HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-06-24 - AGENDA REPORTS - NON MOTORIZED TRANS NEGDEC (2)Agenda Item: Iq
� W
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
UNFINISHED BUSINESS City Manager Approval
Item to be presented by:
DATE: June 24, 2008
M v
Andrew Yi
J
SUBJECT: NON -MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION ADOPTION
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. City Council adopt a resolution for the City of Santa Clarita Non -Motorized Transportation
Plan (Plan) that includes the Bicycle and Trail Master Plan as an element of the Plan and the
Negative Declaration prepared for the project.
2. Authorize the City Manager or designee to update the Bicycle and Trail Master Plan element
of the City of Santa Clarita Non -Motorized Transportation Plan as necessary.
BACKGROUND
In February 2006, the City awarded a contract to Alta Planning + Design to develop the City of
Santa Clarita Non -Motorized Transportation Plan (Plan). The goal of the Plan is to create a
framework with policy recommendations that fosters an environment of non -motorized
transportation (bicycling and walking) and enhanced recreational bicycle use in the City. The
Plan is intended to reduce single vehicle occupancy use and congestion by promoting bicycling
and walking as a general means of transportation to increase the quality of life for Santa Clarita
residents.
On March 2, 2006, City staff made a presentation to the Parks, Recreation, and Community
Services Commission, outlining the need for a Non -Motorized Plan and the elements it would
contain. On March 6, 2007, City staff presented the draft Plan to a joint Study Session of the City
Council, Planning Commission, and Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Commission.
The scope of the Plan included data collection and analysis with extensive public outreach,
including:
• Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Commission meeting.
Adopted: Gem.���
• Joint Study Session with City Council, Planning Commission, and Parks, Recreation, and
Community Services Commission.
• Bilingual postcard survey and meeting announcement (157 responses, 107 from schools).
• Open house at the onset of the Plan creation (35 attendees).
• Online survey (352 responses).
• Intercept surveys on trails (31 responses).
• Project website.
• 30 -day public comment period.
• Public meeting during the draft Plan release (20 attendees).
A description of citizen comments from the two public meetings is attached.
The above contributions resulted in the following components: Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan,
Planning, Transit, Safe Routes to School, and Funding Strategies. The Plan provides the City
with a prioritized list of bicycle and pedestrian capital improvements reflecting the input of Santa
Clarita residents, City staff, and empirical data. A description of the main Plan components is
attached.
Implementing the Plan evokes the long-term vision of developing a Citywide biking and walking
network, and involves several steps, including:
• Establishing a Non -Motorized Plan staff position.
• Projecting prioritization, reflecting the transportation benefit, regional connectivity
benefit, cost, safety benefit, and feasibility of each project.
• Revisiting prioritization as projects are completed and added.
• Updating the Plan every five years.
• Using measures of effectiveness outlined within the Plan.
The City experienced early success during creation of the Plan, including designation as a
"bicycle friendly community" by the League of American Bicyclists, receipt of two Safe Routes
to School grants totaling one million dollars, and participation in the 2007 and 2008 Amgen Tour
of California. The City has also submitted a grant application for the federal Bicycle
Transportation Account grant and is preparing an application for the federal 2008 Safe Routes to
School grant cycle.
An initial California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) study was completed for the Plan,
evaluating the environmental impacts created with the proposed project. Based on the initial
study, a Negative Declaration was prepared. The environmental documents were transmitted to
both state and county offices and were advertised for a 30 -day public review period from
September 21, 2007, to October 23, 2007.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Other action as determined by the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact by this action.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution
Negative Declaration
Initial Study
Main Components of Plan
Summary of Public Meeting Comments
RESOLUTION 08-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING
THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NON -MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WHEREAS, the City Council contracted with Alta Planning + Design to develop a City
of Santa Clarita Non -Motorized Transportation Plan to study the needs of non -motorized travel
in Santa Clarita; and
WHEREAS, a City of Santa Clarita Non -Motorized Transportation Plan has been
prepared with extensive public outreach and stakeholder consideration, and provides data
analysis of existing non -motorized facilities, as well as transit facilities, and makes
recommendations for future improvements for cyclists, pedestrians, transit connections, safe
routes to schools, planning, and funding; and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems that the goals, objectives, and measures of
effectiveness stated in the City of Santa Clarita Non -Motorized Transportation Plan are worthy of
pursuit, and the implementation recommendations are worthy of consideration in a phased
manner as specific project details are developed and presented back to the City Council.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita does hereby resolve as
follows:
SECTION 1. That the City of Santa Clarita Non -Motorized Transportation Plan is
adopted as a guide in the development of bicycle, pedestrian, transit, safe routes to schools,
planning, and funding recommendations.
