 a2 0 12 E3 95 560 6:15 333 0 0 333 2 fA 0 16 53 0 1 54 O 9 a9 98 501 6130 317 a 0 317 3 16 0 19 15 0 0 15 0 8 as 93 444 TOTAL 1496 -- .....................................•_-••___........................................................ 0 0 1496 13 61 0 74 222 0 3 225 0 46 343 389 2184 ' AN PEAK HOUR 7x00-800 429 0 0 429 0 14 0 14 9 0 8 17 0 21 164 185 645 PN PEAK NOUN SC15-6051S71 ............................................................................................................. 0 0 1571 14 55 0 69 247 0 3 250 0 45 376 421 2311 I I I I 11 I I I I I I I 1997 CONDITIONS PM PEAK HOUR F I I F I I I I M M M M"» Mao M was 04/17/1997 16.00 Filename: EXIST OUT Page 1 EXIST.CMD Thu Apr 17, 1997 16:00:22- __- .Page 1-1 .................................................... .......... NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT EXISTING CONDITIONS PM PEAK HOUR ................................................................................ Impact Analysis_ Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 5 FREEWAY SB OFF-RAMP/LYONS 'AV F xxxxx XXXXX F xxxxx XXXXX + 0.000 V/C # 2 5 FWY NB ON-OFF RAMPS/LYONS AV A xxxxx 0.575 A xxxxx 0.573 + 0.000 V/C # 3 5 FWY SB ON-OFF RAMPS/CALGROVE A xxxxx 0.267 A xxxxx 0.267 + 0.000 V/C # 4 5 FWY NO ON-OFF RAMPS/CALGROVE A xxxxx 0.386 A xxxxx 0.386 + 0.000 V/C # 5 ORCHARD VILLAGE RD/LYONS AVENU C xxxxx 0.751 C xxxxx 0.751 + 0.000 V/C # 6 BOUQUET CANYON ROAD/SOLEDAD CA E xxxxx 0.983 E xxxxx 0.983 + 0.000 V/C # 7 BOUQUET CANYON ROAD/MAGIC MOON A xxxxx 0.491 A xxxxx 0.491 + 0.000 V/C # 8 SAN FERNANDO ROAD/CIRCLE J RAN A xxxxx 0.417 A xxxxx ,0.417 + 0.000 V/C # 9 SAN FERNANDO ROAD/LYONS AVENUE A xxxxx 0.579 A xxxxx 0.579 + 0.000 V/C # 10 14 FWY SB ON-OFF RAMPS/SAN FER B xxxxx 0.610 B xxxxx 0.610 + 0.000 V/C 0 11 14 FWY NB ON-OFF RAMPS/SAN FER D xxxxx 0.808 D Xxxxx 0.808 + 0.000 V/C Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA M M i M M M W M 04/17/1997 16.00 Filename; EXIST OUT Page 2 EXIST.CMD Thu Apr 17, 1997 16:00:22 Page 2.1 ^.............................................................................. NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT EXISTING CONDITIONS PM PEAK HOUR ................................................................................ Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length ,%) Method (Base Volume Alternative) f ftlkRRlwf f f+f Hlff f xf RHHNfI+f fNfxRMR1f f1f+Rff HRRw++f f Yww1f }If f R}}f f f R Intersection 91 5 FREEWAY SB OFF-RAMP/LYONS AVENUE }f++xR}}fxflffw+f:f+RRlf+xfefr+f+wlRfl+lxxwlf+lffwf+}++R+fwlfaxlRw++ff+wfRl+++l+ Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): OVERFLOW :.,. Ttma [sect: 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- RL- T- R L- T- R L- T- R -_......----- ----- II...............II.... ------- II....." ------...I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 01 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0_1. ... 1 0 2 0 1 ............ .."-..---' ......__.. .............. Volume Module: Base Vol: 22 12 63 444 101 95 0 553 33 67 620 325 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 22 12 63 444 101 95 0 553 33 67 620 325 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PH F Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 22 12 63 444 101 95 0 553 33 67 620 325 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 22 12 63 444 101 95 0 553 33 67 620 325 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 22 12 63 444 101 95 0 553 33 67 620 325 Fina- -;i-...I.............. II.._....... --1I......__...... 1I --.._._.....__.I. Saturaon Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.16 0.84 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 256 1344 32000 1600 0 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 _..._.... I .._..._... ---._-.-__------._-" Da ecity Analysts Moeule• II""""".-...-_--- II""""' II""""' Vo Sat: 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.14 xxxx 0.06 0.00 0.17 0.02 0.04 0.19 0.20 Crit Moves: ++ff ffxf RRRf f:Yf R41xRH4Rlffflfff+R4ff+RRlfkRRN+4Rf1f1R444ffRRR4ff4++RRR4ffRR11lR11wf4f1ffRfklf Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA 04/17/1997 16.00 Filename: EXIST.OUT Page 3 EXIST.CMD Thu Apr 17, 1997 16:00:22 Page 3.1 ............................................................. ................... NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT EXISTING CONDITIONS PM PEAK HOUR ....................... --�.--��-- -.------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Vol u a Alternative) 111RRNRRIIRH HIff f f RR}lNNl44fk44H1ftl1fARRR1f1f1Hf1!144tH!!}lflflARRlfRl4 Intersection 92 5 FWY Na ON-OFF RAMPS/LYONS AVENUE - Cycle (see)- 100 Critical Vol./Cep. (X): 0.573 Loss Time (see): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx n..•:...ol r...l .. 41 nev.l Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- RL- T- R L- T- R I........ ....... I j.._............ I --------------- I I...............I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Ignore Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 ............ I...-'•.._.---•• I I--------------- I I..__.....------ I I -----------....I Volume Module: Base Vol: 399 0 887 0 0 0 320 699 0 0 776 397 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 399 0 0 0 0 0 320 699 10 0 776 397 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Ad)': 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.DO 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 399 0 0 0 0 0 320 699 0 0 776 397 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 399 0 0 0 0 0 320 699 0 0 776 397 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 399 0 0 0 00 320 699 0 0 776 397 I... ............ I I.. -...--. -11..... I I ..."'-.------- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3200 0 1600 0 0 0..1600 3200 0„ 0 3200 1600, Capacity Analysis Module: vol/Sat: 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.25 Crft Moves: •••• AR"" R.1f RRR}f 1 1 1 1HR f eR f f RM!!f 111RHRARf 1RRf f f f f RRRARAARHf ff f f RHMRRkf f fHRf fARRRRRfA Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA 04/17/1997 16.00 Filename: EXIST OUT Page- 4 EXIST.CMD Thu Apr 17, 1997 16:00:22 Page 4.1 ................................................................................ NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT EXISTING CONDITIONS PM PEAK HOUR _.-•---------------•--..............._•---.............. Level Of Service Computation ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) R«fffHfl H}RRRlf11f1fY RRMfIMRRH}RRkf11f1411f}}}ffRYYRf}ff1HRYfRlffiHiffRRR Intersection #3 5 FNY SB ON-OFF RAMPS/CALGROVE BOULEVARD RR}flffffY}RRR}ffiffRlfRRkkfkffiff}}fRflfYffiff}R111RYYRflfffflfRf }RY41fRifY}4RR Cycle (see): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.267 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh)l xxxxxx n...: l r-1.. 11 Level Of Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound Vest Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R ............ ...............II ....._.. II .II...............I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 00 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ............ I...............I I I I......_...._... I I._... ._..... Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 92 0 47 0 405 60 102 123 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 92 0 47 0 405 60 102 123 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 92 0 47 0 405 60 102 123 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 92 0 47 0 405 60 102 123 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.- 0 0 0 92 0 47 0 405 60 102 123 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.74 0.26 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1600 0 1600 0 2787 413 1600 3200 0 --••---.. -.._...... ..__---------•----._ ---------- le: Capacity Ansiyais ModuII"'"" II""-"' II"-""" Vol/Sat. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.15 0.15 0.06 0.04 0.00 Crit Moves: *••• RR*A «4tR RfRRRRRff4lffiRRRRkfkflfffffRRRfffRfffffHRffRRRllffffffRRIRMIfkfffllklRRRRRfff Traffix 6.8.1306 (e) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA " M m m w w ■r mom" M M r M ■.Ir w m m m 04/17/1997 16.00 Filename: EXIST.CUT Pane 5 EXIST.CMD Thu Apr 17, 1997 16:00:22 Page 5-1 ................................................................................ NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT EXISTING CONDITIONS PM PEAK HOUR ................................................................................ Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(loss as Cycle Length X) Method (Base Volume Alternative) ##f #fMRRR1f1R##R#ifk#R R#MfRf##f##RRR#M#M#Rff!#RR!####BRIM#Mff#BRM#1R#M Intersection k4 S FWY NS ON-OFF RAMPS/CALGROVE AVENUE f MRR RRRR#RRf f 1+NRR#f #kRRMRHf IRf###RMlR1f Nf f f ## Rf lff#R1RRf##Hf f f#R#f #ff ### Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.386 Approach: North Bound Movement- L - T . R ............ Control- I--------------- --------------Control- Split Phase Rights: Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 South Bound L - T . R .............. Split Phase Include D_ 0 0 Lanes: - 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Volume Module - East Bound West Bound L- T- R L- T- R --- P tected--II -Protected ..I Include Include 1 00 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 II" --------------I I....-."-._----- I Base Vol: 62 0 278 0 0 0 206 283 0 0 183 84 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 62 0 278 0 0 0 206 283 +O 0 183 84 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 '1.00 PH F Adi: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Vo LAW: 62 0 278 0 0 0 206 283 0 0 183 84 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 62 0 278 0 0 0 206 283 0 0 183 84 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj- 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 62 0 278 0 0 0 206 283 0 0 183 84 Sa ..turat......ion ..l..fow...Module:............I I..._...........I I...............I I...............I F Set/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 7600 9600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.000.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.37 0.63 Final Sat.: 1600 0 '1600 0 0 0 1600 3200 0 0 2193 1007 i Capacty Analysis Module• II'..............II---------------II""" Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.09 '0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 frit MOvPS! 04/17/1997 16.00 Filename: EXIST.OUT Page 6 EXIST.CMD Thu Apr 17, 1997 16:00:22 Page 6-1 NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT EXISTING CONDITIONS PM PEAK HOUR ...•.....•.........••.............••...".....•...._......._..................... Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) H!f f f wf f Hlrwf Mff H*Rf+Mf rNIMlMM+ff lff MRwwlf if*fxflfRRwwlf Hf f ff f Hf+wf f Intersection 95 ORCHARD VILLAGE RD/LYONS AVENUE wlff#fwRRff+RRRff#rrRfffe#frlffrlffxR+wrlfflrRfeefRRrrruffffRRRflRrrrfflffwf*RR Cycle (sec): 100 critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.751 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (see/veh): xxxxxx Optimalf+#!#r CZcle- 91 Level Of Service: C xxwlfrxwwRwf++fRRwfirf*wxwl+f**!fr#fRR*Rf+f**Rf#rfxRRxwf#r*R*1111xwxMff* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- RL- T- R L- T- R L- T- R I .................................... Control: ...Protected...I I...Protected... I.-- Protected...I I...Protected...I Rights: include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 _.......... I.............."I I...._.......... I I.._............I I..........._._.I Volume Module: Base Vol: 174L 170 134 293 191 250 321 1037 179 154 912 245 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial 8se: 174 170 134 293 191 250 321 1037 179 154 912 245 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PN; Adl: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 174 170 134 293 191 250 321 1037 179 154 912 245 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 174 170 134 293 191 250 321 1037 179 154 912 245 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 174 170 134 293 191 250 321 1037 179 154 912 245 ...... -..... I -•-------------I I---.-------.-•- I I---.------___-- I I.....-.•-----.- I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.12 0.88 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 1789 1411 3200 1600 1600 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 ......... 1 -•_-••_... _.......... --."-- -------.---- CapaCity Anel.ys-is Module• II---_ II-•""-.-.---- II Vol/set'.. 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.12 0.16 0.20 0.32 0.19 0.10 0.28 0.15 Crit Moves: fexR xRRx +#fr w+et rlffRwlfrrffrffefRRfr»11wwf++rrw+ffffwwfw++++wxlrrrrrlfrfff+ffw++++rRwffafr++ef Traff ix 6.8.1306 (e) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA I Traffix 6.8.1306 (e) 1996 Dowltng Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA 04/17/1997 16.00 Filename- EXIST OUT Page 7 EXIST.CMD Thu Apr 17, 1997 16:00:22 Page 7-1 ................................................................................. NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT EXISTING CONDITIONS PM PEAK, HOUR ................................._ _ _______ ____ Level Of Service Coaputati on Report - .. -. ICU Moss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Vo(une Alternative) 1R11r11fYH YfflRwf11M1fIf1k111f111N11fWRRR111HkHHRR11MYRfftfffff 1RRRWf 1111 Intersection R6 BOUQUET CANYON ROAD/SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD RW WRRH11HiY klflrfffMIYWWWYWkrIRIHfYf RWR1ffl1Hr1RRMRWRW1Wf1r11JRHRRRRRfiH Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.983 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx r...l.. 1An level nf- Service: E Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R ............ I--------------II...............II........_......II Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Ovl Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 2 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 3 0 1 ............ ..... Volume Module: Base Vol: 46 1001 408 729 754 443 894 1477 29 333 914 718 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 46 1001 408 729 754 443 894 1477 29 333 914 718 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 46 1001 408 729 . 754 443 894 1477 29 333 914 718 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 46 1001 408 729 754 443 894 1477 29 333 914 718 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 46 1001 408 729 754 443 894 1477 29 333 914 718 ............. I ............... I I--------------- I I............... I Saturatio n Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.94 0.06 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4800 1600 3200 4800 3200 3200 4708 92 3200 4800 1600 Ca ac ity Anasis Module: vol/Sat: ((0.03 0.21. 0.26 0.23 0.16 0.14 0.28 0.31 0.31 0.10 0.19 0.45 Crit Moves: **** **** **** r:rr Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA 04/17/1997 16.00 Fflename: EXIST.OUT Page 8 EXIST.CMD Thu Apr 17, 1997 16:00:23 Page 8.1 ................................................................................ NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT EXISTING CONDITIONS PM PEAK HOUR .............................--..-._.....----__.--_ LevelOf Service Computation Report ICU.i(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) f awR1fH11wRRwYwf»rrwwwwllfwff rf11fr11f w11Rf 111Rfrrwwwllf f1w1f 11rH1weMf 1wf rrf Intersection K7 BOUQUET CANYON ROAD/MAGIC MOUNTAIN PARKWAY kflflfr1N1f11wwfkfwHbf MRRRwfIfMlHNb1wRRRRww1f11t1111ff111HRH1111k11rrf Cycle (see): 100 CrfticaL Vol./Cap. (X): 0.491 Loss Time (xaC): 0 Average Delay (see/veh)-. xxxxxx Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R ......... --.--...... ...... _ II ---------- Control: Protected... - Protected...II..Split Phase . Split Phase Rights: include include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 2 0 00 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 ............ I--------------- I I............... I I............... I I --------------- Vol" Module: Base Volt 244 1214 0 0 827 111 179 0 253 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 244 1214 0 0 827 111 179 0 253 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PPF Adj: 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume[ 244 1214 0 0 827 111 179 0 253 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol:. 244 1214 0 0 827 111 179 0 253 0 0 0 PCE Adj-. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 final Vol.: 244 1214 0 0 827 111 179 0 253 0 0 0 ............ I . .............. I I............... I --------------- I (-----..-------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment- 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 3200 3200 0 0.3200 1600 1600 0 3200 0 0 0 .....__.. I ---- ---------- --------_.--------------- Ca ------..._ Capacity AnelYsis.Module• II' II' - II""' vol/Sat: 0.08 0.38 6.00 0.00 0.26 0.07 0.11 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: 1111 f.fR RRwf __.........---------- ..............a.a.aa............. ««««1lrrffrrrrrrreflw Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA " M some MM M w m m m m 04/17/1997 16.00 Filename- EXIST.OUT Page 9 EXIST.CMD Thu Apr 17, 1997 16:00:23 Page 9-1 ................................................................................ NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT EXISTING CONDITIONS PM PEAKHOUR ................................ . Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length X) Method (Base Volume Alternative) wRR}111lRRff f f 1fifR1f}NtllfffRR#}}ffflfff#fillllfHf111fffRHffffffR#R111HR##RM Intersection k8 SAN FERNANDO ROAD/CIRCLE J RANCH ROAD Rk1R#R#fillRRRffllfififfikRRfllfllRRRRRIIflffiflfiff#ff lffifilf}f}lfifffR##flflffR#ffif Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cep. (X): 0.417 Loss Time (see): 0 Average Delay_(sec/veh)- xxxxxx Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- RL- T- R L- T- R L- T- R ... _ _. I ........... .... I I . _............. I I ............ ..... 11 --------------- I Control: Protected Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include - Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 Lanes:0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 ............ I --------------- I I ............... I I............... I I............... I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1000 132 97 842 0 0 0 0 47 0 70 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1000 132 97 842 0 0 0 d 47 0 70 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Voume: 0 1000 132 97 842 0 0 0 0 47 0 70 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1000 132 97 842 0 0 0 0 47 0 70 PCE Adj: 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.- 0 1000 132 97 842 0 0 0 0 47 0 70 ..__..---.-' __.. ..---...._ ...._ .......... Saturation F ow Module: II-- II"" Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.- 0 3200 1600 1600 3200 0 0 0 0 1600 - 0 1600 .._...... _....._.._ --.------- -•-____-•- ea attty Ane sis Module• II'"""" II""""" II""_"" Vol/Sat: `10.00 0.31 0.08 0.06 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.04 Crit Moves: """• """ +RRf kkRRffMkkf kf kf fif Nkf ftf kRf ff lfklff lfkkRRf ff kMRRRRRffIRRRRMkkRR}ff RRfk1kRRRf 1 W M so MM W M 04/17/1997 16.00 Filename- EXIST.OUT Pave 10 EXIST.CMD Thu Apr 17, 1997 16:00:23 Page 10-1 NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT EXISTING CONDITIONS PM PEAK HOUR Level Of Service Computation Report ICU Moss as Cycle Length X) Method (Base Volume Alternative) f \f\fff wRwf wHliff ww f f f f fHR\f \!f ff RwwwMNfffwwwwMHHf f f f ff f Rw}RffNfkwwRRlff Intersectl on 99 SAN FERNANDO ROAD/LYONS AVENUE f\f\lffwwRR\RR11\llRwf\f1R!}kwff\\\fwwwwwfffllfwlfflwR!!f\RNfwklwwf\flffRRwwfeR Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./cap. (X): 0.579 Loss Time (see): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Crcle: 54 level Of Service: A wwwwf\!H w}fwiwlf}R1RR\ffff\www}Rlfflfwk}H\flow}R!f\1fwRwwlfflfiwRRHHlfft}f Approach- North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement:L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R ........ . I" ----..-...........II.__......_... Control: Protected--- ......... Protected Protected .__II..._Pro.tected...I Rights: Include Include Include include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 7 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 11 0 1 1 0 .............. --------------- --------------- ............... Volume Module: Base Vol: 185 899 6 29 619 421 568 31 703 5 36 36 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial ase: 185 899 6 29 619 421 568 31 103 5 36 36 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 185 899 6 29 619 421 568 31 103 5 36 36 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 185 899 6 29 619 421 568 31 103 5 36 36 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 185 899 6 29 619 421 $68 31 ' 103 5 36 36 .. .......... ............... I I_..............I I....._...--.--• I I" --------......I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.99 0.01 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3179 21 1600 3200 1600 3200 1600 16001600 1600 1600 Cysls Module• II""""' II""""""-""" II""""" Ca Vo(/Set:ity Anel0.12 0.28 0.28 0.02 0.19 0.26 0.18 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.02 Crit Moves: "" "" `•" `!"" RRffefwfi:l�flff\:fflflwwwwe!!lffkfffffil:fRRR:f\flfwwwlffRfwwwf wle\»elf:fflR}}f! Traff ix 6.8.1306 Ct) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA I Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling As Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA 04/17/1997 16.00 Filename: EXIST OUT Page 11 EXIST.CMO Thu Apr 17, 1997 16:00:23 Page 11-1 ................................................................................ NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT EXISTING CONDITIONS PM PEAK HOUR ................................................................................ Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length X) Method (Base Volume Alternative) RRfffH!!R*Rfffff*MRff f*+****ffififffff*lfllRHRfiM 1RRRRk*Rf*RR RRRff*RRifNfff Intersection #10 14 FWY SB ON-OFF-RAMPS/SAN FERNANDO ROAD Rf 1f Mff f f *R*Rf 11f *RR* 1R f Rf 1f*1f+f f HH1f f1f *RRRf f 11HRRRR11f **RRRRf iflf *kRIRMR Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Val./Cep. (X): 0.610 Loss Time (see): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx ....,--I r ... ,.. xo :.vel of Servieee B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R ........ ""-• ---- II II... _...... Control:_...I- ----- ----- --II Split Phase Split Phase Protected Pr_otected___.I Rights: Include Ino Jude Include Ino Jude Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 ............ I--------------- I I ---------------I --------------- I...............I Volume Module: Base Vol- 0 0 0 4 2 210 0 355 592 16 1529 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 4 2 210 0 355 592 16 1529 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 4 2 210 0 355 592 16 1529 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 4 2 210 0 355 592 16 1529 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 4 2 210 0 355 592 16 1529 0 ------ I I--------------• I --------------- --------------- I Saturation F�ow Module: Sat/Lane. 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.Oo 0.01 0.99 0.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Set.: 0 0 0 1600 15 1585 0 1600 3200 1600 3200 0 ....... _......----' .......... ....._.... ta Capacity Ana sis Modu• I I""' II"""' I I""" Vol/Sat: ((0.00 0.00 .0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.22 0.18 0.01 0.48 0.00 R*** a:Rf ffff Crit Moves. ..___.. ------------ .---- ..........................fuRRfafR*fiRfRW Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA 04/17/1997 16.00 Filename: EXIST.CUT Page 12 EXIST.CMD Thu Apr 17, 1997 16:00:23 Page 12-1 ................................................................................ NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT EXISTING CONDITIONS PM PEAK HOUR ................................•._......_......._...."-'----"'............... Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Base Volume Alternative) 1RR1f+ifi kfififiRRMMf+ffi+ f+fJ+fblfifiRRlfffiRRRRRRRfRWW+HRMfffW+ffHfiRRf ff+RfikRfik Intersection #11 14 FUY NB ON-OFF RAMPS/SAN FERNANDO ROAD MHRf ffffRRRRNMfffll+HffffHfiRRRRRff WRRRRRRR11f1ffH*Rf Wfffff+fiRRRRf+fMRfiRR Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cep. (X): 0.808 Loss Time (see): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 119 Level Of Service: D RRRRRRRfk f*kfif1f11f1f++++RRRffIWRfifiRRRR+RRk*fiRRafflff*1fi+R+aff+ffRMRRRRWWRfiffi* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T R L- T- R ._..........I.........-- - II-._.......- - I I . ............II.....:....._...I Control: Split Phase Split Phase split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ........ I ---------------I I...............I --------------- I..............- Volume Module: Base Vol: 3 0 247 0 0 1571 376 45 0 0 55 14 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 3 0 247 0 0 1571 376 45 0 0 55 14 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Vol 3 0 247 0 - 0 1571 376 45 0 0 55 14 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 3 0 247 0 0 1571 376 45 0 0 55 14 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 3 0 247 0 D 1571 376 45 0 0 55 14 -Sat--.-uratio'----n-.Iow ........... .....I I__...._....--11 --------------- I I.. I fl Sat/Lane: 16000 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 '1.00 Lanes: 0.01 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 2.00. 2.00 1.00 .0.00 0.00.0.80 0.20 Final Sat.- 19 0 1581 0 0 3200 3200 1600 0 0 1275 325 ..... ....... I .._....... .......... ---- ..___- Careity Analysis Module: I I' I I""' I I"•'" Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 Crit Moves:**** *.** R*** .. f++. ...........__________--__........................................... ffafflfafa Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA M WON W" M W r W M= MM MM r M YEAR 2015 CONDITIONS PM PEAK HOUR WITHOUT PROJECT M M W M" M r W i A� 04/22/1997 10.28 Filename: FNP60-SO.OUT Pave 1 FNP60.80.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 ID:28.32 Page 1.1 ________________________________________________________________________________ NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FUTURE NO PROJECT (60.80) PM PEAK HOUR ---------------- ________________________________________________________________ Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C B 1 5 FREEWAY SB OFF-RAMP/LYONS.AV F xxxxx XXXXX F xxxxx XXXXX + 0.000 VIC 4 2 5 FWY NB ON-OFF RAMPS/LYONS AV E xxxxx 0.986 E xxxxx 0.986 . 0.000 VIC B 3 5 FWY SB ON-OFF RAMPS/CALGROVE B xxxxx 0.697 S xxxxx 0.697 + O.00D VIC 0 4 S FWY NS ON-OFF RAMPS/CALGROVE D xxxxx 0.088 D xxxxx 0.888 . 0.000 VIC M 5 ORCHARD VILLAGE RD/LYONS AVENU E xxxxx 0.908 E xxxxx 0.908 + 0.000 VIC 4 6 BOUQUET CANYON ROAD/SOLEDAO CA F xxxxx 1.414 F xxxxx 1.414 . 0.000 VIC M 8 SAN FERNANDO ROAD/CIRCLE J RAN C xxxxx 0.781 C xxxxx 0.781 + 0.000 VIC N 9 SAN FERNANDO ROAD/LYONS AVENUE E xxxxx 0.940 E xxxxx 0.940 . 0.000 VIC 4 1D 14 FWY SS ON-OFF RAMPS/SAN PER F xxxxx 1.588 F xxxxx 1.588 + 0.000 VIC # 11 14 FWY NS ON-OFF RAMPS/SAN PER F xxxxx 1.988 P xxxxx 1.988 + 0.000 VIC 4 57 CIRCLE J RANCH ROAD/VIA PRINCE D xxxxx 0.826 D xxxxx 0.620 . 0.000 VIC B 61 SAN FERNANDO ROAD/MAGIC MODNTA A xxxxx 0.539 A xxxxx 0.539 + 0.000 VIC B 63 SAN FERNANDO ROAD CONNECTOR/MA B xxxxx 0.618 B xxxxx 0.618 + 0.000 VIC M M A r M M M M 04/22/1997 10:28 Filename: FNP60-SO.OUT Pave 2 FNP60-BO.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 10:28:32 Page 2-1 ----------------- _-------- _________________________________________________. NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FUTURE NO PROJECT (60.80) PM PEAK HOUR -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length 43 Method (Future Volume Alternative) u.....JRRuufl.J f....RRU RRIfuau......*....... rrr u.urr rfu.Rrrrrr.uu Intersection 41 5 FREEWAY SB OFF-RAMP/LYONS AVENUE •uff.Jf....uflf....................uu.. I...1RRu... R........rrrfu ...Ru Cycle (see): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): OVERFLOW Lose Time (eet), 0 Average Delay (see/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 100 Level Of Service: P' •...•..R..........uffu.•.......uf........................... ufuff....... Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ____________--------------- --------------- --------------- II---------------� Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights, Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 22 12 63 444 101 95 0 553 33 67 620 325 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial see: 22 ' 12 63 444 101 95 0 553 33 67 620 325 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut, 22 12 63 444 101 95 0 553 33 67 620 325 User Adj. 2.69 2.69 2.69 2.69 2.69 2.69 3.41 3.41 3.41 1.98 1.9B 1.9B PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 59 32 169 1194 272 256 0 1886 113 133 1228 444 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced vol: 59 32 169 1194 272 256 0 1886 113 133 1228 644 PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00. MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 59 32 169 1194 272 256 0 1886 111 133 1228 644 ------------ I--------------- --------------- --------------- ---------__----� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 16D0 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment3 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes, 1.00 0.16 0.84 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 255 1345 320D 0. 1600 0 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 ------------ I--------------- --------------- --------------- ------___------� Capacity Analysis Module: Val/Sat: 0.04 0.13 0.13 0.37 xxxx 0.16 0.00 0.59 0.07 0.08 0.38 0.40 Crit Moves: .... R1R....... r............f.1R1RR....1111Rf..................RfIRRR................ Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddee, LA, CA I Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddee, LA, CA 04/22/1997 10.28 Filename: FNP60-80 OUT Pace 3 FNP60.8D.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 10:28:32 Page 3.1 NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROTECT FUTURE NO PROJECT (60.80) PM PEAR HOUR ................................................................................ Level Of Service Computation Report ICU MOSS as Cycle Length t) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ♦••f • .• f•.f......ff.•...•f••...............••.•••.....1f•••••ff•f •f♦ Intersection825FWY NB ON-OFF RAMPS/LYONS AVENUE • ........................ uf.......•• f ..... a+.ffu........ u...ruuu. Cycle (sec)!. 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (x): 0.986 Lose Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: B •. .. ...•••••• ... .................... f ...... f.......•.....••.•... Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ___________________________ --------------- --------------- II..._ -----__---.f Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Ignore Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 1 0 D 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 ____________--------------- --------------- --------------- -.-_____-__-.-.I Volume Module: Base Vol: 399 0 887 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.Do O.DO 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 399 0 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: D 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 399 0 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.71 1.71 0.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Volume: 682 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 682 0 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol., 682 0 0 0 0 ____________I_______________��__.. Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 3200 0 1600 0 ____________I_______________��__._ Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit .u••Mo:e.v.............. ...... 1600 1.00 0.00 0 0 320 699 0 0 776 397 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 320 699 0 0 776 397 0 0 0. '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32D 699 0 0 776 397 1.00 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.81 1.81 1.81 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 518 1132 0 0 14D5 719 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 518 1132 0 0 1405 719 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.DD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 518 1132 0 0 1405 719 .... 11--------------- -.--_--_____---� 1600 16D0 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 0 1600 3200 0 0 3200 1600 .... 11 --------------- 11-__-_-----_____� 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.45 ............. f ................ f......fr.r u.• Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA 04/22/1991 10:28 Filename: FNP6p-BO.OUT Paae 4 FNP60.80.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 10:28:32 Page 4.1 NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FUTURE NO PROJECT (60.8D) PM PEAR HOUR ---------- ______________________________________________________________________ Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length 4) Method (Future Volume Alternative) •uff................. f.••u••.....••.... ...uu.... •a•1ff.......... uru r• Intersection X3 5 FWY SB ON-OFF RAMPS/CALGKOVE BOULEVARD u.11f............u1............. I .............. ..... 1• fu.•........... Cycle (sec), 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (x): 0.697 Lose Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 75 Level Of Service: B .f..f.............. •......f......•..............•....fff.u.....-.........f... Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ___________________________ __...._________ --------------- -___----_______I Control. Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 a 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ------------ I--------------- 'I--------------- --------------- II........ --_____I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 92 0 47 0 405 60 102 123 0 Growth.Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Hees 0 0 0 92 0 47 0 405 60 102 123 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PaseerByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 92 0 47 0 405 60 102 123 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.16 3.16 3.16 1.38 1.38 1.38 4.93 4.93 4.93 PNP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 291 0 149 0 559 83 503 606 D Reduct Vol. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 291 0 149 0 559 83' 503 606 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 291 0 149 0 559 83 503 606 0 ........................... --------------- --------------- ___-_______---- Saturation Plow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 160D 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.DD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 I.DD 0.00 1.74 0.26 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1600 0 1600 0 2786 414 1600 3200 0 ____________ I_______________ --------------- --------------- ___.____-___--. Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.31 0.19 0.00 Crit Moves: rf" .... •... •..u..f rrf.u•r.uu••..f...lr.f effuuuue.••.uuf.•u u.......••••e.•••. u• Traffix 6.8.1106 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA M= w" r M M M M M W M W r M M s= M FNP60-SO.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 10:28:32 Page 5-1 -----------•--•--__----•-•-••-----------••--••------------------------------- NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FUTURE NO PROTECT (60-90 PM PEAK HOUR ---------------•---------------------------------"--------------"-------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length 1) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ...r. a •.err••.•u••uuurru..•••....•uu••...•...u...•u..•.....ur..•••u Intersection 44 5 FWY HB ON-OFF RAMPS/CALGROVE AVENUE ..............uua.••..uu.... .u♦...uu..•uu.....uu. u.•......u•u Cycle (Sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (K): 0.888 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay.(sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle, 180 Level Of Service: D ....••..............u.....a........-...u..•........u••..••.........♦.u••...a.. Approach) North Bound South Bound 'East Bound West Bound Movement, L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 a 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 62 0 278 0 0 0 206 283 0 0 183 84 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 62 0 278 0 D 0 206 283 10 0 183 84 Added Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 PasserByVOI: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 62 0 278 0 0 0 206 283 0 0 183 84 User Adj: 2.43 2.43 2.43 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.31 1.31 1.31 3.56 3.56 3.56 PHF Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 L.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Volumes. 151 0 676 0 0 0 270 311 0 0 651 299 Reduct Vols 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 a Reduced Vol, 151 0 676 0 0 0 270 371 0 0 651 299 PCB Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 151 0 676 0 0 0 270 371 0 0 651 299 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------11---------------I Saturation Flow Modules Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment; 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 Lanes. 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.37 0.63 Final Sat., 16D0 0 1600 0 0 0 16D0 3200 0 D 2193 1007 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module, - Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 Crit Moves: ..•♦ ...• FNP6D-80.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 10:28:32 Page 6-1 -----------------------------••-•--------------------------------------....- NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FUTURE NO PROJECT (60-80) PM PEAK HOUR ----------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU'1(Loas as Cycle Length t) Method (Future volume Alternative) u...•..r.•rrr..... ..•....rrr..u.......u..•.............uu....0 u..u••.. Intersection 85 ORCHARD VILLAGE RD/LYONS AVENUE u...uu..... u.uu.u......uuu..•...0 .........•.+r.�ur.rr ur Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cep. (K): 0.908 Loss Time (set): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle, 180 Level Of Service: E ......a........ u..•u•.r•u•u......ur..•••......... .......-..u• ............. Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II --------------- II ---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Greens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 D 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 ------------I---------------11---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module, Base vol, 174 170 134 293 191 250 321 1037 179 154 912 245 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 I -D0 Initial Beet 174 170 134 293 191 25O 321 1037 179 154 912 245 Added Vol: 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 174 170 114 293 191 250 321 1037 179 154 912 245 Deer Adjs 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.94 1.94 1.94 PHP Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 277 270 213 299 195 255 - 331 1068 184 299 1769 475 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Volt 277 270 213 299 195 255 331 1068 184 299 1769 475 PCB Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol., 277 270 213 299 195 255 331 1068 184 299 1769 475 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Saturation Flow Modules Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 160D 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.12 0.88 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.56 0.44 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.. 1600 1789 1411 3200 3200 1600 1600 4095 705 1600 4800 1600 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module, Vol/Sat: 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.09 0.06 0.16 0.21 0.26 0.26 0.19 0.37 0.30 Crit Moves, •••. •• •................u.a............................•..:........................... Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddee, LA, CA Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddee, LA, CA D4/22/1997 10:28 Filename: FNP60.AO OUT Page 5 04/22/1997 10:28 Filename•. FNP60-80.OUT Page 6 FNP60-SO.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 10:28:32 Page 5-1 -----------•--•--__----•-•-••-----------••--••------------------------------- NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FUTURE NO PROTECT (60-90 PM PEAK HOUR ---------------•---------------------------------"--------------"-------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length 1) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ...r. a •.err••.•u••uuurru..•••....•uu••...•...u...•u..•.....ur..•••u Intersection 44 5 FWY HB ON-OFF RAMPS/CALGROVE AVENUE ..............uua.••..uu.... .u♦...uu..•uu.....uu. u.•......u•u Cycle (Sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (K): 0.888 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay.(sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle, 180 Level Of Service: D ....••..............u.....a........-...u..•........u••..••.........♦.u••...a.. Approach) North Bound South Bound 'East Bound West Bound Movement, L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 a 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 62 0 278 0 0 0 206 283 0 0 183 84 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 62 0 278 0 D 0 206 283 10 0 183 84 Added Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 PasserByVOI: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 62 0 278 0 0 0 206 283 0 0 183 84 User Adj: 2.43 2.43 2.43 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.31 1.31 1.31 3.56 3.56 3.56 PHF Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 L.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Volumes. 151 0 676 0 0 0 270 311 0 0 651 299 Reduct Vols 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 a Reduced Vol, 151 0 676 0 0 0 270 371 0 0 651 299 PCB Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 151 0 676 0 0 0 270 371 0 0 651 299 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------11---------------I Saturation Flow Modules Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment; 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 Lanes. 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.37 0.63 Final Sat., 16D0 0 1600 0 0 0 16D0 3200 0 D 2193 1007 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module, - Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.30 Crit Moves: ..•♦ ...• FNP6D-80.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 10:28:32 Page 6-1 -----------------------------••-•--------------------------------------....- NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FUTURE NO PROJECT (60-80) PM PEAK HOUR ----------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU'1(Loas as Cycle Length t) Method (Future volume Alternative) u...•..r.•rrr..... ..•....rrr..u.......u..•.............uu....0 u..u••.. Intersection 85 ORCHARD VILLAGE RD/LYONS AVENUE u...uu..... u.uu.u......uuu..•...0 .........•.+r.�ur.rr ur Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cep. (K): 0.908 Loss Time (set): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle, 180 Level Of Service: E ......a........ u..•u•.r•u•u......ur..•••......... .......-..u• ............. Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II --------------- II --------------- II ---------------1 Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Greens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 D 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 ------------I---------------11---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module, Base vol, 174 170 134 293 191 250 321 1037 179 154 912 245 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 I -D0 Initial Beet 174 170 134 293 191 25O 321 1037 179 154 912 245 Added Vol: 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 174 170 114 293 191 250 321 1037 179 154 912 245 Deer Adjs 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.94 1.94 1.94 PHP Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 277 270 213 299 195 255 - 331 1068 184 299 1769 475 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Volt 277 270 213 299 195 255 331 1068 184 299 1769 475 PCB Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol., 277 270 213 299 195 255 331 1068 184 299 1769 475 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Saturation Flow Modules Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 160D 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.12 0.88 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.56 0.44 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.. 1600 1789 1411 3200 3200 1600 1600 4095 705 1600 4800 1600 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module, Vol/Sat: 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.09 0.06 0.16 0.21 0.26 0.26 0.19 0.37 0.30 Crit Moves, •••. •• •................u.a............................•..:........................... Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddee, LA, CA Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddee, LA, CA 04/22/1997 10,28 Filename: FNP60-80.OUT Page 7 FNP60-80.CMO Tue Apr 22, 1997 10:28:32 Page 7-1 ________________________________________________________________________________ NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FUTURE NO PROJECT (60-80) PM PEAK HOUR .............. _--------------------------------------- ________________ Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length 4) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ....... ........... .................. ..........*................u.. Intersection 86 BOUQUET CANYON ROAD/SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD Cycle'(eee)2 ••LDO CrSt ical Vol./Cap. IX}: 1.414 Lose Time (sec): 0 Average Delay.(aee/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ......... a ...•. u...... a .............. e... u. u......... u..................... Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ______ I_______________ --------------- --------------- -------------__� Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Ovl Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 2 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 3 0 1 .------------ I--------------- --------------- --------------- ________-__---_� Volume Module: Base Vol: 46 1001 408 729 754 443 894 1477 29 333 914 718 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 '1.00 Initial Bse: 46 1001 408 729 754 443 894 1477 29 333 914 719 Added Val: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 46 1001 408 729 754 443 894 1477 29 313 914 718 User Adj: 1.43 1.43 1.43 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.10 1.10 1.10 PHP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Volume: 66 1431 583 1232 1274 749 1457 2408 47 366 1005 790 Reduct Vol: D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 66 1431 583 1232 1274 749 14$7 2408 47 366 1005 790 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.DO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 "1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 66 1431 583 1232 1274 749 1457 2408 47 366 1005 790 ____________ I_______________ --------------- --------------- _--------.-----� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 16DO 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 3.DO 1.00 2.00 3.DO 2.00 2.00 2.94 0.06 2.0D 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4800 1600 3200 48DO 3200 3200 4708 92 3200 4800 1600 ____________--------------- 11_-------------- --------------- ______________-� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.30 0.36 0.39 0.27 0.23 0.46 0.51 0.51 0.11 0.21 0.49 Crit Moves: .. .... .... Cr...................................... _... a u ......................... ............................... Traffix 6,8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddee, LA, CA 04/22/1997 10:28 Pilename: FNP60-80.011T Page 8 FNP60-80.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 10:28:32 Page 8-1 NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FUTURE NO PROJECT (60-801 PM PEAK HOUR ________________________________________________________________________________ Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Lose as Cycle Length 4) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ........ ...... u.....•........0 ........................ c............e.......... Intersection 98 SAN FERNANDO ROAD/CIRCLE J RANCH ROAD ............ t .......... ........ .............u..... u............0 u.... Cycle•(sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.781 Lose Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 104 Level Of Service: C .•...uu...uuu...u....u.................................. u..0 ...... Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ____________ _______________ --------------- --------------- __________--___� Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 ___________________________ --------------- --------------- �---------__-__-� Volume Module. Base Vol: 0 850 0 543 1094 0 0 0 0 0 0 282 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 850 0 543 1094 0 0 0 0 0 0 282 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 Initial Put: 0 BSG 0 543 1094 0 0 0 0 0 0 282 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Volume: 0 850 0 543 1094 0 0 0 0 0 0 282 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 850 0 543 1094 0 0 0 0 0 0 282 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.DO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF .Adj: 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 950 0 543 1094 0 0 0 0 0 0 282 ............ I--------------- --------------- --------------- �---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lanes 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 D.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 3200 1600 1600 3200 0 0 0 0 1600 0 1600 ------------ I--------------- --------------- --------------- _____-_-_-___--� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 Crit Moves: ••• ••• ..............a..................................u................uu......... Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA w � w r re �w w� w ■w ■� r. � w� r ..� �w w w r 04/22/1997 10.28 Filename FNP60-80.OUT Pace 9 04/22/1997 10.28 Filename: FNP60-80.0UT Page 10 FNP60-80.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 10:20:32 Page 9-1 I FNP60.80. CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 10:28:32 Page 10.1 NEMHALL DEVELOPMENT PROSECT FUTURE NO PROJECT (60.80) PM PEAK HOUR ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICO 1(Loss as Cycle Length 0 Method (Future Volume Alternative) ...•uui.•.r.u......uu..r........ u•....••ur.......u.e.••r:r...rr........... Intersection 89 SAN FERNANDO ROAD/LYONS AVENUE ..•..... u..••...•ur.u..r.ur...•....•.... uu u..u•u.•...w.r.•u...•... Cycle (Dec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.940 Lose Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (see/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: E •...... .......•ur..•....... u....••• u••...u••..uuu..... ..rrr...ur.... Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound Meet Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes. 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 ............ 1--------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- 11_-.__----------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 185 899 6 29 619 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bae: 185 899 6 29 619 Added Vol: a 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 185 899 6 29 619 User Adj: 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.09 1.09 PHF Adj: 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEP Volume: 307 1492 10 32 675 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 307 1492 10 32 675 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 307 1492 10 32 675 ------......I ---------------- --------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1:00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.99 0.01 1.00 2.00 Final Sat.4 1600 3179 21 1600 3200 Capacity Analysis Module: 421 568 31 103 5 36 36 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 421 S68 31 103 5 36 36 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 421 568 31 103 5 36 36 1.09 1.37 1.37 1.37 9.22 9.22 9.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 -1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 459 778 42 141 46 332 332 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 459 718 42 141 46 332 332 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 459 .--- II 778 42 --------------- 141 II 46 332 ---------------I 332 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 S.OD 1600 3200 1600' 1600 1600 1600 1600 ----II---------------11---------------I Vol/Sat: 0.19 0.47 0.47 0.02 0.21 0.29 0.24 0.03 0.09 0.03 0.21 0.21 CMoves: r... r ..•• ♦••• u.r ..••••••u.r.......•.....u...........•♦.......... a •rr........ ....... u ••.• NENHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FUTURE NO PROJECT (60-80) PM PEAK HOUR _____________________________________________________________.---__--____---_-_-- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Lose as Cycle Length 4) Method (Future Volume Alternative) • u.....r..•urr.aaur•......u••uu...ru.............. .•u• ........ . uur..• Intersection 810 14 FHY SS ON-OFF RAMPS/SAN FERN NDO ROAD ....uu.....•...... ....... .••.uu•u...... u...0 ..... .... •..... •r.0 Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cep. (X): 1.588 Lose Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F u...........rr♦u..........••.u.rr.....•uu.•......rrr...r.u...r....... ..• Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound Nest Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T. - R L - T - R L - T - R ......... _-_1 --------------- II --------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Controls Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 ---__---__--I --------------- 11 --------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 4 2 210 0 355 592 16 1529 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bae: 0 0 0 4 2 210 0 355 592 16 1529 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 Initial Put. 0 0 0 4 2 210 0 355 592 16 1529 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.68 2.68 2.68 2.77 2.77 2.77 2.58 2.58 2.58 PHP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 S.DO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 11 5 S63 0 983 1640 41 3945 0 ReduCt Vol. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 11 5 563 0 983 1640 41 3945 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 11 5 $63 0 983 1640 41 3945 0 ------------ 1--------------- 11 --------------- 11--------------- 11_--___.--__----1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 -1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.01 0.99 0.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1600 14 1586 0 1600 3200 1600 3200 0 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.61 0.51 0.03 1.23 0.00 Crit Moves: • •• .•...•uu...r...uu•..••urrr..uu.a.r••... •urr••uu..... ..•.•..•...... Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA I Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA 04/22/1997 10.28 Filename FNP60-80 OUT Pace 11 FNP60-80. CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 1D:28:32 Page 11.1 NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FUTURE NO PROJECT 560-80) PM PEAK HOUR Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length t) Method (Future Volume Alternative) .......................u........................•..................•.. er u.....• Intersection 611 14 FWY NB ON-OFF RAMPS/SAN FERNANDO ROAD ............ ............... urr.rrr.....r.... I...... r.r.... ..r.. ... ......... ur Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (R): 1.988 Lose Time (Sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh), xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: SBD Level Of Service: P u...•u.....•.... .u.....u.....0....... ........... . u...r.♦............. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Control:. Split Phase Split Phase Split Phase Split Phase Rights. Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ............ --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 3 0 247 0 0 1571 376 45 0 0 55 14 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 3 0 247 0 0 1571 376 45 10 0 55 14 Added.Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PaeeerByvol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut. 3 0 247 0 0 1571 376 45 0 0 55 14 User Adj: 2,58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 2.58 1.76 1.76 1.76 2.58 2.56 2.58 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Volume: 8 0 637 0 0 4053 662 79 0 0 142 36 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: B 0 637 0 0 4053 662 79 0 0 142 36 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 8 D 637 0 0 4053 662 79 0 0 142 - 36 ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 26D0 16D0 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.01 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 O.DO 0.00 0.80 0.20 Final Sat.: 20 0 1580 0 0 3200 3200 1600 0 0 1276 324 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.40 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 1.27 0.21 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 ......o..e..•........••...r...............................................r.0 u Traffix 6,8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to Meyer, Mchaddea, LA, CA 04/22/1997 10:28 Filename PNP6D-80.OUT Pace 12 FNP60.80.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 10:28:32 Page 12-1 ----------------------------------------------------- •............ •------------- NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FUTURE NO PROJECT (60-80) PM PEAR HOUR -•-------------------------•-----------_---------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU L(Loss as Cycle Length t) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ....u.... r.u.......•r.r.................•.uu............0 u.•......... InterseCLion %57 CIRCLE J RANCH ROAD/VIA PRINCESSA/WILEY CANYON ru..... .......... ...u..• r.....r r ............ ..u..... I...........u..r.u... Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.820 Loss Time (sec). 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 127 Level Of Service: D .......... I..........Ju.... ur. .............. u.......r u..............ru• Approache North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ --------------- ---_-_--------- II --------------- ---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 ------------ --------------- --_---------.-- II --------------- _--------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 250 0 293 129 2039 0 0 865 153 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 0 0 0 250 0 293 129 2039 0 0 065 153 Added Vol. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut:: 0 0 0 250 0 293 129 2039 0 0 865 153 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 250 0 293 129 2039 0 0 865 153 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 250 0 293 129 2039 0 0 865 153 PCH Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 S.DO Final Vol.: 0 0 0 2$0 0 293 129 2039 0 0 865 153 ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 ISD0 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 '1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 16D0 0 1600 1600 3200 0 0 3200 1600 ------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.18 0.08 0.64 0.00 O.OD 0.27 0.10 Crit Moves: .... ' ..u..................u..... u.... a........+u... r....................•... Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA MM r/ =M M M M M M M M r= MW r M i M M M M M M M W M M= M M` M M i 04/22/1997 10.28 Filename: FNP60-80.OUT Page 13- 04/22/1997 10:20 Filename: FNP60.80.OUT Page 14 FNP6D-80.CMD Te Apr 22, 1997 10:28:32 - Page 13-1 NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FUTURE NO PROJECT (60-80) PM PEAK HOUR -•---•-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU Moss as Cycle Length 4) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ........... .++.....+.......+++.++.......+....e..++..+.......u........ Intersection 461 SAN FERNANDO ROAD/MAGIC MOUNTAIN CONNECTOR .... ....................... u............+u •...... •..»....u.r..+...u...... Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (K): 0.539 Lose Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh); xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 49 Level Of Service: A u ... ......... . •. u+......u+..+uu................. a..uas Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement. L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R- L - T - R ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min.. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 3- 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- ---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 411 1077 0 0 817 270 248 0 60 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Has: 411 1077 0 0 817 270 248 0 to 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �0 0 0 0 PaaeerByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 411 1077 0 0 817 270 248 0 60 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Volume: 411 1077 0 0 817 270 248 0 60 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 411 1077, 0 0 817 270 248.., 0 60 0 0 0 PCE 'Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.Do 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 411 1077 0 0 B17 270 24B 0 60 0 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Modules Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 3200 4800 0 0 3200 1600 1600 0 1600 0 0 0 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.17 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves:•••• ................ u......... ........ . e. r... u..... • u u.... ............... u. u.. FNP60-80.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 10:28:72 Page 14-1 NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FUTURE NO PROJECT (60-80) PM PEAK HOUR -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length t) Method (Future Volume Alternative) +• .. ... •.u..u....e...+u ..............uu........ Intersection 463 SAN FERNANDO ROAD CONNECTOR/MAGIC MOUNTAIN RD •.... ........ a u......... u. u.... u...... u.................. Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap: (x): 0.618 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 60 Level Of Service: B ..... u................++.......++........ a u.. e .......................... Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I............... II--------------- 11--------------- II ---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 D 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 ............ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 247 0 434 104 1525 742 0 792 204 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 S.OD Initial Bse: 0 0 0 247 0 434 104 1525 742 0 792 204 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVml: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 0 0 0 247 0 434 104 1525 742 0 792 204 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Volume: 0 0 0 247 0 434 104 1525 742 0 792 204 Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol, 0 0 0 247 0 434 104 1525 742 0 792 204 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 247 0 434 104 1525 742 0 792 204 ------------1---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600. 1600 260D 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 1.59 0.41 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1600 0 3200 1600 4800 1600 0 2545 655 ------------ I ---------------II------- ....... II --------------- II ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.14 0.07 0.32 0.46 0.00 0.31 0.31 Crit Moves: ••• •••• ••• .uu........u...u..u....+..«.................... ....0 ........u......+.+ Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddee, LA, CA I Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling ASSOC, Licenced to Meyer, Mohaddee, LA, CA I 1 1 I I [7 I 1 YEAR 2015 CONDITIONS PM PEAK HOUR WITH FULL PROJECT 11 1 I I 1 FL 1 I M r M� r r M= r M� r 04/22/1997 10.30 Filename: BLDOUTBO OUT Page 1 BLDOUTSO.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 10:30:07 Page 1.1 ________________________________________________________________________________ NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BUILDOUT - 80 PM PEAK HOUR ------------------------------------------ _______________________________ Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C p 1 5 FREEWAY SB OFF-RAMP/LYONS AV F xxxxx XXXXX F xxxxx XXXXX . 0.000 VIC p 2 5 FWY NB ON-OFF RAMPS/LYONS AV F xxxxx 1.013 F xxxxx 1.013 . 0.000 VIC 1 3 5 FWY SB ON-OFF RAMPS/CALGROVE B xxxxx 0.671 B xxxxx 0.671 . 0.000 VIC R 4 5 FWY NB ON-OFF RAMPS/CALGROVE D xxxxx 0.828 D xxxxx 0.828 . 0.000 VIC R 5 ORCHARD VILLAGE RD/LYONS AVENU E xxxxx 0.994 E xxxxx 0.994 . 0.000 VIC R 6 BOUQUET CANYON ROAD/SOLEDAD CA F xxxxx 1.410 F.xxxxx 1.410 . 0.000 VIC 4 8 SAN FERNANDO ROAD/CIRCLE J RAN C xxxxx 0.791 C xxxxx 0.791 . 0.000 VIC p 9 SAN FERNANDO ROAD/LYONS -AVENUE F xxxxx 1.084 F xxxxx�1.084 . 0.000 VIC 1 10 14 FWY SH ON-OFF RAMPS/SAN PER F xxxxx 1.656 F xxxxx 1.656 . 0.000 VIC p 11 14 FWY NO ON-OFF RAMPS/SAN PER F xxxxx 2.088 F xxxxx 2.088 . 0.000 VIC R 57 CIRCLE J RANCH ROAD/VIA PRINCE D xxxxx 0.845 D xxxxx 0.845 . 0.000 VIC p 61 SAN FERNANDO ROAD/MAGIC MOUNTA A xxxxx 0.553 A xxxxx 0.553 . 0.000 VIC R 63 SAN FERNANDO ROAD CONNECTOR/MA B xxxxx 0.627 B xxxxx 0.627 . 0.000 VIC M = r M 04/22/1997 100D Filename: SLDOUT80 OUT Page BLDOUTSO.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 10:30:07Page 2.1 NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BUILDOUT - 80 PM PEAK HOUR ................................................................................ Level Of Service Computation Report ICU Moss as Cycle Length U Method (Future Volume Alternative) ..................... ......... ................. ...... I ..................... Intersection pl S FREEWAY BE OFF-RAMP/LYONS AVENUE •...................•.....r..................................................• Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): OVERFLOW Lose Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): XXxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: P ..............♦........................................................e........ Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound Went Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R ............--------------- I'---------------- .I--------------- II...-________---� Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected' Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------ ............... --------------- --------------- II---------------� Volume Module: Base Vol: 22 12 63 444 101 95 0 553 33 67 -620 325 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 22 12 63 444 101 95 0 553 33 67 620 325 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVel: 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 22 12 63 444 101 95 0 553 33 67 620 325 User Adj: 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 3.45 3.45 3.45 1.95 1.95 1.95 PHP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Volume: 59 32 L70 1199 273 257 0 1908 114 131 1209 634 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 59 32 170 1199 273 257 0 1908 114 131 1209 634 PCS Adis. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adja 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.. 59 32 170 1199 273 257 0 1908 114 131 1209 634 ........................... --------------- --------------- -------_____--- Saturation Flow Module: Set/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.16 0.84 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 253 1347 3200 0 1600 0 3200 16D0 1600 3200 1600 ............I ............... --------------- ))--------------- II --------------- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Bat: 0.04 0.13 0.13 0.37 xxxx 0.16 0.00 0.60 0.07 0.08 0.3B 0.40 Crit Moves: •••• •••• ••• .......... u ... .........uuu........u...... ............. ........ ......u•.• Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA I Tralfix 6.8.1306 (C) 1996 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to Meyer, Mchaddes, LA, CA 04/22/1997 1D:30 Filename: BLDOUTBO.OUT Pees 3 BLDOUTSO.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 10:30:07 Page 3-1 NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BUILDOUT - 80 PM PEAR HOUR -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length 4) Method (Future Volume Alternative) .aa...a.aau....u.au...au................aua arra.*... .a...............uuu Intersection 42 5 FWY Na ON-OFF RAMPS/LYONS AVENUE *11 ..................... uer..uuu............ a ... ...... aur**.. ....... CycleIsecl•u100 Critical Vol./Cep. IX): 1.013 Lose Time Isec). 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ..... . .... u.rr.lu...uaurr.r.....uuaa.aa.aaaa Approach: a•Northaeound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ........................... -------------•- ••------------- -.-.-..........I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Ignore ^ Include Include include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: I 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 ............ •--------------(---------------( --------------- --------------- Volume Module: Base Vol: 399 0 887 0 0 0 320 699 0 0 776 397 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Boa: 399 a 0 0 0 0 320 699 0 0 776 397 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 399 0 0 0 0 0 320 699 0 0 776 397 User Adj: 1.75 1.75 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.97 1.97 1.97 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Volume: 698 0 0 0 0 D 490 1069 0 0 1529 782 Reduct vol: 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 698 0 0 0 0 0 490 1069 0 0 1529 782 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj. 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 698 0 0 0 0 0 490 1069 0 0 1529 782 ------------I...................-----------II-------------- ---..---------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane. 1600 1600 1600 1600 16a0 1600 1600 16D0 16D0 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3200 0 1600 0 0 0 1600 3200 0 0 3200 1600 ........................... ------------- --II--------------- ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat. 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.49 aCrit ria Moves: Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA 04/22/1997 10:30 Filename: BLDOUTSO.OUT Page 4 BLDOUTSO.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 10:30:07 Page 4-1 NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BUILDOUT - 80 PM PEAK HOUR -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length 1) Method (Future Volume Alternative) . ..uu.uu......auaa.au... a...auaa...,.. a........ ....uu...aua.......... Intersection 83 5 FWY SB ON-OFF RAMPS/CALGROVE BOULEVARD ...................... .....uau....a.... ...0a.... ... ..u...0 ................. Cycle (Sao), 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): D.671 Lose Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh)i xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 69 Level Of Service: B ........r....... aaaia.... a....u............... .au.a.r........................ Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ............ ...P...--------��--------------- II --------------- II--------------- Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected, Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ...---------I ............... --------------- --------------- --------------- Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 92 0 47 0 405 60 102 123 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bae: 0 0 0 92 0 47 0 405 60 102 123 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 PaaeerByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 0 0 0 92 0 41 0 405 60 102 123 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.42 1.42 1.42 4.58 4.58 4.58 PHP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Volume: 0 0 0 276 0 141 0 575 85 467 563 0 Reduce Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Volt 0 0 0 276 0 141 0. 575 85 467 563 0 PCB Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 L.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLP Adj2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 276 a 141 0 575 85 467 563 0 ............I--------------- --------------- ••------------- ---........._..I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes. 0.00 0.00' 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.74 0.26 1.00 2.00 0.00 - Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1600 0 1600 0 2788 412 1600 3200 0 ........................... --------------- --------------- --------------- Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Satz 0.00 O.DO 0.00 0.17 0,00 0.09 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.29 0.18 0.00 Crit Moveat ••• . u... ... .a.a......... urr.aarras aa..uu urea a a arrear ua..... .u♦............. Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA M M i M/ i M M M� M M= M W M M M W( i r! M M= M M 04/22/1997 10:30 Filename: BLDOUTBO.OUT Pace 5 BLDOUTBO.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 10:30:07 Page 5-1 NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BUILDOUT - 80 PM PEAR HOUR ......................................................................... ..... Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(LG9s as Cycle Length t) Method (Future Volume Alternative) •1..1..1•..•......uf.... ........f......................euf..Y...11f ..11••11• Intersection 84 5 FWY NB ON -0F1 RAMPS/CALGROVE AVENUE ..I..f.Yfllf lflfl.flf if l.I.f 111•fYfff.Y..f...f.Y.....f••........... .f.1.1I.Y.ff 1♦ Cycle Isec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (2)s 0.828 Lose Time (Bea): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh)s ==XXX Optimal Cycle: 132 Level Of Service: D ..................... _11.f....ff.fu.......f............u................••....• Approach; North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ..... I--------------- --------------- --------------- .-..-------.--- Control: Split phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lange: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 a 0 0 1- 0 2 0 0 a 0 1 1 0 ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- ______--.------ Volume Module: Base Vol: 62 0 278 0 0 0 206 203 0 0 1B3 84 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 62 0 278 0 0 0 206 203 0 0 183 84 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 a o 0 �0 0 0 0 PasserByVels 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 62 0 278 0 0 0 206 283 0 0 183 84 User Adj: 2.25 2.25 2.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.35 1.35 1.35 3.15 3.15 3.15 PHP Adj; 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 140 0 626 0 0 0 278 382 0 0 576 265 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol. 140 0 626 0 0 0 278 382 0 0 576 265 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 140 0 626 a 0 0 276 382 0 0 576 265 ............ I............... --------------- --------------- -..------------� Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 16D0 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 O.DO 1.00 O.DO 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.37 0.63 Final Sat.: 1600 0 1600 0 0 0 1600 3200 0 0 2192 1008 --- I--------------- --------------- --------------- --.-----.------ Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 Crit Movees ••• •1• .•.....................•... ... f..... M M M M M= M 04/22/1997 10:30 Filename: BLDOUT80.OUT Pave 6 BLDOUTSO.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 10:30:07 Page 6-1 NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BUILDOUT - 80 PM PEAK HOUR ................................................................................ Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loee as Cycle Length 4). Method (Future Volume Alternative) ufff11Y1 u•f•uYufuuff••f ff ff uf•f.f... I........lu.................. uff• Intersection 85 ORCHARD VILLAGE RD/LYONS AVENUE •fYff1Y1Y111f1Y1111•IYIf11f 1Yfif•••111f1f•1f•If1••••1lf lff lffll••11111.1•l11111• Cycle (sec)s 100 Critical Vol./Cep. (K)s 0.994 Lose Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh)s XXKXCX Optimal Cycle: LBO Level Of Service. E •.......................... . •.... 1.11.• .... u• ......... ..Y.....f..fe♦ Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ............ I............... --------------- 11 --------------- 11_______________� Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 -1 ------------ I--------------- --------------- --------------- II---------------� Volume Module: - Base Vol: 174 170 134 293 191 250 321 1037 179 154 912 245 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 L.00 L.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bae: 174 170 134 293 191 250 321 1037 179 154. 912 245 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PaseerSyVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 174 170 134 293 191 250 321 1037 179 154 912 245 User Adj: 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.04 1.04 1.04 2.36 2.36 2.36 PHP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 L.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Volumes 284 277 218 299 195 255 334 1078. 186 363 2152 578 Reduet Vols 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 284 277 218 299 195 255 334 1078 186 363 2152 578 PCS Adje 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLP Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 L.00 L.OD 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.. 