The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2000-03-28 - AGENDA REPORTS - NEGDEC TMF (2)NEW BUSINESS DATE: SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT City Manager Approval: Item to be presented by: March 28, 2000 RESOLUTION APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED FOR THE TRANSIT MAINTENANCE FACILITY PROJECT Transportation & Engineering Services RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council adopt a resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the preferred Transit Maintenance Facility project site in the Rye Canyon Business Park, and direct staff to file a Notice of Determination. BACKGROUND In February 1997, City Council approved the Transportation Development Plan, which identified the growth needs of the City's transit system over the next 20 years, including needed facilities to serve the present system and future service expansion. In response to the findings, Council subsequently directed the preparation of the Transit Maintenance Facility Study (Phase One) in June 1997 to determine the size, possible location, and approximate cost of the Transit Maintenance Facility (TMF). The City's existing transit facility, built in 1969, is located in the Valencia Industrial Park and was not designed for bus maintenance. The existing facility services a fleet of 72 vehicles, but is adequate for only 25-30 vehicles. The size of the facility allows for the inspection of no more than three vehicles at any given time, has no on-site fueling capacity, and does not have adequate parking for the City's transit fleet. Currently, the fleet is parked at three off-site locations, with the farthest site being six miles away. The existing facility has been identified in three separate external audits as severely deficient in all respects. These inefficiencies increase operating costs by approximately $1 million annually. Phase I of the proposed TMF project consists of the acquisition of an 11.4 -acre to 12.3 -acre site, and construction of facilities to meet existing needs and short-term expansion for the next five to ten Years. While exact square footages are yet to be determined, Phase I would address all deficiencies and would provide for the use of alternate fuels to meet new regulations expected in the next 12 months. At buildout, the TMT would provide approximately 53,800 square feet for fleet alapted: 4-2&-s o. 06 43 Pda 80-21. RESOLUTION APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE TRANSIT MAINTENANCE FACILITY PROJECT March 28, 2000 — Page 2 maintenance and 18,200 square feet for operations and administrative functions. The Mitigated Negative Declaration addresses the TMF at ultimate buildout, as required by CEQA. The process to identify and pursue potential locations for the development of the TMF was undertaken as a component of the City's TMF Study, approved by City Council on March 10, 1998. Siting criteria in the study were developed by Transit, Planning, and Engineering staff, in concert with consultants retained by the City to provide technical support on the project. A list of 20 sites in the Santa Clarita Valley that meet minimum criteria was prepared from multiple sources, including the real estate community; and a table of the attributes and constraints of each site was developed. From the sites listed, four were determined suitable for further evaluation: Saugus Speedway, Valley Business Center, Porta Bella, and Rye Canyon Business Park. At City Council's direction, staff subsequently undertook this review of the final four sites, evaluating each on the basis of accessibility, availability and readiness, and potential for environmental liability/remediation. Upon evaluation and consideration of the attributes and constraints for all of the potential sites, the Rye Canyon Business Park became the preferred site, and staff prepared the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the subject site. The preferred site is at the southeast corner of future Galaxy Way and future Constellation Road, about 2,000 feet north of the intersection of Newhall Ranch Road and Copper Hill Drive. It is rough - graded, relatively level, and has been cleared of vegetation under previous City approvals. The westerly quarter of the site is traversed by the San Gabriel Fault, considered to be an active fault, and has been identified as a "Restricted Use Zone" (RUZ). The presence of the RUZ prohibits development of structures for human occupancy within the zone, but allows for parking, interior circulation, landscaping and setback requirements, and similar nonstructural uses. This location was previously studied as part of a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Prepared for the Rye Canyon Business Park, adopted by City Council in 1996. Environmental issues analyzed in the proposed MND are specifically related to transit operations, and included a traffic study, air quality/directional review, noise study, and review of geologic/seismic conditions to ensure the TMF's ultimate compatibility with the RUZ. In each area, the environmental impact was determined to be less than significant because mitigation measures identified in the Program EIR and the MND will be conditioned on the project. The MND has been circulated to public agencies and made available for public review per CEQA requirements. At the time of this writing, no comments had been received from any agency or the public. In addition to the four sites previously determined, staff has currently been approached by the owners of Porta Bella and the Santa Clarita Business Park with alternative site proposals for a Transit Maintenance Facility. Staff will continue to evaluate these two recently proposed sites prior to RESOLUTION APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE TRANSIT MAINTENANCE FACILITY PROJECT March 28, 2000 — Page 3 obtaining a final approval to purchase property for this facility. Approval of the CEQA documents for the currently preferred site simply allows staff to continue to move forward on this project, minimizing the potential for lapsing any secured funds specific to this project, and thereby keeping all site options open for future consideration by Council. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Other action as determined by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT Total estimated cost of the Transportation Maintenance Facility is $25.5 million. At this time, staff intends to request that construction of the TMF be phased for current and short-term growth needs, with future construction phased as needed. Phase I is estimated to cost approximately $16.5 million, with 80 percent federal funds ($13.2 million) matched by 20 percent local funds ($3.3 million). To date $9.6 million of federal funds have been secured leaving a Phase I federal funding shortfall of $3.6 million. Staff is currently seeking the balance of federal funding on two separate fronts. First, Congressman McKeon is aggressively pursuing $3.25 million to be included in the 2000-2001 federal budget. Second, staff has also prepared a grant application for the MTA 2000 Call for Projects seeking $1.2 million of federal funding. If both efforts to secure additional federal funding are successful, the federal funding portion of the TMF Phase I will be complete. To date, $200,000 of Proposition C funds have been budgeted towards the $3.3 million local funding required to construct Phase I of the TMF. In addition, there are currently $1.1 million of local funds available that can be obligated to the project. Staff is also planning on submitting a grant application to the MTA through their 2001 Call for Projects that will attempt to secure $2.53 million in local match funding. If that grant is successful, the local -match portion of the TMF Phase I will also be fully funded. ATTACHMENT Resolution Proposed Site Location Conceptual Site Plan Mitigated Negative Declaration (available for review in the City Clerk's reading file) \t=Sit\agendaXt fceg6.dm LEGEND Figure 1 =MCISTI NG ROADWAY-- UTURE ROADWAY City of Santa Clarita 2 Transit Maintenance Facility - Traffic Study Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 699001ts.wpd 'i V U Santa Clarita Transit Maintenance Facility Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared by: City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, California 91355 Prepared with the assistance of. Rincon Consultants, Inc. 709 E. Santa Clara Street Ventura, California 93001 February 2000 This report is printed on 50% recycled paper with 10% post-consumer content and chlorine-free virgin pulp. Santa Clarita Transit Maintenance Facility Initial Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Initial Study LeadAgency........................................................................................................................................... 1 Contact Person and Phone Number.......................................................................................................1 MasterCase or CIP Number.................................................................................................................. 1 EntitlementTypes...................................................................................................................................1 ProjectIntroduction.................................................................................................................................1 ProjectLocation......................................................................................................................................1 GeneralPlan Designation.......................................................................................................................1 ZoningDesignation.................................................................................................................................1 ProjectApplicant.....................................................................................................................................1 Project Description and Setting..............................................................................................................1 PreviousEnvironmental Review............................................................................................................. 3 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting.......................................................................................................4 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required............................................................................. 5 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected............................................................................................ 6 Determination......................................................................................................................................... 6 EnvironmentalImpacts........................................................................................................................... 9 Discussion of Environmental Impacts and/or Earlier Analysis LandUse and Planning.................................................................................................................. 21 Populationand Housing................................................................................................................. 21 GeologicProblems......................................................................................................................... 21 Water..............................................................................................................................................25 Stormwater Management and Recycling....................................................................................... 30 AirQuality ........................................................................................................................................ 32 Transportation and Circulation....................................................................................................... 34 BiologicalResources...................................................................................................................... 36 Energy and Mineral Resources.. ** ... * ... "*** .......... * .... * .... ** ... * ... * ... * ........ , ... "*'*"* .... *, .......... ,* ........... esources...................................................................................................... *37 Hazards.......................................................................................................................................... 37 Noise.............................................................................................................................................. 38 PublicServices............................................................................................................................... 39 Utilities............................................................................................................................................ 39 Aesthetics..................................................:.................................................................................... 40 CulturalResources....................................................................................:.................................... 40 Recreation...................................................................................................................................... 40 Identification of Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Actions.............................................................. 41 References........................................................................................................................................... 51 List of Figures Figure1 Regional Location..................................................................................................................46 Figure2 Project Vicinity .......................................................................................................................47 Figure 3 Site Plan and Location of Alquist Prioio Zone....................................................................... 48 Figure 4 Studied Intersection Locations..............................................................................................49 Figure5 Lane Configurations ............................................................................................................... 