SECTION 2. That the City of Santa Clarita Non -Motorized Transportation Plan be
reviewed approximately every five years to determine its validity in ever changing community
circumstances, and recommended revisions be presented to the City Council for consideration.
SECTION 3. That the City Manager or designee be authorized to update the Bicycle and
Trail Master Plan element of the City of Santa Clarita Non -Motorized Transportation Plan when
deemed necessary.
SECTION 4. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS. Based
on the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby determines as follows:
a. An Initial Study and a Negative Declaration for this project have been prepared in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
b. The Negative Declaration was advertised on September 23, 2007, in accordance with
CEQA. The public review period was open from September 21, 2007, to
October 23, 2007.
c. There is no substantial evidence that the project will have an effect on the
environment. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City of
Santa Clarita.
d. The location of the documents and other material, which constitutes the record of
proceedings upon which the decision of the City Council is the City of Santa Clarita
Non -Motorized Transportation Plan project file within the Public Works Department and
is in the custody of the Director of Public Works.
e. The City Council, based upon the findings set forth above, hereby finds the Negative
Declaration for this project has been prepared in compliance with CEQA.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this _ day of 2008.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
2
MAYOR
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a
regular meeting thereof, held on the _day of 2008, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
CERTIFICATION OF
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
I, Sharon L. Dawson, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that this is a true
and correct copy of the original Resolution 08- , adopted by the City Council of the City of
Santa Clarita, California on , 2008, which is now on file in my office.
Witness my hand and seal of the City of Santa Clarita, California, this day of , 2008.
Sharon L. Dawson, CMC
City Clerk
Susan Caputo
Deputy City Clerk
M
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
[X] Proposed [ ] Final
MASTER CASE NO: City of Santa Clarita Non -Motorized Transportation Plan
PERMIT/PROJECT:
APPLICANT: City of Santa Clarita, Public Works Department
LOCATION OF THE
PROJECT: Citywide
DESCRIPTION OF The City of Santa Clarita is proposing to adopt and implement a
THE PROJECT: citywide transportation plan specifically for non -motorized modes of
transportation. The Santa Clarita Non -Motorized Transportation Plan
guides the future development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities,
paseos and trails within the City. This plan was developed over two
years, with extensive input from the community, and seeks to meet
the community's needs and desires for pleasant, enjoyable and safe
places to bicycle and walk. The plan focuses on the city's bicycle and
pedestrian network, planning and policies related to bicycling and
walking, non -motorized connections to transit, and safe routes to
schools. No land use designation changes are proposed with
this application.
Based on the information contained in the Initial Study prepared for this project, and pursuant to the
requirements of Section 15070 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
LISA M. HARDY, AICP
PLANNING MANA�R
Prepared by: Fred Follstad, AICP, Senior Planner
(Signature) (Name/Title)
Public Review Period From: September 21, 2007 To: October 23, 2007
Public Notice Given On: September 23, 2007
[X] Legal Advertisement [ ] Posting of Properties [ ] Written Notice
CERTIFICATION DATE:
s /cd/current/environmental\Neg Dec for Non Motorized Plan.doc
Pagel of 25
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
Project Title/Master Case Number: City of Santa Clarita
Non -Motorized Transportation Plan
Lead Agency name and address: City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
Contact person and phone number: Fred Follstad
Senior Planner
(661) 255-4330
Project location: The proposed plan would be applicable citywide in the City
of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California.
Applicant's name and address: City of Santa Clarita
23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302
Santa Clarita, CA 91355
General Plan designation: N/A
Zoning: N/A
Description of project and setting: The City of Santa Clanta is proposing to adopt and
implement a citywide transportation plan specifically for
non -motorized modes of transportation. With extensive
input from the community and collaborative efforts with
developers, the City has already made walking and bicycling
a focal point in neighborhood development and connectivity.
The proposed Non -Motorized Transportation Plan will guide
future development of non -motorized transportation as well
as provide a guideline for improvement of existing
infrastructure. It will also include recommendations for
facility maintenance, awareness and increased safety in
relationship to automotive contact, sustaining a quality of
life known to the residents and for increasing the funding
available so that essential improvements can be done as
recommended. See Figures 1-4 for graphics of the existing
non -motorized transportation facilities in Santa Clanta.
In addition to identifying existing non -motorized
transportation facilities and City policies and programs
related to non -motorized travel, the proposed Non -Motorized
Transportation Plan will guide the development of non -
motorized transportation facilities in the future. The
proposed plan includes recommended bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure improvements, design recommendations (e.g.,
Page 2 of 25
end of trip facilities, signage and striping, and bicycle -
sensitive loop detectors), maintenance procedures, and
programmatic recommendations (e.g., education programs,
establishing an advisory committee, creating a multi -modal
access guide). It is important to note, however, the adoption
of the proposed plan, itself, will does not authorize any
specific improvement projects. Rather, such projects would
minimally require further discretionary authorization from
the City of Santa Clarita.