284 277 218 299 195 255 334 1078 186 36) 2152 578 ............I ............... --------------- --------------- II_______________I Saturation Plow Modules Sat/Lanes 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustments 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes, 1.00 1.12 0.88 2.00 2.00 1,00 1.00 2.56 0.44 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sats 1600 1791 1409 3200 3200 1600 16OD 4094 706 1600 4800 1600 ............ I............... _______________ --------------- ((.__.___________� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sats 0.18 0:15 0.15 0.09 0.06 0.16 0.21 0.26 0.26 0.23 0.45 0.36 Crit Moves: •••• f••• ..u•..••...•.f•.1.....•.. ........ f•.....u.......f.f....... f 1.1.11... 1 ......... Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA I Traffix 6.8.13D6 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA 04/22/1997 10.30 Filename: BLDOUT80 OUT page 7 BLDOUTBO.CMD Toe Apr 22, 1997 10:30:07 Page 7-1 ........... _------------------------ _------------- ______________________________ NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BUILDOUT - 80 PM PEAK HOUR ------------------------------ Level Of Service Computation Report ICU Moss as Cycle Length 4) Method (Future Volume Alternative) u.......uuru... rurru..r.....ru.......rrrru. r.ru... ..... I uu.......... Intersection N6 BOUQUET CANYON ROAD/SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD ... .0u...urr..rr.u.....rr...........r.u.uuruuuuuu.• Cycle •(se C)o•u1DO Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.410 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: SBO Level Of Service: F •• .... I.........rru♦u urrr.•r...uru..............uue.......... • u.... Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II_________ ---.-.I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Ovl Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 2 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 3 0 1 ............ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II. -_---.--______I Volume Module: Base Vol: 46 1001 408 729 754 443 894 1477 29 333 914 718 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Saes 46 1001 408 729 754 443 894 1477 29 333 914 718 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 46 1001 408 729 754 443 994 1477 29 333 914 718 User Adj: 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.64 1.64 .1.64 1.08 1.08 1.08 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 65 1411 575 1239 1282 753 1466 2422 48 360 907 775 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 65 1411 575 1239 1282 753 1466 2422 48 360 967 775 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 65 1411 575 1239 1282 753 1466 2421 48 360 987 775 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600'1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 16DO 3600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.O0 1.00 S.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0D 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD Lanes: 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.94 0.06 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4800 '1600 3200 4800 3200 320D 4707 93 3200 4800 1600 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.29 0.36 0.39 D.27 D.24 0.46 0.51 0.51 0.11 0.21 0.48 Crit Moves: .... ..r. .... ..r. ............... u.rrrr ....uuu....u.. u ................. a....uuu....... Traffix 6.8.13D6 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddee, LA, CA 04/22/1997 10.30 Filename BLDOUTBO OUT Page B BLDOUT80.CMD Toe Apr 22, 1997 10:30:07 Page 8-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BUILDOUT - 80 PM PEAK HOUR -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Lois as Cycle Length t) Method (Future Volume Alternative) •ru ..uuu...... ruu......u..ur»u.u.u.uu. a uuuuuu.....r♦u.r. Intersection 88 SAN FERNANDO ROAD/CIRCLE J RANCH ROAD ....... rr.... err.u....r..................ru.. rr...uu....... u..... u.uu Cycle fsec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X), 0.791 Loge Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (set/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 109 Level Of Services C •.•.••rerr....ru...rr.r.u•u.r.r r..r...r.rr..rr.......... ............u•u... Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound west Bound Movement. L - T - R L T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ------_________I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes. 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 ............ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II -------_-------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 867 0 549 1100 0 0 0 0 0 0 283 Growth Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bae: 0 867 0 549 1100 0 0 0 0 0 0. 283 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 867 0 549 1100 0 0 0 0 0 0 283 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Volume: 0 867 0 549 1100 0 0 0 0 0 0 283 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 867 0 549 1100 0 0 0 0 0 0 283 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 867 0 549 1100 0 0 0 0 0 0 283 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Final Set.: 0 3200 1600 1600 3200 0 0 0 01600 0 1600 ............ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II--------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.34 0.34 O.DO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 Crit Moves: ' .... rr...ru.ruuu...urr.u.•u u.0 u.. u-e..u.....uu.... u......uu.. Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling. Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddee, LA, CA M a W ani M r= r M== M M M= r M M=" A M M M=!= M M= M M M= A M 04/22/1997 10:30 Filename: BLD0UT80.0UT Page 9 BLDOUTSO.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 10.30.07 Page 9-1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BUILDOUT - 80 PM PEAK HOUR -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length t) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ................ u....a....ua.••....u•.......••.ua.u..........u.......u.• Intersection09 SAN FERNANDO ROAD/LYONS AVENUE •...•u•......u••••....•....•.....u••••..u......u....u.....♦...u•...• Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Val./Cap. (X), 1.084 Lose Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ....• .u•... .............. .......... ......... •......... .••u ........... •..•• Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ...-----....1 --------------- II --------------- II--------------- II.... -------....I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 ----......--I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 185 899 6 29 619 421 568 31 103 3 36 36 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bae: 155 899 6 29 619 421 568 31 103 5 36 36 Added Vol: 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 a 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 185 899 6 29 619 421. 568 31 103 5 36 36 User Adj: 1.87 1.B7 1.87 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.85 1.85 1.65 9.22 9.22 9.22 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 346 1681 11 31 662 450 1051 57 191 46 332 332 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 346 1681 11 31 662 450 1051 57 191 46 332 332 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLP Adj: 1.00 I.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Val.: 346 1681 11 31 662:- 450 1051 57 191 46 332 332 ............I --------------- II --------------- II--------------- II -----------....I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600. 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600. 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.99 0.01 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 -1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3179 21 1600 3200 1600 3200 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 ------------ I --------------- II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.22 0.53 0.53 0.02 0.21 0.28 0.33 0.04 0.12. D.03 0.21 0.21 Crit Moves: •..• •..• •... .... ................ u • • •. • •..... u. •. a •.... •... a •....... •............ u.. •. •.... 04/22/1997 10.30 Filename: BLD0UT90.0UT Pace 10 BLD0UT80.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 10:3D:07 Page 10-1 NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BUILDOUT - 80 PM PEAR HOUR ----------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICO 1(Loss as Cycle Length t) Method {Future Volume Alternative) •• .......... •uu... •.... ..uu..•••••u•••.. uuu.•............ .•u u•••u• Intersection 110 14 FRY SB ON-OFF RAMPS/SAN FERNANDO ROAD ......... •.... ..u ...... •uu....•.......u...•.•••......... u.......♦♦.......• Cycle (see): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.656 Lose Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ..•.....•.....•.•...•.•..........•.••.....u•...•........•............•......•• Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I--------------- II --------------- II --------------- II...... --------.I Controls Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 ............ --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------......I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 a 0 4 2 210 0 355 592 16 1529 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 0 0 0 4 2 210 0 355 592 16 1529 0 Added Vol: 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PdeserByVol: 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 0 0 0 4 2 210 0 355 592 16 1529 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.76 2.76 2.76 2.71 2.71 2.71 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Volume: 0 0 0 11 5 573 0 980 1634 43 4144 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 11 5 573 0 980 1634 43 4144 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 HIR Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 11 5 S73 0 980 1634 43 4144 0 ............ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II... --------....I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0..00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.01 0.99 0.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1600 14 1586 0 1600 3200 1600 3200 0 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.D1 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.61 0.51 0.03 1.29 0.00 Crit Moves: •••• ...u...... u.u........u...........u.....•........u•........u•.......... u• Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA I Traffix 6,8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA 04/22/1997 10,30 Filename BLDOUT80 OUT Page 11 BLDOUT80.CMD Toe Apr 22, 1991 10:30:07 Page I1-1 ________________________________________________________________________________ NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BUILDOUT - 80 PM PEAR HOUR ................................... Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 3(Loss as Cycle Length t) Method (Future Volume Alternative) • ... .•..•• I .. ....................uu....0 u...♦ ua... ••• Intersection 911 14 FWY NB ON-OFF RAMPS/SAN FERNANDO ROAD ..................... •• ••..• . r............. .......................... .......uu......0 Cycle(eec):100 Critical Vol./Cap. (R): 2.OBB Lose Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service, P u•.....••..au....uu.....•........u..a....•...... ...... •. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ____________ I_______________ --------------- --------------- ---__----------( Control: Split Phase Split Phase Split Phase Split -Phase Rights; Include Include Include Include Min. Green: D 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ............ i--------------- --------------- --------------- --____-----____� Volume Module; Base Vol, 3 0 247 0 0 1571 376 45 0 0 55 14 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 3 0 247 0 0 1571 376 45 0 0 55 14 Added Vol; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 PasserByVol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 3 0 247 0 0 1571 376 45 0 0. 55 14 User Adj: 2.71 2.73 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 1.85 1.85 1.85 2.71 2.71 2.71 PHP Adj: 1.00 1.00 I.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PNP Volume, B 0 669 0 0 4257 696 83 0 0 149 38 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 8 0 669 0 0 4257 696 83 0 0 149 38 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 8 0 669 0 0 4257 696 83 0 0 149 38 ____________ I_______________ --------------- --------------- -__-___-___--.-� Saturation Flow Module, Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment, 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.OD 3.00 1.00 1.0D Lanes, 0.01 D.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 O.DD 0.00 0.80 0.20 Final Sat.: 19 0 1581 0 0 3200 3200 1600 0 0 1275 325 ___________________________ --------------- --------------- ---________--__� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat, 0.42 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.22 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 rmoves; .... .•.. .... .... ...... ....... .u...I...............0 u...* ue.•..............• uuu..... Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddee, LA, CA 04/22/1997 10.30 Filename: BLDOUT80 OUT Page 12 BLDOUTBO.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 10:30:07 Page 12-1 NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROSECT BUILDOUT - 80 PM PEAR HOUR ................................................................................ Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length 4) Method (Future Volume Alternative) •• a...........•.u.uu.............. .0 •....uu.........•..... u.. Intersection L57 CIRCLE J RANCH ROAD/VIA PRINCESSA/WILEY CANYON ............... e.......•...........•u.............-..................•••...•.•r...e CycleIsec)•100 Critical Vol./Cap. (R); 0.845 Lose Time (sec), 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 147 Level Of Service: D ............•u..........u.......•..........• ...............•............... Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound Nest Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R --------------------------- --------------- --------------- 11-_-__---_-_____� Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Righter Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 D 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 D 1 ____________ I_______________ --------------- --------------- __-________-.--� Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 242 0 307 151 2091 0 0 817 132 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 0 0 0 242 0 3D7 151 2091 0 0 817 132 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByvol, , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 0 0 0 242 0 307 151 2091 0 0 817 132 User Adj: l.oO 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.DO PEP Volume: 0 0 0 242 0 307 151 2091 0 0 017 132 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 D 0 242 0 307 .151 2091 0 0 017 132 PCE Adj: 1.00'1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 F.LP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 '1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 242 0 307 151 2091 0 0 817 132 ____________ I_______________ --------------- --------------- .-_____-_------ Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat., 0 0 0 1600 0 1600 1600 3200 0 0 3200 1600 ------------ I--------------- --------------- --------------- ._------_____-_� Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 D.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.19 0.09 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 Crit Moves: .•. ......a.uuu..uuu...........uu....a.•u....uu...u.......«...•u.u... Traffix 6.8.1306 (0) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddee, LA, CA M= A a M= a M= r ter■ M M== M r M M M!! M M S M M M r M M M M M M M M 04/22/1997 1030 Filename, BLDOUT80 OUT Pace 13 BLDOUTSO.CMD Te Apr 22, 1997 10:30:06 Page 13-1 ________________________________________________________________________________ NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROSECT BUILDOUT - BO PM PEAK HOUR ---------------------------------- ___________________________________ Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ♦u............. .uu...........e..0............. .u.0 .............. ..0 Intersection 861 SAN FERNANDO ROAD/MAGIC MOUNTAIN CONNECTOR ..0 ................ u.0 uu... u.. u•.a.•................. u........... Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (K): 0.553 Logia Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (eec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 51 Level Of Service: A ...................... « •..............................................................• Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I--------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- 11__-----------_-I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min, Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 D 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ------------ --------------- II--------------- --------------- I -----_----___-- Volume Module: Base Vol: 435 1066 0 0 836 304 250 0 60 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Has: 435 1066 0 0 836 304 250 0 60 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 435 1066 0 0 836 304 250 0 60 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.DO 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Volume: 435 1066 0 0 836 304 250 0 60 0 0 0 Reduce Volt 0 0 0 0• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 435 1066 0 0 836 304 250 0 60 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 I.DO 1.DO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.DD Final Vol.: 435 1066 0 0 836 304 250 0 60 0 0 0 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II --------------- Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 3200 4800 0 0 3200 1600 1600 0 1600 0 0 0 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.19 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Mes, ur♦ .... ..•• ....... ..••.........uu.......... u............*......•u u......u...u.• 04/22/1997 1 :30 Filename: BLDOUT80.OUT Pace 14 BLDOUTBO.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 10:30:08 Page 14-1 NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROSECT BDILDOUT - 80 PM PEAK HOUR -------------- __________________________________________________________ Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %),Method (Future Volume Alternative) ............. •u......uu.....................uu................•u......• Intersection #63 SAN FERNANDO ROAD CONNECTOR/MAGIC MOUNTAIN RD ............... u u u...... u....... ............... a u.......... •........ Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (K): 0.627.: Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 61 Level Of Service: B ................ *.......uu..*..uu...............uu.....•............ ApproachNorth Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ............ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min, Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 ............ I--------------- II------- .------- II--------------- _---_________-_I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 274 0 465 102 1453 730 0 774 208 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.DO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Has: 0 0 0 274 0 465 102 1453 730 0 774 206 Added Vol: 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PaeeerByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 0 0 0 274 0 465 102 1453 730 0 774 208 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1:00 PHP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PNP Volume: 0 0 0 274 0 465 102.1453 730 0 774 208 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 274 0 465 102 1453 730 0 774 208 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.DO MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 %.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 274 0 465 102 1453 730 0 774 208 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- 11_-_________----I Saturation Flow Modules Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 .2.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 1.58 0.42 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1600 0 3200 1600 4800 1600 0 2522 678 - ----------- I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.15 0.06 0.30 0.46 0.00 0.31 0.31 Crit Moves: 111. ' ... .....u. ...... ..... ......uu....... ...............u.....u.....uu..•u...• Traf£ix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddee, LA, CA I Traffix 6.8.2306'(e) 1996 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddee, LA, CA I I , L I I 1 1 [J 1 I YEAR 2015 CONDITIONS PM PEAK HOUR WITH REDUCED PROJECT M = = = = a = = = = M = a = M = M = = 04/22/1997 10.31 Filename: REDBOSO.OUT Page 1 REDSOBO.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 10:31106 Page 1-1 ................................................................................ NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REDUCED BUILDOUT - BO PM PEAK HOUR -------------------------- ______________________________________________________ Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C 8 1 5 FREEWAY SB OFF-RAMP/LYONS AV F xxxxx XXXXX P xxxxx XXXXX . 0.000 VIC 9 2 5 FWY NB ON-OFF RAMPS/LYONS AV E xxxxx 0.980 E xxxxx 0.980 + 0.000 VIC 9 3 5 FWY SB ON-OFF RAMPS/CALGROVE B xxxxx 0.685 B xxxxx 0.685 + 0.000 VIC 4 4 5 FWY NB ON-OFF RAMPS/CALGROVE D xxxxx 0.845 D xxxxx 0.845 + 0.000 VIC M 5 ORCHARD VILLAGE RD/LYONS AVENU E xxxxx 0.953 E xxxxx 0.953 + 0.000 VIC 6 6 BOUQUET CANYON ROAD/SOLEDAD CA F xxxxx 1.413 P xxxxx 1.413 + 0.000 VIC 6 8 SAN FERNANDO ROAD/CIRCLE J RAN C xxxxx 0.789 C xxxxx 0.789 + 0.000 VIC R 9 SAN FERNANDO ROAD/LYONS AVENUE F xxxxx 1.013 P xxxxx,1.013 + 0.000 VIC X 10 14 FWY SB ON-OFF RAMPS/SAN PER P xxxxx 1.624 P xxxxx 1.624 + 0.000 VIC 4 11 14 FWY NB ON-OFF RAMPS/SAN PER P xxxxx 2.042 P xxxxx 2.042 + 0.000 VIC 6 57 CIRCLE J RANCH ROAD/VIA PRINCE D xxxxx 0.853 D xxxxx 0.853 + 0.000 VIC 8 61 SAN FERNANDO ROAD/MAGIC MOUNTA A xxxxx 0.552 A xxxxx 0.552 + O.D00 VIC 8 63 SAN FERNANDO ROAD CONNECTOR/MA A xxxxx 0.596 A xxxxx 0.596 + 0.000 VIC 04/22/1997 10:31 Filename: REDRO80.OUT Page 2 REDBOSO.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 10:31:06 Page 2-1 ________________________________________________________________________________ NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REDUCED BUILDOUT - 80 PM PEAK HOUR _______________________________________________________________________ Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length t) Method (Future Volume Alternative) •.......••u•••uuuu•..............u.. I ......... ........ ............ Intersection #1 5 FREEWAY SB OFF-RAMP/LYONS AVENUE ...u.•u..a .... .uu.e....... ............... .. u................. Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): OVERFLOW Logic Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: ISO Level Of Service: F •• •.0 •.u. .................... ....... .............uu........u• Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II --------------- 11.__._________.-I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 22 12 63 444 101 95 0 551 33 67 620 325 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Beat 22 12 63 444 101 95 0 553 33 67 620 325 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Putt 22 12 63 444 101 95 0 553 33 67 620 325 User Adj: 2.69 2.69 2.69 2.69 2.69 2.69 3.41 3.41 3.41 1.97 1.97 1.97 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 59 32 169 1194 272 256 0 1886 113 132 1221 640 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 59 32 169 1194 272 256 0 1886 113 132 1221 640 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.D0 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLFAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol t 59 32 169 1194 272 256 0 1886 113 132 1221 640 ............ I --------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- 11______.._..-__.I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustments 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0D 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes. 1.00 0.16 0.84 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 255 1345 3200 0 1600 0 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 ------------ 1 --------------- 11--------------- II--------------- 11______________ - Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat. 0.04 0.13 0.13 0.37 xxxx 0.16 0.00 0.59 0.07 0.08 0.38 0.40 Crit Moves. ...• •• ... ... .uuu.....uu............................... ..u.......uuu.........♦ Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddee, LA, CA I Traffix 6.9.1306 (c) 1956 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddee, LA, CA 04/22/1997 10.31 Filename: REDBO80.0UT Paqe 3 REDB080.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 10:31:06 Page 3-1 NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REDUCED BUILDOUT - 80 PH PEAK HOUR ................................................................................ Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length i) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ......• •u•..•...-..••..........•....•........ui................•u•...• Intersection82 5 FWY NB ON-OFF RAMPS/LYONS AVENUE •.•u• • .............•....• . .. • .•u•..•..... •• Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (K): 0.980 Less Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (eet/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: E ...... ........................................... . . .... •....••...u.• Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T: R L. - T - R L -� T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II --_.._...--___.I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Ignore Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 ------------ --------------- Ii--------------- II--------------- II.. -------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 399 0 867 0 0 0 320 699 0 0 776 397 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 O.DO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bae: 399 0 0 0 0 0 320 699 0 0 776 397 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 D 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 399 0 0 0 0 0 320 699 0 0 776 397 User Adj: 1.72 1.72 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.82 1.82 1.82 PNP Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.DO 1.00 PHF Volume: 686 0 0 0 0 0 502 1097 0 0 1412 723 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 686 0 0 0 0 0 502 1097 D 0 1412 723 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 O.DO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLP Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1-00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 686 0 D 0 0 0 502 1097 0 0 1412 723 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 260D 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600' 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes; 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.0D 1.00 Final Sat.: 3200 0 1600 0 0 0 1600 3200 0 0 3200 1600 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.45 C....•....................••.•.a......u•..........•...................•.....•..... Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddee, LA, CA 04/22/1997 10:31 FilenameT REDBO6O.0UT Passe 4 REDBOBO.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 10:31:06 Page 4-1 NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROSECT REDUCED BUILDOUT - BD PM PEAK HOUR ................................................................................ Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length k) Method (Future Volume Alternative) •••.•••••••••••••••••••••u•a•.....•e... •u•u.•.............•..•u•.........•.. Intereection 03 5 FWY SB ON-OFF RAMPS/CALGR04E BOULEVARD •..•• ......... *....•....uu.uuu•......•u•..........•. Cycle (Bec)T 100 Critical Vol./Cap. W: 0.685 Lose Time lose): 0 Average Delay (eec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 72 Level Of Service: B •....•...........u•..•....••....u.....•u............ •.......................• Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- il-.-----_____.__I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 D 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 ------------ I --------------- II............... II--------------- II_____ -_____.---I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 92 0 47 0 405 60 102 123 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 0 0 D 92 0 47 0 405 60 102 123 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 92 0 47 0 405 60 102 123 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.08 3.08 3.08 1.42 1.42 1.42 4.74 4.74 4.74 PHP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Volume: 0 0 0 283 0 145 0 575 85 483 583 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 283 0 145 0 575 85 483 583 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.DD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 283 0 145 0 575 85 483 583 0 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 160D 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0D 1.00 1.00 S.DO 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lessees 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.74 0.26 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1600 0 1600 0 2788 412 1600 3200 0 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.30 0.18 0.00 Crit Moves: ••• ...• .••.•......... ••... ...•... •..uuu•.u................. .............. ......u. Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddee, LA, CA m m m m mm m m m m M= = M Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA I Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA. CA 04/22/1997 10:31 Filename: REDBOBO.OUI' Pace 5 04/22/1997 10:31 Filename: REDBO8D.0UT Page 6 REDBOSO.CMD ........... ________________--- Tue Apr 22, 1997 10:31:06 _--- _--- _---- _-------- _________________---- Page 5-1 _--- ___ REDBOSO. CMD rue Apr 22, 1997 10:31106 Page 6.1 NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT -_..... .... ._....__________--- _--- _--- .---- _-------- .._...._. __._________ NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT --- REDUCED BUILDOUT - 80 REDUCED BUILDOUT'- 80 ---------------------------------------------.-_-__-_____-__-______-______-_----- PM PEAK HOUR PM PEAR HOUR Level Of Service Computation Report ...........______________.____..............................________............ Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 3(Loss as Cycle Length }) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ICU'1(Loss as Cycle Length }) Method (Future Volume Alternative) •uu..♦•ur...uu._.........uu..... . r u r.... u.r u.rru.ur.0are.•..u......... u.u.....u.0 u•r... u•uu u.. ue......... Intersection 84 5 FWY WE ON-OFF RAMPS/CALGROVE AVENUE ;.tel Intersection e5 ORCHARD VILLAGE RD/LYONS AVENUE r u...0 u.u. a uu...u....u...urr.rr.rrrrrr.. rrru rr.•.. rru ru urrr urr. .u.....urrr r..u..0 u...0 u.0 ur.....r..ru.....rru.0 urrra.......uru♦ Cycle Isecln 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X)r 0.845 Cycle (creel: 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.953 Loss Time (sec). 0 Average Delay (sec/veh)r xxxxxx Loss Time (sec), 0 Average Delay (sec/veh). xxxxxx Optimal Cycled 147 Level Of Service: D Optimal Cycle, 180 Level Of Service. E • ... ..u......u..............u....uu....rr.u...rr.......uu r........... u.......... u..r. ...u............ .. rru rru..ur..uu.........u........... Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Approach, North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L .-_...-------------I�._-----.-----_-II_______-_-_____��___----_-.-._..I - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - A L - T - R Cont..rol..Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected ........ __...__--------- ___��___--------- ._.II...--------- ___�'___--------- Control: Protected Protected Protected ...� Protected Righter Include Include Include Include Righter Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. Greent 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes, 1 0 D 0 1 0 0 0 a 0 1 0 2 0 0 ___________________________ --------------- a 0 1 1 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 L 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 Volume Module: --------------- --------------- ------------ --------------- Volume Module, _______________ --------------- ----------.----� Base Vol. 62 0 278 0 0 0 206 283 0 0 183 84 Base Vol. 174 170 134 293 191 250 321 1037 179 354 912 245 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Pas: 62 0 278 0 0 0 206 283 0 0 183 84 Initial Bee: 174 170 134 293 191 250 321 1037 179 154 912 245 Added Volt 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 �0 0 0 0 Added Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVolr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 62 0 278 0 0 0 206 283 0 0 183 04 Initial Put, 174 170 134 293 L91 250 321 1037 179 154 912 245 User Adj: 2.30 2.30 2.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.35 1.35 1.35 3.26 3.26 3.26 User Adjr 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.04 1.04 1.04 2.15 2.15 2.15 PHP Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PRP Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 143 0 639 0 0 0 278 382 0 0 597 274 PAP Volume, 282 275 217 299 195 255 334 1078 186 331'1961 527 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduct Vol; 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 143 0 639 0 0 0 278 382 0 0 597 274 Reduced Vol: 282 275 217 299 195 255 334 1078 leg 331 1961 527 PCE Adj; 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLP Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 143 0 639 0 0 0 278 382 0 0 597 274 Final Vol., 282 275 217 299 195 255 334 1078 186 331 1961 527 ___________________________ --------------- --------------- Saturation Plow Modulen --------------- ------------ --------------- Saturation Flow Module: --------------- --------------- ---------.-----� Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Sat/Lanes 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 I.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes, 1.00 0.00 1.00 D.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.37 0.63 Lanes, 1.00 1.12 0.88 2.00 2.O0 1.00 1.00 2.56 0.44 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.n 1600 - 0 1600 0 0 0 1600 3200 0 0 2193 1007 Final Sat.: 1600 1789 1411 3200 320D 1600 1600 4094 706 1600 480D 1600 ............ I--------------- Capacity Analysis --------------- --------------- Module. ............... ............ I--------------- Capacity Analysis Module: --------------- --------------- ---------------I Vol/Sat: 0.09 O.OD 0.40 O.OD 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 Vol/Sat. 0.18 0.15 0.15 0.09 0.06 0.16 0.21 0.26 0.26 0.21 0.41 0.33 Crit Moves: r••• r••• Crit Moves. r.0 ...r ...... I..............uu...uru ur.u..r ..........••...-.ur....uuuuu. .......r.... arra..rrru.....r..uuu...uu....... u....uu.........0 uru. Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA I Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA. CA 04/22/1997 10 31 Filename: REDBOBD OUT PBC. 7 REDBOBO.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 10:31:06 Page 7-1 ................... ••---------•-----•--.......---------------------------------- NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROSECT REDUCED BUILDOUT - 80 PM PEAK HOUR ................................................................................ Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length t) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ...• ...•. .. . • ••...+•u....•u••••.• u••+uu•.•• Intersection R6 BOUQUET CANYON ROAD/SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD •.•..••.•.................u••.au........ •uu....a......aau••+•.•.•.•••..•+• Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.413 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh)s xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Services F .•.. ••... ............. a++••u•uuu..... •••+u.••..••u•u•• Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T- R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II..... ----------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Ovl Min. Green: D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 2 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 3 0 1 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Volume Module: Base Vols 46 1001 408 729 754 443 894 1477 29 333 914 718 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 Initial Has. 46 1001 408 729 754 443 894 1477 29 333 914 718 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 •0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 46 1001 408 729 754 443 894 1477 29 333 914 718 User Adj: 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.66 1.66 1.66 2.67 1.67 1.67 1.10 1.10 1.10 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Volume: 65 1411 575 1210 1252 735 1493 2467 48 366 1005 790 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 65 1411 575 1210 1252 735 1493 2467 48 366 1005 790 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 65 1411 575 1210 1252 735 1493 2467 48 366 1005 790 ------------ I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 3600 '1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.O0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 '1.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 2.94 0.06 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4800 1600- 3200 4800 3200 3200 4708 92 3200 4800 16D0 Capacity Analysis Modules Vol/Sats 0.04 0.29 0.36 0.38 0.26 0.23 0.47 0.52 0.52 0.11 0.21 0.49 Crit Moves: .... +.a• ...• .r•• ..........•...a ..... ........... •.•+r• ..... a..••................................. Traffix 6.8..1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddee, LA, CA 04/22/1997 10.31 Filename REDBO80 OUT Page 0 RED5O80.CMD Toe Apr 22, 1997 10:31:06 Page 8-1 NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROSECT REDUCED BUILDOUT - 80 PM PEAR HOUR ..........................................•---......-------------------......-.. Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loae as Cycle Length 1) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ♦•u•ru•.•......u•u.••u•..•••u•e++.••u._...•.uu••.•...•u.+•.............. Intersection 48 SAN FERNANDO ROAD/CIRCLE S RANCH ROAD ....... •............................ •+.. ♦ •.......... •...........+u ............. Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X1: 0.789 Lose Time (sec): 0 Average Delay -(sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle. 108 Level Of Service: C •u.................uu+......u•uu.................... ....... .•.•...... ..... Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ............ --------------- II--------------- II--------------- 11----------.-...I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 ............ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 862 0 559 1057 0 0 0 0 0 0 273 Growth Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 0 862 0 559 1057 0 0 0 0 0 0 273 Added Vol: 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 862 0 559 1057 0 0 0 0 0 0 273 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Volumes 0 062 0 S59 1057 0 0 0 0 0 0 273 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 862 0 S59 1057 0 0 0 0 0 0 273 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.0D 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NLP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 I.DO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol., 0 862 0 $59 1057 0 0 0 0 a 0 273 ------------ --------------- II--------------- II--------------- I1.....----------1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 160D 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I -OD 0.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 3200 1600 1600 3200 0 0 0 0 1600 0 1600 ..---------- I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.35 0.33 D.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 Crit Moves: •... a....................... •. a.a....a.. •......... •................-........ •+ Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to Meyer,- Mohaddee, LA, CA ==I== M M = = = = M= i = = = = M M = = M = = = = = = M = w 04/22/1997 10:31 Filename: REDBOBO OVT Page 9 REDB080.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1991 10:31:06 Page 9-1 ................................................................................ NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REDUCED BUILDOUT - 80 PM PEAR HOUR ---------------------------------------------------------- _______________ Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loec as Cycle Length t) Method (Future Volume Alternative) •• uu.u..u..u..•••u••uuu••••u....uuuu••.u.0 •....0 u..... Intersection 49 SAN ........ ROAD/LYONS AV.... Cycle Isecl:• ••100 Critical Vol./Cap. .(X): 1.013 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh)t xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ........................... .u♦...•... ...•. u•.......uuu••u..uu.uu....• Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound Nest Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ............ I............... --------------- --------------- II ---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights. Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 ____________ I_______________ --------------- --------------- --.------------� Volume Module; Base Vol: 185 899 6 29 619 421 568 31 103 5 36 36 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 185 899 6 29 619 421 568 31 193 5 36 36 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put, 185 899 6 29 619 421 568 31 103 5 36 36 User Adj: 1.77 1.77 1.77 1.08 1.08 1.08 1.61 L.61 1.61 9.22 9.22 9.22 PHP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 L.00 1.00 PHP Volume: 327 1591 11 31 669 455 914 50 166 46 332 332 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 Reduced Vol: 327 1591 11 31 669' 455 914 50 166 46 332 332 FOR Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 327 1591 11 31 669 455 914 50 166 46 332 372 ------------ --------------- --------------- H --------------- II --------------- I Saturation Flow Module: Set/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.99 0.01 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.1 1600 3178 22 1600 3200 1600 3200 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 ____________ I_______________ --------------- 11 --------------- 11 ............... E Capacity Analysis Module, Vol/Sat: 0.20 0.50. 0.50 0.02 0.21 0.26 0.29 0.03 0.10 0.03 0.21 0.21 ..........Crit Me: ... ••.. •..• .•u..........•••uu....•..uu••**........watt.*...uu•••u u•.••• 04/22/1997 10:31 Filename: REDBOBO.OUT Paoe 10 REDBO60.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 10:31:06 Page 10-1 NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REDUCED BUILDOUT - 80 PH PEAR HOUR ................................................................................ Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 11Loss as Cycle Length t) Method (Future Volume Alternative) •.uu..••... u•••.••u••u.•......•........•.....u•ua•uu.•ua•u••uu.... Intersection 910 14 FWY SB ON-OFF RAMPS/SAN FERNANDO ROAD u.•...uu......ue•••••••.u•..•..••..........u••.....••.••....•••...•... Cycle (seclt 100 Critical Vol./Cap. IX): 1.624 Lose Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: Iso Level Of Service: F .u....... ......... ..uu.••uuu.....................u.uu...uuuu....... Approach: North Bound South Bound Bast Bound Neat Bound Movement. L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ____________ _______________ ............... 11--------------- --------------- Control. Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 ........................... --------------- --------------- II -____-_-_-.-_--I Volume Module. Base Vol: 0 0 0 4 2 210 0 355 592 16 1529 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 0 0 0 4 2 210 0 355 592 16 1529 0 Added Volt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PaeaerByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Putt 0 P 0 4 2 210 0 355 592 16 1529 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.76 2.76 2.76 2.65 2.65 2.65 PNP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PNP Volume: 0 0 0 11 5 567 0 980 1634 42 4052 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 li 5 567 0 980 1634 42 4052 0 PCS Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLP Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 11 5 567 0 980 1634 42 4052 0 ------------ I--------------- ...............--------------- ---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lone: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.01 0.99 0.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1600 14 1586 0 1600 3200 1600 3200 0 ------------ I--------------- ............... --------------- II -__------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.61 0.51 0.03 1.27 0.00 Crit Moves: •..• •..........uu...•.......................u..••••.u• u.. ...................... Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA I Traffix 6.9.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA 04/22/1997 1001 Filename REDBO80 OUT Page 11 REDBOBO.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 10:31:06 Page 11-1 ........................ _---------- _______________________________________________ NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REDUCED BUILDOUT - 80 PM PEAK HOUR .................... _................. __________________________________________ Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length t) Method (Future Volume Alternative) "}Y.}}..}.}f.}"Y.r"f"f..........}"f..................Yf}YYYYrfff lf..........1f.. Intersection B11 14 FWY N8 ON-OFF RAMPS/SAN FERNANDO ROAD fuu.uuuffff..".}...}}.•}u.uf...r"r... ..."............. I.....uf..fau}.f. Cycle (aec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. 1X1: 2.042 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay.(sec/veh)t xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F fun•u...0•.suu.}... uuufrrr..........uu.. f u..•.........uu.***... r♦ Approacht North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement t L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ---- I--------------- (--------------- --------------- --..------...__� Control: Split Phase Split Phase Split Phase Split Phase Rights. Include Include Include Include Min. Greent 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 __________________________ --------------- --------------- _____---------- Volume Module: Base Vol, 3 0 247 0 0 3571- 376 45 0 0 55 14 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bast 3 0 247 0 0 1571 376 45 0 0 55 14 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 3 0 247 0 0 1571 376 45 0 0 55 14 User Adjt 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 2.65 1.81 1.81 1.B1 2.65 2.65 2.65 PHP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Volume: 8 0 655 0 0 4163 681 81 0 0 146 37 Reduct Volt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Volt 8 0 655 0 0 4163 681 81 0 0 146 37 PCS Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol., 8 0 655 0 D 4163 681 81 0 0 146 37 ............I --------------- --------------- --------------- II -_________---.-I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 16D0 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes. 0.01 0.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 O.DO 0.80 0.20 Final Sac.: 19 0 1581 0 0 3200 3200 1600 0 0 1277 323 ............ I--------------- (--------------- --------------- H --------------- I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.41 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.D0 1.30 0.21 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 Crit Mo rue .... uf. •u• .........uuu.uuuuuu._.0 uu...uu............... uf♦♦...... Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddee, LA, CA M 04/22/1997 10:31 Filename: REDBOBO.DUT Page 12 REDBOSO.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 10.31:06 Page 12-1 ........................... _____________________________________________________ NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REDUCED BUILDOUT - 80 PM PEAK HOUR ----------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Los9 as Cycle Length Y) Method (Future Volume Alternative) Y u"r"u}u................rr}.......u"rf}.0 YJfff u. Y u........................ Intersection #57 CIRCLE J RANCH ROAD/VIA PRINCESSA/WILEY CANYON Y ... ........J.uf.u..rr.. u.......... .u.......uuu.. u... uu...........u}. Cycle (sec), 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (x): O.B53 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 155 Level Of Service: D ....u..•.}u..♦ruf.au....... I..............u...Y Yuu.....0 ur. u.•....u.. Approacht North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ____________ I_______________ --------------- --------------- _______________� Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min, Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 '1 ........................... --------------- --------------- II------------._.� Volume Module, Base Vol: 0 0 0 250 0 309 139 2110 0 0 802 134. Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee, 0 0 D 250 0 309 139 2110 0 0 802 134 Added Volt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 0 0 0 250 0 309 139 2110 0 0 802 134 User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 250 0 309 139 2110 0 0 802 134 Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 250 0 309 139 2110 0 0 802 134 PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol., 0 0 0 250 0 309 139 2110 0 0 802 134 ----------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------......I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 160D 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 I.DD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 O.OD 1.00 0.00 1.OD 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1600 0 1600 3600 3200 0 0 1200 1600 ____________ I_______________ --------------- --------------- .__.___________� Capacity Analysis Module; Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.19 0.09 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.08 Crit Moves, """" ....uu...ruufeu.uu.uu}u.fuu....}..u...u.•u.ueu.0 uff. ufu u.. Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddee, LA, CA NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROSECT REDUCED BUILDOUT - 90 PM PEAR HOUR .-..----•----••---••--•-•................•--•-••-------..-.-..------------------ Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length k) Method (Future Volume Alternative) . e. +++ u . u u . u ....... a ..... u... a u. u u u..... u. u..... u • •.+u u.++u Intersection SAN DO ROAD/MAGIC MOUNTAIN CONNECTOR ................... .. u. .......... u u u.... u....... e...+..... Cycle (see1: 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.552 Logia Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 51 Level Of Service: A .........•.u...:+..a+.....+..u....+..+........+u................... u.. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound Rest Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ............ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ------------...I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes. 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ............ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II.... -----------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 449 1030 0 0 833 288 242 . 0 58 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 449 1030 0 0 833 288 242 0 58 0 0 0 Added Vol. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +0 0 0 0 Paseereyvol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a Initial Fut: 449 1030 0 0 833 288 242 0 58 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adjs 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PNP Volume: 449 1030 0 0 833 288 242 0 58 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 449 1030 D 0 833 288 242 0 SB 0 0 0 PCH Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.DO 1.00 1.00 MLP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 449 1030 0 0 833 280 242 0 58 0 0 0 ............ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II -----..--------I Saturation Flow Module: Set/Lane: 1600 1600 160D 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 .1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 S.DO 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 0.00. 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.! 3200 4800 0 0 3200 1600 1600 0 1600 0 0 0 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.18 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: •... ........... .......+....... I............. u... ... u...+u...................+u. NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REDUCED BUILDOUT - BD PM PEAR HOUR -•--••----...--••----•.......................................................... Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Lose as Cycle Length k) Method (Future Volume Alternative) u.... ........0+.........u.u..... uu* u+.0 u.0 uuu...r. u.u+.... u• Intersection 863 SAN FERNANDO ROAD COMMECFDR/MAGIC MOUNTAIN RD •....u...♦••..........u•...♦............... u....a.........0...... + u+..... Cycle (sec): 300 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.596 Lose Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 56 Level Of Service: A .+...e...u... u. u....0 u..0 u. u....0 ........ u. e.. •. u.s....u... u.. u.. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Righter Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II -..-.-..-------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 243 0 494 100 1410 710 0 781 200 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 0 0 0 243 0 494 100 1410 710 0 781 200 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PaeeerByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put. 0 0 0 243 0 494 100 1410 710 0 781 200 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.DO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PUP Volume: 0 0 0 243 0 494 100 1410 710 0 781 200 Reduct Vol: D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 243 0 494 100 1410 710 0 701 200 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.DO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 243 0 494 100 1410 710 0 781 200 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 16DO 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: O.OD 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 1.59 0.41 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1600 0 3200 1600 4800 1600 0 2548 652 --..-....--.I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.IS 0.00 0.15 0.06 0.29 0.44 0.00 0.31 0.31 Crit Moves. •... + a..0...uu..........0....... .uu....... u.. u................ uu...... ..... Traffix 6.6.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA I Traffix 6.6.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA ! = = M = = = = = = ! = = = s 04/22/1997 10:31 Filename: RED9080.OUT Pace 13 04/22/1997 10:31 Filename: REDBOBO.OUT Paoe 14 REDSOSO.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 10:31:06 Page 13-1 I REDB080.CND Tue Apr 22, 1997 10:31:06 Page 14-1 NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROSECT REDUCED BUILDOUT - 90 PM PEAR HOUR .-..----•----••---••--•-•................•--•-••-------..-.-..------------------ Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length k) Method (Future Volume Alternative) . e. +++ u . u u . u ....... a ..... u... a u. u u u..... u. u..... u • •.+u u.++u Intersection SAN DO ROAD/MAGIC MOUNTAIN CONNECTOR ................... .. u. .......... u u u.... u....... e...+..... Cycle (see1: 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.552 Logia Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 51 Level Of Service: A .........•.u...:+..a+.....+..u....+..+........+u................... u.. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound Rest Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ............ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ------------...I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes. 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ............ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II.... -----------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 449 1030 0 0 833 288 242 . 0 58 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 449 1030 0 0 833 288 242 0 58 0 0 0 Added Vol. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +0 0 0 0 Paseereyvol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a Initial Fut: 449 1030 0 0 833 288 242 0 58 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adjs 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PNP Volume: 449 1030 0 0 833 288 242 0 58 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 449 1030 D 0 833 288 242 0 SB 0 0 0 PCH Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.DO 1.00 1.00 MLP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 449 1030 0 0 833 280 242 0 58 0 0 0 ............ I--------------- II--------------- II--------------- II -----..--------I Saturation Flow Module: Set/Lane: 1600 1600 160D 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 .1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 S.DO 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 3.00 0.00. 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.! 3200 4800 0 0 3200 1600 1600 0 1600 0 0 0 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.18 0.15 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: •... ........... .......+....... I............. u... ... u...+u...................+u. NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REDUCED BUILDOUT - BD PM PEAR HOUR -•--••----...--••----•.......................................................... Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Lose as Cycle Length k) Method (Future Volume Alternative) u.... ........0+.........u.u..... uu* u+.0 u.0 uuu...r. u.u+.... u• Intersection 863 SAN FERNANDO ROAD COMMECFDR/MAGIC MOUNTAIN RD •....u...♦••..........u•...♦............... u....a.........0...... + u+..... Cycle (sec): 300 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.596 Lose Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 56 Level Of Service: A .+...e...u... u. u....0 u..0 u. u....0 ........ u. e.. •. u.s....u... u.. u.. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Righter Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 ------------ I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II -..-.-..-------I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 243 0 494 100 1410 710 0 781 200 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 0 0 0 243 0 494 100 1410 710 0 781 200 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PaeeerByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put. 0 0 0 243 0 494 100 1410 710 0 781 200 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.DO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PUP Volume: 0 0 0 243 0 494 100 1410 710 0 781 200 Reduct Vol: D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 243 0 494 100 1410 710 0 701 200 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.DO 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 243 0 494 100 1410 710 0 781 200 ------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II---------------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 16DO 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: O.OD 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 1.59 0.41 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1600 0 3200 1600 4800 1600 0 2548 652 --..-....--.I --------------- II--------------- II--------------- II ---------------I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.IS 0.00 0.15 0.06 0.29 0.44 0.00 0.31 0.31 Crit Moves. •... + a..0...uu..........0....... .uu....... u.. u................ uu...... ..... Traffix 6.6.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA I Traffix 6.6.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling ASSOC. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I YEAR 2015 CONDITIONS PM PEAK HOUR WITH FULL PROJECT (MITIGATED) M M M M M r M M= M M M O M M M M M M 04/22/1997 16.33 Filename- PROJMIT OUT Page 1 BLDOUT80.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 16:33:10 Page 1-1 ................"'............................................................. NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BUILDOUT - 80 (MITIGATED) PM PEAK HOUR .............."'............................................................... Impact Analysis Report Level Of Service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Del/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C # 1 5 FREEWAY SB OFF-RAMP/LYONS AV F xxxxx 1.179 F xxxxx 1.179 + 0.000 V/C # 2 5 FWY NB ON-OFF RAMPS/LYONS AV D mxxx-0.843 D xxxxx 0.843 + 0.000 V/C # 10 14 FWY SB ON-OFF RAMPS/SAN FER F xxxxx 1.225 F xxxxx 1.225 + 0.000 V/C # 11 14 FWY NO ON-OFF RAMPS/SAN FER F mxxx 1.644 F xxxxx 1.644 + 0.000 V/C # 57 CIRCLE J RANCH ROAD/VIA PRINCE B xxxxx 0.627 B xxxxx 0.627 + 0.000 V/C Traffix 6.8.1306.(() 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA 04/22/1997 16.33 Filename: PROJMIT.OUT Page 2 BLDCUT80.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 16:33:10 Page 2.1 .......................................""""................................. NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BUILDOUT - 80 (MITIGATED) PM PEAK HOUR ................................................................................ Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) 1R111fflH1RHf11fRf1R 1ffHRf RRffflffffllflwRwRRRRHfIfwfRllfffHYYflfw/RfRRff Intersection #1 5 FREEWAY SB OFF-RAMP/LYONS AVENUE f RHbf lHflf f 1Mff RM1f lfffffff RRRf fff Mef ff fllRlf HRHff f f kfflfffNHflf!/f 1ff f Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (%): 1.179 Loss Time (see): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx ________________________________. _..........__. _.. Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R ............ .----- ....-- ..-- ---.__ ....Protected Rights, Include Include Include Include Min. Green- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanese 1 0 0 1 02 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 1. 0 2 0 1 --------------- ...._...._ .......... ._.._.---- Volume Module: Base Vol: 22 12 63 444 101 95 0 553 33 67 620 325 Growth Adj. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 22 12 63 444 101 95 0 553 33 67 620 325 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 Initial Fut:22 12 63 444 101 95 0 553 33 67 620 325 User Adj: 2.7D 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.70 3.45 3.45 3.45 1.95 1.95 1.95 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 . PHF Voume: 59 32 170 1199 273 257 0 1908 114 131 1209 634 Reduet Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 59 32 170 1199 273 257 0 1908 114 131 1209 634 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj- 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 59 32 170 1199 273 257 0 1908 114 131 1209 634 ...urat.....ion....IFl.o.............. I 1-----...._... _.I I............... I I......_........I w Module: Sat Set/Lane- 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment- 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.16 0.84 2.00 0.52 0.48 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 253 1347 3200 824 776 0 3200 16001600 3200- 1600 Capacity Analysts Module: II""""" II--------------- """" II'"''"""" Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.13 0.13 0.37 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.60 0.07 0.08 0.38 0.40 Crit Moves: Re:R Rfff fief wwwR wRRRRf iHfff R111RR11RfRHf1RRCRRf Hf1H11fffIIRRR111f1f111RRRRRRf1fHRf 1111RRRRff Traffix 6.8.1306 (e) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA 02/1997 16:33 Filename: PROJMIT.OUT Page 3 BLDOUTSO.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 16:33:10 Page 3-1 •••.••••-••..................................................................... NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BUILDOUT - 80 (MITIGATED) PM PEAK HOUR •••............................•'••............................................. Level Of Service Computat ton Report (CU Moss as Cycle Length X) Method (Future Volume Alternative) NYHYYH##ifflf#11f#f k111lHRYfxlfkYfr111b11H#xlxHwwRfwwxwlwwRrwlwwxwlxwfiw Intersection 02 5 FWY NB ON-OFF RAMPS/LYONS AVENUE 11111 Y#1f f f 11rf 111111 11nf111ff frrwrflllf»111 fe#11f 1u1f»111wewwwxlxwxxwlxwwll Cycle (see): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.843 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (see/veh): xxxxxx Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L. T R Control: Split Phase Split Phase "-;;o;; -C;;; •�II Protected Rights: Ignore Include Include Ignore Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 ............ L..............I L............. I L..............I I___.._....___.. Votune Module: Base Vol: 399 0 887 0 0 0 320 699 0 0 776 397 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Initial Bse: 399 0 0 0 0 0 320 699 +0 0 776 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 399 0 0 0 0 0 320 699 0 0 776 0 User Adj: 1.75 1.75 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.97 1.97 0.00 PHF AW 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 698 0 0 0 0 0 490 1069 0 0 1529 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 698 0 0 0 0 0. 490 1069 0 0 1529 0 PCE. Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Vol.: 1I698 0 0 0 0 0 490 1069 0 0 1529 0 ............ Saturation Flow Module: II Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3200 0 1600 0 0 0 1600 3200 0 0 4800 1600 Capacity Ana ysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 Crit Moves: **** wwwf frlf }*ww111w1w1R1flflfffNRHHYRf kRYRRRRRRRRRkkRRRwwRwk}wNH HwRxR}M}}RwwRR}}R}Rw Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA 04/22/1997 16:33 Filename: PROJMIT.OUT Page BLDOUT80.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 16:33:10 Page 4-1 NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BUILDOUT - 80 (MITIGATED) PM PEAK HOUR ................................................................................ Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) *fffi;;;RRRrRRRwrRrllf HMfrf rfrfrNRrffflfllHYHlflflR111111HRH1rR11MRRRf Intersection #10 14 FWY SS ON-OFF RAMPS/SAN FERNANDO ROAD fflff;wRR;RrRwRR*RRRRRRf111f1xfRRRHffww#flfRllfffRRfffHlffrf11f1frRRrRRRR1RRRx Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Val./Cap. (X): 1.225 Loss Time (see): 0 Average Delay (see/veh): xxxxxx OptimI Cycle: 180 level Of Service: F wwwewwxwwRwxwxwxlwlxxwxlfwRlflxwRf1111111fef1r1r11fr»f»11r:11111»111e1R1exwww Approach: North Bound South Bound East Baal West Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R ............I...............I --------------- I I --------------- I I------._____.__ I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 ............ ...............I I...............I I...............I I ------------_-- Volume Module: Base VOL; 0 0 0 4 2 210 0 355 592 16 1529 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 4 2 210 0 355 592 16 1529 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 4 2 210 0 355 592 16 1529 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.76 2.76 2.76 2.71 2.71 2.71 PHF Ad: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 11 5 573 0 980 1634 43 4144 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 11 5 573 0 980 1634 43 4144 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: I 0 0 0 it 5 573 0_980 1634 43 4144 0 Saturation Flaw Module:....II...............II------------- ............... Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.01 0.99 0.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1600 14 1586 0 1600 3200 160D 4800 0 ............Idule: ...............I I...............I I_ --_------_.---I I------__.__--_. Capacity Analysis Mo Vo /Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.36 0.36 0.00 0.61 0.51 0.03 0.86 0.00 Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA = v= M M M= M M= M M M== M== M e e e e e e e t e e e '■ e e e e e e e 04/22/1997 16.33 Filename- PROJMIT OUT Page S BLDOU780.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 16:33:10 Page 5.1 ..............................................................•................. NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BUILDOUT - 80 (MITIGATED) PM PEAK HOUR ..........................................................................."'-- Level Of Service Computation Report ICU Moss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) flMfffH}HflfHffHR lfflffRf Hf11f1fH}HlffffHkfffHRRIIffRRHfIffRRfffffff Intersection 811 14 FWY NB ON-OFF RAMPS/SAN FERNANDO ROAD lfffff f 1f f H1RRf RH f f fff f fHRRRHHf HfHf f f 1f1ffH11ff fflf f f f 1RRfRRHRRRf f fHRf Cycle (see): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (%): 1.644 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (see/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: _ .180.__..._..___Level Of Service: ___F ____ Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R ............ I ............... I I............... I I--------------- I I"-------------. I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ............ _......._ Volume Module: Base Vol: 3 0 247 0 0 1571 376 45 0 D 55 14 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 3 0 247 0 0 1571 376 45 +0 0 55 14 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 3 0 247 0 0 1571 376 45 0 0 55 14 User Adj: 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.71 1.85 1.85 1.85 2.71 2.71 2.71 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Voume: 8 0 669 0 0 4257 696 83 0 0 149 38 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 8 D 669 0 0 4257 696 83 0 0 149 38 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 8 0 669 0 0 4257 696 83 0 0 149 38 Saturation FIow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600'1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.01 0.00 0.99 D.00 0.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.20 Final Sat.: 19 0 1581 0 0 4800 3200 1600 0 0 1275 325 ..._._... ...11 ............ .._-•-------- Capa�ity Ana�ysis.Module: II""""" I'"""• Vol/Sat: 0.42 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.22 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 Crit Moves:---------------------------------------------- ff1R fffe (fff eHf 04/22/1997 16.33 Filename: PROJMIT.OUT Page 6 BLDOUT80.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 16:33:10 Page 6.1 ................................................................................ NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BUILDOUT - 80 (MITIGATED) PH PEAK HOUR '............................................................................... Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) HH11fff1NlffH!}fH }!ff}ff fflffflR}R11ff}RR}}fff11ff11ffHHHNIHIfIHHf Intersection 957 CIRCLE J RANCH ROAD/VIA PRINCESSA/WILEY CANYON HRH(( fHHfff ffllfffHffflfflfff ffHRffR}ff}H}}Rff}f 1fH1fHHlfNf!!!!!Nf}f Cycle (see): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (x): 0.627 Loss Time (see): 0 Average Delay_(see/veh): xxxxxx Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T R L T- R L- T- R ............I ............... I I .....__...._.. I I............... I I......._.......I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 ............ I ............... I I............... I I.._.......__... I I........_...... Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 242 0 307 151 2091 0 0 617 132 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: D 0 0 242 0 307 151 2091 0 0 817 132 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserWol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l nit, at Fut: 0 0 0 242 0 307 151 2091 0 0 817 132 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF AdJJ: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volune: 0 0 0 242 0 307 151 2091 0 0 817 132 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 242 0 307 151 2091 0 0 817 132 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: -0-- 0 0 242 0 307 151 2091 0 0 817 132 ............ I.. ......... I I...............I I....__......._.I I............... Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 '0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.58 0.42 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1600 0 1600 1600 4800 0 0 4132 668 ......... I -----11 ............... ---------- .......... Capacity Analysis Module: II""""- --•"- """"" Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.19 0.09 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 frit wnves[ fflf RfkR }fff Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA I Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA 04/22/1997- 16:33 Filename: PROJMMOUT Pase 7 m m m m o w m m m m i m=== m== o I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I 1 YEAR 2015 CONDITIONS PM PEAK HOUR WITH REDUCED PROJECT "TIGATED) tJN M M M mow M M r M M M M M i M i 04/22/1997 16:35 Filename: REDMIT.OUT Page 1 REDBO80.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 16:35:49 Page 1-1 ................................................................................ NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REDUCED BUILDOUT - 80 (MITIGATED) PM PEAK HOUR ................................................................................ Impact Analysis Report Level Of service Intersection Base Future Change Del/ V/ Det/ V/ in LOS Veh C LOS Veh C 0 1 5 FREEWAY 5B OFF-RAMP/LYONS AV F xxxxx 1.171 F xxxxx 1.171 + 0.000 V/C # 10 14 FWY SB OW -OFF RAMPS/SAN TER F xxxxx 1.202 F xxxxx 1.202 + 0.000 V/C # 11 14 FWY NB ON-OFF RAMPS/SAN FER F xxxxx 1.609 F xxxxx 1.609 + 0.000 V/C # 57 CIRCLE J RANCH ROAD/VIA PRINCE B xxxxx 0.633 B xxxxx 0.633 + 0.000 V/C 04/22/1997 16:35 Filename: REDMIT.OUT Page 2 RED9080.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 16:35:49 Page 2.1 .................."'...._.__..............._............__....._..._..__..._.._ NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REDUCED BUILDOUT - 80 (MITIGATED) PM PEAK HOUR ................................................................................ Level Of Service Computation Report ICU Moss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Vol une Alternative) 44af1144Naf11faaaaflf 1441H1fa44aaaaaafHRa4aaf1M41Raf4H411fRlffafafRaaaffaa Intersection 01 5 FREEWAY SB OFF-RAMP/LYONS AVENUE 4R111111R4aRR111141faaf44aaRR11f»1RRR114fefaRR444M1R1f»aa+faRRfaffaaRRaaflfaR Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (x): 1.171 Loss Time (see): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Approach: North Band south Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R ........................... •-"""" """ '--._.-_ """"----- Control: Split Phase II split Phase, Protected Protected - Rights: Include Include Include Include' Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 01 1 0 2 0 1 ............ ...............II._._.._....... II....._...._ II-..._..._...- I Volume Module: Base Vol: 22 12 63 444 101 95 0 553 33 67 620 325 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 22 12 63 444 101 95 0 553 33 67 620 325 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 initial Fut: 22 12 63 444 101 95 0 553 33 67 620 325 User Adj: 2.69 2.69 2.69 2.69 2.69 2.69 3.41 3.41 3.41 1.97 1.97 1.97 PHF AdJ: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Vol 59 32 169 1194 272 256 0 1886 113 132 1221 640 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 59 32 169 1194 272 256 0 1886 113 132 1221 640 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.- 59 32 169 1194 272 256 0 1886 113 132 1221 640 Saturation F�ow Module:--II".............II.__......._-__.II...___......__.I Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.16 0.84 2.00 0.52 0.48 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00-2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 255 1345 3200 824 776 0 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 ..... i ...... ............--- li............... II--------------- II -"'--"'-""'I Capacty Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.13 0.13 0.37 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.59 0.07 0.08 0.38 0.40 f`..h Ynuan• faRR RRfR f1fR afRR Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA I Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA 04/22/1997 16.35 Fileneme: REDMIT.OUT Page 3 REDBO80.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 16:35:49" Page 3-1 .............."".............................................................. NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REDUCED BUILDOUT - 80 (MITIGATED) PM PEAK HOUR ................................................................................ Level Of Service Cortputation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length X) Method (Future Vol um Alternative) %feff4#fw\4fff##444444 Yw4#fHlRww4wHffff*fkk#1fM•fYffYYwfYf#Y\•1f\w\4%#ffww%f Intersection N10 14 FWY SS ON-OFF RAMPS/SAN FERNANDO ROAD wflflfifff\44##1111#fllfYl4ffifff!\RMflwwffH!\Yf«f%Y\\YYff%YRR\\Y4fR\#w44#ffw4 Cycle (see): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.202 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh),. xxxxxx Approach- North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2. 1 0 3 0 0 ............ I--------------- I 1 --------------- 11--------------- 11..........._...1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 4 2 210 0 355 592 16 1529 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 4 2 210 0 355 592 16 1529 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasaerByVoL: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 4 2 210 0 355 592 16 1529 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.70 2.70 2.70 2.76 2.76 2.76 2.65 2.65 2.65 PHF Adj; 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 11 5 567 0 980 1634 42 4052 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 11 5 567 0 980 1634 42 4052 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 11 5 567 0 980 1634 42 4052 0 -------•I-'•---------II-----•---------II---------------II-------•-------I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment- 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.01 0.99 0.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1600 14 1586 0 1600 3200 1600 4800 0 ----- .------ I __'..........11 ............... I I...............11...............1 Cappacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 D.36 0.36 0.00 0.61 0.51 0.03 0.84 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** «««• ..........:...................................................44................ Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA 04/22/1997 16:35 Filename: REDMIT.OUT Page 4 REDBOBO.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 16:35:49 Page 4-1 ................................................................................ NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REDUCED BUILDOUT - 80 (MITIGATED) PM PEAK HOUR ............"•............................."'................................. Level Of Service Computation Report . ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) \RwlfeRwfffw%RllRwwff%f•RwRRwfffwwwlN!•w11HflRRwwwllRRfwfilRffllflflffHHlfM Intersection 1111 14111Y NB ON-OFF RAMPS/SAN FERNANDO ROAD lwwr\fY\\ww\flflew\wwlfwwwwfflfwlwwwfeff•lffflfY«!lfllfef•\1111\11f•1fe\\!••»\e Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cep. M.- 1.609 Loss Time (sec): 0 Average Delay (see/veh). MUM Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R ........ .__.1...---- .----- ..11...............II ----- ---•- ----- ----- Control: ptit Phase Split Phase Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include . Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ............I ...............11...............11.. --.----------11----.--.------- Volume Module: Base Vol: 3 0 247 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 3 0 247 Added Vol: 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 3 0 247 User Adj: 2.65 2.65 2.65 PHF Adi: 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume- 8 0 655 Reduct Vol- 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 8 0 655 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.- 8 0 65511 Saturation Flow Module:.... Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.01 0.00 0.99 Final Sat.: 19 0 158111 Capacity Ana�ysis•Nodule: Vol/Sat: 0.41 0.00 0.41 0 0 1571 376 45 0 0 55 14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 1571 376 45 0 0 - 55 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1571 376 45 0 0 55 14 2.65 2.65 2.65 -1.81 1.81 1.81 2.65 2.65 2.65 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 4163 681 81 0 0 146 37 0 0 4163 681 81 0 0 146 37 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ._ 0 0 4163 681 81 0 0 146 37 ..........I I --------------- I I............... i 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.20 ...0 0 4800 3200 1600 0 0 1277 323 .........-I L..............I L._......___...1 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.21 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 Traffix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA M M" M m r `� mm = W r IW M = M f ! M W M M MIM mm 04/22/1997 16:35 Filename: REDMIT.OUT Page 5 REDB080.CMD Tue Apr 22, 1997 16:35:49 Page 5-1 ................................................................................ NEWHALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT REDUCED BUILDOUT - 80 (MITIGATED) PM PEAK HOUR '-'......................................."_.................................... Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) wwwRM+l+wwx+HwxwfrNw x+rww++H+MaxbawaxaHwxwwrfNxwaaNwx+fafwlwaa+xwHHaw Intersection #57 CIRCLE J RANCH ROAD/VIA PRINCESSA/W1LEY CANTON +wwwwr+rxxxr»wxae+rewwaa+wwwww+rwexaw»exwaa»ewaw+awxe+++awwwaauweaw»eawaaaa Cycle (see): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (K): 0.633 Loss Time (see): 0 Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T R ...... ........--------- ...II.__--------- ___��._.--------- ..___.....I Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 ........ .'-•I--------------- �._..._--------- -".----------- --------------- Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 250 0 309 139 2110 0 0 802 134 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 250 0 309 139 2110 10 0 802 134 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 250 0 309 139 2110 0 0 802 134 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 250 0 309 139 2110 0 0 802 134 Reduet Vol: . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 250 0 309 139 2110 0 0 802 134 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7 L Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.:0 0 0 250 0 309 139 2110 0 0 802 134 Saturation FlI ow Module......ll............... II--------------- II--------------- I Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.57 0.43 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1600 0 1600 1600 4800 0 0 4113 687 ..... ....... I...............��............... II____"_•-..--.-��--------------- � Capacity Analysis Module: vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.19 0.09 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 Crit Moves: .axaa aaww ++ak _...r ............................... "" .._....____.--"""""""""""_ Traf fix 6.8.1306 (c) 1996 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to Meyer, Mohaddes, LA, CA �. r A no AW ■� 04/22/1997 16:35 Filename: REDMIT.OUT Page 6 11 I Appendix C Negative Declaration Construction of Metrolink Station and Reconstruction of Railroad Avenue I I I I I fCITY OF SANTA CLARITA REVISED NEGATIVE DECLARATION [ X 1 Proposed ( ] Final PERMITIPROJECT: Construction of a Metrolink Station and Reconstruction of Railroad Avenue ' APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita MASTER CASE NO. mh PfcJt c�C t -1O• '96_0(05 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: The project involve& the widening, realignment and extension of Railroad Avenue from south of 4th Street to north of 11th Street, and the construction of a Metrolink Train Station and accessory parking on four parcels located in downtown Newhall area of the City. The parcels are specifically located at the northeast and southeast comer of Market Street and Railroad Avenue, and adjacent to the present and future Pine Street as shown on the project site plan. I I I I I I 1i I I I At its nnrthean and southern termini Railroad Avenue would connect with San Fernando Road. When completed, Railroad Avenue will consist of one travel lane in each direction, a two-way left turn lane, and on -street parking. Other improvements include the installation of a storm drain to handle surface drainage and the installation of street lights. The proposed project will occur substantially within the existing street. However, additional right -of --way will need to be acquired to accommodate the reconstruction of the street. The proposed Metrolink Station would include the construction of a station building, platform, and 208 parking spaces. Construction of the station requires the acquisition of four properties. Additional improvements related to landscaping and handicapped access would be provided on- site. Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant to the requirements of Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Santa Clarita [Xl City Council ( ] Planning Commission C Director of Community Development finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the environment, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CF.QA. Mitigation measures for this project ( 1 are not required. [X1 are attached. Ll are not attached. Prepared by: J _ Glenn Adnmick. Associate Planner Reviewed by.- LuZ71116WI^ Public Review Period From: 3-7-9 7 To: L —' 7 `--1 7 Public Notice Given On: cf By: (X) Legal Advertisement. I 1 Posting of Properties. ( j Written Notice CERTIFICATION DATE: GEA:nwhlydv\ndrlyd.goa I I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 Railroad Avenue Improvements Environmental Assessment - Initial Study 1 Manch 6. 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Initial Study Form B) Project Title: Improvement of Railroad Avenue from San Fernando Road Southerly to San Fernando 1 Road Easterly Lead Agency: City of Santa Clarita ' Building and Engineering Services Department City Hall 23920 Valencia. Boulevard, Suite 304 Santa Clarita, CA 91355-2107 Contact Person and Phone Number: Bonnie Joseph (805) 286-4139 rProject Location: Railroad Avenue (Thomas Bros. Maps 4640, J-1; 4641, A-1) The project area is bounded by the Metrolink railroad tracks on the east, San Fernando ' Road on the south and west, and 12th Street on the north, in the City of Santa Clarita. General Plan and Zoning Designation: 1 CC ' Project Description: The proposed project involves the widening, realignment and extension of Railroad Avenue from south of 4th Street to north of 11th Street, and the construction of a Metrolink train station and accessory parking on four parcels located in the downtown Newhall area of the City. The parcels are specifically located at the northeast and southeast comer of Market Street and Railroad Avenue, and adjacent to the present and future Pine Street. As proposed, Railroad Avenue would connect at its northern and southern termini with San Fernando Road, thus providing an alternative to San Fernando Road for traffic traveling through the old downtown Newhall area. When completed, Railroad Avenue will consist of one travel lane in each direction, a two-way left tum lane between intersections, and on -street parking. Other improvements include the installation of a storm drain to handle surface drainage, and the installation of street lights. The project represents the first step in implementing the Downtown Newhall Improvement and Revitalization Program. Improvement of Railroad Avenue provides opportunities to downplay the role of San Fernando Road in carrying regional through -traffic through the study area, and focus on its role as a central commercial corridor, as part of the overall ' plan to revitalize the old downtown core. Railroad Avenue Improvements Environmental Assessment - Initial Study 1 Manch 6. 1997 The proposed Metrolink station would include the construction of a station building, platform and 208 parking spaces. Construction of the station requires the acquisition of four properties. Additional improvements related to landscaping and handicapped access would be provided on site. The proposed project will occur substantially with existing rights-of-way. However, some additional right-of-way will be required. This additional right-of-way generally consists of. West Side of Railroad Avenue: • northwest corner of Railroad Avenue and 9th Street -181 square feet • southwest comer of Railroad Avenue and 9th Street -181 square feet • northwest comer of Railroad Avenue and 8th Street - 429 square feet • southwest comer of Railroad Avenue and Market Street -181 square feet • southwest comer of Railroad Avenue and 6th Street - 500 square feet East Side of Railroad Avenue: • MTA right-of-way from north of 11th Street to 8th Street and from 6th Street to San Fernando Road • block from 8th Street to Market Street - 33,904 square feet • block from Market Street to 6th Street - 33,904 square feet • MTA right-of-way adjacent to Pine Street - 22,000 square feet • Property adjacent to the northern termini of Pine Street - 41,000 square feet Traffic signals are proposed at the intersections of Railroad Avenue with San Fernando Road North, Market Street and San Fernando Road South. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: . Adjacent to Railroad Avenue on the east are the Metrolink railroad tracks. The railroad tracks lie within right-of-way presently owned by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). East of the railroad tracks are residential areas. West of Railroad Avenue, between Railroad Avenue and San Fernando Road, the area. is developed in industrial and commercial uses. In early 1996, the City of Santa Clarita completed the Downtown Newhall Improvement Program study which identified strategies for revitalizing the old downtown core, the capital improvements necessary to support revitalization and financing strategies for implementation. The proposed project is among the first steps identified in this study. Other Agencies whose approval is required: Caltrans Railroad Avenue Improvements Environmental Assessment -Initial Study 2 Match 6, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation Public Services Population and Housing Biological Resources F-1 Recreation Geologic Problems Noise D -Aesthetics ElWaterJAIHazards F Cultural Resources Air Quality EJ Energy and Mineral El Utilities and Service Resources Systems Railroad Avenue Improvements Environmental Assessment • Initial. Study I Mandatory Tests of Significance 3 March 6, 1997 H [ ] 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a. significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Prepared By: ' Catherine Higley March 6. 1997 ' Senior Planner (Signature) (Namemtle) (Date) Approved By: ' Glenn Adamick Associate Planner (Signature) (NamefTitle) (Date) I Railroad Avenue Improvements ' Environmental Assessment - initial Study 4 March 6, 1997 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: [ ] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [XI I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the ' mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ) 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been mitigated adequately in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or °potentially significant unless mitigated.' An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT will be prepared, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [ ] 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a. significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Prepared By: ' Catherine Higley March 6. 1997 ' Senior Planner (Signature) (Namemtle) (Date) Approved By: ' Glenn Adamick Associate Planner (Signature) (NamefTitle) (Date) I Railroad Avenue Improvements ' Environmental Assessment - initial Study 4 March 6, 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL -IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or El F-1 EA -Di policies adopted,by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the city? ❑x d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of anQ established community (including a low-income or minority community)? e) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA)? 0 Q Other 1:1 0 II. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the proposal:Be a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or locala population projections? b) Create a net loss of jobs? a c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? d) Other El 1:1 ❑ M 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Will the proposal result in: a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c) Change in topography or ground surface relief E ❑ 0 features? Railroad Avenue Improvements Environmental Assessment -Initial study 5 March 8, 1997 d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? f) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? g) Changes in deposition, erosion or siltation? h) Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river? 1) Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? j) Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 25% natural grade? k). Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? I) Other IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into subsurface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 JAI LTJ ❑ Potentially LAJ ❑ ❑ Significant ❑ a Impact Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑j ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 JAI LTJ ❑ ❑ LAJ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑mm ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ o ❑ a Railroad Avenue Improvements Environmental Assessment-tnitiat Study 6 March 8, 1997 e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements? f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? I) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? j) Other V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposat: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? C) Create objectionable odors? d) Other VI. TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION. would the Proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses? C) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ❑ Potentially ❑ a ❑ Significant ❑L J ❑ Impact ❑ ❑X Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑L J ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ ❑ ❑ E ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ L^—J ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑' ❑ ❑ ❑ a Raitroad Avenue Improvements Environmental Assessment4nitial Study 7 - March B, 1997 d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation modes (e.g. bus stops, bicycle racks?) g) Disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? h) Other VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rate species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, Insects, animals, and birds.) b) Oak trees C) Wetland habitat or blueline stream? d) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? e) Other Vlll. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? C) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? d) Other N ❑ O ❑ Potentially ❑.a Significant ❑ Impact ❑ Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑ O ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ ❑ ❑ 7 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X N ❑ O ❑ ❑ ❑.a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X Railroad Avenue Improvements Environmental Assessment -Initial Sludy g March 6, 1997 IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal Involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? C) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? f) Other X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels or vibration? c) Other XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect on, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? C) Schools? d) Maintenance or public facilities, including roads? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ E ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ = ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑ O ❑ ❑ a ❑ Railroad Avenue Improvements Environmental ASsessment•Iniflal Study 9 March 6. 1997 Railroad Avenue Improvements Environmental Assessment -Initial Sludy 10 March 6, 1997 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Other government services? 1:3 ❑ M XII. UTILITIES. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? F-1 F-1 0 M b) Communication systems? M f1 "AL M c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution ❑ O El facilities? d) Sewer or septic tank? e) Storm water drainage? E] M 0 Solid waste disposal? 0 F-1 a g) Local or regional water supplies? El ED h) Other ID ❑ 0 XIII. AESTHETICS. would the proposal: a) Affect the scenic vista open to public view? F-1 M b) Have a negative aesthetic effect? F-1 1771 JAI c) Create light or glare? E M d) OtherJAI ❑ XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological or archaeological0 El El resources? b) Have the potential to cause a physical change which 0 would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Railroad Avenue Improvements Environmental Assessment -Initial Sludy 10 March 6, 1997 1 Railroad Avenue Improvements ' Environmental Assessment.Inittal Study 11 March 6, 1997 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No ' Impact Incorporated Impact Impact C) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the ❑ E3 ❑ a Potential impact area? ill d) Affect a recognized historical site? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ' e) Other El FE XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the ❑ E3 El 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? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-tens impact on the environment in one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c) Does the project have impacts which are individually ❑ ❑ ❑ limited but cumulatively considerable? (A project t`rM J may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which❑ ❑ ❑ a will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1 Railroad Avenue Improvements ' Environmental Assessment.Inittal Study 11 March 6, 1997 Railroad Avenue Improvements Environmental Assessment -initial study 12 No Impact O March G, 1997 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact XVII. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINUMUS" FINDING a) Will the project have an adverse effect either El El 0 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." Railroad Avenue Improvements Environmental Assessment -initial study 12 No Impact O March G, 1997 I I I u I I ,' I I I [1 XVIII: DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSES: I. Land Use and Planning a, b,c. The proposed project (widening of Railroad Avenue and construction of a Metrolink Station) is not in conflict with general plan designation or zoning. The proposed improvements to Railroad Avenue will occur substantially within existing Railroad Avenue right-of-way. The surrounding area on both sides of Railroad Avenue is designated for Community Commercial uses in both the General Plan and the Zoning Map. The proposed Metrolink station would include the construction of a station building, platform and 208 parking spaces. The station would be located on property that is zoned community commercial and open space, which would allow for the train station use. Included as part of the Downtown Newhall Improvement Program, the Metrolink station is the foundation of the transit village concept for Downtown Newhall, and as such, is consistent with Article 8.5, Section 65460 of the Transit Village Development Planning Act of 1994, which provides that a city or county may prepare a transit village plan that addresses characteristics such as access to rail transit that should encourage and facilitate intermodal service, and access by modes other than single occupant vehicles. d. The proposed project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. Immediately adjacent and parallel to the proposed project on its east side is the Metrolink railroad tracks, separating the commercial and industrial uses on the west side of Railroad Avenue from the residential areas immediately east of the project area. Improving Railroad Avenue creates an opportunity to balance roadway capacity and travel demand between San Fernando Road and Railroad Avenue, reducing the potentially divisive effects of a San Fernando Road, a four -lane regional highway carrying a substantial volume of traffic, on old downtown Newhall. It also provides opportunities to connect the old downtown with the surrounding region via a Metrolink station at Railroad Avenue and Market Street. The Metrolink station will be consistent with the Downtown Newhall Improvement Program and the City's General Plan. e. There are no Significant Ecological Areas within the project area. The proposed project will occur substantially within the existing Railroad Avenue right-of-way. To the extent that additional right-of-way is required, it is located in areas presently developed in industrial or commercial nursery uses or adjacent to the Metrolink railroad tracks. II. Population and Housing a The proposed project will not alter the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the human population in or around the project area, and will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. Railroad Avenue Improvements Environmental Assessment. Initial Study 13 March B, 1997 b. The project will not result in a net loss of jobs. In order to obtain the necessary right-of-way to implement the proposed project, property which is presently the site of a commercial nursery will be acquired. However, the nursery will be relocated to an alternate site within the project area, and this relocation is not expected to significantly impact the employment base within the study area. c The proposed project will not displace any current or proposed housing. Additionally, the project would not create a demand for additional housing. III.. Geologic Problems a,b,c. The proposed project will not result in unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures. The project site is fairly flat and the amount of additional grading required to implement the proposed improvements will be minimal. The widening of the roadway and construction of the train station and parking will result in overcovering of soil with asphalt. This is area which is presently used for vehicle parking and other activities which would typically occur along a paved roadway. The project will not result in changes in topography or ground surface relief features. d. No unique geologic or physical features exist on or are associated with the Project area. No impacts are anticipated. The potential for natural disasters including: seiche; tsunami, volcanism, landslides or mudflows does not exist in the project area. However, Southern California is a highly active seismic region. To the east of the project area, the San Gabriel Fault, capable of generating a 7.5 magnitude event, traverses the City of Santa Clarita. Splitting from the San Gabriel Fault approximately 3 miles north of the downtown core area is the Holser Fault, and approximately miles tc the south of the project area is the Santa Susanna Fault zone. The proposed Project does not increase the likely exposure of people or property to earthquakes or events along this fault. The Metrolink station will be built in compliance with all standards included within the Uniform Building Code and Station Design Manual for Metrolink Parts 1, 2, and 3, per the SCRRA Engineering Department, dated 4/4/93. g -h. The proposed project will not result in changes in deposition, erosion or siltation, and does not include modifications of a wash, channel, creek or river. The Proposed improvements for the reconstruction of Railroad Avenue follow the general alignment of the existing Railroad Avenue with only minor modifications. Roadway widening along the west side involves areas which are presently paved, generally sidewalks and parking areas. Widening which will occur along the east side of the roadway, outside the existing Railroad Avenue right-of-way, would involve unpaved areas within the MTA/Metrolink right-of-way. Railroad Avenue improvements Environmental Assessment • initial Study 14 March 6. 1997 Railroad Avenue Improvements Environmental ASSessmeni-initial Study 15 March Q 1997 Construction of the Metrolink station and accessory in any modifications to ' a wash, creek, or channel. On-site drainage will berconvteyed to existing or new storm drains. ' i 1• The earth movement required to implement the proposed project involves less than 25,000 cubic yards, including the removal of the existing pavement section. It is estimated that the proposed project will involve a cut area of approximately ' 17 square feet and a fill area of approximately 43 square feet. The project site is basically flat. k. The project site is not within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. IV. Water a. The widening and realignment of Railroad Avenue and the construction of a Metrolink station may result in slight changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface drainage. A new storm drain, tying into the area's storm drain system, is included within the proposed project to accommodate surface drainage. b. The proposed project will not expose people to flooding or other water related hazards. Presently, San Fernando Road crosses Newhall Creek north of 12th Street, at the north end of the The ' project area. proposed project does not include modifications to the existing bridge over Newhall Creek. c -d. The proposed project will not result in changes in the amount of surface water in Newhall Creek or will it substantially alter the amount or character of discharge to Newhall Creek surface waters or cause other alterations of surface water quality. For most of its length, the project is separated from Newhall Creek by the Metrolink railroad tracks. The future confluence of Railroad Avenue and San Fernando Road is to occur north of 11th Street, south of the San Fernando Road crossing of Newhall Creek, does not include alterations to that bridge crossing Newhall Creek and is not anticipated to the ' affect existing character and quantity of surface water discharge. e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements will not be affected by the construction the of proposed project. f - I. The proposed project will not impact groundwater through the direct addition or withd?awal, alternation of flow, adversely affecting water quality, or substantially reducing the amount otherwise available for water public supplies. Although the widening of the roadway and connections with San Fernando Road, and the construction of the station will result in an increase in impervious surfaces within the project area, the extent of the coverage from the project is not substantial enough to significantly affect groundwater. Railroad Avenue Improvements Environmental ASSessmeni-initial Study 15 March Q 1997 J. Wateri'meswill be run to the site to accommodate landscaping for the Metrolink station and street trees. W Air Quality a. Short-term air quality impacts may be associated with construction of the project. Watering of the project site will mitigate potential impacts of construction related dust. Emissions are expected from gasoline and diesel -powered grading and paving equipment and fugitive dust associated with earth moving activities. However, the project involves only minimal grading, with associated impacts very short in duration. b. There are a number of sensitive receptors within 400 to 600 feet of the project area, including: Newhall Elementary School Newhall Community Hospital William S. Hart Park The proposed improvement of Railroad Avenue is intended to reduce traffic along San Fernando Road, balancing the volume of traffic presently carried along San Fernando Road between San Fernando Road and Railroad Avenue. San Fernando Road is located between the proposed project and each of the sensitive receptors. It is anticipated that the proposed project will improve traffic flow and level of service along San Fernando Road with the result that these sensitive receptors will be exposed to the same or lesser levels of emissions than under current conditions, as traffic shifts to Railroad Avenue and the volume of traffic and levels of congestion along San Fernando Road decrease. The construction of a Metrolink station will have a positive impact on regional air quality, since residents will be afforded improved access to rail transit for regional commutes. The potential reduction in vehicle miles of travel as a result Of commuters leaving their vehicles in favor of rail transit would result in a reduction of ozone precursor emissions and represent a positive benefit to air quality in the region. Additionally, Article 8.5, Section 65460.3 of the Transit Village Development Act of the State of California Planning, Zoning and Development Laws provides that to increase transit ridership and to reduce vehicle traffic on the highways, local, regional and state plans should direct new development close to transit stations. The Metrolink station is a key element in the revitalization of the Old Downtown Newhall area as described in the Downtown Newhall Improvement Program. C. Short-term construction impacts may result in objectionable odors during the installation of the asphalt roadway surface. Railroad Avenue Improvements Environmental Assessment -Initial Study 16 March 6 1997 ' A Transportation/Circulation ' a. A comprehensive traffic study (included herein as Attachment A) has been prepared, analyzing the potential traffic related impacts of four scenarios for Railroad Avenue and San Fernando Road. The scenarios range from the No ' Build conditions (Scenario 1) with Railroad Avenue and San Fernando Road remaining in their current configurations, to the upgrade of Railroad Avenue to a 4 -lane roadway and the downsizing of San Fernando Road to a 2 -lane roadway ' (Scenario 4).. The proposed project is represented by Scenario 2. For each scenario, traffic conditions with and without the development of a Metrolink station along the east side of Railroad Avenue at Market Street were analyzed. The widening and improvement of Railroad Avenue will bring it into compliance with current City standards for commercial streets. By providing a continuous lane in each direction, on -street parking and a two-way left tum lane, a portion of the traffic from San Fernando Road diverts to Railroad Avenue. Key intersections within the study area are estimated to operate at acceptable levels ' of service during both peak hours. In fact, the level of service along San Fernando Road improves over existing conditions as traffic volumes decrease. The construction and operation of a transit station in the downtown Newhall core along Railroad Avenue at Market Street might impact intersections along San Fernando Road. However, in no case would the impacted intersections have a level -of -service worse than D. In fact, the intersections as represented in scenarios would have adequate capacity to accommodate station related traffic. ' The proposed project, represented by Scenario 2 with the Metrolink station, in the Traffic Study, is not expected to result in an increase in the total traffic volume through downtown Newhall. Instead, the project is intended to increase the utilization of Railroad Avenue through the area. This could provide the opportunity to downscale the role of San Fernando Road as a regional travel facility, focusing instead on local downtown traffic, without impacting the regional traffic carrying capacity of the overall corridor. This is consistent with the concepts contained in the Downtown Newhall Revitalization Program. b: The proposed project will not result in hazards to safety from design features or from incompatible uses. The proposed project will be designed to the standards accepted by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the City of Santa Clarita. Lc,g. The proposed improvements to Railroad Avenue, when completed, will enhance emergency access and access to nearby uses. As part of the project, 5th Street is proposed to be closed east of San Fernando Road. It will continue to provide access to properties with frontage, connecting them to the areawide transportation system via Railroad Avenue. Construction of the improvements ' will be staged. Emergency access and access 'to adjacent businesses will be maintained during construction. Once completed, the realignment and ' Railroad Avenue Improvements Environmental Assessment. Initial Study 17 . March 6. 1997 improvement of -Railroad Avenue will make it a continuous facility, linking the area to the surrounding roadway system and providing improved through -traffic connectivity. d. Although the proposed project will eliminate approximately 121 on -street parking spaces along Railroad Avenue, there is adequate parking remaining within the project area to accommodate existing parking demand. Many of the parking spaces which are to be eliminated as part of the proposed project were informal, unpaved areas. Once completed, sufficient paved on -street parking will be provided to accommodate observed demand. e.f. The improvements to Railroad Avenue, in particular, the realignment and the shoulder improvements will facilitate travel for bicyclists and pedestrians, compared to existing conditions. The construction of Metrolink station enhances opportunities for alternative transportation in the area. Public parking spaces provided for the Metrolink station will be available during weekday evenings and the weekend for public use. VII. Biological Resources a,b. The project is not anticipated to result in changes in the diversity or number of species of plants or animals, nor is it expected to impact any unique, rare or endangered species of plants or animals. The project area is substantially developed in transportation infrastructure and industrial uses. No native threatened or endangered vegetation or animal species presently exists within the project area. c -d. No oak trees will be impacted as a result of the proposed project. The project area contains no wetland habitat or blueline streams, and is neither a wildlife dispersal nor migration corridor. Landscaping, in conjunction with the Metrolink station, will enhance the immediate area. VIII. Energy and Mineral Resources a. The proposed project would not conflict with adopted energy conservation plans. b. The construction of the project will use non-renewable resources. However, the amount will be negligible and they will not be used in a wasteful or inefficient manner. The scope of the project is not substantial enough to result in any significant impacts. C. The proposed project is not anticipated to result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources that would be of future value to the region and state residents. Railroad Avenue Improvements Environmental Assessment - lnitiat study 18 March 6. 1997 I ' X. Noise a The proposed project is not anticipated to result in long-term increases in noise 1 levels within the project area. Some short-term increases in noise levels associated with project construction are expected. b. The project may result in temporary exposure of people to severe noise levels or IX. Hazards fa,c,d. Phase I environmental site assessment has been completed for the Metrolink station site. This assessment identified a potential for contamination. A Phase II ' site assessment is required. The Transit Division of the City will remediate any ' contamination identified during the Phase II assessment prior to site construction. ' b. The proposed project does not interfere with emergency response or emergency evacuation plans. In fact, by upgrading and improving Railroad Avenue and ' providing an alternative to San Fernando Road, it is anticipated that the proposed project will improve emergency response and evacuation options. Fencing for the Metrolink station is consistent with the Station Design Manual ' and will enhance safety. e. The proposed project is not anticipated to increase the fire hazard in the area. Although landscaping will be incorporated into the project, this is not considered ' to be significant as a fire hazard. Additionally, the project is not located in an area that is considered to be a hazardous fire area. ' X. Noise a The proposed project is not anticipated to result in long-term increases in noise 1 levels within the project area. Some short-term increases in noise levels associated with project construction are expected. Railroad Avenuelmprovements Environmental Assessment - Initial Study 19 Manch B, 1997 b. The project may result in temporary exposure of people to severe noise levels or vibration during project construction, due to heavy.construction-related equipment and activities. However, given the proximity of the Metrolink railroad tracks, serving as a buffer, the construction noise is not expected to significantly ' impact residents in the local vicinity. ' XI. Public Services a,c. The project would not impact or result in a need for new or altered fire protection services, or schools. b. Normal project operations would not require additional police facilities, personnel or equipment. Law enforcement along the proposed project would not alter significantly from existing provisions although the focus may change from providing security to motorists and adjacent properties to enforcing traffic laws and regulations along the improved Railroad Avenue. Metrolink Security provides patrol of Metrolink facilities including the train. Railroad Avenuelmprovements Environmental Assessment - Initial Study 19 Manch B, 1997 XII. Utilities a - h The proposed project will not result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alteration to utilities. There is a 22 inch natural gas main within the project area which will not be disturbed. Some minor gas lines may be relocated within the immediate area. Likewise, the overhead power lines on the west side of Railroad Avenue will be relocated to accommodate the widening of the roadway. These modifications will be coordinated with the City of Santa Clarita and the appropriate utility provider. The project may also require some minor alterations to power supplies and communication systems to accommodate traffic control systems. Utilities will be connected to provide service to the Metrolink station. XIII. Aesthetics a -b. The proposed project will not impact any scenic vistas, nor will it have a negative effect on the aesthetic character and quality of the project area. In fact, the project area is significantly developed in industrial uses fronting Railroad Avenue. Railroad Avenue is presently unimproved on the east side, lacking curb, gutter or sidewalks. Parking occurs along the east shoulder of the roadway in an informal, and sometimes haphazard fashion, particularly at the north end of the project area. The proposed improvements to Railroad Avenue will bring the roadway up to accepted design standards and will include a landscape component, . improving not only operations of the roadway, but its aesthetic character as well. The Metrolink station will be designed to be compatible with the Downtown Newhall Improvement Program. Station parking areas will be landscaped. Both of these design factors will enhance the aesthetic value of the area. C. Additional traffic along Railroad Avenue, projected to occur with completion of the proposed improvements, would result in increased light from automobile headlights after daylight hours. However, the land uses abutting Railroad Avenue are industrial and commercial uses, which would not be significantly impacted by increased light or glare from headlights. The grade differential between Railroad Avenue and the railroad tracks would preclude impact of light or glare of headlights on approaching trains, or on residents to the east.. XIV. Cultural Resources a -d The proposed project is not expected to result in the alteration or destruction of a prehistoric or historic archeological site, nor will it physically or aesthetically affect a historic or prehistoric building, structure, or object in an adverse manner. The project will result in the demolition of two structures presently in use as part of a commercial nursery. These structures are not considered to have the potential to be of prehistoric or historic value. No other actions are being proposed that would have any effect on ethnic or cultural values and there are not existing religious or sacred uses within the project area. Railroad Avenue Improvements Environmental Assessment - Initial Study 20 March 6, 1997 I I I 11 I 11 11 [J I 1 1 Proposed Railroad Avenue Improvement Project 1 With/Without Proposed Newhall Metrolink Station . TRAFFIC and PARKING IMPACT ANALYSIS Santa Clarita, California ' February 4, 1997 I [1 1 1 1 1 Li 1 Prepared by: K7AKatz, Okitsu & Associates 1200 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 140 Monterey Park, California 91754 ' (213) 260-4703 C] 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS ' Executive Summary ..................................................... I I. Introduction........................................................ 3 ' B. SAN FERNANDO ROAD/RAILROAD AVENUE/11TH STREET LAYOUT ...... 32 C. SAN FERNANDO ROAD/MARKET STREET STRIPING MODIFICATIONS ..... 32 D. LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION ................................... 32 IV. Intersection Level of: Service Analysis Without Metrolink Station ................... 33 A. AREA DESCRIPTION ............................................ 6 VI. On -Street Parking Analysis B. PROJECT SCENARIO DESCRIPTION ................................ 7 ' II. Traffic A. Data Collection and Analysis Methodology .............................. TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA COLLECTION SUMMARY .. 9 9 B. FORECAST TRAFFIC VOLUMES .................................. 9 C. PARKING CONDITION WITHOUT STATION ...................... C. TRIP DIVERSION METHODOLOGY .............................,... 9 44 D. METROLINK STATION TRIP DISTRIBUTION ........................ 10 E. IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ............................... 11 APPENDIX B - BUS TRIP INFORMATION F. TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS ........................... 11 APPENDIX C - ADJACENT METROLINK STATION PARKING OBSERVATIONS III. Improvement Geometries ............................................ 31 A. SAN FERNANDO ROAD/RAILROAD AVENUE SIO 4TH STREET LAYOUT ... 31 ' B. SAN FERNANDO ROAD/RAILROAD AVENUE/11TH STREET LAYOUT ...... 32 C. SAN FERNANDO ROAD/MARKET STREET STRIPING MODIFICATIONS ..... 32 D. LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION ................................... 32 IV. Intersection Level of: Service Analysis Without Metrolink Station ................... 33 ' APPENDIX E - PROPOSED INTERSECTION LAYOUTS FOR INTERIM (Scenario 2) CONDITIONS PROPOSED TRANSIT STATION LAYOUT ' APPENDIX F - LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS APPENDIX G - DECEMBER 12, 1996 PARKING SURVEY V. Level -of -Service With Metrolink Station and Determination of Significant Impacts ........ 35 VI. On -Street Parking Analysis A. EXISTING ON -STREET PARKING UTILIZATION .................... 39 ' B. PARKING OBSERVATIONS AT NEARBY METROLINK AND PARK AND RIDE FACILITIES ............................. 42 C. PARKING CONDITION WITHOUT STATION ...................... 43 ' D. PARKING CONDITIONS WITH PARK AND RIDE ................... 44 E. PARKING CONDITIONS WITH METROLINK ...................... 45 APPENDIX A - TRAFFIC COUNTS APPENDIX B - BUS TRIP INFORMATION APPENDIX C - ADJACENT METROLINK STATION PARKING OBSERVATIONS CALTRANS PARK AND RIDE PARKING LOT OBSERVATIONS APPENDIX D - TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT CALCULATIONS ' APPENDIX E - PROPOSED INTERSECTION LAYOUTS FOR INTERIM (Scenario 2) CONDITIONS PROPOSED TRANSIT STATION LAYOUT ' APPENDIX F - LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS APPENDIX G - DECEMBER 12, 1996 PARKING SURVEY I 1 1 1 n u 1J Executive Summary TRAFFIC AND PARKING IMPACT ANALYSIS Proposed Railroad Avenue Improvement Project With/Without Proposed Newhall Metrolink Station Santa Clarita, California A traffic study was conducted to analyze the impacts of the Railroad Avenue Improvement Project as well as the proposed Newhall Metrolink Station. The study found that all study intersections currently operate at an acceptable levet-of-service during peak periods. With the improvement of Railroad Avenue providing one lane in each direction, parking and a two-way left -tum lane, some traffic from San Fernando Road diverts to Railroad Avenue. The level -of -service on San Fernando Road improves over existing conditions as traffic volumes decrease. The widening of Railroad Avenue would not affect the feasibility of the proposed Lyons Avenue extension. A future year (1998) was studied to determine the impact of reducing San Fernando Road to one lane in each direction (Scenario 3). With proper intersection design at the San Fernando Road/Railroad Avenue south of 4th Street and San Fernando Road/Railroad Avenue/11th Street intersections, traffic flows would redistribute between San Fernando Road and Railroad Avenue and all intersections will operate at an acceptable level -of -service. This configuration would be adequate to handle projected traffic volumes until the year 2004 when additional lanes would be needed on either Railroad Avenue or San Fernando Road to handle traffic growth. Traffic volumes from the Year 2006 were analyzed on a roadway network in which San Fernando Road was a two-lane roadway and Railroad Avenue would become the major 4 -lane north -south street and a truck route in the project area. Railroad Avenue would be a four -lane roadway and the intersections of San Fernando Road/Railroad Avenue near 4th Street and 11th Street would be redesigned to provide for heavy San Fernando Road to Railroad Avenue movements. All intersections under this scenario would operate at acceptable levels -of -service. Construction of the Metrolink Station and its parking lots will require curb and gutter on the east side of Railroad Avenue and both sides of Market Street to adequately, separate the station parking lots from street traffic. The transit buses would be using curbside bus stops along Railroad Avenue, as is being proposed in the latest Metrolink Station conceptual drawings. Even without reconstruction of Railroad ' Avenue (Scenario 1), roadway widening would be required along the station frontage to provide the adequate roadway width. I I Acquisition of property by the City on the east side of Railroad Avenue south of Market Street provides an opportunity to realign Railroad Avenue at 6th Street. Currently Railroad Avenue traffic must negotiate a right-angle jog at 6th Street. Realigning Railroad Avenue to provide a smoother transition will make the station more accessible to buses. In addition, Market Street would need to be improved at the railroad crossing to handle station -generated traffic and pedestrian movements. The Railroad Avenue project (Scenario 2) provides all of the necessary roadway facilities for adequate Metrolink Station access. Traffic attracted to the transit station along Railroad Avenue at Market Street might impact intersections along San Fernando Road: However, in no case would the impacted intersections have a level -of -service worse than LOS D. Since the intersection layouts for each of the I� Scenarios were created to handle Metrolink -generated traffic up to LOS D, the term "significantly impacted" is theoretical.' An alternative description would be that these intersections would have adequate capacity to handle Metrolink traffic, but if the Metrolink Station is not built, these intersections ' would have excess capacity. The Railroad Avenue project under design will not result in the loss of legal parking spaces, although the ultimate 4 -lane configuration of Railroad Avenue would require prohibition of parking on the east ' side. This decrease of 120 spaces could be alleviated by the implementation of the Downtown Newhall Improvement Program. , The latest site plan for the Newhall Metrolink Station proposes 208 off-street parking spaces. Excess demand for station parking could be accommodated by on -street parking.along Pine Street, and along both sides of Railroad Avenue as currently designed. With the ultimate 4 -lane configuration of Railroad Avenue, 120 on -street parking spaces along the east side of Railroad Avenue would be removed, and demand for parking within walking distance of the Railroad Avenue/Market Street intersection could exceed supply. This situation could be alleviated either by the construction of additional off-street ' parking los to the east of the proposed station, or by the implementation of the Downtown Newhall Improvement Program. 2 i 1 r LJ L] P, n Ll I I L TRAFFIC AND PARKING IMPACT ANALYSIS Proposed Railroad Avenue Improvement Project With/Without Proposed Newhall Metrolink Station Santa Clarita, California I. Introduction The City of Santa Clarita, California is exploring options to modify the traffic flow along the San Fernando Road (SR126) corridor between 4th Street and 11th Street. The improvement of Railroad Avenue is the first step in implementing the revitalization of the Newhall Downtown Core. On June 11, 1996, the City of Santa Clarita approved in concept the Newhall Improvement Plan which addresses modifications.to Railroad Avenue. The City of Santa Clarita is also considering the construction and operation of a Metrolink Station in the Newhall downtown core. The preferred station location will be along the east side of Railroad Avenue at Market Street. Construction of a Metrolink Station along Railroad Avenue will require some improvement to Railroad Avenue. At a minimum the roadway must be improved with curb and gutter along the east side of the roadway, construction of driveways to serve the Metrolink parking lots and geometry modifications to accommodate btu service to the station. ' Figure 1 shows the location of the project. This study looks at a street system bounded by 11th Street to the north, 4th Street to the south, San I 11 11 9 Fernando Road to the west and Pine Street to the east. Figure 2 shows a schematic plan of the proposed Railroad Avenue street improvements and the preferred Newhall Metrolink Station location. This study closely examines traffic impacts at the following intersections: • San Fernando Road/4th Street • San Fernando Road/Newhall Avenue • San Fernando Road/Market Street • San Fernando Road/Lyons Avenue • San Fernando Road/11th Street • Railroad Avenue/Market Street • Railroad Avenue/Lyons Avenue • Pine Street/Market Street A traffic signal warrant analysis is provided for San Fernando Road at the prolongation of Railroad Avenue south of 4th Street and the Railroad Avenue intersections with Market Street, Lyons Avenue and 11th Street. The traffic signal warrant analysis was performed for Scenario 2 which is described below. A TRAFFIX traffic analysis model has been set up for this study. The TRAFFIX model was used to determine intersection level -of -service for the following scenarios: Katz, Olatsu & Associates _ j Q <1 �0 J♦SE �?o NEWDR HALL �� *1 cc sr 1 s-. 6 • J'.e � aRiuYAM ra, �� � PROJECT SITE a 2 �6, r� ,rte : ♦�+ 1,� � '' � �v, �' k�,,,f,l�f b, y % AY `. I S s 3 a �• 4 F"JA= U a Ic, ( M ♦ \ t ►IAt OR 4 MY ULT DR s ." � � Ct .�•' � sl r� St � 9 ao % ��Et i�♦d� p e Matra �ti N F�� a���Q .� tiq ` MI 'c4` p/ ? ST 23200sz r figure 1- Location Map M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Railroad Avenue Study Existing Existing R/W R�W 24' 12' 16' 8' Parkin 12' 12' 12' 11' 13' 0 I 11' MTA License Agreement Interim (Scenarios 2 & 3) I Ultimate (scenario 4) Figure 2 Typical Sections Railroad Avenue m t. 1 1996 Existing Geometry (4 lanes) Existing Geometry (2 lanes) 2 1996 Existing Geometry (4 lanes) Improved (2 lanes plus TWLTL) 3 1998 Modified Geometry (2 lanes plus TWLTL) Improved (2 lanes plus TWLTL) 4 2006 Modified Geometry (2 lanes plus TWLTL) Improved (4 lanes plus TWLTL) TWLTL = Two-way left -tum lane Scenarios 2, 3 and 4 include the closure of 5th Street at Railroad Avenue. The study incrementally analyzes the impact of annual traffic growth on Scenario 3 above to determine the future year at which point the critical study intersection reaches level -of -service (LOS) E. The study briefly discusses the geometric requirements of a proposed "Lyons Avenue Flyover" in which Lyons Avenue is extended to the east over the railroad right-of-way. The impact of this flyover is qualitatively discussed in this report. Finally, a parking availability and utilization study along both San Fernando Road and Railroad Avenue between 4th Street and 11th Street was conducted and summarized. The results of this study are provided in the report. A. AREA DESCRIPTION The project area is in the Newhall community within the City of Santa Clarita. San Fernando Road (SR126) is a four -lane state highway running north -south through Newhall. San Fernando Road connects the communities of Newhall, Valencia and Saugus with the Antelope Valley Freeway (SR14). Between 4th .Street and 11th Street, the land use along San Fernando Road is commercial/retail. The City of Santa Clarita is studying a plan to reduce the number of lanes along this segment to two lanes making the area more pedestrian friendly and more conducive to a downtown commercial area. Railroad Avenue is currently a 2 -lane roadway which runs just east of San Fernando Road and just west of the MTA railroad tracks which are used by Metrolink and Union Pacific Railroad. Several service type businesses, primarily auto repair shops, are located along the west side of the street. The properties along the east side of Railroad Avenue include a lot used for storage and a nursery. Vehicles park along the east side of the street facing perpendicular away from the roadway centerline. The east side of the street does not have curbs and gutters. Parallel parking is provided along the west side of the street where there are curbs and gutters. Newhall Avenue is a two-lane north -south local collector road which connects San Fernando Road with Lyons Avenue to the north and then nuns parallel to San Fernando Road. 4th Street is a two-lane local street which connects San Fernando Road and Railroad Avenue within the Study Area. Fourth Street terminates at San Fernando Road to the west. I [1 1 Cl 1 U L I L 1 I 15th Street is a two-lane local street which connects San Fernando Road and Railroad Avenue within the Study Area. Fifth Street terminates at Newhall Avenue to the west. t6th Strees is a two-lane local street which connects San Fernando Road and Railroad Avenue within the Study Area. Sixth Street terminates at Newhall Avenue to the west. ' Market Street is a two-lane, local street which connects San Fernando Road and Railroad Avenue within the Study Area. Market Street terminates west of Newhall Avenue. Market Street is the only street which crosses the railroad right-of-way within the Study Area. The railroad crossing is gated and has ' one lane in each direction. 8th Street is a two-lane local street which connects San Fernando Road and Railroad Avenue within the ' Study Area. Eighth Street terminates west of Newhall Avenue. 9th Street is a two-lane local street which connects San Fernando Road and Railroad Avenue within the Study Area. Ninth Street terminates just west of Newhall Avenue. Lyons Avenue is a two-lane local street between San Fernando Road and Railroad Avenue within the study area. Lyons Avenue is a four -lane arterial highway west of San Fernando Road and provides a direct route to Interstate 5 to the west. ' Hart Park Entrance is located on the west side of San Fernando Road across from 4th Street. Pine Street is a 40 -foot local roadway just east of the railroad right-of-way providing access to the residential area located there. Pine Street terminates at Market Street on the north and continues south of San Fernando Road. ' B. PROJECT SCENARIO DESCRIPTION At the request of the City of Santa Clarita, the following project scenarios were studied. ' Scenario 1 (With and Without a Metrolink Station) ' Scenario 1 assumes that the lane configurations on Railroad Avenue and San Fernando Road remain the same as the existing condition. Existing (1996) traffic volumes were used in the analysis of this scenario. ,Scenario 2 (With and Without a Metrolink Station) ' Scenario 2 assumes that Railroad Avenue is improved and becomes a two-lane upgraded roadway with a two-way left -tum lane and parking on both sides of the street. Existing (1996) traffic volumes were used in the analysis of this scenario. A cross-section of this scenario is shown on Figure 2, with ' proposed lane dimensions labeled "Interim." I Scenario 3 assumes that Railroad Avenue is improved and becomes a two-lane upgraded roadway with ' a two-way left -tum lane in the median and parking on both sides of the street. In addition, San. Fernando Road is reduced to two lanes (one lane in each direction) between Newhall Avenue and Lyons ' Avenue. Future (1998) traffic volumes were used in the analysis of this scenario. The lane widths for this scenario correspond to those labeled "Interim" in Figure 2. Scenario 4 assumes that Railroad Avenue is improved and becomes a four -lane upgraded roadway. The , intersections of Railroad Avenue with San Fernando Road south of 4th Street and at 11th Street are modified to make the Railroad Avenue to San Fernando Road the major movement. In addition, San Fernando Road is reduced to two lanes (one lane in each direction) between Newhall Avenue and Lyons Avenue. Future (2006) traffic volumes were used in the analysis of this scenario. The lane widths for this scenario correspond to those labeled "Ultimate" in Figure 2. I 1 I 1 E3 I 1 H. Traffic Data Collection and Analysis Methodology 1 A. TRAFFIC VOLUME DATA COLLECTION SUMMARY 1 Katz, Okitsu & Associates obtained two-hour AM and PM turning movement counts at the following intersections: • San Fernando Road/4th Street 1a San Fernando Road/Newhall Avenue/5th Street Northbound San Fernando Road south of 4th Street • San Fernando Road/Market Street • • San Fernando Road/Lyons Avenue 1 San Fernando Road/I lth Street Eastbound Hart Park Driveway west of San Fernando Road • Railroad Avenue/Market Street •. Pine Street/Market Street 1 . The AM period was counted from 6:30 AM to 8:30 AM. The PM period was counted from 4:30 to 6:30 PM. 1 Katz, Okitsu & Associates also obtained 24-hour volume counts on the following street segments: 1 Traffic count data sheets are provided in Appendix A. B. FORECAST TRAFFIC VOLUMES The study looked at traffic conditions for Scenario 3 using forecast traffic volumes for the year 1998. The study also analyzes traffic volumes for Scenario 4 using forecast traffic volumes for the year 2006. 1 Based on discussions with City of Santa Clarita staff, it was determined that an annual growth rate of 2% be applied to existing volumes in order to develop future traffic volumes. 1 C. TRIP DIVERSION METHODOLOGY In developing traffic volumes for Scenario 2, approximately 20 % of the southbound San Fernando Road 1 through trips were diverted from San Fernando Road to Railroad Avenue. A slightly higher percentage I 1 Northbound San Fernando Road south of 4th Street 1 • Southbound San Fernando Road north of 4th Street • Eastbound Hart Park Driveway west of San Fernando Road Westbound 4th Street east of San Fernando Road 1 • Northbound San Fernando Road south of Lyons Avenue • Southbound San Fernando Road north of Lyons Avenue 1 • Eastbound Lyons Avenue west of San Fernando Road Westbound Lyons Avenue east of San Fernando Road • Northbound Railroad Avenue south of Market Street Southbound Railroad Avenue north of Market Street 1 • Eastbound Market Street west of Railroad Avenue • Westbound Market Street east of Railroad Avenue 1 Traffic count data sheets are provided in Appendix A. B. FORECAST TRAFFIC VOLUMES The study looked at traffic conditions for Scenario 3 using forecast traffic volumes for the year 1998. The study also analyzes traffic volumes for Scenario 4 using forecast traffic volumes for the year 2006. 1 Based on discussions with City of Santa Clarita staff, it was determined that an annual growth rate of 2% be applied to existing volumes in order to develop future traffic volumes. 1 C. TRIP DIVERSION METHODOLOGY In developing traffic volumes for Scenario 2, approximately 20 % of the southbound San Fernando Road 1 through trips were diverted from San Fernando Road to Railroad Avenue. A slightly higher percentage I 1 of northbound San Fernando Road through trips, 35%, were diverted from San Fernando Road to Railroad Avenue in the interim condition. The northbound right -turn movements to Railroad Avenue are easier to make than the required left -turn movements for southbound traffic from San Fernando Road to Railroad Avenue. In developing traffic volumes for Scenario 3, north -south trips through the project area were split to place 50% on Railroad Avenue and 50% on San Fernando Road. Both Railroad "Avenue and San Fernando Road are two-lane roadways in this alternative. Trips were then redistributed from this first iteration to maintain existing turning movement volumes onto Newhall Avenue and Lyons Avenue along San Fernando Road. Scenario 4 traffic volumes. were developed assuming that the Railroad Avenue intersections with San Fernando Road at 11th Street and 4th Street would be redesigned to make the movement to Railroad Avenue from both directions the easiest movement to make. In addition, it is assumed that San Fernando Road between 4th Street and l lth Street will be reduced from two lanes to one lane in each direction. The trip distribution for Scenario 4 is based on an 80% diversion in San Fernando Road north -south through trips to Railroad Avenue. Again, trips were redistributed from this first iteration to maintain existing turning movement volumes onto Newhall Avenue and Lyons Avenue. D. METROLINK STATION TRIP DISTRIBUTION The proposed Metrolink Station is not expected to provide the full range of.express bus and van pool commuter services provided at the existing Santa Clarita Station. However, this study assumes a limited amount of freeway express buses and vanpools will serve the proposed Newhall Station. Based on observations of the park and ride lots to the south on San Fernando Road and their proximity to the Antelope Valley Freeway, it was assumed that 50 park and ride vehicles would park at the new station and that 15 vehicles would pick up these riders for a total of 65 trips. The buses and van pools also exit the site to continue on to their destination. One-half of these trips would occur during the peak hour in the AM and PM. The buses and van pools would leave the station to the south during the AM and return from the south during the PM. Trip distribution is based on the same methodology described below for Metrolink patron trips. Bus trips were calculated based on existing bus tables and are provided for review in Appendix B: Vanpool, park-and-ride and Metrolink patron trips were distributed as 65% from the north via San Fernando Road, 20 % from the west via Lyons Avenue and Market Street, 5 % from the south via San Fernando Road, and 5 % from the east via Market Street. All trips will be into the station during the AM peak period and all trips will be from the station during the PM peak period. It is assumed that the peak period is two hours so one-half of the total trips will arrive at the station during the AM and PM peak hours. This trip distribution was used for all new trips to the Newhall site. This study realizes that Metrolink Station usage is dependent on parking space availability and other transit options. However, this study will use the parking demand for the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station as a basis for Newhall Station demand (see Appendix Q and assume that 104 cars, 33 % of the existing demand at the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station, will divert from the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station to the Newhall Metrolink Station. The study also assumes that 50 new trips will be attracted to the site lug 1 1 I C I I I 1 1 I I 1 �L] I 1 I F, I r I I F I I I I during the AM peak periods and will leave the site during the PM peak period. The total number of Metrolink tripsis 154 pei peak period and it is assumed half will occur during the peak hour. No credits are given for reduced trips due to a diversion of automobile trips to transit trips. Figures 3 through 8 are provided at the end of this chapter and show the trip distribution diagrams for park and ride, bus and Metrolink patron trips. The trip distribution is based on the Scenario 1 lane geometries. San Fernando Road trips from the north access the station by turning left on Lyons Avenue and then right on Railroad Avenue. Trips leaving the station to proceed north on San Fernando Road first turn left from Railroad Avenue to Lyons Avenue and then right onto San Fernando Road. The trips are redistributed in Scenarios 2, 3 and 4 to utilize the new San Fernando Road/Railroad Avenue/i lth Street intersection. A similar trip redistribution occurs at the San Fernando Road/Railroad Avenue intersection south of 4th Street for Scenarios 2, 3 and 4. Future transit station trips were factored by the 2% annual growth rate discussed above. Scenario 2 used 1996 station trips developed with the above methodology. Scenario 3 factors up the 1996 transit station trips by a factor of 1.04 (2% per year compounded for two years). Scenario 4 factors up the 1996 transit station trips by a factor of 1.22 (2% per year compounded for 10 years). E. IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Existing traffic volumes on San Fernando Road and Railroad Avenue were used as the basis for this study. Volume/capacity ratios and levels of service at signalized intersections were calculated using Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. Following the City of Santa Clarita guidelines for traffic analysis, the volume/capacity ratios were adjusted so that no critical movement had a level of saturation less than 0.05. Impacts are considered significant based on the following criteria: 0.00 to 0.79 0.80 to 0.89 0.90 or more Equal to or greater than 0.04 Equal to or greater than 0.02 Equal to or greater than 0.01 Unsignalized intersections were analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual Operation Method. Criteria used to establish significant impact was a worsening of level -of -service to LOS F. Traffic lane configurations and volumes for all scenarios for the AM and PM peak periods are shown in Figures 9 through 20 at the end of this chapter. F. TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS A traffic signal warrant analysis was performed for Scenario 2 for the Railroad Avenue study intersections. The traffic signal warrant calculation sheets are provided in Appendix D of this report. The results of the signal warrant analysis are provided in Table I below. 11 Table 1 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Scenario 2 Intersection Traffic Signal Warranted? San Fernando Road/Railroad Avenue S/0 4th Street YES Railroad Avenue/Market Street NO** Railroad Avenue/Lyons Avenue NO San Fernando Road/Railroad Avenue/117Street YES **Traffic signal is recommended at this tmersecnon aue ro me proximity or the rauroaa crossing to me east. Based on the result of the traffic signal warrant analysis using Scenario 2 traffic, traffic signals were assumed for the following intersections in Scenarios 2, 3, and 4: • San Fernando Road/Railroad Avenue SIO 4th Street • Railroad Avenue/Market Street • San Fernando Road/Railroad Avenue/llth Street 12 I I i I I I 1 I I I i I I I I 1 Last Revised. January 31, 1997 Figure 3 Park and Ride Vehicle Trip Distribution AM Peak Hour Volumes (Year 1996) Railroad Avenue study Katz, Okitsu & Associates Scenario 1 TWfIC analysis Last Revised: January 91, 1997 Figure 4 Park and Ride Vehicle Trip Distribution Railroad Avenue study PM Peak Hour Volumes (Year 1996) navenueffic Sttud Katz, Okitsu & Associates Scenario 1 Last Revised: January 31, 1997 Figure 5 Bus Trip Distribution Railroad Avenue Study AM Peak Hour (6:30AM - 7:30 AM) Volumes (Year 1996) Trafik Analysis Katz, Okitsu & Associates Scenario 1 Leat Revladd: Jsnuuy 31.1997 Figure 6 Bus Trip Distribution Railroad Avenue Study PM Peak Hour (5:00 PM -6:00 PM) Volumes (Year 1996) 7YaJficAnarys6 Katz, Okitsu & Associates Scenario 1 i I I 1 1 0 C I I I I I J I Llsf ReWse0: Jenueryal, 1007 Figure 7 Metrolink Patron Trip Distribution Railroad Avenue Study AM Peak Hour Volumes (Year 1996) TAvenueraffic fStud y Katz, Okitsu & Associates Scenario 1 Last Revlseet: Jen9ery37, 1997 Figure B Bus Trip Distribution PM Peak Hour Volumes (Year 1996) Railroad Avenue Study Traffic Analysts Katz, Okitsu &Associates Scenario 1 I L+! I I I A 11 i I Y 11 I I I I I Lest ReOsed, Jewery 91, 1997 Figure 9 Lane Configuration Scenario 1 - Existing Conditions Railroad Avenue Study 7Mffu Analyals Katz, Olutsu &Associates Ile w O'IN a oo�a1 v°o s ooy A0t6 b'� Se' F�anao Last Revised: January3l, 1997 Figure 10 Scenario 1 Without Metrolink Station AM/ PM Peak Hour Volumes (Year 1996) RailroadStudy TAvenue a ir Katz, Okitsu & Associates Lesf Revfaed. JW"IY31, 1997 Figure 11 Scenario 1 With Metrolink Station AM/ PM Peak Hour Volumes (Year 1996) Railroad Avenue Study Katz, Okitsu & Associates Trajjie Analysis Last ReMea: January 01, 1907 Figure 12 Lane Configuration Scenario 2 Existing San Fernando Road, Improved 2-Lane Railroad Avenue Railroad Avenue Study Katz, Okitsu & Associates DgpAnalys s w, \ qNoiL �� 60 6 i.nrrewa,jmwysr, 1997 Figure 13 KZ Scenario 2 Without Metrolink Station AM / PM Peak Hour Volumes (Year 1996) Railroad Avenue Study icer:, Okitsu & Associates Tuff-Anatyttr ,4 0 'jr,-6 tlg 11 NO -1 Lost ROWS*&i ouery 01.1997 Figure 14 Scenario 2 With Metrolink Station AM / PM Peak Hour Volumes (Year 1996) Railroad Avenue Study Katz, Okitsu & Associates TraB a Analysis 58166¢ a� g 9} s ss �Otp2'� o s 551 �..2�1231�0 °, ��.► +� � ops . ,4 0 'jr,-6 tlg 11 NO -1 Lost ROWS*&i ouery 01.1997 Figure 14 Scenario 2 With Metrolink Station AM / PM Peak Hour Volumes (Year 1996) Railroad Avenue Study Katz, Okitsu & Associates TraB a Analysis nV0• � 4 .• �tA�O a n6e� Na �o 7 p f �a o r �/ 2a SAN �m o. �► `� IA 0 10s1 ROWa9C Afiuwy2f, 1097 Figure 15 Lane Configuration Scenario 3 Railroad Avenue Stud 2-Lane San Fernando Road, Improved 2-Lane Railroad Avenue Y Katz7kitsu &Associates 7rallicAndysts R. 6 ly1 rases as ��g1`� r�csa� ro 191y3�/ ss"i 19 .T ws"sr eo g3 9 I �ril0061g9 �/ 11yi • ' o a+ plp a o `�e °ay gyn a` s r4 'yia�/ 0d 5aee oss\ �p10, �1 t0 ,, �9 0 os � I� 8/F/S m 2i 6� .rt m a9�e d�9r'0 � �8' do t ROav Lest Radsa& January 31. 1997 Figure 16 Scenario 3 Without Metrolink Station y d Avenue Railroad Stud AM / PM Peak Hour Volumes (Year 1998) h�fudnStud Katz, Okitsu & Associates R. gjib. 1 `'� o X1616 24>o a1�1. •�. � rt � -", io 916. �,. ' i 'mss 637 Not Last RWWUd: JRnuwy jI. 1007 Figure 17 Scenario 3 With Metrolink Station u"U AM / PM Peak Hour Volumes (Year 1998) Railroad Avenue study Katz, Okitsu & Associates Mfflc Analysis P� a� Sieg\ CL \� 1 a$ 'Poa o' Y g ao �c o� so. P7 a� ena'a . 0 Leaf Ravfaec: Januvy31.199) Figure 18 Lane Configuration Scenario 4 2 -Lane San Fernando Road, Improved 4 -Lane Railroad Avenue Railroad Avenue Study Katz, Okitsu &Associates 7�afficAnafysis R, q12� 5'L s000ao o �1a6 j 93t1 l2s1 RwIs9Q JSnwry J1. 1927 Figure 19 KZ Scenario 4 Without Metrolink Station AM ! PM Peak Hour Volumes (Year 2006) Railroad Avenue Study Katz, Okitsu & Associates 7MfficAndysu 9 rT'`P- Ir13CJ66' as't°61ti�� ro /)2623 a�orp 'L r R. 41� X132 r �6 r-� p oL 5a�368 rte, Last WNsad Jan0ary31. 1007 Figure 20 Scenario 4 With Metrolink Station AM/ PM Peak Hour Volumes (Year 2006) Railroad Avenue Study Katz, Okitsu & Associates 7}gO7cAnatysis I ■ III. Improvement Geometries Construction of the Metrolink Station and its parking lots will require curb and gutter on the east side of Railroad Avenue and both sides of Market.Street to adequately separate the station parking lots from street traffic. The transit buses would be using curbside bus stops along Railroad Avenue, as is being proposed in the latest Metrolink Station conceptual drawings. Even without reconstruction of Railroad Avenue (Scenario 1), roadway widening would be required along the station frontage to provide the adequate roadway width. Acquisition of property by the City on the east side of Railroad Avenue south of Market Street provides an opportunity to realign Railroad Avenue at 6th Street. Currently Railroad Avenue traffic must negotiate a right-angle jog at 6th Street. Realigning Railroad Avenue to provide a smoother transition will make the station more accessible to buses. Appendix E contains layouts of the interim (Scenario 2) intersection geometries for the San Fernando Road/Railroad Avenue south of 4th Street and San Fernando Road/Railroad Avenue/11th Street intersections. Appendix E also shows a preliminary site plan for the proposed Newhall Metrolink Station. A. SAN FERNANDO ROAD/RAILROAD AVENUE SOUTH OF 47H STREET LAYOUT . Existing Condition (Scenario 1) Fourth Street currently intersects San Fernando Road and forts a T -intersection. The intersection is STOP -sign controlled from the east. The William S. Hart Park driveway is located just across the intersection to the west and is also STOP sign controlled. Fourth Street provides a right -tum lane and a shared through -and -left tum lane separated by an island. Interim Condition (Scenarios 2 and 3) Scenarios 2 and 3 would have an interim configuration extending Railroad Avenue southward parallel to the railroad tracks until the roadway intersects San Fernando Road. The existing San Fernando Road/4th Street intersection would remain to provide access to the triangular parcel of land bounded by San Fernando Road, Railroad Avenue and 4th Street. The Railroad -Avenue extension will be configured to provide for one northbound lane and two southbound lanes with an exclusive right -tum lane for the northbound San Fernando Road to Railroad Avenue. Railroad Avenue will be designated a truck route. The new San Fernando Road/Railroad Avenue intersection would be signalized and would be located less than 40 feet from the intersection of the railroad tracks with the San Fernando Road centerline. The traffic signal and train signals would operate using standard railroad preemption. Ultimate Condition (Scenario 4) The ultimate configuration is similar to the interim condition (Scenarios 2 and 3) except that Railroad Avenue would be striped to provide for two lanes in each direction. Railroad Avenue will be designated 31 I 11 I a truck route. The northbound San Fernando Road approach to Railroad Avenue would provide for , one through lane, a through and right -turn lane and an exclusive tight -tum lane. B. SAN FERNANDO ROAD/RAILROAD AVENUEIIITH STREET LAYOUT Existing Condition (Scenario I) Railroad Avenue does not currently intersect San Fernando Road at 11th Street. Railroad Avenue ' terminates in a cul-de-sac just north of Lyons Avenue. Interim Condition (Scenarios 2 and 3) Railroad Avenue would be extended north to intersect San Fernando Road north of Lyons Avenue. Railroad Avenue would be widened to provide for a 68 -foot roadway with one lane in each direction The San Fernando Road/Railroad Avenue/11th Street intersection would be signalized and provide a southbound left -tum pocket. The northbound movement from Railroad Avenue to San Fernando Road would be a free movement separated from the intersection by an island. The northbound lane from Railroad Avenue is extended north becoming the exclusive northbound right -turn lane at the San Fernando Road/13th Street intersection. Ultimate Condition (Scenario 4) The ultimate condition restripes San Fernando Road to one -lane in each direction with a two-way left - turn lane south of 11th Street. San Fernando Road striping on the southbound approach to the new intersection would be realigned to make the north leg of San Fernando Road to Railroad Avenue the major movement. Railroad Avenue would be striped to provide two northbound and two southbound lanes with a two-way left -tum pocket. The realigned intersection will be signalized. C. SAN FERNANDO ROAD/MARKET STREET STRIPING MODIFICATIONS Currently Market Street is a 56 -foot roadway at San Fernando Road. Diagonal parking is allowed on the south side of Market Street east of San Fernando Road and on the north side of Market Street west of San Fernando Road. Because of the striping of an eastbound left -tum pocket at the Railroad Avenue/Market Street intersection, the east -west through lanes are moved away from the centerline. Due to the close proximity of San Fernando Road to Railroad Avenue, a preferred striping layout would remove all diagonal parking on Market Street east and west of San Fernando Road to provide proper lane striping transitions. D. LYONS AVENUE EXTENSION The extension of Lyons Avenue east of San Fernando Road is one of the future planned roadways on , the City's General Plan. Extension of Lyons Avenue would increase east -west traffic volumes through the study area. This study has determined that the widening of Railroad Avenue is not the constraining parameter in the design. The vertical clearance required over the Metrolink tracks will be the design constraint in determining the feasibility of the roadway extension. The Railroad Avenue widening may alter column locations and span length but will not affect the feasibility of the Lyons Avenue Extension. 