HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-02-08 - AGENDA REPORTS - PLANS SPECS TRAFSIG (2)CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
CONSENT CALENDAR
DATE: February 8, 2000
City Manager Approval
Z05�1-
Item to be presented by: rman Baculinao
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ADVERTISEMENT
FOR BIDS FOR NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND INTERCONNECT
INSTALLATION AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF PLUM CANYON
ROAD/RODGERS DRIVE AND RYE CANYON ROAD/AVENUE CROCKER
(PROJECT NO. C0009)
DEPARTMENT: Transportation and Engineering Services
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council approve the plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E), and authorize the
advertisement for bids for the traffic signal and interconnect installation project at the
intersections of Plum Canyon Road/Rodgers Drive and Rye Canyon Road/Avenue Crocker.
BACKGROUND
At the July 13, 1999 City Council meeting, staff presented the results of the City's Signal
Priority List to Council. Based on the findings of this report, Council directed staff to proceed
with the installation of the traffic signal and interconnect system at the intersections of Plum
Canyon Road/Rodgers Drive and Rye Canyon Road/Avenue Crocker. Council allocated
$160,000.00 in the CIP Budget Account No. C0009001-8001 to install the traffic signal and
interconnect system at Rye Canyon Road/Avenue Crocker in Fiscal Year 1999-2000: Council
also authorized the transfer of funds in the amount of $160,000.00 from the City Council
Contingency Account No. 1240-7401 to the CIP Budget Account No. C0009001-8001 for the
installation of the traffic signal and interconnect system at the intersection of Plum Canyon
Road/Rodgers Drive.
The traffic signal plans, interconnect plans, specifications, and estimates for the intersections
of Plum Canyon Road/Rodgers Drive and Rye Canyon Road/Avenue Crocker have been
prepared and will be included for review in the offices of the City Clerk and the City Engineer.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Other action as determined by the City Council.
I A no Ap It= 13
ll, PROED
TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND INTERCONNECT INSTALLATION
February 8, 2000 - Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds for the installation of the traffic signal and interconnect for Rye Canyon Road/
Avenue Crocker have been budgeted in Account No. C0009001-8001 in the amount of
$160,000.00. Funds in the amount of $160,000.00 have been transferred from the City Council
Contingency Account No. 1240-7401 to the CIP Account No. C0009001-8001 for the traffic
signal installation at Plum Canyon Road/Rodgers Drive.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A — Vicinity Map
Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (available in City Clerk's Reading File)
AN:lkl
covn611WMO.duc
EXHIBIT A - VICINITY MAP
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
[X] Proposed [ ] Final
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
MASTER CASE NO: 99-155
PERMIT/PROJECT NAME: Unified Development Code Amendment 99-003
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita
LOCATION OF THE PROJECT: Citywide
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: The proposed amendment consists of a "clean-up" of the
City's Unified Development Code. Various sections of the
UDC will be amended, including the permitted use chart,
grading ordinance, development standards and the
parking ordinance. These amendments are considered to
be non -controversial items, and therefore, can be included
into one amendment.
Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant
to the requirements of Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
City of Santa Clarita
[X] City Council [ ] Planning Commission [ ] Director of Community Development
finds that the project as proposed or revised will have no significant effect upon the
environment, and that a Negative Declaration shall be adopted pursuant to Section 15070 of
CEQA.
Mitigation measures for this project
[X] Are Not Required [ ] Are Attached [ ] Are Not Attached
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFF LAMBERT
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND BUILDING SAFETY
Prepared by:
Approved by`:__l/� Lisa Hardy, AICP, Associate Planner
L anature) (Name/Title)
Public Review Period From Seutember 17.1999 To October 19, 1999.