Surrounding land uses: N/A
Other public agencies whose None
approval is required:
Y �'�•\' -. �_ — 1 - /`_.-rte , � - r����'�i:�,. _��-`',5�'� � h �
41
v6�
Lk..A
7{
i � I 'y � •' \lfiy� - -� r h"'.i,ts �hy �� ,af i.� i-._I;z
t4,
Jt
+� � ff ll�• - �,.1 �'�+; vt, �l7� t�'� - I t �t ,+L-� � hn[�� L�i� � -,
` ..1ri v ryN� ��`jjl( l ,f.�•' . di t� � i _
�� '1' ,'a ���tr- � u .v� r I li �� r+G h,� •� C��iti"i�� k
-04!"
ti ;i �� }E�R jj�, c ;� ^`�JJc f�b#� •:,T I ; -;f
LU
ih
ri e
�j �.• ,. F�•-r ~ ``� :} � ,-� �' 222222<: T
OC
vi
3 s C4 1
Ly {A VAI
U.
iL
s[ =O
V CL J (X Cl
Y Y Y 5
t xa Z m CO CO z
H
!tr^µ^� W W
' L - •r'�',� YWY`O i%�1�•�4'� R`- _ � 44• ' �l . i .
It
e 13
' 4 � .:'�� '9#1��,�;,,.§.� �k, "f �� .tet �• a
_ ':� 6� "� ^'�ciiNaw.on�,r" t� p- �y .. •.. ,,c$ � pppp 'A�...' "r.•� i'� �� ,
Page 5 of 25
Figure 3 — Existinq Paseos
'zr• Y r ,,b� euu
a d 'ol= S va {T` 6�
�+�,r1*�4J1��r��♦ �.. .
X, �,•J�`
gyp, }�' 4 two . „�,,..i„ a�� � c' • C +.+}'F tao� 9 � ¢I'"
r� 1� '� ,�?' �? -.. `� � �1 t,.�a 1 yid."'► �'-��� Mee" i
wti
11 A
�• a '°tom '�, y; �g�i'y� � � - � 4..r..r,^''
ry+t �r• ' u tyr . rN'0f „aa i 4
s�t y rt<' �} a ,¢;F�4 �r� �5�,,9 ,��(.�..'"'ii sip : i'�-.>•... �
✓�p
+»'. o� -...✓ ��.,/ try � �� '.,* y, v
y r ,dr,
� �+.. r •a6r ' X54 �a V I pl. 11—
I V
Yw b� ,r "w... •"�� 'E E..Adity+�'
.. �i s
�4V.V+¢. L �. SNS Y �•G_ l._ • ���Y- .. �rl.. rP�"�"4!� ~�..
LEGEND
PaSEG
U I
CN
pq v
:F 0 S
r J
F
Page 7 of 25
A. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' or a "Less than Significant With Mitigation" as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
[ ] Aesthetics
[ ] Agriculture Resources [ ] Air Quality
[ ] Biological Resources [ ] Cultural Resources [ ] Geology / Soils
[ ] Hazards & Hazardous [ ] Hydrology / Water Quality [ ] Land Use / Planning
Materials
[ ] Mineral Resources [ ] Noise [ ] Population / Housing
[ ] Public Services [ ] Recreation [ ] Transportation / Traffic
[ ] Utilities / Service Systems [ ] Mandatory Findings of Significance
B. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
1 [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 revisions in the project have been made by or
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
r
[ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are unposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
IZ-07
Fred Fo stad, AICP, Senior Planner Date
Page 8 of 25
C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
I. AESTHETICS - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic
highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
e) Other
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
[] [] [] [X]
[] [] [] [X]
[] [] [] [X]
[] [] [] [X]
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation
as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Pnme Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
d)Other I I I I
III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air
quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
Page 9 of 25
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions that
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
f) Other
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
[] I I [X]
[] [] [] [X]
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat [ ]
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
[X]
[X]
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Page 10 of 25
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? Oak trees?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat [ ]
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or Significant [ ]
Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the City of Santa
Clarita ESA Delineation Map?
h) Other [ ]
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a [ ]
historical resource as defined in '15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of [ ]
an archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique [ ]
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred [ ]
outside of formal cemeteries?
e) Other [ ]
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial [ ]
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving -
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated [ ]
on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the
area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
[] [] `[X]
Page 11 of 25
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than No
Significant
Significant
Significant Impact
Impact
with
Impact
Mitigation
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? [ ]
[ ]
[ ] [X]
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including [ ]
[ ]
[ ] [X]
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? [ ]
[ ]
[ ] [X]
b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the loss [ ]
[ ]
[ ] [X]
of topsoil, either on or off site?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or [ ]
[ ]
[ ] [X]
that would become unstable as a result of the project, and -
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B [ ]
[ ]
[ ] [X]
of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of [ ]
[ ]
[ ] [X]
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
f) Change in topography or ground surface relief features? [ ]
[ ]
[ ] [X]
g) Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or [ ]
[ ]
[ ] [X]
more?
h) Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 10% [ ]
[ ]
[] [X]
natural grade?
i) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique [ ]
[ ]
[ ] [X]
geologic or physical feature?
j) Other [ ]
[ ]
[ ] [X]
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the [ ]
[ ]
[ ] [X]
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials9
Page 12 of 25
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving explosion or the release of
hazardous materials into the environment (including, but
not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or
radiation)?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
[] [] I [X]
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely [ ] [] [] [X]
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant -to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would
it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
i) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
hazards (e.g. electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil
pipelines)?
j) Other [ ]
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project:
Page 13 of 25
Potentially
Less Than Less Than No
Significant
Significant Significant Impact
Impact
with Impact
Mitigation
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner, which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
or area, including through the alteration`of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures, [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
k) Changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
direction of surface water and/or groundwater?
Page 14 of 25
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
i) Other modification of a wash, channel creek or river? [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
1) Impact Stormwater Management in any of the following [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
ways:
i) Potential impact of project construction and project [ ]
post -construction activity on storm water runoff?
ii) Potential 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?
iii) Significant environmentally harmful increase in the [ ]
flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff?
iv) Significant and environmentally harmful increases in [ ]
erosion of the project site or surrounding areas?
v) Storm water discharges that would significantly [ ]
impair or contribute to the impairment of the beneficial
uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water
quality benefits (e.g. riparian corridors, wetlands, etc.)
vi) Cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage [ ]
systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies?
vii) Does the proposed project include provisions for the [ ]
separation, recycling, and reuse of materials both during
construction and after project occupancy?
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Disrupt or physically divide an established community [ ]
(including a low-income or minority community)?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or [ ]
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
I []
[X]
[] [X]
[]
NO
Page 15 of 25
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan, [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
natural community conservation plan, and/or policies by
agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
X. MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral [ ]
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important [ ]
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
c) Use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient [ ]
manner?
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in [ ]
excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive [ ]
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels [ ]
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient [ ]
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, [ ]
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, [ ]
would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
Page 16 of 25
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere (especially affordable housing)?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
XIII. PUBLIC, SERVICES - Would the project result in:
a) Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
XIV. RECREATION - Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
[] [] [] [X]
[] [] [] [X]
[] [] [] [X]
[] [] [] [X]
[] [] [] [X]
[] [] [] [X]
[] [] [] [X]
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction [ ]
or expansion of recreational facilities which might have
an adverse physical effect on the environment?
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project:
Page 17 of 25
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Potentially
Less Than Less Than No
Significant
Significant Significant Impact
Impact
with Impact
Mitigation
a)
Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either
the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio
on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b)
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
c)
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
d)
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e)
Result in inadequate emergency access? [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
f)
Result in inadequate parking capacity? [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
g)
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs [ ]
[ ] [X] [ ]
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
h)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project:
a)
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b)
Require or result in the construction of new water or [ ]
[ ] [ ] [X]
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Page 18 of 25
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
[] I I [X]
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand
in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
regulations related to solid waste?
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
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 mayor periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will [ ] [ ] [ ] [X]
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
Page 19 of 25
D. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND/OR EARLIER ANALYSIS:
Section and Subsections
Evaluation of Impacts
I. AESTHETICS
a. -c.) No impact — The adoption of the Non -Motorized Transportation Plan
(NMTP) will not affect any scenic vistas or other scenic resources within
the City of Santa Clanta. The proposed NMTP would not entitle any
development. Future projects subject to the proposed plan may involve
aesthetic changes within the City; and the potential aesthetic impacts of
-
such subsequent projects will be evaluated pursuant to CEQA on a
project -by -project basis prior to the implementation of each individual
project. Adoption of the proposed plan, itself (i.e., without further
discretionary actions of the City of Santa Clarita), would not adversely
impact any scenic vistas, scenic resources, scenic roadway corridors, or
the aesthetic character of the City.
d.) No impact — The proposed NMTP will not affect any light or glare in
day or nighttime views. Other than recommending lighting to highlight
pedestrian routes and increase their safety, the proposed NMTP would
not affect lighting or glare. No change in lighting policy is proposed.
Therefore, the proposal would have no impact related to light or glare.
II. AGRICULTURE
a. -c.) No impact — The proposed NMTP will not affect any farmland
RESOURCES
identified by the California Resources Agency, farmland designated
under a Williamson Act Contract, and will not convert any farmland to
non-agricultural use. Therefore, the proposal would have no impact to
agricultural resources.