32 I I IV. -Intersection Level of Service Analysis Without Metrolink Station Table 2 below is a summary of the level -of -service calculations for the project intersections assuming the Newhall Metrolink Station is not in operation. Level -of -service calculations are provided in Appendix F. Table 2 Intersection Level of Service Calculations Without Metrolink Station Railroad Avenue Study Intersection Level of Service Summary Chant NO Metrolink Station The current intersections of San Fernando Road with 4th Street and 11th Street show levels -of -service (LOS) F during certain time periods. This is because these intersections are stop -sign controlled and left -tum movements from the side street onto San Fernando Road is difficult during peak periods. These volumes are currently very low so the LOS F is not significant. Scenario 2 causes some San Fernando Road traffic to divert to Railroad Avenue and level of service improves on San.Femando Road as traffic volumes decrease. Scenario 3 increases traffic over existing conditions by approximately 4%. In addition, traffic volumes would balance themselves between San Fernando Road and Railroad Avenue as each roadway has one lane in each direction. With proper intersection design at the San Fernando Road/Railroad Avenue south of 4th Street and San Fernando Road/Railroad Avenue/l lth Street intersections, traffic flows will balance properly and all intersections will operate at an acceptable level -of -service. Scenario 3 is expected to remain in place until traffic growth forces any of the critical intersections to LOS E. 33 Scenario t Existing SF Road Existing RR Ave 1996 Counts Scenario 2 Existing SF Road -Lane RR Ave 1996 Counts Scenario 3 L SF Road -Lane RR Ave 7998 Traffic Scenario 4 -Lane SF Road -Lana RR Ave 006 Traffic AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM San Fernando Road/4th StreetC F San Fernando Road/Ralimad Ave SIO 4th Street 0.561 A 0.527 A 0.580 A 0.613 B 0.799 C 0.6638 San Fernando RoadMewhall Avenue 0.805 D 0.859 D 0.725 C 0.823 D 0.646 B 0.749 C 0.664 B 0.839 D San Fernando RoadiMarket Street 0.706 C 0.822 D 0.499 A 0.550 A 0.462 A 0.451 A 0.435 A 0.319A San Fernando Road/Lyons Avenue 6.732 C 0.660 B 0.644 B 0.673 8 0.582 A 0.551 A 0.6148 0.586 A San Fernando Road/11th Streer/Railmad Ave F F 0.584 A 0.583 A 0.795 C 0.709 C 0.771 C 0.8040 Railroad AVenueA ons Avenue A A C A B B C E Railroad Avenue/Market Street A A 0.577 A 0.629 B 0.805 D 0.812 D 0.639 B 0.711 C Market Street/Pine Avenue A A A A A A A I A The current intersections of San Fernando Road with 4th Street and 11th Street show levels -of -service (LOS) F during certain time periods. This is because these intersections are stop -sign controlled and left -tum movements from the side street onto San Fernando Road is difficult during peak periods. These volumes are currently very low so the LOS F is not significant. Scenario 2 causes some San Fernando Road traffic to divert to Railroad Avenue and level of service improves on San.Femando Road as traffic volumes decrease. Scenario 3 increases traffic over existing conditions by approximately 4%. In addition, traffic volumes would balance themselves between San Fernando Road and Railroad Avenue as each roadway has one lane in each direction. With proper intersection design at the San Fernando Road/Railroad Avenue south of 4th Street and San Fernando Road/Railroad Avenue/l lth Street intersections, traffic flows will balance properly and all intersections will operate at an acceptable level -of -service. Scenario 3 is expected to remain in place until traffic growth forces any of the critical intersections to LOS E. 33 Scenario 3 provides the least number of north -south through lanes of any alternative. At the request of the City of Santa Clarita, an incremental analysis of traffic growth impacts to Scenario 3 was performed to determine the future year at which point the critical study intersections reach level of service (LOS) E. The Scenario 3 level -of -service is highest for the Railroad Avenue/Market Street intersection for AM peak hour (0.812 LOS D). The level -of -service was incrementally increased by 2% per year to determine when the level -of -service reaches LOS E or 0.900. Based on this calculation, all study intersections should operate at acceptable levels -of -service (LOS D or better) until the Year 2004. Scenario 4 looks at traffic volumes ten years from now which for purposes of this study are assumes to be 21.9% (2% annual growth compounded over 10 years) above existing volumes. All intersections continue to operate at acceptable levels although the San Fernando Road/Railroad Avenue/11th Street intersection approaches LOS E. All study intersections operate at acceptable levels of service for each of the scenarios studied. I I LJ I [1 1 I 34 1 I V: -.Level-of-Service With Metrolink Station and i Determination of Significant Impacts 1 Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5 below are summaries of the level -of -service calculations for the project intersections with and without the Newhall Metrolink Station. A column is added in each table telling whether Metrolink Station traffic causes a significant impact. Table 3 Intersection Level of Service Calculations for Scenario 1 Determination of Metrolink Station Impacts Railroad Avenue Study Determination of Metrolink Station impacts Under Scenario 1 w Scenario I IlkK AV '4 h Y�iY3'"atR Existing RR Ave4z� Counts . a�a>' :s 'p k ut 1 on Station San Fernando Road[14th Street 11111v1111�111111�1111� ©©11111 1 : 1 • 1 :1: • 11111 1 • 1 : • • 11111 San Fernando Road/Market Street1 1. 1 1• 1111 1• 1• 11111 1111M 1 ..1 : 1 1Kim 10100 111111©11111 111111111111 Illill 11111111111 11111 - oom1o.�m oom o MO Under the existing geometric scenario, the left -turn movement from 11th Street onto San Fernando Road is difficult during peak periods. This results in the level -of -service F calculation. The station has no impacts on this intersection, however, since Railroad Avenue does not currently intersect San Fernando Road at 11th Street. The station does have a significant impact on the San Fernando Road/Lyons Avenue intersection during the PM peak period (0.041. increase while 0.040 is considered significant). The impact is the result of vehicles leaving the station to travel northbound on San Fernando Road or westbound on Lyons Avenue. The intersection operates at LOS C, and as a result, no intersection improvements are recommended. It is important to note that the above analysis for Scenario looked at intersection level -of -service based on intersection capacities only. Construction of a Metrolink Station will require the upgrade of Railroad Avenue with the construction of curb and gutter along the east curb. Market Street would need to be improved at the railroad crossing to handle station -generated traffic and pedestrian movements. 35 I Railroad Avenue will also need to be modified to accommodate bus trips serving the station. Bus , requirements include the ability to negotiate Railroad Avenue at 6th Street and 8th Street. Table 4 Intersection Level of Service Calculations for Scenario 2 , Determination of Metrolink Station Impacts Railroad Avenue Study Determination of Metrolink Station Impacts Under Scenario 2 For Scenario 2, the only intersection significantly impacted by Metrolink Station traffic is the San Fernando Road/Railroad Avenue/11th Street intersection. Most Metrolink Station patrons come from the north and turn onto Railroad Avenue at 11th Street. Even with Metrolink Station traffic, the San Fernando Road/Railroad Avenue/11 Street intersection operates at LOS B. Since the intersection is being designed with the intention of eventually handling Metrolink -generated traffic, no additional capacity will be needed at this intersection. 36 I I I I I I I I I E_1 L Table 5 Intersection Level of Service Calculations for Scenario 3 Determination of Metrolink Station Impacts I I I I I L1 I Railroad Avenue Study Determination of Metrolink Station Impacts Under Scenario 3 For Scenario 3, the only intersection significantly impacted by Metrolink Station traffic is the San Fernando Road/Railroad Avenue/l lth Street intersection. Most Metrolink Station patrons come from the north and tum onto Railroad Avenue at 11th Street. Even with Metrolink Station traffic, the San Fernando Road/Railroad Avenue/11 Street intersection operates at LOS D. Since the intersection is being designed to eventually handle Metrolink -generated traffic, no additional capacity is needed at this intersection. 37 t Table 6 Intersection Level of Service Calculations for Scenario 4 Determination of Metrolink Station Impacts i Railroad Avenue Study Determination of Metrolink Station Impacts Under Scenario 4 I 11 17 Scenario 4 has a widened 4 -lane Railroad Avenue roadway. The movements from San Fernando Road , to and from Railroad Avenue are the major movements and the roadway and signal timing and phasing are to be designed accordingly. As background traffic increases at 2 % per year from existing levels, it is assumed that so does Metrolink Station traffic. Metrolink -generated traffic causes no significant impact to Scenario 4. 38 I I F1 r I L, VI. On -Street Parking Analysis A. EXISTING ON -STREET PARKING UTILIZATION On Monday, September 10, 1996, the total number of parking spaces along each of the streets within the study area was counted. The study area included San Fernando Road and Railroad Avenue between 4th Street and 11th Street and the east -west streets north of 4th Street and south of 11th Street between San Fernando Road and Railroad Avenue. Pine Street was included in the parking study area from Market Street to 4th Street. Block lengths were measured and it was assumed that 22 feet would be required per parallel parking space. Driveways were considered in measuring available parking. In instances where cars were parked at an angle, parking availability was based on theoretical parallel curb parking; therefore, in some instances utilization rates exceeded 100%. Between 11:30 AM and 12:30 PM, a total of 489 on -street parking spaces are observed within the project limits. A total of 255 parked cars was observed during the observation period. The observed cars included cars parking at an angle along the railroad right-of-way. The results of this September 10, 1996 survey are provided in Table 7. The table denotes instances where cars were parked at an angle to the curb. A second 10 -hour parking survey was performed on December 12, 1996. The peak parking period on December 12, 1996 was between I IAM and IPM, consistent with the earlier survey. During the peak period on December 12, 1996, the total number of parked cars observed ranged between 227 and 237 cars, consistent with the earlier survey. The December 12, 1996 survey summary is provided in Appendix G. 1 Many of the parked cars along Railroad Avenue included cars of employees of the automobile repair and parts stores and vehicles from car dealers. Also, the auto repair shops use the area to store vehicles waiting for service. Five large Ryder Rental trucks were also observed along Railroad Avenue. There was an abundance of available parking along San Fernando Road to serve the commercial interests. One-hour parking restrictions along San Fernando Road prevent longer term parking in front of the commercial business within the study area. I L I I 39 I TABLE 7 - PARKING OBSERVATIONS Street Limits St. Side Available Spaces Spaces Used Utilization % Parking Restriction Adjacent Land Use San Fernando Road Railroad Ave. to 5th Street East 7 0 090 Commercial West 17 0 0% Parr 5th Street to 6th Street East 8 0 0% 1Hr.7A-6P Commercial West 5 1 20% 1Hr.7A-6P Commercial 6th Street to Market Street East 14 5 36% 1Hr.7A-6P Commercial West 15 1 7% IHr.7A-6P commercial Market Street to 8th Street East 13 10 77% 1Hr.7A-6P commercial West 17 8 47% o 1Hr.7A-6P Commercial 8th Street to 9th Street East 10 1 10% 1Hr.7A-6P Commercial West 12 4 33% 1Hr.7A-6P commercial 9th Street to Lyons Avenue East 3 0 NA 1Hr.7A-6P Commercial West 3 0 NA - Commercial Lyons Avenue to 11th Street East 0 0 NA _ Commercial West 3 0 NA - Gas Station 40 I I I I F I I 1 I I LI P I I 11 LI I Street Limits St. Available Spaces Utilization Parking Adjacent Side Spaces Used % Restriction Land Use Railroad San Fernando East 17 6 (90°) 35% - Dirm Avenue Rd. to 5th Street West 9 5 56% - Commercial 5th Street to East 18 5(900) 28% - Din/RR 6th Street West 7 0 0% - Commercial 6th Street to East 18 15(90% 83% Dirr/RR Market Street West 13 6 46% Auto Body Market Street East 19 26(90') 137% Dinaaw- to 8th Street scape Slop West 9 9 100% - Auto Repair 8th Street to East 18 15(907 83% Dirr/RR 9th Street West 4 7 175% Autosody 9th Street to East 17 7(907 41% - Dirdn Lyons Avenue West 10 5 50% - Auto Repair Lyons Avenue East 14 19(907 136% Dirt/RR to 11th Street West 14 10(9(°) 71% - Aum Store 4th Street San Fernando North 4 0 0% - Muttlershop Rd. to Railroad Avenue South 0 0 NA Used Car 5th Street San Fernando North 7 4 57% _ Commercial Rd. to South 3 3 100% - Commercial Railroad Avenue 6th Street San Fernando North 4 2 50% - Commercial Rd. to Railroad Avenue South 3 2 67% _ commercial 41 Street Limits St. Available Spaces Utilization Parking Adjacent Side Spaces Used % Restriction Land Use Market San Fernando North 4 4 100% Commercial Street Rd. to South 9Diag 6 67% Commercial Railroad Avenue 8th Street San Fernando North 7 5 71% Commercial Rd. to South 5 5 100% Commercial Railroad Avenue 9th Street San Fernando North 9 9 100% - Commercial Rd. to South 7 6 86% Commercial Railroad Avenue Lyons San Fernando North 4 4 100% - Commercial Avenue Rd. to South 15 9 60% commercial Railroad Avenue Pine Market Street Fast 15 12 80% - DWRR Street to 6th Street West 20 10 50% - AWrmmm 6th Street to Fast 13 5 38% - Apinnems 5th Street West 17 3 18% Dim 5th Street to East 12 1 8% _ c•erA.nrn� 4th Street West 17 0 0% _ DinlRR Parking along Pine Street within the study area was more than sufficient. Parking was concentrated in front of the apartment building near the Pine Street/Market Street intersection and became less utilized to the south of the apartment building. B. PARKING OBSERVATIONS AT NEARBY METROLINK AND PARK AND RIDE FACILITIES Parking availability and utilization surveys were also performed at adjacent Metrolink Stations and Caltrans Park and Ride Lots. The Metrolink Stations surveyed were the Santa Clarita Station on Soledad Canyon Road and the Via Princessa Station. The three Caltrans Park and Ride Lots surveyed are located just south of the Newhall downtown core along San Fernando Road. Results of these surveys are provided in Appendix C of this report. This data was used to determine current park and ride and Metrolink demand in the area and to assess the adequacy of the current parking facilities. 42 I I I I 11 I u I I I U C. PARKING CONDITION WITHOUT STATION Available parking in the project area included all streets surveyed in the study area. Parking availability by street is summarized in the table below. The table also includes available parking under the two proposed Railroad Avenue lane configurations. TABLE 8 PARKING SPACE AVAILABILITY UNDER RAILROAD f AVENUE IMPROVEMENT SCENARIOS I I I I I I I I d I I I I I The demand shown above assumes no change from existing demand. Under this assumption on - street parking availability should remain sufficient with the interim and ultimate improvements to Railroad Avenue. The interim Railroad Avenue geometry does not result in any loss to parking although vehicles will be forced to parallel park next to the railroad right-of-way rather than angle -park as is currently 43 Available On -Street Parking Spaces Street Existing Condition (Scenario 1) Interim Condition (Scenario 2) Ultimate Condition (Scenario 4) San Fernando Road 127 127 127 Railroad Avenue 187 187 66 4th Street 4 4 4 5th Street 10 10 10 6th Street 7 7 7 Market Street 13 13 13 8th Street 12 12 12 9th Street 16 16 16 Lyons Avenue 19 19 19 Pine Street 94 94 94 TOTAL 489 489 368 DEMAND 255 255 255 UTILIZATION 52% 52% 69% The demand shown above assumes no change from existing demand. Under this assumption on - street parking availability should remain sufficient with the interim and ultimate improvements to Railroad Avenue. The interim Railroad Avenue geometry does not result in any loss to parking although vehicles will be forced to parallel park next to the railroad right-of-way rather than angle -park as is currently 43 a observed. Vehicles being stored or awaiting service at the adjacent auto shops will need to find other parking.' The ultimate Railroad Avenue geometry results in the loss of 121 parking spaces along the east side of Railroad Avenue. However, existing parking demand will still be less than available capacity. The Downtown Newhall Improvement Program, prepared by Freedman, Tong & Bottomley in April i 1996, analyzed potential parking demand with the full build -out of the Downtown Newhall core. That study estimated a potential demand of 750 vehicles, exceeding the current capacity of 680 spaces provided by 250 off-street parking spaces and 430 on -street spaces along San Fernando Road, Railroad Avenue and their cross streets. Pine Street was not included in their capacity calculation. That study recommended that additional parking spaces could be created "if all of the surplus land area currently devoted to outdoor automobile and light industrial -related businesses (and/or sitting vacant) were efficiently developed for parking ... ," which would increase off-street parking from 250 to 1,020 spaces. The Downtown Newhall Improvement Program did not rely on the parking along Railroad Avenue to serve future demand. Instead, conversion of the current auto and light -industrial businesses to parking would serve the future increase in commercial development, which incidentally would decrease demand for parking along Railroad Avenue. Scenario 4 of the Railroad Avenue project results , in a decrease of 120 spaces along the east side of Railroad Avenue, but this decrease would not affect the development of the Downtown Newhall core. D. PARKING CONDITIONS WITH PARK AND RIDE I Operation of.the site for park and ride will increase parking demand in the immediate area. Parking demand will be based on both demand for park and ride spaces and demand for parking by patrons who drive to the station to use the bus services. Based on the traffic methodology discussed in Chapter II, Section D, 33 park and ride spaces are required at the station. The following express buses would serve the site during the AM commuting period (5AM to 9AM): Route 573 - 4 buses Route 795 - 6 buses Route 799 - 5 buses . Route 799 - 9 buses TOTAL - 24 buses For purposes of this study, it is assumed that 3 spaces are required per bus for a total of 72 parking spaces. This station is one of several pick-up/drop off points for express buses along San Fernando Road. It is assumed that local buses do not generate any parking demand. The project site, used as a park-and-ride and bus station, is expected to have a parking demand for 105 vehicles. 44 I I IE. PARKING CONDITIONS WITH METROLINK 1 In addition to the parking demand estimated above, the use of the Newhall Station as a Metrolink Station will generate an additional parking demand of 154. The 154 space parking demand is based on the diversion of 33 % of the Santa Clarita Metrolink Station parking demand to the Newhall Station. Adding the 105 park and ride scenario parking demand, the total additional parking demand is expected to be 259. The latest site plan for the Newhall Metrolink Station proposes 208 off-street parking spaces. Excess demand for station parking could be accommodated by on -street parking along Pine Street, and along both sides of Railroad Avenue under Scenarios 2 and 3. Under Scenario 4, 120 on -street parking spaces along the east side of Railroad Avenue would be removed, and demand for parking within walking distance of the Railroad Avenue/Market Street intersection could exceed supply. This situation could be alleviated either by the construction of additional off-street parking lots to the east of the proposed station, or by the implementation of the Downtown Newhall Improvement Program which would convert land currently used by auto and light industrial businesses into parking lots. I I F I Ll I 1 I 45 I I L� RAILROAD AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/ NEWHALL METROLINK STATION RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON REVISED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Questions have arisen related to the four scenarios described in the comprehensive traffic study prepared in conjunction with the project. The project before the Council tonight represents one scenario (Scenario 2). The other three scenarios analyzed in the study were included in the report to address community input regarding the ability of the improved Railroad Avenue to accommodate traffic generated by the Newhall Metrolink Station, future growth unrelated to the Station, and a potential reduction in lanes on San Fernando Road if the Freedman Plan is implemented. These three scenarios, while not part of the project, do illustrate that the improvement of Railroad Avenue will accommodate traffic generated from the station, future growth, and the reduction in lanes on San Fernando Road. Mitigation identified in the three scenarios is not needed to accommodate the Newhall Metrolink Station or the reconstruction of Railroad Avenue. Responses to the issues cited in the Reznik and Reznik letter dated April 7. 1997 1) The Mitigated Negative Declaration does not address the impacts that the increased regional through -traffic on Railroad Avenue will have on the area. Response: As described in the Traffic Study under Scenario 2, the improvement of Railroad Avenue and the construction and operation of the Metrolink Station are not expected to result in:a significant increase in through -traffic on Railroad Avenue. Instead, the project will result in the redistribution of traffic in the area. 2) The Mitigated Negative Declaration does not address the impacts that the designation of Railroad Avenue as a truck route will have on the area. Response: For clarification purposes, designation of Railroad Avenues as a truck route is not proposed with this project. Scenario 3 in the Traffic Study, which included reducing the number of travel lanes in San Fernando Road from four to two, would include shifting truck traffic from San Fernando Road to Railroad Avenue. Such a reduction in travel lanes is not apart of this project. 3) The traffic analysis concludes that the Metrolink Station might impact intersections along San Fernando Road, and in worst-case scenarios, could reach LOS (Level of Service) "D." Response: The traffic study, in fact concludes that the Railroad Avenue project provides all of the necessary roadway facilities for adequate Metrolink Station access. One intersection, San Fernando Road and Newhall Ave, would be at a LOS "D" in the PM peak hour. However, this intersection is presently at a LOS "D" in the PM peak, and the project will not better or worsen this condition. Table 2 within the Traffic Study clearly shows that improvements to Railroad Avenue result in improved volume -to -capacity ratios at all of the intersections along San Fernando Road and, in most cases, improves the LOS as well. With the addition of the Metrolink Station, all of the intersections along San Fernando Road continue to operate at improved volume -to -capacity ratios compared to existing conditions. 4) The traffic analysis concludes that the Metrolink Station would "significantly" impact intersections on Railroad Avenue, specifically the intersection of Railroad Avenue/11th Street/San Fernando Road, reducing it from LOS "A" to -B.' Response: Table 4 in the Traffic Study indicates that the LOS for the above referenced intersection will go from "A" to "B" in the AM peak hour and considers this to be significant in relation to intersection operating levels. LOS "A" indicates that an intersection is operating at an excellent level. LOS "B" indicates that an intersection is operating at a very good level. This reduction in the level of operation does not constitute a significant impact on traffic and circulation within the area. Additionally, the traffic study concludes that this intersection is being designed to handle Metrolink -generated traffic and that no additional capacity is necessary. Other intersections along Railroad Avenue remain are not significantly impacted by the project and would operate at very acceptable LOS. 5) The initial study identifies the loss of 121 parking spaces. Contrary to the initial study, sufficient on -street parking will not be provided for the following reasons: The "observed" demand is based on the existing baseline need for parking; upon completion of the Metrolink Station the demand will "surge" far beyond the existing level and staff claimed that parking lots constructed in conjunction with the station will provide additional parking on evenings and weekends to serve existing businesses now utilizing parking on Railroad Avenue, but their hours of operation are primarily those when the Metrolink lots would be full. Response: Under the proposed project, no on -street parking would be eliminated along Railroad Avenue. A reduction in parking spaces, if it occurs at all, will only occur if Railroad Avenue is striped for four travel lanes in conjunction with a future reduction in lanes on San Fernando Road. Reducing travel lanes on San Fernando Road is not a part of this project. As part of this project, parking will be improved—parking spaces would change from informal angle parking spaces to parallel parking spaces within the road. The 208 parking spaces proposed on the Metrolink site will be sufficient to accommodate the expected number of station users. 6) The Mitigated Negative Declaration fails to address the impacts from increased traffic to children who cross Railroad Avenue on the way to school. Response: An ancillary part of the project includes the provision of sidewalks on Railroad Avenue and Market Street. Additionally, the project includes signalization of several intersections along Railroad Avenue. Both of these factors are expected to improve safety in the area. I 1 I I I I 11 I I D 11 LJ I I P, I I L I I 7) Other impacts that have not been studied or mitigated include: a) Increased air pollution from the locomotives. b) Increases air pollution from the increase auto traffic the Metrolink Station will bring. c) Construction noise d) Construction traffic congestion Response: (a) There will be a total of 18 stop and starts from the Newhall Metrolink Station (nine in the morning and nine in the evening). Increased emissions produced by these stops and starts is not considered to be significant. (b) The implementation of the Metrolink Station is expected to have a positive impact on regional air quality by reducing vehicle miles of travel and associated levels of congestion. Additionally, it is expected that the proposed project will improve traffic flow and level of service along San Fernando Road with the result that any sensitive receptors in the area will be exposed to the same or lesser levels of emissions than under current conditions. (c) The Initial Study discusses potential short-term increases. in noise levels attributable to site construction, however, noise -sensitive land uses are either sufficiently distant from the project site or separated from it by the Metrolink tracks and Pine Street so as not to be significantly impacted by the project. (d) The Initial Study discusses a potential for traffic congestion due to construction of the project; however, the study indicates that construction will be staged and access will be provided to all of the businesses along Railroad Avenue during construction. Therefore, this impact is not considered significant. 8) The Initial Study displays only token observance of regulatory requirements. It fails to: (a) Note the source or the content of the data relied upon for its conclusions. (b) Explain the proposed mitigation measures "implied" by checking the box "potentially significant impact unless mitigation incorporated." (c) Record consultation with other agencies, including but not limited to Caltrans, with respect to the safety and feasibility of the new intersections. (d) CEQA requires the project to be revised to include mitigation measures before the Mitigated Negative Declaration is released for public review; no mitigation measures are incorporated into the Negative Declaration. Response: (a) Where sources are not specifically listed within the Initial Study, they are based upon staff expertise and consultation with affected City Departments and outside agencies. Additionally, the General Plan, Zoning Code, Traffic Study, Caltrans, and the SCRRA are all cited as sources within the document. 9) (b and d) The Initial Study does identify a potentially significant impact in the Hazards Section of the document. The related text provides the mitigation measure requiring the City's Transit Division to prepare a Phase H Environmental Assessment and to ensure that the recommendations of this assessment related to soil contamination be cleaned -up prior to site construction. (c) Consultation with Caltrans and other agencies is recorded as part of the Notice 'of Completion, which was prepared on March 6, 1997. Responses to the Caltrans Comments City staff responded to the comments from Caltrans in a letter dated April 4, 1997. Those comments and the responses are attached to this document. Responses to the letter from Richard Freeland The issues cited in this letter are covered in the above responses. GEAvjj nwhIrdv\reep4.8gea I R-E=ix & Rr&zNtx i5466 VCNTVRA ■OULCVARO. FIFTM FLOOR SHERMAN OAKS. CALIFORNIA 91403-3026 (aim) 907.08943 (2131 872-2000 April 7, 1997 JCNN M eDWMAN ' ALBERT M..COMCN - K£NwC-M A. CMFL.CM FR£O M oA.NES RCww• DK092-94LOM ON JAKICE KAM6N1 s.RCC N:K RO9C, 4. HEELER .CVIN M. AEMFER A.AN J. K..ECL RICM.RD A MCDONALO DIA.. Nc JC?�ReY S. RAS.IN BENJAM.w M. RC$NIK WILLIAM M. SAMCSKA CLISARC-w a.... LITROM VESECCA.VOOE R60M .0NICW M.VCCEL MANIC. WIT- RCSKAT M. RCR-38CRC Of C0Vw0EL BY HAND -DELIVERY R-E=ix & Rr&zNtx i5466 VCNTVRA ■OULCVARO. FIFTM FLOOR SHERMAN OAKS. CALIFORNIA 91403-3026 (aim) 907.08943 (2131 872-2000 April 7, 1997 FACSIMILE 1818) 907-6665 INTCRNeT WWW.RrZNt K.COM RCFCA TO FILE NVMBCR: 1925/1926.001 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: This law firm represents Auto Service Plus, located at 24522 San Fernando Road, and Mountain Motors. located at :4116 San Fernando Road, both in the City of Santa Clarita. On behalf of both, we submit the following comments to the City's proposed Railroad Avenue Improvement Project and Newhall Metrolink Station. Before the Council are a number of recommendations for approval with respect to this project. These recommendations include: 1. City Council approval of the Newhall Metrolink station site; 2. Adoption of a Negative Declaration for the project; 3. Adoption of a Resolution of Necessity for immediate possession of the property required for the Metrolink station; 4. Adoption of a Resolution of Necessity for immediate possession of property required for the widening and reconstruction of Railroad Avenue. For the reasons explained in detail below, City Council approval of the proposed recommendations would stand in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources -Code 021000 et. seq. On this basis, we urge the City Council to table the actions proposed by staff and direct staff to prepare an En imrimcntal Impact Report (EM) to address the full environmental impact of the proposed project. ' raru91.rz1%C= C-1= tE9-5�•" 60/Z0 d 050-1 96>6100613T HIN238 I NINZ38 JO11 !0101 16-10-UY The honorable City Council ' City of Santa Clarity 23920 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Re: Ra Road Avenue Improvement Prmieet Project No. 95.065 Hearing Dates April St 1"7 FACSIMILE 1818) 907-6665 INTCRNeT WWW.RrZNt K.COM RCFCA TO FILE NVMBCR: 1925/1926.001 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: This law firm represents Auto Service Plus, located at 24522 San Fernando Road, and Mountain Motors. located at :4116 San Fernando Road, both in the City of Santa Clarita. On behalf of both, we submit the following comments to the City's proposed Railroad Avenue Improvement Project and Newhall Metrolink Station. Before the Council are a number of recommendations for approval with respect to this project. These recommendations include: 1. City Council approval of the Newhall Metrolink station site; 2. Adoption of a Negative Declaration for the project; 3. Adoption of a Resolution of Necessity for immediate possession of the property required for the Metrolink station; 4. Adoption of a Resolution of Necessity for immediate possession of property required for the widening and reconstruction of Railroad Avenue. For the reasons explained in detail below, City Council approval of the proposed recommendations would stand in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources -Code 021000 et. seq. On this basis, we urge the City Council to table the actions proposed by staff and direct staff to prepare an En imrimcntal Impact Report (EM) to address the full environmental impact of the proposed project. ' raru91.rz1%C= C-1= tE9-5�•" 60/Z0 d 050-1 96>6100613T HIN238 I NINZ38 JO11 !0101 16-10-UY The Honorable City Council April 7,1997 Page 2 Legal Standards Governing the Preparation of an EIR. Presently before the City Council for approval is a Revised Negative Declaration for the Railroad Avenue improvement Project. Under CEQA, a Negative Declaration can only be prepared when, after completing an Initial Study, the City determines that a project 'would not have a significant Ma on the environment - Public Resources Code $21080(c). Such a determination can only be made if there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that such an impact may occur. Public Resources Code 121080(c)(1)' An EIR is required, in contrast, whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a "fair aqumenr" that significant impacts may occur. Even if other evidence supports the opposite conclusion, the City must nevertheless prepare an EIR.. See e.g. 9gall Botanical Gardens Foundation Inc Y. City of Encinitas. 29 Cal.AppAth 1597 (1994). The "fair argument" standard creates a low threshold for requiting preparation of an EIR. The standard Is founded on the principle that, because issuing a Negative Declaration has a "terminal effect on the environmental review process, an MR is necessary to resolve "uncertainty created by conflicting assertions" and to "substitute some degree of factual certainty for tentative opinion and speculation." No Oil. Inc, v. City of Los Angeles, 13 CALM 68 (1975). Rather than support the position that the project "would not have a significant environmental impact," the Initial Study and traffic analysis prepared to date more than substantiate a 'fair argument" that the project will result an environmental impacts as yet unexamined, unaddressed, and unmltigated. The Environmental Impacts Resulting From the Project are Evident From the Record and Cannot be Addressed Through the Adoption of a Negative Declaration. The impacts from the proposed project are manifold and in many instances are identified in the documents relied upon by staff in preparing the Draft Negative Declaration for approval. As these impacts have not been heretofore addressed, approval of a Negative Declaration will not satisfy the quantum of environmental review required by CEQA for a project of this scale and magnitude. By adopting a Negative Declaration, the City is ccrtifying that the project could not have a significant effect on the environment. As the Metroilnk station and associated road improvements , such a Ending cannot be supported. t Under CEQA, "substantial evidence" is defined as "enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might be reached." CEOA Guidelines. § 15384(a). :mntrtancie�oxc.ioac it9-5�f 8040'd 05i -i isi81068ll+ NIUM Z NINZWWOJd 8901 16-10-NdV APR -OT -BT 10:48 F.cr:REZNIX Z RETNIK +8188078465 T-450 P 04/08 Job -631 so-arxtacotattnszstu�t •Iootps 0;,(u& otp uo anua&V.pvomltvU ccoma ogAt'uopsis 3pgc)r:oyq pasodoxd aqi Mau sslat'.0 prooiLmi atp ssozop pai=ol sasaldmm maurged¢ 02jq oe04 aqj ul Suipis21 aaapltga o; anuaAd pvos. Huoof-gsa3pasvanutmom;spedmlatpmjpptofsup3uonezgpaaaARtBaxagi'klituoplppy -;ueagTcrosul axe Supurd;o ssol aqi moi; spadmi aqz Imp mlep of go;gra uodn sisgq ou svq A;i0 zip'ienoxdde p*jd ;o uoplpuoo v apem ssol gonm'pagnuopi uaaq lou antq auplmtd;o ssol aqi a;uSnim o3 samnseam 'araq sv 'atagA► '(9961) 96Z p£'dd+d"lsJ ZOi laop a3H ;o Alunoo •n ulwispirng -prAoxddv paloxd;o amp atp;g pa;vinuuo; uaoq jou aneq 3ug3 samnseam uoijaplm;o ssaaons p iunsaxd aqi uodn paseq oq ioum suonwepoa aApdax imp sl aidpupd lvtauog iutuodml magiotry -anon; agi ul pmontm aq III& Sugnd olgtUrAt;o ssol aqi ivgi saaugmnm Atm apinard jou scop uonexeloaa aAT;aax aqi `'IlImH •IItB aq pinaa slot Xugoilojq aqi ss sanoq amen aqi 2uunp Suplavd olgvUua Supmbaz pug smog mulmq Sutmp undo A%mmud aat anuaAd peozlieg uo sossauimq agi'aaAO.WH 2nu2Av ptojl!rd uo Jinxed aigtllvng aqi Saallpn nwu sassommq lgooI atmos of spamj=m pug s2ulaan2 uo Baplmed leuogrppe opinomd pinoM aopeis XaliomjaIN aqi tp�% uolpun[am uI paptujsam s3ol Saplatd ItuonlPPs aqi iug3 pamlgp;}gis'Suugag q;nitgnagag aqi jy •lanal8unsoa atppuo,taq xp3 zbns Ill& 2uiXatd ao; pastuap at,7 •smog ssaulsnq 8almp vary aqi m saligotuoins miagi aesal o;paau pins oqM saajnmmaa aAzas Iles tplgro'aong;s Xuilo t3*)q v;o uopaidmoa aqi uoda •Sappvd xo; paau auliastq Supspa aqi;o uonaapaa v sl putmap ponzasgo alp'wi3 -=zaswjo magmnu it ul O+l2*3ap si uoisnpum sTu •putmap paAzasgo iaam of papiAoxd aq Um Supix8d 3a2zis uo ;uapg{ns IT si4gs put'3u3maAwdmi Avropvoz aqi moi; saasds "jud TZT 3o ssol aqi sagnuapi kpniS tenial aqy llas3l sistlgug o®eri oqi at iutagittdls se PaBRuaP191 LPFFA asuego e'saum ie aL SOT of sdosp ag;smi'uolisis ilaallatiaNi aq; q=1A1 Va SOT ig saivmado Apm umt» anuaAd peoallvl•I •a031aJ$ mg3 ame anuany ptoaM. uo spedmi oqL ,; Ow s0'i le salluado pvog opueuza3 ueS;o xplolls stip •kpuasazd "CL SOT govar Pins agter; 'olreuaos asm-jszos+s ui pue'peo g optmEus.1 ueS 8uole saopaaszajal joedmi ig8im iamig to lirw pat onamy ptorlisg It uol3t3S Xullom3aYQ aqi;o uoRe ado putuopatujsuoa jtgi sapnpum siskltug 0mta3 atI l •roalram jt;tratuuomlAaa 3o suvata a3vnbapvul uv sl 3l sisuq ;vqi uo pt_*v hers aqi of sactq iius anuaAd pgamilug troop ag;tmi paseazaal sig; trap =vdurl aqi ssaappe jou saop uop¢mtpaa oAgdom 2U •a;nom Xatu; t st pa3valsap aq 1I1& anuaAd peomlleg;sqi sapnimoo lg assd is dpms ogles; agi'maAoarosq •l osvd is •ppT ; jUM-g2noM IsaolSaz Sui Cuss ui pvog opattuaq ugg;o aloz aqi SulduAwp of �(itaniroddo agi sapinomd anaany psoml. d 30 ;aamaAomdmffl. alp iggi salms kpn3S Itplt+I at[l 7uautaS1e -am onuany ptaTllell oqj put uolms XullomlzN agi;o uopgmado put uoipnm;sum alp mog Sapinsax smdml pmvpossv matpo put same aqi ut uopsaSum *Wvu pastazoui;o ki?[Igtgomd ag3 sajgoiptn aiep o3 pamedard Xomns aijitmi put Aoms lvpiuI otp `muaAisaagamdmm itagi ui pa;pall gsnoq.L £ o2sd L661 'L Indy Ipunoa kala alquaouog 2qL I I fl Ll 1 I I F j 1 I I I I IJ U The Honorable City Council April 7, 1997 Page 4 i Other impacts which have not been addressed to date include increased air pollution, both from locomotives stopping at the Metrolink station and starting from a standstill, as well as from the increased auto traffic which the station will bring. The construction of the project will create additional mise pollution and traffic congestion in the area. none of which has been studied or mitigated. , The Revised Negative Declaration Prepared For This Project is Not a Mitigated Negative Declaradon Udder Pubtle Resources Code 4 210644, and Moremr, Drastically Understates the Impacts of the Project. The proposed finding for the Revised Negative Declaration states that "the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect on the environment, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration ' shall be adopted." While the Revised Negative Declaration represents a minimal improvement over the original document with respect to CEQA compliance, it does not meet the statutory requircmenta fora, Mitigated i negative Declaration and thus cannot be adopted as such. Public Resources Code §21064.5 provides that: "'MItigatedNegative Declaration' means aNegative Declaration prepared for a project when the Initial Study has identified potentially signiffeant effects on the enviromnent. but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the i proposed Negative Declaration and Initial Study are released for public review would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment." The Negative Declaration is flawed in a number of significant respects. Because a Negative Declaration is based entirely upon the analysis of the Initial Study, It is critical under CEQA that an Initial Study be properly prepared. Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino. 202 Ca1.App.3d296, 305 (1988). In this case, the Initial Study is a pro jomta exercise involving no real investigation, and which by design fails to disclose impacts which would trigger the need for an EIR. In reviewing whether agency procedures comply with CEQA, the test to be applied is "whether an objective, good faith effort to so comply is demonstrated." Mount Sutro Defense Committee v. Relents—of University oP California. 77 Cal App.3d 20, 37 (1978). The completion of a proper Initial Study is relevant to whether an agency made such a "good faith effort.' The Initial Study In this instance displays only a token observance of regulatory requirements. It i consists of a checklist of questions which parallel Appendix I of the CEOA Guidelines.. and a brief section of explanatory analysis. This is not enough. The Initial Study is flawed inasmuch as its I uM2m\Q1%0U==V=J ac tis-qoi 60/10'd 051'-: 6996206616+ )I ZU I NINZUILUO�-d 69IC1 :6-20-ddtl i I I The Honorable City Council April 7,1997 Page 5 1. Falls to note the source or the content of the data relied upon for its conclusions, Citizens Ass'n for Sensible Development v County of Imo.172 Cai.App.3d 151,172, CEOA Guide Ines f 15063(c)(5); ' 2. Fails to explain the proposed mitigation measures implied by the checking the boa labeled "potentially significant impact unless mitigation incorporated,". CEQA Guidelines $15063(d)(4); and i3. Falls to record consultation with other agencies, including but not limited to Caltrans with respect to the safety and feasibility of the new intersections created by the proposed project, Public Resources Code 6 210803. (given these inadequacies, the present Initial Study cannot properly support any finding that the ' project will not have any'significant environmental impacts or form the basis of a Negative Declaration. ' While the document is being treated as a Mitigated Negative Declaration, no mitigation measures are incorporated into the document for public review. CEQA requires the project to be revised to Include mitigation measures before the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is released for public review. CEQA Guidelines 15070(b)(1). Thug, any necessary mitigation measures must be ' specifically set forth at the tune of publication of the Mitigated Negative Declaration in advance of the City's adoption of i« Public Resources Code 121092, CEQA Guidelines 115072(a). The City Cannot Adopt a Valid Resolution of Necessity In the Absence of Poll and Proper Environmental Review. In addition to the proposed adoption of the Negative Declaration, staff has further proposed that the City Council adept Resolutions of Necessity to acquire the site for the Metrolink station and the private property nceessory, to complete the Railroad Avenue widening and ro-alignment. In the absenceof full and proper environmental review, adoption of these resolutions is premature. Under CEQA, EIRs and Negative Declarations should be prepared as early as feasible in the planning process to enable environmental considerations to influence project design. Specifically, with public projects, "at the earliest feasible time, project sponsors shall incorporate environmental considerations into project conceptualization, design and planning. CEQA compliance should be completed priorto aoquisttion of a site fora publicprvj*a-* CEPA Guidelines 1115004(b)(1) (emphasis added). Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1245.220, the City cannot commence an eminent domain action until it has adopted a Resolution of Necessity. Public necessity embraces three elements that must be established before the power of eminent domain can be exercised rasnvzm, Mc5QK' IlEs-;ar aono'd 059-L ssreLo'oela+ AIQU I AINZUM01i 09:91 Ls -LO -Uy I The Honorable City Council April 7, 1997 Page 6 1. The public interest and necessity require the project; 2. The project is planned or located In the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; and 3. The property sought to be acquired is necessary for the project. , Code of C '1_Prncedure §1240.030 Unless a reasoned analysis of project alternatives is undertaken, both as to the design of the project and its proposed location, the required findings for the Resolution of Necessity cannot be legitimately supported. As detailed above, the City is required by CEQA to prepare an EIR for the proposed project, and among the required elements of an EM is as evaluation of project alternatives. Public Resources Code §21100(b)(4). The'alternatives' analysis Is crucial to complying with CEQA's substantive mandate that avoidable emironmeatal damage be substantially lessened or avoided where feasible. Public Resourm Code § 21002. The required alternatives analysis must be of sufficient detail "to serve the informational purpose of the report to the governmental body which will act and the public which will respond to the action through the political process." Stan Tall on Principles v. Shasta Union Sph School District. 235 Ca1.App.3d 772 (1991). In the absence of the required environmental review for this project, the public has not been , presented with enough information to comment on alternatives to the project, and the City has not explored a range of alternatives necessary to draw a conclusion as to any of the three required findings. For this reason, CEQA requires the analysis to occur prior to the adoption of a Resolution , of Necessity. A condemnation resolution of necessity may be challenged an the ground that the condemning body has not adequately considered the proposed project's environmental impact (City of San lose v. Great Oaks Wster Co..192 Cal.App.3d 1005 (1987)), or where the Negative Declaration adopted by the agency was for a project substantially different than the one which was the basis of the Resolution of Necessity. Burbank Airport Authority v. Hensler. 233 Cal.App3d 557 (1991). As both these grounds to set aside a Resolution of Necessity for condemnation of private property exist with respect to this project, the City Council should not adopt the proposed Resolutions in the absence of the required environmental review. , 1 x�m�.socwccao-oe� , t89-qcr 80/10'd 09i-1 99>8106818+ AIMM T AINZ7d:WOJd W01 16-10-8dY , II II ' The Honorable City Council April 7,1997 P Conclusion For the reasons expressed above, Auto Service Plus and Mountain Motors respectfully request the City Council to table the proposed actions regarding the Railroad Avenue Improvcmeat Project and Metrolink station and direct staff to prepare an EIR for the project as the law requires. Respectfully submitted REZNIK cit REZNIK A Law Corporation �za KMKdrr rc Bonnie Joseph. City of Santa Clarita Jay Thompson, Auto Service Plus Mike Laser, Mountain Motors V=AV \OIc3D2aCtoac 1 iE9-qoi 90/60'd 099-1 5999106819+ MINIBB 7 NINUVW0%1 1501. 16-10-8dd APR -0E-1997 14115 f..N4 L. .3.-0 •03COC ❑ •Cwt. •ICn.eO a ❑p�ANO STevcN . .•�wtL[T• -..Se .0.11[0 1• +C-.0• ASARO, KEAGY, FREELAND S ATTOAMCT9 AT LAW �O�e*n �LOOe ]I)O ZO RTN A./CNW S.n O'COO. Gnu •OeNL 92,03 TCLCP.ONC 16191 297•1D0 -.G31-+4G 16191 299+206 April 8, 1997 The Honorable Hamilton C. Smyth, Mayor and Members of the City Council 23920 Valencia Boulevard Suite 300 Santa Clarita 91355 MCKINLEY Re: Proposed Resolution of Necessity to Condemn APN 2831-026-001; 2831-018-009; 2831-018-014; 2831-018-015; 2831-019-021 for the Railroad Avenue Improvement Project/Metrolink Station Ladies and Gentlemen: P.02 y., '7 r LF This firm represents Mr. Don F. Guglielmino, the owner of the above -referenced parcels. This letter is being written to express Mr. Guglielmino's opposition to the proposed resolution of necessity under consideration by the Council relating to the acquisition of Mr- Guglieimino's property. It is requested that this letter be made a part of the administrative record at the public hearing when this resolution is being considered. Mr. Guglielmino objects to the adoption of the proposed resolution for the following reasons: 1. Adoption of the proposed resolution would violate the California Environmental Quality Act. An environmental impact report is required rather than a negative declaration due to the fact that the project clearly will have a significant effect on the environment. Traffic and air quality considerations, among others, created by the proposed project, will negatively affect the environment mandating the requirement for an environmental impact report. 2. There is no reasonable probability that the property sought will be devoted to the stated purpose within seven years. I Page 2 April 8, 1997 3. The project is not planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. ' For all the above reasons it is submitted that the .adoption of the proposed resolution would be contrary to the law and subject the City to payment of litigation expenses upon defeat of the right to take in any subsequent condemnation action. It is therefore requested that the proposed resolution not be adopted until such ' time as the City complies with all the legal requirements relating to the proposed Metrolink project. ' Very truly yours, [I 1] RRF/mad cc Mr. Douglas F. Wubbena 11 1 I 1, ASAR0, KEAGY, FREELAND & McKINLEY Richard R. Freeland ' TOTAL P.77- Appendix D Worksheets and Calculations Table D-1 Calculation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Existing Conditions 1997 Newhall Redevelopment Project ' Particulate Matter (PM10) Analysis Year Con An ge es o. peed Assumptions: Running Exhaust PM10 Tire 1997 1987 2010 20 Avg. speed (mph) used CO/NOx: Year Vehicles 6.000 lbs or less 22.70 Spd. mph spd. 24 21 AM Peak mph for analysis of running ROC: 16.70 0.005 0.005 33.57 0.1 00 0.100 34 33 Off-peak Vehicles 6,000 lbs or up emissions by pollutant SOx/PM10: 0.190 0.190 16.70 18 15 PM Peak Source of Assumptions: Trip speeds: SCAQMD CEQA Manual Table A9 -5-F. nnn: Values in italics extrapolated from tables. Emission Factors In 1997 at Estimated Worst -Case Scenario Speed Carbon Monoxide (CO) Est. Wrst. Running Exhaust Case 20 . est. 25 Cold Hot Year Spd. mph spd. mph Start Start Vehicles 6,000 lbs or less 22.70 6.83 6.09 5.46 74.82 9.49 Vehicles 6,000 lbs or up 22.70 16.71 14.81 13.19 37.50 4.11 ' Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) Est. Wrst. Running Lxhaust Case 30 est. 35 Cold Hot Hot Year Spd. mph spd. mph Start Start Soak Durl. Vehicles 6,000 lbs or less 33.57 0.31 0.27 0.25 4.11 0.92 0.94 2.63 Vehicles 6.000 lbs or up 33.57 1.19 1.06 1.01 2.55 0.80 0.74 2.66 ' Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) Est. Wrst. Running Lxhaust Case 20 . est. 25 Cold Hot Year Spd. mph spd. mphStart Start Vehicles 6,000 lbs or less 22.70 0.62 0.60 0.58 2.40 1.26 Vehicles 6,000 lbs or up 22.70 4.87 4.75 4.65 1.99 1.00 ' Particulate Matter (PM10) Est, Wrst. PMIO Exhaust Running Exhaust PM10 Tire Wear Case Case 15 est. 20 15 est: 20 Year Vehicles 6.000 lbs or less Year Spd. mph spd. mph mph spd. mph ' Vehicles 6,000 lbs or less 16.70 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.1 00 0.100 0.100 Vehicles 6,000 lbs or up 16.70 0.320 0.320 0.320 0.190 0.190 0.190 Source of Assumptions: Emission Factors : SCAQMD CEQA Manual, Tables A9 -5-K and A9 -5 -1 - Note: SCAOMD emission factors are available up to the year 2009: these factors are used to approximate a worst- case scenario since emission factors decline as technologies progress in time. nnn: Values in italics interpolated from tables. Environmental Impact Report D-1 Newhall Redevelopment Project Oxides of Sulfur (SOx) Est. Wrst. Running Exhaust Case 15 est. 20 Year Vehicles 6.000 lbs or less Spd. 16.70 mph 0.06 spd. 0.06 mph 0.06 Vehicles 6,000 lbs or up 16.70 0.32 0.32 0.32 Source of Assumptions: Emission Factors : SCAQMD CEQA Manual, Tables A9 -5-K and A9 -5 -1 - Note: SCAOMD emission factors are available up to the year 2009: these factors are used to approximate a worst- case scenario since emission factors decline as technologies progress in time. nnn: Values in italics interpolated from tables. Environmental Impact Report D-1 Newhall Redevelopment Project Table D-2 , Newhall Redevelopment Project ' Pollutant Emissions from Stationary Sources Total Project Area 245.6 49.1 2.5 282.4 9.8 29.5 , Total CO ROG NOx PM10 sox Total CO ROG NOx PM10 sox Natural Gas day/ mcf/ 20.00 kwh/ Power Emission Factor (pounds/mwh) Emissions (pounds per day) Electrical Power Single-family Residential 845.0 dus 219.1 0.2 day/ mwh/ 0.20 0.01 1.15 0.04 0.12 3.4 Impacts In 1977 Negl. , ksf day 0.5 11.4 0.0 Emissions (pounds per day) Office 100.0 ksf 65.8 0.0 Single-family Residential 845.0 dus 15.4 13.0 2.6 0.1 15.0 0.5 1.6 ' Multi -family Residential 1,275.0 dus 15.4 19.6 3.9 0.2 22.6 0.8 2.4 0.0 Commercial/Retail 1,000.0 ksf 60.0 60.0 12.0 0.6 69.0 2.4 7.2 6.1 351.9 10.0 Office 100.0 ksf 60.0 6.0 1.2 0.1 6.9 0.2 0.7 "CEQA Air Quality Handbook, May 1993 with November 1993 Update. Industrial 1,100.0 ksf 110.0 121.0 24.2 1.2 139.2 4.8 14.5 Quasi -Public 900.0 ksf 28.6 25.9 5.2 0.3 29.8 1.0 3.1 Total Project Area 245.6 49.1 2.5 282.4 9.8 29.5 , Total CO ROG NOx PM10 sox cf/ Power Emission Factor (pounds/mwh) Natural Gas day/ mcf/ 20.00 5.3 Note 0.2 Negl. Impacts in 1997 ksf day Emissions (pounds per day) Single-family Residential 845.0 dus 219.1 0.2 3.7 1.0 14.8 0.0 Negl. Multi -family Residential 1,275,0 dus 131.9 0.2 3.4 0.9 13.5 0.0 Negl. , Commercial/Retail 1,000.0 ksf 95.3 0.1 1.9 0.5 11.4 0.0 Negl. Office 100.0 ksf 65.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 Negl. Industrial 1,100.0 ksf 166 0.2 3.7 1.0 21.9 0.0 Negl. Quasi -Public 900.0 ksf 65.8 0.1 1.2 0.3 7.1 0.0 Negl. ' Total Project Area 0.7 13.9 3.7 69.5 0.1 0.0 ' Total Stationary Emissions 63.1 6.1 351.9 10.0 29.5 Abbreviations: dus: dwelling units; ksf: thousand square feet; kwh: kilowatt-hours; mwh: megawatt -hours ' Source of emission factors and gas consumption rate: Modified from South Coast Air Quality Management District, "CEQA Air Quality Handbook, May 1993 with November 1993 Update. Note: Emission factor for Oxides of Nitrogen is 80 for residential uses and 120 for nonresidential uses. , 1 Environmental Impact Report D-2 Newhall Redevelopment Project Table D3 Newhall Redevelopment Project Mobile Source Emissions In 1997 LJ a] Environmental Impact Report D-3 Newhall Redevelopment Project % cold/ Avg cold/ Year 2010 Emissions Total hot Trip hot miles (pounds per day) ' Proposed Project Total: Trips starts Length trips travelled CO ROG NOx PM1D sox single -Family Residential Vehicles 6,000 lbs or less: 8,163 100% 10.0 8,163 81,627 2,440.4 186.1 150.7 18.9 10.8 0% 10.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' Vehicles 6,000 lbs or up: 710 100% 10.0 710 7,098 290.2 25.9 77.4 8.0 5.0 0% 10.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total: Multi -Family Residential 8,873 88,725 2,730.6 212.0 228.1 26.9 15.8 Vehicles 6,000 lbs or less: 8,798 100% 10.0 8,798 87,975 2,630.2 200.6 162.5 20.3 11.6 0% 10.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vehicles 6,000 lbs or up: 765 100% 10.0 765 7,650 312.8 27.9 83.4 8.6 5.4 0% 10.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total: 9,563 95,625 2,943.0 228.5 245.9 28.9 17.0 Commercial/Retail 1 Vehicles 6,000 lbs or less: 50,600 20°/. 10.0 10,120 101,200 3,025.6 230.8 186.9 23.4 13.4 80% 10.0 40,480 404,800 6,277.4 638.6 645.9 93.6 53.5 Vehicles 6,000 lbs or up: 4,400 20% 10.0 880 8,800 - 359.8 32.1 96.0 9.9 6.2 80% 10.0 3,520 35,200 1,180.3 114.9 376.1 39.5 24.8 ' Total: 55,000 550,000 10,843.1 1,016.3 1,304.9 166.5 97.9 Office Vehicles 6,000 lbs or less: 1,380 70% 10.0 966 9,660 288.8 22.0 17.8 22 1.3 300/6 10.0 414 4,140 64.2 6.5 . 6.6 1.0 0.5 ' Vehicles 6,000 lbs or up: 120 70% 10.0 84 840 34.3 3.1 9.2 0.9 0.6 30% 10.0 36 360 12.1 1.2 3.8 0.4 0.3 Total: 1,500 15,000 399.4 32.8 37.5 4.5 2.7 Other Vehicles 6,000 lbs or less: 12,420 70% 10.0 8,694 86,940 2,599.3 198.2 160.6 20.1 11.5 30% 10.0 3,726 37,260 577.8 58.8 59.5 8.6 4.9 Vehicles 6,000 lbs or up: 1,080 70% 10.0 756 7,560 309.1 27.6 82.4 8.5 5.3 30% 10.0 324 3,240 108.6 10.6 34.6 3.6 2.3 Total: 13,500 135,000 3,594.8 295.2 337.1 40.9 24.0 ' Industrial Vehicles 6,000 lbs or less: 1,026 70% 10.0 718 7,181 214.7 16.4 13.3 1.7 0.9 30% 10.0 308 3,077 47.7 4.9 4.9 0.7 0.4 Vehicles 6,000 lbs or up: 89 70% 10.0 62 624 25.5 2.3 6.8 0.7 0.4 301yo 10.0 27 268 9.0 0.9 2.9 0.3 0.2 ' Total: 1,115 11,150 296.9 24.4 27.8 3.4 2.0 Total Project Area 89,550 895,500 20,807.9 1,809.3 2,181.3 271.0 159.4 ' Trip generation based on trips generated within project area only. Traffic analysis is based on trips generated within traffic zones which include residential uses outside project area. LJ a] Environmental Impact Report D-3 Newhall Redevelopment Project Table D-4 Newhall Redevelopment Project Total Emisslons In 1997 % cold/ Avg cold/ Year 2010 Emissions Total hot Trip hot miles (pounds per day) Proposed Project Total: Trips starts Length trips travelled CO ROG NOx PM10 Sox Stationary Emissions: Mobile Source Emissions: Project Total 63.1 6.1 351.9 20,807.9 1,809.3 2,181.3 20,871.0 1,815.4 2,533.2 I 10.0 29.5 271.0 159.4 , 281.0 188.8 Sources: (1) Input assumptions for percent hot start and cold start trips obtained from Table 9-5-M of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook by the SCAOMD, updated November 1993. (2) Distribution of vehicle types obtained from URBEMIS3 developed by the State Air Resources Board. (3) Emission factors obtained from the SCAQMD's CEOA Air Quality Handbook, updated November 1993. (4) Regional trip length interpolated from Tables A9 -5-C and A9 -5-D of the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook, updated November 1993. Environmental Impact Report D-4 Newhall Redevelopment Project I Ll I� F 1 11 I 1 [] I I LJ J Table D-5 Calculation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Project Year 2015 Newhall Redevelopment Project for analysis of running ROC: 32.78 34 33 OH -peak emissions by pollutant SOx/1316170: 14.35 18 15 PM Peak Source of Assumptions: Trip speeds: SCAOMD CEQA Manual Table A9 -5-F. nnn: Values in italics extrapolated from tables. Emission Factors in 2015 (see Note) at Estimated Worst -Case Scenario Speed Carbon Monoxide (CO) Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) Est. Wrst. Running Exhaust , Case 20 est. 25 Cold Hot Year Spd. mph spd. mph Start Start Vehicles 6,000 lbs or less 20.35 2.75 2.71 2.20 47.65 3.76 Vehicles 6,000 lbs or up 20.35 8.43 8.31 6.66 24.16 2.70 Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC) Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) Est. Wrst. Running Exhaust , Case Case 30 est. 35 Cold Hot Hot Year Spd. mph spd. mph Start Start Soak Durl. Vehicles 6,000 lbs or less 32.78 0.07 0.06 0.06 1.30 0.23 0.29 0.54 Vehicles 6,000 lbs or up 32.78 0.74 0.68 0.63 1.27 0.31 0.38 1.18 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) ' Est. Wrst,. Hunning Exhaust , Case 20 est. 25 Cold Hot Year Spd. mph spd. mph Start Start Vehicles 6,000 Ins or less 20.35 0.29 0.29 0.26 1.21 0.58 Vehicles 6,000 lbs or up 20.35 3.97 3.95 3.75 1.92 0.89 ' Particulate Matter (PM10) Est, Wrst. PM10 Exhaust Running Exhaust PM10 I ire Wear Case Case 15 est. 20 15 est 20 Year Vehicles 6,000 lbs or less Year Spd. mph . spd. mphmph spd. mph Vehicles 6,000 lbs or up Vehicles 6,000 lbs or less 14.35 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.100 0.100 0.100 Vehicles 6,000 lbs or up 14.35 0.170 0.170 0.170 0.185 0.185 0.185 ' Oxides of Sulfur (SOx) Est. Wrst. Running Exhaust Case 15 est 20 Year Vehicles 6,000 lbs or less Spd. 14.35 mph 0.05 spd. 0.05 mph 0.05 Vehicles 6,000 lbs or up 14.35 .0.28 0.28 0.28 ' Source of Assumptions: Emission Factors: SCAOMD CEQA Manual. Tables Ag -5-K and A9 -5-L. Note: SCAOMD emission factors are available up to the year 2009; these factors are used to approximate a worst- case scenario since emission factors decline as technologies progress in time. nnn: Values in italics interpolated from tables. 1 Newhall Redevelopment Project Environmental Impact Report D-5 Table D-6 Newhall Redevelopment Project Pollutant Emissions from Stationary Sources Total Stationary Sources 135.8 12.0 770.3 22.6 67.0 Abbreviations: dus: dwelling units; ksf: thousand square feet; kwh: kilowatt-hours; mwh: megawatt -hours Source of emission factors and gas consumption rate: Modified from South Coast Air Quality Management District, "CEQA Air Quality Handbook, May 1993 with November 1993 Update. Note: Emission factor for Oxides of Nitrogen is 80 for residential uses and 120 for nonresidential uses. Environmental Impact Report IM Newhall Redevelopment Project ISI J I 11 [1 n L Total CO ROG NOx PM10 Sox kwh/ Power Emission Factor (pounds/mwh) Electrical Power day/ mwh/ 0.20 0.01 1.15 0.04 0.12 Impacts in 2015 ksf day Emissions (pounds per day) Single-family Residential 800.0 dus 15.4 12.3 2.5 0.1 14.2 0.5 1.5 Multi -family Residential 1,800.0 dus 15.4 27.7 5.5 0.3 31.9 1.1 3.3 Commercial/Retail 2,100.0 ksf 60.0 126.0 25.2 1.3 144.9 5.0 15.1 Office 600.0 ksf 60.0 36.0 7.2 0.4 41.4 1.4 4.3 Industrial 3,000.0 ksf 110.0 330.0 66.0 3.3 379.5 13.2 39.6 Quasi -Public 900.0 ksf 28.8 25.9 5.2 0.3 29.8 1.0 3.1 Total Project Area 558.0 111.6 5.6 641.7 22.3 67.0 Total CO ROG NOx PM10 sox. cf/ Power Emission Factor (pounds/mwh) Natural Gas day/ mcf/ 20.00 5.3 Note 0.2 Negl. Impacts in 2015 ksf day Emissions (pounds per day) Single-family Residential 800.0 dus 219.1 0.2 3.5 0.9 14.0 0.0 Negl. Multi -family Residential 1,800.0 dus 131.9 0.2 4.7 1.3 19.0 0.0 Negl. Commercial/Retail 2,100.0 ksf 95.3 0.2 4.0 1.1 24.0 0.0 Negl. Office 600.0 ksf 65.8 0.0 0.8 0.2 4.7 0.0 Negl. Industrial 3,000.0 ksf 166 0.5 10.0 2.6 59.8 0.1 Negl. Quasi -Public 900.0 ksf 65.8 0.1 1.2 0.3 7.1 0.0 Negl. Total Project Area 1.2 24.2 6.4 128.6 0.2 0.0 Total Stationary Sources 135.8 12.0 770.3 22.6 67.0 Abbreviations: dus: dwelling units; ksf: thousand square feet; kwh: kilowatt-hours; mwh: megawatt -hours Source of emission factors and gas consumption rate: Modified from South Coast Air Quality Management District, "CEQA Air Quality Handbook, May 1993 with November 1993 Update. Note: Emission factor for Oxides of Nitrogen is 80 for residential uses and 120 for nonresidential uses. Environmental Impact Report IM Newhall Redevelopment Project ISI J I 11 [1 n L Table D-7 Newhall Redevelopment Project Mobile Source Emissions In 2015 1 91 I Environmental Impact Report D-7 Newhall Redevelopment Project % cold/ Avg cold/ Year 2010 Emissions Proposed Project Total: Total Trips hot starts Length Trip hot trips miles travelled CO (pounds per day) ROG NOx PM10 sox Single -Family Residential Vehicles 6,000 Ibs or less: 6,624 100% 10.0 6,624 66,240 1,090.9 40.5 59.7 15.3 7.3 0% 10.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 i Vehicles 6,000 lbs or up: 576 100% 10.0 576 5,760 136.0 12.2 52.6 4.5 3.6 0% 10.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total: 7,200 72,000 1,226.9 52.7 112.3 19.8 10.8 ' Multi -Family Residential Vehicles 6,000 lbs or less: 9,936 100% 10.0 9,936 99,360 1,636.3 60.7 89.5 23.0 10.9 0% 10.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Vehicles 6,000 lbs or up: 864 100% 10.0 864 8,640 204.1 18.3 78.9 6.8 5.3 ' 0% 10.0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total: 10,800 108,000 1,840.4 79.0 168.4 29.7 16.3 Commercial/Retail ' Vehicles 6,000 lbs or less: 86,940 20% 10.0 17,388 173,880 2,863.6 106.3 156.6 40.2 19.1 80% 10.0 69,552 695,520 4,730.4 261.1 529.9 160.9 76.6 Vehicles 6,000 lbs or up: 7,560 20% 10.0 1,512 15,120 357.1 32.0 138.1 11.8 9.3 ' Total: 94,500 80% 10.0 6,048 60,480 945,000 1,142.6 9,093.6 115.3 514.7 538.7 1,363.3 47.3 260.2 37.3 142.4 Office Vehicles 6,000 lbs or less: 21,252 70% 10.0 14,876 148,764 2,449.9 90.9 134.0 34.4 16.4 30% 10.0 6,376 63,756 433.6 23.9 48.6 14.7 7.0 Vehicles 6,000 lbs or up: 1,848 70% 10.0 1,294 12,936 305.5 27.4 118.2 10.1 8.0 30% 10.0 554 5,544 104.7 10.6 49.4 4.3 3.4 ' Total: Other 23,100 231,000 3,293.8 152.8 350.1 63.6 34.8 Vehicles 6,000 lbs or less: 9,936 70% 10.0 6,955 69,552 1,145.4 42.5 62.6 16.1 7.7 30% 10.0 2,981 29,808 202.7 11.2 22.7 6.9 3.3 Vehicles 6,000 lbs or up: 864 70% 10.0 605 6,048 142.8 12.8 55.2 4.7 3.7 ' 30%: 10.0 259 2,592 49.0 4.9 23.1 2.0 1.6 Total: 10,800 108,000 1,540.0 71.4 163.7 29.7 16.3 Industrial t Vehicles 6,000 lbs or less: 22,080 70% 10.0 15,456 154,560 2,545.4 94.5 139.2 35.7 17.0 30% 10.0 6,624 66,240 450.5 24.9 50.5 15.3 7.3 Vehicles 6,000 lbs or up: 1,920 70% 10.0 1,344 13,440 317.4 28.5 122.8 10.5 8.3 30% 10.0 576 5,760 108.8 11.0 51.3 4.5 3.6 ' Total: 24,000 240,000 3,422.1 158.8 363.7 66.1 36.2 Total Project Area 170,400 1,704,000 20,416.8 1,029.5 2,521.5 469.2 256.7 1 91 I Environmental Impact Report D-7 Newhall Redevelopment Project Table D-8 ' Newhall Redevelopment Project Total Emissions in 2015 , Sources: ' (1) Input assumptions for percent hot start and cold start trips obtained from Table 9-5-M of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook by the SCAQMD, updated November 1993. (2) Distribution of vehicle types obtained from URBEMIS3 developed by the State Air Resources Board. ' (3) Emission factors obtained from the SCAOMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook, updated November 1993. (4) Regional trip length interpolated from Tables A9 -5-C and A9 -5-D of the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook, updated November 1993. ' 1 h U Newhall Redevelopment Project ' Environmental Impact Report D-8 % cold/ Avg cold/ Year 2010 Emissions Total hot Trip hot miles (pounds per day) Proposed Project Total: Trips starts Length trips travelled CO ROG NOx PM10 sox Total Project Area Stationary Emissions: 135.8 12.0 770.3 22.6 67.0 Mobile Source Emissions: 20,416.8 1,029.5 2,521.5 469.2 256.7 Total Project Area: 20,552.6 1,041.5 3,291.8 491.7 323.7 Sources: ' (1) Input assumptions for percent hot start and cold start trips obtained from Table 9-5-M of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook by the SCAQMD, updated November 1993. (2) Distribution of vehicle types obtained from URBEMIS3 developed by the State Air Resources Board. ' (3) Emission factors obtained from the SCAOMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook, updated November 1993. (4) Regional trip length interpolated from Tables A9 -5-C and A9 -5-D of the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook, updated November 1993. ' 1 h U Newhall Redevelopment Project ' Environmental Impact Report D-8 '• r I• May 1. 1997 Adopted Ordinance No. Draft I• Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project CITY OF SANTA CLARITA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY • '• GRC REDEVELOPMENT CONBULTANTB, INC. 1340 South Valley Vista Drive • GRC Suits 120 Diamond Bar, California 91765 0 I! E ! CITY COUNCIL/ REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY L PLANNING COMMISSION ! REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STAFF Ll ! 0 Draft Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Hamilton C. Smyth, Mayor/Chair Janice H. Heidt, Mayor Pro -Tem /Vice Chair Carl Boyer, Councilmember/Member Jo Anne Darcy, Councilmember/Member Jill Majic, CouncilmemberlMember Louis Brathwaite, Chair Jerry Cherrington, Vice Chair Michael Berger, Commissioner Darla Hoback, Commissioner Ralph Killmeyer, Commissioner George Caravalho, Executive Director Ken Pulskamp, Assistant to the Executive Director Steve Stark, Treasurer Sharon L. Dawson, Secretary Michael Haviland, Marketing and Economic Development Manager Glenn Adamick, Associate Planner • Draft Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Redevelopment Plan for the • Newhall Redevelopment Project I• C: U 1• 'i • TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction................................................................................ I A. Authority.................................................................................. 1 B. Basis for the Plan.................................................................... 1 C. Definitions............................................................................... 1 D. Project Area Boundaries......................................................... 3 H. Development in the Project Area ........................................... 5 A. Project Objectives.....................................................................5 B. Conformance to City's General Plan ....................................... 7 C. Specific Development Objectives ............................................ 7 D. Land Uses for the Project Area ............................................... 8 E. Public Uses for the Project Area ............................................. 8 F. General Development Requirements ...................................... 9 G. Development Procedures........................................................11 III. Redevelopment Implementation..........................................13 A. B. General...................................................................................13 Participation by Owners and Tenants...................................14 General Description of the Proposed Financing Method ......33 C. Property Acquisition and Management.................................16 Tax Increments D. Relocation of Persons, Families and Businesses...................18 .......................................................................33 E. Demolition, Clearance, Site Preparation, Project Issuance of Bonds and Notes.................................................35 Improvements and Public Improvements..............................20 Loans and Grants...................................................................36 F. Rehabilitation and Conservation of Structures ..................... 25 G. Real Property Disposition and Development .........................26 IV. Low- and Moderate -Income Housing ................................... 31 A. 20% Tax Increment Funds Requirement...............................31 B. Low- and Moderate -Income Housing and Replacement ........ 31 C. Provision of Low- and Moderate -Income Housing.................31 V. Project Financing.................................................................... 33 0 A. General Description of the Proposed Financing Method ......33 B. Tax Increments • .......................................................................33 C. Issuance of Bonds and Notes.................................................35 D. Loans and Grants...................................................................36 0 City of Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency E. Financing Limitations............................................................36 F. Low- and Moderate -Income Housing Fund ...........................36 VI. Administration.........................................................................37 A. Administration and Enforcement of the Plan .......................37 B. Duration of this Plan's Development Controls ...................... 37 C. Procedure for Amendment....................................:................38 D. Agency/City Cooperation........................................................38 E. Cooperation with Other Public Jurisdictions ........................39 Appendix A - Project Area Map and Legal Description CRCIft • 0 t U Draft Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project 1. INTRODUCTION A. (§100)AUTHORITY This Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan") for the Newhall Redevelopment Project was prepared by the City of Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency in accordance with the California Community Redevelopment Law, California Health and Safety Code Sections 33000, et seq. (the "CRL"), and all applicable laws and ordinances. The Plan consists of this to he r text, t Redevelopment > P Plan Map, and the corresponding Legal Description (Appendix A). B. 0110) BASIS FOR THE PLAN The basis for this Plan is the Preliminary Plan for The Newhall Redevelopment Project, adopted by the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission Resolution No. P96-26, on November 19, 1996. The boundaries were subsequently changed by Planning Commission action on April 1, 1997, by resolution No. 97-06. C (§120) DEFINITIONS The following definitions will govern in the context of this Plan unless otherwise stipulated herein: 1) (§120.1) Agency means the City of Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency. 2) (§120.2) City means the City of Santa Clarita, California. GDCI� 1 City of Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency 3) (§120.3) City Council means the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California. 4) (§120.4) County means the County of Los Angeles, California. 5) (§120.5) CRL means the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (California Health and Safety Code, Sections 33000, et seq.), as amended from time to time. 6) (§120.64) General Plan means the general plan of the City of Santa Clarita, as may be amended from time to time. 7) (§120.7) Legal Description means a description of the land within the Project Area. in accordance with map specifications approved by the California State Board of Equalization, and attached hereto as Appendix A. 8) 0120.8) Person means any individual or any public or private entity. 9) (§120.9) Plan means this document. 10) 0120.10) Planning Commission means the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita, California. 11) (§120.11) Project means all activities, plans, programs, objectives, goals; policies involved in the Plan either directly or by reference. 12) (§120.12) Project Area means the territory subject to this Plan, as described in Appendix A. 13) (§120.12) Real Property means land, buildings, structures, fixtures and improvements on the land; property appurtenant to or used in connection with the land; every estate, interest, privilege, easement, franchise, and right in land, including rights-of-way, terms for years, and liens, charges, or encumbrances by way of judgment, mortgage or otherwise, and the indebtedness secured by such liens. 14) (§120.14) Redevelopment Law means the CRL. 15) (§120.15) Redevelopment Plan Map means the Redevelopment Plan Maps, attached hereto in Appendix A. 16) 0120.16) State includes any state agency or instrumentality of the State of California. 