Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-06-24 - AGENDA REPORTS - TOWN CENTER TRANSIT CENTER (2)t AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approva Item to be presented L nn Ham NEW BUSINESS DATE: June 24, 1997 SUBJECT: ACQUISITION OF APPROXIMATELY 1.45 ACRES OF PROPERTY FOR THE TOWN CENTER TRANSIT CENTER DEPARTMENT: Public Works BACKGROUND The Town Center Transit Center ("TCTC") project is a City proposal to acquire property for use as a bus transit station to accommodate bus -to -bus passenger transfers in that area of the City identified in the General Plan as the Town Center. The TCTC has previously been identified as Project No. T1007 in the City's Capital Improvement Program and, over the past year; staff has worked to identify a suitable site for its location and construction. The original request was for the site to be located within the perimeter of the Town Center area, generally bounded by Magic Mountain Parkway, Citrus Street, Valencia Boulevard, and McBean Parkway. The proposed TCTC site was selected based on its central location in the transit system, accessibility, cost, and vicinity to such major transit destinations as the Town Center Mall, College of the Canyons, and government services (City Hall, Sheriff, Municipal Court, library, etc). Additionally, upon completion the project will replace the transfer center located at the Santa Clarita Metrolink station at Commuter Way, significantly reducing travel times for transit customers on several fixed routes. It will also eliminate duplicate local fixed route service between the station and the Town Center Mall, resulting in time savings and increased service levels. The property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land of approximately 1.45 acres (63,000 square feet) in area. If approved for acquisition, the parcel, a portion of Parcel 5 of Parcel Map No. 20795, will be created by the City using a metes and bounds description, and be recorded with the County. Primary access to the site is proposedfrom McBean Parkway, with secondary access proposed from Valencia Boulevard. The project site is currently rough -graded, level, and clear of all native vegetation as a result of ongoing construction Continued To: activity. The site is located approximately 1.1 miles southwest of the San Gabriel Fault and is traversed by the Kew Fault, a seismically active fault. The site is also traversed by six active utility pipelines (oil and gas). The presence of the Kew Fault and the pipelines precludes development of structures for human occupancy on the property, and has reduced its appraised value accordingly. An Initial Study was prepared for site acquisition and project construction and, based on its findings, a Negative Declaration has been proposed and circulated for review. (Both are available for review in the Council's reading file in the City Clerk's office.) The acquisition and use of this site as a transfer/drop-off point for transit riders has been found by the Director of Community Development to conform to the City's General Plan. The zoning of the site is Commercial Town Center, which allows for the proposed use subject to a minor use permit. Per the attached Proposal Letter of May 22, 1997, (Attachment A) to the Valencia Company, the negotiated purchase price will be at the appraised value of $9.00 per square foot, for a total cost of $567,000. Funds for this purchase are currently budgeted and staff recommends costs be charged to the specified accounts as follows: $300,000 from Account No. 81007- 205-8001 ("Prop C" Local Return and Discretionary funds); $200,000 from Account No. 81007-206-8001 ("Prop A" Local Return funds); and, $67,000 from Account No. 81007-801- 8001 (Farebox funds). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Adopt the Negative Declaration prepared for the acquisition of the property and construction of the project; 2. Authorize the acquisition of the identified property for $567,000 (to be charged to the specified accounts in the amounts identified above), subject to all agreed upon terms and conditions as represented in the Proposal Letter of May 22, 1997, satisfactory performance of all required due diligence, and completion of all necessary investigations; and, 3. Authorize the City Manager to open escrowandexecute all documents necessary in the acquisition of this property. ATTACHMENTS A. Proposal Letter of May 22, 1997 B. Location Map sAccagenda%tc2ccu.agn - - CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NEGATIVE DECLARATION [ X ] Proposed [ ] Final ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MASTER CASE NO: 97-089 (MUP 97-006) PERMIT/PROJECT NAME: Town Center Transit Center ("TCTC") APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita (Transit Division, Public Works Department) LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: Approximately 500' west of the northwest corner of the intersection of Valencia Boulevard and McBean Parkway, with no existing frontage on either corridor. (Page 4550/E-3, Thomas Bros.) DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: The.TCTC is a proposal to acquire 1.4 acres of property and to construct a bus -to -bus passenger transfer station, including 12 bus bays, a central platform, ingress(egress, landscaping, and ancillary passenger/driver amenities (not to include structures for human occupancy). The TCTC will replace the existing facility located at the Santa Clarita Metrolink station at Commuter Way. 