III. AIR QUALITY
a. -d.) No impact — Santa Clanta is located in the South Coast Air Basin of
California (SCAB), a 6,600 -square -mile area encompassing Orange
County and the nondesert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San
Bernardino Counties. The City is under jurisdiction of the South Coast
Air Basin Quality Management District (SCAQMD). SCAQMD has
adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SCAB, which
includes transportation management measures, strict controls on
automobile emissions, new industrial controls, 'extension of controls to
very small sources, and restrictions on the use of various types of
products, such as paints and coatings, in order to manage the Basin's air
quality. However, the proposed NMTP will not alter any of the
aforementioned measures directly. Subsequent developments in the
areas where the proposed policies are implemented will likely affect the
local air quality in the future. The potential air quality impacts of future
development projects will be evaluated on a project -by -project basis
pursuant to CEQA prior to the implementation of each project.
Regardless, subsequent development projects will be required to adhere
to the standards set forth in the AQMP. Therefore, no air quality impacts
are anticipated at this time and no mitigation is required.
e.) No impact — The proposal does not include any physical development at
this time. The proposed NMTP may apply to future improvement
Page 20 of 25
projects within the City. However, the proposed plan does not remove
any odor -related regulations and would not foreseeably lead to a change
in the generation of odor.
IV. BIOLOGICAL
a. -d.) No impact — The proposed NMTP does not include the modification
RESOURCES
of any habitat and would not otherwise affect any candidate, sensitive or
special status species identified by the Department of Fish and Game or
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Further, the proposed NMTP will
not have any adverse affect on any riparian habitat or wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The proposed NMTP
will help to guide non -motorized transportation within the City, but does
not authorize any specific improvements. . Further, the proposed
NMTP would not remove environmental review requirements for any
future improvements. In addition, there is no proposed alteration to any
wildlife corridor or migratory fish corridor proposed and no change to
any regulation or code protecting such resources. Therefore, the
proposed NMTP would cause no impacts to sensitive species, sensitive
natural community, riparian habitat, or wetlands.
e.) No impact — The City of Santa Clarita has an Oak Tree Preservation
Ordinance that regulates the development adjacent to and under oak
trees. At this time, there are no proposed modifications to the Oak Tree
Ordinance. Therefore, no impacts to local policies are anticipated with
the proposed plan. '
f. -g.) No impact — The proposed NMTP proposes no alterations to any
local or regional habitat conservation plan (HCP) or any SEA
(Significant Ecological Area) or SNA (Significant Natural Area). The
provisions of such plans and SEA/SNA restrictions would continue to
apply to any non -motorized transportation improvement project
undertaken in the future. Therefore, no impact is anticipated with
respect to any HCP, SEA or SNA.
V. CULTURAL
a. -d.) No impact — The proposed NMTP will not have any impact on
RESOURCES
cultural resources in the City of Santa Clarita. Adoption of the plan
itself will not alter any unique geological feature, paleontological
resource, any human remains or affect any historical or archeological
resource. However, the proposed plan will guide future non -motorized
transportation improvements, which may impact cultural resources. The
potential cultural resource impacts of such future improvements will be
evaluated on a project -by -project basis pursuant to CEQA prior to their
implementation. No impact to any archeological, historical or cultural
resource would be caused by adopting the proposed NMTP.
VI. GEOLOGY AND
a. i -iv) No impact — Southern California has numerous active and
SOILS
potentially active faults that could affect the City. As stated in the City's
General Plan, the City is susceptible to geologic hazards in the event of a
major earthquake (magnitude 8.3) along the San Andreas Fault. This
could result in ground failure and liquefaction. However, the proposed
NMTP, itself, does not authorize any improvement projects, and would
not change the requirements of future development to follow all state and
Page 21 of 25
City construction codes/regulations. Therefore, the proposed NMTP
would have no impact related to exposure of people or structures to any
adverse effects of seismic activity.
b. -e.) No impact — The proposed NMTP will not result in any erosion or
location of structures on or near unstable soil, expansive or otherwise.
Furthermore, the proposal would not affect requirements of future
improvements to comply with all state and City construction
codes/regulations. Therefore, the proposal would have no impact with
respect to erosion, unstable or expansive soil.
f. -i.) No impact — The proposed NMTP is a regulatory adjustment and
does not include any improvements at this time. It does not involve any
improvements that would alter topography, ground surface, or a physical
feature and does not involve any earth movement or grading. The intent
of the plan is to guide the implementation of the non -motorized
transportation development and design. Therefore, the proposed NMTP
would have no impact to topography, graded slopes, or geological
features.
VII. HAZARDS AND
a. -d, i.) No impact — The proposed NMTP would not directly expose
HAZARDOUS
people to health hazards or hazardous materials and would not interfere
MATERIALS
with any emergency response plans. The proposed plan would guide
non -motorized transportation improvements throughout the City
However, subsequent improvement projects would be required to
comply with the City's General Plan and development codes and federal,
state, and local hazardous material regulations. Furthermore, no
improvement projects would be authorized by adoption of the NMTP
and the noted potential effects would only occur as a subsequent affect
of future improvements, which are subject to individual CEQA review.
Therefore, no impact due to hazardous materials is anticipated as a result
of adopting the proposed NMTP.
e. -f.) No impact — The proposal includes no changes to land uses or
development standards for land within two (2) miles of an airport and
airfield or otherwise within an airport land use plan. Therefore, the
proposed NMTP would not affect the risks of land uses adjacent to
airports or airfields and the proposal would have no related impacts.
g.) No impact — The proposed NMTP would not affect the implementation
of emergency response plans, and would have no related impacts.
h.) No impacts — The proposed NMTP would not directly increase the risks
of wildland fires, and would not change the regulations or development
standards governing development adjacent to wildlands. Therefore, the
proposed NMTP would have no related impacts.
VIII. HYDROLOGY
a. -b.) No impact — The proposed project would not impact water quality
AND WATER QUALITY
standards, nor affect groundwater supplies. The proposal will not be
responsible for direct development impacts. However, subsequent
improvement projects in the City would be required to comply with the
Page 22 of 25
M
standards put forth in the City's General Plan and all Clean Water Act
Requirements, including the National Pollutant discharge Elimination
System (NPDES). Therefore, the project will have no related impacts.
c. -d.) No impact — The proposed NMTP will not have any flooding,
tsunami, drainage pattern, or runoff, drainage system, water quality, or of
Stormwater Management sSystem impacts. As mentioned previously, the
proposed project is plan focusing specially on increasing and improving
the use of non -motorized transportation within the City and will not be
responsible for direct development impacts. However, subsequent
improvement projects in the City would be required to comply with the
standards put forth in the City's General Plan and all Clean Water Act
Requirements, including the National Pollutant discharge Elimination
System (NPDES); and such projects would be subject to individual
project -level environmental review pursuant CEQA. Furthermore, the
proposed NMTP would not change any hydrology or water quality -
related codes, laws, permits, or regulations Therefore, the project will
have no related impacts.
IX. LAND USE AND a.) No impact — The proposed plan will guide the implementation of non -
PLANNING motorized transportation . There are existing policies in place, which
have been guiding the development of such non -motorized transportation
options in the City, such as trails, paseos, lanes and sidewalks. The plan
also concentrates on improving connectivity within the City and
increasing the safety among interactions between those using motorized
vehicles and those using modes of non -motorized transit. The objective
is to implement a plan and guide the creation of new and expand existing
infrastructures for non -motorized transportation. No established
community would be disrupted or physically divided due to the proposal
and, therefore, no impact would occur.
b.) Less than significant — The proposed plan is a document which will be
used to guide the implementation of new and further upgrading of
existing non -motorized transportation throughout the City. There are
existing plans and standards currently used to guide non -motorized
transportation, including but not limited to the City of Santa Clarita
General Plan (specifically, the Circulation and Land Use Elements), the
Santa Clarita Municipal Code, and regional programs such as the
Highway Design Manual from Caltrans, the 2001 Long Range
Transportation Plan for Los Angeles County and the Los Angeles
County Bicycle Transportation Strategic Plan. The NMTP makes
recommendations to identify and improve needs of the City's biking,
walking, horseback riding and other modes that do not involve vehicles.
The purpose is to identify and prioritize bikeway needs, identify needed
facilities and services, enhance and preserve the quality of life in the
City, improve safety, maximize funding sources for implementation and
prioritize capital improvements While other plans and standards
currently apply to non -motorized transportation, the proposed plan
would not conflict with any such plans in a manner that would cause
adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, the proposed plan would
cause no significant impacts related to consistency with applicable land
Page 23 of 25
use plans, policies, and regulations. .
c.) No impact — The proposal would not conflict with any habitat
conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, and/or policies
by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. Therefore, the project
would have no adverse impacts on conservation plans.
X. MINERAL AND
a. -c.) No impact — The City of Santa Clarita is, rich in mineral resources.
ENERGY RESOURCES
Gold mining and oil production historically have been the principal
mineral extraction activities in and around the Santa Clarita Valley.
Other minerals found in the planning area include construction
aggregate, titanium, and tuff. Mineral resources and extraction areas are
shown in Exhibit OS -5 of the City's General Plan. The proposed NMTP
would neither result in increased removal of any mineral and energy
resources nor prevent the mining of such resources. Therefore, the
proposed NMTP will have no impact on known mineral resources or
energy resources in the City.