17) (§120.17) Zoning Ordinance means the City's codes, ordinances and resolutions relating to zoning and development, as may be amended from time to time. • GDC • 2 0 Drak Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project D. (§130) PROJECTAREA BOUNDARIES The boundaries of the Project Area are shown and described in Appendix A. I• I0 I0 • I` I• • Tc • Draft Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Il. DEVELOPMENT IN THE PROJECT AREA A. (§200) PROJECT OBJECTIVES The overriding objective of this Plan is to eliminate or alleviate blighting conditions by encouraging and inducing development on or rehabilitation of Project Area properties, providing public improvements or facilities where such facilities are missing or inadequate, and by increasing, improving, or preserving the supply of low- and moderate -income housing. to eliminate • detrimental housing conditions in the community. In eliminating these blighting conditions, this Plan will facilitate development as contemplated in the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. The redevelopment goals for the Project Area include the following strategies and objectives, . from the Downtown Newhall Improvement Program, April 1996 (the "Freedman Plan"). These include, but are not limited to: 1) Expand the convenience and comparison/specialty economic niches. 2) Create an attractive Main Street environment on San Fernando Road to attract new shoppers and businesses. 3) Create an attractive, memorable image that expresses Newhall's history and character. 4) Establish programs to promote private sector investment. 5) Enhance the role of Newhall as a community center. 6) Maintain and capitalize on the visibility and access associated with through traffic. • 7) Improve the parking supply. • 5RC City of Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency 0 8) Pursue opportunities for special facilities that attract a wide visitor base. In addition to the foregoing, the Agency expects to pursue the following additional objectives in the Project Area: 9) Eliminate blighting conditions and prevent the acceleration of blight in and about the Project Area. 10) Develop programs and incentives for the rehabilitation of old, obsolescent, and deteriorating structures in the Project Area. 11) Promote the comprehensive planning, redesign, replanning, reconstruction and/or rehabilitation in such a manner as to achieve a higher and better utilization of the land within the Project Area. 12) Use redevelopment authority to promote development that is consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. 0 13) Promote the design and construction of a more efficient and effective circulation system. 14) Provide for adequate parcels and required public improvements to induce new construction and/or rehabilitation by private enterprise. 15) Promote the rehabilitation of existing housing units now affordable to persons and families of low- and moderate - income; and promote the construction of replacement housing units where existing units cannot be feasibly be rehabilitated. 16) Promote the development of new and diverse employment opportunities. 17) Consolidate parcels as needed to induce new or expanded; centralized, commercial development in the Project Area, 18) Upgrade the physical appearance of the Project Area. 19) Remove economic impediments to land assembly and in -fill development.in areas that are not properly subdivided for development or redevelopment. 20) Eliminate incompatible, and/or non -conforming land uses from the Project Area. 21) Mitigate potential relocation impacts resulting from changes in Project Area land use from non -conforming and dilapidated uses to development in conformance with the General Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance. IC T 7 L C7 u • • I• U :_7 • 0 Draft Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project 22) Provide replacement housing as required by law when dwellings housing low- or moderate -income persons or families are lost to the low- or moderate -income housing market. 23) Encourage the cooperation and participation of Project Area property owners, public agencies and community organizations in the elimination of blighting conditions and the promotion of new or improved development in the Project Area. 24) Provide a procedural and financial mechanism by which the Agency can assist, complement and coordinate public and private development, redevelopment, revitalization and enhancement of the community. B. (§210) CONFORMANCE TO CITY'S GENERAL PLAN All uses proposed in this Plan, or other plans that may be adopted by the Agency, shall be in conformance with the Santa Clarita General Plan as it now exists, or may be hereafter amended. Except when inconsistent with this Plan, all requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance shall apply to all. uses proposed hereunder. The Agency, after consultation with the Planning Commission, may, by resolution, adopt specific plans or programs for all or any portion of. the Project Area, which establish architectural controls, heights of buildings, land coverage, setback requirements, traffic circulation, traffic access, sign criteria and other development and design controls necessary for proper development of both private and public areas within the Project Area, unless expressly provided to the contrary. These controls shall be in addition to, and may not relax, the requirements of the City of Santa Clarita's development codes and ordinances. C. (§220) SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES The Agency's development objectives involve encouraging the implementation of development in accordance with the General Plan as identified above. In doing so, it is the Agency's intent to provide assistance in the following manner: 1) The construction of needed public improvements and facilities including, but not limited to, those described in Section 344 herein. of Santa Cadta Redevelopment Agency 2) The completion of various planning or marketing studies as required to facilitate and coordinate a successful redevelopment process. 3) . All other forms of Agency assistance authorized by the CRL, including, but not limited to,. loans, tax exempt financing, or other financial aid programs for new construction and/or rehabilitation. D. 0230) LAND USES FOR THE PROJECT AREA 0 In addition to illustrating the location of the Project Area : boundaries, the Redevelopment Plan Map ' (Appendix A) also illustrates the proposed public rights-of-way, public easements, open space, and proposed land uses to be permitted in the Project Area. • E. (§240) PUBLIC USES FOR THE PROJECT ARE4 1. (§241) PUBLIC STREET LAYOUT, RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND 0 EASEMENTS The public rights-of-way, easements, and principal streets proposed or existing in the Project Area are shown on the attached Redevelopment Plan Map (Appendix A). • Such streets and .rights-of-way may be widened, altered, realigned, abandoned, vacated, or closed by the. Agency and the City as necessary for proper development of the Project. Additional public streets, alleys, and easements may be created by the Agency and the City in the Project Area as needed for proper circulation. The public rights-of-way shall be used for vehicular and pedestrian traffic as well as for public improvements, public and private utilities, and activities typically found in public rights-of-way. In addition, all necessary easements for public uses, public facilities, and public utilities may be retained and created. CDC18 0, • r, u s n • LJ • 0 Draft Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project 2. (§242) OPEN SPACE, PUBLIC AND QUASI -PUBLIC USES, AND FACILITIES In any portion of the Project Area, the Agency is authorized to permit the establishment or enlargement of public, semi- public, institutional, or nonprofit uses. All such uses shall conform, so far as possible, with the provisions of this Plan applicable to the uses in the specific area involved, and shall conform with the General Plan. F. (§250) GENERAL DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS (§251) THE APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE TO BE PROVIDED AND STREET LAYOUT Open space and street layout is shown in the Redevelopment Plan Maps included herewith in Appendix A and described in Section 241 of this Plan. Additional open space will be provided through application of City standards for building setbacks. An estimated 310 acres will be devoted to open space, landscaping, building setbacks, yards, and rights-of- way at the expiration of this Plan. 2. (§252) LIMITATIONS ON TYPE, SIZE, HEIGHT, NUMBER, AND PROPOSED USE OF BUILDINGS Except as may be set forth in other Sections of this Plan, the type, size, height number, and proposed use of buildings shall be limited by the applicable federal, state, and local statutes, ordinances; regulations, the Santa Clarita General Plan, and any requirements that may be adopted pursuant to this Plan. Limitations on land use are indicated on the Redevelopment Plan Map in Appendix A. 3. (§253) THE APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS Under the current Santa Clarita General Plan, an estimated 2,180 dwelling units would be permitted in the Project Area at the expiration of this Plan. These uses are limited as indicated on the Redevelopment Plan Map in Appendix A. 711 City of Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency 4. (§254) THE PROPERTY TO BE DEVOTED TO PUBLIC PURPOSES AND THE NATURE OF SUCH PURPOSES • The locations of public uses are shown in the Redevelopment Plan Map in Appendix A. Other public uses are described in Section 251 of this Plan and specific public improvements/facilities are listed in Section 344. These improvements are generally expected to be provided in the public right-of-way or on land specifically acquired by the City for such purposes. Additional public facilitiesmay be developed by school districts and other public agencies operating within the Project Area. L] 5. (§255) CONFORMANCE WITH THIS PLAN All Real Property in the Project Area is hereby made subject to the controls and requirements of this Plan. No Real Property shall be developed, rehabilitated, or otherwise • changed after the date of the adoption of this Plan unless it is in conformance with the provisions of the General Plan, of the Zoning Ordinance, and of this Plan and all applicable provisions of State law. The Agency shall have the right, to the greatest extent permitted by law, to administratively interpret this Plan in order to determine whether. such • changes are in conformance with this Plan, including without limitation, the controls and project objectives of this Plan. 6. (§256) REHABILITATION AND RETENTION OF PROPERTIES Any existing structure within the Project Area specifically approved for retention and rehabilitation may be repaired, altered, reconstructed, or rehabilitated as may be deemed necessary by the Agency to ensure that such structure will be • safe and sound in all physical respects and not detrimental to surrounding. uses. Property rehabilitation standards for rehabilitation of existing buildings and site improvements may be established from time to time by the City and/or Agency. 7. (§257) SUBDIVISION OR CONSOLIDATION OF PARCELS No parcels in the Project- Area, including any parcels retained by a participant, shall be subdivided or consolidated without approval of the City. 1mc 0 • n u I• u u I0 Draft Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project G.. (§260) DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES 1. 0261) REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS FOR BUILDING PERMITS Applications for building permits and the review thereof shall follow City procedures. The Agency also may enact separate procedures for the review of building permits if the Agency deems such review necessary or beneficial to the implementation of this Plan. 2. (§262) MINOR VARIATIONS The Agency is authorized to permit a minor variation from the limits, restrictions, and controls established by this Plan if the Agency determines that: 1) There are particular circumstances or conditions applicable to a property or to the intended development of a property which justify a minor variation; 2) Permitting a minor variation will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the area; and 3) Permitting a minor variation will not be contrary to the objectives of this Plan or of the General Plan of the City. No variation shall be granted that changes a basic land use or that permits other than a minor departure from the provisions of this Plan. In permitting any such variation, the Agency shall impose such conditions as are necessary to protect the public peace, health, safety, or welfare and to assure compliance with the purposes of this Plan. Any variation permitted by the Agency hereunder shall not supersede any other approval required under applicable City codes and ordinances. 3. (§263) EXISTING NONCONFORMING USES The Agency, with the approval of the Planning Commission, is authorized to permit an existing use to remain in an existing building in good condition, which use does not conform to the provisions of this Plan, provided that such use City of Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency is generally compatible with nearby developments and uses in the Project Area, and is otherwise permitted by applicable codes and ordinances. The owner of such property must be Is willing to enter into a participation agreement (see Section 313 of this Plan) and agree to the imposition of such reasonable restrictions as are necessary to protect the development and use of the Project Area. The Agency, with approval of the Planning Commission, may • authorize additions, alterations, repairs, or other improvements in the Project Area for uses which do not conform to the provisions of this Plan when it is determined by the Agency and the Planning Commission that such improvements and uses would be compatible in the interim • with surrounding uses and development: • C7 • • MCI12 • • • Draft Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project 111. REDEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION A. 0300) GENERAL • To attain the objectives of this Plan, the. Agency is authorized to undertake the following implementation actions: 1) (001) Provide for participation by owners and tenants of properties located in the Project Area by extending opportunities to remain or relocate within the redevelopment • area; 2) . (§302) Acquisition of Real Property, and management of property under the ownership and control of the Agency, 3) 0303) Relocation assistance to displaced Project occupants; 4) (§304) Demolition or removal of buildings and improvements; 5) 0305) Installation, construction, or reconstruction of streets, utilities, open spaces and other public improvements and facilities; • 6) (§306) Rehabilitation, development, or construction of low - and moderate -income housing within the City; 7) (§307) Disposition of property for uses in accordance with this Plan; 8) (§308) Redevelopment of land by private enterprise and public agencies for uses in accordance with this Plan; and 9) (§309) Rehabilitation of structures and improvements by present owners, their successors, or the Agency. 10) (§310) Any other redevelopment agency activity permitted • by the CRL.) • SRC City of Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency • B. (§310) PARTICIPATION BY OWNERS AND TENANTS 1. 0311) PARTICIPATION OPPORTUNITIES FOR OWNERS • Persons who are owners of business and other types of Real Property in the Project Area shall be given an opportunity to participate in redevelopment. Such opportunity may consist of retaining all or a portion of their properties, acquiring • adjacent or other properties in the Project Area, or, where the Agency deems appropriate, by selling their properties to the. Agency and purchasing other properties in the Project Area or in such other manner as the Agency shall deem to be appropriate. To the extent now or hereafter permitted by law, the Agency may establish a program under which it loans funds to owners or tenants for the purpose of rehabilitating commercial or industrial buildings or structures within the Project Area. In the event anyone designated as a participant pursuant to this Plan fails or refuses to rehabilitate or develop his or her • Real Property pursuant to this Plan and a participation agreement with the Agency, the Real Property, or any interest therein, may be acquired by the Agency subject to the limitations set forth in this Plan, and sold. or leased for rehabilitation or development in accordance with this Plan. • Participation opportunities shall necessarily be subject to and limited by such factors as the land uses designated for the Project Area, the provision of public facilities, realignment of streets, experience in the development or operation of such undertakings as may be deemed appropriate by the Agency to best implement this Plan; the ability of owners to finance acquisition and development of structures in accordance with this Plan, the ability of owners to manage or operate the proposed development or activity; or any change in the total number of individual parcels in the • Project Area. In order to provide an opportunity to owners and tenants to participate in the growth and development of the Project Area, the Agency has promulgated rules for owner and tenant participation. If conflicts develop between the desires • of participants for particular sites or land uses, the Agency is authorized to establish reasonable priorities and preferences among the owners and tenants. Some of the factors considered in establishing the priorities and preferences included present occupancy, participant's length of occupancy • in the area, accommodation of as many participants as possible, similar land use to similar land use, conformity of CDC 14 • i• I• i+ C I• I• • '• I• 0 Draft Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project participants' proposals with the intent and objectives of this Plan, experience with the development and operation of particular uses, and ability to finance the implementation, development experience, and total effectiveness of each participant's proposal in providing a service to the community. Subject to the Agency's rules for owner participation, opportunities to participate shall be provided to owners and tenants in the Project Area. In addition to opportunities for participation by individual persons and firms, participation, to the extent it is feasible, shall be available for two or more persons, firms, or institutions to join together in partnerships, corporations, or other joint entities. 2. 0312) RE-ENTRY PREFERENCES FOR TENANTS The Agency shall extend reasonable preferences to persons who are engaged in business in the Project Area to re-enter in business within the Project Area, if they otherwise meet the requirements prescribed in this - Plan.. Business, institutional and semi-public tenants may, if they so desire, purchase and develop Real Property in the Project Area if they otherwise meet the requirements prescribed in this Plan. 3. (§313) PARTICIPATION AGREEMENTS At the Agency's option, each participant may be required to enter into a binding agreement with the Agency by which the participant agrees to develop, rehabilitate, or use the property in conformance with this Plan and be subject tothe provisions in the participation agreement. In such agreements, participants who retain Real Property shall be required.to join in the recordation of such documents as are necessary to make the provisions of the agreement applicable to their properties. Whether or not a participant enters into a participation agreement with the Agency, the provisions of this Plan are applicable to all public and private property in the Project Area. IRC City of Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency 4. (§314) CONFORMING OWNERS The Agency may in its sole and absolute discretion determine • that certain Real Property within the Project Area presently meets the requirements of this Plan and the owner of such property conforms. This will continue to be the case as long as such owner continues to operate, use, and maintain the Real Property within the requirements of this Plan. • However, a conforming owner may be required by the Agency to enter into a participation agreement with the Agency. in the event that such owner desires to: construct any additional improvements or substantially alter or modify existing structures on any of the Real Property described above as conforming; or, acquire additional property within • the Project Area. C. 0320) PROPERTYACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT 0321) ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY The Agency may acquire, but is not required to acquire, any Real Property located in the Project Area by gift, devise, exchange, purchase, or any other lawful method, including eminent domain. The eminent domain provisions of this Plan do not apply to any Real Property which has been continuously occupied as a residence during the 90 -day period preceding the adoption by the Agency of a resolution of necessity for acquisition of the property. Eminent domain proceedings, if used, must be commenced within twelve (12) years from the effective date of the ordinance adopting this Plan. Such time .limit only may be extended by further amendment to this Plan. The Agency is authorized to acquire structures without acquiring the land upon which those structures are located. The Agency is also authorized to acquire any other interest in Real Property less than a fee. Properties may be acquired and cleared by the Agency if a • determination is made that one or more of the following conditions exist: 1) The buildings and/or structures must be removed in order to assemble land into parcels of reasonable size and shape to eliminate an impediment to optimal land development; • I • Draft Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project 2)' The buildings and/or structures are substandard as demonstrated by an inspection of the property by the • Building and Safety Division of the City of Santa Clarita; 3) The buildings and/or structures must be removed in order to eliminate an environmental deficiency, including, but not limited to, incompatible land uses and small and irregular lot subdivisions; • 4) The buildings and/or structures must be removed to provide land for needed public facilities, including among others, rights-of-way, public parking facilities, open space, or public utilities; b) The acquisition of the property is allowed by the CRL and • will promote the implementation of the Plan. Other provisions of this section notwithstanding, the Agency shall not acquire from any of its members or officers any property or interest in property except through eminent domain proceedings. 2. (§322) ACQUISITION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY • Generally, personal property shall not be acquired. However, where necessary for the execution of this Plan, the Agency is authorized to acquire personal property in the Project Area by any lawful means. • 3. 0323) PROPERTY MANAGEMENT During such time as property, if any, in the Project Area is owned by the Agency, such property shall be under the management and control of the Agency. Such property may • be maintained, managed, operated, repaired, cleaned, rented, or leased to an individual, family, business, or other appropriate entity by the Agency pending its disposition for redevelopment. The Agency shall maintain all Agency -owned property that is not to be demolished in a reasonably safe and sanitary condition. Furthermore, the Agency may insure against risks or hazards any of the real or personal property which it owns. _ • The Agency is not authorized to own and operate rental property acquired and rehabilitated in prospects of resale, • QC of Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency beyond a reasonable period of time necessary to effect such resale. D. (§330) RELOCATION OF PERSONS, FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES The following provisions relative .to the relocation of persons, families and businesses are required by the CRL. The Plan does not: • (i) contain authority for the Agency to acquire by eminent domain any property on which persons reside; or • 00 contain any public projects that will displace a substantial number of low- or moderate -income persons. 1. (§331) RELOCATION ASSISTANCE Relocation advisory assistance will be furnished by the Agency to any person (either owners or renters) or business concern that is displaced by the Agency in connection with the implementation of the Plan. No person of low- or moderate -income will be required by the Agency to move • from his or her dwelling unit until there is a suitable housing unit available -and ready for occupancy by such displaced person or family at rents comparable to those at the time of their displacement. Replacement housing shall be available in areas not generally less desirable with regard to public utilities, public and commercial facilities, and reasonably • accessible to the place of employment. 2. (§332) RELOCATION METHOD • The Agency shall prepare a feasible method for relocation of all of the following: 1) Families and persons to be temporarily or permanently displaced from housing facilities in the Project Area. 2) Nonprofit local community institutions to be temporarily or permanently displaced from facilities actually used for institutional purposes in the Project Area. 3) The City Council shall insure that such method of the Agency for the relocation of families or single persons to be displaced by a project shall provide that no persons or families of low -and moderate -income shall be displaced MC 18 • Draft Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project unless and until there is a suitable housing unit available and ready for occupancy by such displaced person or • family at rents comparable to those at the time of their displacement. Such housing units shall be suitable to the needs of such displaced persons or families and must be decent; safe, sanitary, and otherwise standard dwellings. The Agency shall not displace such person or family until such housing units are available and ready for occupancy. • 3. (§333) RELOCATION PAYMENTS The Agency shall make relocation payments to qualified • persons or.businesses displaced by the Project pursuant to applicable laws. Such relocation payments shall be made pursuant to Agency rules and regulations adopted pursuant to California Government Code and guidelines promulgated by. the State Department of Housing and Community • Development and any Agency rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto. In addition, the Agency may make any additional relocation payments, which, in the Agency's opinion, may be reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes of this Plan. These additional payments shall be • subject to the availability of funds for such purpose. 4. 0334) TEMPORARY RELOCATION HOUSING The Agency is authorized to provide temporary relocation • housing on sites within the Project Area, subject to approval by the City of Santa Clarita. Such action by the Agency would be to provide additional safe, standard, and decent relocation housing resources for families and businesses within the Project Area prior to permanent disposition and development of such cleared sites. If feasible and desirable, • the Agency may also utilize sites outside the Project Area for providing relocation housing resources. The Agency is also authorized to provide temporary relocation housing in houses acquired by the Agency that are being held for sale and/or rehabilitation. • 7 •19 1 MC Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency E. (§340) DEMOLITION, CLEARANCE, SITE PREPARATION, PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS The following provisions relative to demolition, clearance and site preparation are required by the CRL. The Plan does not (i) contain authority for the Agency to acquire by eminent domain any property on which persons reside; or (ii) contain any public projects that will displace a substantial number of low- or moderate -income persons. 1. 0341) DEMOLITION AND CLEARANCE Subject to and in conformance with law, the Agency is authorized to demolish and clear or move, or cause to be demolished and cleared or moved, buildings, structures, and other improvements from any Real Property in the Project Area as necessary to carry out the purposes of this Plan. 2. (§342) BUILDING SITE PREPARATION Subject to and in conformance with law, the Agency is authorized to prepare, or cause to be prepared as building sites, any Real Property in the Project Area. 3. (§343) PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS Pursuant to the CRL, the Agency is authorized to install and construct, or to cause to be installed and constructed, Project improvements and public utilities necessary to carry out this Plan. Such improvements include, but are not .limited to, streets, curbs, gutters, street lights, sewers, storm drains, traffic signals, electrical distribution systems, natural gas distribution systems, water distribution systems, or overpasses, underpasses, bridges, and landscaped areas. 4. 0344) PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS The Agency may, with the consent and cooperation of the City Council and adoption of certain findings specified in CRL Section 33445, pay all or part of the value of the land for, and the cost of the. installation and construction of, any buildings, facilities, structures or other improvements which are publicly owned, including school facilities, either outside or inside the Project Area. 9 MC 21 1 10 • Draft Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Without limiting its general authority, the Agency is 0 specifically authorized to provide or participate in providing the improvements described in Section 365, as well as the public improvements or facilities listed below: 1. Improvements as identified in the Freedman Plan: • Various streetscape improvements on San Fernando • Road and Lyons Avenue. • Construct Gateway/Clock Tower. • Construct Downtown Plaza. • Various improvements to drainage, circulation, landscaping, building facades, parking, and sewers as needed. • Improve road, landscaping, and facades at the East San Fernando Road entry. • Improve road, landscaping, and facades at the West San Fernando Road entry. S • Various improvements as part of the Lyons Avenue Improvement Plan. • Various improvements to the Hart Park Mansion. • Construct public parking facilities as needed in Downtown Newhall. 2. Construct venues for cultural and artistic opportunities. 3. Construct permanent community center in Downtown Newhall. 4. Expand/rehabilitate Library in Downtown Newhall. • 5. Reconstruct Newhall Park Community Building. 6. Various improvements as needed to Newhall Creek. 7. Various improvements as needed to Placerita Creek. 8. Potential recreation improvements as needed throughout the Project Area. 9. Improve trails and landscaping on Metropolitan Water District property. 10. Various improvements as needed at Creekview Park. 11. Improve median on Sierra Highway (Placenta Canyon Road to City limits). 12. Construct landscaping improvements and median modifications as needed throughout the Project Area. 13. Install Lyons Avenue signal interconnect. 14. Construct transit maintenance and administration facility. • MC City of Santa Garita Redevelopment Agency • 15. Construct Wiley Canyon Road bridge. 16. Construct the realigned Wiley Canyon Road (including drainage improvements). • 17. Mitigate Sierra Highway slope erosion. 18. Constructfrepair curbs, gutters, sidewalks, crosswalks, traffic signals, median modifications, handicapped access, approaches, and drainage improvements as needed • throughout the Project Area. 19. Improvement to public schools as necessary, including, but not limited to: • Various drainage improvements (Hart High School through Newhall Park). • • Restore Auditorium (Hart High School). • Modernize buildings and facilities as needed (Hart High School, Newhall Elementary School, and Placerita Junior High School). • Improve library (Hatt High School). • • Reconstruct cafeteria (Hart High School). • Convert existing structure to auditorium (Newhall Elementary School). • Various circulation improvements as needed for pedestrian safety (Hart High School, Newhall Elementary School, and Placerita Junior, High • School). • Construct sidewalks as needed (Placerita Junior High School). • Various parking lot improvements as needed (Hart High School, and Placerita Junior High School). • • Various lighting improvements as needed (Hart High School, and Placerita Junior High School). • Provide infrastructure for energy plant (Hart High School). • Construct energy plant (Hart High School and • Placerita Junior High School). • Construct new tennis and handball courts with lighting (Hart High School). 20. Miscellaneous street improvements (may require road widening): • • Add third through lane on San Fernando Road. and Sierra Highway. • Add third through lane on San Fernado Road at Newhall Avenue. • • Add third through lane on San Fernando Road at 13th Street, and restripe as needed(one side). MC 22 1 0 • Drah Redevelopment Plan for the !Newhall Redevelopment Project • Add third through lane on San Fernando Road at Circle J Ranch Road, restripe as needed, and add • right turn lane. • Add right turn lane on Wiley Canyon Road to Lyons Avenue (both sides). • Add second through lane on Orchard Village Road. at Lyons :Avenue, and add right turn lane from Lyons Avenue to Valley Street. • Add second through lane on Newhall Avenue at Lyons Avenue, and add right turn lane from Lyons Avenue to Newhall Avenue. • Add third through lane on San Fernado Road at Newhall Avenue (both sides). • • Construct additional sidewalks, . plant landscaping, and construct bikelanes on Lyons Avenue from 1-5 to eastern terminus. • Construct sidewalks, additional curbs and gutters, construct median, plant landscaping, and construct • bikelanes on San Fernando Road from Lyons avenue to SR -14. • Construct additional sidewalks, curbs and gutters, construct median, plant landscaping, and construct bikelanes on Newhall Avenue from San Fernando Road to Lyons Avenue. • • Construct additional. sidewalks, curbs and gutters, construct median, plant landscaping, and construct bikelanes on Wiley Canyon Road from Calgrove Boulevard to Lyons Avenue. • Construct additional sidewalks, construct median, plant landscaping, and construct bikelanes on Calgrove Boulevard from I-5 to 230 feet east of Creekside Drive. • Construct additional sidewalks, construct median, plant landscaping, and construct bikelanes on San Fernando Road from Magic Mountain Parkway to • Lyons Avenue. • Construct median, plant landscaping, and construct bikelanes on Newhall Avenue from Lyons Avenue to 16th Street. • 21. Construct the following parks: • South Fork River Park (near Orchard. Village Road within the right-of-way of the South Fork of the Santa Clara River. • Newhall Creek Park (between East Newhall and San • Fernando Road). • CRC City of Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency 22. Acquire rights-of-way and construct the following multi- purpose trials: • Newhall Creek Trail (generally from Sierra Highway • to the South Fork River Park). • Placerita Canyon/Hart Park Trail (generally from the Masters College to Hart Park). • South Fork River Trail Extension (generally from the South Fork River Park to intersection of Interstate 5 • and Calgrove Boulevard). • Various additional trails as needed throughout the Project Area. 23. Construct the following bike paths: C. • Connection between the Soledad Canyon Metrolink Rail Station to the Newhall Metrolink Rail Station. • Lyons Avenue (may require street widening). • Wiley Canyon Road (may require street widening). • San Fernando Road Imay require street widening). • 24. Miscellaneous Improvements: • Construct eastern extension of Lyons Avenue. • Alleviate hill erosion at Meadowridge Drive. • Improve drainage at San Fernando Road and Sierra • Highway. • . Improve flowline problem at Race Street - Across from 24257. • Make various improvements to the water distribution system as needed throughout the Project Area. • • Underground utilities as needed . throughout the Project Area. • Relocate public facilities, including those owned and/or operated by the Newhall County Water District, whenever such facilities are affected by redevelopment activities • Additional Facilities or Improvements Changes in circumstances or designs may alter the location of the facilities described above, or may require other related • facilities. The financing of such related facilities shall be deemed authorized by the Agency. The Agency will be authorized to finance the construction of additional improvements in the Project Area based on the requirements of any future project environmental impact • report, the Congestion Management Program (CMP), or the CRC • 21 0 Draft Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project '• Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP); or any other regional or local regulatory program. 5. 0345) TEMPORARY PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS The Agency is authorized to install and construct, or cause to be installed and constructed, temporary public improvements and temporary public utilities necessary to carry out this Plan. Such temporary public improvements shall include, but not be limited to, streets, public facilities and utilities. Temporary utilities may be installed above ground. F. 0350) REHABILITATION AND CONSERVATION OF STRUCTURES (§351) REHABILITATION OF STRUCTURES The Agency is authorized to rehabilitate and conserve, or to cause to be rehabilitated and conserved, any building or structure in the Project Area owned by the Agency. The Agency is also authorized and directed to advise,. encourage, and financially assist in the rehabilitation and conservation of property in the Project Area not owned by the Agency. The Agency and the City may conduct a rehabilitation program to encourage owners of property within the Project Area to upgrade and maintain their property consistent with City codes, ordinances and standards. The Agency and the City may develop a program for making low interest loans for the rehabilitation of properties in the Project Area. Properties may be rehabilitated, provided that rehabilitation and conservation activities on a structure are carried out in an expeditious manner and in conformance with this Plan. 2. (§352) MOVING OF STRUCTURES As is necessary in carrying out this Plan and where it is economically feasible to so do, the Agency is authorized to move, or cause to be moved, any standard structure or building, which can be rehabilitated, to a location within or outside the Project Area. MC City of Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency 3. 0353) BUILDINGS OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE To the maximum feasible extent, special consideration shall be given to the protection, rehabilitation, or restoration of any structure determined to be historically significant, taking into consideration State and local guidelines. G. 0360) REAL PROPERTY DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT (§361) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS For the purpose of this Plan, and to the extent permitted by and in the manner required by lawi the Agency is authorized to sell, lease, exchange, subdivide, transfer, assign, pledge, encumber by mortgage or deed of trust, or otherwise dispose of any interest in Real Property. In the manner required and to the extent permitted by law, before any interest in Real Property of the Agency acquired in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, with tax increment monies is sold or leased, for development pursuant to this Plan, such sale, lease, or disposition shall first be approved by the City Council after public hearing. Purchasers or lessees of Agency -owned property in the Project Area shall be obligated to use the property for the purposes designated in this Plan, to begin and complete development of the property within a period of time which the Agency fixes as reasonable, and to comply with other conditions which the Agency deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this Plan. To the extent permitted and in the manner required by law, the Agency is authorized to dispose of Real Property by leases or sales by negotiation withoutpublic bidding. Real property may be conveyed by the Agency to the City or any other public body without charge. 2. (§362) DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENTS 1) To provide adequate safeguards ensuring that the- provisions heprovisions of this Plan will be carried out and to prevent the recurrence of blight, all Real Property sold, leased, or conveyed by the Agency shall be made subject to the CQC 0I •! n • • :] n u '• I9 Draft Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project provisions of this Plan by lease, deeds, contracts, agreements, declarations, or other lawful means. Where determined appropriate by the Agency, such documents or portions thereof shall be recorded in the Office of the Recorder of the County. 2) The leases, deeds, contracts, agreements, and declarations of restrictions may contain restrictions, covenants running with the land, rights of reverter, conditions subsequent, equitable servitudes, or any other provision necessary to carry out this Plan. 3) All deeds, leases, or contracts for the sale; lease, sublease, or other transfer of any land in a redevelopment project shall contain the following ' provisions and. nondiscrimination clauses. Restricting the rental, sale or lease of property on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry or national origin of any person by lessees and purchasers of Real Property acquired in redevelopment projects and owners of property improved as part of a redevelopment project is prohibited. Redevelopment agencies, in accordance with CRL Section 33435, shall obligate said lessees and purchasers to refrain from discriminatory practices. In accordance with CRL Section 33436, leases and contracts which the Agency proposes to enter into with respect to the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of any Real Property. in the Project Area shall include the following provisions: a) In deeds, the following language shall appear: "The grantee herein covenants by and for himself or herself, his or her heirs, executors, administrators and assigns,. and all persons claiming under or through them, that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the premises herein conveyed, nor shall the grantee himself or herself, or any person claiming under or through him or her, establish or permit any such practice or practices. of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, MC City of Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency subtenants, sublessees or vendees in the premises herein conveyed. The foregoing covenants shall run with the land." b) In leases, the following language shall appear: "The lessee herein covenants by and for himself or herself, his or her heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and all persons claiming under or through him or her, and this lease is made and accepted upon and subject to the following conditions: c) That there shall be no discrimination against; or segregation of, any person or group of persons, on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry, in the leasing, subleasing, transferring, use, occupancy; tenure or enjoyment of the premises herein leased, nor shall the lessee himself or herself, or any person claiming under or through him or her, establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, sublessees, subtenants, or vendees in the premises herein leased." In contracts entered into by the Agency relating to the sale, transfer or leasing of land or any interest therein acquired by the Agency within any. Survey Area or Project Area, the foregoing provisions, in substantially the forms set forth, shall be included, and such contracts shall further provide that the foregoing provisions shall be binding upon and shall obligate the contracting party or parties and any subcontracting party or parties, or other transferees under the instrument. 3. (§363) DESIGN FOR DEVELOPMENT In the case of property which is the subject of a disposition and development or - participation agreement with the Agency, it shall be constructed in accordance with architectural, landscape, and site plans submitted to and approved in writing by the Agency. One of the objectives of • this Plan is to create an attractive and pleasant environment in the Project Area. Therefore, such plans shall give consideration to good design, open space, and other amenities to enhance the aesthetic quality of the Project Area. The Agency will not approve any plans that do not comply with • this Plan. CRCI28 • 's 4. • 5. • • [: Drag Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project (§364) INDUSTRIAL AND MANUFACTURING PROPERTY To the extent now or hereafter permitted by law, the Agency may, as part of an agreement that provides for the development or rehabilitation of property within the Project Area that will be used for industrial or manufacturing purposes, assist with the financing of facilities or capital equipment including, but not necessarily limited to, pollution control devices. Prior to entering into an agreement for a development that will be assisted pursuant to this Section, the Agency will find, after a public hearing, that the assistance is necessary for the economic feasibility of the development and that the assistance cannot be obtained on economically feasible terms in the private market. 0365)PERSONAL PROPERTY DISPOSITION For purposes of this Plan, the Agency is authorized to sell, lease, exchange, transfer, assign, pledge, encumber, or otherwisedispose of personal property that has been acquired by the Agency. MC I• • Draft Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project IV. LOW -.AND MODERATE -INCOME HOUSING A. (§400) 20% TAX INCREMENT FUNDS REQUIREMENT • Not less than twenty percent (20%) of all taxes allocated to the Agency pursuant to CRL Section 33670 shall be used by the Agency for the purposes of increasing, improving, and preserving the City's supply of housing for persons and families of low- or moderate -income. I• B. (§410) LOW- AND MODERATE -INCOME HOUSING AND REPLACEMENT • The Agency shall provide for affordable housing in compliance with all applicable provisions of the CRL, including but not limited to CRL Sections 33334.2 et seq., 33413 and 33413.5. • C.. 0420) PROVISION OF LOW- AND MODERATE - INCOME HOUSING The Agency may, to the extent permitted by law and land use designations, inside or outside the Project Area, acquire land, sell • or lease land, donate land, improve sites, price restrict units, construct or rehabilitate structures, or use any other method authorized by the CRL in order to. provide housing for persons and families of low or moderate income. The Agency may also provide subsidies to, or for the benefit of, such persons and families or households to assist them in obtaining housing within the City. • •31 1 GMC • Drak Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project V. PROJECT FINANCING A. (§500) GENERAL ' DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED FINANCING METHOD • Upon adoption of this Plan by the City Council, the Agency, if it deems appropriate, is authorized to finance this Project with assistance from the City of Santa Clarita, the County of Los Angeles, the State of California, United States Government, any • other public agency, property tax increments, interest revenue, income revenue, Agency -issued notes and bonds, or from any other available sources of financing that are legally available, The City may, in accordance with the law, supply advances and expend money as necessary to assist the Agency in carrying out • this Project. Such assistance shall be on terms established from time to time by agreement between the City of Santa Clarita and the Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency. • B. (§510) TAX INCREMENTS Pursuant to CRL Section 33670, for a. period not to exceed forty- five (45) years from the date of adoption of this Plan, or such longer time as provided by the CRL, all taxes levied upon taxable • property within the Project Area each year by or for the benefit of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, City of Santa Clarita, any district, or other public corporation (hereinafter sometimes called "taxing agencies") after the effective date of the Ordinance approving this Plan, or any amendment thereto, shall • be divided as follows: • Q33 c City of Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency C: 1) That portion of the taxes which would be produced by the rate upon which the tax is levied each year by or for each of said taxing agencies upon the total sum of the assessed value of the • taxable property in the Project Area as shown upon the assessment roll used in connection with the taxation of such property by such taxing agency, last equalized prior to the effective date of such ordinance, shall be allocated to and when collected shall be paid into the funds for the respective taxing agencies as taxes by or for said taxing agencies on all other • property are paid (for the purpose of allocating taxes levied by or for any taxing agency or agencies which did not include the territory of the Project Area on the effective date of such ordinance but to which such territory is annexed or otherwise included after such effective date, the assessment roll of the • County of Los Angeles last equalized on the -effective date of said ordinance shall be used in determining the assessed valuation of the taxable property in the Project Area on said effective date); and, 3) That portion of the taxes identified in paragraph (2) above, • which are attributable to a tax rate levied by any of said taxing agencies for the purpose of providing revenues in an amount sufficient to make annual repayments of the principal of, and the interest on, any bonded indebtedness for the acquisition or improvement of Real Property shall be allocated to, and when collected shall be paid into, the fund of that taxing agency. • This paragraph (3) shall only apply to taxes levied to repay GRCI34 • • 2) Except as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4) below, that portion of the levied taxes each year in excess of such amount shall be allocated to and when collected shall be.paid into a special fund of the Agency to pay the principal of and interest on bonds, loans, moneys advanced to, or indebtedness (whether funded, refunded, assumed or otherwise) incurred by the • Agency to finance or refinance, in whole or in part, this Project. Unless and until the total assessed value of the taxable property in the Project Area exceeds the total assessed value of the taxable property in the Project Area, as shown by the last equalized assessment roll referred to in paragraph (1) above, • all of the taxes levied and collected upon the taxable property in the Project Area shall be paid into the funds of the respective taxing agencies. When said bonds, loans, advances and indebtedness, if any, and interest thereon, have been paid, all moneys thereafter received from taxes upon the taxable • property in the Project Area shall be paid into the funds of the respective taxing agencies as taxes on all other property are paid; and, 3) That portion of the taxes identified in paragraph (2) above, • which are attributable to a tax rate levied by any of said taxing agencies for the purpose of providing revenues in an amount sufficient to make annual repayments of the principal of, and the interest on, any bonded indebtedness for the acquisition or improvement of Real Property shall be allocated to, and when collected shall be paid into, the fund of that taxing agency. • This paragraph (3) shall only apply to taxes levied to repay GRCI34 • i Draft Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall. Redevelopment Project bonded indebtedness approved by the ,voters of said taxing agency or agencies on or after January 1, 1989. i 4) That portion of tax revenues allocated to the Agency pursuant to paragraph (2) above which is attributable to increases in the rate of tax imposed for the benefit of any affected taxing agency whose levy occurs after the tax year in which the • ordinance adopting this Plan becomes effective, shall be allocated to such affected taxing agency to the extent the affected taxing agency has elected in the manner required by law to receive such allocation. • Any advanced moneys are hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of and interest on the advance of moneys, or making of loans, or the incurring of any indebtedness (whether funded, refunded, assumed, or otherwise) by the Agency to finance or refinance the Project in whole or in part. • The Agency is authorized to make such pledges- as to specific advances, loans and indebtedness as appropriate in carrying out the Project. Taxes shall be allocated and paid to the Agency consistent with the provisions of this Plan only to pay the principal of and interest on loans, moneys advanced to, or • indebtedness (whether funded, refunded, assumed or otherwise) incurred by the Agency to finance or refinance, in whole or in part, the Project. The Agency shall make payments to affected taxing agencies as • required by CRL Section 33607.5 and may make other payments to affected taxing agencies as authorized by the CRL. i C. 0520) ISSUANCE OF BONDS AND NOTES The Agency may issue bonds or notes when a determination has been made that such financing isrequired and feasible. Such bonds or notes shall be issued only after the Agency has • determined that funds are, or will be, available to repay or refinance principal and interest when due and payable. I• i 3RC City of Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency G12C 31 D. 0530) LOANS AND GRANTS • The Agency is authorized to obtain advances, borrow funds, and • create indebtedness in carrying out this Plan. The principal and interest on such .advance funds and indebtedness may be paid from tax increments or any other funds available to the Agency. 13 E. 0540) FINANCING LIMITATIONS Consistent with CRL Sections 33333.2 and 33334.1, the following financing limitations are imposed on this Plan: • From time to time as may be appropriate, the Agency may issue bonds and/or notes for any of its corporate purposes. The Agency may issue such types of bonds on which the principal and interest are payable in whole or in part from tax increments collected pursuant to CRL Section 33670. The total outstanding principal • of any bonds so issued and repayable from said tax increment from the Project Area shall not exceed Sixty Million Dollars ($60,000,000) at any one time, except by further amendment of the Plan. No loans, advances, or indebtedness to finance, in whole or in part, • this Project and to be repaid from the allocation of taxes described in the aforementioned Section 33670 shall be established or incurred by the Agency beyond twenty (20) years from the adoption date of the ordinance approving this Plan. This time limit shall not prevent the Agency from incurring debt to be paid • from the low- and moderate -income housing fund (see Section 550) or establishing more debt in order to fulfill the Agency's obligations pursuant to CRL Section 33413. The loans, advances, or indebtedness may be repaid over a period of time extending beyond such twenty (20) year limit, but the i Agency shall not receive any allocation of property taxes or repay indebtedness with the proceeds of property taxes after the forty- fifth (45th) anniversary of the adoption of the Plan. F. (§550) LOW- AND MODERATE -INCOME HOUSING FUND Taxes which are allocated by the Agency to low- and moderate - income housing pursuant to Part IV of this Plan shall be held in a separate low -and moderate -income housing fund. • 13 • Draft Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project • VI. ADMINISTRATION A. (§600) ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE PLAN The administration, implementation, and enforcement of this Plan, including the preparation and execution of any documents implementing this Plan, shall be performed by the Agency and/or the City in accordance with all applicable provisions of the CRL. • The provisions of this Plan, or other documents entered into pursuant to this Plan, may also be enforced by court litigation instituted by either the Agency or the City. Such remedies may include, but are not limited to, specific performance, damages, re- entry, injunctions, or any other available legal or equitable • remedies. B. 0610) DURATION OF THIS PLAN'S DEVELOPMENT • CONTROLS Pursuant to CRL Section 33333.2, the effectiveness of this Plan in the Project Area shall terminate at a date which shall not exceed thirty (30) years from the date of adoption of this Plan. After the time limit on the effectiveness of this Plan, the Agency shall have • no authority to act pursuant to this Plan, except to pay previously incurred indebtedness, to enforce existing covenants or contracts, including nondiscrimination and nonsegregation provisions, which shall run in perpetuity, and to complete its housing obligation in accordance with CRL Section 33413. • GRCI• 37 City of Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency C 0620) PROCEDURE FOR AMENDMENT •. This Plan may be by means of the procedure established in CRL • Sections 33450 through 33458, or by any other procedure established by law. Necessarily some of the statements in this Plan are general in nature; formal amendment of the Plan is not required for subsequent implementation and administrative interpretation consistent with this Plan. • D. 0630) AGENCY/CITY COOPERATION Subject to any limitation in law, the City will aid and cooperate • with the Agency in carrying out this Plan and may take any further action necessary to ensure the continued fulfillment of the purposes of this Plan and to prevent the recurrence or spread of blight, or those conditions which caused the blight in the Project Area. Actions by the City may include, but are not necessarily • limited to, the following: 1) Review of building or rehabilitation proposals for consistency with all requirements and standards promulgated by the City of Santa Clarita including, but not limited to conformance to the City's Municipal Code, development code and applicable • ordinances, and, for projects that are found to conform to City standards and requirements, issue building permits for said projects. 2) Institution and completion of proceedings for opening, closing, vacating, widening, or changing the grades of streets, alleys, and other public rights-of-way, and for other necessary modifications of the streets, the street layout, and other public rights-of-way in the Project Area. Such action by the City may include the abandonment and relocation of public utilities in the public rights-of-way as necessary to carry out this Plan. 3) Institution and completion of proceedings necessary for • changes and improvements in publicly -owned public utilities within or affecting the Project Area. 4) Imposition wherever necessary of appropriate design controls within the limits of this Plan upon parcels in the Project Area to ensure their proper development and use. • 5) Provision for administration/enforcement of this Plan by the City after development. 6) Performance of the above and of all other functions and services relating to public health, safety, and physical • development normally rendered in accordance with a schedule that will permit the redevelopment of the Project Area to be • • Draft Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project commenced and carried to completion without unnecessary delays. • 7) The initiation and completion of any other proceedings necessary to carry out the Project. The Agency is authorized, but not obligated, to provide and expend funds to ensure the completion of the Project as a whole in • accordance with this Plan. The obligation of the Agency to perform the actions indicated in this Section shall be contingent upon the continued availability of funding for this Project, primarily from tax increment revenues as defined in Section 510 hereof. However, the Agency may utilize any legally available • sources of revenue for funding projects in accordance with this Plan. E. 0640) COOPERATION . WITH OTHER PUBLIC • JURISDICTIONS Certain public bodies are authorized by state law to aid and cooperate, with or without consideration, in the planning, construction, or operation of this Project. The Agency shall seek • the aid and cooperation of such public bodies and shall attempt to coordinate this Plan with the activities of such public bodies in order to accomplish the purposes of redevelopment and the highest public good. The Agency, by law, may acquire property already devoted to a • public use, but is not authorized to acquire Real Property owned by public bodies without the consent of such public bodies. However, the Agency will seek the cooperation of all public bodies that own or intend to acquire property in the Project Area. Any public body that owns or leases property in the Project Area will • be afforded all the privileges of owner and tenant participation if such public body is willing to enter into a participation agreement with the Agency on terms determined pursuant to this Plan and the Agency's rules for owner participation. • • I• 39. Draft Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project APPENDIX A • LI • Li 0 V, 91 ! !-'E L 6uA4 -, ? li =7 9: MAND AV E E 0 0 11 C: EVEREI"f DR ! !-'E L 6uA4 -, ? li =7 9: MAND AV E E 0 0 11 C: I• LEGAL DESCRIPTION SANTA CLARITA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY • NEWHALL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT revised March 5, 1997 This Legal Description is to be used in conjunction with the Boundary Map of the Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency, Newhall Redevelopment Project. The course numbers on the description correspond with the course number shown on the Boundary Map. • All of that certain real property in the County of Los Angeles, State of California described as follows: P.O.B. Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Wiley Canyon Road as shown on Tract No. 30340, • recorded in Book 741, Pages 62-68 of Maps, Records of Said County, with the centerline of Calgrove Boulevard as shown on said Tract No. 30340; thence 1. southwesterly along said centerline to its intersection with the northeasterly Right -of -Way line of the Golden State Freeway per Cal Trans Right -of -Way maps; thence 2. northwesterly along said northeasterly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the southerly • line of Lot 8 of St. John Subdivision as shown on map recorded in Book 196, Pages 306-309, inclusive of Maps, Records of Said County; thence 3. easterly along said southerly line and the southerly line of Tract No. 31124 as. shown on map recorded in Book 880, Pages 71-84, . inclusive of Maps, Records of said County, to its intersection with the westerly Right -of -Way line of Wiley Canyon Road, 100 feet wide; thence • 4. easterly in a direct line to the point of intersection of the southwesterly line of Lot 152 of Tract No. 26885 as shown on map recorded in Book 773, Pages 74-79 inclusive of Maps, Records of said County with the easterly Right -of -Way line of Wiley Canyon Road; thence 5. southeasterly along the southwesterly line of said Lot 152 to its intersection with the southwesterly line of Lot 114 of said Tract No. 26885; thence 6. southeasterly along said southwesterly line and its southeasterly prolongation to its • intersection with the centerline of Lyons Avenue, 100 feet wide as shown on said Tract No. 26885;thence 7. easterly along. said centerline to its intersection with the southerly prolongation of the westerly line of Parcel Map recorded in Book 24, Page 81 of Parcel Maps, Records of said County; thence • 8. northerly along said prolongation and said westerly line to its intersection with the northerly line of said Parcel Map, recorded in Book 24, Page 81; thence 9. easterly along said northerly line and its easterly prolongation to its intersection with the centerline of Orchard Village Road as shown on said Parcel Map recorded in Book 24, Page 81; thence 10. southeasterly along said centerline to its intersection with the northerly Right -of -Way line of • Lyons Avenue; thence 11. easterly along said northerly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the northeasterly line of Parcel Map recorded in Book 131, Pages 93-94 of Parcel Maps, Records of said County; thence 12. northwesterly along said northeasterly line to its intersection with the northwesterly line of said Parcel Map recorded in Book 131, Pages 93-94; thence • 13. southwesterly along said northwesterly line to its intersection with the northeasterly line of Tract No. 26894 as shown on map recorded in Book 784, Pages 31 through 34 inclusive of Maps, Records of said County; `thence 14. northwesterly along said northeasterly line to its intersection with the southeasterly line of said Tract No. 26894; thence 1 • e revised March 5, 1997 15. northeasterly along said southeasterly line to its intersection with the northeasterly line of said Tract No. 26894; thence 16. northwesterly along said northeasterly line and the northeasterly line of Tract No. 26893 as shown on map recorded in Book 780, Pages 41 through 43 inclusive of Maps, Records of Said • County, and its northwesterly prolongation to its intersection with the centerline of 16th Street as shown on Tract No. 5844 on map recorded in Book 69, Pages 41 and 42 of Maps, Records of said County; 80 feet wide; thence 17. northeasterly along said centerline line to its intersection with the centerline of Newhall Avenue, as shown on said Tract No. 5844 ; thence • 18. northwesterly along said centerline to its intersection with the northwesterly Right -of -Way line of Newhall Avenue; thence 19. northeasterly along said northwesterly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the southwesterly line of said Tract No. 5844; thence 20. northwesterly along said southwesterly line to its intersection with the northwesterly line of said Tract No. 5844; thence • 21. northeasterly along said northwesterly line to its intersection with the northwesterly prolongation of the southwesterly line of Tract No. 29796 as shown on map recorded in Book 739, Page 18 and 19 of Maps, Records of said County; thence 22. southeasterly along said prolongation and said southwesterly line to its intersection with the southeasterly line of said Tract No. 29796; thence e 23. northeasterly along said southeasterly line and its northeasterly prolongation to its intersection with the centerline of Walnut Street, 60 feet wide as shown on said Tract No. 5844;thence 24. southeasterly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of 16th Street, 50 feet wide as shown on said Tract No. 5844, thence 25. northeasterly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of San Fernando • Road as shown on said Tract No. 5844; thence 26. northwesterly along said centerline to its intersection with the southeasterly prolongation of the southwesterly line of Parcel 1, as shown on Parcel Map Recorded in Book 256, Pages 3 & 4 of Parcel Maps, Records of said County, bearing North 29° 13' 00" West; thence 27. northwesterly along said prolongation and said southwesterly line to its intersection with the westerly line of said Parcel Map, bearing North 40° 34' 30" West; thence • 28. northerly along said westerly line to its intersection with the northwesterly line of said Parcel Map bearing North 16" 41' 30" East; thence 29. northeasterly along said northwesterly line and its northeasterly prolongation to its intersection with the westerly prolongation of the northerly line of said Parcel Map bearing North 800 49'0" East; thence e 30. easterly along said prolongation, said northerly line and its easterly prolongation to its intersection with the centerline of San Fernando Road as shown on File Map 10863, Records . of said County; thence 31. northerly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly prolongation of a line having a bearing of South 81" 20'50" West and a distance of 145.74 as shown on Lot 146, Tract No. 38840 recorded in Book 1001, Pages 36 through 42, inclusive of Maps, Records of said • County; thence 32. westerly along said prolongation and said line to its intersection with the easterly line of said Lot 146; thence ` 33. northerly along said easterly line to its intersection with the southerly line of said Lot 146; thence • 34. easterly along said southerly line to its intersection with the northeasterly line of said Lot 146; thence 35. northwesterly along said northeasterly line having a bearing of North 34" 12' 80" West and its northwesterly prolongation to its intersection with the southerly prolongation of the westerly 2 • • revised March 5, 1997 line of the 12.08 acre tract per Deed recorded in Book 4458, Page 171 of Official Records; thence 36. northerly along said prolongation and said westerly line to its intersection with the southerly • line of Instrument Number 1477 recorded September 4, 1963 of official records; thence 37. easterly along said southerly line and.its easterly prolongation to its intersection with the centerline of Bouquet Canyon Road per Deed recorded in Book 6322, Page 19 of Official Records; thence 38. northerly along said centerline to its intersection with the westerly prolongation of the northerly line of Tract 1801 as shown on map recorded in Book 21, Pages 158 and 159; thence • 39. easterly along said prolongation and said northerly line to its intersection with the easterly line of said Tract 1801; thence 40. southerly along said easterly line and its southerly prolongation to its intersection with the centerline of Breazley Drive as shown on Tract No. 40079, recorded in Book 1006, Pages 1-5; thence • 41. southwesterly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Drayton Street; 60 feet wide as shown on said Tract No. 1801; thence 42. easterly along said centerline to its intersection with the northerly prolongation of the easterly line of Lot 3 of Block 15 of said Tract No. 1801; thence 43. southerly along said prolongation and said easterly line to its intersection with the northerly line of Block 26 of said Tract 1801; • 44. easterly along said northerly line to its intersection with the easterly line of said Block 26; thence 45. southerly along said easterly line and the easterly line of Blocks 27, 28 and 29 of said Tract 1801 to its intersection with the southerly line of said Block 29; thence 46. westerly along said southerly line. to its westerly prolongation and the southerly line of Block • 22 to its intersection with the northerly Right -of -Way line of Circle J Ranch Road; thence 47. southeasterly and southerly along said northerly Right -of -Way line and the easterly Right -of - Way line of Circle J Ranch Road to its intersection with the centerline of Via Princessa as shown on Tract No. 43532 in Book 1059, Pages 6 through 17 of Maps, Records of said County. 