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 [ ] City Council [ ] Planning Commission [X] Director of Community Development finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the environment, and that a Negative Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA. Mitigation measures for this project [x] Are Not Required [ ] Are Attached [ ] Are Not Attached JEFF LAMBERT PLANNING MANAXR Prepared Approved (Signature) (Name/Title) Fred Follstad Associate Planner (Name/Mtle) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Public Review Period From June 3.1997 To June 24, 1997 Paas 1S.-ITRANSTTIPIANNINGINGDC4TC2.FRM Public Notice- Given On June 3 1997 By: [X] Legal Advertisement [ ] Posting of Properties [] Written Notice CERTIFICATION DATE: s: \ transit \planning \ ngdc4 tc2..frm Page 2S: \TRANSrr1PLURMGINGDC4TC2.FRM ' 44 . U721 Grte% Public Works Phone 25663 W. Ave. Stanford . (805) 294-2500 Santa Clarita Fax California 91355-1103 (805) 294.2517 City of Santa Clarita May 22, 1997 Mr. James S. Backer, Senior Vice President Commercial/Industrial Sales and Marketing Valencia Company 23823 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, CA 91355-2194 �2C�Le— RE: PROPOSAL FOR CITY ACQUISMON OF APPROXIMATELY 63,000 SQUARE FEET OF LAND WEST OF MCBEAN PARKWAY AND NORTH OF VALENCIA BOULEVARD FOR TRANSIT PURPOSES Dear Mr. Backer: This writing concludes several months of discussion and evaluation of the property described above and further defined in a site plan prepared by PBR, reviewed by the City and Valencia Company, dated May 16, 1997 entitled Transit Alt. `A:' We are pleased to be able to make the following proposal for property acquisition, subject to review and final approval by the City Council. The City proposes to acquire 1.45 acres of land (63,000 square feet) with two-way ingress and egress on both Valencia Boulevard and McBean Parkway, to construct a transit center. The center will be a transfer/drop off point for transit riders and will `- accommodate up to twelve buses. The purchase price will be $9.00 per sglta're foot for a total price of $567,000. The following terms, conditions, and understandings are anticipated to be included in an agreement between the City and Valencia Company, should you accept this proposal: 1. City agrees any improvements on the property shall reflect architectural and landscape themes established at Valencia Town Center; City further agrees to seek approval of your companies'. Architectural Review Committee prior to construction; PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Mr. James S. Backer . May 22,1997 Page 2 2. City shall purchase the property on metes and bounds, prepared by Valencia Company and approved by City; 3. City shall provide all necessary approvals prior to close of escrow to create the parcel being acquired; 4. Valencia Company shall rough grade the site to within one foot of finished grade; 5. Valencia Company shall provide all necessary easements required for ingress and egress appurtenant to the designated use of the subject property. Access rights shall be granted in perpetuity from the signalized intersection at McBean Parkway to the property limits and shall recognize the minimum standards required to accommodate the intended use of the site as a transit facility; 6. Valencia Company shall construct and maintain the improvements necessary for property ingress and egress. The improvements shall be in place and available for use by December 31, 1997; 7. No through access for surrounding parcels or access to surrounding parcels from the property shall be made available; 8. Two monument signs may be constructed on the parcel; one at the south entrance and one at the northerly entrance of the center; Y.. 9. Valencia Company shall provide protection in place for all utilities; 10. Valencia Company shall provide proof of ability to construct the transit center as anticipated with respect to existing operating underground pipelines and Southern California Gas Company easements; 11. Valencia Company shall provide proof of abandonment of a Southern California Gas Company easement that has been shown to traverse the proposed site; 12. The City and Valencia Company recognize minor adjustments in the final configuration of the parcel may be necessary to accommodate the site plan. -- Mr. James S. Backer May 22,1997 Page 3 Your acceptance of this proposal no later than June 3, 1997, would permit. us to proceed with the property acquisition. As you are aware, all acquisitions of property require City Planning review for compliance with the General Plan and City Council approval for appropriation of funds. The June 3, 1997 response date will permit us to take the required City actions in order to complete this transaction in a timely manner. Our goal would be to complete these steps by July 1997, enter into escrow, and close escrow in September 1997. The City and Santa Clarita Transit are most interested in making the new Transit Center a reality. We look forward to a favorable response. Sincerely, • arc 5 tiL4,ra� Lynn M. Harris, Deputy City Manager, Public