50 Santa Clarita Transit Maintenance Facility Initial Studv Appendices Appendix A: Noise Technical Data Appendix B: Traffic and Circulation Study Clarita ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Initial Study Form B) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Lead Agency: Contact Person & Phone Number: Master Case or CIP Number: Entitlement Type(s): City of Santa Clarita Don Williams, Senior Planner City of Santa Clarita (661) 294-2522 4] Capital Improvement Project No. F0003 Minor Use Permit No. 00 -TBA Project Introduction: The applicant proposes to acquire through purchase approximately 11.4 to 12.3 acres of land and to construct an approximately 72,000 sq. ft. facility for the administrative, maintenance, and operations functions of the City's transit fleet. Project Location: The proposed project site is located at the southeast corner of the future intersection of proposed Galaxy Way and proposed Constellation Road, approximately 2,000 feet north of the intersection of Newhall Ranch Road and Copper Hill Drive, and approximately 6,000 feet east of the Interstate 5 (I-5) Freeway. (Thomas Bros. Page 4460/D6). Figures 1 and 2 show the location of the project site in a regional and local context. General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation(s): Project Applicant: (Name, Address, Phone) Project Description and Setting: Business Park (BP) Business Park (BP) City of Santa Clarita, T&ES/Transit Division 25663 Avenue Stanford Santa Clarita, CA 91355 (661)294-2522 The project consists of the acquisition through purchase of an approximately 11.4 to 12.3 acre site, and new construction on that site of an approximately 72,000 sq. ft. transit maintenance facility (TMF) for the administrative, maintenance, and operations functions of the City's transit fleet. The parcel proposed for acquisition is identified as future Lot No. 2 of Tract Map No. 52673-02, and is presently comprised of portions of Los Angeles County Assessor Parcel Nos. 2866-006-007, -023, and -032. (A new number would be assigned upon recordation of Tract Map No. 52673-02, which is pending.) Lot No. 2 is an irregularly-shaped vacant parcel of 496,985 sq. ft. (11.41 acres), with primary access from proposed Galaxy Way and proposed Constellation Road. Upon acquisition, the City proposes construction of an approximately 72,000 sq. ft. structure, and ancillary facilities, to house and support administrative, maintenance, and operations functions of the City's transit unit, Santa Clarita Transit, which is comprised of City employees and a private contractor. The TMF will include: • Approximately 53,800 sq. ft. for maintenance offices, repair bays (14), shops, parts storage, employee facilities, training rooms, etc.; • Approximately 18,200 sq. ft. for administration and operations functions; • Ancillary structures/systems for on-site fueling (including underground fuel storage tanks), automated washing/cleaning functions (with water reclamation system), and related operations; • Approximately 7.8 acres for fleet parking/storage, employee parking, and on-site circulation; and, • Approximately 2.8 acres to accommodate local planning and design requirements (setbacks, landscaping, etc.) and probable future expansion to accommodate alternative fuels, (e.g., a compressed natural gas compressor and storage area). Figure 3 illustrates the site plan for the proposed project. On completion, the TMF will replace the City's existing main bus facility located at 25663 Avenue Stanford, Santa Clarita, and will eliminate the need for fleet parking/storage at three off-site locations. The TMF is projected to meet the current and future needs of Santa Clarita Transit's system buildout, by accommodating the ultimate fleet (150 vehicles) and workforce (284 employees) required to adequately serve the General Plan population and housing projections in the City and in the unincorporated Santa Clarita Valley. The proposed project site is rough -graded, relatively level, and has been recently cleared of vegetation under previous planning and environmental approvals. The westerly quarter of the site is traversed north to south by the San Gabriel Fault, an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Hazard Zone, and has been identified as a "Restricted Use Zone" (RUZ) in the Rye Canyon Business Park Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), a program EIR. The presence of the San Gabriel Fault, considered to be an active fault, prohibits development of structures for human occupancy within the RUZ. Previous Environmental Review: As referenced above, the proposed project site has previously undergone exhaustive environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as part of the FEIR for the Rye Canyon Business Park (RC13P). (The RCBP is comprised of an approximately 377.1 acre site, with 502,000 sq. ft. of existing development, and planninglenvironmental approvals for an additional 3.498 million square feet of development. The TMF represents approximately two percent of the total new development approved.) The FEIR, certified by the City in April 1996, analyzed the following environmental issue areas: Earth, Geotechnical Hazards, Seismicity, Grading, Hydrology, Land Use, Biotic Resources, Air Quality, Transportation and Circulation, Public Services, Utilities, Visual Resources and Aesthetics, and Risk of Upset/Human Made Hazards. Environmental issues determined not to require analysis in the FEIR were: Noise, Light and Glare, Natural Resources, Energy, Human Health, and Cultural Resources. 3 Of the thirteen issues analyzed, only impacts to Air Quality could not be mitigated to a residual impact of "Not Significant," and the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration for the RCBP. For reasons set forth here in Section VI, Air Quality, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on air quality. The remaining twelve issues were determined to be less than significant, subject to the implementation of mitigation measures applied to the comprehensive development of the business park. The mitigation measures identified in the FEIR's Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) separately and collectively apply to development of the proposed project site and are herein incorporated by reference. Additional analysis pursuant to this Initial Study is intended to facilitate on-site implementation of mitigation measures previously identified and documented in the FEIR/MMP, and to determine the need for additional project -specific mitigation, if any. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The proposed project site is within the Rye Canyon Business Park, 25100 Rye Canyon Road, Santa Clarita. The land use, General Plan designation, and zoning of adjacent and surrounding properties are as follows: • NORTH — Graded, cleared, vacant land, proposed business park uses as part of the RCBP, and (2) proposed industrial collector streets (84' right-of-way); General Plan (BP); zoning (BP). • WEST — Graded, cleared, vacant land, proposed business park uses as part of the RCBP; San Gabriel Fault A -P Zone/Restricted Use Zone; General Plan (BP); zoning (BP). • SOUTH -- Graded, cleared, vacant land, proposed business park uses as part of the RCBP; injection well to natural gas storage field (Southern California Gas Company); high voltage electrical transmission lines (Southern California Edison); General Plan (BP); zoning (BP). 4 • EAST — Graded and natural slopes, proposed by the owner (Valencia Company) for flood control easements, a proposed industrial collector street (84' right-of-way), and proposed single-family residential (closest residential use, property line to property line, approximately 600', structure to structure, approximately 1000'). Property is in the County of Los Angeles — General Plan Land Use UI -U2 (various low -to -moderate residential densities); existing zoning is A2-5 (Heavy Agriculture, 5 -acre minimum lot), proposed zoning is RPD 5000-8.6U (moderate density residential). The City's adopted General Plan land use designation for the property is Residential Suburban (3.4 to 6.6 du/acre). The residential property has not been prezoned by the City. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): Federal Transit Administration (DOT). 1.1 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 [x] Geological Problems [ ] Noise [ J Aesthetics [ ] Water [ ] Hazards [ ] Cultural Resources [x] Stormwater [ ] Mandatory Tests of [ ] Utilities and Service Management & Significance System Recycling [ ] Air Quality DETERMINATION: [ ] Energy and Mineral Resources On the basis of this initial evaluation: [ J I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [x] 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 impact on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [ J 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 is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 2 [x] 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 imposed upon the proposed project. Prepar d By: (Signature) Approved By: (Signature) Donald M. Williams Senior Planner (Name/Title) Fred Follstad Senior Planner (Name/Title) U (Date) 2 -17-- 2'ack (Date) 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 [ J [) [ ] [x] designation or zoning? b) Conflict with applicable [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] land use in the city? d) Disrupt or divide the physical [ ] [ J [ ] [x] arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? e) Affect a Significant Ecological [) [ ] [ ] [x] Area (SEA)? f) Other [ J [ ] [) [x) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] regional or local population projections? b) Create a net loss of jobs? [ ) [ ] [ ] 1x] 0 10 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Displace existing housing, [ J [ ] (] [x] especially affordable housing? d) Other [ ] [ J [) (x] III GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Will the proposal result in: a) Unstable earth conditions or in [ ] [ ] (] (x] changes in geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, [ ] [ ] [x) [J compaction or overcovering of the soil? C) Change in topography or [ ] [ ] (] [x] ground surface relief features? d) The destruction, covering or [ ] (] [] [x] modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water [ ] [ ] [] [x] erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f) Exposure of people or property [ ] [x] (] [] to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? g) Changes in deposition, erosion [ ] [ ] (] [x] or siltation? 10 11 Less than Significant No Impact Impact [ l [xl Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated h) Other modification of a wash, [ ] ( ] channel, creek, or river? i) 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 [ ] [x] Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? 1) Other [ l [ l 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 [ l [ ] to water related hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface 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? 11 Less than Significant No Impact Impact [ l [xl e) W, g) h) i) D V a) Impacts to groundwater quality? [ ] [x] Substantial reduction in the [ ] [ J [ ] [x] amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING. Would the proposal result in: Would the proposed project [ ] [xJ [ J [ ] result in storm water system discharges from areas for materials storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste 12 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Changes in currents, or the [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] course of direction of water movements? Changes in the quantity of [ ] [ ] [ ] [xJ 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 [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] of groundwater? Impacts to groundwater quality? [ ] [x] Substantial reduction in the [ ] [ J [ ] [x] amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Other [ ] [ ] [ ] [x] STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING. Would the proposal result in: Would the proposed project [ ] [xJ [ J [ ] result in storm water system discharges from areas for materials storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste 12 Potentially Significant Impact handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? b) Would the proposed project [] result in a significant environmentally harmful increase in the flow rate or volume of the project site or surrounding areas? c) Would the proposed project [ ] result in storm water discharges that would significantly impair the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefits (e.g., riparian corridors, wetlands, etc.)? d) Would the proposed project [ ] cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage systems and water bodies? e) Does the proposed project [ ] include provisions for the separation and reuse of materials? VI AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard [ J or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? 13 Potentially Significant Impact Unless Less than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact 14 Less than Significant No Impact Impact [xI [ I IxI I I Potentially [xI Significant Impact Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated b) Expose sensitive receptors to [ ] [ ] pollutants? c) Create objectionable odors? [) [ ] d) Other [ ] ( ] VII TRANSPORTATION/ CIRCULATION. 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? d) Insufficient parking capacity on [ ] [ ] or offsite? e) Hazards . or barriers for [) [ ] pedestrians or bicyclists? 0 Conflicts with adopted policies [) [ ) supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus stops, bicycle racks)? g) Disjointed pattern of roadway improvements h) Other (] ( ] 14 Less than Significant No Impact Impact [xI [ I IxI I I [ I [xI [XI [ I II [xI Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VIII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. IX. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare [ ] [ ] (] [XJ species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Oak trees? [ ] (] (] [X] c) Wetland habitat or blueline [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] stream? d) Wildlife dispersal or migration [ ] [ ] (] [X] corridors? e) Other X. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy [ ] [ ] (] [X] conservation plans? b) Use nonrenewable resources in a [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] wasteful and inefficient manner? C) Result in the loss of availability [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] of a known mineral resource that would be*of future value to the region and the residents of the State? d) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] (X] iF� Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated X. 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 [ J emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard [ ] or potential health hazard? d) Exposure of people to existing [ J 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 [ J XI NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise [] levels? b) Exposure of people to severe [ ] noise levels or vibration? 16 Less than Significant No Impact Impact [ J [xJ [ ] [ J [xJ [ ] [J IJ I [xJ [x] [] [ ] [] [xJ [ J e) Other government services? [) [ ] [X] [ J XIII. 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] b) Communications systems? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] c) Local or regional water treatment [) [ J [ ] [X] or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? [ ] [ ] Potentially e) Storm water drainage? [ ] [ ] (] [X] f) Significant [ ] [X] g) Local or regional water supplies? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] Impact Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Other [) [ ] [ ] [X] XI PUBLIC SERVICES. Would I. 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 of pubic facilities, [ ] [ ] ( ] [X] including roads? e) Other government services? [) [ ] [X] [ J XIII. 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? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] b) Communications systems? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] c) Local or regional water treatment [) [ J [ ] [X] or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] e) Storm water drainage? [ ] [ ] (] [X] f) Solid waste disposal? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] g) Local or regional water supplies? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] 17 c) Create light or glare? [ ] () [x] ( ) d) Other (] [ ] [ j [x] XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Potentially Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological or [ j [ ] Significant archaeological resources? b) Impact (] [x] physical change which would Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No [ ] [xj Impact Incorporated Impact Impact h) Other [ ] [ ] [ ] (x] XIV. AESTHETICS e) Other O (] (j [x] Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista open to [ ] [ ] (] (x] public view? b) Have a negative aesthetic effect? [ ] [ ] (x] ( ] c) Create light or glare? [ ] () [x] ( ) d) Other (] [ ] [ j [x] XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological or [ j [ ] (] [x] archaeological resources? b) Have the potential to cause a [ j [ ] (] [x] physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? c) Restrict existing religious or [) [ ] [ ] [xj sacred uses within the potential impact area? d) Affect a recognized historical [ j [ ] [ ] [x] site? e) Other O (] (j [x] 18 XVI. RECREATION a) Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreation opportunities? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I ] [ l I l [xl XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the [ ] [ ] (] (x] potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the [] [] (] Ixl potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) C) Does the project have impacts [ ] [ ] (] Ixl which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d) Does the project have [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIII. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME `DE MINUMUS' FINDING a) Will the project have an adverse [ ] [ ] [ ] [X] effect either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources? Wildlife shall be defined for the purpose of this question as "all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. for its continued viability." . 20 XIX. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSES: Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impact I. LAND USE AND The General Plan land use designation for the proposed project site is PLANNING Business Park (BP), and the site is zoned Business Park (BP), consistent with the General Plan. The BP designation and zone are intended to provide for light industrial park uses, limited retail commercial, limited office research and development, and light manufacturing and warehousing. Development and operation of a transit maintenance facility is not permitted by right in the BP zone, but is allowed subject to an approved Minor Use Permit (MUP), and application of conditions of approval to mitigate potential adverse impacts. The project site is not within a Significant Ecological Area (SEA). It is surrounded on all sides by business park development of vacant land designated for future business park development. The proposed transit maintenance facility would not create any significant compatibility conflicts with these uses. This issue area was previously analyzed in the RCBP Program EIR and was determined to have no impact, or to be less than significant subject to imposed mitigation measures. (RCBP, Draft EIR, page 177.) H. POPULATION The proposed project is non-residential in nature and will have no AND HOUSING direct impact on existing or future housing. The proposal will have no substantial cumulative impacts on official regional or local population projections, and is intended to serve the existing population and growth projected in the City's adopted General Plan as well as other growth in the region. The proposed project will not induce substantial growth either directly or indirectly. This issue area was previously analyzed in the RCBP Program EIR and was determined to have no impabt, or to be less than significant subject to imposed mitigation measures. (RCBP, Draft EIR, page 159.) III. GEOLOGIC The project site is currently rough -graded, approximately level, and PROBLEMS has been cleared of vegetation. Project construction will result in soil compaction and over -covering of the site with structures, concrete, and other impervious surfaces resulting in a short-term, localized incremental increase in erosion (during construction) and a long-term, localized decrease in soil and water erosion (after construction). 21 Section and Subsections I Evaluation of Standard erosion control practices during construction, in combination with the mitigation measures included in the RCBP DEIR (page 144) would mitigate impacts relating to erosion to a less than significant level. The westerly quarter of the site is traversed north to south by the Sap Gabriel Fault, an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Hazard Zone, and has been identified as a "Restricted Use Zone" (RUZ). The location of the San Gabriel Fault Special Studies Zone is shown on Figure 3. The presence of the San Gabriel Fault, an active fault, prohibits development of structures for human occupancy in the RUZ. This issue area (which included geotechnical hazards, seismicity, grading) was previously analyzed in the RCBP Program EIR, and was determined to have no impact, or to be less than significant subject to imposed mitigation measures. (RCBP, DEIR, page 117.) These mitigation measures are further identified and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (RCBP, FEIR, Section 5. 1, pages 2- 26) of the FEIR.. Specific site impacts relating to the San Gabriel Fault Special Studies Zone and seismically -induced groundshaking are discussed below. San Gabriel Fault Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. Extensive geological and geotechnical studies (Neblett & Associates, 1998, Pacific Soils Engineering, 1993) have been conducted within the Rye Canyon development area. The studies included the completion of fault trenches in the area of the suspected fault, and the drilling and logging of soil borings. These studies have located Holocene -age fault offsets near and across part of the site. They have also trenched beyond what they consider Holocene -age offsets. Thus, the fault evaluations have determined the fault zone, fault zone setbacks, and areas that are not affected by Holocene -age offset. The proposed site plan for the transit facility appears to consider the fault zone in its location of onsite structures. Per the map, no buildings are proposed to be constructed within the mapped fault zone. The fault zone area is proposed to be used for bus and automobile parking. Construction of a parking lot within the fault zone is an acceptable use of the site. In order to ensure that significant impacts relating to fault rupture do not occur, the following is required: 1 Section and Subsections I Evaluation of Buildings shall be set back from active traces of the San Gabriel fault by at least 50 feet (outside the area depicted on Figure 3). The building locations shall follow Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone requirements. Utility lines that are within the fault zone shall be designed to mitigate failure of the systems as a result of ground displacement. Mitigation for utility lines can include flexible connections and automatic shutoff valves, as appropriate. Implementation of the above requirements would mitigate impacts relating to fault rupture to a level considered less than significant. Seismically -Induced Ground Shaking. The project area is within the Transverse Ranges geologic province, which is extensively faulted with known active faults. Some of the large faults in or near the province include the San Gabriel (which passes through the site), Holser (1.7 miles to the west), Oak Ridge (9 miles to the west), San Cayetano (10 miles to the west), and San Andreas (17 miles to the northeast). There are also many localized faults throughout the province. The proximity of active faults is such that the project area has experienced strong seismically induced ground motion and will probably experience continued strong seismically induced ground motion in the future. Per the Uniform Building Code (1997), the site is within seismic zone 4. Seismic ground accelerations are generally calculated in two ways. The Deterministic Approach calculates ground accelerations based on the distance between a fault and the property in question, the ground type, the type of fault motion, and an attenuation relationship that fits the site conditions. The Probabilistic Approach attempts to model the probability of a specified ground acceleration affecting a site within a specified timeframe. Estimates of peak ground acceleration from the faults most likely to affect the site based upon the Deterministic Approach are shown below: 23 Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impact Deterministic Peak Accelerations From Major Area Faults Moment Magnitude' Fault Name Peak Ground Acceleration (g)" San Gabriel 7.0 0.58 Holser 6.5 0.59 Oak Ridge 6.9 0.33 San Cayetano 6.8 0.29 San Andreas (Mojave section) 7.1 0.17 a Moment magnitude as described by California Division of Mines & Geology, 1996. b Based upon attenuation relationship ofSadigh et al, 1997. The California Division of Mines & Geology (CDMG) has completed a probabilistic ground acceleration for California. The CDMG model shows a 10% chance of a peak ground acceleration exceeding 0.7-0.9 g over a 50 -year time frame. Although the estimated ground shaking from the Holser fault (0.59g) is slightly greater than that calculated for the San Gabriel fault (0.58 g), the Holser fault is considered potentially active (Quaternary -age movement), whereas the San Gabriel fault is considered active (Holocene -age movement). Consequently, the strongest ground -shaking event at the site is likely to result from a rupture of the San Gabriel Fault. Earthquakes along these faults could produce damage to structures on-site. Although nothing can ensure that structures do not fail under seismic stress, proper engineering, including the requirements identified below, can minimize the risk to life and property. In addition to the requirements listed in the RCBP FEIR, the following measure is required: 24 Section and Subsections I Evaluation of IV. WATER Design and construction of on-site buildings shall be engineered to withstand the expected ground acceleration that may occur at this site, as outlined in the Uniform Building Code requirements for Seismic Zone 4. The design shall take into consideration the soil type, potential for liquefaction, and the most current and applicable seismic attenuation methods that are available. Implementation of these requirements would reduce the impact relating to groundshaking to a level considered less than significant. The proposed project is of a type and scale consistent with land uses identified in the RCBP Specific Plan. Water usage associated with the proposed project is reflected in the projections for future water consumption identified in the City's General Plan (and associated FEIR) and would not increase water demand beyond that identified therein. Due to the placement of impervious surfaces and drainage improvements, localized on-site absorbency rates and drainage patterns will be modified. Although a small amount of grading is proposed, landscaping and paving of the proposed project site area combined with standard engineering requirements will ensure that there will be no changes in exposure of people or property to water related hazards or discharge into surface waters. The proposed project would include the installation of underground storage tanks at the site for the storage of vehicle fuels. The installation of underground storage tanks could potentially affect groundwater quality at the site, if leaks