100 feet wide; thence 48. northeasterly along said centerline to its intersection with the northeasterly Right -of -Way line • of Metropolitan Water District, 250 feet wide; thence 49. southeasterly along said northeasterly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the easterly prolongation of the northerly line of Lot L of Tract No. 1078 as shown on map recorded in Book 18, Page 169 of Maps, Records of said County; thence 50. westerly along said prolongation to its intersection with the northeasterly line of said Lot A, • Via Princessa of said Tract 1078; thence 51. southeasterly along said northeasterly line to its intersection with the northerly prolongation of the easterly line of Lot 173 of Tract No. 1078 as shown on map recorded in Book 18, Page 169 of Maps, Records of said County; thence 52A. southerly along said prolongation to its intersection with the southeasterly Right -of -Way line of Twelfth Street, 60 feet wide; thence • 52B. southwesterly along said southeasterly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the southwesterly Right -of -Way line of Metropolitan Water District, 250 feet wide, as shown on Document No. 1021 recorded. October 13,1965; thence 53, southeasterly along said southwesterly Right -of -Way line and its southeasterly prolongation to its intersection with the southerly Right -of -Way line of Placenta -Canyon Road, 40 feet wide; • thence 54. westerly along said southerly Right -of -Way line to -its intersection with the northeasterly prolongation of the southeasterly line of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map recorded in Book 54, Page 73 of Parcel Maps, Records of said County; thence I0 revised March 5, 1997 55. southwesterly along said prolongation, said southeasterly line and its southwesterly prolongation to its intersection with the centerline of Lyons Avenue, 100 feet wide; thence 56. southwesterly along said centerline to its intersection with the southwesterly line of Los Angeles County Flood Control District Right -of -Way formerly being the southwesterly Right - of -Way line of Pine Street; thence 57. southeasterly - along said southwesterly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the northeasterly line of Town of Newhall as shown on map recorded in Book 53, Pages 21 and 22 of Miscellaneous Records, Records of said County; thence 58. southeasterly along said northeasterly line through its various courses to its intersection with the southeasterly line of Lot 52 of said Town of Newhall; thence 59. northeasterly along the northeasterly prolongation of the southeasterly line of said Lot 52 to its intersection with the northeasterly Right -of -Way line of Metropolitan Water District, 250 feet wide; thence 60. southeasterly along the southeasterly prolongation of said Metropolitan Water District northeasterly Right -of -Way line to the beginning of a curve concave southwesterly having a radius 725 feet; thence 61. southeasterly along said curve 342.49 feet to the northwesterly terminus of a line bearing South 31° East; thence 62. southeasterly along said line 600 feet to the northwesterly terminus of a line bearing South 14' 30' East thence 63. southeasterly along said line 198 feet to the northwesterly terminus of a line bearing North 63° West; thence 64. southeasterly along said line to its intersection with the southeasterly line of Parcel 1 of Instrument No. 2034 recorded June 8, 1948; thence 65. southwesterly along said southeasterly line to its intersection with the northeasterly Right -of - Way line of vacated San Fernando Road, 150 feet wide; thence 66. southeasterly along said vacated northeasterly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with a line 303.95 feet, plus or minus, northwesterly and parallel with the northwesterly line of Tract No. 32365 as shown on map recorded in Book 1122, Pages 30-38, inclusive of Maps, Records of said County; thence 67. northeasterly along said parallel line to its intersection with a line 628.16 feet, plus or minus, northeasterly and parallel with the centerline of San Fernando Road; thence 68. southeasterly along said parallel line to its intersection with the northwesterly line of Tract No. 43174 as shown on map recorded in Book 1041, Pages 68 through 72 inclusive of Maps, Records of said County; thence 69. southwesterly along said northwesterly line to its intersection with the southwesterly line of Lot 4 of said Tract No. 43174; thence 70. southeasterly along said southwesterly line to its intersection with the northwesterly line of said Lot 4; thence 71. southwesterly along said northwesterly line and its southwesterly prolongation to its intersection with the centerline of San Fernando Road, 100 feet wide; thence 72. southeasterly along said centerline to its intersection with a southwesterly prolongation of the southeasterly line of Lot 1 of said Tract No. 43174; thence 73. northeasterly along said southeasterly line to its intersection with the southwesterly line of Lot 2 of said Tract No. 43174; thence 74. southeasterly along said southwesterly line to its intersection with the southeasterly line of said Lot 2; thence 75. northeasterly along said southeasterly line to its intersection with the southwesterly line of said Lot 2; thence 76. southeasterly along said southwesterly line to its intersection with the northwesterly line of Lot 1 of Tract No. 37557 as shown on map recorded in Book 981, Pages 63 and 64 of Maps, Records of said County, thence 4 a • r C: L • 0 L C I• C C • 0 • I• I9 revised March 5, 1997 77. southwesterly along said northwesterly line and it southwesterly prolongation to its intersection with the centerline of San Fernando Road, 100 feet wide as shown on Tract No. 2703 recorded in Book 28,Pages 20 through 26 inclusive of Maps, Records of said County, thence 78. southeasterly along said centerline to its intersection with the southwesterly prolongation of the southeasterly line of Parcel Map recorded in Book 170, Pages 26 and 27 of Parcel Maps, Records of said County; thence 79. northeasterly along said prolongation, said southeasterly line and its northeasterly prolongation to its intersection with the southwesterly line of Lot. 37 of said St. John Subdivision, said line also being the northeasterly line of vacated San Fernando Road 60 feet wide;thence 80. southeasterly along said southwesterly line to its intersection with the northeasterly Right -of - Way line of San Fernando Road; thence 81. southeasterly along said northeasterly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the northwesterly Right -of -Way line of Sierra Highway, 100 feet wide; thence 82. northeasterly along said northwesterly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the westerly Right -of -Way line of Antelope Valley Freeway; thence 83. southerly along said westerly Right -of -Way line through its various courses to its intersection with southeasterly line of Lot 33 of said St. John Subdivision; thence 84. southwesterly along said southeasterly line to its intersection with the centerline of Sierra Highway as shown on said Tract No. 2703; thence 85. northerly along said centerline to its intersection with the southeasterly prolongation of the southwesterly line of Lot 10 of said Tract No. 2703; thence 86. northwesterly along said southwesterly line to its intersection with the westerly line of Lot 9 of said Tract No. 2703; thence 87. northerly along said westerly line and its northerly prolongation to its intersection with the southwesterly Right -of -Way line of San Fernando Road, 100 feet wide; thence 88. northwesterly along said southwesterly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the northwesterly line of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map recorded in Book 243, Pages 20 through 22, inclusive of Parcel Maps, Records of said County; thence 89. southwesterly along said northwesterly line 200 feet; thence 90. northwesterly North 58° 54' 19" West, 145 feet and North 53° 43' West, 211.27 feet to its intersection with the northeasterly prolongation of the northwesterly line of Parcel Map recorded in Book 67, Pages 68 and 69 of Parcel Maps, Records of said County; thence 91. southwesterly along said prolongation and said northwesterly line to its intersection with the northeasterly line of Lot 3 of Tract No. 3205 as shown on map recorded in Book 35, Page 59 of Maps, Records of said County; thence 92. northwesterly along said northeasterly line to its intersection with the southwesterly line of Lot 3 of said Tract No. 3205; thence 93. northwesterly along said southwesterly line to its intersection with the westerly line of instrument No. 458 recorded Feb. 14, 1968; thence 94. southerly along said westerly line to its intersection with the northwesterly line of Lot 35 of said St. John Subdivision; thence 95. southwesterly along said northwesterly line 108.54 feet to the northeasterly terminus of a line bearing South 13° 10' West; thence 96. southwesterly along said line 644.82 feet; thence 97. southwesterly 559.23 feet in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 15 of said Tract No. 3205;thence 98. southerly along the west line of Lots 15 and 14 of said Tract No. 3205 to its intersection with the northerly line of Lot 8 of said Tract No. 3205; thence 99A. westerly along said northerly line to its intersection with a line 40 feet easterly and parallel with the westerly line of said lot 8; thence 0 • revised March 5, 1997 99B. southerly along said parallel line to its intersection with the southerly line of said lot 8; thence 99C. westerly along said southerly line to its intersection with the westerly line of said lot 8; thence 100. northerly along said westerly line and the westerly line of Lots 7 and 6 of said Tract No. 3205; to its intersection with the northerly line of said Lot 6; thence • 101. easterly along said northerly line to its intersection with the centerline of Pine Street as shown on said Tract 3205; thence 102A. northerly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of San Fernando Road as shown on said Tract No. 2703; thence 102B. southwesterly along said northwesterly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the • northeasterly Right -of -Way line of Southern Pacific Railroad; thence 102C. northwesterly along said northwesterly Right -of -Way line and its northwesterly prolongation to its intersection with the centerline of San Fernando Road as shown on said Tract No. 2703; thence 103. northwesterly along said centerline and the centerline of Newhall Avenue as shown on Tract No. 1059 recorded in Book 17, Pages 94 and 95. of Maps, Records of said County to its • intersection with the centerline of Ninth Street as shown on said Tract No.1059; thence 104. southwesterly along said centerline to its intersection with the southeasterly prolongation of the northeasterly line of Lot 48 of said Tract No. 1059; thence 105. northwesterly along said prolongation, said northeasterly line and the northeasterly line of Lots 49 through 55 to its intersection with the southerly Right -of -Way line of Lyons Avenue; • thence 106. westerly along said southerly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the southeasterly line of Lot 56 of said Tract No. 1059; thence 107. southwesterly along said southeasterly line and its southwesterly prolongation to its intersection with the centerline of Arcadia Street, 60 feet wide; thence 108. northwesterly along said centerline to its intersection with the northeasterly prolongation of • the southeasterly line of Lot 75 of said Tract No. 1059; thence 109A. southwesterly along said southeasterly line to its intersection with the westerly line of said lot 75;thence 109B. northerly along said westerly line to its intersection with the northerly line of Lot 93 of said Tract No. 1059; thence 110. westerly along said northerly line and its westerly prolongation to its intersection with the • centerline of Wayman Street, 60 feet wide as shown on said Tract No. 1059 as Wayman Street; thence 111. northerly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly prolongation of the southerly line of Lot 114 of said Tract No. 1059; thence 112. westerly along said prolongation and said southerly line to its intersection with the • northeasterly line of Southern California Edison Right -of -Way; thence 113. southeasterly along said northeasterly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the easterly prolongation of the northerly line of Parcel 2 of Parcel map recorded in Book 145, Pages 91 and 92 of Parcel Maps, Records of said County; thence 114. westerly along said prolongation, said northerly line and its westerly prolongation to its intersection with the centerline of Valley Street as shown on Tract No. 1059; thence • 115. southerly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly prolongation of the northerly line of Lot 6 of Tract No. 1437 as shown on map, recorded in Book 20, Pages 54 and 55 of Maps, Records of said County; thence 116. westerly along said prolongation and said northerly line to its intersection with a line 270 feet westerly and parallel with the westerly Right -of -Way line of Valley Street; thence • 117. northerly along said parallel line to its intersection with the easterly Right -of -Way line of Heritage Lane; thence 0 I• I• 0 �7 • J • revised March 5, 1997 118. northerly, easterly and northwesterly along said easterly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the easterly line of Lot 7 of Tract No. 25344 as shown on Map recorded in Book 697, Pages 57 and 58 of Maps, Records of said County; thence 119. northerly along said easterly line and the easterly line of Parcel Map recorded in Book 187, Pages 61 and 62 of Parcel Maps, Records of said County to its intersection with the northerly line of said Parcel map; thence 120. westerly along said northerly line and its westerly prolongation to its intersection with the centerline of Apple Street as shown on said Tract No. 1437; thence 121. southerly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Cherry Street as shown on said Tract No. 1437; thence 122. westerly along said centerline to its intersection with the southerly prolongation of the westerly line of Lot 1 of Tract No. 46072 as shown on map recorded in Book 1187, Pages 73 and 74 of Maps, Records of said County; thence 123. northerly along said westerly line and the southwesterly line of Lot 2 of said Tract No. 46072 to its intersection with the northerly line of said Lot 2; thence 124. easterly along said northerly line and the northerly line of Lots 3 and 4 of said Tract No. 46072 to its intersection with the easterly line of said Tract No. 46072; thence 125. northerly along the northerly prolongation of said easterly line to its intersection with the southerly line of Tract 35983 as shown on map recorded in Book 973, Pages 78 through 100, inclusive of Maps, Records of said County; thence 126. easterly along said southerly line to its intersection with the westerly Right -of -Way line of Apple Street; thence 127. northerly along said westerly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the northerly line of said Tract No. 35983; thence 128. westerly along said northerly line to its intersection with the westerly line of Parcel Map recorded in Book 79, Pages 24 and 25 of Parcel Maps, Records of said County; thence 129. southerly along the southerly prolongation of the said westerly line to its intersection with the northerly line of said Tract No. 35983; thence 130. westerly along said northerly line to its intersection with the northeasterly line of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map recorded in Book 39, Page 96 of Parcel Maps, Records of said County; thence 131. southeasterly along said northeasterly line and its southeasterly prolongation to its intersection with the northerly line of Lot 25 of said Tract No. 1437; thence 132. westerly along said northerly line and its westerly prolongation to its intersection with the centerline of Peachland Avenue as shown on said Tract No. 1437; thence 133. northerly along said centerline to its intersection with the easterly prolongation of the northerly line of Tract No. 32385 as shown on map recorded in Book 911, Pages 63 through 65, inclusive of Maps, Records of said County; thence 134. westerly along said prolongation and said northerly line to its intersection with the easterly line of Licensed Surveyors Map as shown in Book 25, Pages 30 and 32 of Licensed Surveyor's Maps, Records of said County; thence 135. southerly along said easterly line and its southerly prolongation to its intersection with the centerline of Powell Drive as shown on said Licensed Surveyor's Map 25-30 and 32; thence 136. westerly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Vermont Drive as shown on said Licensed Surveyor's Map 25-30 and 32; thence 137. southerly along said centerline to its intersection with the westerly prolongation of the northerly line of Lot 471 of said Licensed Surveyor's Map; thence 138. easterly along said prolongation and said northerly line to its intersection with the easterly line of said Lot 471; thence 139. southerly along said easterly line and the easterly line of Lots 472 through 478, inclusive of said Licensed Surveyor's Map to its intersection with the southerly line of said Lot 478; thence f:\projects\sanclar\docs\legal2.doc revised March 5, 1997 140. westerly along said southerly line and its westerly prolongation to its intersection with the northeasterly prolongation of the southeasterly line of Lot 717 of said Licensed Surveyor's Map; thence 141. southwesterly along said prolongation, said southeasterly line and its _ southwesterly • prolongation to its intersection with the southwesterly Right -of -Way line of Everett Drive; thence 142. northwesterly along said southwesterly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the northerly line of Lot 715 of said Licensed Surveyor's Map; thence 143. westerly along said northerly line and the northerly line of Lot 715B of said Licensed • Surveyor's Map to its intersection with the easterly line of Lot 442 of said Licensed Surveyor's Map; thence 144. northerly along said easterly line to its intersection with the northerly line of said Lot 442; thence 145. westerly along said northerly line and the northerly line of Lot 442A of said Licensed Surveyor's Map to its intersection with the easterly line of Lot 349 of said Licensed Surveyor's • Map; thence 146. northerly along said easterly line and the easterly line of Lots 348 through 336, inclusive of said Licensed Surveyor's Map to its intersection with the southeasterly Right -of -Way line of LA County Flood Control District Right -of -Way; thence 147. northeasterly along said southeasterly Right -of -Way line through its various courses and its • northeasterly prolongation to its intersection with the centerline of Powell Drive, 50 feet wide as shown on said Licensed Surveyor's Map in book 25, Pages 30 and 32, Records of said County, thence 148. westerly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Wiley Canyon Road as shown on said Licensed Surveyor's Map in book 25, Pages 30 and 32, Records of said County; thence ! 149. southerly, southwesterly and southeasterly along said centerline to the point of beginning. f:\projects\sanclar\docs\legal2.doc I• • • '• • • • '• • The following legal description is for the area deleted from the Project Area by the Planning Commission on April I, 1997. • 3. North 76° 53' East along said northerly line of said Lot 3 to the northerly terminus of a line bearing South 13° 10' West; thence 4. Southwesterly along said line 644.82 feet; thence 5. Southwesterly 559.23 feet in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 15 of said Tract No. 3205; thence • 6. Southerly along. the west line of Lots 15 and 14 of said Tract No. 3205 to its intersection with the northerly line of Lot 8 of said Tract No. 3205; thence 7. Westerly along said northerly line to its intersection with a line 40 feet easterly and parallel with the westerly line of said lot 8; thence 8. Southerly along said parallel line to its intersection with the southerly line of said Lot 8; thence 9. Westerly along said southerly line to its intersection with the westerly line of said lot 8; thence 10. Northerly along said westerly line and the westerly line of Lots 7 and 6 of said Tract No. 3205; to its intersection with the northerly line of said Lot 6; thence 11. Easterly along said northerly line to its intersection with the centerline of Pine Street as shown on said Tract No. 3205; thence 12. Northerly along said centerline to the Point of Beginning. • Exception No. 7 P.O.B. Beginning at the intersection of the northeasterly Right -of -Way line of San Fernando Road with the southwesterly prolongation of the northwesterly line of Tract No. 43174 as shown on map recorded in Book 1041, Pages 68 through 72 inclusive of Maps,. Records of said County; thence 1. Northeasterly along said prolongation to its intersection with the southwesterly line of said Tract No. 43174; thence • 2. Southeasterly along said southwesterly line to its intersection with the northwesterly line of Lot 4 of said Tract No. 43174; thence 3. Southwesterly along said northwesterly line and its southwesterly prolongation to its intersection with the northeasterly Right -of -Way line of San Fernando Road, 100 feet wide;thence 4. Northwesterly along said northeasterly Right -of -Way line to the Point of Beginning. C Exception No. 8 Beginning at the intersection of the southwesterly Right -of -Way line of Metropolitan Water District, 250 feet wide, as shown on Document No. 1021 recorded October13, 1965 with the northerly Right -of -Way line of Placentia Canyon Road; thence 1. Westerly along said northerly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the southeasterly Right -of -Way line of Twelfth Street; thence 2. Northeasterly along said southeasterly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the southwesterly Right -of -Way of said Metropolitan Water District; thence 3. Southeasterly along said southwesterly Right -of -Way line to the Point of Beginning. Exception No. 9 Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of 16th Street, 80 feet wide, with the northeasterly Right -of -Way line of Newell Avenue; thence 1. Southeasterly along said northeasterly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the southeasterly Right -of -Way line of 13th Street; thence 2. Northeasterly along said southeasterly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the southwesterly Right -of -Way line of Walnut Street; thence 3. Southeasterly along said southwesterly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the northwesterly Right -of -Way line of 11th Street; thence 4. Southwesterly along said northwesterly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the southwesterly Righ-of-Way line of Newhall Avenue; thence 5. Northwesterly along said southwesterly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the southeasterly line of Lot 15 of St John Subdivision as shown on map recorded in Book 196 Page 306 through 309 inclusive of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of said County; thence 6. Southwesterly along said southeasterly line to its intersection with the northeasterly line of Parcel Map recorded in Book 131, Pages 93-94 of Parcel Maps, Records of said County; thence 7. Northwesterly along said northeasterly line to its intersection with the northwesterly line of said Parcel Map recorded in Bool 131, Pages 93-94; thence 8. Southwesterly along said northwesterly line to its intersection with the northeasterly line of Tract No. 26894 as shown on map recorded in Book 784, Pages 31 through 34 inclusive of Maps, Records of said County; thence C • u C • e • i• EXCEPTIONS 0 Exception No. l 19161!:1 Beginning at the intersection of the northerly Right -of -Way line of Wabuska Street with the northeasterly Right -of -Way line of the Golden State Freeway; thence 1. Northwesterly along said northeasterly Right -of-Way line to a point in that certain course bearing North 221 15' 04" West and being distant 180.01 feet from the southwest corner of said course; thence 0 2. North 62° 16'58" East 109.87 feet; thence I 3. South 79° 29'40" East 491.25 feet; thence 4. North 74° 43' 56" East to its intersection with the westerly line Tact No. 33353 as shown on map recorded in Book 901 Pages 1 and .2 of Maps, Records of said County; thence 5. Northerly along said westerly line to its intersection with the Southerly Right -of -Way line of Lyons Avenue; thence 6. Easterly along said southerly Right -of -Way line to -its intersection with the easterly line of Tract No. 2495 as shown on map recorded in Book 756 Pages 30-43 inclusive; thence 7. Southerly, southeasterly and easterly along said easterly line to its intersection with the westerly line of Wiley Canyon Road; thence 8. Southerly along said westerly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the northerly Right -of - Way line of Wabuska Street; thence 9. Westerly along said northerly Right -of -Way line to the Point of Beginning. Exception No. 2 Beginning at the intersection of the northerly Right- of -Way line of.Lyons Avenue with the easterly Right -of -Way line of the Golden State Freeway; thence 1. Northerly along said easterly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the southerly line of Lot 8 of St. John Subdivision as shown on map recorded in Book 196, Pages 306-309 inclusive of Maps, Records of said County; thence 2. Easterly along said southerly line and the southerly line of Tact No. 31124 as shown in map 0 recorded in Book 880, Pages 71-84 inclusive of Maps, Records of said. County, to its intersection with the westerly Right -of -Way Line of Wiley Canyon Road, 100 feet wide; thence I0 3. Easterly in a direct line to the point of intersection of the southwesterly line of Lot 152 of Tract No. 26885 as shown on map recorded in Book 773, Pages 74-75 inclusive of Maps, Records of said County with the easterly Right -of -Way line of Wiley Canyon Road; thence 4. Southeasterly along the southwesterly line of said Lot 152 to its intersection with the southwesterly line of Lot 114 of said Tract No. 26885; thence 5. Southeasterly along said southwesterly line and its southeasterly prolongation to its intersection with the northerly Right -of -Way of Lyons Avenue, 100 feet wide, as shown on said Tract No. 26885; thence 6. Westerly along said northerly Right -of -Way line to the Point of Beginning. Exception No. 3 P.O.B. Beginning at the intersection of centerline of Powell Drive, 50 feet wide as shown on Licensed Surveyor's Map recorded in Book 25 Pages 30-32 inclusive of Licensed Surveyor's Maps, Records of said County, with the easterly Right -of -Way line of Wiley Canyon Road; thence 1. Northerly along said easterly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the southerly Right -of - Way line of Lyons Avenue, 100 feet wide; thence 2. Easterly along said southerly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the easterly line of said Licensed Surveyors Map recorded in Book 25 Pages 30 and 32; thence 3. Southerly along said easterly line and its southerly prolongation to its intersection with the centerline of Powell Drive as shown on said Licensed Surveyor's Map recorded in Book 25 Pages 30 and 32; thence 4. Westerly along said centerline to its intersection with the centerline of Vermont Drive as shown on said Licensed Surveyor's Map recorded in Book 25 Pages 30 and 32; thence 5. Southerly along said centerline to its intersection with the westerly prolongation of the northerly line of Lot 471 of said Licensed Surveyor's Map; thence 6. Easterly along said prolongation and said northerly line to its intersection with the easterly line of said Lot 471; thence Southerly along said easterly line and the easterly line of Lots 472 through 478, inclusive of said Licensed Surveyor's Map to its intersection with the southerly line of said Lot 478; thence 8. Westerly along said southerly line and its westerly prolongation to its intersection with the northeasterly prolongation of the southeasterly line of Lot 717 of said Licensed Surveyor's Map; thence 9. Southwesterly along said prolongation, said southeasterly line and its southwesterly prolongation to its intersection with the southeasterly Right -of -Way line of Everett Drive; thence 0 • 10. Northwesterly along said southwesterly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the northerly line of Lot 715 of said Licensed Surveyor's Map; thence • 11. Westerly along said northerly line and the northerly line of Lot 715B of said Licensed Surveyor's Map to its intersection with the easterly line of Lot 442 of said Licensed Surveyor's Map; thence 12. Northerly along said easterly line to its intersection with the northerly line of said Lot 442; • thence 13. Westerly along said northerly line and the northerly line of Lot 442A of said Licensed Surveyor's Map to its intersection with the easterly line of Lot 349 of said Licensed Surveyor's Map; thence • 14. Northerly along said easterly line and the easterly line of Lots 348 through 336, inclusive of said Licensed Surveyor's Map to its intersection with the southeasterly Right -of -Way line of L.A. County Flood Control District, thence 15. Northeasterly along said southeasterly Right -of -Way line through its various courses and its • northeasterly prolongation to its intersection with the centerline of Powell Drive, 50 feet wide as shown on said Licensed Surveyor's Map in Book 25 Pages 30 - 32; thence 16. Westerly along said centerline to the -Point of Beginning. • Exception No. 4 • Me Beginning at the intersection of the westerly prolongation of the northerly line of Lot 25 of Tract • No. 1437 as shown on map recorded in Book 20 Pages 54 and 55 of Maps, Records of said County with the easterly Right -of Way line of Peachland Avenue; thence 1. Northerly along said easterly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the southerly Right -of - Way line of Lyons Avenue; thence • 2. Easterly along said southerly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the westerly Right -of - Way line of Apple Street; thence 3. Southerly along said westerly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the northerly line of Tract No. 35983 as shown on map recorded in Book 973, Pages 78 through 100, inclusive of • Maps, Records of said County; thence 4. Westerly along said northerly line to its intersection with the westerly line of Parcel Map recorded in Book 79, Pages 24 and 25 of Parcel Maps, Records of said County; thence • 5. Southerly along the southerly prolongation of the said westerly line to its intersection with the northerly line of said Tract No. 35983; thence 6. Westerly along said northerly line to its intersection with the northeasterly line of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map recorded in Book 39, Page 96 of Parcel Maps, Records of said County; thence I0 7. Southeasterly along said northerly line and its southeasterly prolongation to its intersection with the northerly line of Lot 25 of said Tract No. 1437; thence 8. Westerly along said northerly line and its westerly prolongation to the Point of Beginning. Exception No. 5 19[•]1-1 Beginning at the intersection of the westerly Right -of -Way line of Apple Street with the centerline of Cherry Street as shown on said Tract No. 1437; thence • • 7 1. Westerly along said centerline to its intersection with the southerly prolongation of the • westerly line of Lot 1 of Tract No. 46072 as shown on map recorded in Book 1187, Pages 73 and 74 of Maps, Records of said County; thence 2. Northerly along said westerly line and the southwesterly line of Lot 2 of said Tract No. 46072 to its intersection with the northerly line of said Lot 2; thence • 3. Easterly along said northerly line and the northerly line of Lots 3 and 4 of said Tract No. 46072 to its intersection with the easterly line of said Tract No. 46072; thence 4. Northerly along the northerly prolongation of said easterly line to its intersection with the southerly line of Tract No. 35983 as shown on map recorded in Book 973, Pages 78 through • 100, inclusive of Maps, Records of said County; thence 5. Easterly along said southerly line to the Point of Beginning. Exception No. 6 A Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Pine Street as shown on Tract No. 3205 recorded in book 196 pages 306 through 309 inclusive of Maps, Records of said County, with the westerly • prolongation of the northerly line of Lot 2 of said Tract No. 3205; thence 1. Easterly along said prolongation and said northerly line to its intersection with.the easterly line of said Lot 2; thence 2. Southerly along said easterly line and easterly along the northerly line of said Lot 2 bearing • South 761 50' East, and its easterly prolongation to its intersection with the northerly line of Lot 3 of said Tract No. 3205; thence 3. North 760 53' East along said northerly line of said Lot 3 to the northerly terminus of a line bearing South 13° 10' West; thence • 4. Southwesterly along said line 644.82 feet; thence 41 LI 5. Southwesterly 559.23 feet in a direct line to the northwest corner of Lot 15 of said Tract No. 3205;thence • 6. Southerly along the west line of Lots 15 and 14 of said Tract No. 3205 to its intersection with the northerly line of Lot 8 of said Tract No. 3205; thence 7. Westerly along said northerly line to its intersection with a line 40 feet easterly and parallel with the westerly line of said lot 8; thence • 8. Southerly along said parallel line to its intersection with the southerly line of said Lot 8; thence 9. Westerly along said southerly line to its intersection with the westerly line of said lot 8; thence • 10. Northerly along said westerly line and the westerly line of Lots 7 and 6 of said Tract No. 3205; to its intersection with the northerly line of said Lot 6; thence 11. Easterly along said northerly line to its intersection with the centerline of Pine Street as shown on said Tract No. 3205; thence • 12. Northerly along said centerline to the Point of Beginning. Exception No. 7 • P.O.B. Beginning at the intersection of the northeasterly Right -of -Way line of San Fernando Road with the southwesterly prolongation of the northwesterly line of Tract No. 43174 as shown on map • recorded in Book 1041, Pages 68 through 72 inclusive of Maps, Records of said County; thence 1. Northeasterly along said prolongation to its intersection with the southwesterly line of said Tract No. 43174; thence 2. Southeasterly along said southwesterly line to its intersection with the northwesterly line of • Lot 4 of said Tract No. 43174; thence 3. Southwesterly along said northwesterly line and its southwesterly prolongation to its intersection with the northeasterly Right -of -Way line of San Fernando Road, 100 feet wide; thence • 4. Northwesterly along said northeasterly Right -of -Way line to the Point of Beginning. Exception No. 8 • P.O.B. Beginning at the intersection of the southwesterly Right -of -Way line of Metropolitan Water District, 250 feet wide, as shown on Document No. 1021 recorded October 13, 1965 with the northerly Right -of -Way line of Placentia Canyon Road; thence J 1. Westerly along said northerly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the southeasterly Right -of -Way line of Twelfth Street; thence • 2. Northeasterly along said southeasterly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the southwesterly Right -of -Way of said Metropolitan Water District; thence 3. Southeasterly along said southwesterly Right -of -Way line to the Point of Beginning. Exception No. 9 Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of 16th Street, 80 feet wide, with the northeasterly • Right -of -Way line of Newell Avenue; thence 1. Southeasterly along said northeasterly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the southeasterly Right -of -Way line of 13th Street; thence 2. Northeasterly along said southeasterly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the • southwesterly Right -of -Way line of Walnut Street; thence 3. Southeasterly along said southwesterly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the northwesterly Right -of -Way line of 11th Street; thence • 4. Southwesterly along said northwesterly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the southwesterly Right -of -Way line of Newhall Avenue; thence 5. Northwesterly along said southwesterly Right -of -Way line to its intersection with the southeasterly line of Lot 15 of St. John Subdivision as shown on map recorded in Book 196 • Page 306 through 309 inclusive of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of said County; thence 6. Southwesterly along said southeasterly line to its intersection with the northeasterly line of Parcel Map recorded in Book 131, Pages 93-94 of Parcel Maps, Records of said County; thence 7. Northwesterly along said northeasterly line to its intersection with the northwesterly line of • said Parcel Map recorded in Book 131, Pages 93-94; thence 8. Southwesterly along said northwesterly line to its intersection with the northeasterly line of Tract No. 26894 as shown on map recorded in Book 784, Pages 31 through 34 inclusive of Maps, Records of said County; thence • 9. Northwesterly along said northeasterly line to its intersection with the southeasterly line of said Tract No. 26894; thence 10. Northeasterly along said southeasterly line to its intersection with the northeasterly line of said Tract No. 26894; thence • 11. Northwesterly along said northeasterly line and the northeasterly line of Tract No. 36893 as shown on map recorded in Book 780, Pages 41 through 43 inclusive of Maps, Records of said County, and its northwesterly prolongation to its intersection with the centerline of 16th • W Street as shown on Tract No. 5844 recorded in Book 69, Pages 41 and 42 of Maps, Records of said County, 80 feet wide; thence • 12. Northeasterly along said centerline to the Point of Beginning. Exception No. 10 • P.O.B. Beginning at .the intersection of the northeasterly Right -of -Way line of Metropolitan Water District, 250 feet wide, with the easterly prolongation of the northerly line of Lot L of Tract No. 1078 as shown on map recorded in Book 18; Page 169 of Maps, Records of said County; thence 1. Westerly along said prolongation to its intersection with the northeasterly prolongation of Lot E of said Tract no. 1078; thence 2. Southwesterly along said prolongation , said northwesterly line and its southwesterly prolongation to its intersection with the centerline of San Fernando Road as shown on Tract • No. 5844 recorded in Book 69, Pages 41 and 42 of Maps, Records of said County; thence 3. Northwesterly along said centerline toitsintersection with the southeasterly prolongation of the southwesterly line of Parcel 1 as shown on Parcel Map Recorded in Book 256, Pages 3 and 4 of Parcel Maps, Records of said County, bearing North 29° 13'00" West; thence 4. Northwesterly along said prolongation and said southwesterly line to its intersection with the westerly line of said Parcel Map bearing North 400 34'30" West; thence 5. Northerly along said westerly line to its intersection with the northwesterly line of said Parcel Map bearing North 160 41'30" East; thence 6. Northeasterly along said northwesterly line and its northeasterly prolongation to its intersection with the westerly prolongation of the northerly line of said Parcel Map bearing North 80° 49' 00' East; thence • 7. Easterly along said prolongation, said northerly line and its easterly prolongation to its intersection with the centerline of San Fernando Road as shown on File Map 10863, Records of said County; Thence 8. Northerly along said centerline to its intersection with the northerly Right -of -Way line of 0 Circle J Ranch Road; thence 9. Southeasterly and southerly along said northerly Right -of -Way line and the easterly Right -of - Way line of Circle J Ranch Road to its intersection with the centerline of Via Princessa as shown on Tract No. 435322 in Book 1059, Pages 6 through 17 of Maps, Records of said County, 100 feet wide; thence • 10. Northeasterly along said centerline to its intersection with the northeasterly Right -of -Way line of the Metropolitan Water District, 250 feet wide; thence 11. Southeasterly along said northeasterly Right -of -Way line to the Point of Beginning. • I• I• May 1, 1997 Draft Preliminary Report for the Newhall Redevelopment Project 0 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY LI i• GRC REDEVELOPMENT CON8ULTANT8, INC. 1340 South Valley Vista Drive GRC Suite 120 Diamond Sar, California 91765 C • I• I• CITY COUNCIL/ REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY I• I• PLANNING COMMISSION 0 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY STAFF n • I• • Draft Preliminary Report for the Newhall Redevelopment Project Hamilton C. Smyth, Mayor/Chair Janice H. Heidt, Mayor Pro -Tem /Vice Chair Carl Boyer, Councilmember/Member Jo Anne Darcy, Councilmember/Member Jill Klajic, Councilmember/Member Louis Brathwaite, Chair Jerry Cherrington, Vice Chair Michael Berger, Commissioner Darla Hoback, Commissioner Ralph Killmeyer, Commissioner George Caravalho, Executive Director Ken Pulskamp, Assistant to the Executive Director Steve Stark, Treasurer Sharon L. Dawson, Secretary Michael Haviland, Manager, Marketing and Economic Development Glenn Adamick, Economic Development Associate TABLE OF CONTENTS Draft Preliminary Report for the Newhall Redevelopment Proiect 1.0 INTRODUCTION...............................................................1 1.1 Background.................................................................. 1 1.2 Authority......................................................................2 1.3 Public Participation.....................................................4 2.0 REASONS FOR THE SELECTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA ......................................... 7 2.1 Physical Blighting Conditions ..................................... 7 2.2 Economic Blighting Conditions ................................... 8 2.3 Financial Feasibility.................................................... 9 3.0 REQUIREMENTS AND DEFINITIONS .......................11 3.1 Urbanization...............................................................12 3.2 Physical Blight............................................................12 3.3 Economic Blight..........................................................13 3.4 The "Five Part Test"...................................................14 4.0 PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS .......................15 4.1 Existing Land Uses.....................................................16 4.2 Planned Land Uses.....................................................19 4.3 - Socio -Economic Profile................................................21 5.0 URBANIZATION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA.................................................................................. 27 6.0 PHYSICAL CONDITIONS IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA.............................................................. 29 6.1 Buildings That Are Unsafe Or Unhealthy In Which ToLive And Work.......................................................29 6.2 Factors That Prevent Or Substantially Hinder The Economically Viable Use Of Buildings Or Lots...................................................40 6.3 Incompatible Uses.......................................................48 6.4 Irregular Parcels In Multiple Ownership ..................53 G12C i i City of Santa Cladta Redevelopment Agency 7.0 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA.............................................................. 57 7.1 Depreciated Values Or Impaired Investments ..........57 !! 7.2 Vacancies, Abandoned Buildings, And Low LeaseRates.................................................................63 7.3 Residential Overcrowding Or An Excess Of Adult Businesses...................................................................67 7.4 Lack Of Necessary Commercial Facilities .................70 7.5 Crime Rates.................................................................70 , 8.0 NEXUS BETWEEN PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ............................................ 73 8.1Building Deterioration................................................73 8.2 Failure To Satisfy Market Conditions ........................74 8.3 Incompatible Uses Preventing Economic Development...............................................................75 8.4 Irregular Or Inadequately Sized Lots ........................75 9.0 PROPERTIES NECESSARY FOR , EFFECTIVE REDEVELOPMENT ................................ 77 10.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................... 79 10.1 Public Improvements..................................................79 10.2 Development Assistance.............................................83 10.3 Housing Assistance.....................................................85 10.4 Relocation Assistance.................................................85 10.5 Property Acquisition And Assemblage .......................86 11.0 PROJECT FINANCING AND FEASIBILITY .............. 87 11.1 Description And Analysis...........................................88 11.2 Low- And Moderate -Income Housing Fund ...............91 11.3 _ Tax Increment Pass-Throughs...................................92 11.4 Estimated Project Costs..............................................92 11.5 Estimated Project Revenues.......................................93 11.6 Project Feasibility.......................................................94 12.0 ALLEVIATION OF DETRIMENTAL PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS .................................. 97 13.0 PROJECT AREA PHOTOGRAPHS .............................. 99 • • • Draft Preliminary Report -The Newhall Redevelopment Project LIST OF FIGURES • 1. Original Project Area Ma ..... 5 2. Revised Project Area Map........................................................... 6 3. Existing Land Use Map.............................................................18 4. General Plan Map.....................................................................20 5. Urbanization Map.....................................................................28 LIST OF TABLES • 1. Existing Land Use.....................................................................17 2. General Plan Land Use.............................................................19 3. Comparative Socio -Economic Profile........................................23 4. Comparative Occupational Status - 1990 .................................24 5. Project Area Housing Comparisons..........................................26 6. Urbanization..............................................................................27 7. Structural Conditions in the Project Area................................30 • 8. Value by Building Condition.....................................................31 9. Value if Improvements Were Made to Buildings .....................32 10. Building Age..............................................................................35 11. Code Violations -1996...............................................................36 12. Locations of Absentee Owners..................................................38 13. Value of Unsafe or Unhealthy Buildings..................................39 14. Summary - Buildings that Are Unsafe Or Unhealthy in Whichto Live or Work..............................................................39 15. Value of Properties that are Too Small or Irregular Values .... 42 16. Value of Properties with Outdoor.............................................44 17. Value of Land with Factors that Prevent or Substantially • Hinder the Viable Use of Buildings or Lots...............................47 18. Summary - Value of Land with Factors that Prevent or Substantially Hinder the Viable Use of Buildings or Lots ......48 19. Value of Land with Incompatible Uses.....................................50 20. Summary - Incompatible Uses..................................................52 21. Value of Irregular Parcels in Multiple Ownership...................54 22. Summary - Irregular Parcels in Multiple Ownership..............55 23. Values - Project Area vs. Rest of City.......................................58 24. Comparative City -Wide and Project Area Values ....................59 25. Revised Project Area Assessed Value Comparison -1991 Through1996.............................................................................60 • 26. Annual Sales Tax Receipt Comparison with City....................63 27. Multi -tenant Retail Projects with Available Space for Rent .... 66 28. Crime Rate.................................................................................71 29. Estimated Project Costs............................................................93 30. Tax Increment Estimate...........................................................94 Draft Preliminary Report- The Newha(1 Redevelopment Project 1.0 INTRODUCTION This Preliminary Report for the Newhall Redevelopment Project provides affected taxing agencies and other interested parties with the following information: • The reasons for the selectionof the proposed Project Area. • • A description of the physical and economic conditions of the proposed Project Area. • A description of the proposed Project Area's urbanization. • A preliminary assessment of the proposed financing methods and of the project's economic feasibility. • A description of the proposed projects. • A description of how the proposed projects will alleviate conditions in the Project Area. This information is combined with a generalized outline of programs and activities that may be employed by the Santa w Clarita Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") to revitalize the proposed Project Area. The Agency's immediate goals for the Project Area are to enlist the aid of the community, including property owners and businesses, to develop a vision for the Project Area, and to put into place those redevelopment powers that will allow long-term improvement and maintenance of the Project Area's character. Such improvements, including a variety of financialand other tools, can be used to induce needed revitalization activities. The Agency's ability to participate in any actual revitalization activities will depend upon 0 authorities conferred upon the Agency by the Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project. W 1.1 BACKGROUND In April 1996, the Santa Clarita City Council (the "Council") gave conceptual approval to the Downtown Newhall CRC City of Santa Cladta Redevelopment Agency a GRC 2 Improvement Program as developed by Freedman Tung & Bottomley (the "Freedman Plan"). The purpose of the Freedman Plan was to explore possible options of improving 1 and revitalizing downtown Newhall. The Freedman Plan identified a variety of funding sources for the program, but the most significant source identified was the tax increment revenue that is available through redevelopment. Subsequent to the action of the Council, the Planning 0 Commission, on November 19, 1996, designated the boundaries of the proposed Project Area, and approved a Preliminary Plan for the redevelopment of the proposed Project Area. The boundaries then selected by the Planning Commission encompassed approximately 1,350 acres, and generally focused 9 on downtown Newhall and its three entry points. Further study of the properties within the Project Area revealed that conditions of blight were more prevalent in certain areas. Therefore, the Planning Commission on April 1, 1997, deleted about 450 acres from the area, resulting in a Project Area of approximately 900 acres. The original Project Area boundaries are shown in Figure 1, and the new Project Area boundaries are shown in Figure 2. All future references to "Project Area" in this Preliminary Report will refer to the new Project Area boundaries. It is important to note that the Redevelopment Plan is intended to comprehensively address blighting conditions throughout all of Newhall. This includes the traditional Downtown Newhall area around the intersection of San Fernando Road and Lyons Avenue, plus largely blighted properties along San Fernando Road from the Santa Clarita River to the Antelope Valley Freeway, Lyons Avenue to the west of San Fernando Road to the I-5 Freeway, and non- residential land along Wiley Canyon Road to Calgrove Avenue. The comprehensive redevelopment of blighting conditions throughout of all Newhall are important to achieve the overall community development goals of the City of Santa Clarita. 1.2 AUTHORITY 0 In accordance with Section 33344.5 of the California Community Redevelopment Law (the "CRI"),the Agency is required to prepare and distribute a preliminary report to the governmental agencies that levy ad valorem property taxes in the proposed Project Area. Section 33344.5 of the CRL outlines 9 the following requirements for this report: • '• • i • • C7 49 Ll Draft Preliminary Report -The Newhall Redevelopment Project a) The reasons for the selection of the Project Area (see Chapter 2.0). b) A description of- the physical and economic conditions existing in the Project Area (see Chapters 6.0 and 7.0). c) A description of the Project Area, which is sufficiently detailed for a determination as to whether the Project Area is predominantly urbanized (see Chapter 5.0). The description shall include at least the following information, which shall be based on the terms described and defined in CRL Section 33320.1: 1. The total number of acres within the Project Area. 2. The total number of acres that are subdivided into lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development that are in. multiple ownership. 3. The total amount of acres that are in agricultural use. 4. The total number of acres that is an integral part of an area developed for urban uses. 5. The percent of property within the Project Area that is predominantly urbanized. 6. A map of the Project Area that identifies the property described in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) (above) and the property not developed for an urban use. d) A preliminary assessment of the proposed method of financing the redevelopment of the project area, including an assessment of the economic feasibility of the project and the reasons for including the provision for the division of taxes pursuant to CRL Section 33670 in the Redevelopment Plan (see Chapter 11.0). e) A description of the specific project or projects then proposed by the agency (see Chapter 10.0). f) A description of how the project or projects to be pursued by the agency in the Project Area will improve or alleviate the conditions described above (see Chapter 12.0). This Preliminary Report is generally organized to follow. the various requirements of Section 33344.5, . with three exceptions. First, though not specifically required by the CRL, properties that are included as necessary for effective redevelopment are identified with reasons why they are viewed as necessary for effective redevelopment. This information is included in Chapter 9.0. Second, the Preliminary Report describes physical and economic conditions in the proposed Project Area in terms of the blight characteristics listed in Section 33031 of the CRL. Finally, the Preliminary Report CRC 3 City of Santa Gadta Redevelopment Agency • includes a special section regarding the nexus between physical and economic blight characteristics and the interrelationships between the two. The nexus information is contained in Chapter 8.0. 1.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION A key element in the creation of this project is community involvement. The Agency has. held several community meetings to discuss the project and answer questions. These meetings have been announced through flyers, newsletters, and newspaper articles, and will continue throughout the 0 adoption process. To further assist the Agency, a Redevelopment Committee was formed. This committee, made up of concerned citizens, property owners, and business owners, was formed to review i the many aspects of redevelopment planning and make recommendations to the Agency. The members of the Redevelopment Committee include: Frank Maga, Chair Leon Worden, Vice Chair . Marc Aronson Larry Bird Philip Ellis Victor Feany Estelle Foley Thomas Frew 1 Tony Inderbitzen Mary Merritt Cynthia Mitchell Viki Rudolph Lloyd Sreden Tiffanie Scott Howard Stowitts Vartan Vahramian Gregory Wiese It is the goal of the Redevelopment Committee to use the Santa ID Clarita General Plan, and the Freedman Plan as a guide to help create and implement a redevelopment program that addresses the problems in the Newhall area, while being sensitive to the needs of the community. 4MC •i F 6 F O (f �.TMp Otl NAD A3lM � co Egg EVEREIT DR WHEELER RD 14tA� a� 4�1t l{{ti klit fM1f§4 # % itttM� 8n%A t�{E{i 'a5 will L4141 tlNlt $ .� tt45W tNVI� ttt1- ll1N{t itlilt $ 0I w 3 a AaloJd 7uawdoranapay !legmaN ayl - yodaa ,Geolwgeid ijefa !I 1 N r� r- _c i 14-) C o R7 T No b �� o= T a 0I w 3 a AaloJd 7uawdoranapay !legmaN ayl - yodaa ,Geolwgeid ijefa !I 1 M,1 • 40 Li i 11 S 15 NV HnH6r � y M ca No i T2T O� ?Qa`y�1af �� �ptl NAD A3lIM � � w S S*mce§ n { �• `�`{ I DE VIOLFE RD c• INA I 9 °y EVERETf DR m , '> NTIEELER RD m va^' a rn.,o 9 Z)M tiva8y ivawdolanapaa elimp ejueS JO AID [l Draft Preliminary Report -The Newhall Redevelopment Project 2.0 REASONS FOR THE SELECTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA The primary elements in determining the boundaries of a redevelopment project are the locations of blight and urbanization (see Chapter 3.0 for a definition of each). Therefore, the Agency • initiated a feasibility study to perform an initial investigation of blighting and urbanization conditions. It The results of the preliminary blight documentation discussed in the Feasibility Study' revealed a significant presence of blighting characteristics and urbanization. The proposed Project Area was chosen by the Planning Commission based on the findings in the Feasibility Study which are summarized below. These characteristics have now been studied further and the results are included in this Report. 2.1 PHYSICAL BLIGHTING CONDITIONS The following is a brief summary of the physical conditions that exist in the Project Area: Deteriorated structures observed throughout, including those damaged in Northridge earthquake nearly three years prior. Apparent code violations and flooding danger in many residential areas. • Inadequately sized or proportioned lots common throughout f commercial areas. Piecemeal development of small strip malls with divided parking lots creates traffic and market conflicts. Unimproved flood control channels and railroad lines physically, visually, and psychologically divide much of the community. Many commercial uses located in small, utilitarian, and. obsolete structures with limited parking 'Endded'Feasibility Study for the Newhail RedevelopmentProjecr prepared by GRC Redevelopment Consultants, Inc., November 19, 1996. GRC • 7 City of Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency • and access, especially in the Downtown Newhall area. Hazardous materials are likely to exist in the industrial areas east of San Fernando Road and Pine Street, and in Downtown Newhall with the numerous auto -related businesses. Incompatible land uses exist primarily along Lyons Avenue, San Fernando Road, and Pine Street, where residential and commercial/industrial uses meet. Lack of 4 buffer areas, and the existence of uses that do not conform to the General Plan contribute to the problem. Due to access, drainage, topography, easements, and other constraints, many parcels are difficult and/or costly to develop. Those that are developed are restricted by the size and shape of the parcels, resulting in the hodgepodge of small commercial uses along Lyons Avenue, Newhall Avenue, and San Fernando Road. 9 2.2 ECONOMIC BLIGHTING CONDITIONS The following is a brief summary of the physical conditions that exist in the Project Area (as noted in the Feasibility Study): • Taxable property values are significantly below the City as a whole, and have declined in three of the last five years. • Actual commercial, industrial and residential property sales values are significantly below the City as a whole. • Commercial lease rates are amongst the lowest in the City as a whole. • Sales taxes have declined in absolute terms and relative to the City as a whole. • Business vacancies are well above the maximum. 10% • considered typical of healthy commercial areas. • Sales tax data indicate a significant number of business failures, particularly along Lyons Avenue. • There are few neighborhood oriented services and no banks in Downtown Newhall. • East Newhall and the area north of Lyons, between San Fernando Road and Newhall Avenue appear to have significant residential overcrowding. • Major crime rates in and around the Project Area are significantly higher than the City as a whole. CMCJ8 • • • • r Draft Preliminary Report - The Newhall Redevelopment Project 2.3 FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY A key issue in instituting a redevelopment program is whether that program will be financially feasible. Blight elimination can be costly to achieve, particularly in urbanized areas where it is more difficult to induce large-scale private investment to occur. Such new investment, however, will be dependent on the availability of suitable development parcels, the reversal of decline in some neighborhoods, and the provision of adequate public utilities, facilities and streets. This potential new investment and reinvestment will generate sufficient funds through direct construction and through tax increment to financially underwrite a redevelopment program. Financial feasibility of the project is discussed in more detail in Chapter 11.0. Therefore, the selection of the boundaries of the proposed Project Area was guided by a variety of considerations, including the physical and economic conditions described above, the goals of the General Plan and the zoning ordinance, and the technical requirements of the CRL. GPC 9 I0 I• 'r I• Draft Preliminary Report -The Newhall Redevelopment Project 3.0 REQUIREMENTS AND DEFINITIONS The CRL sets forth a variety of conditions that must exist if an area is to be included in a redevelopment project. The primary requirements are that the Project Area be an area that is: 1. Predominantly urbanized. . 2. Characterized by one or more conditions of physical blight and one or more conditions of economic blight, which blighting conditions are so prevalent and so substantial that it causes a reduction of, or lack of proper utilization of the area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical and economic burden on the community which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise or governmental action, or both, without redevelopment. The CRL definition of blight encompasses a wide range of conditions. Deteriorated buildings, easily the most visible form of blight, are often interpreted as the only form of blight. Deteriorated buildings are indeed an important characteristic of blight, but a project could be legally adopted without any deteriorated buildings in the Project Area. This is because the definition of blight is complex, and involves many -factors other than physical decay. Another misconception is that every parcel in the Project Area has to be blighted in order to qualify for redevelopment. According to CRL Section 33321, a project area may include non -blighted properties whose inclusion is necessary for effective redevelopment. Urbanization is equally complex and misunderstood, because certain vacant parcels can be considered urbanized if they fall under one of three exemptions. These requirements, as well as others necessary for project adoption, are addressed below. ' The existence of subdivided lots of irregular form or shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development that are in multiple ownership can, by beH, constitute blight. 0 MC fi City of Santa Ciarita Redevelopment Agency 0 3.1 URBANIZATION Section 33320.1 of the CRL requires that the area proposed for redevelopment be predominantly urbanized. This means that not less than 80% of the area: • Has been or is developed for urban uses. • Is characterized by the existence of lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development that are in multiple ownerships. • Is an integral part of one or more areas developed for urban uses which are surrounded or substantially surrounded by parcels which have been or are developed for urban uses. Chapter 5. 0, will show how the Project Area is urbanized. 3.2 PHYSICAL BLIGHT According to CRL Section 33031(a), the following conditions are the physical characteristics that cause blight: • • Buildings in which it is unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work. These conditions can be caused by serious i building code violations, dilapidation and deterioration, defective design or physical construction, faulty or inadequate utilities, or other similar factors. • Factors that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings or lots. IN This condition can be caused by a substandard design, inadequate size given present standards and market conditions, lack of parking, or other similar factors. • Adjacent or nearby uses that are incompatible with each other and which prevent the economic development of those 4W parcels or other portions of the area. • The existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development that are in multiple ownership. Under the CRL, blight may include dilapidated buildings, but it can also include a variety of causative physical or economic conditions that are not readily noticeable.. For example, an area may be blighted because there are uses that are incompatible with each other, which, in turn, prevent the economic development or rehabilitation of those parcels or other portions of the area. Blight can also include the GDC 12 • • J J i 'i C7 C Draft Preliminary Report -The Newhall Redevelopment Project existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and shape and inadequate size for proper usefulness and development that are in multiple ownership. Another aspect of redevelopment is that parcels that do not exhibit blight can be included with blighted parcels, so long as blight conditions predominate in the area.. In addition, some non -impacted properties may be included in the redevelopment area as they are considered to be necessary for the effective redevelopment of the remainder. The evidence for physical conditions of blight as defined in the CRL is presented in Chapter 6.0, while a discussion of properties that are included in the proposed Project Area because they are necessary for effective redevelopment is presented in Chapter 9.0. 3.3 ECONOMIC BLIGHT In addition to having conditions of physical blight, redevelopment areas must also exhibit at least one condition of economic blight. According to CRL Section 33031(b), the following conditions are the economic characteristics that cause blight: • Depreciated or stagnant property values or impaired investments, including, but not necessarily limited to, those properties containing hazardous wastes that require the use of Agency authority. • Abnormally high business vacancies, abnormally low lease rates, high turnover rates, abandoned buildings, or excessive vacant lots within an area developed for urban use and served by utilities. • A lack of necessary commercial facilities that are normally found in neighborhoods, including grocery stores, drug stores, and banks and other lending institutions. • Residential overcrowding or an excess of bars, liquor stores, or other businesses that cater exclusively to adults, that has led to problems of public safety and welfare. • A high crime rate that constitutes a serious threat to the public safety and welfare. Economic blight components are even less detectable by casual observation than are physical blight conditions. For example, economic blight can include depreciated or stagnant property values, properties that contain hazardous wastes, or 2 • City of Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency abnormally low property lease rates in the area. None of these qualities can necessarily be simply observed, although the presence of some of these conditions may be inferred from the • existence of certain physical conditions such as deteriorated buildings, vacant lots, or the presence of "marginal' businesses that are open but seem to have few customers. Economic blight conditions in the proposed Project Area are discussed in Chapter 7.0. 3.4 THE "FIVE-PART TEST" The prerequisites for redevelopment can be summarized into five basic requirements. Therefore, land being considered as the Project Area must be able to meet the following "five-part test:" 1. Must be predominantly urbanized. 2. Must have physical and economic blight or be necessary for • the effective redevelopment of an area where conditions of physical and economic blight predominate and injuriously affect the entire area. 3. The blight must cause a lack of proper utilization of the • area. 4. The improper utilization must. be a serious physical and . economic burden on community. 5. The burden cannot be reversed by private enterprise acting alone, by the public sector acting alone, or by both acting . ! together without the assistance of redevelopment. The determination of whether the proposed Project Area meets these various requirements is the responsibility of the City Council. This decision will be made after review of many types of information including, public comments and testimony, the recommendation of the Redevelopment Committee appointed by Council, the information contained in this Preliminary Report, and a variety of other documents. MC 14 7 • • Draft Preliminary Report -The Newhall Redevelopment Project 4.0 PROJECT AREA CHARACTERISTICS The proposed Project Area totals 918.63 acres focusing on downtown Newhall and its three entry corridors. Generally, from downtown Newhall, the Project Area straddles San Fernando Road to the north and south, and Lyons Avenue to the west. • The Project Area includes the historic Downtown Newhall area and a variety of other features with strong historic significance relating to early oil exploration and processing and early California film -making, particularly western films. The Downtown commercial core is a remnant of a "mainstreet" • shopping environment, now surrounded by larger scale contemporary suburban development with its characteristic shopping mall and "strip" commercial development. A. Metrorail station is planned for the Downtown near the intersection of San Fernando Road and Market Street. Typical of older downtown • areas, Downtown Newhall remains surrounded by residential neighborhoods featuring older housing units, showing significant signs of decay. The Project Area includes three important segments located outside the core Downtown area. These three segments all include • major transportation corridors , into the Downtown area: San Fernando Road from the north, San Fernando Road from the south, and Lyons Avenue from the west. Though these thoroughfares are entry points into the Downtown Newhall area, they are widely varied in character. The San Fernando Road leg • heading southward into Downtown is primarily a mixture of commercial and industrial uses, with such uses constrained by the location of the Santa Clara River course to the west and by the Metrolink right-of-way along San Fernando Road to the east. San Fernando Road between Downtown and Sierra Highway to • the south is largely devoted to highway commercial uses with some residential uses in the form of trailer parks or mobile home parks mixed in. This portion of the proposed Project Area also • GDC 15 C4 of Santa Cladta RedevelopmentAgency « includes Pine Street, which is almost entirely industrial in nature. Sited in this general area, but.not included in the proposed Project Area, are several large apartment complexes located both northeasterly and southwesterly of San Fernando Road. The third main entryway into Downtown is Lyons Avenue from Interstate 5. The southerly portion of Lyons Avenue frontage is almost exclusively strip commercial in nature, while most of the • northerly frontage is in the Valencia community and is not included within the proposed Project Area. Commercial uses on Lyons Avenue represent a mixture of retail and office uses. • 4.1 EXISTING LAND USES Residential uses, particularly , single family dwellings, dominate the land use makeup of the Project Area, encompassing about 54% of the total number of parcels, and about 18% of the total land area. Commercial uses predominate along Lyons Avenue and the southerly section of San Fernando.. Industrial development in the Project Area is focused along Pine Street and the northerly section of San Fernando Road. Table 1 shows the land use breakdown for all uses in the proposed Project Area, and Figure 3 shows the • locations of the existing land uses. Agricultural land uses include two parcels totaling 24.32 acres. These two parcels are a boarding facility. for mules located along. the I-5 freeway north of Calgrove Avenue. The facility is presently for sale. The Santa Clarita General Plan designates this land for future residential development, and it is neither in an agricultural preserve, nor enforceably restricted in any manner. This land is included in the Project Area for several reasons: 1) its inclusion will help alleviate threats to the public health, safety and welfare resulting from potential flooding; 2) it is an integral part of an urbanized area that otherwise qualifies for inclusion in a redevelopment project area; and, 3) its inclusion is necessary for effective redevelopment because it links two developed . areas . included in the Project Area to alleviate blighting conditions. There is no other agricultural land in the vicinity of the parcels in question, and thus will not contribute to the removal of any other land in agricultural production from such use. The inclusion of this land will also contribute to creating a more contiguous and compact pattern of development in the immediate area, because it is presently surrounded by urban development. Finally, the land around these parcels is either included in the Project Area, or does not qualify for inclusion based on the provisions of the CRL. GRC Q • • 0 • • J Draft Preliminary Report • The Newhall Redevelopment Project TABLE i EXISTING LAND USE , _ ,, m a.r�K'%.�'*" S d p:g.i*ne aY e- r �. IN bF ` ass PARGELSR .M '. OHM= ��a +s arra„ QF STRUET(IAE FdeJ£ 9�'Yf �:' 4S � �� �,`a ' S�' �r �s0 UNITS�tGRES s#99 rv'k'daa SssAbx'ee z 3�''*sY�a'r e �'�. , q�OREAGEI ce z aab �� rci 3ass«4,w ZONE' s a ;THE a$i+ PROJECT :� Single Family Residential 589 651 651 '109.76 11.9 Multi Family Residential 119 172 1,275 41.29 4.5 Mobile Home Park 4 194 194 15.55 1.7 Commercial 242 232 484 115.60 12.6 Office Professional 25 23 117 7.30 0.8 Mixed Residential and Commercial 3 4 5 0.35 0.1 Industrial 53 47 47 128.85 14.0 PubliclInstitutional' 168 28 21 104.41 11.4 Agricultural 1 2 2 1 24.32 2.6 Currently Undeveloped" 112 WA WA 227.94 24.8 Sub Total 1,317 1,353 2,795 775.37 84.4 Streets WA WA WA 143.26 15.6 Grand Total 1,317 1,353 2,795 918.63 1 100.0 source: Urn; ttaaevelopment consultants, Inc. 'Includes parks fire stations, pre-schools, churches, retirement homes, aatemal organizations, etc. • "(Vformerly developed,,, (ii) containing kregularlots or (r] forming an Integral panofa developed area. The Project Area as a whole meats the 80%urbanization test as discussed In Section 5.0 below. • • L n • n • • 7 • • 0 y tiva8yauauudojanapab ejuep eaueSjO1g.r) G as =nom N' � o CD O m U. �ga m 3 3 'K =v =c awn N H a a o s s 0 a= Pz tiva8yauauudojanapab ejuep eaueSjO1g.r) G as =nom N' � o CD O m U. �ga m 3 3 Zw =v =c a H tiva8yauauudojanapab ejuep eaueSjO1g.r) I0 I• I• li I• I• I• I• Draft Preliminary Report -The Newhall Redevelopment Project 4.2 PLANNED LAND USES The Santa Clarita General Plan is the primary statement of goals and policies for implementing the development and conservation proposals in the City. The General Plan designates much of the proposed Project Area for residential uses, particularly those with a density of 3.4 to 6.6 dwelling units per acre (see Figure 4). Commercial uses also make up a significant portion of the Project Area. Table 2 shows the General Plan designations for the proposed Project Area, and Figure 4 shows the locations of the planned land uses. TABLE 2 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE 3' "' ��DESfGNATJi7N°,�,-��� °i Ewesy fii •� A3 T'3gSA 3g&i9 & {{ta " 3esie kffi g Imo, p.§ .$&�% em.�ksfaa.:� a+ � �a =PAACL`S� � �s "' E���&ae x »-`s*miWt UCtl7RES Y% �F g ire.�w`Y �Vs�p¢9{pa mg. � d��i�m', `� `$ MUNI S W �p yam+` �4'��¢�� .$ v.% 5... §' ARESM t �" ��.n <m.§ TV GF�i�D ✓.eu � � a Wim+ P@ ........ � x r 3ix•. Residential Low 1.1-3.3 DUs/ac 89 41 41 23.67 2.6 Residential Suburban 3.4.6.6 DUslac 508 630 689 100.20 10.9 Residential Moderate 6.7 -15.0 DUs/ac) 192 215 1,063 63.14 6.9 Residential Medium High 15.1.25.0 DUs/ac 17 23 135 4.88 0.5 Community Commercial 350 369 758 252.36 27.5 Industrial Commercial 25 15 13 64.90 7.1 Industrial 64 45 65 109.63 11.9 Business Park 45 15 31 123.21 13.4 Open Space 27 0 0 33.38 3.6 Sub Total 1,317 1,353 2,795775.37 84.40 Streets WA WA WA 143.26 15.6 Grand Total 1,317 1,353 2,795 918.63 100.0 -,oUrce: uny or banra uanM uenerar Pian I• [7 ul I. I• I0 n:= . m a� R 9 fie. I m o Pm ���•A m N .7 �o Oo po c— c r•� en m o 0 0 'ftm m ti 0 � a J/ F m ` .7 en m 17 0 'ftm m ti � a O� Uua&V juawdolanapay elyro elueS/o.(?q • • i0 Draft Preliminary Report -The Newhall Redevelopment Project 4.3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE While the socio-economic characteristics of a community do not directly reflect blight, there can be a high degree of correlation between negative socio-economic factors and the presence of blight. For instance, low per capita incomes coupled with relatively high costs for such items as housing, inevitably results in less disposable income. This lower disposable income translates into lower sales levels at nearby stores, and less in the way of financial resources to maintain and upgrade properties. Coupling reduced income with an older than average housing stock, which typically requires higher than average levels of maintenance, could, over . the long term, result in some residential properties falling into a deteriorated state. Continued deferred maintenance may allow a property owner to get by for a while, but such deferrals increase the risk that the property will not command the desired rent or sales price .3 In turn, the value of the owner's investment is reduced or significantly impaired. In a like. manner, extensive rental vacancies mean that landlords have less income to use for maintaining their property. Thus, because the owners cannot maintain the structures due to inadequate income, the units will fall into disrepair, and property values will fall or decline relative to better maintained properties. The relatively high percentage of buildings needing maintenance and their relatively low value suggests that this relationship is at work in the Project Area. Additionally, a relatively low disposable income in a particular area means that less money is readily available to support neighborhood businesses. This, in turn means that there will be fewer businesses operating in the neighborhood and of those that do, many may be only marginally profitable. Over time, marginally profitable businesses will themselves suffer from deterioration due to inadequate maintenance and/or may fail altogether. To provide a socio-economic profile. of the Project Area, data from the 1990 United States Census block group areas lying mostly in the Project Area, along with data updated to 1996 were evaluated (see Table 3). The following statistics are Maintenance for Proffts, P. 250, by James H. Koch. Published in Handbook o1 PropertyManagement; Robert Irwin, Editor in Chief, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 198& GPC ' ! 2f City of Santa Cladta Redevelopment Agency important in understanding the overall consumer base, labor force, and other pertinent facts about the community: • 30.1% of the Project Area's dwelling units are 35 years or older. This is compared to 5.1% for the rest of the City. • For persons 25 years or older in the Project Area, 63.3% did not receive a high school diploma. This compares to 12.1% for the City as a whole, and 16.6% for the region. • Project Area median per capita income is $8,867, which is 41.9% of the City of Santa' Clarita's_ median of $21,121. Meanwhile, the Project Area's median income is only 61% of the City's, as well as less than that of the County and region. • 23.0% of Project Area households earn less than 50% of the County's median family income, while 56.0% earn less than the median., As can be seen from the data in Table 3, per capita and household incomes in the Project Area are significantly lower than those in the City as a whole. The percentage of Project Area households making less than Los Angeles County's median income is much larger than for the City as a whole. This would indicate that disposable income is .not as readily 0 available for retail expenditures, or for residential maintenance and rehabilitation as it is elsewhere in the City. As mentioned in Chapter 3.0, the City of Santa Clarita has chosen business retention and development as a major goal for the Project Area. The reasons for this are revealed by several measures of existing socio-economic conditions in the Project Area as analyzed from Census data. The most significant issue is that 63.3% of all persons 25 years or older did not graduate from high school. Often these individuals are more dependent on crafts jobs or laborer positions where they can t receive on-the-job training or fill positions requiring few acquired skills. Median 1996 per capita income in the Project Area is only 41.9% of the City median income, and 56% of all families make less than the County s median income, this ' compared with 26.7% for the City as a whole. As such, Project Area households are nearly twice as likely to be classed as • lower income than elsewhere in the City. Given the needs of the local citizenry, the City -Council is focusing on business retention and development in order to keep or attract a large variety of manufacturing jobs to the local labor market, and thus to provide a source of good jobs for local residents. GDC 22 0 C i• C. I• U I• I• Draft Preliminary Report . The Newhall Redevelopment Project TABLE 3 COMPARATIVE SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE SGEAIS�IS E5 v.. ��E�L?ROJ,` T4 rvamVw%i'Fl aaS In�.aumm 41S NFA .e evim +8 1CO "t w. �• f REGION` B'+L%a=�ro�?r� 1989 Income Median Income 32,270 53,002 35,012 36,746 Per Capita Income 8,867 21,121 16,097 16,245 %with incomes less than 80% of County median income 56.0 26.7 50.0 WA % with incomes less than 50% of County median income 23.0 10.2 24.1 WA Housing %of housing units 35 years or 30.1 5.1 older 50.7 24.0 %homeowners 1 17.0 75.5 48.2 54.0 %renters 1 83.0 24.5 51.8 46.0 Education % of people over 25 who have not received a. high school diploma 1990) 63.3% 12.1% 30.0% 16.7% Census block groups within the Project Area. "Los Angeles -Anaheim -San Bernardino CMSA Source: 1990 United States Census, Urban Decision Systems,1996, 4.3.1 EMPLOYMENT TRENDS For purposes of successful economic development, and the creation of new jobs serving the Project Area, knowledge of the occupational mix in the Project Area - as well as throughout the Santa Clarita is essential. As Table 4 shows, Project -Area residents are much more likely to be occupied in blue collar occupations, than is typical for the rest of the City and Southern California' as a whole. At the same time, Project Area residents are significantly less likely to be employed in management and professional occupations than is the case throughout the City. 