XI. NOISE
a. -d.) No impact — The proposed NMTP will not expose persons to or
cause the generation of excess noise levels, groundbomne vibration, or
increase ambient noise in the City of Santa Clarita. The NMTP, in fact,
does not propose any development at this time that would impact noise
levels in the City. The proposed plan would guide future non -motorized
transportation improvements within the City However, the proposed
plan does not remove any noise -related regulations and would not
foreseeably lead to a change in the generation of noise. Therefore, no
impact to noise levels is anticipated with the plan.
e.-£) No impact — There are no airports, airfields, or airport land use plans
within the City. Therefore, the proposed NMTP would result in no
impacts related to airport noise.
XII. POPULATION
a. -c.) No impact — The proposed NMTP would not induce substantial
AND HOUSING
population growth in the City, either directly or indirectly, nor would any
of the proposed activities cause displacement of existing homes or
people. The proposed project is a planning document and does not
authorize and improvements at this time. Furthermore, the plan would
help to streamline the permitting process so that future development
would incorporate non -motorized modes of transportation. The
proposed NMTP would not alter the City's population projections and is
consistent with the City's General Plan. Therefore, the project would
have no impacts to population and housing.
XIII. PUBLIC
a. i -iv) No impact — The proposed project will not increase the need for
SERVICES
fire protection, police protection, school services, or increase the need
for parks. The proposed plan would encourage the use of non -motorized
transportation and guides future non -motorized transportation
improvements. The proposed plan could benefit public services by result
in improvement non -motorized recreation, improved non -motorized
routes to schools, and improved safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and
Page 24 of 25
equestrians, thus, reducing the demand for police services. The proposed
plan would have no adverse impacts on fire protection, police protection,
schools, or parks.
XIV. RECREATION
a. -b.) No impact — The proposed NMTP will not have any adverse impact
on recreational amenities within the City of Santa Clarita. The proposed
project is a planning document that could aid recreational facilities by
providing guidelines for improving pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian
facilities and by encouraging non -motorized travel/access to recreational
facilities. Therefore, no significant impact to recreation would be caused
by the proposed NMTP.
XV.
a. -b.) No impact — The proposed project would have no impacts that would
TRANSPORTATION /
cause an increase in traffic load and capacity on street systems.
TRAFFIC
Conversely, by promoting biking and walking in the City, the NMTP
may have a beneficial impact on vehicular traffic. Therefore, the
proposed NMTP would not result in any new or different traffic impacts
and would have no adverse impacts on vehicular travel.
c. -f, h.) No impact — The project would have no impacts on City traffic
systems including emergency routes, parking capacity, air traffic patters,
or increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. In some
cases, the proposed plan could improve safety/remove incompatible uses
by encouraging more effective non -motorized travel.
g) Less than significant — The proposed plan is a document that will be
used to guide the implementation of new and further upgrading of
existing non -motorized transportation throughout the City. There are
existing plans and standards currently used to guide non -motorized
transportation, including but not limited to the City of Santa Clarita
General Plan (specifically, the Circulation and Land Use Elements), the
Santa Clarita Municipal Code, and regional programs such as the
Highway Design Manual from Caltrans, the 2001 Long Range
Transportation Plan for Los Angeles County and the Los Angeles
County Bicycle Transportation Strategic Plan. The NMTP makes
recommendations to identify and improve needs of the City's biking,
walking, horseback riding and other modes that do not involve vehicles.
The purpose is to identify and prioritize bikeway needs, identify needed
facilities and services, enhance and preserve the quality of life in the
City, improve safety, maximize funding sources for implementation and
prioritize capital improvements. While other plans and standards
currently apply to non -motorized transportation, the proposed plan
would not conflict with any such plans in a manner that would cause
adverse environmental impacts. Rather, the proposed plan would further
the City's intentions for non -motorized travel. Therefore, the proposed
plan would cause no significant impacts related to consistency with
adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation.
XVI. UTILITIES AND
a. -g.) No impact — The proposed NMTP does not include any development
SERVICE SYSTEMS
at this time. Therefore, the project would not result in the construction
Page 25 of 25
O \_cities counties_\Santa Clanta - CIP\Non Motorized Plan\lmtial Study\Santa Clanta Non -Motorized Transportation Plan Initial StudyJmb072707 doc
of new water facilities, expansion of existing facilities, affect drainage
patterns, water treatment services, and furthermore, no impacts to the
City's landfill capacity would occur. The construction of any subsequent
improvements would be required to comply with the City's General Plan
and the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and
all applicable utility purveyors. Compliance with these requirements
would ensure all federal, state and local statutes and imposed regulations
are met. Therefore, no impacts to utilities or service systems would
occur.
XVII. MANDATORY
a. -c.) No impact — The project will have no impact on the environment that
FINDINGS OF
would lead to a substantial reduction in the habitat of a fish or wildlife
SIGNIFICANCE
species, or reduce or restrict the number of rare, threatened or
endangered species. The proposed plan does not involve any physical
development at this time. The proposed NMTP may apply to future
development projects within the City as well as address the needs of
existing infrastructure. However, the proposal does not remove any
established City regulations that protect any plant and animal species.
Due to the nature of the proposed NMTP, the proposal would not
contribute to any cumulative impacts and would not cause environmental
effects that would adversely affect humans. Rather, the proposed NMTP
is intended to improve the human environment by stimulating the use,
promotion and expansion of non -motorized transportation options in the
City. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impacts that could
result in a Mandatory Findings of Significance.
O \_cities counties_\Santa Clanta - CIP\Non Motorized Plan\lmtial Study\Santa Clanta Non -Motorized Transportation Plan Initial StudyJmb072707 doc
NON -MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION ADOPTION
Main Components
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The development and maintenance of bicycle and
pedestrian facilities provides for people -friendly streets, paths, trails, and activity centers,
and supports sustainable community development. The Plan identifies strategies and
includes recommendations for a bicycle network, pedestrian improvements, path design,
motorist and cyclist education and encouragement programs, amenities, and specific
bicycle and pedestrian projects, which are identified on a Citywide Existing and Proposed
Bicycle Facilities and Trails map.
Planning. Land use patterns and policies that encourage the accommodation of
bicyclists and pedestrians are important in increasing non -motorized transportation use.
Providing interesting travel route destinations that are close by and a mix of uses allow
for the combination of trips for maximum convenience. The Plan offers solutions for
increasing bicycle and pedestrian trips through the implementation of land use
regulations and policies, which encourage bicycle and pedestrian -friendly development.
Transit. Public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities complement each other. Transit
increases the length and variety of possible Bicycle and pedestrian trips, making it
possible for people to choose these transportation modes more frequently. The Plan
identifies the need to make transit more pleasant, safe, and convenient by improving
access to and from the station, and connecting the complete transit journey from "door to
door." The Plan cites recommendations such as bus stop location distances, amenities,
bicycle parking, and encouragement programs.
Safe Routes to School. Safe Routes to School refers to a variety of programs aimed at
promoting walking and bicycling to school, and improving traffic safety around school
areas through education, incentives, and engineering methods. The Plan process worked
with three pilot schools, Newhall Elementary, Santa Clarita Elementary, and Cedarcreek
Elementary, and created a "toolbox" to be used by all schools to address overall visibility,
pedestrian crossing improvements, and education and encouragement recommendations.
Funding Strategies for Implementation. A key source of funding for bicycle ,
construction projects is the California Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA). The State
of California (State) requires that applicants to the BTA have an adopted bikeways plan
that includes a number of specific elements related to bicycle commuting, land uses,
multimodal connections, funding, and public input. The City of Santa Clarita Non -
Motorized Transportation Plan includes the elements required by the State to qualify for
consideration for available funding.
SAPw UNNon-Motorized Plan main components doc
NON -MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION PLAN
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION ADOPTION
Public Meeting Comments
June 2006 Open House
On June 26, 2006, the City held a Biking and Walking Open House, which was attended
by approximately 35 Santa Clarita residents. After a brief presentation, residents broke
into six working groups to mark up maps with well-designed areas, problem areas, and
desired improvements. Comments leaned heavily toward bicycle issues. The following
comments were received:
■ Existing network was excellent and should be maintained and expanded.
■ More loop trails, connections between existing trails, and on -street bike facilities.
■ On -street bicycle facilities are important in addition to off-street.
■ Improve connection between paseos, bike paths, and bike lanes, and to Metrolink
Stations, community shopping, commercial centers, and schools.
■ Trails adjac6nt to roadways, such as Soledad Canyon Trail, were not pleasant due to
difficult street crossings, conflicts with vehicles at driveways, proximity to high-
speed traffic, perception of reduced safety, and discomfort of traveling against
adjacent traffic.
■ More "Share the Road" signs.
■ "Stop, Walk Bike" signs requested to be removed.
■ More "way -finding" (directional) signs.
May 2007 Public Comment Meeting
On May 21, 2007, the City held a public comment meeting during the 30 -day public
review of the draft Non -Motorized Plan. The meeting was attended by approximately 20
Santa Clarita residents. After a brief presentation, the following comments were
received:
■ Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator position supported.
■ Need to show commitment to future implementation.
■ Requested project prioritization detail, cost effectiveness, and accident statistics.
■ More connections between trails and on -street facilities.
■ Set standard for bicycle parking at City Hall, at current major employers, and new
developments.
■ More paseos.
■ More bike lanes.
■ Bouquet Canyon residents opposed potential Bouquet Canyon Trail project along the
wash.
■ "Stop, Walk Bike" signs requested to be removed.
S U WTI'P\Non-Motonzed PlanTublic Issues doc