Works cc: George Caravalho, City Manager Ron Kilcoyne, Transportation Manager SAADMDMACIEB.TC r ATTACHMENT "BIT TOWN CENTER TRANSIT CENTER Gfti 1 g d ,,?? NO lNBRlCOf C o G O P y y OP P o +F `\S '� X'. �'FE" zvxnEq�r e4vE if { fitL `¢O EE a _ �? P; I VIeW a )Is.V .y,� ✓NE Y L° u OR9 090 PfSl�L cut•v T Sfra • 3 //�' w424,{5 �r p cw C h'Yl1M Gl _ QO P\° PN p� T ~fWMPt\ 9� SP L .S LrExx\�R i� Po- a l 4,A q 0 $ p / �r }/ P 1 ♦ 2� Oa z N r >• a m --- ----- m AlpRIO 23 / Ic ou Ile PAAWA CIUMOUSE � � ♦ W � TSO tp � �4 1 . O �'va♦.v RO $` �\ ♦ PROJECTPARK LOCATION: �� VALENCIA µo 4 TOWN - Q IreA♦ Y Z CENTER h+°d i `I •" BLVD o R�MAu 6 6� �Pn ri'a rq M. 4 TsS Booz a° p 5 x0 j iS �- 1p E t WYYy` t ` Yp 9qS tS<pi i x L 00.PYION 'vv \h+\: G ( : ro cA1F °o $ � Fr � o°� P � 9 tP✓a. ��ip N Ept� t Bt1 P 1s;M V4(F ¢� RE Oa •} 'sT" a° d� Lt JLr $ ;DR c o /\� Rnvta, ■ NCIA � AC'f � ., -. _ .6 $ a�/_`.a`� �FTv_ _.. '�C r COUECE �y CVt O n OF Z Z �04f O OE :v - Z z CANYONS/�� i � SxsE �ar •. / iN �41F r kv;ll e aencla uESTIDE) t ♦ N MENRY MAYO 1• n MEM. N p 9919 • Oso L CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NEGATIVE DECLARATION [ X ] Proposed [ ] Final MASTER CASE NO: 97-089 (MUP 97-006) PERMIT/PROJECT NAME: Town Center Transit Center ("TCTC") APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita (Transit Division, Public Works Department) LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: Approximately 500' west of the northwest corner of the intersection of Valencia Boulevard and McBean Parkway, with no existing frontage on either corridor. (Page 4550/E-3, Thomas Bros.) DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: The TCTC is a proposal to acquire 1.4 acres of property and to construct a bus -to -bus passenger transfer station, including 12 bus bays, a central platform, ingress/egress, landscaping, and ancillary passenger/driver amenities (not to include structures for human occupancy). The TCTC will replace the existing facility located at the Santa Clarita Metrolink station at Commuter Way. 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 [ ] City Council [ ] Planning Commission IX] Director of Community Development finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the environment, and that a Negative Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of CEQA. Mitigation measures for this project [x] Are Not Required [ ] Are Attached [ ] Are Not Attached ------------------------------------------------ JEFF LAMBERT PLANNING MAN R s Prepared .�iilliams. Seni (Name/Title) Approved by: Fred Follstad Associate Planner (Signature) (Name/Title) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Public Review Period From June 3,1Q27 To June 24, 1997 Page IS:\TRANSrr\PLANNING\NGDC4TC2.FRM Public Notice Given On June 3 1997 By: [X] Legal Advertisement [ ] Posting of Properties [ 1 Written Notice CERTIFICATION DATE: s:\transit\planning\ngdc4tc2..frm Page 2S:\TRANSrr\PL4NNING\NGDC4TC2.FR6f ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4TM (initial Study Form B)CITY OF SANTA CLARITALead Agency: City of Santa Clarita23920 Valencia Blvd. Ste. 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Contact Person & Phone Number: Don Williams, Senior Planner/Public Works, (805) 294-2522 Master Case or CIP Number: Entitlement Type(s): Case Planner: Minor Use Permit Project Location (Thomas Bros.): Page 4550 (E-3), approximately 500' west of the northwest corner of the intersection of Valencia Boulevard and Mc Bean Parkway. Project Description and Setting: The Town Center Transit Center (TCTC) project is a proposal to acquire property and construct a bus transit station to accommodate bus -to -bus passenger transfers in that area of the City identified in the General Plan as the Town Center. Construction of the TCTC will include 12 bus bays around a central platform, primary and secondary ingress/egress (two-way access), passenger and driver amenities, and shall reflect landscaping and architectural relief appropriate to the area and consistent with existing architectural themes. Upon completion, the TCTC will replace the existing bus transit center located at the Santa Clarita Metrolink station at Commuter Way, significantly reducing travel times for transit customers on several fixed routes. The TCTC will also eliminate duplicate local fixed route service between the station and the Valencia Town Center, resulting in time savings and increased service levels for the transit service provider. Project site is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land of approximately 63,000 square feet (1.45 acres) in area. The parcel, a portion of Parcel 5 of Parcel Map No. 20795, is to be created under City auspices using a recorded metes and bounds description. Primary access to the site is proposed from McBean Parkway, with secondary access proposed from Valencia Boulevard. Access to the site will be restricted to transit vehicles only. Project site is currently rough -graded, level, and cleared of all native vegetation due to past human activity. The site is located approximately 1.1 miles southwest of the San Gabriel Fault (an Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Hazard Zone), and is traversed by the Kew Fault, a seismically active fault. The site is also traversed by the Kew Fault, a seismically active fault. The site is also traversed by six active oil and gas pipelines. The presence of the fault and the pipelines precludes development of structures for human occupancy/habitation on the site. General Plan and Zoning Designation(s): Commercial Town Center/Commercial Town Center ("CTC") Project Applicant (Name, Address, Phone): City of Santa Clarita, Department of Public Works, Transit Division, 25663 West Avenue Stanford, Santa Clarita, CA 91355-1103. Ron Kilcoyne, Transportation Manager, (805) 294-2500. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: North — Golf Course/Regional Conference Center/Commercial -1- uses; East— Gas Station/Regional Commercial uses (Valencia Town Center); South (south of Valencia Blvd.) --Medium Density Residential; West — Vacant Property (zoned CTC). Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement) None known. 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/ [ ] Public Services Circulation [ ] Population and [ ] Biological Resources [ ] Recreation Housing [ ] Geological Problems [ ] Noise [ ] Aesthetics [ ] Water [ ] Hazards [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Air Quality [ ] Mandatory Tests of [ ] Utilities and Service Significance System [ ] Energy and Mineral Resources -2- DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: [x] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [ ] 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 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 impact on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ ] I 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, 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. Prepare y: Don Williams, Senior Planner May 23,1997 (Signature) (Namefritle) (Date) Approved By: (Signature) (Namefritle) (Date) -3- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: -4- Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less than Significant - Midgation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] (Source # ) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or [ ] (] [ ] [x] policiesadoptedbyagencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be Incompatible with existing land use in the city? [ ] (] [ ] [x] d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] established community (Including a low-income or minority community)? e) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA)? ( ) [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] f) Other ( ) [] [] I I] Ii. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the Proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local [] [] [] [x] population projections? ( ) b) Create a net loss of jobs? ( ) [] [] [] [x] c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] housing? ( ) d) Other ( ) [] [] [] [] III GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. will the proposal result in: a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic [ ] [ ] (] [x] substructures? ( ) b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or [] [] [x] --[] overcovering of the soil? ( ) c) Change In topography or ground surface relief [ ] [] [ I [x] features? ( ) d) The destruction, covering or modification of any [ ] [ ] [] [x] unique geologic or physical features? ( ) e) Any Increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either [ ] (] [x] [] on or off the site? ( ) -4- I) Other ( ) [] [] [] [] Potentially WATER. Would the proposal result In: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or [ ] [ j [x] [ ] Significant the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] Impact hazards such as flooding? ( ) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of [ ] Potentially Unless Lessthan oxygen, or turbidity) ( ) Significant Mitigation Significant No body? ( ) Impact Incorporated Impact Impact f) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards [ j [ ] [x] [) such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground Interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or failure, or similar hazards? ( ) capability? ( ) g) Changes in deposition, erosion or siltation? ( ) [ ] [ ] [x] [) h) Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or [ ] [ ] [] [x] J) river? ( ) [1 [] IJ i) Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] yards or more? ( ) j) Development and/or grading on a slope greater than [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] 25% natural grade? ( ) k) Development within the Alquist•Priolo Special [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] Studies Zone? ( ) I) Other ( ) [] [] [] [] IV. WATER. Would the proposal result In: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or [ ] [ j [x] [ ] the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] hazards such as flooding? ( ) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of [ ] [ ] [ j [x] surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved, oxygen, or turbidity) ( ) d) Changes In the amount of surface water in any water [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] body? ( ) e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction of [ ] [ ] [ J [x] water movements? ( ) f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either [ ] [ ] [] [x] 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? [ ] [) [] [x] h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( j [ ] [ ] [ J [x] 1) Substantial reduction In the amount of groundwater [ ] [) [ ] [x] otherwise available for public water supplies? J) Other ( ) I] [1 [] IJ -5- Potentially Slgnlficant Impact V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: [ ] [x] [1 I] a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an [ ] [] II existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) IXI b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) [ ] c) Create objectionable odors? ( ) [ ] d) Other ( ) [] VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Wouldthe [I II proposal result In: IXI 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? ( ) d) Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite? [ ] e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ ] f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting [ ] alternative transportation (e.g. bus stops, bicycle racks)( ) g) Disjointed pattern of roadway Improvements ( ) [ ] h) Other ( ) [ ] VII. 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) Oak Trees ( ) [ ] c) Wetland habitat or bluellne stream? ( ) [ ] d) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) [ ] e) Other ( ) [ ] VIII. ENERGY AND.MINERALRESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? [ ] -6- Potentially Significant Impact Unless Less than Mltlgatlon Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact [1 I1 [XI [ ] [x] [1 I] I I 11 [ ] IX] I 1 [] II IXI [l I IX] [1 [] [I II IX1 II [l [I IXI [ 1 [ I IXI [ I I I IXI [I I IX] I I1 [I II II IXI .7. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Use nonrenewable resources In a wasteful and [ ] [ ] [] [x] Inefficient manner? ( ) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral [ ] [ ] [) [x] resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) d) Other ( ) [] [] [] [] IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal Involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] hazardous substances (including but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? ( ) b) Possible Interference with an emergency response [ ] [ ] [ ] [xJ plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] hazard? ( ) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential [ ] [ ] [x] [ J health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)? ( ) e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, [ ] [ ] [] [x] grass, or trees? ( ) T) Other ( ) [] [] [] (1 X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) [ ] [ ] [x] (] b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels or [ J [ ] [ J [x] vibration? ( ) C) other ( ) [I [1 [] [] A. 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? ( ) [] [] (] [x] b) Police protection? ( ) [] [] [] [x] c) Schools? ( ) [] (] [] [x] d) Maintenance ainte)ante of pubic facilities, Including roads? [ ] [ ] [x] [] e) Other government services? ( [ ] [ ] [] [xJ .7. -8- Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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? ( ) [] [] [] [xJ b) Communications systems? ( ) [ ] [ ] [ 1 [x] c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution [ ] [ ] [] [x] facilities? ( ) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) [ ] [ ] [xJ [] e) Storm water drainage? ( ) [] [] [xt [J f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) [ ] [ ] [ ] [xJ g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) [ ] [ ] [ ] [xt h) Other ( ) [] [] [] [] XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista open to public view? ( ) [ ] [ ] [ J [xt b) Have a negative aesthetic effect? ( ) [ ] [ ] [] [x] c) Create light or glare? ( ) [ ] [ ] [] [] d) Other ( ) [] [] [] 11 XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological or archaeological [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] resources? b) Have the potential to cause a physical change which [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( j c) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] potential impact area? ( ) d) Affect a recognized historical site? ( ) [ ] [ ] [ ] [xt e) Other ( ) [] [] I I XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -8- XVIII. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSES: -g- Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term Impact on the environment is one which occurs In a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term Impacts will endure well into the future.) c) Does the project have Impacts which are [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] Individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (A project may Impact on two or more separate resources where the Impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those Impacts on the environment is significant.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME "DE MINUMUS" FINDING a) Will the project have an adverse effect either [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] 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." XVIII. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSES: -g- Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impact I. LAND USE AND The site of the proposed project is located in that area of PLANNING the city identified in the General Plan as the Town Center. The proposed use as a bus -to -bus passenger transfer center is consistent with the General Plan land use designation (CTC) and zoning (CTC) for the area, and is a permitted use subject to an approved Minor Use Permit. The subject site is an infill parcel, and development has occurred or is now occurring to the north, east, and south of the site, while development to the west is imminent. No significant impact is anticipated. H. POPULATION See project setting and description. The project will have AND HOUSING no direct or indirect effect on the increase or decrease of area population or jobs, or on housing resources. No significant impact is anticipated. -10- Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impact 111. GEOLOGIC The project site is currently rough -graded, approximately PROBLEMS level, and has been cleared of all vegetation due to past human activity and recent construction in the area. Project construction will result in soil compaction and overcovering of the site with asphalt paving (roadway) and concrete (central platform/sidewalks/etc), likely resulting in an overall short-term incremental increase in soil and water erosion (during construction) and an overall long- term incremental decrease in soil erosion (after consruction) due to the impervious nature of the proposed improvements. The site is located. approximately 1.1 miles southwest of the San Gabriel Fault (an A-0 Special Studies Hazard Zone), and is traversed by the Kew fault, recently identified as a seismically active fault. The site is also traversed by six active oil and gas pipelines. The presence of the Kew Fault and the pipelines precludes development of structures for human occupancy/habitation on the site. A geologic investigation of a larger property, of which this site is a part, was prepared by Allan E. Seward Engineering Geology, Inc., in August 1996. Conclusions and recommendations of that report are incorporated herein by reference, and shall be reviewed for applicability to this parcel; recommendations of that report will be incorporated into the project as appropriate and required. No significant impact is anticipated due to the short-term, incremental nature of erosion impacts, and the project's lack of structures for human occupancy/habitation. IV. WATER See preceding Section III, for discussion of the impacts of project construction. Overcovering of the site with impervious surfaces will result in long-term incremental changes in absorption rates (decrease), and rate/amount of surface runoff (increase). Project construction will include engineered curbs and gutters to contain and convey surface runoff to the stormwater drainage.system. No significant impact is anticipated. 11- Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impact V. AIR QUALITY Project construction will result in a localized, short-term incremental decrease in air quality at the site due to machinery exhaust fumes and fugitive dust. No significant impact is anticipated due to: 1) the short-term duration of construction activities; 2) standard construction practices which require minimization of fumes and dust during construction activities; and, 3) the lack of stationary sensitive receptors in the surrounding area, a heavily travelled commercial corridor. Project implementation will result in a localized, long-term incremental decrease in air quality at the site due to increased bus traffic. No significant impact is anticipated due to: 1) adherence to California standards for vehicular emissions through routine (and as needed) maintenance of the transit fleet; 2) short-term exposure of transit passengers to odors as they transfer to connecting routes; and, 3) the lack of stationary sensitive receptors in the surrounding area, a heavily travelled commercial corridor. Project implementation will result in no additional air quality violations in the area as the project represents a transfer of existing transit operations from one area of the City (Metrolink station) to another (Town Center area). The project may result in an incremental improvement to overall air quality through reduced bus travel times and elimination of duplicative service routes. _12_ Section and Evaluation of Impact Subsections VI. Project implementation will result in an incremental TRANSPORTATION/ increase in the number of local vehicle trips in the vicinity CIRCULATION of the. intersection of Valencia Boulevard and McBean Parkway, and a corresponding decrease at the intersection of Soledad Canyon Road and Commuter Way, adjacent to the existing bus transfer station at the Santa Clarita Metrolink station. Total number of trips which will be transferred from the existing location to the proposed site is 410 (ingress and egress 205 each). This trip number is for nine buses operating for approximately 14 hours/day. Approxiately 6-8/hour movements are proposed to occur at the right-in/right-out only access proposed on Valencia Boulvard, with remaining trips being accomodate at the signalized intersection at McBean Parkway, across from the Town Center. Access to the site will be restricted to buses only. (No significant impact is anticipated.) VII. BIOLOGICAL See project setting and description. The project will have RESOURCES no direct or indirect effect