'As used herein, Southern California refers to the Los Angeles -Anaheim -San Bernardino CMSA. City of Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency • TABLE 4 COMPARATIVE OCCUPATIONAL STATUS -1990 r ® � . � ,l h #tngei WNVPA s DccUPiVoaBW t'Prolect Area :Sa{1fa C anta, County ° Professionaffechnical 7.7 20.2 17.7 Management/Proprietor 2.7 17.2 132 Clerical 9.9 16.8 17.4 Sales 4.5 14.3 11.6 Total White Collar 24.8 68.5 59.9 Crafts 16.3 11.8 11.0 Operatives 8.7 5.7 11.6 Service 23.1 10.7 12.3 Laborer 17.5 2.5 4.0 Farm Worker 9.6 0.8 12 Total Blue Collar 75.2 31.5 40.1 • • • When compared to the City, the Project Area has more workers in jobs in the most modest wage categories. Laborers are nearly seven times as prevalent (17.5% vs. 2.5%) in the Project Area as in the City labor force. Farm workers represent 9.6% of the Project Area work force, but only 1.2% of the County work force. Other employment sectors in the lower wage categories show • similar disparities. For example, 16.3% of Project Area workers are in craft occupations, while only 11.0% of County workers fall into this category. At the other end of. the wage spectrum, the reverse • relationship is observed. Project Area workers are relatively fewer in numbers in professional, technical, management and proprietor positions, 10.4% vs. 37.4% for the City. Professionals represent 7.4% in the Project Area, but a substantially greater 20.2% in the City, and relatively low paying sales jobs are taken by 4.5% of Project Area workers and 14.3% of City workers. Therefore, economic development programs that will most effectively address the Project Area's residents, as well as those living elsewhere in Santa Clarita, would • include those that increase the number of nearby jabs in those industries that commonly employ manufacturing, transportation, crafts, administrative and other workers, as well as those rich in executive and professional occupations. • • J • • LJ • :l :1 • Draft Preliminary Report -The Newhall Redevelopment Project 4.3.2 HOUSING VALUES Based on Los Angeles County Assessors data, assessed per unit housing values in the Project Area were significantly lower than for Santa Clarita as a whole (see Table 5). Average assessed housing values in the Project Area were approximately 28% of those in other portions of Santa Clarita. While some of this difference can be accounted for by recent sales outside the Project Area, even when the date of last sale is accounted for, there is a significant difference in value.. For instance, reported average single family residential purchase prices in the Project Area were only 38.6% of those for single family residences elsewhere in the City, according to 1996 Los Angeles County Assessors data. Average household size in the Project Area is more than twice as large as that for Santa Clarita as a whole, as well as for Los Angeles County and the region as a whole. This larger -than -average household size coupled with the smaller -than -average number of rooms per unit in the Project Area signals that overcrowding conditions are a significant issue. Information from the Los Angeles County Health Department, discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.1, indicates that overcrowding in the Project Area is higher than any other location in the Santa Clarita Valley. CRC 9 25 City of Santa Clanta Redevelopment Agency 0 TABLE 5 PROJECT AREA HOUSING COMPARISONS �V" 6u4*¢ham sa's ect _ SantaClanta d 3asu.+vpva 6� Los 9n hM F 'ysy,W �..�.rP+anw+-sanixe��. etes Conaiy a �Regton ,�'• [brt�t�i"v.ro ,x � +.v.ro< „ 'Ktik rn' 3 Rt Ynw`?�3YM 4T` Y ���az.. llmoun � U Amount Rma� ia' Percentttl P'1Fa"'rk A6overt 4 Ci`^d $`..$ :;Proectir'ea_� `tAmount=# & ry 50-AW-"SSP,A jT�y 9TM"fT_.4a§i5b'Ns tog vePloo� �4rea�.ae mount �,P�oectArea Percent �AboVe Owner Occupied 16.1% 70.0% 334,8% 45.5% 182.6% 50.0% 210.6% Renter Occupied 79.0% 22.9% -71.0% 49.0% -38.0% 42.6% -46.1% scant 4.9`Y° 6.1% 24.5°% 4.5% -8.2% 7.4% 51.0% verage Assessed Housing slue per Unit 1996) $49,409 $179,033 262.3°% WA WA WA WA ogle Family $84,493 $183,885 117,63% WA WA WA WA iple Family $35,887 $168,868 370.55% WA WA WA WA ileHome $20,550 $69,195 47.21°% WA WA WA WA rage Household Size I 3.99 2.84 -28.8% 2.91 -27.1°% 2.91ms/Unit 3.77 5.55 47.2°% 4.42 -172% WArage People Per Room 1.06 0.52 -50.9°% 0.66 -37.1% WA WA GRc 26 • 0 0 • [7 0 S • Draft Preliminary Report • The Newhall Redevelopment Project 5.0 URBANIZATION OF THE PROPOSED • PROJECT ARE4 As shown in Table 6, there are 918.63 acres in the Project Area, 143.26 acres of which are public streets. Of the remaining acreage, 458.35 acres are developed for urban uses, 167.61 acres are an integral part of an area developed for urban uses which are surrounded or substantially surrounded by urban development, 4.01 acres are subdivided lots of irregular form or shape that are under multiple ownerships, and 5.07 acres were previously developed for urban uses. The result is that the Project Area is 84.7% urbanized (see Figure 5). TABLE 6 • URBANIZATION .7 I0 sn2flu, fiz� Im�r =,1a8 d mvrm a. Total Proposed Project Area 918.63 100.0 Urbanized Land Developed 458.35 49.9 Streets 143.26 15.6 Vacant, but Integral to an Urban Area 167.61 18.2 Vacant, but Irregular Parcels 4.01 0.4 Vacant, but Previously Developed 5.07 0.6 Total Urbanized Land 778.30 84.7 Vacant and Non -Urbanized Land 140.33 15.3 Source: GRC Redevelopment Consultants, Inc. MC 27 1. it 1❑ SOC Erg, o T 4- a-2v�'i2 va = o�v a a C o a = iso =.ate =oa tea= a_ wNn � N d 8Z Uuady;uawdojanapab e7ue!D LIueS fo Aj.r) Draft Preliminary Report -The Newhall Redevelopment Project I JJ 6.0 PHYSICAL CONDITIONS 1N THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA The Agency initiated a study to determine whether characteristics of blight as described. in the CRL exist in the proposed Project Area. Specific elements of the. study included the creation of a computer database using Los Angeles County Assessor files. This file information was then supplemented with data collected in the field. The following is a description of the existing physical conditions in i. the proposed Project Area. At the end of each sub -section within this chapter, there is a table summarizing the conditions described in that particular sub -section. 6.1 BUILDINGS THAT ARE UNSAFE OR UNHEALTHY IN WHICH TO LIVE AND WORK Section 33031(a)(1) of the CRL identifies buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live -or work in as being indicative of blight. The causes of such conditions include serious code violations, dilapidation and deterioration, defective design or physical construction, faulty or inadequate utilities, or other similar factors. To research and document such conditions in the Project Area, field surveys were conducted in September and October of 1996. When performing any type of structural conditions survey that examines only the exteriors of structures visible from the public right-of-way, two main points must be kept in mind. First, the surveyor can examine only the most durable portions of the structure including the roof, exterior walls, and windows. CRC • 29 City of Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency Second, the exterior of a structure may be concealing any number of structural deficiencies; which could negatively impact the integrity or safety of the structure, but may not be visible from the exterior of the structure. Damage from termites, wood rot, broken or occluded water or drainage pipes, faulty or defective wiring, inadequate electrical service or circuit protection; faulty heating systems or devices, and water heaters without pressure or temperature relief valves are all conditions that could be found within an apparently "sound" structure, but which could constitute health or safety risks to occupants. The probable presence of these additional conditions in the structures means that, if anything, conditions of deterioration are more prevalent than indicated. The results of the field surveys revealed that 74.6% of buildings in the Project Area are in some degree of disrepair, and 22.3% of those (18.2% of all buildings) have deteriorated to the point where they could be considered to be unsafe or unhealthy in which to live or work (see Table 7). TABLE 7 STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA ��l�Aal 8ur1�1ig�' � °re �s j�f8urltlrngs s �a��� o� oCa,.�;; Structurally Sound 323 23.9% Requires Maintenance 784 57.9% Unsafe/Unhealthy 246 18.2% TOTAL 1,353 100% Source: GRC Redevelopment Consultants, Inc. The types of health and safety problems observed on structures in the proposed Project Area include: • Rotting and sagging roofs • Extensive wall damage • Broken or boarded -up windows • Cracked concrete or masonry walls • Poorly constructed room additions and garage conversions • Faulty electrical wiring • Illegal occupancy 2 • 9 I0 Draft Preliminary Report- The Newhall Redevelopment Project • Inadequate building materials, such as bare plywood, corrugated aluminum, and rolled roofing. Although deterioration is spread throughout the Project Area, high concentrations of unsafe and unhealthy buildings (those in need of major repairs) were found to be located in the following places: • Residential properties north of Oak Street between Arcadia Street and Newhall Avenue. • Commercial and residential structures west of San Fernando Road between 8th Street and Market Street. • Residential properties in East Newhall. • Industrial properties along Pine Street, west of San Fernando Road. • Residential properties near 15th. Street between Chestnut Street and Walnut Street. • Residential properties near 14th Street between San Fernando Road and Walnut Street. • Commercial properties along San Fernando. Road and Railroad Avenue in downtown Newhall. Property values of deteriorated. structures are significantly lower than structures in good condition. As shown in Table 8, the improvement value per acre of structures in need of minor repair is 54% lower than those that are well-maintained, while structures that are in need of major repairs are over 62% lower. TABLE 8 VALUE BY BUILDING CONDITION �llfdng l Ilnrove,0 ��°drtrongt�1lUaISM a �<o erlaRSAIt+c�a1C Structurally Sound 439,787 Requires Maintenance 202,598 53.9% lower Unsafe/Unhealthy 164,540 62.6% lower source: Los Angeles county Assessor sno UHI; HBdaelopment Consultants, Inc. As shown in Table 9, the total property value for parcels with structures in need of repair is much lower than those in good condition. If all structures in need of repairs could be GRC 31 City of Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency CRC 32 improved to the same value per acre as the structurally sound properties, the total value would increase nearly 42% over the current total value. This, in turn, would equal a nearly 42% increase in monies available to the City and the taxing agencies through property taxes. TABLE 9 VAL UE IF IMPROVEMENTS WERE MADE TO BUILDINGS 421,^. sgy4ss -6 i��b'eyav: s. BB Y }m.^wR4^Mi. R 4 R dd�c� Ori^ M' xmm�=bw y.. mAryQ P+. mA ItL "vWMw6 y! RIM �i �r($.5�3h rttlng� tZtlitt6rr� oall/aloe �� ale op ttyTa r fo we ra $ttucim �.������ �b°of Tota`t afire};Sauir# ax ` .01 . Structurally Sound $805,323 $8,053 - Requires Repairs $470,357 $4,704 41.6% lower Source: Los Angeles County Assessor and GRC Redevelopment Consultants, Inc. 0 The Santa Clarita Fire Department has identified several areas where unsafe conditions exist in the Project Area. These areas include: 1. Pine Street west of San Fernando Road - Properties exceed the 300 -foot fire hydrant spacing, and were found to have • inadequate water flows. 2. Industrial area east of San Fernando Road, south of Drayton Avenue - Buildings lack fire stops, draft curtains, and fire -rated occupancy separations/partitions to reduce the threat of fire spread. This area also lacks adequate • space between buildings. 3. Residences in East Newhall - Many dwelling units have smoke detectors that do not work. In addition, the following areas do not conform to Fire 0 Department requirements for access, turnaround, and setbacks: • Commercial areas along -San Fernando Road, particularly the area north of Lyons Avenue. 0 • Older commercial areas along Lyons Avenue, east of Newhall Avenue. Another condition that creates unsafe or unhealthy conditions in the Project Area is the existence of hazardous material sites. 40 These sites are generally located in the north end of the Project Area and include: 0 i0 '• • �7 I• I• Draft Preliminary Report - The Newhall Redevelopment Project 1. Keysor-Century (26000 Springbrook Road) - This Polyvinyl Chloride manufacturing plant has been classified as a high priority site by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Vinyl resins, ethylene dichloride, and vinyl chloride monomer are used and manufactured at this site. 2. Thatcher Glass Manufacturing Company (25655 Springbrook Road) - This site has been classified as a medium priority site by the EPA. During its 27 years of operation, the company experienced several hazardous waste problems such as discharge of hazardous cooling water, and discharge of industrial waste. 3. HASA Chemical Inc. (23119 - Drayton Street) - HASA Chemical Inc. manufactures, packages, and distributes swimming pool chemicals. The site's history includes uncontrolled spills of contaminated rinse water, chemical discharges from railroad tank car connections, leakage from holding tanks, illegal discharges into cesspool or septic tanks, dumping into sewer manholes, and chlorine gas releases. The costs to mitigate the hazardous sites listed above have not been determined. However, similar conditions in other areas have often resulted in clean-up costs that far exceed the property's value, making private investment virtually impossible. In such cases, redevelopment is the only tool available to local jurisdictions such as the City of Santa Clarita to assist in financing hazardous materials clean-up. Whether of not the Agency funds all or part of the clean-up effort, development of the affected sites may not be economically viable without such assistance. Additional hazardous materials in the Project Area are more wide -spread, particularly the existence of lead-based paint and asbestos. According to the Centers for Disease Control, approximately 74% of buildings in the U.S. built prior to 1980 contain lead-based paint. That means about 833 structures in the Project Area are considered a health and safety risk. Children, especially those under the age of six, are particularly vulnerable to lead poisoning. Because the neurological system of a child under age six is in its developmental stages, the effects of lead exposure are significant. Other areas of the body affected by lead poisoning include the cardiovascular system, kidneys, ears and the reproductive system. It is important to know that it is not just deteriorated buildings that expose residents and employees to lead poisoning. The most common form of exposure is the ingestion City of Santa Cladta Redevelopment Agency of lead through dust and soil that have been contaminated over decades of slow accretion of lead particles. The possible exposure to asbestos -containing materials in the Project Area is even greater than for lead-based paint. According to a 1987 study of public buildings by Diagnostic Engineering, Inc. for the State of California Department of Health Services, 83% of all structures built before 1976 contain bulk -material asbestos. In addition, 35% of those structures have damaged bulk -material asbestos, which is the highest risk form of asbestos. If the same percentage of asbestos -containing materials found in public buildings was applied to all buildings in the Project Area, 877 buildings would contain asbestos,. and 307 of those would be a serious health and safety hazard. Asbestos is a significant health concern when individual fibers are released into the air through damage to building materials or through routine maintenance such as sanding, drilling, etc. If these fibers are inhaled, they can become permanently imbeddedin the lungs,- and scar the lung tissue. This condition can lead to cancer of the lungs, larynx, esophagus, stomach, colon -rectum, kidney, and pancreas, respiratory illnesses, and thickening of the chest cavity. The common uses for asbestos -containing materials in buildings are for fireproofing on steel beams, and insulation on ceilings and metal piping. Asbestos can also be found in roofing materials, wallboard, exterior siding, floor tile, and adhesives. The costs to alleviate the health and safety risks related to asbestos and lead-based paint can be extremely. expensive. According to Richard Baker, Vice President of the Ramsey - Schilling Consulting Group, it is estimated that the cost to remove lead-based paint is about $10,000 per house, or about $5 per square foot. Asbestos removal is estimated to be about the same cost. This means that the total amount to remove lead-based paint and asbestos from all affected buildings in the Project Area would be about $22,000,000, or about $23,400 per affected property owner. It is important to note that the health and safety risks of lead= based paint and asbestos can be -managed without complete removal. However, because the risks increase with regular maintenance, rehabilitation, additions, or other improvements, the costs also increase, thereby substantially hindering the economic viability of those properties in the Project Area. CRCI34 I0 0 I• • L r L I0 Draft Preliminary Report -The Newhall Redevelopment Project Building age is also a significant factor in deterioration and health and safety risks. As shown in Table 10, the Project Area has much older average construction date than the rest of the City, and structural deterioration increases with age. The average construction date is 1957 for the Project Area, and 1977 for the City (excluding the Project Area). The average construction date for properties in the Project Area that have unsafe or unhealthy buildings is 1947. In addition, over 38.2% of all structures in the proposed Project Area are over 40 years old, and 19.7% are over 50 years old. TABLE 10 BUILDING AGE &gTS °sap#M+`ssm'x29`��9`ShR�WH�.f 'b1rkn�,kmS 4s}%� ♦y.4r/�yJJ���}' * Q.%S:�e 11Q%iCJIIHY/iQSy` `.si t? k ` � '? .;eAI g`�C°Nh.-'Ye're�.,+®a .eaI �+'h`a^kTMMtr.7' `• ffi"€...o. >r Ci(excluding Project Area) 1977 Project Area 1955 Project Area (parcels with structures in need of major repairs) 1947 Uource: Los Angeles County Assessor and GRC Redevelopment Consultants, Inc. Although a substantial portion of the buildings in the Project Area are over 40 years old, even newer buildings show signs of deterioration or deferred maintenance. It is important to take note of these buildings, because building deterioration is progressive, starting with relatively minor items and eventually becoming severe to the point of being unsafe or unhealthy for its occupants if allowed by the property owner to continue. The large number of older, deteriorated buildings in the Project Area creates an economic burden on the community not only due to lower property values, but also in terms of a high demand for code enforcement, police and fire services. Older, deteriorated structures are often lacking in fire suppression devices, adequate access and visibility, vehicle turnaround areas, and modern security features.. Additional police and fire department information is included later in this report. The Santa Clarita Building Department reports that the Project Area has a disproportionate number of code violations compared to the entire City. As shown in Table 11, although the Project Area is only about 3.0% of the City's area, it accounted for over 20.0% of all code violations in 1996. The GQC • 35 City of Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency 0 GRC Q two areas with the most code violations are the residences east of San Fernando Road (commonly referred to as "East Newhall'), and the commercial uses along San Fernando Road. • TABLE 11 CODE VIOLATIONS -1996 Y WINNER Inoperable Vehicles 36 123 29.3 Health and Safety 36 147 24.5 Signs 31 134 23.1 Substandard Conditions 52 246 21.1 Zoning and Land Use 53 281 18.9 Illegal Construction 38 213 17.8 Miscellaneous 36 256 14.1 TOTAL 282 1,400 20.1 Source: City of Santa Clarita Building Department Other common code violations in the Project Area are: • Graffiti • Garage occupancy/conversions • Animal keeping • Property maintenance In addition, the following conditions exist in the Project Area: • Faulty wiring • Faulty building materials • Illegal add-ons or conversions • Illegal occupancy • Unreinforced masonry • 0 LJ • r • The Building Department believes that the main causes for code violations in the Project Area are the low financial status of the property owners and/or tenants, and lack of concern by the property owners and/or tenants. This would explain the large number of occurrences of residential overcrowding in the Project Area. According to the Los Angeles County Health Department, an inspector receives an average of five complaints per month for residential overcrowding in the East Newhall area. This represents more complaints than any other area in the Santa Clarita Valley. The Health Department also stated that septic problems, a significant • health hazard, were the next most common violation. Other 0 • 's '• '• Draft Preliminary Report -The Newhall Redevelopment Project complaints in the East Newhall area that were disproportionately higher than in the rest of the Valley include vermin infestation and graffiti. According to the Building Department, "most sheds, patios, garage conversions, and remodeling projects do not pull permits." This alone demonstrates just how serious the health and safety conditions are for those who live and work in the Project . Area. Other problems noted by the Building Department include: • Too many absentee owners - Often difficult to locate and do not take a proactive interest in maintaining their properties. • Lack of adequate parking - Results in inoperable vehicles in the.public right-of-way, and limits street sweeping. • Barren front yards and rights-of-way - Improving the landscaping will encourage nearby property owners/tenants to do the same. • Fences and walls along alleys - Many are "broken, shoddy, and unsightly." • Lack of adequate trash disposal service - Several units do not have trash service and use neighboring trash bins. • Language and social barrier - Many Spanish-speaking residents and business owners do not understand the technical aspects and purposes of code enforcement. There is evidence that the decline of the building stock in the Project Area is acting as a disincentive for nearby property owners to upgrade and maintain their structures. The California Legislature has determined that blighting conditions themselves create a disincentive for nearby property owners to maintain their properties. According to CRL Section 33036(a), the existence of nearby deterioration tends to further exacerbate deterioration "because of the lack of incentive to the individual landowner and his inability to improve, modernize, or rehabilitate his property while the condition of the neighboring properties remains unchanged." In addition, according to CRL Section ` 33036(b), as a consequence, the process of deterioration "frequently cannot be halted or corrected except by redeveloping the entire area, or substantial portions of it." In other words, the 784 structures that require deferred maintenance today will most likely become unsafe or unhealthy in the future, unless corrective measures, such as redevelopment activities, are applied. GRC 37 City of Santa Clanta Redevelopment Agency Inadequate maintenance may be attributed to many reasons including insufficient funds, the lack of an economic incentive to keep the property maintained, lack of knowledge of the property condition, or an unwillingness to commit to regular maintenance activities. Whatever the cause, if allowed to persist, the cycle of deterioration can, as well, deter adequate maintenance of nearby structures by creating an incompatible condition that acts to prevent or deter the maintenance of the affected parcels and other parcels nearby. Other factors that are known to contribute to the cause of poor structural conditions in the proposed Project Area are the high degrees of multiple ownerships and absentee owners of residential property. The 1,317 parcels in the proposed Project Area are owned by 952 different owners (72.3%). Of the 712 residential parcels, 323 (45.4%) are owned by.those who do not live on the properties they own. As shown in Table 12, absentee owners of property in the Project Area live in 19 different states and in England. According to Section 33036 (d) of the CRL, blight is most often found in areas subdivided into small parcels, with widely scattered ownerships. TABLE 12 LOCATIONS OFABSENTEE OWNERS Arizona California I England Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Iowa Louisiana Minnesota Nebraska Nevada New York Ohio Pennsylvania Tennessee Texas Utah Wisconsin Source: Los Angeles County Assessor Without redevelopment, it is nearly impossible to revitalize an area with multiple ownerships and absentee owners, because it is unlikely that such owners have either the means or the desire to work in concert with other owners to improve the area. The result is an area -that is highly unlikely to change without the combined effort of the public and private sector using the tools of redevelopment planning. High exposure to flooding is also a characteristic that creates unsafe or unhealthy conditions in the Project Area. Property susceptible to flood damage includes the area: • East of San Fernando Road in East Newhall • East of San Fernando Road,. north of 12th Street MC 311 10 0 I• Draft Preliminary Report -The Newhall Redevelopment ftled • West of San Fernando Road, near 16th Street • Near San Fernando Road and Sierra Highway • West of Wiley Canyon Road, south of Wabuska Street • Near Vermont Drive and Everett Drive, south of Powell Drive As shown in Table 13, the improvement value of unsafe or unhealthy buildings is over 30% less than the improvement value for developed land elsewhere in Santa Clarita with parcel sizes similar to those in the Project Area. It is important to note that Table 13 only includes those conditions that can be linked to a specific parcel. Conditions such as the existence of lead-based paint, for example are not included at this time. TABLE 13 VALUE OF UNSAFE OR UNHEALTHY BUILDINGS teMSw ID9Y}5 ' d§SFA. �' IDMy kT2yr S`§+a R,& AA `°✓4Pr F.�hY^x�yeA4 y� r Improvement Value fm royemenl lue of IiNerence �� pe%IcelnECt}l UnsafearUnl�eai y�i !(DevelopedNrcels; d�jArea§« e dlfecfelxot m� BwldtngspeCAcrein� �iiPeeie plum § , , w Onty) Y 4� �� 4 =ProlectAreBr�� xr § xy s g ( 0131 sNF+wl �ss�smmpg a�wolWia�m�a �da.� �� 43`&L4 x+�T'•"y 237,386 164,540 30.7% lower Table 14 below, summarizes the conditions described in this section. This table assumes that buildings built before 1980 are a high risk for health and safety concerns due to the presence of lead-based paint, asbestos, and other hazardous materials. TABLE 14 SUMMARY- BUILDINGS THAT ARE UNSAFE OR UNHEALTHYIN - WHICH TO LIVE OR WORK o of Tota% 11, § �b � �cf%ta �gaa PaYcels � �(feced }sa mwm'm Partels(rlF�+llSld9utIngs §� ue. ce# � � € a� §d�ga a s S "'r € TAR (Feres4cres2 d�jArea§« , Frojecl " dlfecfelxot m� 1 �1l#rea.,� �iiPeeie plum All xr § }i J %2Yb dw8 aa� MrnA8 �N0A0 A��§P 83d^i. e�w4 4A. .ame dsre3 fi.e. �Ae Y n 980 74.4% 1,312 97.0% 402.82 52.0% GIC 39 City o/ Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency 6.2 FACTORS THAT PREVENT OR SUBSTANTIALLY HINDER THE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE USE OF BUILDINGS OR LOTS Section 33031(a)(2) of the CRL identifies those characteristics that prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings or lots as substandard design, inadequate size given present standards and market conditions, lack of parking, or similar factors. The Project Area appears to have lost its attractiveness for commercial and industrial development, despite the fact that the Project Area has two heavily traveled arterials running through it, is accessed by two freeways, has a large population within a mile radius, and is a part of a valley that has experienced tremendous growth in the past two decades. As will be discussed in Chapter 7.0, there are serious economic problems in the Project Area, that limit its competitiveness. This lack of economic viability and competitiveness indicates that there are many detrimental physical conditions that negatively affect the Project Area. These conditions include inadequate parcel size given present standards and market conditions, inadequate access and circulation, the deteriorated condition of the area, and lack of adequate parking. 6.2.1. INADEQUATE PARCEL SIZES, ACCESS, AND CIRCULATION Inadequate parcel sizes, access, and circulation are the most critical factors that substantially hinder the economic viability of the Project Area. As will be discussed in more detail later in this Report, the average size of a parcel in the Project Area is 0.70 acre, and the average size of a developed parcel is 0.43 acre. Elsewhere in the City, the average parcel with new construction (anything built after 1991) has been 1.32 acres. During that same time, the average size of a parcel with new construction within the Project Area is 0.18 acre.` Using statistics for commercial uses only, the average size of a parcel with new construction is 0.51 acre outside the Project Area, and 0.17 acre within the Project Area. 'Source: Los Angeles CountyAssessor GQC 40 r C i0 '• '• I• I• Draft Preliminary Report -The Newhall Redevelopment Project If 0.51 acre is used as a guide for the minimum size for what is presently an economically viable commercial parcel in the City, there are 191 commercial parcels in the Project Area (69.7% of all commercial parcels) that are substandard from an economic standpoint. When looked at from the perspective of what is typical in the neighborhood commercial retail market, and what is needed in many parts of the Project Area, a full- service supermarket with ancillary shops servicing about 15,000 residents in a one -mile radius would require about 10.00 acres.of land. A minimum project consisting of a small supermarket and drug store with a few ancillary shops would require about 6.00 acres of land. The minimum lot depth is about 300 feet for the smaller development, and 450 feet for the larger development. Both scenarios would require a relatively flat site. Using those standards, there are only two commercial sites in the Project Area where the parcel sizes are economically viable for neighborhood retail needs.. One area (Lyons Avenue and Orchard Village Road) does have a supermarket and drug store on it, but four of the six buildings in this center average over 30 years of age. The other area (Lyons Avenue west of Peachland Avenue) has a mixture of older uses (bowling alley, butcher, car wash, barber shop, drive-through dairy, laundromat, comic book . store, etc.) with the newest building nearly 25 years old. Both areas suffer from piecemeal development, poor visibility, and lack of recent investment. Generally, commercial parcels in the Project Area are small, with narrow frontages and shallow depths. On an individual parcel basis, this is not necessarily a condition of blight. However, when adjacent to many other similar parcels in the downtown Newhall area, the result is a mix of small, mostly low-end uses. These uses are located in plain, utilitarian structures with limited parking and little or no potential for growth. The unimproved street right-of-way, and railroad right- of-way near these uses is often used for employee parking lots, and, in a few cases, for actual business locations. Along Lyons Avenue, development consists primarily of small strip malls and office buildings that have no visual or physical connection to each other. Many of the Gi2C 41 City of Santa Cladla Redevelopment Agency • structures are so packed together and poorly designed in relation to adjacent buildings, that circulation is inconvenient at best, and dangerous at worst. It is • apparent that these uses were developed in a piecemeal fashion that is typical of the urban sprawl found in the region. As mentioned above, parcel shapes and sizes have a tremendous affect on how a building or parking lot • functions. Using a minimum parcel size of 5,000 square � erer feet for residential properties', and 5,000 square feet for commercial properties, and 10,000 square feet for $237,386 industrial properties, there are 201 parcels in the Project Area (18.3% of all residential, commercial, and • industrial parcels) that are smaller than required by City standards. In addition, there are 28 parcels in the Project Area that exceeded the minimum parcel size, but are irregularly shaped or landlocked. Combined with those that are too small, there are 230 parcels in the Project Area (17.4% of all parcels) that are • inadequate. As shown in Table 15, the improvement value of properties that are too small or irregular is 33.0% lower than for developed land elsewhere in Santa Clarita with parcel sizes similar to those in the Project . Area. • TABLE 15 VALUE OF PROPERTIES THAT ARE TOO SMALL OR IRREGULAR zm °,� �tp;�avem�otYalue r ilmp�vement�alve � erer 33.0% $237,386 $158,993 Source: Los Angeles County Assessor and GRC Redevelopment Consultants, Inc. 'Santa Clarita Development Cade, November24, 1992. • The high percentage of small or oddly shaped parcels creates a significant problem in the proposed Project Area. Constrained by lot size or. shape, existing residences often have little or no open space, and • existing businesses often have inadequate parking, loading facilities, and access. In addition, vacant land that would otherwise be prime sites for development, cannot be legally accessed, and so remain vacant. • GRC • 42 • • J • • El J J 0 Draft Preliminary Report - The Newhall Redevelopment Project The result. is an area that is unlikely to improve without redevelopment because of the high costs and lack of resources to alleviate such restrictive conditions. Redevelopment may be a way for the private sector to address the problems of parcelization in the Project Area. See Chapter 6.4, for additional details on shapes and sizes of irregular parcels in the Project Area. Even vacant land, which would generally be highly desirable for development, is not seeing investment. Approximately 225 acres of .land not currently developed are available in the Project Area. As before, negative physical conditions affect the. economic viability of the land. The largest vacant area in the Project Area is east of San Fernando Road, just north of 12th Street. To the casual observer, this 100 -acre site would appear to be an attractive industrial site. It is flat, has good depth, and near several transportation nodes. However, access to the site is blocked by the railroad tracks to the west, steep hills to the north, and residences, drainage problems, and a Metropolitan Water District (MWD) easement to the east. The only legal access to the site is by two small driveways to the south off of a small street. A similar situation exists further north on San Fernando Road, where access to a vacant 60 -acre site is restricted by the railroad tracks to the west, residences to the south, and the MWD easement and steep hills to the east. The only access to the site is by a small dead- end street that must be traveled over 3,000 feet before reaching another small street. This area is also adjacent to a hazardous material site, which will be discussed later, Another seemingly prime site is located along Interstate 5 between Calgrove Boulevard and Lyons Avenue. Although it has freeway visibility, and is relatively flat, this 30 -acre site remains mostly vacant due to flooding hazards, ground movement of a nearby hill, and poor access by Wiley Canyon Road. Other significant areas of currently undeveloped land are located on San Fernando Road; one is south of Pine Street and the other is around the intersection with Sierra Highway. Both areas have similar physical features that substantially hinder their economic GRC iz City o/ Santa Clanta Redevelopment Agency • viability, despite being located on a heavily traveled street. These negative features include a topography that makes development difficult and expensive, the • existence of long, narrow parcels, and access problems due to the size and alignment of nearby streets. The costs involved in preparing the sites described above for adequate development are prohibitive when there are other sites available with adequate access, circulation, and drainage outside of the Project Area. The result is a lack of investment into the area. 6.2.2 DETERIORATED CONDITION OF THE AREA As discussed earlier, the _California Legislature has . determined that blighting conditions themselves create a disincentive for nearby property owners to maintain their properties. According to CRL Section 33036 (a), the existence of deterioration tends to further deterioration "because of the lack of incentive to the individual landowner and his inability to improve, modernize, or rehabilitate his property while the condition of the neighboring properties remains unchanged." Therefore, not only do deteriorated buildings cause direct economic burdens, but their negative effects also contribute to hindering the viability of surrounding buildings and parcels. Outdoor storage of equipment, vehicles, and junk also negatively affects the Project Area. As shown in Table 16, improvement values of properties with outdoor storage are over 55% lower than for developed land elsewhere in Santa Clarita with parcel sizes similar to those in the Project Area. TABLE 16 VALUE OF PROPERTIES WITH OUTDOOR STORAGE 'f PSZ -.et N 0s° p�E k re+a§� s4a`y"AS `s+"ia �Jmprovemen�Vafue�e� `imQrovemenlY�ivepgf " �Drtference��`� $237,386 $105,645 55.5% lower Source: Los Angeles County Assessor and GRC Redevelopment Consultants, Inc. Another factor that limits the use of buildings or lots is the way property throughout the proposed Project Area GRC 44. • Is • • • • • • • ;7 C, • 0 C7 :7 ;7 J Draft Preliminary Report - The Newhall Redevelopment Project is divided by natural or man-made barriers. The area is literally crisscrossed with high-tension power lines, flood control channels, railroad tracks, and water, slope, pipeline; and drainage easements.. Such easements exist on 49 parcels in the Project Area and affect over 92 acres. Easements can act to physically, visually, and psychologically divide the community. In some.areas, particularly where the railroad tracks run parallel to San Fernando Road, this division can be a serious public safety threat as access for police and fire vehicles between downtown Newhall and areas to the east is extremely limited. Easements also limit the developibility of individual parcels. For instance, a water easement could limit where buildings can be placed. In extreme. cases,. such restriction could drastically limit or eliminate development potential on individual parcels. 6.2.3. INADEQUATE PARKING The Freedman Plan stated that while technically there are enough parking spaces in the downtown area, the location and condition of the spaces were detrimental to the.nearby businesses. Chapter 5.0 of the Plan states that "accessibility to these spaces, and the desirability of using them ... is a major issue." The Freedman Plan also states that: Most of the on -street spaces along E Road, for example, are empty. This is the fact that existing businesses do high levels of parking demand. B because traffic speeds and truck an Fernando partly due to not generate ut it also is traffic make parking seem unsafe. Curbside stalls marked, making it unclear whether the area is a traffic lane or a parking zone. are not curbside Off-street parking areas are typically located to the rear or side of buildings. Directional signs that would orient potential patrons to. these parking areas is minimal. The lots themselves are generally in poor condition. Rusting, overflowing dumpsters, discarded furniture_ and appliances, a .lack of amenities such as shade trees or lighting, and poorly maintained rear building facades combine to present a negative image that hurts revitalization efforts. GQC 45 City o/ Santa Ciarita Redevelopment Agency • The following improvements were recommended in the Freedman Plan to ease the inadequate parking • situation: • Use streetscape improvements to reduce traffic speed • Delineate curbside parking spaces Enhance the • • appearance of rear building facades and entrances • Clean up alleys and rear lots • Install lighting and landscaping Install attractive dumpster enclosures • Install directional signs to rear parking areas • Create mid -block pedestrian walkways Parking lots along Lyons Avenue are generally narrow, • oddly situated, and divided from each other. This is due to the inadequate size and shape of the parcels, and lack of planning prior to the City's incorporation. The properties are not situated well for pedestrian travel, so a customer wishing to visit three different stores in close proximity will have to drive into three different parking lots via heavily traveled Lyons Avenue. Because of the many separated parking lots, traffic congestion along Lyons Avenue is intensified by an excessive number of curbcuts. There are 66 such curbcuts on the south side of Lyons from Interstate 5 to San Fernando Road. When combined with the number of intersecting streets (17), there is a traffic opening every 130 feet on average for two miles. Traffic will become even more congested and dangerous in the near • future as Lyons Avenue is expected to be the primary thoroughfare to and from the new Metrorail station in downtown Newhall. Piecemeal development of such strip malls and office • buildings can also create unnecessary market competition among neighbors. In other words, the retail mix along Lyons Avenue should be complementing and supporting, instead of acting to separate and divided entities. This is especially significant in an area that is less competitive than • commercial development in other parts of the City or surrounding communities. The construction of new CRC 46 1 0 • • J E 7 • :i Ll 11 Draft Preliminary Report • The Newhall Redevelopment Project commercial centers just west of Interstate 5 will give shoppers larger and vastly more -convenient opportunities, rendering the retail mix in the proposed Project Area even less competitive than they are today. Together, the above detrimental physical conditions create an area where seemingly viable land shows depreciated values, impaired investments, and other economic characteristics that substantially hinder its viable use. As discussed above, the many physical conditions that prevent the viable use of buildings or parcels work together to negatively affect the Project Area. Economically, their affects can be shown in reduced property values. Table 17 shows that the improvement value of property affected by at least one of the conditions described above is almost 43% lower than for developed land elsewhere in Santa Clarita with parcel sizes similar to those in the Project Area. TABLE 17 VALUE OF LAND WITH FACTORS THAT PREVENT OR SUBSTANTIALLY HINDER THE VIABLE USE OF BUILDINGS OR LOTS Source: LOS Angeles county Assessor and GRG Redevelopment Consultants, Inc. Table 18, below, summarizes the conditions in this section. GRC 47 OF�gVafGe�er/tcre„lrl�lt � aTue�ger«AyCre�3�'� >���l1lPet�fe�91 � W,�'. Gc.&�P�m� �4a,a � n`� Y .. :s,as$e..qry $237,386 $135,630 42.9% lower Source: LOS Angeles county Assessor and GRG Redevelopment Consultants, Inc. Table 18, below, summarizes the conditions in this section. GRC 47 City of Santa Cladta Redevelopment Agency 0 TABLE 18 SUMMARY- FACTORS THAT PREVENT OR SUBSTANTIALLY HINDER THE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE USE OF BUILDINGS OR • LOTS &a * �#af g i oatTat'#n ° afTdtat "'s4W tK WPAtc& ofota kw�&P.. E-Parce rc a%�� !Bu11tluht�s r'a g � mire t'810 44 Acres f � &W Acre�ur ��AHeottr� ,�P1o7ect 18ecied�'��?rolgtrt 'AB�ted� Proffer` nctu46 �i��� �a _31� 932 70.8% 975 72.1% 617.13 79.6%° 6.3 INCOMPATIBLE USES Section 33031(a)(3) of the CRL identifies one of the physical blight characteristics as adjacent or nearby uses that are incompatible with each other, and which prevent economic development. • 0 Incompatibility of uses essentially takes three forms in the proposed Project Area. First, there are numerous instances where widely varied uses are located in close proximity to one another. Second, the mixture and lack of organization of the existing uses makes the area incompatible with the uses called for by the General Plan. And, finally, there is an incompatibility generated by conditions of building deterioration, such that some adequately maintained uses are located in close proximity to uses or buildings that are either moderately or heavily deteriorated. All three types of incompatibility affect the proposed Project Area and prevent the economic development of the proposed Project Area. • 6.3.1. INCOMPATIBILITY AMONG EXISTING USES The most significant area of incompatibility is on the north end of the Project Area near the intersection of 0 Drayton Street and Springbrook Avenue. There are five dwelling units in this predominately industrial area. Uses immediately adjacent to the residences include five auto -related uses, a disposal company, and a welding supply company. Within a 500 -foot radius around the residences, there are over 10 industrial GRCI48 do I• I• U J • I" • n U Draft Preliminary Report - The Newhall Redevelopment Project uses, including a chemical company and a PVC manufacturer that uses chlorine. According to the Santa Clarita Fire Department, the buildings in this area are not equipped with fire stops, draft curtains, and fire -rated occupancy separations to reduce the spread of fire. The lack of adequate setbacks also increases the exposure of surrounding buildings to fire. Another area of incompatibility in the Project Area is commonly found in cities where commercial and residential uses meet. This condition exists on the south side of Lyons Avenue generally between Wiley Canyon Road and Wheeler Road. The lack of parcel depth in this area means that the backs of commercial units, where much of the shipping, receiving, and other activities take place, are separated from residential neighborhoods by a 20 -foot alley. Very few, if any, buffers are in place to protect residents from noise, light, fumes, or other conditions associated with commercial activity. A similar condition exists along the west side of San Fernando Road between 13th Street and Newhall Road. Though occasionally separated by a street, many residents are only a few feet from auto -related uses. For example, within a 300 -foot radius on San Fernando Road, between 8th Street and.9th Street, the following uses exist: • Liquor store • 2 churches • 2 bars • 6 auto -repair shops • 3 dwelling units Another example of incompatible uses can be seen on 11th Street just west of San Fernando Road where, within a 200 -foot radius, the following uses exist: • 2 gas stations • Lawnmower repair shop • Medical office • Motorcycle shop • Auto parts store • 4 dwelling units n Cityol Santa C/adta Redevelopment Agency 0 Additional areas of incompatibility include the south end of East Newhall where residences with very little setback are on San Fernando Road near commercial • uses. The above land use mixes are often incompatible with each other and nearby residential development, because of conflicting traffic patterns, noise impacts, odors, or other nuisances that tend to have attendant health and safety concerns. The problems are even more serious when the land use mixes include industrial or auto - related properties, because nearby residents or other businesses may be exposed to hazardous materials, obnoxious or offensive odors, or similar undesirable • conditions resulting from those operations. Additional impacts for residents include the noise and related nuisances generated by such uses. The outdoor storage of equipment.is also a problem that increases the 'visual". blight. The . result is an area with deteriorated residences, and small businesses that are unattractive, unable to grow, and/or are health and safety hazards to area residents customers, and other businesses. • The land use incompatibilities cited above further demonstrate how the Project Area is characterized by piecemeal development with no clear identity or purpose. Overall, there are 80 residential parcels (11.2% of all residential parcels) that are incompatible with their commercial and/or industrial neighbors. r Table 19 shows how incompatible uses are over 11% lower in value than for developed land elsewhere in Santa Clarita with parcel sizes similar to those in the Project Area. TABLE 19 VALUE OF LAND WITH INCOMPATIBLE USES ,Ay`! a� �Le�p ��Yks.✓°.j°+*e..°.n � � "aPe�rtw� �dd*3 '�`ax"��`� +TKe b�',g "n.v b3`Y 5� �'Si +',d'wK ^.'K 1 <4;ValuePgrAcrgJ4,2, i$ -0� s=NM-,, �; ,alueperAcretnCtty s za � » Project Area'_ ,f °s b A btl;-�u:¢�.w.'w'�Y":Aim�i'":.<�_� " "gz �sq�'°»i, �iCs �( v�'.��"N9%R'Ae§fY5 b!m'.§4Pw M '�`, 5m � art&»a Nn`vrr n�3S3:3�"n r $237,386 $209,327 1 11.8% lower source: Los Angeles uounty assessor ana uric Heaeveiopment consultants, Inc. MC 50 • ID • I• • I• 0 I• El I• • Draft Preliminary Report • The Newhall Redevelopment Project 6.3.2. INCOMPATIBILITY OF BUILDING CONDITION As discussed in Chapter 6.1, 16.6% of the buildings in the proposed Project Area exhibit substantial degrees of deterioration. Additionally, 57.9% of the buildings in the proposed Project Area suffer from deterioration in its earlier stages. While there are certain areas with higher concentrations of deterioration, poor building conditions are scattered throughout the Project Area. Because deterioration is not limited to specific areas, well-maintained buildings are seldom more than 100 feet away from a building where deterioration is either a serious or growing problem. Put another way, there are few buildings (if any) in the proposed Project Area that could be characterized as physically or visually isolated from building deterioration. The mixture of well-maintained and deteriorated buildings is but another characteristic of incompatibility in the proposed Project Area. When combined with other elements of incompatibility; notably land use incompatibility, and a widespread incompatibility between planned land uses and existing uses on the same site, it is apparent that uses in the proposed Project Area are incompatible with each other, and that such conditions prevent the viable economic development of the proposed Project Area. 6.3.3 INCOMPATIBILITY WITH PLANNED USES Incompatible uses related to planned uses are also a problem in the Project Area, where 42 •parcels are nonconforming. This occurs when residential development is located on a site designated for nonresidential uses, or when nonresidential properties are located in areas designated for residential uses. As discussed above, incompatible, or nonconforming uses create circulation problems, an increased exposure to pollution, and a visual hodgepodge that does not promote private investment. Uses that do not conform to the City's General Plan designations exist primarily, throughout the downtown Newhall area. Many dwelling units are in areas earmarked for commercial uses, which subjects the residents to a variety of undesirable conditions, particularly when in close proximity to the many auto - related uses. GRC 51 City of Santa Cladta Redevelopment Agency • Without redevelopment, the abatement of these incompatible uses is highly unlikely, because owners, • especially absentee owners, are unlikely to invest money in such properties in such a manner as to eliminate any incompatibilities by replacing one use for another, through screening, or through any other means. In addition to having smaller structures, these S lots are themselves relatively small, making conversion to more intense commercial or industrial use impossible without parcel assembly. . Consequently, the transformation of incompatible uses and parcelization pattern for an area more easily developed for its intended uses is infeasible and is a substantial burden • on the community. Visually, incompatible or nonconforming uses act as a disincentive for investment, because it is not the best environment in which to develop a particular use. In other words, a private developer is not as likely to build a large, high-quality commercial use in an area that is not specifically organized for commercial uses, or in an area that is visually unappealing. Instead, the developer will more likely build where there are large lots, ample parking, good circulation and adequate infrastructure. This combination is not readily found in the Project Area. Because of these barriers, it is likely that the developer would go elsewhere, leaving small, obsolete businesses to remain. This scenario is occurring presently with the construction of new . commercial uses out of the City on the west side of Interstate 5. Table 20, below, summarizes the conditions in this section. r TABLE 20 SUMMARY- INCOMPATIBLE USES (MC 52 • 0 �o.110 I �`� a arCelS l,Tofaf Fm %>� raga �. .€�aaM Parcelsin x 8ufl�ngsSt+ldrgs' K 3iTf7f91� ��. a ism f�� oaPiOta�(= ,S`�"°T s x Axa. Ae7��� AQ:1fr' s�'Atfe dl Trt Project Ilffectea �1 ec ANecetl #��olect Areas A Area(r{pt a O� 3'. is 4 � 80 6.1% 171 12.6% 25.82 3.3% (MC 52 • 0 i• I• • • Ir I• le Draft Preliminary Report - The Newhall Redevelopment Project 6.4 IRREGULAR PARCELS IN MULTIPLE OWNERSHIP Section 33031(a)(4) of the CRL identifies as a blighting characteristic lots that are subdivided into irregular shapes or sizes for proper usefulness that are in multiple ownerships. As mentioned in Chapter 6.2, irregularly shaped parcels exist in the proposed Project Area in the form of odd -shaped parcels, parcels of inadequate size and shape for their present or intended use, and parcels that cannot be legally accessed. Overall, there are 269 parcels that are too small or irregularly shaped in the proposed Project Area. It is important to note that parcels were not classified as irregular if adjacent properties are owned by the same entity, and could be combined to create a parcel with a more viable size and shape. One example of irregular parcels can be found at the large, mostly vacant area east of San Fernando Road between 12th Street and the extension of 16th Street. This area appears to be prime industrial land, but it is virtually undevelopable due to: • Lack of access caused by the railroad tracks to the west. • Drainage and MWD easements, and the nonconforming residential areas to the east. • Drainage, topography, and lack of access to the north. The result is a large area of land that is accessed only by two small, privately owned driveways. Other examples of small or oddly shaped parcels include: 1. Parcel 2811-003-013 -Vacated railroad land in the shape of a bullet due to alignment of San Fernando Road and Magic Mountain Parkway. 2. Parcel 2825-013-024 - Triangular parcel with only 10 feet of access off of Wabuska Street becauseof the future alignment of Wiley Canyon Road. 3. Parcel 2825-015-015 - "T" -shaped parcel has narrow access to shopping center that is hidden behind other properties along Lyons Avenue. Buildings also up to 30 feet below grade, and set back nearly 400 feet from Lyons Avenue. 4. Parcel 2827-005-035 - Vacant, landlocked parcel near Sierra Highway and State Route 14. In addition to having CRC • 53 City of Santa Clatita Redevelopment Agency 0 no legal access to the site, over 40% of the land is unusable because of slope and drainage easements. 5. Parcel 2830-006-017 - Residential property on Valley Street, south of Lyons Avenue measures 40 feet by 280 feet. 6. Parcel 2831-006-009 - Commercial property near Spruce Street and 11th Street measuring 25 feet by 125 feet. 7. Parcel 2833-015-014 - Vacant land on San Fernando Road near Sierra Highway measuring 16 feet by 340 feet. Eben when irregular parcels can be developed, as they were prior to the City's incorporation, the structures on them are often small. Because of the lack of developable space, these parcels often have narrow and difficult to access parking lots or other problems caused by limited site area. These types of site and parcel problems occur frequently in nearly all commercial portions of the proposed Project Area. As discussed in Chapter 6.2, the existence of small, narrow lots • is a significant problem in the Project Area, as 17.4% of all parcels are inadequate for development given present development standards. As shown in Table 21, the improvement value of small and irregular parcels is 33% lower than for developed land elsewhere in Santa Clarita with parcel sizes similar to those in the Project Area. This, in turn, reduces the City's tax base by 33% for the small and irregular parcels. TABLE 21 VALUE OF IRREGULAR PARCELS IN MULTIPLE OWNERSHIP 9 y�A$ 'G{q 4sI?!v'iY y & flffi mpiovem ntrValuepena� �r a Jmprvyementy trteper k %pitfereole pas sxs« CrelnProjecttirea s *cy+� ��1cre7�rolecf/4trasm $237,386 $158,993 33.0% lower source: Los Angeles County Assessor and GRC Redevelopment Consultants, Inc. • 0 0 If all small and irregular parcels could be consolidated and developed in a similar fashion to those already developed in the Project Area, it would result in a substantial increase of property tax revenue to the City and taxing agencies. Because the total value for developed property on non -irregular parcels 0 in the Project Area is $529,985 per acre and the total value of small and irregular parcels is $385,730 per acre, the total CRC 54 s I• 0 • 7 J Draft Preliminary Report - The Newhall Redevelopment Project value of those properties would increase by $144,255 per acre. At 47.31 acres, these properties would generate $6,824,704 in additional value. This would equal an additional $68,247 per year in property tax revenue to the City and taxing agencies. Nevertheless, no viable means of assembling these parcels into appropriate development sites is available to the property owners, developers, or the City without redevelopment. Establishment of the Project Area will give the Agency the powers necessary to help the private sector assemble such irregular parcels either through incentives or through direct acquisition. Table 22, below, summarizes the conditions in this section. TABLE 22 SUMMARY- IRREGULAR PARCELS IN MULTIPLE OWNERSHIP tot, k°fPITatal<W.J Baa poQ W"� %W' otat! � e tvf �o}Xota?~ m S =3'BT Parcrels s 8M#H?'wY 5 , Parcels Ina Buildings BGr/drngiZ Acres ._ ^'ea .*.F. Jcre rn Alfectecl Project rt V;,'ARectedi .�; s tifptoject„ aANected 4-S w roect amu+reaN SS « AreaP�� Y4i a. (4.0.2 �� „ #w. fA, Y S , , Area � 2 #d. ���� 11rea nozrm �` ➢k '9 � &p5 4KY k 6^'t+K dH K R:. n6h � ."'i' �:m�.m'`a`*'o- �' i+- ka yRS �. 269 20.4% 122 9.0% 49.34 6.4% I• Draft Preliminary Report -The Newhall Redevelopment Project 7.0 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA As with physical conditions of blight, the Agency initiated a study to determine whether characteristics of economic blight as described in the CRL exist in the proposed Project Area. Specific elements of the study included the analysis of data from the Los Angeles County Assessor files, interviews with officials in various City departments, and other data collected in the field. The CRL identifies the following conditions as .characteristics of economic blight: • Depreciated or stagnant property values or, impaired investments • High business vacancies, low lease rates, abandoned buildings, or excessive vacant lots in an urban area I• • Lack of necessary commercial facilities • Residential overcrowding or an excess of adult businesses • High crime rate 7.1 DEPRECIATED VALUES OR IMPAIRED INVESTMENTS As shown in Table 23, current values in the Project Area are over 9% lower for land value than in other parts of the City with similar parcel areas, almost 33% lower for improvement value, and 22% lower for total value. Most significant is the low improvement value, which directly indicates a lack of investment in the Project Area. • MC 57 City of Santa Cladta Redevelopment Agency • TABLE 23 VALUES - PROJECT AREA VS. REST OF CITY Source: Los Angeles County Assessor and GRC Redevelopment Consultants, Inc. • •. The CRL identifies depreciated property values as: being an • indicator of economic blight. The Project Area has a high incidence of depreciated property values when compared to the City of Santa Clarita as a whole, as evidenced by the following. The Project Area's property values tend to be significantly lower than for the remainder of the City. This trend holds true • even when similar uses are compared. This tendency holds true both for assessed values and the most recent reported sales prices. For instance, assessed valuation for single family residential units is only 46% of that for the City as a whole, while the last reported sales price for single family units averaged only 39% of the City's values. The same relationship generally holds true for multiple family dwellings as well. On a per parcel basis, Project Area commercial, office professional and industrial development was assessed significantly lower than the City as a whole, as were most recent sales, except for industrial development. The same relationship holds true for • non-residential properties on_a per acre basis, except for recent sales of vacant land. This case, the value of the most recent sales of vacant land was about 5% higher than the City as a whole. Vacant land, however, is assessed at less than half the value City-wide. • On a per acre basis, assessed valuations for single family and multiple family development are higher than experienced City- wide. This anomaly is caused by the significant difference in densities between the Project Area and the City as a_whole. For instance, the average density for single family detached • homes City-wide is roughly two units per acre, while for the Project Area, single family detached homes average about 6 units per acre. This significant difference in values means that while the Project Area's per unit values are very low compared to the City as a whole, per acre values are likely be relatively high. GRC • 58 z a4€n Values Value�Aecrs lue gcre ' Drf[ r:ce Land Value $174,546 $157,839 ' 9.6% lower Improvement Value $250,966 $168,275 32.9% lower Total Value $427,544 $333,466 22.0% lower Source: Los Angeles County Assessor and GRC Redevelopment Consultants, Inc. • •. The CRL identifies depreciated property values as: being an • indicator of economic blight. The Project Area has a high incidence of depreciated property values when compared to the City of Santa Clarita as a whole, as evidenced by the following. The Project Area's property values tend to be significantly lower than for the remainder of the City. This trend holds true • even when similar uses are compared. This tendency holds true both for assessed values and the most recent reported sales prices. For instance, assessed valuation for single family residential units is only 46% of that for the City as a whole, while the last reported sales price for single family units averaged only 39% of the City's values. The same relationship generally holds true for multiple family dwellings as well. On a per parcel basis, Project Area commercial, office professional and industrial development was assessed significantly lower than the City as a whole, as were most recent sales, except for industrial development. The same relationship holds true for • non-residential properties on_a per acre basis, except for recent sales of vacant land. This case, the value of the most recent sales of vacant land was about 5% higher than the City as a whole. Vacant land, however, is assessed at less than half the value City-wide. • On a per acre basis, assessed valuations for single family and multiple family development are higher than experienced City- wide. This anomaly is caused by the significant difference in densities between the Project Area and the City as a_whole. For instance, the average density for single family detached • homes City-wide is roughly two units per acre, while for the Project Area, single family detached homes average about 6 units per acre. This significant difference in values means that while the Project Area's per unit values are very low compared to the City as a whole, per acre values are likely be relatively high. GRC • 58 • :l n 'I0 • Draft Preliminary Report- The Newhall Redevelopment Project Table 24 summarizes the relationship between property values in the Project Area and City-wide. Trends in assessed valuation since 1991 also indicate that property values in the Project Area are depressed, with a history of annual declines in overall values, and a slower than average overall growth rate. In three out of the six years analyzed, Project Area. values declined. In 1991, analyzed parcels in the Project Area were equal to 3.6% of the entire City's assessed values. By 1995, the Project Area's assessed valuation had dropped to 3.4% of the entire City's. With the 1996 decline in overall City assessed values (the first during the analysis period), the Project Area's share of total assessed value rose to just under 3.6%. In sum, during the six-year period, assessed values in the Project Area rose by only 0.51% per annum on the average, while in the remainder of the City they appreciated by 0.80%. In other words, Property Values in the Project Area depreciated relative to the City as a whole. Table 25 details these trends. TABLE 24 COMPARATIVE CITY-WIDE AND PROJECT AREA VALUES' vo d s §_ - a z 3 .Teta!rLaDIF` ' Rp s.2.a SP1 Sest - rPer Parctl pe fm Unit — � ,Par Acro Tmn°,` 6aAvero9e Parc°rs 7+Yaale ,�?.,"� iaaYefue Averayet pt 40welltng ,Saks Frhe. <z,U rt exp Are,, Ra1n [aM "7uael g° +u Yalue "g SafesPtit� �a m.,a 5' s�Aerea,,tifip �a�`s,." A-9.. A-9..Alia -w'aTa+eble ssn ".%y: Ya Nie � 9 sY4i! Sans Ptfea'. Pro ec1 e S' Femi b $55,005,07 $35,51024 58 $93,337 G.2a9l 360,2 651 Se4p $$d,5q InQ 7W W1,140 $323,52 Multiple Family $45)55,591 518,39), 11 $;184,501 5154 127 $35,887 $14,42 41.2 51,108,152 5415,5 Mottle Home P.M 53,986. %.160, s9%.683 $1,040,194 §20,55 521, 15 §256,381 $267,52 memlal §9801),81 521,095, 24 5366,60 567,1113 $)6),45 $182,4 office Pmlesslonel 513,858,1 510,011,34 $554,324 $400,454 '"gfixe ] $1 ,698,370 51,371,41 Imumdel 533,194,652 $3],265, $626.126 $703,11 "ve xtEllll 128. 5257,545 $289,21 $12,362,24 $23,3,1 It .3 , ._ 2. $54,2 51M,82aceto City -Wide Sin is Family $1,096,896,08 $80.3091,H 6780 5161,984 $124 ' 380 597 818316 $141,197 22W.M S485.516 S372,80 Multiple Family $52,011,42 513,721, 2 $1,92634 $508185 30 $168,6 $44,549 79.4 NB ,N 5172,84 Mobile Home Pads $14,3232]2 81,416, 15 52,8!254 54]2,30 207 $69,195 §8,845 22.51 $536,307 $62,90.. Commemiei $49,]54,405 $14,109,521 ] $631,567 5193,281 u $ e i_ ,mti s�0re 29.11 $1,709,31 5484, ol6oe Protesslonal $24,556,8 526542.12 1 $1,868.697 $2,041702 "tea "®q`s.7,°�e 1a 4` 3.07 $7,898,60 $8,845,65 Irdusldal 5176,181,906 $98,361,97 18 $931;154 5526000 130.1 511338555 $756,89 Yacenl S42,955.q2li 538559,39 731 $494,815 $843,76 �^'^��+-e^1 .�@ 355.81 5117,42 599.941 Pro ec1 Area Values as a Percent of CO- Values ShlileFamA 'w :yn raP ^Tb $l4 s 4.�..��a �,�, 3].65% OBAI% "° - " 45.95% 3863% :7 age*xaa 103.22% 86.789 WtipleFierily 19.96% 30,42% 21.25% 3239% .e 169.33% 258.08% Mobile Home PBM -411.„ 1" 34]0% 22020%+s°�="+'4 29.]0% 3132Ph -v&�5n"--° 4029% 425.01% CwnmemW ax Nsm;xatm .`siaa9�'."", wss n�aa 5379% 4508% _� ".ea, .x,7737 44.90% 3).63% OBIce Pmfeearonal 29.35% 23.73%1586% In Sldal 'a ¢,., q, "„'?.) 3",s,? e°eay.�ap 6L22% 133.6]%->s"ari`¢ +=b -.e 19.24% 36.26% Vacant "7 az7 $ 8 s-9.;xe r3.ex 22.30% 25.3]% r>.7aa aaHt 46.19% 187.88% 0 'Of parcels where acreage is known. 40 G12C 10 59 City of Santa Cladta Redevelopment Agency 0 TABLE25 PROJECTAREA ASSESSED VALUE COMPARISON 1991 THROUGH 1996 Based on assessed valuations reported forall parcels that did not change their parcel numbers between 1991 and 1996. Source: Los Angeles County Assessor, 1991 through 1996. 'Source: Municlpal Resource Consultants MC 60 • • 0 Depreciated values or impaired investments also can be i inferred from the number of buildings exhibiting deferred maintenance. With over 57% of the structures in need of repair, and the low income level of the residents in the Project Area, it is apparent that property owners and tenants do not have the financial resources to properly maintain their structures. In other conditions that demonstrate economic problems in the area, downtown Newhall experienced a slide in taxable retail sales between 1989 .and 1993 both in absolute terms, and relative to Santa Clarita as a whole. Whereas in 1989, retail • sales in downtown Newhall accounted for 3.3% of total taxable sales in the City, by 1993 downtown Newhalrs share of taxable sales had declined to 2.1%. If one looks at these data strictly in terms of "market share" of Newhall businesses, the downtown area has experienced a 36% loss in market share in a brief four year period. The rate and speed of the downturn is a matter of serious concern and suggests significant actions will be needed to reverse.the indicated trend. Retail activities in other portions of the Project Area are also showing signs of decline. Over 50% of the retail establishments that were located along the Lyons Avenue corridor in 1989 experienced declines in retail sales through 1993.' Of those retail businesses showing declines in retail sales, many either went out of business during the period or relocated to other (unknown) locations not on Lyons Avenue. ` mt€ a31 3Gi iQdladeTroectAreaa;t:'1, a _t i o' "at M ;4PioectArealdq..%x RUmma gfncreas i Increase overszt ,#tVal.g g¢a m $.. x'1991$3 ,a tIX Valueza /ncreasectas�y 1991 6,319,711,554 N/A N/A 236,357,465 N/A N/A 1992 6,621,455,789 4.77% 4.77% 249,036,332 5.36% 5.36% 1993 6,689,699,532 1.03% 5.85% 246,027,072 •1.21% 4.09% 1994 6,741,865,830 0.78% 6.68% 252,663,261 2.70% 6.90% 1995 6,954,245,419 3.15% 10.04% 246,110,078 •2.59% 4.13% 1996 6,575,538,914 -5.45% 4A5% 242,440,799 1.49% 2.57% Average Annual Growth Rate 0.80% 0.51% Based on assessed valuations reported forall parcels that did not change their parcel numbers between 1991 and 1996. Source: Los Angeles County Assessor, 1991 through 1996. 'Source: Municlpal Resource Consultants MC 60 • • 0 Depreciated values or impaired investments also can be i inferred from the number of buildings exhibiting deferred maintenance. With over 57% of the structures in need of repair, and the low income level of the residents in the Project Area, it is apparent that property owners and tenants do not have the financial resources to properly maintain their structures. In other conditions that demonstrate economic problems in the area, downtown Newhall experienced a slide in taxable retail sales between 1989 .and 1993 both in absolute terms, and relative to Santa Clarita as a whole. Whereas in 1989, retail • sales in downtown Newhall accounted for 3.3% of total taxable sales in the City, by 1993 downtown Newhalrs share of taxable sales had declined to 2.1%. If one looks at these data strictly in terms of "market share" of Newhall businesses, the downtown area has experienced a 36% loss in market share in a brief four year period. The rate and speed of the downturn is a matter of serious concern and suggests significant actions will be needed to reverse.the indicated trend. Retail activities in other portions of the Project Area are also showing signs of decline. Over 50% of the retail establishments that were located along the Lyons Avenue corridor in 1989 experienced declines in retail sales through 1993.' Of those retail businesses showing declines in retail sales, many either went out of business during the period or relocated to other (unknown) locations not on Lyons Avenue. I• I• I• • I0 I• I• Daft Preliminary Report -The Newhall Redevelopment Project The other commercial areas in the Project Area, notably those located along San Fernando Road between downtown and the 14 Freeway, but outside the immediate downtown Newhall area; are also showing signs of economic weakness. In this area about 70% of the business bad lower sales activity in 1995 than they did in 1989. Included among the businesses experiencing declines are businesses that either failed or turned over. This indicates a serious economic weakness in the area. Weakness in the commercial sector is probably exacerbated by the prevalence of area residents who qualify as low- and moderate -income. These individuals typically have less disposable income than higher income families, and are therefore less able to support commercial uses. A number of commercial brokers and property owners in the Project Area were interviewed for the purpose of assessing current market conditions for commercial development and space, identifying recent trends in lease rates and values, and identifying key issues that relate to market trends for commercial development. The interviews elicited the following general comments about the Project Area. The Project Area has had a somewhat stabilized rental rate situation over the past three to five years with a range of comments indicating "no change" to "declines of 10 percent" in commercial retail and office rents and values. Commercial service space rents were reported to have suffered declines of 10 percent or more. Generally, properties along Lyons Avenue experienced smaller rent declines than properties along San Fernando Road. There were various reasons cited for the declining fortunes of commercial development and operations in the Project Area, based primarily on location as between Lyons Avenue and San Fernando Road. 1. Lyons Avenue's newer retail centers located west of I-5 have eroded the retail sales base along Lyons Avenue, and projects in Stevenson Ranch and Bouquet Canyon are considered superior locations by tenants; and, there is a general sense that the commercial office and retail markets are oversupplied with the majority of new development occurring outside the Project Area, exacerbating the Project Area decline. 2. Relative to the San Fernando Road area, a significant negative impact on commercial business has resulted from C y olSanta Cladta Redevelopment Agency 7 the change in circulation resulting from Placerita Canyon Road rerouting, resulting in poor access and circulation affecting many merchants; the image of the area is declining with reports of graffiti and crime; old deteriorating improvements with poor quality tenant. mix and limited parking; uncertainty surrounding the future of the area; and a clear consensus that San Fernando Road obviously is no longer competitive as a retailing area with 0 newer development areas in the Santa Clarita Valley, particularly the large regional retail and power center malls. Downtown Newhall in particular is typical. of historic commercial cores that have become non-competitive over time 0 as new forms of retail development and centers have emerged to meet consumer needs. In virtually every community which has experienced this erosion of the historic shopping area, successful revitalization has only occurred with the assistance of public intervention and financial support. The investment 0 needed to revitalize such areas almost always is too great for the private sector acting alone to accomplish, typically because the level of investment required for major infrastructure improvements, such as street, landscape and parking, in addition to building investments. The deterioration of the Downtown Newhall area is substantial and has resulted in a, • marginal retail environment at best. Overall, retail sales in the Project Area declined by 1.6% between 1989 and 1995. When adjusted for inflation, this decline increases to 18.3%. Between 1991 and 1995, the 0 Project Area's sales tax receipts rose by only 1.5%, or declined by 7.4%. On the other hand, sales tax receipts in other parts of the City rose by 36.4%, or by 24.5% when adjusted for inflation, during the 1991-1995 period. Thus, sales. tax receipts outside the • Project Area, and by extension retail commercial activity in general, did almost 130% better than the Project Area itself. Table 26 summarizes sales tax performance during the 1989 to 1995 period. e • • 7 • r1 u :7 • 7 • • 7 Draft Preliminary Report -The Newhall Redevelopment Project TABLE 26 ANNUAL SALES TAX RECEIPT COMPARISON WITH CITY a 98 99 ; ..i 1991 � 299? ?993 m" W S City -Wide Sales WA NIA $8,656,561 $8,958,070 $8,905,374 $10,157,287 $10,354,260 Chane WA WA 3.5% -0.6% 14.1% 1.9% Project Area Sales $1,505,021 $1,423,771 $1,327,830 $1,269,760 $1,178,036 $1,227,880 $1,229,770 Change -5.4% -6.7% -4.4% -7.2% 4.2% 0.2% Source: cr of Santa Cledta and MRC,1997. All values are adjusted for inflation to 1989 dollars. 7.2 VACANCIES, ABANDONED BUILDINGS, AND LOW LEASE RATES Section 33031(b)(2) of the CRL identifies several conditions as characteristics of economic blight, including abnormally high business vacancies, abnormally low lease rates, high turnover rates, abandoned buildings, or excessive vacant lots within an area developed for urban use and served by utilities. 