Public Notice Given On September 17. 1999 By:
[X] Legal Advertisement [ ] Posting of Properties [ ] Written Notice
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
CERTIFICATION DATE:
current\nd99155
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
(Initial Study Form B)
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Lead Agency:
Contact Person & Phone Number:
Master Case or CIP Number:
Entitlement Type(s):
Project Location:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation(s):
City of Santa Clarita
Aimee Gerstenberger, Assistant Planner 11
City of Santa Clarita
(661)255-4330
Master Case No. 99-155
UDC Amendment 99-003
Citywide
N/A
N/A
Project Applicant: City of Santa Clarita
(Name, Address, Phone) 23920 Valencia Boulevard
Santa Clarita, California 91355
(661) 255-4330
Project Description/Setting: The City of Santa Clarita is proposing a "clean-up" of the Unified
Development Code (UDC). This "clean-up" consists of
amendments to various sections of the UDC. These amendments
primarily are considered non -controversial items, and therefore can
be combined into one amendment. The proposed amendment,
known as Ordinance No. 99-15, consists of amending various
chapters and standards of the Citys Unified Development Code
regarding, but not limited to permitted uses, home occupation
permits, fence height, grading permits and definitions.
Surrounding Land Uses/Setting: N/A
Other public agencies whose approval
is required (e.g. permits, financing
approval, or participation agreement): None
r-11 ?011�
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 Housing [
j Biological Resources
[ ] Recreation
(] Geological Problems [
] Noise
[ ] Aesthetics
(] Water [
] Hazards
[ ] Cultural Resources
[ ] Stormwater Management [
] Energy and Mineral
[ ] Utilities and Service
& Recycling
Resources
System
[ ] Air Quality [
] Mandatory Tests of
Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
[X] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] 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.
[ j 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant impact on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been mitigated adequately in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially sign ficant
unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
(] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been
analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed
upon the proposed project.
2
1-0,N -,
Prepared By: Aimee Gerstenberger 9/17/99
Assistant
lanner 11
Antc�'
/
f
(Signature) (NameMtle) (Date)
Lisa Hardy, AICP 9/17/99
Associate Planner
(Signature) (Name/Title) (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 designation or zoning? [ ] [ ] [ I [X]
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or [ ] [ ] [ I [X]
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the city? [ ] [ ] [ I [X]
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an [ ] [ ] [ I [X]
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
e) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA)? [ ] [ I [ ] [XI
f) Other [] [I [I [X]
IL POPULATION AND HOUSING. would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local [ ] [ ] [ I [X]
population projections?
b) Create a net loss of jobs? [] [] [I [XI
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable [ ] [ ] [ I [XI
housing?
d) Other [I [] [I [XI
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. will the proposal result in:
a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in [ ] [ ] [ ] [XI
geologic substructures?
b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or [ ] [ I I ] [X]
3
El
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant
No
Impact Incorporated Impact
Impact
overcovering of the soil?
c)
Change in topography or ground surface relief
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
features?
d)
The destruction, covering or modification of any
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
unique geologic or physical features?
e)
Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
either on or off the site?
f)
Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards
[ ] [ ] [ ] _
[X]
such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
g)
Changes in deposition, erosion or siltation?
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[X].
h)
Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
river?
I)
Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
yards or more?
j)
Development and/or grading on a slope greater
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
than 25% natural grade?
k)
Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
Studies Zone?
1)
Other
I I I
[x]
IV.
WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a)
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
the rate and amount of surface runoff?
b)
Exposure of people or property to water related
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
hazards such as flooding?
c)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen, or turbidity)
d)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
water body?
e)
Changes in currents, or the course of direction of
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
water movements?
f)
Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability?
g)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
h)
Impacts to groundwater quality?
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
1)
Substantial reduction in the amount of
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies?
El
r-,
5
Potentially
Significant
'
Impact
Potentially Unless Less than
Significant Mitigation Significant
No
Impact Incorporated Impact
Impact
j)
Other
[] [] [I
[X]
V.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND RECYCLING.
Would the proposal result in:
a)
Would the proposed project result in storm water
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
system discharges from areas for materials,
storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or
equipment maintenance (including washing), waste
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
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[XI
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
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
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
[ ] [ ] [ I
[X]
biological integrity of drainage systems and water
bodies?
e)
Does the proposed project include provisions for
[ ] [ I [ I
[X]
the separation and reuse of materials?