of vehicle fuels from the tanks occur. Depth to groundwater at the site ranges from approximately 25 feet to 40 feet below ground surface (Neblett and Associates, 1998). Standard 12,000 -gallon storage tanks are typically located about 15 feet below ground surface. The installation and monitoring of these tanks would be subject to the regulations of the California Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program. The UST program regulates the use of USTs in the State of California, through the development of regulations contained within Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 16, Articles 1 through 10 of the California Code of Regulations. These regulations were developed pursuant to Chapters 25 Section and Subsections I Evaluation Storage of Hazardous Substances Law and 1996/97 amendments. The purpose of the UST Program is to, "...preserve and enhance the quality of California's water resources by promoting leak prevention through guidance and provide training to the regulated community and local regulators. " The UST Program is under the purview of the State Water Resources Control Board, within that agency's Division of Clean Water Programs. The following is a summary of the UST Program requirements for the installation and monitoring of tanks and pipelines that store hazardous substances, including motor vehicle fuels. Next to each requirement is the reference to the original statutes and regulations. Unless otherwise indicated ("CFR" for example), references refer to Title 23 Division 3, Chapter 16, Articles I through 10 of the California Code of Regulations (UST Regulations). The tank operator has the following options as to the type of tank that can be installed: Install a primary tank integral with secondary containment, also called a double walled tank, that: • Is approved by an independent testing organization in accordance with industry codes, voluntary consensus . standards, or engineering standards; • Is compatible with stored product; has external corrosion protection; and • Has wear/striker plates installed, center to center, below all accessible openings (§2631(a), (b), and (c); §2635(x)(2), (b)(1), and (b)(2); CFR § 280.32). 2. Install a primary tank separate from secondary containment, also called a vaulted tank or a tank installed in a membrane - lined pit, in which: • Both primary and secondary containment are compatible with stored product; • Both primary and secondary containment are corrosion protected; • The primary containment is approved by an independent testing organization in accordance with industry codes, voluntary consensus standards, or engineering standards; 30 Section and Subsections I Evaluation of Secondary containment is designed and constructed according to an engineering specification approved by a state registered professional engineer or according to a nationally recognized industry code or engineering standard (§2631(a), (b), and (d); §2635(a)(2), (b)(1), and (b)(2); CFR § 280.32). For either type of tank chosen for installation, the operator is required to install a spill container. The installation of a spill container is required around each fill pipe. The operator must choose a spill container that: • If made of metal, has exterior corrosion protection; • Has a minimum capacity of five gallons (19 liters); • Has a drain valve, which allows drainage of the collected spill into the primary container. If the spill container does not have a drain valve the owner or operator will have to provide another way to keep the spill container empty (§2635(b) and §2665). In addition, for either'type of tank chosen the operator is required to install an overfill prevention device. There are five types of overfill prevention devices available for installation. The types of devices available and their performance criteria are listed below: 1. 'ATG or Product Overfill Alarm. These devices alert the transfer operator with an audible and visual alarm when product reaches 90% of tank capacity (§2635(b)(2)); 2. Ball float vent valve in the vent/vapor recovery line. This device alerts the transfer operator by restriction of product flow into the tank when product reaches 90% of tank capacity (§2635 (b)(2)); 3. Delivery of flow to the tank is restricted at least 30 minutes before the tank overfills, provided the restriction occurs when the tank is filled to no more than 95% capacity; an audible alarm sounds at least five minutes before the tank overfills (this type of overfill prevention device is not commonly used) (§2635(b)(2)); 4. Fill tube positive shutoff valve set at 95% of tank capacity. Dispensing of product into the tank is positively shut-off when product reaches 95% of tank capacity (§26359(b)(2)); or 5. Fill tube positive shutoff valve set at a level so that fittings do not contact product. Dispensing of product into the tank is positively shut-off at a level such that none of the fittings 27 Section and Subsections I Evaluation located at the top of the tank are exposed to product due tc overfilling (§2635(b)(2)). The local agency may waive the requirement for overfill protection if all of the following are satisfied: a) the tank inlet system exists in an observable area; b) the tank system is filled by transfers of no more than 25 gallons at one time; and c) the spill contained is adequate to collect any overfill (§2635(b)(3)). A method of monitoring the tank must also be installed. The two methods of monitoring recommended are as follows: 1. Visual monitoring of the primary containment of vaulted tanks. This involves the monitoring of all exterior surfaces of the underground storage tank and the surface of the floor directly beneath the underground storage tank daily by direct viewing (§2632(c)(1); or 2. Interstitial monitoring of double -walled tanks. This requires the installation of a continuous monitoring system that is connected to an audible and visual alarm (§2632(c)(2) and (Califomia Health and Safety Code §25291(a)(6)). There are also requirements for the installation and monitoring of pipelines 7 that store hazardous substances, including motor vehicle fuels. These requirements are listed below. For the installation of new piping used in storing hazardous substances, including motor vehicle fuels, the following methods are available: Install primary piping . integral with the secondary containment, or double -walled piping. This requires choosing piping that: • Is approved by an independent testing organization in accordance with industry codes, voluntary consensus standards, or engineering standards; • Is compatible with stored product; and • Has external corrosion protection. (§2631(b), §2635(a)(2), §2636(a), (b), and (c)(1), CFR§280.32) 2. Install piping separate from secondary containment, or vaulted or trench lined, piping. This requires choosing piping in which: • Both primary and secondary containment are compatible 28 Section and Subsections I Evaluation of • Both primary and secondary containment are corrosion protected; • The primary containment is approved by an independent testing organization in accordance with industry codes, voluntary consensus standards, or engineering standards; and • The secondary containment is designed and constructed according to an engineering specification approved by a state registered professional engineer or according to a nationally recognized industry code or engineering standard. (§2631(a), (b), and (d), §2635(a)(2), §2636(c)(1), CFR§280.32) In either case, one of the following monitoring methods would be required if the installed piping is pressurized: 1. Install a continuous monitoring system that monitors the secondary containment system and activates an audible and visual alarm system when a release condition is detected. Along with the continuous monitoring system install an Automatic Line Leak Detector that detects a release equivalent to 3.0 gph defined at 10 psi and install a Piping Integrity Test that detects a release from the primary piping equivalent to 0.1 gph defined at 150% ofnormal operating pressure (§2636(f)(1), (2), and (4)). 2. Install a continuous monitoring system that monitors the secondary containment system, activates an audible and visual alarm system when a release condition is detected, and shuts down the pump when a release condition is detected. Also, include a Primary Integrity Test that detects a release from the primary piping equivalent to 0.1 gph defined at 150% of normal operating pressure (§2636(f)(1), (3), and (4)). 3. Install a continuous monitoring system that monitors the secondary containment system, activates an audible and visual alarm system when a release condition is detected, shuts down the pump when a release condition is detected, and shuts down the pumping system if the continuous monitoring system fails or is disconnected (§2636(f)(1), (g)(1), (3) and (4)). In addition to the above requirements, the local agency responsible for implementing the UST Program in the project area, in this case Los Angeles County, may have more stringent requirements or may not allow an option listed. Therefore, prior to the final design of the UST 29 Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impact system, the applicant should consult with the County about additional requirements, if any, as to which device to use. Portions of the project site are located within the Alquist-Priolo Zone of the San Gabriel Fault. Seismic events associated.with the movement of the fault could result in damage to the proposed underground storage tanks. Though no additional design features for the placement of underground storage tanks in the proximity to an Alquist-Priolo would be required, an option that may want to be considered is the placement of the tanks aboveground, if space at the site is available. The placement of the tanks aboveground could potentially aid in the ability of the tanks and pipelines to withstand the shaking associated with a seismic event. However, this is a recommendation and not a requirement for implementation of the proposed project. Compliance with the requirements of the UST Program and any additional requirements imposed by Los Angeles County would be sufficient to reduce the risk of spills or contamination of groundwater by the underground storage tanks proposed as part of the project. An automated bus wash facility is proposed as part of the TMF. The V. STORMWATER facility will incorporate an integrated system to reclaim and recycle MANAGEMENT AND 100% of the wash water used. That system will be designed and RECYCLING engineered to handle all facility needs, in addition to fleet washing, to provide 100% reclamation/recycle capability on-site. Used wash water will be treated to industry and regulatory standards to remove oils, solvents, soils, heavy metals, etc., for release to the sanitary sewer system. Separated materials and sludge will be stored on-site for appropriate disposal by certified contractors. That system or similar systems will process used water from the steam -cleaning pit, and like areas where run-off of contaminated water could occur. Parking and storage areas and on-site circulation aisles shall be designed and engineered so that surface run-off (sheet flow) from those areas will drain to an on-site clarifier/holding tank system for treatment to applicable NPDES regulatory standards. The system will be designed to capture a stormwater volume equivalent to, at minimum, the first one-eighth inch of stormwater runoff from the site. This initial capture of contaminated stormflow will be pumped to the recycle/reclamation system for treatment and separation as outlined above. Stormflow volumes subsequent to the initial one-eighth inch pulse flow would be conveyed to the municipal stormdrain (S4) system. 30 Section and Subsections I Evaluation This issue area was previously analyzed in the RCBP Program EIR, and was determined to have no impact, or to be less than significant subject to imposed mitigation measures. (RCBP, DEIR, page 144.) These mitigation measures are further identified and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (RCBP, FEIR, Section 5.2, pages 27- 32) of the FEIR. This project is an exempt development planning priority project under the City's NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit. Project construction could generate a temporary increase in sedimentation and erosion on-site. Though such impacts would not be significant at the graded, primarily flat site, the following requirements for construction shall be met: Sediments from areas disturbed by construction shall be retained on site, using structural drainage controls to the maximum extent practicable, and stockpiles of soil shall be properly contained to minimize sediment transport from the site to streets, drainage facilities or adjacent properties via runoff, vehicle tracking, or wind. Construction -related materials, wastes, spills, or residues shall be retained on site to minimize transport from the site to streets, drainage facilities or adjoining properties by wind or runoff. (Also, see discussion above in Section IV, Water.) Runoff from equipment and vehicle washing shall be contained at construction sites unless treated to remove sediments and pollutants. The project would generate solid waste; however, project -generated waste would not substantially affect the capacity or lifespan of area landfills. The following requirements for solid waste shall be met: • The design and number of trash enclosures should be designed to be compatible with surrounding architecture and to meet City standards. • The construction contractor will be strongly encouraged to recycle construction and demolition debris. With the application of mitigation measures, no stormwater or solid waste impacts are expected to occur. 