on the biological resources of the site. Additionally, the subject site is an infill parcel, and development has occurred or is now occurring to the north, east, and south of the site, while development to the west is imminent. No significant impact is anticipated. VIII. ENERGY AND See project setting and description. The project will have MINERAL no direct or indirect effect on the energy and mineral RESOURCES resources of the site. No significant impact is anticipated. IX. HAZARDS The project site is traversed east to west (length 160 feet) by six undergrounded oil and gas pipelines, which pass-- beneath the property approximately 210 feet off the centerline of Valencia Blvd., at the southern end of the parcel. The presence of the Kew Fault and the pipelines precludes development of structures for human occupancy/habitation on the site, as previously identified in Section III. No significant impact is anticipated due to the project's lack of structures for human occupancy/habitation. -13- Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impact X. NOISE Project construction will result in a localized, short-term incremental increase in noise at the site due to heavy machinery. No significant impact is anticipated due to: 1) the short-term duration of construction activities; 2) standard construction practices which require minimization of noise and which regulate the hours and days of construction activity; and, 3) the lack of adjacent sensitive noise receptors in the surrounding area, a heavily travelled commercial corridor. Project implementation will result in a localized, long-term incremental increase in noise at the site due to increased bus traffic. No significant impact is anticipated due to: 1) adherence to California standards for vehicular noise controls through routine (and as needed) maintenance of the transit fleet; 2) short-term exposure of transit passengers to noise as they transfer to connecting routes; and, 3) the lack of adjacent sensitive noise receptors in the surrounding area, a heavily travelledcommercial corridor. XI. PUBLIC Project implementation will result in an incremental SERVICES increase in facility maintenance costs. No significant impact is anticipated as funds exist to cover the minor maintenance costs expected for this facility. .14. Section and Evaluation of Impact Subsections XII. UTILITIES The site is proposed to be served by an onsite septic system due to elevation differences between the parcel pad and existing sewer lines in the adjacent streets. No significant impact is anticipated. See preceding Sections 111 and IV, for discussion of the impacts of project construction. Overcovering of the site with impervious surfaces will result in long-term incremental changes in the rate and amount of surface runoff (increase) and the quality of stormwater runoff (incremental deterioration). Project construction will include engineered curbs, gutters, basins, drains and other improvements to contain and convey surface runoff to the stormwater drainage system. Additionally, the project shall incorporate, through design and/or Best Management Practices as identified in the City's Stormwater runoff Ordinance. No significant impact is anticipated. XIII. AESTHETICS XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES .is- MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities I. LAND USE AND PLANNING 1-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring ActioniTiming: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: H. POPULATION AND HOUSING 2-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS 3-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: IV. WATER 4-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: V. AIR QUALITY 5-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring ActionlTiming: " Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION 6-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing.- Enforcing, ction/Timing:Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: -16- Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 7.1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 8-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: IX. HAZARDS 9-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: X. NOISE 10-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: XI. PUBLIC SERVICES 11.1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency. XII. UTILITIES 12-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring ActionfTiming: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: XIII. AESTHETICS -17- Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Activities 13-1. Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Actionffiming: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES 14-1.Mitigation: Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring ActionFBming: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: cdf ormslenvfrmb2.frm -18- tms. TOWN CENTER DRIVE (1) Rest. (�) (x,500 Retail ) 91400Off ice 42,000 Retail 0,700 Rest. 4,500 y\ rJ ;1) Parking Structure i to Ctr. 3 � C oe oeo + l 130 •\\ �° �G�iViC 7a l/�ENa,A wo i 41136.5 r 3.6 `400 11 li, JQ I G r Town gyp, fel Center/North Hills Valencia Company 1 i 0 50 100 200 r� FEET 0 10 20 50 r%M7TERS 5-1�r-q) 0 50 100 200 r� FEET 0 10 20 50 r%M7TERS 5-1�r-q)