VI.
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a)
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
[ ] [ ] [ I
[X]
existing or projected air quality violation?
b)
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
[ I [ I [ I
[X]
c)
Create objectionable odors?
[ I [ ] [ I
[X]
d)
Other
[ I [ I [ I
[XI
VII.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Wouldthe
proposal result In: -
a)
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
[ ] [ ] [ I
[XI
b)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
[] [] I
[XI
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses?
c)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
[ J [ ] [ ]
[XI
uses?
d)
Insufficient parking capacity onsite or offsite?
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
e)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
[ ] [ ] [ I
[X]
f)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
[ ] [ ] [ ]
[X]
alternative transportation (e.g. bus stops, bicycle
racks)?
5
2
potentially
Significant
Impact
potentially
Unless Less than
Significant
Mitigation Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated Impact
Impact
g)
Disjointed pattern of roadway improvements
[ ]
[ ] [ ]
[X]
h)
Other
[]
I I
[X]
VIII.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result In Impacts to:
a)
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
[]
[] I
[X]
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds)?
b)
Oak trees?
[ ]
L I L ]
(X]
c)
Wetland habitat or blueline stream?
[ ]
[ ] [ ]
[X]
d)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
[ ]
[ ] [ ]
[X]
e)
Other
[ ]
[ ] [ ]
[X]
IX.
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a)
Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
[ ]
[ ] [ ]
[X]
b)
Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and
[ ]
[ ] [ ]
[X]
inefficient manner?
c)
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
[ ]
[ ] [ ]
[X]
resource that would be of future value to the region
and the residents of the State?
d)
Other
Ll
L] L]
[X]]
X.
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of
[ ]
[ ] L ]
(X]
hazardous substances (including but not limited to
oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)?
b)
Possible interference with an emergency response
[ ]
[ ] [ ]
[X]
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c)
The creation of any health hazard or potential
[ ]
[ ] [ ]
[X]
health hazard?
d)
Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
[ ]
[ ] [ ]
[X]
health hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines,
gas lines, oil pipelines)?
e)
Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
[ ]
[ ] [ ]
LX]
brush, grass, or trees?
f)
Other
[]
[] L1
[X]
XI.
NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a)
Increases in existing noise levels?
[]
(] LI
[x]
b)
Exposure of people to severe noise levels or
[ ]
[ ] [ ]
[X]
vibration?
c)
Other
Ll
[] []
[X]
2
Section and
Evaluation of Impact
Subsections
III, IV, V, VI,VIII,XV
The proposed amendment, which consists of minor additions and changes to
GEOLOGIC/
portions of the UDC, also known as a "clean-up", will not result in any significant
WATER/STORM-
impacts on geology, water stormwater management and recycling, air quality,
WATER AND
biological resources, and cultural resources. The proposal is consistent with and
RECYCLING/
will implement the goals and policies of the City's General Plan.
AIR QUALITY/
BIOLOGICAL/
CULTURAL
RESOURCES
The proposed amendment which is considered a non -controversial "clean-up"
VII,XII,XIIIXVI
of the UDC will not result in any significant impacts on transportation and
TRANSPORTATION
circulation, public services, utilities, and recreation. The proposal is consistent
AND
with and will implement the goals and polices of the City's General Plan.
CIRCULATION
PUBLIC SERVICES/
UTILITIES/
RECREATION
IX
The proposed amendment, which is a "clean-up" of the UDC, will not result in
ENERGY AND
any significant impact on energy and mineral resources. The proposal is
consistent with and will implement the goals and policies of the City's General
MINERAL
Plan.
RESOURCES
The proposed amendment, which is considered a non -controversial general
X, XI, XIV
"clean-up" of the Unified Development Code, will not result in any significant
HAZARDS/
impact on the public's health, safety or general welfare. The proposal is
NOISE/
consistent with and will implement the goals and policies of the City's General
AESTHETICS
Plan.
s:\pbs\currentMs99155
N