31 Section and Subsections I Evaluation of VI. AIR QUALITY Construction of the proposed project will result in a localized, short- term incremental decrease in air quality at the site and immediate environs due to machinery exhaust fumes and fugitive dust. No significant impact is anticipated due to the: 1) relatively short-term duration of construction activities; 2) standard construction practices which require minimization of exhaust, fumes, and fugitive dust during construction; and, 3) the lack of stationary sensitive receptors in the surrounding area. Project implementation will result in a localized, long-term incremental decrease in ambient air quality on-site due to bus traffic and fleet maintenance operations. No significant impact is anticipated due to: 1) adherence to California standards for vehicular emissions through mandatory routine (and as needed) maintenance of the transit fleet; 2) the lack of sensitive receptors in the surrounding area; 3) design and incorporation of adequate ventilation (passive and forced air/exhaust extraction) and similar "source capture" features within structures to minimize exposure of employees to vehicle emissions; and 4) the low ambient carbon monoxide (CO) levels that exist throughout the Santa Clarita Valley (no violations of the state or federal 8 -hour standards have occurred in the past 10 years). Additionally, the proposed TMF represents a significant improvement in this aspect as the existing facility lacks any "source capture" features (hose, ductwork and industrial blowers), and relies on passive ventilation and industrial building fans to remove vehicle exhaust and fumes. Cumulative buildout in the project area would result in an increase in traffic along area roadways. The traffic analysis for the proposed project indicated that under buildout conditions the intersection of Newhall Ranch Road and Copper Hill Drive would experience Level of Service D. The closest sensitive receptor would be located greater than 100 feet away from the intersection. A carbon monoxide (CO) screening analysis performed according to the guidelines contained within the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993) indicated that at 100 feet from the intersection 1 -hour and 8 -hour CO levels would be about 15.3 parts per million (ppm) and 8.36 ppm, respectively. These levels would be below the state I -hour threshold of 20 ppm and 8 -hour threshold of 9 ppm. is not anticipated to result in a 32 Section and Subsections I Evaluation construction of a bus maintenance facility that would allow the existing Santa Clarita Transit bus fleet to expand from its current size of about 70 buses to about 150 buses. On completion, the proposed project would replace the City's existing main bus facility located at 25663 Avenue Stanford, Santa Clarita, and eliminate the need for fleet parking/storage at three off-site locations. This would eliminate the need to move vehicles from storage areas to the maintenance facility and fueling stations, resulting in significant decreased non -service trips for the fleet and subsequently fewer vehicle emissions. Because the project would replace existing facilities, employee trips associated with the proposed project would not be new trips to the region, but rather they would be trips associated with existing operations that are being rerouted to the site. Currently, Santa Clarita Transit buses travel approximately 2,416,526 miles per year and provide transit services to approximately 2,163,887 passengers. Current ridership levels remove an estimated 39,861,000 passenger miles per year from area roadways. The shifting of these passengers out of their individual vehicles results in a substantial decrease in regional air pollutant emissions. The proposed project would accommodate an increase in the number of buses used by the Santa Clarita Transit program. This increase in public transit facilities would further reduce air emissions in the region by providing more convenient and available public transit to the Santa Clarita Valley's residents. In addition, the shift from diesel powered buses to the planned use of clean fuels, such as liquefied and combustible natural gas, methanol, and electricity, would result in further emission reductions from the use of buses as a form of alternate transportation. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less than significant, if not beneficial, impact on air quality emissions in the Santa Clarita Region. Predominant wind patterns for the City of Santa Clarita area generally follow those described for mountain/valley regions. Wind patterns in the northern portion of the City, where the proposed project is located, are measured at an air monitoring station in the community of Saugus, located adjacent to the Santa Clara River, near the intersection of State Route 126 and Interstate 5. The data from this station indicates that the highest frequency of winds occurs from the.west and east. The area receives westerly daytime winds from the Oxnard Plain Airshed of Ventura County by way of the Santa Clara River Valley. The return flow at night is predominantly from the east, and represents the down valley drainage pattern. The second most 33 Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impact frequent wind direction at the Saugus station is from the southeast. This pattern represents days when wind flow from the South Coast Air Basin through the Newhall Pass reaches farther north and dominates the Santa Clara River Valley flow. Site plans for the proposed project show the majority of the building fronts oriented east -west. Since the wind patterns in the area generally trend in this direction nuisance wind effects may occur on site within the maintenance facilities whose bay doors are oriented toward the oncoming wind. Though this is not considered a significant environmental effect, reorienting the maintenance bay doors in the north -south direction to avoid the path of the oncoming winds could lessen the effects of wind on project operations. It should be noted that though the predominant wind pattern in the area is east -west, southwesterly and southeasterly winds occur periodically as a result of the convergence of the north and south wind patterns within the Santa Clarita Valley along with the northwesterly and northeasterly winds that occur during Santa Ana conditions (approximately 5 to 10 times per year). Therefore, while the reorientation of the bay doors would provide shelter from the predominant wind pattern, it would not preclude all nuisance wind effects. This issue area was previously analyzed in the RCBP Program EIR, and was determined to have a significant residual impact even after the application of mitigation measures; pursuant to CEQA requirements, a Statement of Overriding Consideration was adopted for the RCBP Specific Plan. Additionally, mitigation measures were identified and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (RCBP, FEIR, Section 5.6, pages 39-53, as applicable). VII. TRANSPOR- At buildout, up to 150 fleet vehicles will be parked, maintained, TATION/ fueled, and stored at the proposed TMF. Additionally, planning CIRCULATION studies indicate an ultimate workforce of approximately 284 employees (administrative, drivers; maintenance and utility workers, etc.) working from this facility. Project implementation will result in a direct increase in the number of local vehicle trips in the vicinity of the proposed project site, on industrial collectors fronting the site, and on intersections and links of secondary and primary arterials in the vicinity of the project area. K,1 Section and Subsections I Evaluation of This issue area was previously analyzed in the RCBP Program EIR as part of a comprehensive traffic modeling study, and was determined to have no impact, or to be less than significant subject to imposed mitigation measures. (RCBP, DEIR, page 294.) These mitigation measures are further identified and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (RCBP, FEIR, Section 5.7, pages 53-60, as applicable) of the FEIR. A subsequent traffic study was conducted for the proposed project to determine the need for additional project -specific mitigation. The subsequent traffic study was prepared pursuant to, Mitigation 5.7.1-4 (RCBP, FEIR, Mitigation Monitoring Plan, page 56). The primary purpose of this traffic study was to establish which mitigation measures identified in Tables IV -4 and IV -5 of Appendix F of the DEIR shall be implemented to mitigate this project's incremental impact ("fair share") on the transportation and circulation network. As part of the traffic study, which is included in its entirety in Appendix B, eight intersections in the immediate vicinity of the project site were analyzed to determine the Level of Service (LOS) resulting from the development of the proposed project. Figure 4 shows the location of the eight study intersections. Background conditions assumed the buildout of the Rye Canyon Business Park (approximately 4,000,000 square feet of industrial park uses) as well as buildout of the surrounding area. Regional growth represented a scenario of seven to 10 years in the future and was derived from Interim Year projections of the Santa Clarita Valley Consolidated Traffic Model (SCVCTM). The trip generation of the proposed project consists of two components: the arrival and departure of the transit fleet and the employees who would work at the site. For the transit fleet component, data obtained from the City of Santa Clarita was used to estimate the number of peak hour trips attributable to the fleet. There would be a total of 150 buses using the facility each day. 20 Dial -a - Ride buses would depart the facility between 5:00 AM and 8:00 AM and arrive back at the facility between 4:00 PM and 10:00 PM. The 130 regular buses would depart the facility between 4:30 AM and 6:30 AM and return to the facility between 5:00 PM and 10:00 PM. The second component of the project's trip generation is the employees who would work at the site. Of the total square footage of 35 Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impact the project, the office/administration portion of the fleet would use 18,200 square feet. For this component, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rate for General Office was used. Using the trip generation rates discussed above the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 60 trips in the AM peak hour, about 190 trips in the PM peak hour and approximately 1,200 total daily trips. This trip generation is similar to the trip generation estimated in the original Rye Canyon Business Park traffic analysis. Please see Appendix B for more information. The utilization (ICU) analysis performed for each intersection using the peak hour volumes discussed above and the lane configurations illustrated in Figure 5, yielded the following forecast of LOS for each of the eight intersections studied. LOS E or F are considered unacceptable under established City of Santa Clarita standards. ICU calculation worksheets for each of the intersections can be found in Appendix B. ICU/LOS (Interim Year w/ Project) Intersection AM PM 1. Copper Hill and A Street 0.79/C 0.64/13 2. Copper Hill and Smyth/Kelly Johnson 0.90/D 0.86/D 3. Copper Hill and Newhall Ranch 0.82/D 0.89/D 4. Aurora and Newhall Ranch 0.78/C 0.77/C 5. Kelly Johnson and Constellation 0.57/A 0.60/A 6. Aurora and Kelly Johnson 0.66B 0.63B 7. Constellation and Galaxy 0.36/A 0.31/A 8. A Street and Galaxy 0.37/A 0.35/A As shown above, each study area intersection is forecast to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) under regional growth projections. Regional growth represents a scenario of seven to 10 years in the future and is derived from Interim Year projections of the SCVCTM, as discussed above. No additional mitigation measures would be required to mitigate impacts from the proposed project. VIII. BIOLOGICAL The proposed project site is rough -graded, relatively level, and has RESOURCES been cleared of vegetation. This issue area was previously analyzed in the RCBP Program EIR 36 Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impact and was determined to have no impact, or to be less than significant subject to the required mitigation measures. (RCBP, Draft EIR, page 220.) These mitigation measures are further identified and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (RCBP, FEIR, Section 5.5, pages 33-38, as applicable) of the FEIR. IX. ENERGY AND The proposed project does not conflict with adopted energy MINERAL conservation plans and will not require development of new sources RESOURCES of energy or significant expansion of existing transmission/distribution lines. The project would not contribute to a significant increase in energy usage or result in a substantial increase in the use of natural or mineral resources. This issue area was previously discussed in the RCBP Program EIR (RCBP, Draft EIR, page 9). The City has previously determined that there is no evidence that the proposed project would cause significant environmental effects in this issue area. X. HAZARDS Project implementation will result in the continuous on-site storage of significant quantities of diesel fuel and other fleet fuels, including gasoline and propane, and the likely future storage of compressed natural gas (CNG) or other alternative fuel(s). While project design will determine specific quantities and storage tank siting, experience and projected fleet expansion dictate the TMF will likely require storage capacity for 40,000 gallons diesel fuel (underground), 1,000 gallons gasoline (underground), and a significantly lesser amount of propane (aboveground). Estimates of required CNG storage capacity are presently unknown as the transit fleet currently contains no CNG vehicles. The City anticipates that impending state and/or federal regulations will require a gradual, long-term transition to vehicles using CNG or other alternative fuels within the expected life of the TMF. As a result, the TMF will be designed to provide for the storage and delivery of alternative fuels to facilitate this transition. All fuels are generally combustible and, consequently, represent an increased risk of upset/explosion if stored, handled or used improperly. The storage and use of combustible materials is regulated through a wide array of federal, state and local legislation, including but not limited to the Federal and State Occupational Safety and Health Administrations and the Uniform Fire Code. Adherence to all 37 Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impact applicable regulations is routinely determined to reduce the level of risk to less than significant impact. The TMF will be required to adhere to applicable federal, state and local regulations as a condition of project approval. This issue area was previously analyzed in the RCBP Program EIR and was determined to have no impact, or to be less than significant subject to imposed mitigation measures. (RCBP, Draft EIR, page 405.) These mitigation measures are further identified and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (RCBP, FEIR, Section S. 11, pages 95-98, as applicable) of the FEIR. XI. NOISE Construction of the proposed project will result in a localized, short- term increase in noise at the site due the use of heavy machinery and construction equipment. No significant residual impact is anticipated due to: l) the relatively short-term duration of construction activities; 2) City regulations and standard construction practices which require minimization of noise and which regulate the hours and days of construction activity, and 3) the lack of sensitive noise receptors in the surrounding area. Project implementation will result in a localized, long-term incremental increase in noise at the site due to the introduction of transit fleet traffic, maintenance activities, and operation of stationery equipment (i.e., bus wash). Existing construction regulations, materials and practices, as well as mandatory federal, state, and local occupational safety standards will provide sufficient mitigation for on-site employees and visitors. While fleet maintenance will be conducted entirely within the facility, repair bay doors may be open, allowing noise to project off-site. On-site bus movement and other noise generators may also project noise volumes off-site. As previously identified, future land uses to north, south, and west will be of a business park (light commercial, industrial, manufacturing, warehousing) character, and are not considered noise sensitive. A single-family residential use is proposed about 1,000 feet to the east, and is considered a potential sensitive receptor. Using the Federal Transportation Administration General Transit Noise Assessment model (1995) noise levels generated by operations at the project site were estimated. At 50 feet from the project site, noise levels are anticipated to be about 73 dBA Ldn. However, at the nearest sensitive receptor (planned residences approximately 1,000 feet to the 38 Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impact east), noise levels resulting from operations on-site would drop to about 40 dBA Ldn due to the distance attenuation (see Appendix B for calculations). These noise levels would not exceed acceptable levels and would further be reduced due to the intervening slopes. Buildout of the proposed project along with other approved and planned development would result in an increase in traffic along project area roadways. This increase in traffic would result in a corresponding increase in roadway noise levels. The proposed project would contribute less than I% of the trips traveling along Copper Hill Road, between A Street and Kelly Johnson Road, less than 2% of the trips along Newhall Ranch Road, between Aurora and Copper Hill Roads, and less than 4% of the trips along Kelly Johnson Road, between Aurora and Copper Hill Roads, under future buildout conditions. These incremental additions to the traffic along these roadways would not result in an audible increase in the noise levels along these roadways. This issue area was previously discussed in the RCBP Program EIR (RCBP, Draft EIR, page 9). The City has previously determined that there is no evidence that the proposed project would cause significant environmental effects in this issue area. The analysis above supports this finding. XII. PUBLIC This issue area (which includes fire, sheriff, sewage, water and solid SERVICES waste) was previously analyzed in the RCBP Program EIR, and was determined to have no impact, or to be less than significant subject to imposed mitigation measures. (RCBP, DEIR, pages 306, 310, 317, 325, 333, respectively.) These mitigation measures are further identified and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (RCBP, FEIR, Section 5.8, pages 61-82) of the FEIR. XIII. UTILITIES This issue area (electricity, natural gas) was previously analyzed in the RCBP Program EIR, and was determined to have no impact, or to be less than significant subject to imposed mitigation measures. (RCBP, DEIR, pages 341 and 345, respectively.) These mitigation measures are further identified and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (RCBP, FEIR, Section 5.9, pages 83-91) of the FEIR. 39 Section and Subsections Evaluation of Impact XVI. AESTHETICS This issue area was previously analyzed in the RCBP Program EIR, and was determined to have no impact, or to be less than significant subject to imposed mitigation measures. (RCBP, DEIR, page 385.) These mitigation measures are further identified and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (RCBP, FEIR, Section 5.10, pages 92-94) of the FEIR. The TMF structure(s) will comply with all applicable zoning and building requirements and be architecturally compatible with the surrounding business park area. All roof equipment, backflow devices, utilities, and trash receptacles shall be adequately screened from view of the adjacent right -of —ways and neighboring properties to the degree feasible. The TMF shall incorporate landscaping as needed to adequately soften and screen the building(s) and fleet vehicles from adjacent public right-of-ways and surrounding properties as feasible. XV. CULTURAL This issue area was previously discussed in the RCBP Program EIR RESOURCES (RCBP, Draft EIR, page 9). The City has previously determined that there is no evidence that the proposed project would cause significant environmental effects in this issue area. XVI. RECREATION This issue area was previously discussed in the RCBP Program EIR (RCBP, Draft EIR, page 9). The City has previously determined that there is no evidence that the proposed project would cause significant environmental effects in this issue area. 40 IDENTIFICATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING ACTIONS CIP No. F0003: Transit Maintenance Facility MUP: 99 -TBA I. LAND USE AND PLANNING 1-1. Mitigation: NA Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: H. POPULATION AND HOUSING 2-1. Mitigation: NA Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS 3-1. Mitigation: Compliance with the City codes, standard requirements, and Conditions of Approval of the Minor Use Permit; and, Implementation of all applicable mitigation measures required in Section 5.1 of the RCBP Mitigation Monitoring Plan. In addition to the requirements listed in the RCBP FEIR, the following measure is required: • Design and construction of on-site buildings shall be engineered to withstand the expected ground acceleration that may occur at this site, as outlined in the Uniform Building Code requirements for Seismic Zone 4. The design shall take into consideration the soil type, potential for liquefaction, and the most current and applicable seismic attenuation methods that are available. Party Responsible for Mitigation: As identified in the MUP and MMP. Monitoring Action/Timing: As identified in the MUP and MMP. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: As identified in the MUP and MMP. 41 IV. WATER 4-1. Mitigation: Compliance with the City codes, standard requirements, and Conditions of Approval of the Minor Use Permit; and, Implementation of all applicable mitigation measures required in Section 5.2 of the RCBP Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Party Responsible for Mitigation: As identified in the MUP and MMP. Monitoring Action/Timing: As identified in the MUP and MMP. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: As identified in the MUP and MMP. V. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT/RECYCLING 5-1. Mitigation: Compliance with the City codes, standard requirements, and Conditions of Approval of the Minor Use Permit; and, Implementation of all applicable mitigation measures required in Section 5.2 of the RCBP Mitigation Monitoring Plan. In addition, the following requirements for construction shall be met: • Sediments from areas disturbed by construction shall be retained on site, using structural drainage controls to the maximum extent practicable, and stockpiles of soil shall be properly contained to minimize sediment transport from the site to streets, drainage facilities or adjacent properties via runoff, vehicle tracking, or wind. • Construction -related materials, wastes, spills, or residues shall be retained on site to minimize transport from the site to streets, drainage facilities or adjoining properties by wind or runoff. (Also, see discussion above in Section IV, Water.) • Runoff from equipment and vehicle washing shall be contained at construction sites unless treated to remove sediments and pollutants. The following requirements for solid waste shall be met: • The design and number of trash enclosures should be designed to be compatible with surrounding architecture and to meet City standards. • The construction contractor will be strongly encouraged to recycle construction and demolition debris. Party Responsible for Mitigation: As identified in the MUP and MMP. Action/Timing: As identified in the MUP and MMP. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: As identified in the MUP and MMP. 42 VI. AIR QUALITY 6-1. Mitigation: Compliance with the City codes, standard requirements, and Conditions of Approval of the Minor Use Permit; and, Implementation of all applicable mitigation measures required in Section 5.6 of the RCBP Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Party Responsible for Mitigation: As identified in the MUP and MMP. Monitoring Action/Timing: As identified in the MUP and MMP. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: As identified in the MUP and MMP. VII. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION 7-1. Mitigation: Compliance with the City codes, standard requirements, and Conditions of Approval of the Minor Use Permit; and, Implementation of all applicable mitigation measures required in Section 5.7 of the RCBP Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Party Responsible for Mitigation: As identified in the MUP and MMP. Monitoring Action/Timing: As identified in the MUP and MMP. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: As identified in the MUP and MMP. VIII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 8-1. Mitigation: Compliance with the City codes, standard requirements, and Conditions of Approval of the Minor Use Permit; and, Implementation of all applicable mitigation measures required in Section 5.5 of the RCBP Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Party Responsible for Mitigation: As identified in the MUP and MMP. Monitoring Action/Timing: As identified in the MUP and MMP. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: As identified in the MUP and MMP. IX. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 9-1. Mitigation: NA Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Actionfriming: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: 43 X. HAZARDS 10-1. Mitigation: Compliance with the City codes, standard requirements, and Conditions of Approval of the Minor Use Permit; and, Implementation of all applicable mitigation measures required in Section 5.11 of the RCBP Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Party Responsible for Mitigation: As identified in the MUP and MMP. Monitoring Action/Timing: As identified in the MUP and MMP. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: As identified in the MUP and MMP. XI. NOISE 11-1. Mitigation: Compliance with the City codes, standard requirements, and Conditions of Approval of the Minor Use Permit. Party Responsible for Mitigation: As identified in the MUP and MMP. Monitoring Action/Timing: As identified in the MUP and MMP. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: As identified in the MUP and MMP. XII. PUBLIC SERVICES 12-1. Mitigation: Compliance with the City codes, standard requirements, and Conditions of Approval of the Minor Use Permit; and, Implementation of all applicable mitigation measures required in Section 5.8 of the RCBP Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Party Responsible for Mitigation: As identified in the MUP and MMP. Monitoring Action/Timing: As identified in the MUP and MMP. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: As identified in the MUP and MMP. XIII. UTILITIES 13-1. Mitigation: Compliance with the City codes, standard requirements, and Conditions of Approval of the Minor Use Permit; and, Implementation of all applicable mitigation measures required in Section 5.9 of the RCBP Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Party Responsible for Mitigation: As identified in the MUP and MMP. Monitoring Action/Timing: As identified in the MUP and MMP. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: As identified in the MUP and MMP. 44 XIV. AESTHETICS 14-1. Mitigation: Compliance with the City codes, standard requirements, and Conditions of Approval of the Minor Use Permit; and, Implementation of all applicable mitigation measures required in Section 5.10 of the RCBP Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Party Responsible for Mitigation: As identified in the MUP and MMP. Monitoring Action/Timing: As identified in the MUP and MMP. Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: As identified in the MUP and MMP. XV. CULTURAL RESOURCES 15-1. Mitigation: NA Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: XVI. RECREATION 16-1. Mitigation: NA Party Responsible for Mitigation: Monitoring Action/Timing: Enforcing, Monitoring Agency: s:\transit\tmflenvistdy.doc 45 Santa Clarita Transit Maintenance Facility Initial Study KERN COUNTY LOS •NSELES COUNTY ® <:�' Project Location Downtown ` Los Angeles • Wd n j. Regional Location Figure 1 City of Santa Clarlta 46 ",� iY,�lj,+�..!!ktl r`T }�ilr w wt{vE , n 'z ' � r st, • �l i o f _ y P t 4'sYi to, p°Yt � „1` �� 1 Q�� 'ti}, 3r�`• r + �n 1`1 7{ .fir � .tr_ �d¢r6`t 1,„q Z.k 1 ire fT.-' ti aiY rppl �' swr yr,x��6wSi'•,ta i 3(..�:y (`!�/ � ♦ g,+F^'i' R' $T� h S�� 114 > y a E��g "•' i�a� rk x. #.. �' � •� !t � la � � �7 �,p�4 � � tt"`� ;. n' f � j'f T {•'4`;_ xrr y * T,.1 $ J c0 of "a.—,�i i } 'lta~59 A rs,Is" 'k �iy"eri i} '.M+'.•j�ti� 1�,.°f 4��,. k k�t irf 4+ia,24,f—Iter �_ ! pit lafpt� H�a�� i� g'itj � { w I�i L{' •F`�i.`� 1�},iiia �. �p i i .9 i4, ' t W } •��,� "r�? 9 1 �:tl.� Yh^t`'1`•'"^G�1. �4 a' f � ,�{ fJ� ' J'; �' I ••• fry r liq UOi Z ii'y% S joC� c U ZLLI 1 tlL � e r t k �` 1 i LL IR m O W4 Z, Santa Clarity Transit Maintenance Facility Initlal Study Study Intersection Locations Figure 4 rCity of Santa Claffte 49 Santa Clarke Transit Maintenance Facility Initial Study FREE -RIGHT TURN LANE Proposed Lane Configurations Figure 5 r50 City of Santa Cladta References California Building Code, 1998, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1995, Earthquake Fault Zones, Newhall Quadrangle, effective June 1, 1995. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault -Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Special Publication 42. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1995, The Northridge, California, Earthquake of 17 January 1994, Special Publication 116. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, DMG Open -file Report 96-08. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1999, Seismic Shaking Hazard Maps of California, Map Sheet 48. Dibblee, T. W., 1996 Geologic Map of the Newhall Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California, Dibblee Geological Foundation. Dolan J. F., Sieh, K., et al, 1995, Prospects for larger or more frequent earthquakes in the Los Angeles Metropolitan region; Science, V. 267, p. 199-205. Evemden and Thomson, 1985, in Evaluating Geologic Hazards in the Los Angeles Region- An Earth Science Perspective, United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1360 Federal Transportation Administration, 1995, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Jennings, C. W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, Map Number 6, California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Neblett & Associates, Inc, 1998, Review of 100 -Scale Design Study, Proposed Rye Canyon Business Park, Portion of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51828, City of Santa Clarita, California, report prepared for Lincoln Property Company, Irvine, CA. Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc, 1993, Investigation of the San Gabriel Fault and Preliminary Geotechnical/Geological Report Concerning the Rye Canyon Property of the Lockheed Corporation, Valencia, California, report prepared for the Lockheed Corporation, Torrance, CA. 51 Planning Consultants Research, 1996, Rye Canyon Business Park Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, report prepared for the City of Santa Clarita. Sadigh, K., Chang, C. Y., Egan, J. A., Makdisi, F., and Youngs, R. R., 1997, Seismological Research Letters Volume 68, Number 1, January/February 1997, pages 180- 189 Santa Clarita, City of, 1997, Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Rye Canyon Business Park. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 1993, CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Uniform Building Code, 1997, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California. Unites States Geological Survey, 1994, The Magnitude 6.7 Northridge, California Earthquake of 17 January 1994, Science, Volume 266. United States Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project, January/February 1997, Seismological Research Letters. Volume 68, Number 1. Yeates, Robert S. and Huftile, Gary J., 1995, The Oak Ridge Fault System and the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, Nature, Volume 373, February 1995. Yerkes, R. F., 1985, Geologic and Seismologic Setting, in, Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region- An Earth -Science Perspective, USGS Professional Paper 1360. Ziony, J. I., and Yerkes, R. F., 1985, Evaluating Earthquake and Surface Faulting Potential, in, Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region- An Earth -Science Perspective, USGS Professional Paper 1360. 52 Santa Clarita Transit Maintenance Facility Initial Study Federal Transit Adminstration General Transit Noise Assessment Case: Santa Clarita TMF Sheetl Copyright 1997, HMMH Inc. Sponsored by FTA contract #DTUM60-92-C-41008 Government users have unrestricted rights to this program RESULTS Noise Source Ldn (dB) Leq - daytime (dB) Leq - nighttime (dB) II Sources 74 68 67 Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 74 0 0 68 0 0 67 0 0 enter noise receiver lantl use category below. LAND USE CATEGORY Noise receiver land use category (1, 2 or 3) 2 Enter data for each noise source below - see reference list for source numbers. NOISE SOURCE PARAMETERS Parameter Source 1 I Source 2 ISource 3 Source Num. Bus Op. Facility 15 Dist. to receiver distance (ft) 50 Daytime Hours (7 AM - 10 PM) buses/hour 13 buses serviced/hour 2 Nighttime Hours (10 PM - 7 AM) buses/hour 12 buses serviced/hour 1 Jointed Track? Embedded Track? Aerial Structure? Barrier Present? Y/N n Intervening Rows of Buildings number Loco. . Rail Cars Steel Wheel Rubber Tire Buses imuter Buses Yard or Shop Storage Yard Op. Facility Transit Center ing Garage & Ride Lot Federal Transit Adminstration General Transit Noise Assessment Case: Santa Clarita TMF Sheetl Copyright 11997, HMMH Inc. Sponsored by FTA contract #DTUM60-92-C-41008 Government users have unrestricted rights to this program RESULTS Noise Source Ldn (dB) Leq - daytime (dB) Leq - nighttime (dB) II Sources 41 36 35 Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 41 0 0 36 0 0 35 0 0 Enter noise receiver land use category below. or Enter data for each noise source below - see reference list for source numbers NOISE SOURCE PARAMETERS Parameter Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Source Num. Bus Op. Facility 15 2 Comm. Rail Cars Dist. to receiver distance (ft) 1000 4 GT, Steel Wheel Daytime Hours (7 AM - 10 PM) buses/hour 13 buses serviced/hour 2 6 Monorail Nighttime Hours (10 PM - 7 AM) buses/hour 12 buses servicedthour 1 6 Automobiles Jointed Track? City Buses 10 Commuter Buses Embedded Track? Rail Yard or Shop 12 Layover Tracks Aerial Structure? Bus Storage Yard 14 Bus Op. Facility Barrier Present? Y/N n 16 Parking Garage Intervening Rows of Buildings number 16 SOURCE REFERENCE LIST Source Number Electric Loco. 1 Diesel Loco. 2 Comm. Rail Cars 3 RRT/LRT 4 GT, Steel Wheel 5 GT, Rubber Tire 6 Monorail 7 Maglev 6 Automobiles g City Buses 10 Commuter Buses 11 Rail Yard or Shop 12 Layover Tracks 13 Bus Storage Yard 14 Bus Op. Facility 15 Bus Transit Center 16 Parking Garage 17 Park 6 Ride Lot 16 Page 1 Santa Clarita Transit Maintenance Facility Initial Study CITY OF SANTA CLARITA TRANSIT MAINTENANCE FACILITY Traffic Study Prepared by: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 2020 North Tustin Avenue Santa Ana, California 92705-7827 (714)667-0496 February 25, 2000 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA TRANSIT MAINTENANCE FACILITY TRAFFIC STUDY This report presents the results of a traffic analysis performed for the proposed Transit Maintenance Facility in the City of Santa Clarita. It addresses the traffic characteristics of the proposed project and is intended to provide the traffic analysis required for environmental clearance of the project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The location of the proposed project is within the Rye Canyon Business Park portion of the City of Santa Clarita. Specifically, the project site is approximately 12 acres of land located at the southeast corner of the future intersection of Galaxy Way and Constellation Road, approximately 2,000 feet north of the intersection of Newhall Ranch Road and Copper Hill Drive. Figure 1 shows the location of the project site in relation to the area's arterial roadway system. The project will take access from Constellation Drive just east of Galaxy Way. The project site is proposed to be developed with an approximately 72,000 square foot facility for the administrative, maintenance, and operations functions of the City's transit fleet. Information provided by the City shows that the transit fleet consists of approximately 20 Dial -a -Ride buses and 130 standard buses. ANALYSIS SCOPE The purpose of this traffic study is to analyze the Level of Service (LOS) and queuing at eight intersections in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Figure 2 shows the location of the eight study intersections. For the purpose of this analysis, background conditions assume the buildout of the Rye Canyon Business Park (approximately 4,000,000 square feet of industrial park uses) as well as buildout of the City of Santa Clarita 1 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc Transit Maintenance Facility - Traffic Study 699001ts.wpd LEGEND Figure 1 EXISTING ROADWAY PROTECT SITE LOCATION ----- '------------ FUTURE ROADWAY City of Santa Clarita 2 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Transit Maintenance Facility -Traffic Study ' 699001ts.wpd Figure 2 INTERSECTION LOCATION MAP City of Santa Clarita 3 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Transit Maintenance Facility - Traffic Study 699001ts.wpd surrounding area. Regional growth represents a scenario of seven to 10 years in the future and is derived from Interim Year projections of the Santa Clarita Valley Consolidated Traffic Model (SCVCTM) as was used for the traffic impact analysis of the Rye Canyon Business Park (see Reference 1 at the end of this report) as well as the other proposed developments in the area. TRIP GENERATION The trip generation of the proposed project consists of two components, the arrival and departure of the transit fleet and the employees who will work at the site. For the transit fleet component, data obtained from the City of Santa Clarita has been used to estimate the number of peak hour trips attributable to the fleet. There will be a total of 150 buses that use the facility each day. The 20 Dial -a -Ride buses will depart the facility between 5:00 AM and 8:00 AM and arrive back at the facility between 4:00 PM and 10:00 PM. The 130 regular buses will depart the facility between 4:30 AM and 6:30 AM and arrive back at the facility between 5:00 PM and 10:00 PM. For the purpose of this traffic analysis, a uniform arrival/departure is assumed over the above time periods and a passenger car equivalent (PCE) factor of two has been applied to the Dial -a -Ride buses and a PCE of three has been applied to the regular buses. The second component of the project's trip generation is the employees who will work at the site. Of the total square footage of the project, 18,200 square feet will be used by the office/administration portion of the fleet. For this component, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation equation for General Office has been used. A summary of the proposed project's trip generation is given in the following table. City of Santa Clarita 4 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Transit Maintenance Facility -Traffic Study 699001ts.wpd TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY —AM PEAK HOUR— —PM PEAK HOUR— LANDUSE TYPE UNITS IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL ADT Office 1820 TSF 42 6 48 17 83 100 359 Dial -A -Ride 20 Bus 0 13 13 7 0 7 80 Regular Bus 130 Bus 0 0 0 78 0 78 780 TOTAL 42 19 61 102 83 185 1219 City of Santa Clarita 4 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Transit Maintenance Facility -Traffic Study 699001ts.wpd The previously referenced table shows that the proposed project will generate approximately 60 trips in the AM peak hour, about 190 trips in the PM peak hour and approximately 1200 total daily trips. The distribution pattern of the project trips has been developed based on input provided by the City of Santa Clarita and is illustrated in Figure 3. A traffic study has previously been prepared for the Rye Canyon Business Parkwhich assumed an industrial park trip generation rate for the entire site. The following table provides a comparison between the trip generation characteristics of the proposed project to what would be generated if the site was developed as a typical industrial park. As can be seen in the above table, the proposed project generates approximately 55 less trips in the AM peak hour, about 66 more trips in the PM peak hour and approximately 314 more total daily trips than would be generated by a comparable industrial park use. CAPACITY ANALYSIS Peak hour turning movement volumes for the study area intersections are presented in Figure 4 for the AM peak hour and Figure 5 for the PM peak hour for no project conditions. Peak hour volumes that include the project generated trips are provided in Figures 6 and 7 for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. These peak hour volumes are based on buildout of the Rye Canyon Business Park as well as the surrounding land uses. Regional growth represents a scenario of seven to 10 years in the future and is derived from Interim Year projections of the SCVCTM, as discussed earlier in this report. City of Santa Clarita S Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Transit Maintenance Facility -Traffic Study 699001u.wpd TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON —AM PEAK HOUR— —PM PEAK HOUR— LAND USE TYPE UMTS IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL ADT Proposed Project Varies 42 19 61 102 83 185 1219 Industrial Park 130.00 TSF 95 21 116 25 94 119 905 DIFFERENCE -53 -2 -55 +77 -11 +66 +314 As can be seen in the above table, the proposed project generates approximately 55 less trips in the AM peak hour, about 66 more trips in the PM peak hour and approximately 314 more total daily trips than would be generated by a comparable industrial park use. CAPACITY ANALYSIS Peak hour turning movement volumes for the study area intersections are presented in Figure 4 for the AM peak hour and Figure 5 for the PM peak hour for no project conditions. Peak hour volumes that include the project generated trips are provided in Figures 6 and 7 for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. These peak hour volumes are based on buildout of the Rye Canyon Business Park as well as the surrounding land uses. Regional growth represents a scenario of seven to 10 years in the future and is derived from Interim Year projections of the SCVCTM, as discussed earlier in this report. City of Santa Clarita S Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Transit Maintenance Facility -Traffic Study 699001u.wpd Figure 3 PROJECT DISTRIBUTION City of Santa Clarita 6 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Transit Maintenance Facility • Traffic Study 699001ts.wpd Figure 4 AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES -WITHOUT PROTECT City of Santa Clarita 7 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Transit Maintenance Facility - Traffic Study 699001ts.wpd Figure b PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES —WITHOUT PROJECT City of Santa Llarita 8 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Transit Maintenance Facility • Traffic Study 699001ts.wpd Figure 8 AM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES —WITH PROJECT City of Santa Clarita 9 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. Transit Maintenance Facility - Traffic Study ' 699001ts.wpd Figure 7 PM PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES —WITH PROJECT Cityof Santa Clarita 10 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc Transit Maintenance Facility • Traffic Study 699001ts.wpd Table 1 summarizes the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) analysis performed for each intersection using the peak hour volumes discussed above and the lane configurations illustrated in Figure 8. The table shows how each intersection is forecast to operate at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS). ICU calculation worksheets for each of the intersections can be found in Appendix A. QUEUING ANALYSIS The peak hour volumes presented in the previous section have been used as a basis for which to estimate the maximum vehicle queue length for the left -tum movements at each of the study intersections. The queue length of left -turning vehicles is an important component for the design of left -turn pockets. Table 2 provides a summary of the left -tum volumes and their corresponding queue length estimates for each of the study locations. CONCLUSION The proposed project will generate approximately 60 trips in the AM peak hour, about 190 trips in the PM peak hour and approximately 1200 total daily trips. This trip generation is similar to the trip generation estimated in the original Rye Canyon Business Park traffic analysis and each study area intersection is forecast to operate at an acceptable level of service. The intersection lane configurations as shown in Figure 8 need to be in place in order to provide the previously indicated levels of service. A queuing analysis has also been provided which will assist in the development of left -turn pocket lengths. City of Santa Clarita 11 Austin -Foust Associates, !nc Transit Maintenance Facility - Traffic Study 699001ts.wpd City of Santa Clarita 12 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Transit Maintenance Facility - Traffic Study 699001ts.wpd - Table 1 ICU SUMMARY INTERIM YEAR INTERIM YEAR WITHOUTPROJECr WITH PROJECr INTERSECnON AM PM AM PM 1. Copper Hill &"A" St .77 .63 .79 .64 2. Copper Hill & Smyth/Kelly Johnson .90 .86 .90 .86 3. Copper Hill & Newhall Ranch .81 .88 .82 .89 4. Aurora & Newhall Ranch .77 .76 .78 .77 5. Kelly Johnson & Constellation .56 .58 .57 .60 6. Aurora & Kelly Johnson .65 .61 .66 .63 7. Constellation & Galaxy .36 .29 .36 .31 8. "A" St & Galaxy .36 .33 .37 .35 Level of service ranges:.00 -.60 A .61 -.70 B .71 -.80 C .81-.90 D .91-1.00 E Above 1.00 F City of Santa Clarita 12 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Transit Maintenance Facility - Traffic Study 699001ts.wpd - LEGEND Figure H ��* Free Right Turn Lane INTERSECTION LANE CONFIGURATIONS City' of Santa Clarita 13 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Transit Maintenance Facility - Traffic Study 69900Its.wpd - INTERSECTION Table 2 QUEUING SUMMARY CYCLE LENGTH(S) MOVEMENT LANES VEHICLE PER HOUR VEHICLE PER CYCLE QUEUE PER LANE (FT) 1. Copper Hill & "A" St 100 SBL 1 40 2.0 40 WBL 1 110 5.0 110 NBL 1 240 9.0 200 EBL 2 360 14.0 150 2. Copper Hill & Smyth/Kelly Johnson 120 SBL 1 170 8.0 180 WBL 1 50 3.0 70 NBL 2 630 27.0 300 EBL 1 250 11.0 240 3. Copper Hill & Newhall Ranch 120 SBL 2 430 19.0 210 WBL 2 650 28.0 310 NBL 2 370 17.0 190 EBL 2 660 28.0 310 4. Aurora & Newhall Ranch 80 SBL 2 720 21.0 230 EBL 2 570 17.0 190 S. Kelly Johnson & Constellation 60 SBL 1 40 1.0 20 WBL 1 330 8.0 180 6. Aurora & Kelly Johnson 80 WBL 1 140 5.0 110 NBL 2 1150 30.0 330 7. Constellation&Galaxy 80 SBL 2 560 17.0 190 WBL I 100 3.0 70 8. "A" St & Galaxy 80 NBL 2 650 19.0 210 ESL 1 10 1.0 20 City of Santa Clarita 14 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Transit Maintenance Facility - Traffic Study 699001ts.wpd REFERENCES 1. "Rye Canyon Business Park Traffic Study," Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., January 1996. 2. "Rye Canyon Business Park Project Access - Draft," Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., October 1999. 3. "Decoro South, Rye Canyon Business Park, West Creek Project Access - Draft," Austin - Foust Associates, Inc., January 2000. City of Santa Clarita 15 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Transit Maintenance Facility -Traffic Study 699001ts.wpd APPENDIX 1. Copper Hill & W St Interim Year without Project I AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC � I NBL 1 1750 230 .13* 180 .10 NBT 4 7000 250 .04 2540 .38* NBR 0 0 20 130 I � SSL 1 1750 20 .01 40 .02* SBT 4 7000 2690 .45* 920 .15 SBR 0 0 430 110 EBL 1.5 110 330 EBT 0.5 3500 10 .03* 10 .10* EBR 2 3500 160 .05 330 .09 ( I WBL 1 1750 110 .06* 50 .03* i WBT 1 1750 10 .02 10 .02 WBR 0 0 30 30 I � Clearance Interval .10* .10* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing i TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .77 .63 2. Copper Hill & Smyth/Kelly Johnson Interim Year without Project Interim Year with Project AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 1 1750 240 .14* 190 .11 NBT 4 7000 250 .04 2540 .38* NBR 0 0 20 130 SBL 1 1750 20 .01 40 .02* SBT 4 7000 2690 .45* 920 .15 SBR 0 0 440 150 EBL 1.5 120 360 EBT 0.5 3500 10 .04* 10 .11* EBR 2 3500 160 .05 340 .10 I WBL 1 1750 110 .06* 50 .03* WBT 1 1750 10 .02 10 .02 WBR 0 0 30 30 Clearance Interval .10* .10* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .79 .64 Interim Year with Project AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 2 3500 630 .18* 160 .05 NBT 3 5250 370 .08 2560 .50* NBR 0 0 50 50 40 40 SBL 1 1750 150 .09 170 .10* SBT 3 5250 2660 .51* 1090 .21 SBR 1 1750 150 .09 40 .02 EBL 1 1750 30 :02* 250 .14* EBT 1 1750 30 .02 150 .09 EBR 2 3500 130 .04 570 .16 WBL 1 1750 50 .03 10 .01 WBT 1 1750 150 .09* 40 .02* WBR 1 1750 100 .06 100 .06 Clearance Interval Clearance Interval .10* .10* I .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .90 .86 Interim Year with Project AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 1 1750 240 .14* 190 .11 NBT 4 7000 250 .04 2540 .38* NBR 0 0 20 130 SBL 1 1750 20 .01 40 .02* SBT 4 7000 2690 .45* 920 .15 SBR 0 0 440 150 EBL 1.5 120 360 EBT 0.5 3500 10 .04* 10 .11* EBR 2 3500 160 .05 340 .10 I WBL 1 1750 110 .06* 50 .03* WBT 1 1750 10 .02 10 .02 WBR 0 0 30 30 Clearance Interval .10* .10* Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .79 .64 Interim Year with Project AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 2 3500 630 .18* 160 .05 NBT 3 5250 380 .08 2570 .50* NBR 0 0 50 40 SBL 1 1750 150 .09 170 .10* SBT 3 5250 2660 .51* 1100 .21 SBR 1 1750 150 .09 40 .02 EBL 1 1750 30 .02* 250 .14* EBT 1 1750 30 .02 150 .09 EBR 2 3500 130 .04 570 .16 WBL 1 1750 50 .03 10 .01 WBT 1 1750 150 .09* 40 .02* WBR 1 1750 100 .06 100 .06 Clearance Interval .10* .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .90 .86 3. Copper Hill & Newhall Ranch Interim Year without Project 4. Aurora & Newhall Ranch Interim Year without Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3500 360 .10* 240 .07 NBT 3 5250 410 .08 1560 .30* NBR 1 1750 80 .05 480 .27 SBL 2 3500 370 .11 420 .12* SBT 3 5250 1650 .31* 1110 .21 SBR f 130 820 570 140 EBL EBL 2 3500 230 .07 660 .19 EBT 3 5250 390 .11* 1470 .31* EBR 0 0 200 .11 180 WBL WBL 2 3500 650 .19* 190 .05* WBT 3 5250 1120 .21 670 .13 WBR f 690 410 170 480 Clearance Interval Clearance Interval .10* .10* .10* .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .81 .76 .88 4. Aurora & Newhall Ranch Interim Year without Project Interim Year with Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 250 0 NBT NBT 0 0 0 1560 0 NBR NBR 0 0 0 480 0 SBL SBL 2 3500 150 .04* 690 .20* SBT 0 0 0 1110 0 SBR SBR 2 3500 130 .04 570 .16 EBL 2 3500 580 .17* 160 .05 EBT 2 3500 670 .19 1620 .46* EBR 0 0 0 190 0 WBL WBL 0 0 0 190 0 WBT WBT 2 3500 1610 .46* 880 .25 NBR 1 1750 690 .39 170 .10 Clearance Interval Clearance Interval .10* .10* .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .77 .78 .76 Interim Year with Project Interim Year with Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR PM PK LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 2 3500 370 .11* 250 .07 NBT 3 5250 410 .08 1560 .30* NBR 1 1750 80 .05 480 .27 SBL 2 3500 370 .11 430 .12* SBT 3 5250 1650 .31* 1110 .21 SBR f SBR 820 3500 140 .04 EBL 2 3500 230 .07 660 I .19 EBT 3 5250 400 .11* 1490 .32* EBR 0 0 200 0 190 WBL 2 3500 650 .19* 190 .05* WBT 3 5250 1130 .22 700 .13 WBR f WBR 420 1750 490 .41 Clearance Interval Clearance Interval .10* .10* .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .82 .78 .89 Interim Year with Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 0 0 0 0 NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 2 3500 160 .05* 720 .21* SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 2 3500 130 .04 580 .17 EBL 2 3500 580 .17* 170 .05 EBT 2 3500 670 .19 1620 .46* EBR 0 0 0 0 W8L 0 0 0 0 WBT 2 3500 1610 .46* 880 .25 WBR 1 1750 710 .41 210 .12 Clearance Interval .10* .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .78 .77 5. Kelly Johnson & Constellation Interim Year without Project 6. Aurora & Kelly Johnson Interim Year without Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR CAPACITY LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 0 0 0 .08* 0 0 NBT 2 3500 1130 .41* 290 .10 NBR 0 0 290 .02 50 0 SBL 1 1750 10 .01* 40 .02 SBT 2 3500 280 .08 1100 .31* SBR 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 1.5 EBT 0 0 0 (.35)* j 0 1.5 EBR 0 0 0 0 1 WBL 1 1750 70 .04* 290 .17* WBT 0 0 0 .06 0 0 WBR 1 1750 20 .01 10 .01 Clearance Interval .10* TOTAL .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .56 .63 .58 6. Aurora & Kelly Johnson Interim Year without Project Interim Year with Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR PM LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 2 3500 1130 .32* 290 .08* NBT 0 0 0 3500 0 .41* NBR 1 1750 140 .08 40 .02 SBL 0 0 0 1750 0 .01* SBT 0 0 0 3500 0 .08 SBR 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 0 EBT 1.5 5250 160 (.05) 830 (.35)* j EBR 1.5 EBR 250 0 1120 WBL 1 1750 30 .02 140 .08* WBT 2 3500 790 .23* 200 .06 WBR 0 0 0 1750 0 .01 Clearance Interval .01 .10* .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .65 TOTAL .61 Interim Year with Project Interim Year with Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR CAPACITY LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 0 0 0 .10* 0 0 N8T 2 3500 1130 .41* 290 .11 NBR 0 0 310 .02 100 0 SBL 1 1750 10 .01* 40 .02 SBT 2 3500 260 .08 1100 .31* SBR 0 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 1.5 EBT 0 0 0 (.351* 0 1.5 EBR 0 0 0 0 1 WBL 1 1750 80 .05* 330 .19* WBT 0 0 0 .06 0 0 WBR 1 1750 20 .01 10 .01 Clearance Interval .10* .10* CAPACITY UTILIZATION .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .63 .57 .60 Interim Year with Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL VIC VOL VIC NBL 2 3500 1150 .33* 340 .10* NBT 0 0 0 0 NBR 1 1750 140 .08 40 .02 SBL 0 0 0 0 SBT 0 0 0 0 SBR 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 1.5 5250 160 (.05) 830 (.351* EBR 1.5 260 1160 WBL 1 1750 30 .02 140 .08* WBT 2 3500 790 .23* 200 .06 WBR 0 0 0 0 Clearance Interval .10* .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .66 .63 7. Constellation & Galaxy Interim Year without Project AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I NBL 0 0 0 0 I NBT 2 3500 290 .09* 50 .03* NBR 0 0 10 40 I SBL 2 3500 150 .04* 560 .16* I SBT 1 1750 10 .01 290 .17 SBR 0 0 0 0 I EBL 0 0 0 0 I EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 I WBL 1.5 80 .05* 10 WBT 0 5250 0 0 WBR 1.5 550 .16 170 i Right Turn Adjustment WBR .08* Clearance Interval .10* .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .36 .29 y 8. "A" St & Galaxy Interim Year without Project I I I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR I LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C I I NBL 2 3500 630 .18* 180 .05* NBT 1 1750 40 .02 120 .07 NBR 0 0 0 0 I I SBL 0 0 0 0 I SST 1 1750 120 .07* 70 .05* SBR 0 0 10 10 I I EBL 1 1750 .10 .01* 10 .01* EBT 0 0 0 0 I EBR 2 3500 160 .05 600 .17 I I WBL 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 I I Right Turn Adjustment EBR .12* Clearance Interval .10* .10* I TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .36 .33 Interim Year with Project I AM PK HOUR PM PK HOUR I LANES CAPACITY I VOL V/C VOL V/C I NBL 0 0 0 0 I NBT 2 3500 290 .09* 50 .03* NBR 0 0 I 20 80 .05 SBL 2 3500 150 .04* 560 .16* I SBT 1 1750 10 .01 290 .17 I SBR 0 0 I 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 I 0 0 I WBL 1.5 100 .06* 60 I .02* WBT 0 5250 0 0 I WBR 1.5 I 550 .16 170 I Right Turn Adjustment WBR .07* I Clearance Interval .10* .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .36 .31 Interim Year with Project � " AM 4K HOUR IPM PK I HOUR ;. LANES CAPACITY , VOL V/C :r VOL V/C NBL 2 3500 650 .19* 230 I .07* NBT 1 1750 40 .02 120 ,07 NBR 0 0 0 0 SBL 0 0 0 p I I SBT 1 1750 120 .07* 70 .05* SBR 0 0 10 10 EBL 1 1750 10 .01* 10 .01* EBT 0 0 0 0 EBR 2 3500 170 .05 640 .18 WBL 0 0 0 p I I WBT 0 0 0 0 WBR 0 0 0 0 Right Turn Adjustment EBR .12* Clearance Interval .10* .10* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .37 .35