7.2.1 GENERAL COMMERCIAL OBSERVATIONS The Project Area is comprised of three rather distinct commercial districts: 1. Lyons Avenue between I-5 and Orchard Village/Valley Street 2. Lyons Avenue between Valley Drive and San Fernando Road (including Newhall Avenue between Lyons to the northwest and San Fernando Road to the southeast) 3. The San Fernando Road corridor The first area is characterized by newer commercial development which, with the exception of freeway - proximate uses, primarily serves the surrounding community. Development in the area has been impacted by Stevenson Ranch with major new commercial development located west of the Project Area and west of I-5 on Lyons Avenue. The second area is a transition commercial zone which includes both newer strip retail and office development and older buildings that are not competitive in terms of . City of Santa Cladta Redevelopment Agency • both design and interior circulation. There are a number of older strip centers in this area that have more than normal percentage of vacant space. These • developments do not relate at all to I-5 and are for the most part small fragmented buildings that have older local service uses and are not well maintained. The Newhall Avenue portion of the area is a mixed use of older single tenant commercial uses and residential uses. This a lower -tier retail and commercial area and environment with abundant signs of deferred maintenance and deterioration. The third area, the San Fernando Road corridor, is comprised of three somewhat distinct sectors: • 1. South of Newhall Avenue is a mixed use commercial and industrial area with poor quality older commercial buildings interspersed with industrial, used auto sales and storage uses. • 2. The portion of San Fernando Road between Newhall Avenue and Lyons Avenue is the Downtown portion of Newhall, characterized by old single -story retail frontage buildings with limited off-street parking. This area is the historic commercial core of Newhall. • Local real estate sources indicate that retail business activity in this area has been severely impacted by new retail development in the Stevenson Ranch and Valencia areas. The core area also is adversely impacted by a lack of significant off-street and on -street parking; relatively high • speed traffic conditions on San Fernando Road; old poorly maintained and functionally obsolete commercial building improvements; and a poor quality tenant mix. 3. North of Newhall Avenue, the area transitions into • a mix of highway commercial, auto -related uses and industrial uses, ranging from newer strip development to older development in poor condition. Development in this area, particularly east of San Fernando Road near 13th Street and Arch Street, • was severely impacted by the rerouting and closure of Placerita Canyon Road. The businesses in this area reportedly have suffered significant economic losses, and commercial space has high vacancy. Deferred maintenance and generally low quality • tenancy attest to this problem. GRCI • 64 • :7 • • '• • • C Draft Preliminary Report- The Newhall Redevelopment Project 7.2.2 RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS VACANCIES In the Project Area, there are 14 vacant residences° and 77 vacant business units. Residential vacancies generally indicate a lack of financial resources to make payments on the home, while business vacancies generally indicate a lack of demand, high operating costs, or the inappropriateness of the physical space available to potential tenants (poor physical conditions, location, lack of parking, obsolete facilities, etc.). The physical condition of the vacant units in the Project Area is very poor. Over 17% of all vacant buildings are in need of major repairs. It is not known if the poor condition of vacant buildings in the Project Area is a cause or an affect of its vacancy, but it certainly acts as a disincentive to invest in the area. 7.2.3 LOTS NOT CURRENTLY DEVELOPED The field survey identified 112 lots not currently developed for a total of 227.94 acres or 24.8% of the land in the proposed Project Area. The fact that these lots average 2.04 acres in area and are still undeveloped is as much evidence of the conditions cited in CRL Section 33031(a)(2) as it is an economic blight characteristic. Nonetheless, these parcels have not been combined with other properties and remain undeveloped with limited development potential given present standards, the physical limitations of the sites, and market conditions. The inability of individual property owners to assemble and develop adequately sized parcels for modern development is a major impediment to achieving the goals and development standards contained in the General Plan, or to conforming to the regulations contained in the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the existence of a high number of vacant lots substantially surrounded by older development illustrates the vast amount of piecemeal development and urban sprawl, without proper planning for in -fill. The absence of development on these vacant and underutilized lots is potentially indicative of the . physical blight of an economic nature, which hinders new development, and is evidence of impaired investment. 8 It should be noted that residential vacancies are difficult to observe; therefore, the actual number is likely to be higher. GRC 65 City of Santa Cladta Redevelopment Agency • 7.2.4 LOW LEASE RATES According to Tim Crissman of Crissman Commercial • Services, the Project Area has the least amount of real estate activity in the Santa Clarita Valley, lower sales prices than other parts of the City, and the lowest retail lease rates in the City. In all cases, Mr. Crissman believes that over the last five years, the situation has become worse. • The main problem in the Project Area is the "unattractive curb appeal" created by "deferred maintenance" of the buildings in the Project Area, and the "change in demographics." When asked how the . Project Area is perceived by potential buyers and developers, Mr. Crissman stated that the Project Area is looked upon as an area to avoid. The construction of new commercial facilities outside the Project Area has already had a dramatic effect on • the businesses along Lyons Avenue. According to Mr. Crissman, "pressure from larger and newer projects have resulted in downward trends in rents" and that the new commercial uses outside the City on the west side of Interstate 5 "will force rents to remain low." • Eighteen multi -tenant retail projects in or near the Project Area with available space for rent were evaluated. The vacancy and rental rate profile of these projects are as follows: TABLE 27 • MULTI -TENANT RETAIL PROJECTS WITH AVAILABLE SPACE FOR RENT l;$a113etail Rd Number 11 7 Total Sq. Ft. (1) 228,540 76,000 Vacant Sq. Ft. 35,230 14,354 Vacancy Rate 15.4% 18.9% Rental Rate ($/Sq. Ft./month) Range $1.10-$1.85 $0.50-$1.20 Avera a $1.30 $0.85 (1) Excludes major centers with supermarket anchor tenants. vacancy data on San Fernando Road is for five projects where total square footage was available. CmC 66 • it C] L3 u 0 n u Dian Preliminary Report -The Newhall Redevelopment Project • Considering that a normal retail vacancy rate for economic planning purposes is 10% or less, the Project Area suffers from an above-average retail vacancy rate, particularly along San Fernando Road. • However, what is most notable is the substantial difference in asking rent between these two districts in the Project Area — the weighted average rental rate along San Fernando Road is over one-third lower than along Lyons Avenue. This rental rate level translates into an annual property income. difference of $5.40 per square foot and an approximate difference in supportable property value based on capitalized income of over $50 per square foot. The extent to which retail and service commercial development in the Project Area has become non- competitive is clearly evident when comparing lease rates in the Project Area to newer development areas in Valencia and along I-5 proximate to the Project Area. • Rental rates for non -anchor tenants in the Stevenson Ranch community shopping center and Valencia Market Place regional power center projects west of I-5 are $2.25 to $2.50 per square foot monthly, almost 30% higher than the highest asking rent and over 80% above the average asking rent along Lyons Avenue. The average rent for retail space in all areas of Valencia is $2.00 per square foot monthly, over 50% higher than Lyons Avenue and 135% higher than San Fernando Road. 7.3 RESIDENTIAL OVERCROWDING OR AN EXCESS OF ADULT BUSINESSES According to the CRL, a blighted community may be characterized by residential overcrowding or an excess of bars, liquor stores, or other businesses that cater exclusively to adults, that has led to problems of public safety and welfare. City of Santa Cladta Redevelopment Agency • 'Los Angeles Times, DecemberX, 1996 GIZC 68 7.3.1 RESIDENTIAL OVERCROWDING Due to its illegal nature, residential overcrowding is a • difficult condition to document. Property owners, landlords and the residents themselves are reluctant to divulge such information. Code enforcement officers often cite overcrowded residences, but only work on a complaint basis, so only a small percentage of actual overcrowding is officially documented.. It is suspected, • however, that overcrowding conditions are common in the East Newhall area and in the neighborhoods west of San Fernando Road between Lyons Avenue and 16th Street. As stated earlier in Chapter 6.1, the inspector for the • Los Angeles County Health Department writes an average of five Notices of Correction per month in the East Newhall area. This represents more complaints than any other area in the Santa Clarita Valley. In addition, information from the U.S. Census shows that • the average household size in the Project Area is more than twice as large as that for Santa Clarita as a whole, as well as for Los Angeles County and the region as a whole. One physical indicator of residential overcrowding that was observed in the Project Area is the illegal conversion of garages into living space. This condition was found on at least 18 single family units. Based on initial observations, another indicator of overcrowding is the large number of vehicles parked on residential • streets, driveways, sidewalks, and front yards. It is important to note that, because some garage conversion may not be obvious from the public right-of-way, conditions are likely to be more wide -spread than documented in this Report. • Families living in converted garages are a significant problem in Southern California. According to an article in the Los Angeles Times', 230,000 people were living in illegally converted dwelling units in 1987. Recently, five children, who were living near Los Angeles in a • garage with their family, were burned to death when the garage caught on fire. Fire officials said the children could not escape because the fire was blocking the only doorway. C] I• LJ I0 I0 C I• • I• L] Draft Preliminary Report - The Newhall Redevelopment Project Overcrowding reflects the health and responsiveness of the housing market, and indicates the social well being of an area's residents. Overcrowding is considered a problem if the public health, safety and welfare are threatened. Higher crime rates have also been associated with overcrowded living conditions. Overcrowded housing typically occurs when people inhabit units with an inadequate number of bedrooms to reduce housing costs, even to the point of doubling up with other households. A ratio of persons per room is used by the United States Census Bureau as an indicator of overcrowding. Units with more than 1 person per room are classified as overcrowded, while those with more than 1.5 persons per room are classified as severely overcrowded. Based on the average number of people per room, overcrowding in the Project Area is significantly higher than in the rest of Santa Clarita. Average household size in the Project Area is significantly larger than for Santa Clarita as a whole (3.99 as opposed to 2AQ, as it is for the County and the region as a whole (See Table 5.) At the same time, the average number of rooms per unit is much smaller in the Project Area than for the City as a whole, 3.77 as opposed to 5.55. What this means is that there is an average of 1.06 persons per room in the Project Area, as opposed to 0.52 for the City. As noted above, the average number of people per room in the Project Area exceeds the Census Bureau's definition of overcrowding. While per unit data are not available, the Project Area's average number of people per room is clear evidence that significant overcrowding -does exist in the Project Area, and is likely to be at least 30% more widespread than in the County as a whole. 7.3.2 EXCESS OF ADULT BUSINESSES Field investigations indicate that even though there are several liquor stores in downtown Newhall, there are no significant concentrations of adult businesses in the Project Area, or directly affecting the Project Area. Thus, this condition of economic blight is not evident in the Project Area. GDC 69 City of Santa Cladta Redevelopment Agency 0 MC 70 7.4 LACK OF NECESSARY COMMERCIAL FACILITIES CRL Section 33031(b)(3) specifies as an economic condition of • blight a lack of commercial facilities normally found in a neighborhood, such as grocery stores, drug stores, and banks or other financial institutions. The downtown Newhall area along San Fernando Road lacks such common neighborhood serving commercial facilities as 0 banks and drug stores. There is one market specializing in Hispanic products. San Fernando Road is the most convenient commercial area for the downtown Newhall residents, especially those living to the.east of San Fernando Road. To this extent, then, there is a lack of adequate and conveniently • located neighborhood serving commercial facilities in the Project Area. As noted elsewhere, this lack of neighborhood serving facilities is due in part to inadequate commercial building spaces, lotting patterns and parking facilities in the downtown Newhall area. Modern commercial operations tend to locate in larger buildings in larger centers. Thus, while there is ample evidence that there used to be a wide range of grocery stores, drug stores, banks and other financial institutions in the downtown Newhall area, all these operations have relocated to more modern facilities elsewhere. The Lyons Avenue strip, however, includes a variety of neighborhood serving commercial facilities, including four supermarkets, a number of drug stores,. banks and other financial institutions, and a variety of other convenience commercial facilities. These shopping facilities,both inside and outside the Project Area, are located to serve the south Valencia and Newhall communities overall. To this extent then, the Project Area, and its surrounding residential communities are well served by necessary commercial facilities. 7.5 CRIME RATES According to information from the Sheriffs Department, the • area south of Lyons Avenue between Interstate 5 and San Fernando Road has the highest number of Part 1 crimes (Homicide, Rape, Robbery, Assault, Burglary, Larceny, Grand Theft, and Arson). This area also has the highest. number of callsfor. service. East Newhall is also a high crime area, and could be the worst in the City, but many crimes go i undocumented due to numerous illegal aliens who are reluctant to call the Sheriff. 7 0 I0 I• It I• n u • • Draft Preliminary Report -The Newhall Redevelopment Project The most frequently occurring crimes in the Project Area are burglaries, thefts, and assaults. The Sheriffs Department believes that the primary reason for the high crime rate in the Project Area is because "it is an economically depressed area." The Department also believes that the two most important improvements that could be made in the Project. Area would be to work with landlords to clean up apartment buildings, and discourage them from renting to illegal aliens. The Project Area falls within all or a portion of five Sheriffs Reporting Districts. Because of the irregular boundaries of the Project Area, it is difficult to precisely compare the crime rate in the Project Area to that of the City. However, as shown in Table 28, the properties in and around the Project Area account for as much as 36.9% of the overall crime in the City. TABLE 28 CRIME RATE III M m �vo�CnelfoGrI'ID?4elna f�t 1 Sfid �AFg$4 �Cftfoa wW s -s Pro/ec�Area pp R 3+Tk rvkPaA >ww+4'Yss b(1 �,5%r�tynac�MUT.tua§^i"ui^�{: +cvdCa� ..e'axe3dwarae..x ex Rape 4 12 33.3% Robbery 26 83 31.3% Aggravated Assault 130 352 36.9% Burglary 165 708 23.3% Theft 257 1,566 16.4% Grand Theft Auto 102 371 27.5% Arson 10 39 25.6% TOTAL 694 3,131 22.2% CRC 0 71 • Draft Preliminary Report. The Newhall Redevelopment Project 8.0 NEXUS BETWEEN PHYSICAL AND • ECONOMIC CONDITIONS The CRL recognizes the importance of both the physical and economic characteristics of blight by requiring that both be present in a redevelopment project area. But the CRL does not • delve too deeply into the relationship between the two types of blight characteristics, even though it can be demonstrated that a relationship exists. For example, various characteristics of physical blight may also be indicative of underlying economic blight. Such physical factors include deteriorated buildings, • building obsolescence, substandard or obsolete building design, inadequate parcels sizes, incompatible adjacent uses, irregularly formed parcels, or multiple or. scattered property ownerships. While a relationship between physical and economic blight can be inferred from the fact that they can frequently be found to co -exist, • the interplay between the two can be extremely complex. Yet, based on conditions in the proposed Project Area, there appears to be a logical tie between the two types of conditions and a high probability that each contributes to and reinforces the presence of the other. • The following are a number of examples from the proposed Project Area where physical blight and economic blight conditions are related and contributing to one another. L 8.1 BUILDING DETERIORATION Dilapidated or deteriorated buildings are related to economic blight, because they reflect a lack of needed. investment over • time. As the amount of deferred investment piles up, the level of deterioration increases. Eventually, the level of deterioration begins to affect the value of the property and, if GRC • 73. City of Santa Claiita Redevelopment Agency • left unchecked, becomes an impaired investment, a characteristic of economic blight. Severe deterioration in a building can even detract from the value of the land upon • which it is located. In other words, the land would have a higher value if the building were not there at all. Chapter 7.0, addresses this situation by noting the relative value of deteriorated improvements versus "standard" improvements. It is noted that the value of deteriorated buildings in the proposed Project Area is over 62% less on a per acre basis. • As is recognized in the CRL, the presence of deteriorated or dilapidated buildings in an area. can act as a deterrent to property owners nearby, who might otherwise be interested in improving, modernizing, or maintaining their properties. This • phenomenon is at work in the proposed Project Area. As indicated in Chapters 6.0 and Chapter 7.0, the areas where heavily deteriorated buildings exist are very likely to have other, less deteriorated buildings nearby. Given that building deterioration reflects a lack of investment over time, the spread of building deterioration becomes a characteristic of • economic blight by causing depreciated values and impaired investments. Conditions of economic blight can give rise to physical deterioration and blight. A building that is vacant or has a low • lease rate is less likely to be maintained by the owner, because his/her investment in the property might have poor returns or no return at all. In businesses where lease rates are indexed to sales, declining sales could eventually lead to abnormally low lease rates. Similarly, if sales decline to the point of business failure, that failure could put downward pressure on • future lease rates at that location. With regard, to office buildings, financial success depends largely on the quality of the maintenance the building receives.10 Proper maintenance of the physical plant will, • under normal conditions, prolong the useful economic life of the building. It will also help the building to compete successfully with other office buildings in the area. • 8.2 FAILURE TO SATISFY MARKET CONDITIONS The CRL itself establishes a nexus between economic conditions of blight, and such physical conditions as substandard design or a lack of parking, by indicating that • "Malntavring Bre Office Buiding, p. 181. Institute of Real Estate Management of the NallonalAssocia8on of Realtors, 1981. MC 74 0 • 0 ri • • • '• ;J Draft Preliminary Report - The Newhall Redevelopment Project such conditions are blight if they "prevent or substantially hinder the economically viable use or capacity of buildings of lots." In the proposed Project Area, there are numerous instances of lots that are of an inadequate size, shape or location given present market standards. The economic element in this situation is that a use or building that does not meet. modern development standards is at an economic disadvantage to one that does. Stated another way, people are more likely to trade at a store or business where parking is readily available and convenient,. and avoid businesses where there is little or no chance of finding adequate parking nearby. If enough customers are dissuaded by such conditions, and the conditions continue unchanged, eventually a business vacancy will occur. While one business vacancy is not economic blight, if unfavorable conditions are repeated often enough, an abnormally high vacancy rates will result, and the threshold for economic blight crossed. This condition is common along San Fernando Road and Lyons Avenue, in that adequate access and parking are absent or antiquated, and businesses appear to be marginal economically. Lotting patterns also serve to dissuade new commercial development or the rehabilitation of older shopping centers. 8.3 INCOMPATIBLE USES PREVENTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The physical blight conditions associated with incompatible uses are discussed in Chapter 6.0. The proposed Project Area experiences a high degree of incompatibility, both in terms of existing land uses, planned land uses, and in terms of building conditions. This incompatibility can be a primary factor in the lack of investment in the Project Area. If investors shy away from an area for a long enough period, a number of economic blight conditions could logically result. These include depreciated or stagnant property values, high business vacancies, deferred maintenance and building deterioration, and ultimately decay. 8.4 IRREGULAR OR INADEQUATELY SIZED LOTS In at least one sense, irregular or inadequately sized lots can be seen as another form of incompatibility. The compatibility City of Santa Cladta Redevelopment Agency 0 that must be maintained is one between lot sizes and shapes and the needs of businesses that might otherwise be attracted to those lots. For example, if present market standards dictate A that neighborhood shopping centers need to be located on 10 - acre lots that are roughly rectangular in shape, and there are no such lots available in a commercial area on a major street, then such a use will not locate in that area, even if the market for a neighborhood shopping centers otherwise exists. This means that property owner's investments are impaired because development, other than marginal uses, is not feasible. The same applies to virtually all other types of major uses, whether they be retail oriented businesses or industrial uses. If current lots sizes and shapes are not compatible with modern standards and market. conditions, and the private market is unable to assemble adequate lots, viable new uses will not locate in the area, no matter what is called for in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. In the proposed Project Area, inadequate lot size or configuration results in a variety of detrimental physical conditions, including inadequate parking, the inability to replace deteriorated buildings with comparably sized buildings that meet present standards, and substandard building designs caused by lot constraints. As is in Chapter 7.0, there 0 are also conditions of impaired investments as indicated by declining land prices as measured through property sales activity. Based on the preponderance and types of data pertaining to lot size and shape documented in this Report, it is likely that a relationship between the physical configuration or size of lots in the proposed Project Area and the economic blight condition of impaired investments exists. GRC Q I• Draft Preliminary Report -The Newhall Redevelopment Project 9.0 PROPERTIES NECESSARY FOR EFFECTIVE REDEVELOPMENT The CRL recognizes that parcel or building conditions in a given area of a community are likely to vary. Such variations may be based on the type of land use, lot patterns, historical development • patterns, the financial resources of past or present property owners, the competitiveness of individual businesses or uses, and a variety of other factors too numerous to mention. By recognizing the existence of such variation, the CRL effectively acknowledges the possibility that unblighted properties may be mixed in among, or be located in close proximity to, blighted areas. Other land necessary for effective redevelopment also includes properties that would be necessary for the implementation of low or moderate income housing programs, or for the relocation of project area residents or businesses from elsewhere in the Project Area. • The CRL addresses the potential mixture of blighted and unblighted properties by indicating that a redevelopment project area need not be restricted to blighted areas, so long as blight conditions predominate and injuriously affect the entire. area. Moreover, the CRL specifically permits the inclusion of non - blighted properties in a redevelopment project area if the inclusion of those properties is found necessary for the effective redevelopment of the area of which they are a part. Section 33321 of the. CRL notes: "A project area need not be restricted to buildings, • improvements, or lands which are detrimental or inimical to the public health, safety, or welfare, but may consist of an area in which such conditions predominate and injuriously affect the entire area. A project area may include lands, buildings, or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, 0 safety or welfare, but whose inclusion is found necessary for the effective redevelopment of the area of which they are a part. Each such area included under this section shall be MC li 77 City of Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency • GQ 78 necessary for effective redevelopment and shall not be included for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenue from such area pursuant to Section 33670 without • other substantial justification for its inclusion." Lacking a more precise definition of what is meant by "necessary for effective redevelopment" in either contiguous or noncontiguous portions of a redevelopment area, the Agency must also seek to determine whether there is substantial justification for the inclusion of any areas of the proposed Project Area that are either not blighted or may not be sufficiently affected by conditions of blight to qualify as blighted under the CRL. A number of individual parcels, while in some cases relatively less blighted than other Project Area -parcels, have been included in the Project Area because they are integral to a predominantly blighted area, and because their inclusion is necessary to the effective implementation of the overall redevelopment program. 1. Most non -blighted properties that have been included in the • Project Area are part of a commercial or residential neighborhood that shows a. predominance of physical and economic blight. In essence, while standard and well maintained, these parcels are substantially surrounded by otherwise blighted parcels. Leaving such parcels out of the Project Area would create a "swiss cheese" effect, with many small holes in which the Agency cannot be active. The administration of the Redevelopment Plan would be much more difficult, while such isolated parcels would likely benefit from redevelopment programs without contributing to them. • On the other hand, not including such integral parcels, would limit the Agency's ability to undertake comprehensive programs that depend on coordinating the future development of numerous parcels. 2. Areas outside of downtown Newhall along Lyons Avenue to the west and San Fernando Road to the north and south are included in the Project Area because they are largely blighted in their own right, and also because they are important and integral elements of the whole Newhall community. 3. The included residential neighborhoods are in the Project Area • because they not only show significant conditions of blight, but also because they are major sources of affordable housing for the community. Thus, Project Area housing and neighborhood rehabilitation efforts using the low- and moderate -income housing fund will primarily benefit the Project Area's low- and moderate -income families. • li Draft Preliminary Report. The Newhall Redevelopment Project 10.0 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION The primary purpose of the Newhall Redevelopment Project is to alleviate conditions of blight in the proposed Project Area. The Agency is planning to accomplish this task in part through the implementation of the programs listed below, all of which must be A in conformance with the Santa Clarita General Plan. 10.1 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS A lack of adequate public improvements is a significant factor • in causing blight, because this lack reduces the usability of the land and its structures for the purposes for which they are intended. Furthermore, the lack of adequate infrastructure adds significantly to improvement costs. The extraordinary combined costs of the various needed facilities puts them beyond the financial means of the City. Identified public facility needs in the Project Area amount to about $_ million, which is approximately $120,798 per property owner. In a like vein, it would take the City nearly years to complete the system, even if it devoted its entire • currenteneral fund budget to capital improvements. In other r r r r words, facilities costs are so high that they would constitute an undue burden on the private sector and the public sector. The lack of adequate public improvements thus generates- a substantial burden on the . community, which cannot be remedied by private enterprise or by the City alone without redevelopment. The Agency will be authorized to plan, design, and construct a variety of improvements to ensure the complete redevelopment of the Project Area. Subject to applicable CRL requirements, • the following improvements are eligible for redevelopment funds pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan for the Newhall Redevelopment Project: GRC 79 City of Santa Cladla Redevelopment Agency • 1. Improvements as identified in the Freedman Plan: • Various streetscape improvements on San Fernando Road and Lyons Avenue. • Construct Gateway/Clock Tower. • Construct Downtown Plaza. • Various improvements to drainage, circulation, landscaping, building facades, parking, and sewers as needed. • • Improve road, landscaping, and facades at the East San Fernando Road entry. • Improve road, landscaping, and facades at the West San Fernando Road entry. • Various improvements as part of the Lyons Avenue • Improvement Plan. • Various. improvements to the Hart Park Mansion. • Construct public parking facilities as needed in Downtown Newhall. 2. Construct venues for cultural and artistic opportunities. • 3. Construct permanent community center in Downtown Newhall. 4. Expand/rehabilitate Library in Downtown Newhall. 5. Reconstruct Newhall Park Community Building. 6. Various improvements as needed to Newhall Creek. 7. Various improvements as needed to Placerita Creek. 8. Potential recreation improvements as needed throughout the Project Area. • 9. Improve trails and landscaping on Metropolitan Water District property. 10. Various improvements as needed at Creekview Park. 11. Improve median on Sierra Highway (Placenta Canyon • Road to City limits). 12. Construct landscaping improvements and median modifications as needed throughout the Project Area. 13. Install Lyons Avenue signal interconnect. • 14. Construct transit maintenance and administration facility. 15. Construct the realigned Wiley Canyon Road (including drainage improvements). 16. Mitigate Sierra Highway slope erosion. 17. Construct/repair curbs, gutters, sidewalks, crosswalks, • traffic signals, median modifications, handicapped access, I• 7 u U I• I• n • • I• Draft Preliminary Report - fie Newhall Redevelopment Project approaches, and drainage improvements as needed throughout the Project Area. 18. Improvement to public schools as necessary, including, but not limited to: • Various drainage improvements (Hart High School through Newhall Park). • Restore Auditorium (Hart High School). • Modernize buildings and facilities as needed (Hart High School, Newhall Elementary School, and Placerita Junior High School). • Improve library (Hart High School). • Reconstruct cafeteria (Hart High School). • Convert existing structure to auditorium (Newhall Elementary School). • Various circulation improvements as needed for pedestrian safety (Hart High School, Newhall Elementary School, and Placerita Junior High School). • Construct sidewalks as needed (Placenta Junior High School). • Various parking lot improvements as_ needed (Hart High School, and Placerita Junior High School). • Various lighting improvements as needed (Hart High School, and Placenta Junior High School). • Provide infrastructure for energy plant (Hart High School). • Construct energy plant (Hart High School and Placerita Junior High School). • Construct new tennis and handball courts with lighting (Hart High School). 19. Miscellaneous street improvements (may require road widening): • Add third through lane on San Fernando Road and Sierra Highway. • Add third through lane on San Fernado Road at Newhall Avenue. • Add third through lane on San Fernando Road at 13th Street, and restripe as needed(one side). • Add third through lane on San Fernando Road at Circle J Ranch Road, restripe as needed, and add right turn lane. • Add right turn lane on Wiley Canyon Road to Lyons Avenue (both sides). • Add second through lane on Orchard Village Road at Lyons Avenue, and add right turn lane from Lyons Avenue to Valley Street. GRC 81 City of Santa Cladta Redevelopment Agency 0 • Add second through lane on Newhall Avenue at Lyons Avenue, and add right turn lane from Lyons Avenue to Newhall Avenue. • Add third through lane on San Fernado Road at Newhall Avenue (both sides). • Construct additional sidewalks, plant landscaping, and construct bikelanes on Lyons Avenue from 1-5 to eastern terminus. • Construct. sidewalks, additional curbs and gutters, construct median, plant landscaping, and construct bikelanes on San Fernando Road from Lyons avenue to SR -14. • Construct additional sidewalks, curbs and gutters, construct median, plant landscaping, and construct bikelanes on Newhall Avenue from San Fernando Road to Lyons Avenue. • Construct additional sidewalks, curbs and gutters, construct median, plant landscaping, and construct bikelanes on Wiley" Canyon Road from Calgrove Boulevard to Lyons Avenue. • Construct additional sidewalks, construct median, plant landscaping, and construct bikelanes- on Calgrove Boulevard from I-5 to 230 feet east of Creekside Drive. • Construct additional sidewalks, construct median, plant landscaping, and construct bikelanes on San Fernando . Road from Magic Mountain Parkway to Lyons Avenue. • Construct median, plant landscaping, and construct bikelanes on Newhall Avenue from Lyons Avenue to 16th Street. • 20. Construct the following parks: • South Fork River Park (near Orchard Village Road within the right-of-way of the South Fork of the Santa Clara River. • Newhall Creek Park (between East Newhall and San • Fernando Road). 21. Acquire rights-of-way and construct the following multi- purpose trials: • Newhall Creek Trail (generally from Sierra Highway to the South Fork River Park). • Placerita Canyon/Hart Park Trail (generally from the Masters College to Hart Park). • South Fork River Trail Extension (generally from the South Fork River Park to intersection of Interstate 5 and Calgrove Boulevard). GRC a 182 s I0 r 0 J I• I• Draft Preliminary Report -The Newhall Redevelopment Project • Various additional trails as needed throughout the Project Area. 22. Construct the following bike paths: • Connection between the Soledad Canyon Metrolink Rail Station to the Newhall Metrolink Rail Station. • Lyons Avenue (may require street widening). • Wiley Canyon Road (may require street widening). • San Fernando Road (may require street widening). 23. Miscellaneous Improvements: • Construct eastern extension of Lyons Avenue. • Alleviate hill erosion at Meadowridge Drive. • Improve drainage at San Fernando Road and Sierra Highway. • Improve flowline problem at Race Street - Across from 24257. • Make various improvements to the water distribution system as needed throughout the Project Area. • Underground utilities as needed throughout the Project Area. • Relocate public facilities, including those owned and/or operated by the Newhall County Water District, whenever such facilities are affected by redevelopment activities 10.1.1 ADDITIONAL FACILITIES OR IMPROVEMENTS Changes' in circumstances or designs may alter the location of the facilities described above, or may require other related facilities. The financing of such related facilities shall be deemed authorized by the Agency. The Agency will be authorized to finance, the construction of additional improvements in the Project Area based on the requirements of any future project environmental impact report, the Congestion Management Program (CMP), or the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), or any other regional or local regulatory program. 10.2 DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE In order to ensure the financial feasibility of development and rehabilitation projects in the Project Area, the Agency may find G12C 1813 City of Santa Cladfa Redevelopment Agency • it necessary to directly reduce the cost of development or rehabilitation activities. One technique commonly used by redevelopment agenciesis the provision of tax exempt financing, which serves to reduce the financing cost of a project. The Agency may also assist in buying capital equipment for industrial users. Such incentives may take the form of certificates of participation, lease revenue bonds, industrial development bonds and various forms of tax exempt • notes at various terms. Another technique available to the Agency is to acquire property in the Project Area and to "write down" the cost of the land when it is sold to a developer or owner participant. Such land write-downs would only occur in accordance with an • executed development agreement, which would provide appropriate assurances that the developer or owner— participant would complete the project. In addition, any Agency commitment to. reduce the cost of land it had purchased would occur on the basis of a detailed analysis of the developer's cost and revenue pro forma for the proposed project, and the sales price would be no less than the "reuse" value of the land. The purpose of such analysis would be to show that the contribution of tax increment funds to the project through the land write-down process does not simply result in extra profit for the owner participant or project ! developer. Where a contribution of tax increment funds to a specific development project is determined to be necessary, the Agency may take an equity or income position in the project in order to recoup all or a portion of those tax increment funds to support other Agency activities. In assisting with rehabilitation activities, the Agency may establish rehabilitation loan programs, which provide financial assistance at favorable interestratesor with other favorable terms. In some instances, Agency grants may be used to induce rehabilitation activities. As with land price • inducements, Agency rehabilitation assistance would be provided only to the extent needed, and then only pursuant to an agreement with the property owner or developer to ensure that the rehabilitation work would be completed in accordance with Agency standards. • The types of Agency assistance described.above would be the primary tools used to carry out generalized redevelopment activities, such as commercial expansion, industrial renewal, neighborhood improvement, and various types of rehabilitation activities. These activities are needed throughout the Project Area, and as indicated in Chapter 11.0, will be used as • GDC 84 1 0 I• • • • • • LJ • Draft Preliminary Report- The Newhall Redevelopment Project necessary in conjunction with owner participation and developer agreements. 10.3 HOUSING ASSISTANCE CRL requires that the Agency set aside 20% of the tax increment revenues it receives for the purpose of increasing, preserving, or improving low- and moderate -income housing. Additionally, the CRL requires the Agency to provide replacement housing on a unit for unit basis if any low- or moderate -income housing units are removed from the housing market as a result of the redevelopment program. The General Plan calls for over 427 acres of commercial and industrial land in the Project Area. Currently there are approximately 125 acres of commercial land, and approximately 130 acres of industrial land. Some land that is designated for commercial development may be occupied by non -conforming residential uses. In some cases, increased commercial and industrial uses will require the removal of nonconforming housing units. Because the housing units which may be replaced have not been specifically identified, it is not possible to determine which units are occupied by low- or moderate -income persons or families. Nevertheless, given the overall condition of housing units in the Project Area, and the economic profile of the area, it is very likely that a high proportion of the units, if not all, would fall into the low- and moderate -income category. Consequently, the Agency expects most, if not all, of the entire amount of tax increment funds set aside for low- and moderate -income housing to be used for replacement housing and for housing rehabilitation. To the greatest extent feasible, this assistance will be provided within the boundaries of the Project Area. 10.4 RELOCATION ASSISTANCE The CRL and the Relocation Guidelines of the State of California require that relocation assistance be provided to persons, businesses, and other entities displaced as a result of redevelopment activities. Relocation assistance must include relocation advisory assistance, as well as financial assistance to offset moving expenses and to otherwise assist displaced persons or businesses in locating suitable replacement facilities. Under the law, the Agency may be required to pay GRC 85 City of Santa Cladta Redevelopment Agency 0 moving and relocation expenses of up to $5,250 for displaced residential tenants and up to $22,500 for displaced residential owner -occupants. Business and industrial relocation expenses are strictly limited to the expenses involved in moving the business to another location, but these may be substantial depending upon the particular circumstance. Over the life of the Project, relocation expenses may be incurred for residential, commercial, or industrial uses if dilapidated buildings, nonconforming uses, and other hazards are removed from the Project Area for purposes of redevelopment. In such cases, the Agency will meet its legal obligations to provide relocation assistance and benefits to relocatees.. 10.5 PROPERTYACQUISITION AND ASSEMBLAGE Because a significant blight condition in the Project Area is small and irregular-shaped parcels, the Agency is considering w the authority to purchase land through eminent domain on a limited basis. Properties legally occupied for residential purposes would be exempted from eminent domain. Land acquired by.the Agency may subsequently be assembled and disposed of in any legal means, such as land write-downs or other techniques, to facilitate development in the Project Area in conformance to the General Plan. • II • C12C 86 I• Draft Preliminary Report - The !Newhall Redevelopment Project 11.0 PROPOSED PROJECT FINANCING AND • FEASIBILITY Upon adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency will be authorized to finance redevelopment in the Project Area through: • • Assistance from the County of Los Angeles, State of California, United States Government, or any other public agency • Property tax increments • Interest revenue • Investment income • Agency -issued notes and bonds • Any other available sources of financing that are legally available, and do not conflict with the objectives of the Plan. • At this point in the Project adoption process, definitive statements cannot be made as to the exact nature of the financing techniques that will be used for Agency activities in the proposed Project Area. However, the Redevelopment Plan is expected to authorize • the use of all legally available revenue sources so that the Agency will have the maximum possible flexibility in financing the implementation of the proposed Project. Though the Redevelopment Plan will authorize a broad range of financing techniques, it is important to recognize that some forms • of financing, such as assessment districts or developer fees, may have limited value in revitalizing a blighted area. When impaired investments and similar problems have been shown to exist in a given area, adding new financial burdens on private sector developers may serve to discourage, rather than to encourage • investment in the proposed Project Area. • GRC 87 City of Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency 0 The Agency specifically expects to utilize some or all of the following financing authorities, techniques, or methods (individually, or in combination) to implement the Project: • • Owner participation agreements • Disposition and development agreements • Tax increments 9 • Bonds • Cooperation agreements • Loans • Any other legal means • 11.1 DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS 11.1.1 OWNER PARTICIPATION 0 The Agency's primary source of revenue is through the collection of the additional increment of property taxes that are generated when property values in the Project Area rise. While tax increments are an important 0 financing source, it is important to understand that such revenues are limited by Proposition 13 and by a variety of other factors. For example, the Agency must set aside 20% of its tax increment funds for low- and moderate -income housing. Additionally, each year a certain amount of the tax increment generated in the • Project Area is required to be shared with school districts, the County, and a variety of other taxing agencies. In the end, the flow. of tax. increment revenues becomes so restricted that the Agency's only hope is to use the remaining funds as seed money to 0 stimulate private development activities that will, at the same time, eliminate blight in the Project Area. Even though the Project Area may be blighted, the existing owners of property and businesses continue to have equity that can be tapped to revitalize the area. • This is particularly the case when owners have held their properties for long periods. The Redevelopment Plan will authorize the Agency to use a variety of incentives to encourage these owners to directly participate in the redevelopment process. In actuality, 0 the redevelopment of the proposed Project Area will be primarily financed by private enterprise as induced GMC -- 88 '• J I• e • e • Draft Preliminary Report - The Newhall Redevelopment Project through the efforts and financial assistance of the Agency. In working with existing owners, the Agency will be fulfilling two objectives. The first is that the Agency will be looking to existing owners to play a primary role in financing revitalization activities. Second, by working with existing owners, the Agency will also be meeting. the intent of the CRL, which requires the Agency to extend preferences for participating in the Project to existing owners. 11.1.2 DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS In some instances, owners may not be interested in participating in, or may not be qualified to participate in, the implementation of the Project. In such cases, the Agency may purchase the property. In these instances, implementation would be achieved by the Agency entering into an agreement with a private developer to buy and redevelop the subject property in accordance with.the Redevelopment Plan. 11.1.3 TAX INCREMENTS The Redevelopment Plan will authorize the Agency to collect property tax revenues resulting from assessed valuation increases in the proposed Project Area following adoption of the Plan. Such revenues are called tax increments, and will be used to pay Agency debts associated with the Project. The assessed valuation increases that generate the tax increment are limited to those permitted by Proposition 13. The Agency does not have the authority to levy a property tax or to raise the local property tax rate. If property values in the Project Area do not rise above the levels in place at the time of Project adoption, the Agency receives no tax increment revenue. The use of tax increment revenues is limited to activities that benefit the area from which the revenues are generated. In other words, tax increment revenues that are generated in the Project Area must be used for projects that directly benefit the Project Area. This method of financing results in a direct relationship between property taxes paid by Project Area property owners and physical benefits in the Project Area resulting from the use of those taxes. CRC 89 City of Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency 0 GRC 91 In addition to using tax increment revenues to support or induce private development activities, the Agency may use tax increment revenues to pay for the construction and financing of public facilities and improvements, which would be of benefit to. the proposed Project Area and for which there is no reasonable means of financing available to the community. The determination of benefit to the proposed Project Area and the finding that no other reasonable means of financing is available would be made on a project -by -project basis.by the Council. Tax increment revenues will be collected by the Agency because: 0 1. They constitute a certain and steady source of revenue. 2. There is great flexibility under the CRL as to how the Agency is, authorized to use the .funds in implementing the Project. 3. The Agency may sell tax allocation bonds or notes to raise capital for redeveloping the proposed Project Area. 4. Using tax increment funds, the Agency's investment is recovered when revitalization activities or new construction add new taxable value to the property tax roles. 11.1.4 BONDS • The Redevelopment Plan will authorize the Agency to issue bonds, if needed and feasible, in an amount or amounts sufficient to finance specific redevelopment activities (public and/or private) within the proposed Project Area. The principal and interest on such bonds • may be payable when they become due from the following sources: 1. Exclusively from the income and revenue of a specific development financed with the proceeds of the bonds or with such proceeds combined with . financial assistance from the State or Federal 0 governments. 2. Exclusively from the income and revenue of certain designated redevelopment projects, whether or not they were financed in whole. or in part with bond proceeds. 41 • Ir I• I• I0 I• I• I• II II Ll Draft Preliminary Report -The Newhall Redevelopment Project 3. In whole or in part from taxes allocated to and paid into a special fund of the agency pursuant to receipt of tax increment revenues. 4. From agency revenues generally. 5. From contributions or other financial assistance from the State or Federal governments. 6. From other legally available funds. 7. From any combination of the above. 11.1.5 COOPERATION AGREEMENTS In cases where the Agency may undertake the construction or reconstruction of a public facility or public improvement, the Agency may enter into a cooperation agreement with the City of Santa Clarita to secure financial assistance in the form of loans, or through other mechanisms that may be utilized to fund the needed public facilities or improvements. In these situations, the Agency would be reliant upon financial assistance from the City in order to complete the facilities or improvements. 11.1.6 LOANS The Agency may borrow funds for its various purposes from the City of Santa Clarita, from the State of California, or from any other legally available lending source. Such loans may be repaid from Agency tax increment revenues or from any other revenues specifically pledged for such purposes. 11.1.7 OTHER FUNDING SOURCES The Agency may, with the consent of the Council, utilize other sources of funds as these become available. Such sources presently include gas tax funds, and a variety of Federal and State programs through which loans or grants to the Agency would be possible. The Redevelopment Plan will also broadly authorizes the use of funds that may become available in the future, but which are not known today. 11.2 LOW- AND MODERATE -INCOME HOUSING FUND The CRL requires the Agency to set aside, in a separate low - and moderate -income housing fund, not less than 20% of all tax increment receipts that are allocated to the Agency GMC 91 City of Santa Cladta Redevelopment Agency 7 pursuant to Section 33670 of the CRL. The purpose of this fund is to increase, improve, and preserve the community's supply of housing for persons and families of low-. and moderate -income as defined in CRL Section 50093 and very low-income households as defined in CRL Section 50105. It is expected that most, if not all, of this money will be used on the rehabilitation of existing dwelling units. • 11.3 TAX INCREMENT PASS-THROUGHS The CRL requires the Agency to pass, through statutory amounts of tax increment revenue to various taxing agencies. The basic statutory formula is a tiered payment where the Agency will receive more money at the beginning of the project, and less money toward the end. Conversely, the taxing agencies will receive less money at the beginning, and more toward the end. This statutory arrangement is the same for all taxing agencies and is not negotiated." 0 11.4 ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS Potential Agency costs are difficult to estimate. Although the Agency's focus is primarily on public facilities improvements, business development and retention, and the rehabilitation of existing neighborhoods, the fact that some land may be reused could generate the need for some relocation activities to occur. But specific relocatees are not known at this time, nor have project phasing schedules been prepared. The same situation applies to Agency land acquisition activities, the costs of various rehabilitation activities, and financing costs. These areas too, have many unknowns which make the provision of precise cost estimates impossible at this time. Public improvement costs, however, can beestimatedwith a • reasonable degree of accuracy. Table 29 shows the current dollar costs of the public improvements listed in Section 10.1. It is, however, likely that some, if not most, of the listed public improvements would be funded through developer contributions, the City's capital improvements fund, and other legally available resources. All the costed programs, however, would be eligible for complete or partial funding through tax increment receipts. At this point, it is neither expected nor necessary that tax increment receipts cover the entire costs of "Following the requirements of CRL Section 33607.8, the Agency may make certain negotiated payments from tax increment funds to an affected taxing agency thaf is a state water supply contractor. 40 '• • r7 J I J • • 7 J Draft Preliminary Report -The Newhall Redevelopment Project the public improvements and other redevelopment. programs shows in Table 29. TABLE 29 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST' i4MOUNT- Public Improvements Freedman Plan Implementation $15,500,000 Streets and Circulation $34,500,000 Water 7$10,000,000 Drainage $11,500,000 Parks, Recreation and Trails $21,500,000 Community Facilities $7,000,000 School Improvements $8,500,000 Miscellaneous $16,500,000 Total Public Improvements $125,000,000 Commercial Rehabilitation $10,000,000 Economic Revitalization $6,000,000 Business Attraction and Retention $2,500,000 Contingencies @ 10% $13,500,000 Total Development Expenditures $157,000,000 Administration @ 10% Development Expenditures $15,700,000 Total Development and Administration $172,700,000 Financing Costs (Public Improvements) $125,300,000 TOTAL COSTS1 $298,000,000 "Does not include housing programs. Table includes costs for all programs listed as eligible for tax increment funding, whether or not they ultimately are funded through tax increment or another source. 11.5 ESTIMATED PROJECT REVENUES Table 30 projects property tax and property tax increment receipts from redevelopment of the proposed Project Area, assuming the construction and rehabilitation activities are in accordance with the General Plan. As indicated, the Agency could collect about $32 million in tax increment revenues after 20 years. This revenue could be used to underwrite bonds, provide public improvements, conduct rehabilitation and other business assistance programs, assemble land, any combination of the above, and other authorized activities. GRC 93 of Santa Clanta Redevelopment TABLE 30 20 -YEAR TAX INCREMENT ESTIMATE Annum Construction Inflation Rate 4.55% Assessed Valuation Annum Consumer Price Increase 3.50% Cumulalive Tax Increment Annum Valuation Increase Due to Property Transfers and Inflation 4.501/. Cumulative to Agency Square Fool Value of Retail Commercial Development $130 Square Foot Value of Industrial and Business Park Development $100 3 Unit Value of NOW Dwellings $185,000 6 it Square Feet of Retail Commercial Development 950,000 Build out over 20 years it Square Feet of industrial and Business Park Development 2,000,000 Bulla out over 20 years Il Number of New Dwellings 62 Build out over 10 }sate 1A Stale Water Override 0.061% 0 Fiscal Yerk "year In wnkb the HeW ye abeglne.TMNstY®r k Me bwye WkMMI Zv xLa kwa"C unty AxWeer. Beead m revved Pmi Y area bm dea. GmMh reflect. WWMpibm. Cokann3 Does ml hcWa Caeeb Lake Wstr Agery(CLWA)wa,i . A d this owmtla may be ninbunat m Me CLWA punvant to Ca Ky aMevebpmery law Seclim 33647.5. Cokunn5 Ircbdn 4% M CLWA 1998 ovelide r 1& Table eswlmes that Idal emawl n9 red by CLWA for Stale Wale, Plged 9"mas"I moan Me smla du6ng an pmledbn pants Coss n9 Cebu Wed wkh an wumed 3.8% evrege somal Mhlion refs. 11.6 PROJECT FEASIBILITY Project costs for the authorized public improvements and other Agency activities are estimated in Table 29. Estimated Project costs are higher than tax increment revenues as indicated in Table 30. From a revenue standpoint, the proposed project is feasible, in that it will generate sufficient 'revenue to help finance a significant portion of the total costs listed in Table 29. Table 29's costs are the summation of all the public improvement and other projects authorized in whole, or in part, by the proposed Redevelopment Plan. This disparity between costs and revenues will be partly or completely offset by other sources of revenues, including developer contributions, state and federal CRC 94 7 J 0 0 II 41 • I • • Tear Assessed Valuation Percent Growth Gross Tax Increment (Base Levy Plus Overrides Cumulalive Tax Increment HousingSet idN Aside Net for Agency Mandato Pass Operations end Througha Capital Improvements Cumulative to Agency Cumulative Net mAgency m $1996 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 0 1998 $259,119.895 2.00% It $ 0 E 0 1 1997 264302 9 2.00% ell668 $51.868 $11006 $11, $26,693 $26693 $25,759 2 1998 269 588.339 2.00% $104 773 158 641 $21,58 21 587 $55,211 $81,904 $76,271 3 1999 276 98010 10.59% e 158 73 $315.37 $32,380 $32,38 $84,298 $166,202 $149,355 4 2000 304 109 984 10.26% $450.282 ]65 659 $90,68 $90,689 241 44 $407,651 $353,507 5 2001 $335,313.37 9.96% $762,58 $1,528.23 $153,148 $153.148 4097 7 $817,438 $684,066 6 2002 $368.716.311 9.69% $1,096912. $2625151 $220015 220015 $590.ml, $1.407.439 1138583 7 2003 5404.460.144 9.45% $1.4546331 $4079784 $291559 $291559 $782.622 $2190261 1706818 8 2004 1 $442.681.986 9.23% $1.837,1751 $5,916,959 $368,06 368,067 $989.023 3179 284 $2,390,R25 9 2005 1 $483.535.110 9.03% $2,246.0521 $8163011 $449,843 $449,84 $1,209,419 $4,388,703 $3,184,799 10 2008 $527.179,403 8.84% $2.682 864 $10845875 $537.205 53] 205 $1,444.873 5 833 576 $4,085,15 11 2007 1573,783,836 867% $3149303 $13.995179 $63049 $708,655 $1,617,935 $7451511 $5,035,526 12 2008 $623528953 8.51% $3,647,156 $17642,334 $730064 $892065 111802652 $9,254,163 $6,034,828 13 2009 $fi76597404 8.10% $4178309 $2L820644 $836,294 $1087.52 $1,999724 $11253887 708202 14 2010 $731404684 7.98% $4726846 $2854749 $946.00 $1,289,391 $2,203,24 $13,457,134 $8,172.12 15 2011 $789,787.128 7.87% $5,31 1165 $31.858655 $1062865 $150442 $2.42%045 $15,877J79 $9,304,286 16 2012 $851958092 7.77% $5933381 $37792035 $1187309 $1733395 S2,6% $18,528,0EM $10.4T7,737 17 2013 $918134738 7.67% $6595728 $44.387.764 $13197/8 $1.977139 $2696653 2142473 1169175 18 2014 988558673 7.58% 7300563 551688.327 $1460745 32.236514 3158167 $24582904 1294567 19 2015 10831]8818 7.49% 58050377 559738.704 51610708 $25124 3438368 28019272 142388] 20 2018 1163151111 7.41% $8847796 S68.585500 51770192 52.1105.92q $3,732,2331i$31,751,5051 $15,570,788 Totals 68586500, 1 $13,729.9501 $18,923,1631 53175/505 Fiscal Yerk "year In wnkb the HeW ye abeglne.TMNstY®r k Me bwye WkMMI Zv xLa kwa"C unty AxWeer. Beead m revved Pmi Y area bm dea. GmMh reflect. WWMpibm. Cokann3 Does ml hcWa Caeeb Lake Wstr Agery(CLWA)wa,i . A d this owmtla may be ninbunat m Me CLWA punvant to Ca Ky aMevebpmery law Seclim 33647.5. Cokunn5 Ircbdn 4% M CLWA 1998 ovelide r 1& Table eswlmes that Idal emawl n9 red by CLWA for Stale Wale, Plged 9"mas"I moan Me smla du6ng an pmledbn pants Coss n9 Cebu Wed wkh an wumed 3.8% evrege somal Mhlion refs. 11.6 PROJECT FEASIBILITY Project costs for the authorized public improvements and other Agency activities are estimated in Table 29. Estimated Project costs are higher than tax increment revenues as indicated in Table 30. From a revenue standpoint, the proposed project is feasible, in that it will generate sufficient 'revenue to help finance a significant portion of the total costs listed in Table 29. Table 29's costs are the summation of all the public improvement and other projects authorized in whole, or in part, by the proposed Redevelopment Plan. This disparity between costs and revenues will be partly or completely offset by other sources of revenues, including developer contributions, state and federal CRC 94 7 J 0 0 II 41 • I • • I• I• n I0 I• • I• • Draft Preliminary Report- The Newhall Redevelopment Project highway funding, and, to a very limited degree, City capital investments. Priorities for the expenditure of redevelopment funds will be established as part of the implementation plan to be included in the report required by CRL Section 33352, and as required every five years during the lifetime of the Redevelopment Plan. GMC 95 I0 Draft Preliminary Report -The Newhall Redevelopment Project 12.0 ALLEVIATION OF DETRIMENTAL PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS As noted earlier in this Report, there are a number of detrimental physical and economic conditions in the proposed Project Area. • The Agency proposes to alleviate these conditions by undertaking a comprehensive program of public improvements and by providing a variety of development incentives which will stimulate new development and rehabilitation activities in the Project Area. These programs will include, but are not limited to, land • acquisition and assembly for proper development, rehabilitation of the City's stock of low- and moderate -income housing, construction of new buildings, and rehabilitation of old and/or obsolete buildings. It is expected that such redevelopment programs will alleviate threats to the public health, safety, and welfare through the elimination or reduction of flooding hazards, deteriorated 0 buildings, hazardous materials, serious code violations, and other issues. The figures presented in this Report reflect a best estimate of what will be needed in the immediate future, but the overall cost of making rehabilitation or development practical serves as a good estimate of redevelopment costs. The actual assistance may take the form of public improvements that reduce private sector development costs, or rehabilitation loans, or any of the other techniques available to the Agency through the Redevelopment Plan. But, the overall cost is the cost to make redevelopment of private land in the proposed Project Area feasible. Once that assistance is provided, owners and developers will have the incentive to bring their properties up to standard. Successful implementation of the Project will result in expanded 0 economic activity in Santa Clarita, and more particularly in the proposed Project Area. Such activity will increase the number of GRC 97 • City of Santa Ctadta Redevelopment Agency local employment opportunities and expand the community's tax base for the support of essential services. • In addition, Project implementation is expected to alleviate detrimental physical conditions, including the need for reparcelization and replacement of deteriorating land uses and providing needed public improvements affecting the proposed Project Area. Project implementation is also anticipated to provide for the rehabilitation of dwelling units available to low - and moderate -income residents. • • • • • • • • I• r� v r1 U 0 LI s • Draft Preliminary Report -The Newhall Redevelopment Project 13.0 PROPOSED PROJECT AREA PHOTOGRAPHS The following are photographs of sample structures and properties in the proposed Project Area. i0 Photo 1 Pine Street, southwest of San Fernando Road i• • Deteriorated industrial structure • Inadequate building materials • • Broken -out windows • Outdoor storage of equipment and junk 0 Photo 2 14th Street and Spruce Street • Deteriorated residential structure • Inadequate room addition • Inadequate building materials • Broken -out windows • Outdoor storage of junk • Photo 3 Railroad Avenue and 6th Street • Residential structure destroyed by Northridge earthquake l0 E7 Photo 4 6th Street and Race Street • Deteriorated residential structure • Inadequate building materials • Outdoor storage of 0 equipment and junk • • Photo 5 Alderbrook Drive north of 12th Street • Deteriorated structure behind residence • Outdoor storage of equipment and junk Photo 6 Race Street and Park Street • Deteriorated residential structure 41 • Inadequate building materials • Outdoor storage of equipment and junk r. Photo 7 Wiley Canyon Road and Wabuska Street I! • Deteriorated residential structure • Hand-written sign advertising commercial ! use inside • Structure located in area subject to flooding ! Interstate 5 and Calgrove Blvd. • Commercial Structure damaged by Northridge earthquake Photo 9 Interstate 5 and Calgrove Blvd. • Commercial Structure Is . damaged by Northridge earthquake r. L u n u L .7 • Photo 10 Chestnut St. south of 16th St. • Deteriorated residential structure Photo 11 • Arch Street south of 6th Street • Deteriorated residential structure • Photo 12 L Race Street between 2nd Street and Park Street • Deteriorated residential structure • Incomplete driveway u 0 i0 Photo 13 Race Street and 2nd Street i • Deteriorated industrial structure • Inadequate building materials r7 Photo 14 San Fernando Road and 2nd Street • Deteriorated commercial structure • Inadequate building materials • Lack of landscaping [] Photo 15 San Fernando Road and 2nd Street • Deteriorated commercial structure • Inadequate building materials • Lack of landscaping u 0 I• Photo 16 Race Street and 2nd Street Deteriorated residential structure • Inadequate building materials li Photo 17 Pine Street between Market Street and 6th Street • Deteriorated residential structure I0 lO Photo 18 E Pine Street between Market Street and 6th Street • Deteriorated residential structure I• I0 • J Photo 19 Arch Street south of Market Street • Deteriorated residential structures • Outdoor storage of junk Photo 20 San Fernando Road north of 14th Street • Deteriorated mobile home units • Lack of skirting around 40 foundation I• Photo 21 Arch Street and 4th Street • Deteriorated residential structure. Note: bars on windows. I• I• I• Photo 22 Pine Street between 2nd Street and 3rd Street • • Deteriorated commercial structure • Vacant commercial unit I• • Photo 23 • Newhall Avenue and 14th Street • • • Deteriorated residential structure Photo 24 Chestnut Street between 13th Street and 14th Street • Deteriorated residential • structure • 0 I• Photo 25 Railroad Avenue north of Market Street • • Deteriorated and obsolescent commercial structure • Inadequate building • materials I Photo 26 • Railroad Avenue south of Market Street • Deteriorated and obsolescent commercial structure • • Inadequate building materials • Vehicles parked on sidewalk [] I• Photo 27 Terminus of Railroad Avenue • Vehicles parked on . private property and into • public right-of-way • Lack of public improvements • Lack of adequate parking C I0 I0 Photo 28 Spruce Street and 13th • Street • Vehicles parked on public right-of-way • Lack of public improvements • Photo 29 ID Walnut Street south of 13th Street • Vehicles parked on public right-of-way • Lack of public OP improvements C7 Photo 30 LI 14th Street east of Newhall Avenue • Vehicles parked on public right-of-way • Lack of public improvements l0 • Photo 31 • J 12th Street and Arch Street Inadequate circulation and access • Inadequate loading area • Lack of adequate parking Photo 32 • Pine Street between 12th Street and 13th Street • Vehicles parked on private property • Inadequate public • improvements • Lack of adequate parking :J • Photo 33 Alley adjacent to San Fernando Road, between 4th Street and 5th Street • • Vehicles parked in public right-of-way • Lack of adequate parking :7 I0 • 2 • • Photo 34 San Fernando Road and 4th Street • Outdoor storage of vehicles • Inadequate lot size • Converted gas station Photo 35 • Lyons Avenue and Arcadia Street • Inadequate circulation and access • Inadequate loading area • • • Photo 36 Railroad Avenue between Lyons Avenue and 9th Street • Vehicles parked on • private property 0 Ia --THM4JWA , Park Street east of Race Street I• • Vehicle parked on sidewalk I• I0 Photo 38 Race Street between 2nd Street and 3rd Street • Outdoor storage of vehicles and junk [7 I• Photo 39 I• Spruce Street south of 11th Street • Small commercial structure with poor visibility due to piecemeal development n is I• Photo 40 Walnut Street between 14th Street and 15th Street I• • Inadequate open space for multi -family dwelling units Photo 41 Valley Street south of Lyons Avenue Vehicular circulation blocked by wood fence and concrete wheelstops C • Photo 42 I• Lyons Avenue west of Peachland Avenue • Commercial structures with poor visibility due to setback over four hundred feet C • IY Photo 43 Valley Street south of Lyons • Avenue • Commercial units with poor visibility due to narrow, mid -block parcel • • Photo 44 Railroad Avenue and Lyons Avenue • Outdoor storage of equipment and junk. A Photo 45 • Railroad Avenue and 9th Street • Outdoor storage of vehicles • '0 C: • Photo 46 Pine Street and 3rd Street Deteriorated Industrial Structure • Inadequate building materials • Outdoor storage of vehicles and equipment Photo 47 0 4th Street east of Race Street • Deteriorated residential structure • Outdoor storage ofjunk '7 Ll Photo 48 • 4th Street east of Pine Street • Deteriorated residential structure • Inadequate building materials • Outdoor storage of junk I0 I• I• I• I,0 Photo 49 Railroad Avenue north of Market • Outdoor storage of equipment. Note: Razor wire at top offence iu� di7 Alderbrook Drive north of 12th Street • Outdoor storage of equipment and junk Photo 51 Lyons Avenue west of Valley Street • Trash scattered 0 throughout parcel I0 I• Photo 52 Market Street near Arch Street • • Deteriorated residential structure • Inadequate building materials • • Inadequate room addition r, u Photo 53 2nd Street and Race Street • Deteriorated residential structure • Garage converted into living space • • Outdoor storage of equipment and junk �7 Photo 54 Race Street between 5th Street and 6th Street • Deteriorated residential • structure • : Garage converted into living space I• Photo 55 4th Street east of Race Street • Deteriorated residential structure • Garage converted into living space • Inadequate building 0 materials Photo 56 Newhall Avenue between 14th Street and 15th Street • Exposed wiring on multi- family residential structure '• i I• 111 '• Photo 57 Walnut Street and 16th Street .] • Faulty wiring on residential structure • Walnut Avenue north of 15th Street • Residential structure with damaged chimney Ll • Photo 59 '7 Terminus of Park Street • Deteriorated residential structure • Inadequate building materials r. r lJ • Photo 60 Newhall Avenue south of 16th Street • Garage converted into living area Photo 61 0 4th Street and Arch Street • Deteriorated residential structure • Inadequate building materials • Inadequate room addition • Photo 62 • Walnut Avenue north of 15th Street • Vacant residential unit LA • I0 Photo 63 San Fernando Road near Market Street • Vacant commercial unit Photo 64 Walnut Avenue south of Market Street • Vacant property that was developed at one time I• El Photo 65 LI Walnut Avenue north of 14th Street • Vacant residential structure u C WM T , r. Lyons Avenue east of Interstate 5 • Vacant commercial units I• Photo 67 San Fernando Road and 6th Street • Vacant property that was developed at one time • Trash scattered throughout parcel • • :7 I0 I• Lyons Avenue west of Peachland Avenue I• • . Obsolete mix of signage and exposed utility lines u I• Photo 69 s Lyons Avenue east of Interstate 5 • Deteriorated commercial structure and obsolete signage I• u • • Photo 70 San Fernando Road and 14th Street • Small, obsolete commercial structure • Building partially blocked by billboard pole Photo 71 • Pine Street north of 12th Street • Small, obsolete commercial structure • Outdoor storage of • equipment '7 • Photo 72 Railroad Avenue south of Market Street • Small, obsolete • commercial structure • Outdoor storage of equipment • • I• Photo 73 13th Street and Arch Street • • Obsolete commercial center in predominantly industrial area C: Photo 74 San Fernando Road between Pine Street and Sierra Highway • Unsightly retaining wall nearly twenty feet tall • C7 Photo 75 San Fernando Road and Park Street • Incompatible uses - Residential. structure in commercially zoned area • Need for utility undergrounding I• I9 I• Photo 76 San Fernando Road and Park Street I• • Incompatible uses - Residential structure in commercially zoned area • Need for utility undergrounding I• Photo 77 11th Street and Spruce Street • Incompatible uses - Commercial use in residential neighborhood 40 I• • I0 City Council Study Session June 4,1997 Call To Order: 3:30 p.m. Roll Call: All Councilmembers were present. Pledge sof Allegiance: Led by Mayor Smyth Item 1 REVIEW OF 1997.98 BUDGET - City Manager George Caravalho provided an introduction of the proposed City budget and 5 -year Capital Improvement Program for the 1997-98 fiscal year. Assistant to City Manager Terri Maus reviewed each departmental budget; Accounting Manager Barbara Boswell reviewed General Fund revenues; and Management Analyst Amelia Rietzel reviewed the Capital Improvement Program Budget. Management Analyst Kevin Tonoian reviewed the Section 108 loan program. Council discussion and concerns: getting information on the technology available with regard to providing material to Council via computer; having a 2 -minute video marketing Santa Clarita to be broadcast during the coverage of the PGA golf tournament next year; doing a strategic plan for businesses; free market v. regulation approach to assisting businesses; equitably assisting businesses throughout the City; bringing in the types of businesses the City wants; determining how many false alarms come from the school system; using private security in association with code enforcement; seeing specific analysis of the Section 108 loan program; and developing our own job training program for the valley. Public Participation: There was none. RECESS Mayor Smyth recessed the meeting at 5:25 p.m. RECONVENE Mayor Smyth reconvened the meeting at 6:35 p.m. in the Council Chamber. All Councilmembers were present. Item 2 OVERVIEW - NEWHALL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - Assistant City Manager Ken Pulskamp summarized staffs efforts on the Project and introduced Ernie Glover of GRC Redevelopment Consultants who reviewed the draft preliminary report and the draft redevelopment plan. Associate Planner Glenn Adamick summarized the draft Environmental Impact Report. City Manager George Caravalho reviewed areas of concern including potential loss of City revenues, not seeing money until the end of the time period, and the possibility of one agency thwarting the City's efforts. Council discussion and concerns: discussed estimated tax increment monies to be received over the next 40 years; the frustration of potential litigation being filed against the City; having accurate figures to share with CLWA for the June 11, 1997 meeting with their Board of Directors; noting that the City pays for City Council Study Session June 4,1997 Page 2 representation through the League of California Cities; agencies should work together for the betterment of the community and valley and not be at loggerheads; and that if the City fails at this attempt for redevelopment, there may not be another attempt. Council also expressed thanks to the Redevelopment Committee members for their time and efforts to date. Public Participation: Effie Bird and Frank Maga, chair of the Redevelopment Committee, who expressed thanks to the Council and City staff. Mayor Smyth called for general Public Participation; there was none. Motion by Boyer, second by Heidt, to adjourn the meeting at 7:32 p.m. -.i.i� Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk