Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-09-12 - AGENDA REPORTS - SAND CYN PLAZA PROJ (2)Agenda Item: 12 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Q;" AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARINGS 7, CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: i DATE: September 12, 2017 SUBJECT: SAND CANYON PLAZA MIXED USE PROJECT: A DEVELOPMENT OF 580 RESIDENTIAL UNITS; 60,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL SPACE; AND AN 85,000 SQUARE -FOOT ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAND CANYON ROAD AND SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD DEPARTMENT: Cormmuzity Development PRESENTER: Patrick Leclair RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council: 1. Conduct the public bearing; 2. Adopt the resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project; and 3. Adopt a resolution approving Master Case No. 14-077. BACKGROUND EXISTING PROJECT SITE CONDITION In 1961, the property at the northeast corner of Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road was disturbed for the construction of a 123 -unit manufactured home park and associated infrastructure, along with roadway improvements for Soledad Canyon Road and drainage infrastructure along Sand Canyon Road. On December 17, 2008, the property owner received approval from the Manufactured Horne Rental Adjustment Panel to close the park, with the intention of developing the property with residential and commercial components. The property owner began the process to remove coaches from the site. Due to the downturn in the economy, the intended development was put on bold. Some coaches were returned to the site and rented out on mouth-to-mouth leases. The property owner is now ready to move forward on developing the property, and is again in the process of closing the park, clearing the site, and removing Page 1 Packet Pg. 66 coaches. Agreements are in place for the purchase and relocation of all remaining owxner- occupied units. Only a few coaches remain and will be removed in the near future. PREVIOUS PROJECT APPROVAL - SAND CANYONJOINT VEA7URE PROJECT In Juie 2002, the City Council approved the Sand Canyon Joint Venture project on the site. The project included two development areas, with residential and commercial components. The first planning area included the construction of 63 single-family homes on 34 acres on the northem portion of the site. The second planning area included the removal of 44 manufactured home units to leave a 92-unitmanufacturedhome park, the construction of 24 single-family homes, and the construction of a new 200,000 square -foot comm-nercial/retail center on 55 acres. The total project included 87 single-family residential units, a 92 -unit manufactured home park, and a 200,000 square -foot commercial center. While the project was approved by the City Council, the developer did not move forward with construction and the approvals expired. INITIAL APPLICATION On May 28, 2014, Sand Canyon Plaza, LLC, submitted an application for the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project (Project). The entitlement requests include a Tentative Tract Map, Hillside Development Review, Conditional Use Pen -nit, Ridgeline Alteration Pen -nit, Minor Use Pen -nit, and Oak Tree Pen -nit for the construction of a mixed-use project consisting of up to 580 residential dwelling units, 56,000 square feet of retail commercial (including restaurants), and a 60,000 square -foot (up to 120 -bed) assisted living facility (which was later increased to 75,000 square feet) on the approximately 87 -acre site. Staff processed the application, which included several Development Review Committee (DRC} meetings with City staff and five Planning Commission meetings on the Project, during the time period of January 18 to Juie 6, 2017. PUBLIC OUTREACH The applicant held approximately 25 community meetings over the last three years to solicit input and feedback that could be incorporated into the Project. The meetings were held with the Sand Canyon Home Owners Association, Canyon Country Advisory Committee, and residents of the Pinetree comm-muiity and other neighboring residential communities. Some of the concems identified during these meetings primarily focused on potential traffic and noise impacts. Residents have expressed positive reactions to seeing new investment and redevelopment of the site. Comm-muiity concems identified during these meetings have been addressed and are highlighted in the Draft EIR. GENERAL PLAN. ZONING. AND SURROUNDING USES The Project site is located at the northeast confer of Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road. Approximately 84 acres are located in the Mixed Use Neighborhood (MXN) zone and General Plan land use designation, and approximately 2.5 acres are located in the Urban Residential 3 (UR3) zone and General Plan land use designationn. Approximately 34 acres in the southwest confer of the site are located within the Planned Development (PD) overlay zone. The Project site is bordered by vacant land in unincorporated Los Angeles County to the north and SR14 to the south, across Soledad Canyon Road. Existing single-family residential uses in the Urban Residential 2 (UR2), UR3, and Urban Residential 5 (UR5) zones are located to the Page 2 Packet Pg. 67 east and west, with commercial uses in the Community Commercial (CC) zone, southwest of the site at the intersection of Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road. The Project site is in close proximity to Oak Spring Canyon Park, as well as Sulphur Springs Elementary, Mitchell Elementary, and Pinetree Elementary schools, and the College of the Canyons East Campus. PROJECT SUMMARY ORIGLV4L PROJECT The Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project site is an approximately 87 -acre site located on the northeast confer of the intersection at Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road in the MXN and UR3 zone. The original Project submittal included the development of 580 residential units, a retail/comm-nercial center, and a senior assisted living facility, and was divided into five planning areas as follows: • Planning Area 1 Planning Area i (PA 1) consisted of 56,000 square feet of retail/comm-nercial space and a 60,000 square -foot (up to 120 beds) assisted living facility (which was later increased to 75,000 square feet), with associated parking and infrastructure on approximately 10 acres. PA is located on the northeast confer of the intersection at Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road. • Plannine Area 2 Planning Area 2 (PA2) consisted of 312 attached apartment units, a community recreation facility, and associated infrastructure on approximately i i acres. PA2 is located just north of PA along Sand Canyon Road. • Planning Area 3 Planning Area 3 (PA3) consisted of 122 attached tounnhome units, a community recreation facility, and associated infrastructure on approximately i i acres. PA3 is located to the north of PA2 along Sand Canyon Road. • Plannine Area 4 Planning Area 4 (PA4) consisted of 71 single-family, detached or attached condominium units on approximately 10 acres. PA4 is located in the center of the Project site, just north of PA 1. and east and south of PA2 and PA3. • Plannine Area 5 Planning Area 5 (PA5) consisted of 75 single-family, detached or attached condominium units on approximately 13 acres. PA5 is located in the northern and eastem portion of the Project site to the east of PA4. CURRENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION As a result of comments from Planning staff. the DRC, public agencies, members of the public, and the Planning Commission, several revisions have been made to the Project to reduce the impact to the northem undisturbed portions of the ridgeline on the Project site, and to further increase the commercial and assisted living components of the Project. These revisions resulted in a 4,400 square -foot increase for the commercial center, an additional 10,000 square -foot (20 - bed) increase (from the original 75,000 square feet) in the assisted living facility, and the transfer of 27 units from PA5 to PA3. The revised Project description is as follows: Page 3 Packet Pg. 68 • Pla nine Area i PA includes 60,000 square feet of retailtcoxmnercial space, an 85,000 square -foot (up to 140 beds) assisted living facility, and a three story (one level partially below grade) parking structure on approximately 9.6 acres. • Pla nine Area 2 PA2 includes 312 attached apartment units, with a community recreation facility and associated infrastructure, however the area was increased from i i acres to 12.24 acres. • Pla nine Area 3 PA3 includes 149 attached towiihome units, with a conmmuiity recreation facility and associated infrastructure, on approximately 10.3 acres. • Planing Area 4 PA4 includes 71 single-family, detached or attached condominium units, but was adjusted in area to 7.33 acres. • Pla nine Area 5 PA5 includes 48 single-family, detached or attached condominium units on 6.3 acres. In addition, a two -acre park was included in the Project just north of PA4 and PA5. The Project conditions would pen -nit flexibility in private street design and location, as well as residential and commercial product type and layout through the development review process. The Project architecture would be required to adhere to the City's Community Character and Design Guidelines. VEHICULAR CIRCULATION Improvements to Sand Canyon Road would include the construction of two roundabout intersections. Silver Saddle Circle is one street that crosses Sand Canyon Road twice, at both a northern and a southern intersection. The existing southern intersection at Silver Saddle Circle and Sand Canyon Road is proposed to be converted into a four-way roundabout intersection. A new three-way roundabout intersection is proposed along Sand Canyon Road, just south of the existing northern intersection at Silver Saddle Circle and Sand Canyon Road. These two roundabout intersections provide access mostly to the residential portion of the Project and would be constructed as single -lane roundabouts, but additional right-of-way would be reserved and graded to allow for future reconstruction to two-lane roundabouts in the future, if needed. In addition, the applicant will provide a Class II trail and meandering sidewalk along the Sand Canyon Road frontage. Along Soledad Canyon Road, the Project would include dedication of right-of-way and improvements at the intersection with Sand Canyon Road and near the new project driveway, east of the SR14 southbound ramps. The existing Class II trail along Soledad Canyon Road would remain in place. A vacation will be required across a portion of the Sand Canyon Road frontage where excess right-of-way exists as a result of roadway realignment for Sand Canyon Road. Condition Nos. ENI, EN23, EN24, and EN25 have been added, indicating that the City Council has conceptually approved this dedication, requiring the applicant to go through the formal City dedication process prior to recordation of a final map. Page 4 Packet Pg. 69 GRADING The Project proposes to balance all grading on site. The total earth movement will be 2.1 million cubic yards of cut and fill. No import or export of earth will be required as proposed. The Project will require additional remedial grading for over excavation of earth for building pad preparation. The Project would include grading within the Ridgeline Preservation (RP) overlay zone. The existing ridgeline terminates just north of Soledad Canyon Road and was previously graded for the construction of Soledad Canyon Road and SRI 4, creating a near -vertical slope that cannot be planted. Grading for this Project would lay back the existing slope along Soledad Canyon Road and regrade a portion of this ridgeline to have a more natural, curvilinear design with a 2:1 slope. This will allow the slope to be planted with drought tolerant landscape in accordance with the UDC and will soften views to the public. Grading would comply with Section 17.51.020 of the UDC for hillside development to blend all grading into the surrounding hillsides. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMEAWRIDGELIATE IMPACTS The Project includes development on a General Plan -designated significant ridgeline. Portions of this ridgeline have been previously disturbed for the construction of Soledad Canyon Road and the existing manufactured home park, which created a flat cut -slope along the Soledad Canyon Road frontage of the site that cannot be planted due to the steep grade of the slope. Grading will include laying back the ridgeline from Soledad Canyon Road to allow for the slope to be planted with native plants and vegetation. Further, grading would include a curvilinear design to create a more natural appearance. Grading and development proposed with the Project would not impact any identified scenic vistas or view corridors. Views from the west and south of the site will remain, with the Project site being most visible from the existing residences to the west of the site. Residents living west of the site will have new views through the site to the mountains to the cast. These views, while far off are generally views of open space in the Angeles National Forest. The applicant has agreed, and has further been conditioned, to provide enhanced landscaping along the western portion of the Project site. This will soften the views for residents living west of the site, and obscure sound generated by the Project. Views of the site from the north and east will continue to be predominantly obscured. The applicant has included beans along the eastem portions of the developed areas to help obscure views of the development from residents living east of the site. The Planning Commission revised the Project to remove development from the northem portions of the ridgeline on the Project site to reduce impacts to undisturbed portions of the site, and to further screen the Project from view to the property to the north of the site. The most intense portions of the Project include the commercial center, assisted living facility, and the multi- family rental units. These components are located in the southwest portion of the Project site, near the intersection of Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road. This portion of the site was previously developed with the manufactured home park and the construction/ widening of Soledad Canyon Road. As discussed, the Project will lay back the previously graded slopes on the site to allow for landscaping. Page 5 Packet Pg. 70 PROPOSED ENTITLEMENTS At their June 6, 2017, meeting, the Planning Coxmnission recommended that the City Council approve the Project, as revised, including the following entitlements: • Tentative Tract Map A request is included in the Project proposal to subdivide the site to create parcels for the commercial center, assisted living facility, residential uses, and open space/slopes on the Project site. Any subdivision in excess of four lots requires the approval of a Tentative Tract Map (TTM) in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. In accordance with Section 17.25.110 of the UDC, the Planning Commission is required to review and approve all requests for a TTM. Prior to recordation of a final tract map for the Project, the City Council will need to review and approve the final tract map to ensure consistency with the approved TTM. • Hillside Development Review In accordance with Section 17.51.020 of the UDC, all development on slopes in excess of 10% average cross -slope requires the approval of a Hillside Development Review application. Further, all projects with an average cross -slope of 15% or more require the approval of the Planning Commission. The Project site has been divided into three areas for purposes of calculating the average cross -slope as follows: o PAI totals 32.1 acres, is located along Sand Canyon Road at the intersection with Soledad Canyon Road, and includes an average cross -slope of 13%; o PA2 totals 51.4 acres and is located along the significant ridgeline on the Project site. This area has an average cross -slope of 48%; and o PA3 totals four acres and generally includes the portion of the significant ridgeline that was previously disturbed for the development of Soledad Canyon Road. This area has an average cross -slope of 73%. Based on the average cross -slope for the majority of the site exceeding 15%, the Project requires the approval of the Planning Commission. • Ridizeline Alteration Permit The General Plan identifies significant ridgelines within the City. To protect and/or restrict development on these identified ridgelines, Section 17.38.070 of the UDC established an RP overlay zone which creates a 100 -foot zone, either horizontally or vertically, on either side of an identified ridgeline. Any development within the RP overlay zone requires the approval of a Ridgeline Alteration Permit by the City Council. The Project is proposing to develop within the RP overlay zone and therefore will require the approval of the City Council. Since a Ridgeline Alteration Permit is required for this project, all of the entitlements associated with this project require the approval of the City Council, in addition to the recommendation of the Planning Commission. • Conditional Use Permit Approximately 34 acres of the site are located within a PD overlay zone. In accordance with Section 17.38.060 of the UDC, a development within the PD overlay zone requires the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) by the Planning Commission. The Project is proposing the development of an 85,000 square -foot assisted living facility. A CUP is required for the development of an assisted living facility in the MXN zone. Page 6 Packet Pg. 71 • Minor Use Permit Section 17.35.020 of the UDC identifies minimum densities for residential and commercial uses within a mixed-use development in the MXN zone. The Project complies with the minimum density for residential uses (six units per acre) with a density of approximately seven units per acre. The Project is requesting approval for a Minor Use Permit (MUP) to allow for development below the minimum density for commercial (0.2 to 1 Floor Area Ratio (FAR)}. The Project is proposing an FAR below the 0.2 FAR at 55,600 (130,600 including the assisted living uses). While the Project proposes to build below the minimum commercial floor area prescribed in the MXN zone, an economic study prepared for the Project indicates that the nearby Vista Canyon Project will absorb a majority of the large/anchor tenants that would be potential candidates for the Project site. Therefore, the commercial square footage associated with the Project is appropriate. Oak Tree Permit The site has three oak trees, one of which is considered a heritage oak tree, based on its size. The Project is proposing to remove the two non -heritage oak trees and encroach within the protected zone of the one heritage oak tree. As a result of the proposed removals and encroachment, the Project requires the approval of an Oak Tree Permit in accordance with Section 17.51.040 of the UDC. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The City of Santa Clarita prepared a Draft FIR for the Project that addressed all issues raised in comments received on the Notice of Preparation. The Draft FIR was circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, in compliance with CEQA. The Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion for the Draft FIR was filed, posted, and advertised on March 3, 2017, and the 45 -day public review period ended on April 17, 2017, in accordance with CEQA. Late written comments received prior to May 10, 2017, were responded to in the Planning Commission Final FIR Responses to Comments recommended for certification by the Planning Commission. The Draft FIR addresses the following environmental factors. aesthetics; agriculture and forestry resources; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; geology and soils; greenhouse gas/climate change; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use; mineral and energy resources; noise; population and housing; parks and recreation; fire protection; police protection; schools; library services; traffic and circulation; solid waste; wastewater; and water supply. The Draft FIR also includes a detailed Project Description, Environmental Setting Section, Project Alternatives, Cumulative Impacts, and Growth Inducing Impacts. Unavoidable significant impacts have been identified in the following environmental issue areas. • Air Qualit - Regional operational emissions and cumulative operational emissions. • Noise - Construction noise, construction vibration levels (human annoyance), and cumulative traffic noise. The Planning Commission Final FIR was prepared for the Project after the review period concluded, and includes the Draft FIR, comments on the Draft FIR, and the following. responses to written comments on the Draft FIR; responses to public testimony regarding the Draft FIR issues raised at the Planning Commission public hearings; and modifications to the Draft FIR Page 7 Packet Pg. 72 text and mitigation measures. The Planning Commission Final FIR also explains that the Project, as modified by the Planning Commission revisions, reduces the original Project's potential environmental impacts due to overall development of the site with less intensive land uses. The Planning Commission Final FIR was made available in advance of the June 6, 2011, Planning Commission meeting, and was forwarded to the Planning Commission, members of the public who provided written comments prior to May 10, 2011, members of the public who made oral comments on the Draft FIR at the Planning Commission meetings, and to commenting agencies. The Planning Commission Final FIR was placed in the same library branches the Draft FIR had been placed, and was pasted at City Hall and on the City's website. Following the June 6, 2011, Planning Commission meeting, the City prepared the Final FIR (August 2011). The Final FIR contains copies of all comment letters, final responses to oral and written comments received on the Draft FIR and Planning Commission Final FIR, and results from updated biological surveys conducted in the spring of 2011, but not completed prior to the June 6 Planning Commission meeting. In recommending approval of the Project and certification of the Final FIR, the Planning Commission further recommended that the City Council adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and find there is substantial evidence that supports the conclusion that the Project will result in community benefits that outweigh the significant effects of the Project on the environment that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. These benefits include, but are not limited to, the following. • Create a new mixed-use community with connected neighborhoods that provides for residential, commercial, and recreational uses in close proximity to each other. • Design neighborhoods to create a unique identity and sense of place. • Design neighborhoods to locate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses in close proximity to each other and to major road corridors, transit, and trails. • Provide a rich set of public spaces. • Implement sustainable development principles, including greater energy efficiency, waste reduction, drought -tolerant landscaping, use of water efficiency measures, and use of recycled materials and renewable energy sources. • Create and enhance opportunities for non -vehicular travel, and encourage pedestrian mobility by providing an internal pedestrian circulation system that links residential neighborhoods to on-site recreation areas, regional trail systems, and neighborhood retail/commercial areas. • Foster the design and integration of a mutually beneficial relationship between the natural and built environments, and implement sensitive land use transition treatments, attractive strectscapes, and high duality design themes. • Provide a landscape design emphasizing a pleasant neighborhood character and inviting strectscapes. • Enhance and augment the housing market by providing a variety of housing types and Page 8 Packet Pg. 73 densities to meet the varying needs of future residents. Provide a tax base to support public services and infrastructure. Create permanent jobs on-site through the incorporation of commercial land uses to assist the City in meeting the jobs/housing balance. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Project on February 21, that was continued to the meetings of March 21, May 16, and June 6. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing at the meeting on June 6, 2017, at which time it recommended approval of the Project to the City Council and certification of the Final FIR. Revisions were made to the Project by the Planning Commission primarily due to comments from public agencies, members of the public, and the Planning Commissioners. These revisions are as follows: • Elimination of grading on the northern portion of the significant ridgeline through the transfer of 27 units from PA5 to PA3. This Project revision incorporates aspects of Draft FIR Alternative 3 (Ridgeline Preservation); • Creation of a two -acre private park in PA5 to further enhance recreational opportunities; • Increase the assisted living facility by 10,000 square feet (75,000 square feet to 85,000 square feet) to accommodate up to 140 beds, and increase to the commercial component by 4,400 square feet (55,600 square feet to 60,000 square feet). This revision incorporates aspects of Draft FIR Alternative 2 (Increased Commercial and Office); • Addition of a three-level, 264 -space parking structure to PAI; and, • As a condition of approval, require the applicant to re -design the building layout in PA2 (locating buildings along the Sand Canyon Road frontage) to further reduce noise impacts to adjacent properties. In addition, a condition of approval has been added to require enhanced landscaping along Sand Canyon Road. ALTERNATIVE ACTION Other actions as determined by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT The Project will have no negative fiscal impact on the General Fund. The applicant is required to pay development impact fees including, but not limited to, Bridge and Thoroughfare fees, Transit Impact fees, and Library Impact fees. ATTACHMENTS Public Notice Resolution - CEQA CEQA Resolution: Exhibit A - CEQA Facts and Findings Resolution - Entitlement Entitlement Resolution: Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Page 9 Packet Pg. 74 Tentative Tract Map 53014 CEQA Resolution. Exhibit B - Final FIR with Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (available in the City Clerk's reading file) Planning Commission Packet. Staff Reports, Resolutions, and Minutes (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Page 10 Packet Pg. 75 12.a CITY OF SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT TITLE: Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project APPLICATION: Master Case No. 14-077 Tentative Tract Map 53074, Conditional Use Permit 14-014, Hillside Development Review 14-001, Ridgeline Alteration Permit 14-001, Minor Use Permit 14-016, and Oak Tree Permit 14-008 PROJECT APPLICANT: Sand Canyon Plaza, LLC PROJECT LOCATION: The Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project is situated on an approximately 87 -acre site located immediately north of Soledad Canyon Road, east of Sand Canyon road, north of State Route 14 (SR -14), and west of the Pinetree residential community in the City of Santa Clarita. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit, Hillside Development Review, Ridgeline Alteration Permit, Minor Use Permit, and Oak Tree Permit (the "Project") to allow for the construction of a mixed-use project consisting of up to 580 residential dwelling units, 60,000 square feet of retail commercial (including restaurants), and an 85,000 square -foot (up to 140 -bed) assisted living facility. The Project would also include two private recreation areas, commercial plaza areas, various private streets, driveways, parking, and landscaped areas. Roadway improvements are proposed for Sand Canyon Road (including the construction of two roundabouts) as well as Soledad Canyon Road. The Project includes a request to allow for the removal of two non -heritage sized oak trees and alteration of a City identified significant ridgeline. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On June 6, 2017, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to adopt a resolution recommending the City Council certify the Draft Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and associated documents, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and approve Master Case No. 14-077; Tentative Tract Map 53074, Conditional Use Permit 14-014, Hillside Development Review 14-001, Ridgeline Alteration Permit 14-001, Minor Use Permit 14- 016, and Oak Tree Permit 14-008 for the development of the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project, in the City of Santa Clarita, subject to the Conditions of Approval. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Draft EIR has been prepared for this proposed project and was posted for public review from March 3, 2017, to April 17, 2017. The Draft FEIR was posted for public review in May 2017. The Draft FEIR includes all of the written comments received on the Draft EIR and detailed responses to the written comment letters. A copy of the Draft FEIR and all supporting documents are available at the City Clerk's Office, located in the City Hall Building at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120, Santa Clarita, California, 91355 or online at: http:llwww.santa-clarita.comlcity-hallldepartmentslcommunity- development,'planninglenviromnental-impact-reports-under-review. The City of Santa Clarita City Council will conduct a public hearing on this matter on the following date: DATE: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 TIME: At or after 6:00 p.m. LOCATION: City Hall, Council Chambers 23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor Santa Clarita, CA 91355 If you wish to challenge the action taken on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita at, or prior to, the public hearing. For further information regarding this proposal, you may contact the project planner at the City of Santa Clarita, Permit Center, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Telephone: (661) 255-4330. Website: www.santa-clarita.comlplanning. Send written correspondence to: 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Project Planner: Hai Nguyen, Associate Planner, hnguyen(asanta-clarita.com Mary Cusick, City Clerk Published: The Signal, August 22, 2017 12.a Packet Pg. 77 12.b RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR MASTER CASE NO. 14-077 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 53074, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-014, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 14-001, RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 14-001, MINOR USE PERMIT 14-016, OAK TREE PERMIT 14-008), INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT, AND ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact: A. The approximately 87 -acre Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project (Project) site is located at the northeast corner of Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road. Approximately 84 acres of the Project site are located in the Mixed Use Neighborhood (MXN) zone and General Plan land use designation, and approximately 2.5 acres in the southeast corner of the site are located in the Urban Residential 3 (UR3) zoning and General Plan land use designation. Approximately 34 acres in the southwest corner of the site are located within the Planned Development (PD) overlay zone. No development is proposed in the UR3 zone. The MXN zone is intended for mixed-use development, which is encouraged to integrate residential uses with complementary commercial uses. The MXN zone allows for maximum density of 18 dwelling units per acre. Approximately 77 acres of the site are dedicated to residential land uses and accompanying open space. Under this designation, and not taking into account Hillside Ordinance requirements, the Project site could support up to 1,386 residential units. Under the MXN and UR3 designations, the site could accommodate up to 217,800 square feet of commercial uses. B. The Project site was previously disturbed for the construction of a 123 -unit manufactured home park and associated infrastructure, along with roadway improvements for Soledad Canyon Road and drainage infrastructure along Sand Canyon Road. The park is in the process of being closed, with the site being cleared and coaches being removed from the site. The property owner received approval from the Manufactured Home Rental Adjustment Panel (MHRAP) to close the park on December 17, 2008, and began removing coaches from the Project site. Due to the downturn in the economy, some coaches were returned to the site and rented out on month- to-month leases. The owner has agreements in place for the purchase and relocation of all remaining owner -occupied units on the site, and will continue to remove these coaches from the site, in accordance with Resolution No. MHP 08-03 of the MHRAP. C. Surrounding land uses at the site include a mixture of residential uses and undeveloped property to the north, residential uses to the cast, a mix of commercial uses and transportation corridors to the south, with a mix of commercial and residential uses to the west of the site. State Route 14 (SR 14) is located to the south of the site, across Soledad Canyon Road, with the Santa Clara River to the south of SR 14. Packet Pg. 78 12.b D. On May 28, 2014, an application for Master Case No. 14-011, the Sand Canyon Mixed Use Project, was filed by Sand Canyon Plaza, LLC, (applicant) with the City of Santa Clarita (City). The original entitlement application (collectively, Entitlements) includes. Tentative Tract Map 53014 to subdivide the property to allow for the construction of 580 residential units (146 detached/attached condominium units, 122 attached townhome units, and 312 apartments), up to 56,000 square feet of commercial uses (retail and restaurants), a 60,000 square -foot assisted living facility (up to 120 beds), other lots for landscape/open space, private streets, and recreation areas. 2. Conditional Use Permit 14-014 to allow for development within a PD overlay zone, and to permit the assisted living facility in the MXN zone. 3. Hillside Development Review 14-001 to allow for development on slopes over 10%. 4. Ridizeline Alteration Permit 14-001 to allow for development in a Ridgeline Preservation (RP) overlay zone, more specifically to allow for development within 100 feet vertically and horizontally of a significant ridgeline. 5. Minor Use Permit 14-016 to allow for the commercial Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to be less than the minimum required by the MXN zone. Under the MXN zone requirements, the minimum FAR of commercial uses on the site would be 0.2.1, or 81,120 square feet. The applicant's original proposal was to develop the site with up to 56,000 square feet of commercial uses, which is an FAR of 0.13. 6. Oak Tree Permit 14-008 to allow for the removal of two non -heritage oak trees and to permit grading to encroach within the protected zone of one heritage oak tree. E. As detailed in Resolution No. P17-12 (in attached Planning Commission Packet, herein incorporated by reference), the Project was revised to include the development of up to 580 residential units, up to 60,000 square feet of commercial uses (retail and restaurants), and an 85,000 square -foot assisted living facility (up to 140 beds). The final residential product mix includes 312 apartment units, 144 attached townhome units, and 114 single-family condominium units, consisting of two planning areas totaling 11 units and 48 units. Additional components of the Project include two private recreation areas, including a two -acre private park, private and public street improvements, private and public trail improvements, and other areas dedicated to required infrastructure and open space. Approximately one acre of the existing Sand Canyon Road right-of-way would be vacated by the City and included in Planning Area 2 of the Project, as it will no longer be necessary for roadway purposes. F. Environmental conditions on the Project site have been altered substantially by existing and historical uses of the property, including the manufactured home park, grading, utility construction and maintenance, and off-road vehicle use. G. The Project concentrates development on the flatter and disturbed portions of the site. The majority of residential units (15%) and commercial land uses are in areas with less than 25% grade. Approximately 461 of the 580 residential units would be located in a portion of the site with an average cross slope of 13% or less. The Project design includes the preservation of the one heritage oak tree located on the site. Packet Pg. 79 12.b H. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City is the lead agency and the City Council is the decision-making body for the Project. The Planning Commission is a recommending body for the Project. L The City determined that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared for the Project. The City determined that the following areas must be addressed in the FIR for the Project. aesthetics; agriculture and forestry resources; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; geology and soils; greenhouse gas/climate change; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use; mineral and energy resources; noise; population and housing; parks and recreation; fire protection; police protection; schools; library services; traffic and circulation; solid waste; wastewater; and water supply. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project was circulated to affected agencies, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, from April 30, 2015, to May 24, 2015. Agencies that received the NOP include, but are not limited to, the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, South Coast Air Quality Management District, law enforcement agencies, school districts, waste haulers, water agencies, and transportation agencies serving the Santa Clarita Valley, in accordance with CEQA's consultation requirements. Comments from public agencies and organizations were received in response to the NOP. K. A scoping meeting was held at the City of Santa Clarita Activities Center on May 21, 2015, to obtain information from the public as to issues that should be addressed in the FIR. Notice of the scoping meeting was published in The Signal newspaper on April 30, 2015, and was mailed to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project site, in addition to approximately 55 agencies. Three people attended the scoping meeting. L. On January 18, 2011, the Planning Commission conducted a site tour of the Project site. M. The City prepared a Draft FIR for the Project that addressed all comments received on the NOP The Draft FIR was circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, in compliance with CEQA. Specifically, the Notice of Availability/ Notice of Completion for the Draft FIR was filed, posted, and advertised on March 3, 2011, and the 45 -day public review period ended on April 11, 2011, at 5.00 p.m., in accordance with CEQA. Late written comments received prior to May 10, 2011, were responded to in the Draft Final FIR Responses to Comments. Draft Responses to Comments were forwarded to those commenting agencies and other commenters in advance of the June 6, 2011, Planning Commission public hearing. Oral and written comments received on the Draft FIR have been responded to, and those comments received after the Planning Commission's review of the Project will be responded to prior to certification and approval of the Project by the City Council, if granted. N. The City also prepared a Planning Commission Final FIR (June 2011). The Planning Commission Final FIR complied with all applicable CEQA requirements, and contained draft responses oral and written comments received prior to May 10, 2011. The Planning Commission Final FIR also contained a description of modifications to the Project made in response to public comment and Planning Commission changes. Packet Pg. 80 12.b O. The Project was duly noticed in accordance with the noticing requirements for each of the Project entitlements. The Project was advertised in The Signal, through on-site posting 14 days prior to the hearing, and by direct first-class mailing to property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project site. In addition, the date and time of each public hearing was posted on two signs at the Project site. P. The Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing on the Project on February 21, that was continued to March 21, May 16, and June 6, 2011. The hearings were held at City Hall, 23420 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6.00 p.m. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing on June 6, 2011. On February 21, 2011, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing for the Project, received a presentation from staff on the Project setting, a detailed description of the requested entitlements, and a detailed description of the Project proposed under Master Case No. 14-017. In addition, the Planning Commission received a presentation from the applicant, and received public testimony regarding the Project. 2. On March 21, 2011, City staff responded to questions raised by the Planning Commission at the Planning Commission meeting on February 21, 2017. In addition, staff made a detailed presentation on the Draft FIR Sections (Aesthetics, Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Climate Change, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use, Mineral and Energy Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Parks and Recreation, Fire Protection, Police Protection, Schools, Library Services, Traffic and Circulation, Solid Waste, Wastewater, Water Supply, and Project Alternatives). The Planning Commission received a presentation from the applicant regarding modifications proposed to the Project to address comments received at the February 21, 2011, Planning Commission meeting to increase the commercial component of the Project and reduce the development proposed in the RP overlay zone. In addition, the Planning Commission received public testimony regarding the Project. 3. On May 16, 2011, City staff responded to questions raised by the Planning Commission and presented a revised site plan that incorporated the changes presented by the applicant at the March 21, 2011, meeting. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission directed staff to incorporate the Project modifications into the revised site plan and/or Conditions of Approval for the Project. a. Elimination of grading on the northern portion of the significant ridgeline through the transfer of 21 units from Planning Area 5 to Planning Area 3. This Project revision incorporates aspects of Draft FIR Alternative 3 (Ridgeline Preservation); b. Creation of a two -acre private park in Planning Area 5 to further enhance recreational opportunities on the Project site; c. Increase to the assisted living facility by 10,000 square feet (from 15,000 square feet to 85,000 square feet) to accommodate up to 140 beds, and an increase to the commercial component of the Project site by 4,400 square feet (from 55,600 square feet to 60,000 square feet). This Project revision incorporates aspects of Draft FIR Alternative 2 (Increased Commercial and Office); d. Addition of a three-level, 264 -space parking structure to Planning Area 1; and Packet Pg. 81 12.b e. Require, as a condition of approval, the applicant to re -design the building layout in Planning Area 2 (locating buildings along the Sand Canyon Road frontage) to further reduce noise impacts to adjacent properties. In addition, a condition of approval has been added to require enhanced landscaping along Sand Canyon Road. Q. On June 6, 2011, the modified site plan, Planning Commission Final FIR, resolutions, and Conditions of Approval were presented to the Planning Commission. The Commission also received public testimony regarding the Project. As a result of comments received from the Planning Commission, City staff, governmental agencies, and the public, the Project was modified by the Planning Commission. The revised site plan recommended by the Planning Commission proposes a total of 580 residential units, 60,000 square feet of commercial floor area, an 85,000 square -foot assisted living facility, and a two -acre private park along with other recreational amenities. R. At the conclusion of the June 6, 2011, public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council certify the Planning Commission Final FIR (see Resolution P17-11 in Planning Commission Packet) and approve the Project as revised (see Resolution P17-12 in Planning Commission Packet). The Planning Commission also recommended that the City Council adopt. (1) a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts of the Project that cannot be mitigated to less -than -significant levels; and (2) the Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP). S. The Planning Commission considered the Draft FIR (March 2011) and Planning Commission Final FIR (June 2011) prepared for the Project, as well as information in staff reports, public testimony, and letters submitted to the Planning Commission, prior to recommending approval of the Project. T. Following the June 6 public hearing, the City prepared the Final FIR (August 2011). The Final FIR contained copies of all comment letters, responses to oral and written comments received on the Draft FIR, and results from updated biological surveys conducted in the spring of 2011 but not completed by June 6. Notice of the Final EIR's availability was provided on August 30, 2011, to commenting agencies, organizations and persons. U. The City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing on the Project on September 12, 2011 This hearing was held at City Hall, 23420 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6.00 p.m. V. The City Council received public testimony, closed the public hearing, certified the Final FIR, and adopted all necessary approval documents (e.g., resolutions) for approval of the Project. The Draft FIR (March 2011), Planning Commission Final FIR (June 2011) and Final FIR (August 2011) have been prepared and circulated in compliance with CEQA. W. Based upon the Draft FIR (March 2011), the Planning Commission Final FIR (June 2011), and Final FIR (August 2011), staff and consultant presentations, staff reports, applicant presentations, and public comments and testimony, the City Council finds that the Project will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the area; nor will the Project be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property in the vicinity of the Project site; nor will the Project jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, or general welfare since the Project conforms with the Zoning Ordinance and is compatible with surrounding land uses. Packet Pg. 82 12.b X. Additionally, the City Council finds that all public hearings pertaining to the Project were duly noticed in accordance with noticing requirements for each of the entitlements. The Project was advertised in The Signal, through on-site posting 14 days prior to each hearing, and by direct first-class mailing to property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project site. Y. The location of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the City Council is based for the Master Case No. 14-011 Project file is with the Community Development Department, specifically in the custody of the Director of Community Development. SECTION 2. CEQA REQUIREMENTS. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact. A. CEQA provides that "public agencies should not approve Projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such Projects[.]" The procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed Projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects" tlbid.); B. CEQA also provides that "in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such Project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual Projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects." CEQA provides that a public agency has an obligation to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social factors, and in particular the goal of providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian. CEQA requires decision -makers to balance the benefits of a proposed Project against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, and, if the benefits of a proposed Project outweigh the significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts may be considered "acceptable" by adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, The Statement of Overriding Considerations must set forth the Project benefits or reasons why the lead agency is in favor of approving the Project and must weigh these benefits against the Project's adverse environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level; C. CEQA's mandates and principles are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies adopt findings before approving Projects for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed Project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions: tl) "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR," t2) [s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency," or t3) [s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the final EIR" Packet Pg. 83 12.b CEQA defines "feasible" to mean capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal and technological factors; D. The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a Project. "Feasibility" under CEQA, then, encompasses "desirability" to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors; E. CEQA requires that the lead agency exercise its independent judgment in reviewing the adequacy of an FIR, and that the decision of a lead agency in certifying a Final FIR and approving a Project not be predetermined. The City Council has conducted its own review and analysis, and is exercising its independent judgment when acting as herein provided; F. CEQA requires decision -makers to adopt an MMRP for those mitigation measures identified in the Final FIR that would mitigate or avoid each significant impact identified in the FIR, and to incorporate the MMRP, including all mitigation measures, as a condition of Project approval; G. CEQA requires that the responses to comments in the Final FIR demonstrate good faith and a well -reasoned analysis, and not be overly conclusory. In response to several comments received, portions of the Draft FIR have been revised. Although new material has been added to the Draft FIR through preparation of the Final FIR, this new material provides clarification to points and information already included in the Draft FIR, and is not considered to be significant new information or a substantial change to the Draft FIR or to the Project that would necessitate recirculation; and H. State CEQA Guidelines note that State courts have held that the purpose of an FIR is to inform other governmental agencies and the public generally of the environmental impacts of a proposed Project. CEQA does not require technical perfection or exhaustive treatment of issues in an FIR, but rather adequacy, completeness, and a good -faith effort at full disclosure. SECTION 3, CEQA FINDINGS, The City Council finds that the Final FIR, which consists of the Draft FIR (March 2017), Planning Commission Final FIR tJune 2017), and Final FIR tAugust 2017) for Master Case No. 14-077 tTentative Tract Map 53074, Conditional Use Permit 14-014, Hillside Development Review 14-001, Ridgeline Alteration Permit 14-001, Minor Use Permit 14-016, and Oak Tree Permit 14-008) identifies and discloses Project -specific impacts and cumulative Project impacts. Environmental impacts identified in the Final FIR, findings, and facts in support of findings are herein incorporated by reference as "CEQA Facts and Findings," referred to as Exhibit A, and identified as follows: A. The Final FIR identifies significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the Project, as set forth in Section TO of Exhibit A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that will avoid or lessen certain of the Project impacts, but that will not avoid or reduce all of the potential impacts to a less -than -significant level. These remaining significant impacts are balanced against Project benefits and are found to be overridden by the Project benefits, as stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section 6, Packet Pg. 84 12.b B. The Final EIR also identifies significant but mitigated impacts, as set forth in Section 5.3 of Exhibit A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that will avoid or reduce these potential impacts to a less -than -significant level. C. The Final EIR also identifies less -than -significant impacts, as set forth in Section 5.2 of Exhibit A. D. As issues that are noted in Section 3tC) have no significant environmental impacts and require no mitigation, those issues also will have no contribution to cumulative impacts. E. The MMRP, attached as Exhibit B and herein incorporated by reference, is required to mitigate Project impacts. SECTION 4, CONSIDERATION OF A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Final BIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Project and the Final BIR and otherwise, upon studies and investigation made by the City Council, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to City Council, the City Council further finds that the Final EIR analyzes a reasonable range of Project alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project, would lessen any of the significant impacts of the Project, and adequately evaluate the comparative merits of each alternative. A. The Project objectives are specified in the Draft Final EIR and in Section 2.2 of Exhibit A. These objectives are used as the basis for comparing the Project alternatives and determining the extent that the objectives would be achieved relative to the proposed Project. Only those impacts found to be significant and unavoidable are relevant in making the final determination of whether an alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed Project. The Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts in two environmental issue areas: 1. Air Quality— Regional Operational Emissions and Cumulative Operational Emissions 2. Noise— Construction Noise, Construction Vibration Levels tlluman Annoyance), and Cumulative Traffic Noise B. Alternative 1 — No Proiect Alternative. This alternative is required by the State CEQA Guidelines, and compares the impacts that might occur if the site is left in its present condition with those that would be generated by the proposed Project. Under this alternative, no development or redevelopment would occur beyond what exists today. The No Project Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR and most other identified significant impacts, and, therefore, is considered environmentally superior to the Project. This alternative would not attain any of the objectives of the Project. Therefore, this alternative is infeasible and also would not provide any of the Project benefits. C. Alternative 2 — Increased Commercial and Office. This alternative would increase the commercial building area by 29,400 square feet and the office building area by 30,000 square feet. Alternative 2 would also remove 60 units from PA2 and would eliminate the assisted living facility in PA 1. Packet Pg. 85 12.b In comparison to the proposed Project, Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts relative to aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, mineral and energy resources, noise, population and housing, parks and recreation, public services, transportation/traffic, solid waste, wastewater, and water supply. None of the significant unavoidable impacts related to air quality and noise impacts would be reduced or eliminated with Alternative 2, Alternative 2 fully meets 14 objectives, and partially meets the remaining six objectives, as shown in Section 5.5 of Exhibit A. Therefore, this alternative is infeasible because it would not fully satisfy these six Project objectives, and would not provide all of the Project benefits. D. Alternative 3 — Ridaeline Preservation, Approximately 1,200 lineal feet of the City -identified significant ridgeline would be preserved under this Alternative due to the elimination of the northerly portion of PA5. To a lesser extent, the Ridgeline Preservation Alternative would remove 29 dwelling units from PA5. This would also increase open space/landscape areas within the Project area. No other site plan specifics would change. In comparison to the proposed Project, Alternative 3 would result in fewer impacts relative to aesthetics, air quality, and geology and soils. Impacts for the remaining 19 topical areas would be similar under Alternative 3 as those anticipated for the proposed Project. Significant unavoidable impacts related to air quality and noise would be reduced, but not eliminated under Alternative 3. The development anticipated under the Alternative 3 includes the same mix of land uses anticipated for the proposed Project. Alternative 3 fully meets all 20 Project objectives. Alternative 3 is the environmentally superior alternative. Modifications made to the Project during the Planning Commission review have resulted in a revised Project that is substantially consistent with this Alternative. Development on the northern portion of the ridgeline has been eliminated consistent with this Alternative. The primary difference is the revised Project would create a two -acre park on a small portion of the ridgeline that was going to be preserved under this Alternative. This park is considered to be beneficial and an enhancement as compared to Alternative 3. Though this Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, it would not provide all of the benefits associated with the Project as revised by the Planning Commission, more specifically the inclusion of a private park. Therefore, this Alternative is infeasible. E. Alternative 4 — Army Corps of Engineers/California Department of Fish and Wildlife Avoidance, Alternative 4 would avoid jurisdictional areas associated with Sand Canyon Wash, Specifically, 7,800 square feet of commercial building area would be eliminated in PA 1, 44 units would be eliminated in PA2, 10.1 acres of PA3 would be converted from residential use to open space tremoving 122 units), PA4 would be reduced by 42 units, and PA5 would be reduced by 42 units. The above modifications would result in an increase of 22.4 acres of open space. In total, Alternative 4 would remove 250 units when compared to the proposed Project. In comparison to the proposed Project, Alternative 4 would result in greater impacts for land use and planning, and population and housing. Alternative 4 would result in fewer impacts for Packet Pg. 86 12.b aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, transportation and traffic, solid waste, wastewater, and water supply. Alternative 4 would result in similar impacts for agriculture and forestry resources, and hazards and hazardous materials. Significant unavoidable impacts related to air quality and noise would be reduced, but not eliminated, under Alternative 4. The development anticipated under the Alternative 4 includes the same mix of land uses anticipated for the proposed Project, although with fewer residential units and less non- residential square footage. Alternative 4 partially meets 10 Project objectives, and fully meets the remaining 10 Project objectives, as shown in Section 5.5 of Exhibit A. Therefore, this alternative is infeasible because it would not fully satisfy all of the Project objectives. F. Modification of Proiect Description Based on Alternatives Discussion. During the Planning Commission consideration of this Project, there were discussions regarding the preservation of the northern portion of the ridgeline. As a result, the Project was modified, as detailed in Section 1, and in a manner substantially consistent with Alternative 3, SECTION 5, FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Project and the Final EIR, upon studies and investigation made by the City Council, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, the City Council finds the following: A. That the Final EIR for the Project is adequate, complete, has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, and should be certified on that basis; B. That the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the Final EIR in reaching its conclusions; C. That the Final EIR was presented and reviewed prior to taking final action to certify the Final EIR and approve the Project; D. That, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines, the Final EIR includes a description of each potentially significant impact, and rationale for finding that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as detailed in Exhibit A attached hereto. The analyses included in the Final EIR to support each conclusion and recommendation therein is hereby incorporated into these findings; E. That, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 _, modifications have occurred to the Project to reduce significant effects; F. That, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and State CEQA Guidelines, changes and alterations have been required and incorporated into the Project that avoid or Packet Pg. 87 12.b substantially lessen its significant environmental effects because feasible mitigation measures, including those in the MMRP, are made conditions of approval for the Project; G. That the Statement of Overriding Considerations identifies and weighs the revised Project's significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level below significant against the community benefits from this revised Project, and concludes, based on substantial evidence in the record, that the revised Project's benefits outweigh its unavoidable significant impacts; LI. That the Final FIR reflects the decision -maker's independent judgment and analysis; I. That an MMRP has been prepared and is recommended for adoption to enforce the mitigation measures required by the Final FIR and Project approvals; and J. That the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings on which this decision is based are with the Community Development Department, specifically in the custody of the Director of Community Development, SECTION 6, STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including the Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Project and the Final FIR and otherwise, upon studies and investigation made by the City Council, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, the City Council finds that there is substantial evidence that supports the conclusion that the Project will result in community benefits, including specific ecological, economic, legal, social, technical and other benefits, that outweigh the significant effects of the Project on the environment that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant. A. Significant, unavoidable impacts include the following, as further described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: • Air Quality— Regional Operational Emissions and Cumulative Operational Emissions • Noise— Construction Noise, Construction Vibration Levels tlluman Annoyance), and Cumulative Traffic Noise B. The benefits of the Project outweigh its significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level below significant. These benefits are listed in Section 7.3 of Exhibit A Of this Resolution. SECTION ?. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Final EIR, and hereby determines that it is adequate and in compliance with CEQA. In compliance with Public Resources Code Section 12081 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council has considered the Project benefits as balanced against its unavoidable adverse environmental effects, and hereby determines that the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects; therefore, the City Council determines that the unavoidable adverse environmental effects are considered acceptable. The City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR and associated documents, and adopts the MMRP and Statement of Overriding Considerations, SECTION 8, The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and certify this record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken. Packet Pg. 88 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 12"' day of September, 2017. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK DATE: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Mary Cusick, City Clerk, of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 17- was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 12'1' day of September, 2017, by the following vote of the City Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK 12.b Packet Pg. 89 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 17 - EXHIBIT A- CEQA FACTS AND FINDINGS STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FOR THE SAND CANYON PLAZA MIXED-USE PROJECT SCH NO. 2015051005 Lead Agency: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 12.c Packet Pg. 90 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS......................................................................1 1.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................1 2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY....................................................................................................3 2.1 Description of Project Proposed for Approval.......................................................3 2.2 Statement of Objectives.......................................................................................9 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION...............................................11 4.0 INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND FINDING................................................................12 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS.............................................................13 5.1 Effects Determined To Have No Impact in the EIR.............................................13 5.2 Effects Determined To Be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation in the EIR..........................................................................................15 5.3 Effects Determined To Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels.................21 5.4 Environmental Effects Which Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation and Findings.........................................................56 5.5 Alternatives to the Proposed Project..................................................................63 6.0 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR...........................................................................74 6.1 Findings.............................................................................................................74 6.2 Conclusions.......................................................................................................74 7.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS...................................................75 7.1 Introduction........................................................................................................75 7.2 Significant Unavoidable Impacts........................................................................76 7.3 Overriding Considerations..................................................................................76 September 2017 i Packet Pg. 91 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report 1.0 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a Lead Agency issue two sets of findings prior to approving a project that would generate a significant impact on the environment. The Statement of Facts and Findings is the first set of findings where the Lead Agency identifies the significant impacts, presents facts supporting the conclusions reached in the analysis, makes one or more of three potential findings for each impact, and explains the reasoning behind the agency's findings. The following statement of facts and findings has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Public Resources Code Section 21081. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a) provides that: No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The three finding categories available for the Statement of Facts and Findings pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is the second set of findings. Where a project would cause unavoidable significant impacts, the Lead Agency may still approve the project where its benefits outweigh the adverse impacts. Further, as provided in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Lead Agency sets forth specific reasoning by which benefits are balanced against effects, and approves the project. These findings in the Statement of Overriding Considerations are presented in Section 7.0. September 2017 1 Packet Pg. 92 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report The City of Santa Clarita (City), the CEQA Lead Agency, finds and declares that the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds and certifies that the EIR was reviewed and information contained in the EIR was considered prior to approving the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project herein referred to as the "project." Based upon its review of the EIR, the City Council finds that the EIR is an adequate assessment of the potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, represents the independent judgment of the City, and sets forth an adequate range of alternatives to this project. The Final EIR (August 2017) is composed of the following elements: • Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (dated March 2017) • Planning Commission Final EIR (June 2017) • Draft EIR Technical Appendices • Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • A list of persons commenting on the Draft EIR, Comments, and Responses • Errata for Final EIR September 2017 2 Packet Pg. 93 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report 2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The following discussion describes the types and amounts of new land uses as revised by the Planning Commission and the infrastructure improvements necessary to construct the development. Table 1 below summarizes the statistics associated with the project. Table 1 Land Use Summary Area No. Project Use Commercial Square Footage Dwelling Units Acreage PA -1 Commercial/retail/restaurant/ 60,000 -SF commercial retail/restaurant, n/a 9.6 assisted living 85,000 -SF assisted living facility (140 beds) PA -2 Multi -family attached N/A 312 12.2 PA -3 Multi -family attached N/A 149 10.3 PA -4 Single-family detached 71 7.3 condominiums N/A PA -5 Single-family detached 48 6.3 condominiums N/A Streets N//A Private Park/Recreation Center N/A Drainage basin N/A Open space4andscaped areas N/A Riaht of way dedication N/A n/a 6.3 n/a 2.0 n/a 1.0 n/a 31.4 n/a 1.1 Total 60,000 -SF commercial retail/restaurant, 580 87.5 85,000 -SF assisted living facility Source: Tentative Tract Map No. 053074, July 2017 As provided in Table 1 above, the approximately 87 -acre Project site would be developed with up to 60,000 square feet of commercial/retail/restaurant uses and 85,000 square feet of assisted living facilities (up to 140 beds). Also proposed on the Project site are 580 residential units comprising 461 multi -family units (including up to 312 apartment units and 149 attached townhomes) and 119 single-family detached condominiums. If approval of the Project is granted, Project conditions of approval would permit modifications to building locations, building footprints, and product types. The approximately 87 -acre project site is divided into five Planning Areas (PA), described below. Planning Area 1 (Commercial) — Approximately 145,000 square feet of commercial/residential floor space including 60,000 square feet of commercial (retail and restaurants) and an 85,000 -square -foot assisted living facility (up to 140 beds) on approximately 9.6 acres. Planning Area 1 is located at the northeast intersection of Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road. PA 1 also includes a water quality/water feature located at the southwest corner of the project site. Consistent with the requirements of the September 2017 3 Packet Pg. 94 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report MXN zone, the maximum building height in PA -1 would be 50 feet (assisted living facility). The remaining commercial buildings in PA -1 would range in height from 20 to 35 feet. Access to PA -1 would occur via Soledad Canyon Road and "A" Drive (left in/right in and right out) and Sand Canyon Road and "A" Drive (left in/right in and right out). Up to 415 parking spaces would be provided for the retail commercial area contingent upon final uses and square footage, which includes 151 surface spaces and 264 spaces in a parking structure. Of the total 415 parking spaces, up to 70 spaces would be provided for the assisted living facility contingent upon the final bed count. Planning Area 2 (Multi -Family Attached) — 312 multi -family units (intended to be rental units) and required parking per the MXN zone requirements would be developed on 12.2 acres. One private recreational area with a pool, internal drive aisles, water quality improvements, and other open areas would be provided within PA -2. The maximum building height in PA -2 is 50 feet. Access to PA -2 would be from Sand Canyon Road via "A" and "B" Drives. Approximately 1 acre of the existing Sand Canyon Road right-of-way would be vacated by the City and included in PA -2, as it would no longer be needed for roadway purposes. Planning Area 2 is located directly north of PA 1 along Sand Canyon Road. Planning Area 3 (Multi -Family Attached Townhomes) — 149 townhomes with required parking (per the MXN zone requirements) on approximately 10.3 acres. Water quality improvements, internal drive aisles, trails and other open areas would be provided within PA -3. The maximum building height in PA 3 is 40 feet. Access to PA -3 would be from Sand Canyon Road via "B", "C" and "D" Drives. Planning Area 3 is located north of Planning Area 2 along Sand Canyon Road. Planning Area 4 (Single -Family Detached Condominiums) — 71 units with required parking (per MXN and UR -3 zone requirements) on approximately 7.3 acres. Internal drive aisles, water quality improvements, trails, and other open areas would be provided within PA -4. The two -acre private recreational area located in PA -5 would also service PA 4. Access to PA -4 would be from Sand Canyon Road via "B,° "C,° and "D° Drives. Planning Area 4 is located in the central portion of the project site north and east of Planning Area 2 and is depicted in Figure 3-12, Planning Area 4. Planning Area 5 (Single -Family Detached Condominiums) — 48 units with required parking (per MXN and UR -3 zone requirements) on approximately 6.3 acres. A two -acre private recreational area, internal drive aisles, water quality improvements, trails and other open areas would be provided within PA -5. Access to PA -5 would be from Sand Canyon Road via "B", "C" and "D" Drives. Planning Area 5 is located in the eastern and northern portions of the project site. The project includes a total of 580 residential units (replacing the existing 123 mobile homes), 60,000 square feet of retail commercial uses, and an 85,000 -square -foot assisted living facility. September 2017 4 Packet Pg. 95 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Project Design Features The following Project Design Features have been incorporated into the project. PDF -1 Landscape irrigation plans shall include drought -tolerant and native plants (consistent with General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 3.13-6 and 3.13-11). PDF -2 Landscape irrigation plans shall incorporate low -water -use devises (such as ET controllers and drip irrigation), to the extent feasible (consistent with General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 3.13-6 and 3.13-11). PDF -3 Water conservation measures as required by the State of California shall be incorporated into all irrigation systems. PDF -4 The Project Applicant, or responsible party, shall require the installation of low -flow fixtures in all residential units, which may include but are not limited to water conserving shower heads, toilets, waterless urinals and motion -sensor faucets, and encourage use of such fixtures in building retrofits as appropriate (consistent with General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures 3.13-7 and 3.13-13). PDF -5 Prior to commencement of use, all uses of recycled water shall be reviewed and approved by the State of California Health and Welfare Agency, Department of Health Services. PDF -6 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant, or responsible party, shall finance the expansion costs of water service extension to the subdivision through the payment of connection fees to the appropriate water agency(ies). PDF -7 For sensitive uses within 500 feet of the SR -14 Freeway, incorporate air filtration systems with filters meeting or exceeding the ASHRAE 52.2 Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) of 11. MERV 11 filters are effective in improving indoor air quality as compared to lower efficiency filters for PM10 and PM2.5. PDF -8 Locate open space areas associated with sensitive uses (e.g., courtyards, patios, balconies) as far from the freeway sources as possible. PDF -9 Plant vegetation between sensitive receptors and freeway sources. PDF -10 Utilize site plan design that minimizes operable windows and building entries along the freeway. PDF -11 For sensitive uses within 500 feet of the SR -14 Freeway, utilize options for mechanical and ventilation systems (i.e., supply or exhaust based systems). If a supply -based system is proposed (i.e., actively bringing outside air through intake ducts), consider locating intakes as far from the freeway sources as possible. PDF -12 The Applicant shall implement all control measures required and/or recommended by the SCAOMD (i.e., Rules 403, 1108, and 1113), including but not limited to the following: September 2017 5 Packet Pg. 96 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report • Use watering to control dust generation during demolition of structures or break- up of pavement; • Water active grading areas and unpaved surfaces at least three times daily; • Cover stockpiles with tarps or apply non-toxic chemical soil binders; • Limit vehicle speed on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour; • Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved construction parking areas and staging areas; • Provide daily clean-up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets from the Project site; • Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 15 miles per hour over a 30 -minute period or more; and • An information sign shall be posted at the entrance to the construction site that identifies the permitted construction hours and provides a telephone number to call and receive information about the construction project or to report complaints regarding excessive fugitive dust generation. Any reasonable complaints shall be rectified within 24 hours of their receipt. Grading Demolition/Site Clearin The project would require demolition of the remaining mobile home units and site clearing. In addition to the removal of the mobile homes, demolition would include the removal of asphalt, concrete, other ancillary structures to the existing mobile home park, trees, fences, and other existing debris. Grading/Foundation The project would include grading approximately 2.1 million cubic yards of cut and fill balanced on-site. Additional remedial grading (approximately 850,000 cubic yards) would be necessary to accommodate site development. Mobility Plan The project provides for non -vehicular modes of transportation in a system of trails, sidewalks and pedestrian pathways commonly known as the Mobility Plan. The Mobility Plan achieves Project Objectives by creating and enhancing opportunities for non -vehicular travel through encouraging pedestrian mobility from the project's residential areas to the commercial uses. Drainage/Water Quality The Drainage and Water Quality Plan incorporates methodologies to meet or exceed the ongoing National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. The plan includes a comprehensive series of drainage, flood control and water quality improvements designed for the project. Project Design Features (PDFs) incorporated into the project include site design, source control, treatment control and infiltration. As currently planned, storm water runoff from all developed areas of the project would be routed to bioretention areas, vegetated swales and infiltration treatment control devices. These water September 2017 6 Packet Pg. 97 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report quality improvements would be designed to operate off-line, receiving dry weather flows, small storm flows and the initial portion of large storm flows. Conceptual Landscape Plan The conceptual landscape plan focuses primarily on the use of native and drought tolerant trees and plant species to create a natural and vibrant environment. All plant species have been selected due to their ability to thrive in the Santa Clarita climate and their potential to add complexity and texture to the open space/landscaped areas within the project. The use of turf shall be very limited and only used in locations where it would serve for passive or active recreation. The irrigation systems would be designed, installed, operated and maintained in conformance with the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and the City of Santa Clarita Landscaping Standards. The main objective for the irrigation design is to minimize water use and maximize efficiency. These objectives would be met using Smart ET Based controllers, hydro -zoning, moisture sensors, rain shut-off devices, and drip irrigation. Although portions of the native planting areas may receive temporary irrigation, a permanent irrigation system is important for a majority of the landscape areas to comply with the Los Angeles County Fire Department Fuel Modification Guidelines. Local Roadway Circulation and Access The project's roadway network is designed as an orderly extension of the regional circulation patter in the Santa Clarita Valley. The network is designed to integrate modes of travel, accommodate anticipated traffic demands generated by the project and surrounding development and provide roadway improvements that connect the project to SR -14 and the rest of the Valley. Vehicular access to and from the project site is proposed from two existing roadways (Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road). More specifically, access to the site would be from: 1) Soledad Canyon Road via "A" Drive; 2) Sand Canyon Road via "A" Drive; 3) Sand Canyon Road via "B" Drive; and 4) Sand Canyon Road via "C" Drive. Sand Canyon Road is a north - south arterial with two lanes between Sierra Highway and Soledad Canyon Road, four lanes between Soledad Canyon Road and SR -14 northbound ramps, and back down to two lanes south of SR -14 northbound ramps. It is designated as a Major Highway between Soledad Canyon Road and Lost Canyon Road, a Secondary Highway between Sierra Highway and Soledad Canyon Road, and a Limited Secondary Highway south of Lost Canyon Road. The project would complete various improvements to Soledad Canyon Road to include widening for roadway purposes. The project would also widen Sand Canyon Road for roadway and trail purposes and construct two single lane roundabouts; one at 'B" Drive and Sand Canyon Road and the other at "C" Drive and Sand Canyon Road. Most of Sand Canyon Road would remain at two lanes (one in each direction), with grading of the full right-of-way to potentially accommodate widening if needed in the future. The interior of the project would be served by private roadways. September 2017 7 Packet Pg. 98 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Recreation Two private recreational areas are planned for the Project, including a two -acre private park. At least one of the facilities would contain a pool, a spa, a restroom facility, and a recreation building. Open Space The Project includes 31.4 acres of open space throughout the site, including natural habitat areas along on the northern portion of the ridgeline. PROJECT PHASING The Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project would likely be developed in a single phase. Grading and site development would occur site -wide. It is expected that the three residential product types, the commercial area, and various on-site and off-site infrastructure would be constructed at or near the same time. AGREEMENTS, PERMITS, AND APPROVALS The City of Santa Clarita is the Lead Agency for the project and has discretionary authority over the project which includes the following: Tentative Tract Map No. 53074. The Applicant is proposing to subdivide the property to facilitate construction of 580 residential units (119 detached condominium units, 149 attached townhomeslcondominium units, and 312 apartment units), up to 60,000 square feet of commercial uses (retail and restaurants), an 85,000 -square -foot assisted living facility (up to 140 beds), other lots for landscape/open space, private streets, and recreation areas. Conditional Use Permit No. 14-014. The Applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for development within a Planned Development (PD) Overlay Zone. Any new proposal for development in a PD Overlay requires the submittal of a Conditional Use Permit, which is intended to provide for additional discretion for previously vacant or underutilized parcels. Additionally, the Applicant is requesting approval of an 85,000 -square -foot assisted living facility with up to 140 beds. A Conditional Use Permit is required to permit the assisted living facility within the MXN zone. 3. Hillside Development Review No. 14-001. The Applicant is requesting approval of a Hillside Development Review Permit to allow development on slopes over 10%. 4. Ridgeline Alteration Permit No. 14-001. The Applicant is requesting approval of a Ridgeline Alteration Permit to allow for development in a Ridgeline Preservation (RP) Overlay Zone, more specifically to allow for development within 100 feet vertically and horizontally of a significant ridgeline. 5. Minor Use Permit No. 14-016. The Applicant is requesting approval of a Minor Use Permit to allow for the commercial floor area ratio (FAR) to be less than the minimum required by the MXN zone. Under the MXN zone requirements, the minimum floor area September 2017 8 Packet Pg. 99 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report ratio of commercial uses on the site would be 0.2:1 or 83,635 square feet of commercial floor area. The Applicant is proposing to develop the site with up to 60,000 square feet of commercial uses, which is a floor area ratio of 0.14. 6. Oak Tree Permit No. 14-008. The Applicant is requesting approval of an Oak Tree Permit to allow for removal of two non -heritage oak trees and to permit Project grading to encroach within the protected zone of one heritage oak tree. 2.2 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES The Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project includes the following objectives: Land Use Planning Objectives 1. Create a new mixed-use community with connected neighborhoods that provides for residential, commercial and recreational uses in close proximity to each other. 2. Provide a sensitive and compatible Project through the use of appropriate grading, landscape, and water quality methods. 3. Provide development and transitional land use patterns that do not conflict with surrounding communities and land uses. 4. Arrange land uses to reduce vehicle miles traveled and energy consumption, and to encourage pedestrian mobility. 5. Design neighborhoods to create a unique identity and sense of place. 6. Design neighborhoods to locate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses in close proximity to each other and major road corridors, transit, and trails. 7. Provide a rich set of public spaces. 8. Implement sustainable development principles, including greater energy efficiency, waste reduction, drought -tolerant landscaping, use of water efficiency measures, and use of recycled materials and renewable energy sources. 9. Create and enhance opportunities for non -vehicular travel and encourage pedestrian mobility by providing an internal pedestrian circulation system that links residential neighborhoods to on-site recreation areas, regional trail systems, and neighborhood retail/commercial areas. 10. Foster the design and integration of a mutually beneficial relationship between the natural and built environments, and implement sensitive land use transition treatments, attractive streetscapes, and high quality design themes. C 11. Integrate a new community into the City's existing and planned circulation network. September 2017 9 Packet Pg. 100 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report 12. Provide a landscape design emphasizing a pleasant neighborhood character and inviting streetscapes. 13. Provide on-site recreational facilities to meet the demands of future residents. Economic Objectives Enhance and augment the housing market by providing a variety of housing types and densities to meet the varying needs of future residents. 2. Adopt development regulations that provide flexibility to respond and adjust to changing economic and market conditions. 3. Provide a tax base to support public services and infrastructure. 4. Create permanent jobs on-site through the incorporation of commercial land uses to assist the City in meeting its jobs/housing balance. 5. Adopt development regulations and guidelines that allow site, parking and facility sharing, and other innovations that reduce the costs of providing public services. Resource Conservation Objectives Restore and minimize impacts to important biotic resources. 2. Minimize impacts to oak trees and incorporate, where possible, oak trees into public spaces. September 2017 10 Packet Pg. 101 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/ PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The City of Santa Clarita City Council conducted an extensive review of this project which included a Draft EIR, Planning Commission Final EIR, and a Final EIR, including technical reports, along with a public review and comment period. The following is a summary of the City's environment review of this project: Pursuant to the provision of CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, as amended, the City of Santa Clarita circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to public agencies, special districts, and members of the public who had requested such notice for a 30 -day period. The NOP was submitted to the State Clearinghouse on April 30, 2015, with the 30 -day review period ending on May 29, 2015. • The NOP public review period ran for 30 days. The City received five comment letters from State, regional and local public agencies, and the public. The scope of the issues identified in the comments included potential impacts associated with a variety of topical areas. A scoping meeting was held at the City of Santa Clarita Activities Center, Canyon Room on May 27, 2015, to obtain information from the public as to issues that should be addressed in the EIR. Notice of the scoping meeting was published in The Signal newspaper on April 30, 2015, and was mailed to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the project site, in addition to approximately 55 agencies. Approximately 3 people attended the scoping meeting. • The Draft EIR was distributed for public review and a Notice of Availability (NOA) and Notice of Completion (NOC) was filed with the State Clearinghouse on March 3, 2017, 2017, for a 45 -day review period, which concluded on April 17, 2017. • The City received a total of 17 comment letters from public agencies and the public. The City prepared responses to all written comments. The comments and responses are contained in Chapter 3.0 of the Final EIR. • In accordance with CEQA, the City provided written responses to the public and public agencies that commented on the Draft EIR prior to the June 6, 2017 Planning Commission hearing. • The Planning Commission conducted a site tour of the project site on January 18, 2017 • The Planning Commission held duly -noticed four public hearings on the Project on February 21, March 21, May 16, and June 6, 2017. These hearings were held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California. • In accordance with CEQA and Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City provided written responses to the public and public agencies that commented on the Draft EIR 10 days prior to the August 22, 2017 City Council hearing. September 2017 11 Packet Pg. 102 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report The City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing on the Project on September 12, 2017. The hearing was held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, California. September 2017 12 Packet Pg. 103 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report 4.0 INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND FINDING The City solicited proposals from independent consultants to prepare the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project and EIR. Subsequently, the City selected and retained Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. to prepare the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project EIR. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. prepared the EIR under the supervision and direction of the City of Santa Clarita staff. All findings set forth herein are based on substantial evidence in the record as indicated with respect to each specific finding. FINDING: The EIR for the project reflects the City's independent judgment. The City has exercised independent judgment in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining its own environmental consultant, and directing the consultant in the preparation of the EIR. The City has independently reviewed and analyzed the EIR and accompanying studies and finds that the report reflects the independent judgment of the City. The City Council has considered all the evidence presented in its consideration of the project and the EIR, including, but not limited to, the Final EIR and its supporting studies, written and oral evidence presented at hearings on the project, and written evidence submitted to the City by individuals, organizations, regulatory agencies, and other entities. On the basis of such evidence the City Council finds that with respect to each environmental impact identified in the review process the impact (1) is less than significant and would not require mitigation; or (2) is potentially significant but would be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level by implementation of identified mitigation measures; or (3) would be significant and not fully mitigatible but would be, to the extent feasible, lessened by implementation of identified mitigation measures. The Final EIR identifies certain significant adverse environmental effects of the project which cannot be avoided or substantially lessened. Prior to approving this project, the City Council will adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations which finds, based on specific reasons and substantial evidence in the record (as specified in Section 7.0), that certain identified economic, social, or other benefits of the project outweigh such unavoidable adverse environmental effects. September 2017 13 Packet Pg. 104 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS 5.1 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO HAVE NO IMPACT IN THE EIR The Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project EIR found that the proposed Project would have no impact on a number of environmental topic areas listed below. A no environmental impact determination was made for each of the following topic areas listed below. A detailed analysis of the topic areas is provided within the Final EIR. FINDING: The City of Santa Clarita City Council finds that based on substantial evidence in the record, there would be no impacts, to the extent they result from the project, for the areas identified below. Aesthetics Aes-2 Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, identified ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? • Scenic Highway Agriculture and Forestry Resources Ag -1 Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? Ag -2 Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Ag -3 Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)}, timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)}? Ag -4 Would the project result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non - forest use? Ag -5 Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forestland to non -forest use? Cumulative Agriculture and Forestry Resources Impacts September 2017 14 Packet Pg. 105 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Biological Resources Bio -6 Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Bio -7 Would the project affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) as identified on the City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map? Geology and Soils Geo -1 Would the project 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? Geo -5 Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Hazards and Hazardous Materials Haz-1 Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Haz-3 Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Haz-5 For a project located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Haz-6 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Hydrology and Water Quality Hyd-7 Would the project place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Hyd-8 Would the project place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? September 2017 15 Packet Pg. 106 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Mineral and Energy Resources Min -1 Would the project 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? Min -2 Would the project 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? Noise N-5 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 airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? N-6 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? Transportation/Traffic and Circulation T-3 Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 5.2 EFFECTS DETERMINED BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITHOUT MITIGATION IN THE EIR The Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Final EIR found that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on a number of environmental topic areas listed below. A less than significant environmental impact determination was made for each of the following topic areas listed below. A detailed analysis of the topic areas is provided within the Final EIR. FINDING: The City of Santa Clarita City Council finds that based on substantial evidence in the record, the following impacts, to the extent they result from the project, will be less than significant. Aesthetics Aes-1 Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Aes-3 Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? • Project Construction • Project Operations September 2017 16 Packet Pg. 107 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Aes-4 Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? • Project Construction • Project Operations Cumulative Aesthetics Impacts Air Quality AO -1 Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? AO -2 Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? AO -3 Would the project 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 release in emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? AQ -4 Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? AO -5 Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? • Regional and Localized Construction Emissions • Localized Operational Emissions • Toxic Air Contaminants • Odors AO -6 Will the Project increase the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new air quality violations? AO -7 Will the Project exceed the assumptions utilized in preparing the AQMP? • Regional Plans and Air Quality Management Plan Consistency • General Plan Consistency Cumulative Construction Emissions Impacts Cumulative Plan Consistency Impacts Biological Resources Bio -4 Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native 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? Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts September 2017 17 Packet Pg. 108 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Cultural Resources CR -1 Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, as defined in §15064.5? CR -3 Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Cumulative Cultural Resources Impacts Geology and Soils Geo -2 Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Geo -9 Would the project destroy, cover or modify any unique geologic or physical feature? Cumulative Geology and Soils Impacts Greenhouse Gas EmissionslClimate Change GHG-1 Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? • Construction -Related Emissions • Operational Emissions GHG-2 Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? • Construction -Related Emissions • Operational Emissions Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts Hazards and Hazardous Materials Haz-2 Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? • Construction • Operation Cumulative Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts Hydrology and Water Quality Hyd-1 Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Hyd-2 Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 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 September 2017 18 Packet Pg. 109 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Hyd-3 Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site 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? Hyd-4 Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site 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? Hyd-5 Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Hyd-6 Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Hyd-9 Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Hyd-10Would the project by subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Hyd-11 Would the project result in changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and direction of surface water and/or groundwater? Hyd-12Would the project result in other modification of a wash, channel creek, or river? Cumulative Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts Land Use LU -1 Would the project physically divide an established community? LU -2 Would the project 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? Cumulative Land Use Impacts Mineral and Energy Resources Min -3 Would the project use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Cumulative Mineral Resources Impacts Cumulative Energy Resources Impacts September 2017 19 Packet Pg. 110 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Noise N-1 Would the project result in 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? • Traffic Noise Parking Noise Stationary Sources N-3 Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? • Traffic Noise • Parking Noise • Stationary Sources N-4 Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? -Traffic Noise -Parking Noise -Stationary Sources Population and Housing PH -1 Would the project 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)? PH -2 Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? PH -3 Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Cumulative Population and Housing Impacts Parks and Recreation Rec-1 Would the project 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? Rec-2 Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Cumulative Parks and Recreation Impacts September 2017 20 Packet Pg. 111 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Public Services — Fire Protection Cumulative Fire Protection Impacts Public Services — Police Protection Cumulative Police Protection Impacts Public Services — Schools Cumulative Schools Impacts Public Services — Library Services Cumulative Library Services Impacts Transportationrrraffic and Circulation T-1 Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? • Project Construction T-4 Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? T-6 Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Utilities and Service Systems — Solid Waste Util-2 Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Cumulative Solid Waste Impacts Utilities and Service Systems — Wastewater Cumulative Wastewater Impacts Utilities and Service Systems — Water Supply Util-6 Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or require new or expanded entitlements? September 2017 21 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Util-7 Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Cumulative Water Supply Impacts 5.3 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO LESS The City of Santa Clarita City Council having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, the Technical Appendices and the administrative record, finds, pursuant to California Public Resources Code 21081 (a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines 15091 (a)(1) that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed project, which would avoid or substantially lessen to below a level of significance potentially significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. The potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that can be mitigated are listed below. The City of Santa Clarita City Council finds that these potentially significant adverse impacts can be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant after implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. AESTHETICS The project's potential aesthetics impacts that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the Final EIR. Identified impacts include impacts to scenic resources (hillside development or ridgelines). AES -2 WOULD THE PROJECT SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGE SCENIC RESOURCES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IDENTIFIED RIDGELINES, TREES, ROCK OUTCROPPINGS, AND HISTORIC BUILDINGS WITHIN A STATE SCENIC HIGHWAY? • HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts to scenic resources (hillside development on ridgelines) have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant 1) with revisions to the project that include the transfer of 27 residential units from Planning Area 5 to Planning Area 3 and the elimination of approximately 700 linear feet of grading on the northern portions of the significant ridgeline, and 2) by virtue of compliance with the requirements of the City's Hillside Ordinance, Hillside Development Guidelines, and Ridgeline Preservation Overlay Zone, along with the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. September 2017 22 Packet Pg. 113 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Measures: MM Aes-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant, or responsible party, shall submit a grading plan for review and approval by the City's Director of Public Works and the Director of Community Development. This grading plan shall utilize methods to reduce grading impacts associated with the Project and, to the extent feasible, blend in with the natural contours of the site. Said grading methods shall include landform grading as well as the blending of any manufactured slopes or required drainage benches into the natural topography along with the use of curvilinear street design. MM Aes-2 The Project Applicant, or responsible party, shall submit a final site plan for review and approval by the City's Director of Community Development. This site plan shall utilize building setbacks, building heights, and building forms throughout the site to blend buildings and structures with the terrain and surrounding development as much as possible. Additionally, landscaping with natural vegetation shall be used to minimize the visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas. MM Aes-3 As part of any grading on the Project site, the Project Applicant, or responsible party, shall be required to "lay back" and regrade the manufactured slope along Soledad Canyon Road, which will allow for this slope to be landscaped, further softening its appearance from SR -14, Soledad Canyon Road, and areas to the south. The project's potential biological resources impacts that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, of the Final EIR. Identified impacts include adverse effects to candidate, sensitive, or special -status species identified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); adverse effects to sensitive habitat identified by CDFW or USFWS; adverse effects on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; and conflicts with local policies or ordinance (oak trees). BIO -1 WOULD THE PROJECT 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 WILDLIFE OR U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE? Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. September 2017 23 Packet Pg. 114 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts to candidate, sensitive, or special -status species identified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: MM Bio -1 If activities associated with construction or grading are planned during the bird nesting/breeding season, generally February through March for early nesting birds and from mid-March through mid-September for most bird species, the Applicant shall have a qualified biologist conduct surveys for active nests. To determine the presence/absence of active nests, pre -construction nesting bird surveys shall be conducted weekly beginning 30 days prior to initiation of ground -disturbing activities, with the last survey conducted no more than 3 days prior to the start of clearance/construction work. If ground -disturbing activities are delayed, additional pre- construction surveys shall be conducted so that no more than 3 days have elapsed between the survey and ground -disturbing activities. Protected bird nests that are found within the construction zone shall be protected by a buffer deemed suitable by a qualified biologist, and verified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Typically, a 300 -foot buffer is required for most species and a 500 -foot buffer for raptor and special -status species (CDFW may reduce these buffers on a site-specific basis). Buffer areas shall be delineated with orange construction fencing or other exclusionary material that would inhibit access within the buffer zone. Installation of the exclusionary material delineating the buffer zone shall be verified by a qualified biologist prior to initiation of construction activities. The buffer zone shall remain intact and maintained while the nest is active (i.e., occupied or being constructed by the adult bird(s)) and until young birds have fledged and no continued use of the nest is observed, as determined by a qualified biologist. MM Bio -1A The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a pre - construction biological survey for special -status species determined to have potential to occur in suitable habitat within the Project site prior to the start of construction activities. If special -status species are detected during pre - construction surveys, appropriate mitigation plans will be prepared by a qualified biologist and submitted to the City of Santa Clarita for review and approval. Additionally, a biological monitor will be present periodically during construction to ensure that impacts to special -status species are minimized or do not occur. September 2017 24 Packet Pg. 115 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report MM Bio -2 A qualified biologist, approved by the City and CDFW, shall prepare a detailed capture and relocation plan for San Diego tiger (coastal) whiptail and coast horned lizard that will include measures to avoid or minimize take of these sensitive species and identify appropriate relocation sites. The plan shall be submitted to CDFW for approval prior to implementation. The plan shall specify the pre -construction time frame for the biologist to conduct surveys within appropriate habitat areas to capture and relocate individual San Diego tiger whiptail and coast horned lizard in accordance with the approved relocation plan. Results of the surveys and relocation efforts shall be provided to the City with a copy to CDFW. MM Bio -3 A qualified biologist, approved by the City and CDFW, shall prepare a detailed capture and relocation plan for San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit and San Diego desert woodrat that will include measures to avoid or minimize take of these sensitive species and identify appropriate relocation sites. The plan shall be submitted to the city and CDFW for approval prior to implementation. The plan shall specify the pre -construction timeframe for the biologist to conduct surveys within appropriate habitat areas to capture and relocate individual San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit and San Diego desert woodrat in accordance with the approved relocation plan. Results of the surveys and relocation efforts shall be provided to the City with a copy to CDFW. MM Bio -4 The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist, approved by the City, to conduct focused bat surveys utilizing visual and electronic detection methods. The qualified biologist shall conduct the surveys between late May and mid-July, the recognized maternity season for most bats in southern California. If any special -status bat species are determined to be roosting on-site, bat boxes of a size and design suitable for the estimated number of bats on-site shall be installed, under the supervision of a qualified bat biologist, in the outer perimeter of the Project site, as close as feasible to adjacent undeveloped land, and a suitable height and solar aspect. Further, if any maternity sites are identified on site, CDFW will be notified immediately. In addition to any other direction by CDFW, no site disturbance shall occur within 300 feet of the occupied roost until it is determined that the maternity roost(s) is no longer active. Additional bat boxes designed to serve as maternity roosts shall be placed as directed by the qualified bat biologist and CDFW. The project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to prepare a relocation and monitoring plan in coordination with the City and CDFW. MM Bio -5 A qualified restoration specialist shall ensure that the proposed landscape plants will not naturalize and cause maintenance or vegetation community degradation in open -space areas of the Project site. Container plants to be installed within public areas shall be inspected by a qualified restoration specialist for the presence of disease, weeds, and pests, including Argentine ants. Plants with pests, weeds, or diseases shall be rejected. In addition, landscape plants shall not be on the Cal -IPC California Invasive Plant Inventory. September 2017 25 Packet Pg. 116 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report MM Bio -6 The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist, approved by the City, to develop a Mariposa Lily Restoration Plan. The Plan shall include the following actions: • Mark the extant population when plants are flowering. • Collect bulbs (when plant is dormant; summer to fall). • Careful excavation is required to assure collection of the entire bulb and associated bulblets. • Record average depth of bulbs for replication at receiver site. • Plant collected bulbs immediately or store bulbs for later direct planting or growing in pots. • A monitoring and reporting program to assure successful establishment of the transplanted lilies. • • -• • • - - Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts to sensitive habitat identified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: MM Bio -7 The Project Applicant, or the responsible party, shall prepare a holly leaf cherry chaparral restoration plan that details planting plans to mitigate the loss of 0.35 acres of holly leaf cherry chaparral. This plan shall entail five -to -one restoration of the removed holly leaf cherry alliances to equal 1.75 acres. The planting palette shall include a range of native plant species typical of this alliance. The plan shall include temporary irrigation and monitoring for five years after the initial installation to assure establishment of the installed shrubs. Quantifiable success criteria will be based on species diversity, species richness, abundance, percent cover, and non- native cover. The restoration will be deemed successful when the site has been irrigation -free for at least five years and success criteria have remained for five years. The planting site may be located within the landscaped areas of the property. September 2017 26 Packet Pg. 117 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report BIO -3 WOULD THE PROJECT HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON FEDERALLY PROTECTED WETLANDS AS DEFINED BY SECTION 444 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, MARSH, VERNAL POOL, COASTAL, ETC.) THROUGH DIRECT REMOVAL, FILLING, HYDROLOGICAL INTERRUPTION, OR OTHER MEANS? Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts to federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: MM Bio -8 The Project impacts shall be subject to the regulations set forth by regulatory agencies as part of the jurisdictional permitting process. The Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board shall require the Project Applicant, or the responsible party, to explore alternatives to avoid or reduce impacts and shall also require mitigation for all unavoidable impacts. The Army Corps of Engineers has a "no net loss" policy that requires that any unavoidable impacts to stream values and functions be replaced. In addition, the Regional Water Quality Control Board shall add restrictions to control runoff from the site, require on the site treatment of runoff to improve water quality, and impose Best Management Practices on the construction. All of the features of the Project that address water quality issues shall be mitigated within the Water Quality Management Plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. BIO -5 WOULD THE PROJECT CONFLICT WITH ANY LOCAL POLICIES OR ORDINANCES PROTECTING BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, SUCH AS A TREE PRESERVATION POLICY OR ORDINANCE? Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts associated with conflicts with a local ordinance (oak trees) have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. September 2017 27 Packet Pg. 118 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Measures: MM Bio -9 The Project Applicant, or the responsible party, shall be responsible for implementing the following maintenance and care measures for on-site oak trees prior to, during, and post -construction. 1. Thoroughly irrigate all preserved trees one-week prior to any excavation that takes place within the tree protection zone. 2. Provide quarterly Arborist monitoring of Tree #2 for not less than 2 years. 3. Install and maintain protective fencing around trees as illustrated on the plans in the Oak Tree Report. There must be a three-foot opening in the protective fencing to allow for inspection and maintenance, position openings every 50 to 75 feet. 4. Any work taking place in the ground, grading, trenching, drilling etc., within the tree protection zone shall be supervised by the arborist on record and be performed using hand tools only. 5. Any tree roots encountered, measuring 1 -inch or greater must preserved in place, or if unavoidable, properly pruned as deemed acceptable by project arborist 6. Preserved tree roots that are left exposed shall be wrapped in burlap or other moisture retentive material and must be kept moist. 7. Construction materials or debris shall not be stored or disposed of within the protected zone of any tree. 8. No irrigation shall be installed within the dripline of any oak tree. 9. Any planting within the tree protection zone must maintain a minimum distance of 15 feet from the trunk, and must consist of drought tolerant or native plant species, plant pallet must be approved by the city of Santa Clarita. 10. No changes in soil grade shall be made within the tree protection zone other than in the permitted work area. 11. All drainage shall be directed away from the root zone of all oak trees. The project's potential cultural resources impacts that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, of the Final EIR. Identified impacts include adverse effects on archaeological resources and human remains. CR -2 WOULD THE PROJECT CAUSE A SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE CHANGE IN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE PURSUANT TO §15464.5? Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. September 2017 28 Packet Pg. 119 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts to archaeological resources have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitiaation Measures MM CR -1 In the unlikely event that artifacts are found during grading within the City's Planning Area or future roadway extensions, an archaeologist will be notified to stabilize, recover and evaluate such finds. Furthermore, the Project Applicant will comply with the consultation requirements between the Tataviam and the Applicant. CR -4 WOULD THE PROJECT DISTURB ANY HUMAN REMAINS, INCLUDING THOSE INTERRED OUTSIDE OF FORMAL CEMETERIES? Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts to human remains have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: MM CR -2 If human remains are encountered during excavation and grading activities within the Project site, the contractor shall stop such activities. In the event of accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the subject site or any nearby areas reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains and the following steps shall be taken: The coroner of the City in which the remains are discovered must be contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required; and, if the remains are of Native American origin, either of the following steps shall be taken: The coroner should contact the Native American Heritage Commission to ascertain the proper descendants from the deceased individual. The coroner should make a recommendation to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods, which may include obtaining a qualified archaeologist or team of archaeologists to properly excavate the human remains. Implementing or local agencies or authorized representatives should retain a Native American monitor, and an archaeologist, if recommended by the Native American monitor, and rebury the Native American human remains and any associated grave goods, with appropriate dignity, on the property and in a September 2017 29 Packet Pg. 120 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report location that is not subject to further subsurface disturbance when any of the following conditions occurs: The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a descendent. The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation. The implementing agency or its authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. GEOLOGY AND SOILS The project's potential geology and soils impacts that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, of the Final EIR. Identified impacts include strong seismic ground shaking; ground failure, landslides, unstable soil, or expansive soil; topography or ground surface change; earth movement greater than 10,000 cubic yards; and development on slopes greater than 10 percent. GEO-1 WOULD THE PROJECT EXPOSE PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES TO POTENTIAL SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS, INCLUDING THE RISK OF LOSS, INJURY OR DEATH INVOLVING: II) STRONG SEISMIC GROUND SHAKING? Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: MM Geo -29 Foundation • General: Buildings may be supported on continuous or individual spread footings established in properly compacted fill soils. Foundations and floor slabs should be designed by a structural engineer, in accordance with the minimum requirements of the CBC. • Design Criteria: The recommendations presented in this section are based on the assumption that the proposed structures will have column loads not exceeding approximately 100 kips and continuous foundation loads not exceeding 3 kips per lineal foot. A bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used in the design of spread foundations. This value can be increased by one-third when considering seismic and wind forces. The bearing material shall consist of compacted fill soil. Individual column pads and continuous wall footings shall be designed to meet the minimum width September 2017 30 Packet Pg. 121 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report and depth requirements as set forth in the CBC. Foundation depths shall be measured from the lowest adjacent final grade. Building Setbacks: Building setbacks for structures located adjacent to either ascending or descending slopes shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in the CBC. All foundation excavations shall be observed and approved by a representative from our firm prior to placement of reinforcing steel. Foundations shall be deepened, where necessary, to prevent surcharge loads from being imposed on adjacent foundations or utilities. Observation of foundation excavations may also be required by the appropriate reviewing governmental agencies. The contractor shall be familiar with the requirements of the governing reviewing agencies. Lateral Design: Lateral restraint at the bases of footings or slabs may be assumed to be the product of the dead load and a coefficient of friction of 0.4. Passive pressure on the faces of footings may also be used to resist lateral forces. A passive pressure of zero at the surface of finished grade, increasing at the rate of 250 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum value of 2,500 psf, may be used at this site. The passive pressure and friction may be combined without reduction when evaluating lateral resistance. Settlement: Provided that the proposed buildings are supported on shallow foundations established in compacted fill soils, as recommended, column loads do not exceed 100 kips, and continuous footings do not exceed 3 kips per lineal foot, it is estimated that the maximum static settlement will be about 0.75 inches. The total static and seismic settlement is estimated to be about 1.5 inches. It is further estimated that static and seismic differential settlements will be less than 1.0 inches of vertical movement across a horizontal distance of 30 feet. RTF&A shall review the foundation loads after plans are developed to verify the applicability of our recommendations to the proposed structures. MM Geo -30 Floor Slab Support • General: The floor slab design recommendations presented in this section are based upon the assumption that the soil subgrade in proposed floor slab areas will consist of compacted fill soil and that floor slabs will be subjected to normal loads with no special requirements. Any surficial soils that become dried or disturbed during the course of construction shall be moisture - conditioned and compacted prior to casting the floor slab. Conventional floor slabs may be utilized at the subject development, provided the subgrade soils consist of compacted fill soils with a very low (Expansion Index of 0 to 20) potential for expansion. If the subgrade soils are determined to have an expansion potential in the low or higher range (Expansion Index greater than 21), post -tensioned floor slabs, as indicated below, are recommended. Post - tensioned floor slabs can also be used in soils with a very low potential for expansion. • Conventional Floor Slabs: Conventional slabs -on -grade should be designed per the recommendations of the CBC. However, as a minimum, the building floor slabs should have a nominal thickness of at least 4 inches and should be reinforced with a No. 4 rebar spaced at 16 inches on center, in each direction, or equivalent. Thicker slabs may be required depending on CBC September 2017 31 Packet Pg. 122 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report requirements, the floor loads, and the structural requirements; we defer to the Project Structural Engineer for design of the floor slabs. • Post -Tensioned Floor Slabs: Post -tensioned floor slabs should be designed per the recommendations of the CBC. The design values, presented following this paragraph, assume that the proposed floor slabs will be poured monolithic with continuous perimeter edge footings. Perimeter edge footings should have a minimum depth of 12 inches. Footing depths should be measured from the lowest adjacent grade for perimeter footings or the top of slab for interior footings. • Net Bearing Value: An allowable net bearing value of 2,000 psf may be used for footings with a minimum width of 12 inches and a minimum depth of 12 inches below the top of slab or 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. • Coefficient of Friction: 0.75 • Passive Pressure: 250 pcf for level ground condition • Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (K): 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) for a footing width of one foot. For larger footings or floor slabs, this value should be reduced using the following equation: Kr = K where: Kr = Reduced Modulus Value K = Modulus of Subgrade Reaction for a One -Foot -Wide Plate B = Width of Large Footing or Slab • Modulus of Elasticity: 1,000 pounds per square inch (psi) • Edge Moisture Variation Distance: Me (Center Lift): 5.25 feet Me (Edge Lift): 2.5 feet • Estimated Differential Movements My (swelling): Low — 0.4; Medium — 0.9 My (shrink): Low — 0.3; Medium — 0.7 • Water Vapor: Water vapor transmitted through floor slabs is a common cause of floor covering problems. An impermeable membrane vapor barrier should be installed to reduce excess vapor drive through the floor slab. The function of the impermeable membrane is to reduce the amount of water vapor transmitted through the floor slab. Vapor -related impacts should be expected in areas where a vapor barrier is not installed. Floor slabs shall be underlain by a vapor barrier surrounded by 2 inches of sand above and below it. The membrane should be at least 10 millimeters thick; care shall be taken to preserve the continuity and integrity of the membrane beneath the floor slab. The sand shall be sufficiently moist to remain in place and be stable during construction; however, if the sand above the membrane becomes saturated before placing concrete, the moisture in the sand can become a source of water vapor. Another factor affecting vapor transmission through floor slabs is a high water -to -cement ratio in the concrete used for the floor slab. A high water -to -cement ratio increases the porosity of the concrete, thereby facilitating the transmission of water and water vapor through the slab. The Project Structural Engineer or a concrete mix specialist should provide recommendations for design of concrete for footings and floor slabs in accordance with CBC. MM Geo -31 Retaining Walls September 2017 32 Packet Pg. 123 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report • General: A bearing value of 2,000 psf may be used in the design of retaining wall footings. Backfill placed behind retaining walls shall be compacted to a minimum of 90% of the maximum dry density, as determined by the Soil Compaction Test Method (ASTM Standard D1557). When backfilling, walls should be braced. Heavy compaction equipment shall not be used any closer to the back of the wall than the height of the wall. Soils that have an expansion index in excess of 30 shall not be utilized for backfill behind walls that are greater than 3 feet in height. The backs of retaining walls shall be water -proofed where aesthetics are concerned. • Lateral Earth Pressure: Cantilevered retaining walls separate and independent of buildings, where the surface of the backfill is level and the retained height of soils is less than 15 feet, may be designed assuming that drained, nonexpansive soils will exert a lateral pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 30 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). The indicated pressure assumes that a lateral deflection of up to about 1 % of the wall height is acceptable at the top of the wall. If it is desired to decrease the amount of potential wall deflection, a greater lateral pressure could be used in the wall design. Where the surface of the backfill is inclined at 2:1, it may be assumed that drained soils will exert a lateral pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 45 pcf. For the design of a rigid wall where rotation and lateral movement are not acceptable, as in the case of buildings, it may be assumed that drained, nonexpansive soils will exert a rectangular lateral pressure with a maximum pressure equal to 22H psf, where "H" is the wall height in feet. The pressure value and distribution may vary significantly when considering wall rigidity and restraining conditions. The structural characteristics of the wall are referred to the Project Structural Engineer. If requested, we can provide additional geotechnical design parameters for specific restrained conditions. In addition to the recommended earth pressure, walls should be designed to resist any lateral surcharges due to nearby buildings, storage, or traffic loads. A drainage system should be provided behind the walls to reduce the potential for development of hydrostatic pressure. If a drainage system is not installed, walls should be designed to resist an additional hydrostatic pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 55 pcf for the full height of the wall. • Seismic Lateral Earth Pressure: The preceding recommended values indicate earth pressures for conventional static loading conditions. Ground shaking associated with earthquakes may cause additional pressure on walls. In addition to the previously mentioned lateral earth pressures, it is recommended that all rigid (building) walls of any height, and cantilevered retaining walls greater than 6 feet in height, be designed to support an additional seismic earth pressure equal to an inverted equivalent fluid pressure of 29 pcf. • Density of Backfill: When designing retaining walls to resist over -turning, it can be assumed that compacted, on-site soils will have a density of 125 pcf. • Drainage: A drainage system should be provided behind retaining walls, or the walls should be designed to resist hydrostatic pressures. September 2017 33 Packet Pg. 124 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report • The drainage system could consist of a 4 -inch -diameter perforated pipe placed 6 inches from the base of the wall, with the perforations down, and connected to an outlet device. • The pipe should be sloped at least 1 inch per 50 feet and surrounded on all sides by at least 6 inches of clean gravel. The gravel should be "burrito - wrapped" with filter fabric, such as Mirafi 14ON, or equivalent. As an alternative to the gravel and filter fabric, filter material meeting the requirements of LACFCD Designated F-1 Filter Material, and slotted pipe, may be used. • The backside of the wall should be water -proofed. • A vertical, 6 -inch -wide gravel chimney drain, or a drainage geocomposite such as Miradrain, should be placed against and behind retaining walls that are higher than 3 feet. The top of the back drain should be capped with 18 inches of on-site soils. • The installed drainage system should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant of Record prior to backfilling the system. Inspection of the drainage system may also be required by the reviewing governmental agencies. MM Geo -32 Pavement Design: Samples of the on-site soil should be obtained from near final grade elevation in proposed pavement areas, following the grading operations, to perform R -value tests. The R -value test results would be used to prepare pavement section recommendations. The preliminary pavement section recommendations presented below are based on the assumption that the on- site soils have an R -value of at least 20. The final pavement section recommendations could vary depending on the results of the actual R -value tests. We would be pleased to provide pavement section recommendations for alternative Traffic Index values upon request. Traffic Asphalt Thickness (CAB) Base Course Thickness Index (inches) (inches) 4 3 5 6 4 9 8 5 14 • Base course material should consist of crushed aggregate base (CAB), as defined by Section 2002.2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction ("Greenbook"), or crushed miscellaneous base (CMB), as defined by Section 200-2.4 of the Greenbook. Base course material should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density of that material. • Base course material should be purchased from a supplier who will certify that it will meet or exceed the specifications in the Greenbook, as indicated. We could, upon request, perform sieve analysis and sand equivalency tests on material delivered to the site that appears suspect. Additional tests could be performed, upon request, to determine if the material is in compliance with the remainder of the specifications indicated in the Greenbook. • The pavement section recommendations presented above are based upon assumed Traffic Index values. RTF&A does not take responsibility for the numerical determination of the Traffic Index values, nor the areas where they apply within the site. September 2017 34 Packet Pg. 125 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report MM Geo -33 Seismic Design. The following factors are recommended for seismic force design of structures at the subject site. The parameters were determined using the U.S. Seismic Design Maps at the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquakes Hazard website. Site Class D Ss 2.509 S1 0.898 SMs 2.509 SM1 1.347 SDs 1.673 SD1 0.898 PGA 0.899 GEO-1 WOULD THE PROJECT EXPOSE PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES TO POTENTIAL SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS, INCLUDING THE RISK OF LOSS, INJURY OR DEATH INVOLVING: III) SEISMIC -RELATED GROUND FAILURE, INCLUDING LIQUEFACTION? IV) LANDSLIDES? GEO-3 WOULD THE PROJECT BE LOCATED ON A GEOLOGIC UNIT OR SOIL THAT IS UNSTABLE, OR THAT WOULD BECOME UNSTABLE AS A RESULT OF THE PROJECT, AND POTENTIALLY RESULT IN ON-SITE OR OFF-SITE LANDSLIDE, LATERAL SPREADING, SUBSIDENCE, LIQUEFACTION OR COLLAPSE? GEO-4 WOULD THE PROJECT BE LOCATED ON EXPANSIVE SOIL, AS DEFINED IN TABLE 18-1-B OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE (1994), CREATING 7ft�:�iiltifxi7:�7 Z�17 ii�it7 Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts associated with ground failure, landslides, unstable soils, or expansive soils have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: MM Geo -1 Potential debris flow shall be further evaluated once a 40 -scale rough grading plan has been developed for the Project site. Appropriate mitigation measures can be provided for any additional debris flow areas identified on the rough grading plan. September 2017 35 Packet Pg. 126 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report MM Geo -2 Cut Slope CS -3: Bedrock shall be eliminated during removals within the adjacent canyons and the slope grades re-established as a 25 -foot -wide, 3 -foot - deep stability fill slope. The stability fill slope should be constructed with backdrains in accordance with the recommendations presented in the "Conclusions and Recommendations" section of the RTF&A report, and as shown on the Stability Fill Details for Grossly Stable Slopes, presented as Figure 4 (Frankian Study). MM Geo -3 Cut Slope CS -6 shall be constructed entirely as a 20 -foot -wide, 3 -foot -deep stability fill slope after landslide removal. MM Geo -4 Cut Slope CS -7: Bedrock shall be eliminated during the removals within the adjacent canyons and the slope grades reestablished as a 25 -foot -wide, 3 -foot - deep stability fill slope. MM Geo -5 Cut Slope CS -8: Bedrock shall be eliminated during the removals within the adjacent canyons and the slope grades reestablished as a 25 -foot -wide, 3 -foot - deep stability fill slope. MM Geo -6 Cut Slope CS -11: A small canyon is situated in the central portion of Cut Slope CS 11, below future Lot Nos. 19 and 20. The removals as part of the canyon cleanout in this area, and eventual fill placement, shall extend to the bottom of the cut slope at "D" Drive to eliminate a potential fill -over -cut condition. MM Geo -7 Site Preparation Requirements: • Prior to performing earthwork, the existing vegetation and any deleterious debris should be removed from the site. • All unsuitable soils in the areas of grading that are receiving fill should be removed to competent bedrock materials and replaced with engineered fill. • The depth of removal and recompaction of unsuitable soils is noted on the Geotechnical Map. Any fill required to raise the site grades should be properly compacted. Removal of the exposed natural soils should extend to at least the depths indicated on the Site Geology Map (Figure 4.6-1). MM Geo -8 Removal Depth Requirements: The required depth of removal and recompaction of the natural soils is indicated on the Geotechnical Map. • Deeper removals will be required if disturbed or unsuitable soils are encountered. • After excavation of the upper natural soils on hillsides and in canyons, further excavation should be performed, if necessary, to remove slope wash or other unsuitable soils. • The Geotechnical Consultant of Record may require that additional shallow excavations be made periodically in the exposed bottom to determine that sufficient removals have been made prior to recompacting the soil in-place. Deeper removals may be recommended by RTF&A, based on observed field conditions during grading. • During grading operations, the removal depths should be observed by a representative of RTF&A and surveyed by the Project Civil Engineer for September 2017 36 Packet Pg. 127 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report conformance with the recommended removal depths shown on the grading plan (Figure 4.6-1). MM Geo -9 Fill Material Requirements: The on-site soils, less any debris or organic matter, may be used in the required fills. • Any expansive clays should be mixed with nonexpansive soils to result in a mixture having an expansion index less than 30 if they are to be placed within the upper 8 feet of the proposed rough grades. • Rocks or hard fragments larger than 8 inches may not be placed in the fill without special treatment. Rocks or hard fragments larger than 4 inches shall not be clustered or compose more than 25% by weight of any portion of the fill or a lift. Soils containing more than 25% rock or hard fragments larger than 4 inches must be removed or crushed with successive passes (e.g., with a sheepsfoot roller) until rock or hard fragments larger than 4 inches constitute less than 25% of the fill or lift. MM Geo -10 Oversized Material Requirements: • Rocks or material greater than 8 inches in diameter, but not exceeding 4 feet in largest dimension, shall be considered oversized rock. The oversized rocks can be incorporated into deep fills where designated by the Geotechnical Consultant of Record. Rocks should be placed in the lower portions of the fill and should not be placed within the upper 10 feet of compacted fill, or nearer than 15 feet to the surface of any fill slope. Windrows should be excluded from areas of proposed utilities, pools, and other types of future underground improvements. Additional costs and construction difficulties should be anticipated if future improvements are located in areas where there will be conflicts with existing windrows. • Rocks between 8 inches and 4 feet in diameter shall be placed in windrows or shallow trenches located so that equipment can build up and compact fill on both sides. The width of the windrows shall not exceed 4 feet. The windrows should be staggered vertically so that one windrow is not placed directly above the windrow immediately below. • Rock greater than one foot in diameter shall not exceed 30% of the volume of the windrows. Granular fill shall be placed on the windrow, and enough water should be applied so that soil can be flooded into the voids. Fill should be placed along the sides of the windrows and compacted as thoroughly as possible. After the fill has been brought to the top of the rock windrow, additional granular fill should be placed and flooded into the voids. Flooding is not permitted in fill soils placed more than 1 foot above the top of the windrowed rocks. • Where utility lines or pipelines are to be located at depths greater than 15 feet, rock shall be excluded in that area. Excess rock that cannot be included in the fill, or that exceeds 4 feet in diameter, should be stockpiled for export or used for landscaping purposes. • The oversized material recommendations presented in this report provide for the geotechnical consultant to coordinate with the grading contractor to develop a procedure for construction of compacted fills that have a satisfactory fill performance for the intended use of the fill. It should be understood that it is not feasible and/or cost effective to eliminate all September 2017 37 Packet Pg. 128 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report oversized material from constructed fills as part of a conventional grading operation. The exclusion of all oversized material is not necessary for satisfactory fill performance on the majority of projects. MM Geo -11 Compaction Requirements: After the site is cleared and excavated as recommended, the exposed soils should be carefully observed for the removal of all unsuitable material. Next, the exposed subgrade soils should be scarified to a depth of at least 6 inches, brought to above optimum moisture content, and rolled with heavy compaction equipment. The upper 6 inches of exposed soils should be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density obtainable by the ASTM D1557 Method of Compaction. After compacting the exposed subgrade soils, all required fills should be placed in loose lifts, not more than 8 inches in thickness, and compacted to at least 90% of their maximum density. For fills placed at depths greater than 40 feet below proposed finish grade, a minimum compaction of 93% of the maximum dry density is required. The moisture content of the fill soils at the time of compaction should be above the optimum moisture content. Compacted fill should not be allowed to dry out before subsequent lifts are placed. Rough grades should be sloped so as not to direct water flow over slope faces. Finished exterior grades should be sloped to drain away from building areas to prevent ponding of water adjacent to foundations. MM Geo -12 Shrinkage and Bulking Requirements: Shrinkage of about 10% to 15% is estimated for the on-site natural alluvial soils when removed and placed as compacted fill. A bulking value of about 3% to 10% is estimated for materials generated from Mint Canyon Formation bedrock cut areas for use as compacted fill. The actual shrinkage and bulking will depend upon the relative compaction obtained by the contractor during grading operations and would be expected to change on a daily basis. MM Geo -13 Permanent Slope Requirements: Permanent cut and fill slopes may be inclined at 2:1 or flatter. The current site plan indicates that the steepest slope to be constructed at the site during grading will be 2:1. MM Geo -14 Proposed Cut Slope Requirements: Cut slopes proposed for the rough grading of the Project site have been designated as shown on the Geotechnical Map. Each cut slope is discussed with specific recommendations presented below. All grading should conform to the minimum recommendations presented in this report. If these slopes are modified from those that are discussed in this report, the modifications should be reviewed by RTF&A to ascertain the applicability of our recommendations. MM Geo -15 Fill Slope Requirements: • Where the toe of a fill slope terminates on natural, fill, or cut materials, a keyway is required at the toe of the fill slope. The fill slope keyway should be a minimum width of 12 feet, be founded within competent material, and September 2017 38 Packet Pg. 129 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report extend a horizontal distance beyond the toe of the fill to the depth of the keyway. The keyway should be sloped back at a minimum gradient of 2% into the slope. The width of fill slopes shall be no less than 8 feet, and under no circumstances should the fill widths be less than what the compaction equipment being used can fully compact. Benches should be cut into the existing slope to bind the fill to the slope. Benches should be step-like in profile, with each bench not less than 4 feet in height and established in competent material. Compressible or other unsuitable soils should be removed from the slope prior to benching. Competent material is defined as being essentially free of loose soil, heavy fracturing, or erosion -prone material and is established by the Geotechnical Consultant of Record during grading. • Where the top or toe of a fill slope terminates on a natural or cut slope and the natural or cut slope is steeper than a gradient of 3:1, a drainage terrace with a width of at least 6 feet is recommended along the contact. As an alternative, the natural or cut portion of the slope can be excavated and reconstructed as a stability fill slope to provide an all -fill slope condition. Where the contact between the face of the fill slope and the face of a lower natural or cut slope is inclined at 45 degrees or steeper, a drainage terrace would not be required. • When constructing fill slopes, the grading contractor shall avoid spillage of loose material down the face of the slope during the dumping and rolling operations. Preferably, the incoming load shall be dumped behind the face of the slope and bladed into place. After a maximum of 4 feet of compacted fill has been placed, the contractor shall backroll the outer face of the slope by backing the tamping roller over the top of the slope, thoroughly covering all of the slope surface with overlapping passes of the roller. The foregoing should be repeated after the placement of each 4 -foot thickness of fill. As an alternative, the fill slope can be overbuilt and the slope cut back to expose a compacted core. If the required compaction is not obtained on the fill slope, additional rolling will be required prior to placement of additional fill, or the slope shall be overbuilt and cut back to expose the compacted core. MM Geo -16 Stability Fill Requirements: Stability fills have been recommended for several of the cut slopes on-site, as discussed in the "Slope Stability" section of this report. The stability fill slopes should be constructed in accordance with Stability Fill Details for Grossly Stable Slopes (Figure 4), Frankian study. Backdrains should be installed at the backcut of the stability fill as recommended below in Mitigation Measures MM Geo -17 and MM Geo -18. MM Geo -17 Subdrain Requirements: • Canyon subdrains are recommended to intercept and remove groundwater within canyon fill areas. All subdrains should extend up -canyon, with the drain inlet carried to within 15 feet of final pad grade. The approximate locations for recommended subdrains are shown on Figure 4.6-1, Site Geology Map. Specific Subdrain locations should be determined in the field during grading operations. The subdrains should be surveyed by the Project Surveyor to establish line and grade during construction, and for future September 2017 39 Packet Pg. 130 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report location reference. Subdrain and backdrain excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant. The subdrains should be installed in accordance with the manufacturers specifications. A minimum 2% gradient is to be maintained in the Subdrain pipes and the pipe shall have at least eight uniformly spaced narrow slots per foot. The width of the slots should not exceed one -sixteenth of an inch. If PVC pipe with drilled perforations is utilized, the diameter of the holes should not exceed three-eighths of an inch if gravel and filter fabric is used, or one- eighth inch -diameter perforations if Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) Designation F-1 Filter Material is used. There should be at least eight uniformly spaced sets of two perforations per lineal foot of pipe. When constructing the Subdrain, the pipe should be placed so that the drilled perforations are positioned on the bottom half of the pipe. The upstream end of subdrains should be capped. The final 20 feet of pipe at the downstream end of canyon, stabilization, buttress, and side hill fills shall not be slotted or perforated. Provisions should be made at all times during construction to prevent damage to the Subdrain from construction equipment, and to prevent soils from being washed into an exposed Subdrain by surface waters. For runs up to 500 feet, subdrains for the bottom of canyon fills should consist of at least 6 -inch -diameter pipe. For runs of 500 to 1,500 feet, 8 -inch - diameter pipe shall be used. For runs over 1,500 feet, 10 -inch -diameter pipe shall be used. Canyon subdrains may be installed in a rectangular trench excavated to expose competent material and shall be approved by the Geotechnical Consultant. The subdrains should be surrounded by at least 3 cubic feet per lineal foot of granular filter material and there should be at least 6 inches of compacted granular filter material or gravel on all sides of the pipe. The granular filter material for subdrains should meet the F1 material criteria, or have a gradation approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. As an alternative to the granular filter material, three -quarter - inch -diameter gravel may be placed around the pipe. The gravel should be separated from the surrounding soils by a filter fabric such as Mirafi 14ON, or equivalent, wrapped around the gravel ("burrito wrapped"). MM Geo -18 Backdrains Requirements: Backdrains are required for all stability fills or buttress fills. • Backdrains shall consist of 4 -inch -diameter perforated or slotted pipe. • The vertical spacing of the backdrains shall be a maximum of 15 feet, with a horizontal spacing of 100 feet. • Backdrain outlets shall consist of non -perforated pipe. • The backdrain gradient shall be at least 2% to the discharge end. • The exact location of the backdrains shall be determined in the field by the Geotechnical Consultant after the backcut has been made, so that it can be best positioned to intercept potential seepage. MM Geo -19 Surface Drainage Requirements: September 2017 40 Packet Pg. 131 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report All surface drainage shall be directed away from proposed structures through non-erosive devices. The ponding of water must not be allowed, especially adjacent to foundations. The pad gradients shall not slope toward any descending slopes in order to reduce the potential for surficial erosion. Water that flows towards slopes shall be conducted to appropriate discharge locations via non -erodible drainage devices. Drainage devices, including drainage terraces on graded slopes shall be inspected periodically and kept clear of debris. Drainage and erosion control shall be designed in accordance with the standards set forth in the CBC. Any modification of the grades of building pads, parking areas, etc., could adversely affect drainage at the site. Future landscaping, construction of walkways, planters and walls, etc. must never modify site drainage unless additional measures to enhance drainage (e.g., area drains, additional grading) are designed and constructed in accordance with the applicable City of Santa Clarita. MM Geo -20 Erosion Protection Requirements • To reduce the potential for erosion, all permanent cut -and -fill slopes on-site should be seeded or planted with lightweight, deep -rooting, drought -resistant vegetation. A landscaping expert should be consulted for ground cover recommendations. Excessive landscape irrigation or leakage from irrigation lines can cause localized slope failures. Therefore, irrigation systems for slope vegetation should be designed and maintained to minimize leakage onto graded slopes. If automatic sprinkler systems are used, they should be adjusted for seasonal variations in rainfall. Vegetation on natural slopes should remain natural and not be landscaped or irrigated in the same manner as graded slopes. • Rodent burrows are known to provide direct conduits for water flow that can decrease slope stability. Therefore, to maintain the integrity of graded slopes, a rodent abatement program shall be instituted. • Even with the implementation of these recommendations, it is not possible to eliminate erosion within hillside developments. Removal of debris from drainage devices, slope maintenance, and landscaping shall be required, especially after periods of heavy rainfall. MM Geo -21 General Grading Requirements • All fills, unless otherwise specifically designed, shall be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry unit weight as determined by the ASTM D1557 Method of Soil Compaction. • No fill shall be placed until the area to receive the fill has been adequately prepared, and subsequently approved by the Geotechnical Consultant of Record or his representative. • Fill soils should be kept free of debris and organic material. • Rocks or hard fragments larger than 8 inches may not be placed in the fill without approval of the Geotechnical Consultant of Record or his representative, and in a manner specified for each occurrence. • Bedrock fragments larger than 8 inches, or fill soils containing greater than 25% of bedrock fragments larger than 4 inches in diameter, must be September 2017 41 Packet Pg. 132 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report removed or processed using successive passes of a sheepsfoot compactor until rock fragments constitute less than 25% of the fill material. • The fill material shall be placed in layers which, when compacted, shall not exceed 8 inches per layer. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be mixed thoroughly during the spreading to ensure uniformity of material and moisture. • When moisture content of the fill material is too low to obtain adequate compaction, water shall be added and thoroughly dispersed until the soil is approximately 2% to 4% above optimum moisture content. • When the moisture content of the fill material is too high to obtain adequate compaction, the fill material shall be aerated by blading, or other satisfactory methods, until the soil is approximately 2% to 4% above optimum moisture content. • Fill and cut slopes shall not be constructed at gradients steeper than 2:1 ( horizontal:vertical ). MM Geo -22 Grading Observation. Construction observation shall be made by the Geotechnical Consultant of Record during any grading activities within the Project site, to verify the findings within this report. Additional recommendations may be required for landfill design based on conditions uncovered during grading. MM Geo -23 Temporary Excavation. Based on review of the subject plans, it does not appear that significant temporary excavations will be required during the construction of the proposed development. However, the following recommendations are applicable in areas where excavations are to be made. Temporary excavations are not expected to stand vertically in cuts that exceed 4 feet in height. Temporary excavations in excess of 4 feet may be sloped at a gradient of 3/4:1, to a maximum height of 12 feet in favorably oriented Mint Canyon Formation or Terrace Deposits. Temporary slopes within alluvial soils and slopes greater than 12 feet may be sloped at gradients of 1:1. "Temporary" means a period not exceeding 60 days. All regulations of State or Federal OSHA shall be followed. If excavations are made during the rainy season (normally from November through April), particular care shall be taken to protect slopes against erosion. Measures to help mitigate erosion, such as the installation of berms, plastic sheeting, or other devices, may be warranted. Surface water shall be prevented from flowing over or ponding at the top of excavations. MM Geo -24 Expansive Bedrock. It is anticipated that bedrock materials exposed at pad grade may contain expansive claystone beds that could cause differential expansion. Therefore, within building areas at locations where expansive bedrock units are exposed at pad grade, it is recommended that the bedrock be removed and recompacted to a depth at least 8 feet below the proposed final pad elevations or 5 feet below the bottom of proposed footings, whichever is greater. It is also recommended that the bedrock be removed and recompacted to a depth at least 3 feet below proposed soil subgrade in exposed bedrock areas receiving pavement or hardscape improvements. The soils generated by these over - September 2017 42 Packet Pg. 133 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report excavations should be mixed with nonexpansive soils to yield a relatively nonexpansive mixture. If the resulting fill soil is still expansive, special construction techniques, such as pad subgrade saturation or post -tensioned slabs, may be required to reduce the potential for expansive soil—related distress. MM Geo -25 Transition Lots. Proposed building pads located in a cut and fill transition zone may experience cracking and movement of the footings and slab due to differing compressibility of the fill, as compared to the bedrock material. To reduce the potential for cracking and differential settlement, the portion of the lot in cut bedrock or terrace deposits should be over -excavated to a depth at least 5 feet below the proposed finished pad elevation or 3 feet below the bottom of proposed footings, whichever is greater. The over -excavation shall extend at least 5 feet laterally beyond the building limits. Where removal and recompaction for potentially expansive soils or bedrock is also required that the 8 -foot removals be performed as described in the "Expansive Bedrock' section of the RTF&A 2015 report. MM Geo -26 The applicability of the preliminary recommendations for foundation and retaining wall design should be confirmed at the completion of grading. MM Geo -27 Paving studies and soil corrosivity tests should be performed at the completion of rough grading, to develop detailed recommendations for protection of utilities and structures and for construction of the proposed roads. MM Geo -28 Expansive Soils. The on-site alluvial soils and terrace deposits are expected to have a very low potential for expansion. Compacted fills generated from the Mint Canyon Formation are expected to have up to a medium potential for expansion. The compacted fills generated by the on-site materials are expected to be classified as having a very low to medium potential for expansion. Samples of the compacted fill shall be obtained at the completion of the rough grading operations to support final foundation design. GEO-6 WOULD THE PROJECT CHANGE TOPOGRAPHY OR GROUND SURFACE RELIEF FEATURES? • PROJECT CONSTRUCTION • DEBRIS FLOWS • DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT GEO-7 WOULD THE PROJECT REQUIRE EARTH MOVEMENT (CUT AND/OR FILL) OF 14,444 CUBIC YARDS OR MORE? F 1111 11111 1, r =� Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. September 2017 43 Packet Pg. 134 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts associated with topography or ground surface change, earth movement greater than 10,000 cubic yards, and development on slopes greater than 10 percent have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures MM Geo -2 through MM Geo -16, and MM Geo -21. September 2017 44 Packet Pg. 135 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report The project's potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Final EIR. Identified impacts include being on a government -identified hazardous materials site; interfering with an emergency evacuation plan; and exposure to wildland fires. HAZ-4 WOULD THE PROJECT BE LOCATED ON A SITE WHICH IS INCLUDED ON A LIST OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES COMPILED PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE §65962.5 AND, AS A RESULT, WOULD IT CREATE A SIGNIFICANT HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC OR THE ENVIRONMENT? Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts associated with being located on a site with hazards materials on a Government Code §65962.5 list have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: MM Haz-1 The structures on-site were constructed prior to 1981. Based on the age of construction, building materials in on-site structures may include asbestos containing materials (ACM), and certain building materials are presumed to contain ACM (PACM), unless testing has shown otherwise. As of October 1, 1995, OSHA made building owners responsible for complying with the asbestos construction standard, for buildings built in 1981 or earlier. The building owner is responsible for identifying the presence, location and quantity of asbestos containing building materials, if warranted. The building owner must tell employees, other employers, and tenants in the building of the presence and location of asbestos or presumed asbestos containing materials (PACM). If the building owner intends to demolish or remodel the structure(s), the building owner shall hire a California Certified Asbestos Consultant for assistance in compliance. September 2017 45 Packet Pg. 136 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report HAZ-7 WOULD THE PROJECT IMPAIR IMPLEMENTATION OF, OR PHYSICALLY INTERFERE WITH, AN ADOPTED EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN OR EMERGENCY EVACUATION PLAN? Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts associated with impairing or interfering with an emergency response or emergency evacuation plan have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: MM Haz-2 Prior to construction, the Project Applicant shall prepare a Traffic Control Plan for review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer that shall be implemented during the construction phase. HAZ-8 WOULD THE PROJECT EXPOSE PEOPLE OR STRUCTURES TO A SIGNIFICANT RISK OF LOSS, INJURY, OR DEATH INVOLVING WILDLAND FIRES, INCLUDING WHERE WILDLANDS ARE ADJACENT TO URBANIZED AREAS OR WHERE RESIDENCES ARE INTERMIXED WITH WILDLANDS? Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts associated with locating uses within a wildland fire area and the future exposure of residents and employees to wildland fires have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures MM PS -4 through MM PS -6. September 2017 46 Packet Pg. 137 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report NOISE The project's potential noise impacts that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.12, Noise, of the Final EIR. Identified impacts include the exposure of persons to noise levels that exceed City plans, ordinances or standards; temporary or permanent increases in the ambient noise level; or operational vibration noise. N-1 WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN 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? • MIXED-USE PROJECTS IN AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY ABOVE LEVELS EXISTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT? • MIXED-USE PROJECTS N-4 WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN A SUBSTANTIAL TEMPORARY OR PERIODIC INCREASE IN AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY ABOVE LEVELS EXISTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT? • MIXED-USE PROJECTS Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential project -generated noise impacts that result in the exposure of persons to noise levels that exceed City plans, ordinances or standards, or a temporary or permanent increase in the ambient noise level have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the regulatory compliance measures and mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Regulatory Compliance and Mitigation Measures: MM N-1 The Project shall adhere to Section 11.44.080 of the SCMC (Special Noise Sources—Construction and Building). As stated therein, no person shall engage in any construction work which requires a building permit from the City on sites within 300 feet of a residentially zoned property except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Further, no work shall be performed on the following public holidays: New Year's Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Memorial Day and Labor Day. MM N-2 Noise and ground -borne vibration construction activities whose specific location on the Project site may be flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and generators, September 2017 47 Packet Pg. 138 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report cement mixing, general truck idling) shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest off-site land uses. MM N-3 When possible, construction activities shall be scheduled so as to avoid operating several pieces of equipment simultaneously, which causes high noise levels. MM N-4 Flexible sound control curtains shall be placed around all drilling apparatuses, drill rigs, and jackhammers when in use. MM N-5 The Project contractor shall use power construction equipment with state-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling devices. MM N-6 Barriers such as flexible sound control curtains shall be erected around heavy equipment to minimize the amount of noise on the surrounding land uses to the maximum extent feasible during construction. MM N-7 All construction truck traffic shall be restricted to truck routes approved by the City, which shall avoid residential areas and other sensitive receptors to the extent feasible. MM N-8 A construction notice shall be prepared and shall include the following information: job site address, permit number, name and phone number of the contractor and owner or owner's agent, hours of construction allowed by code or any discretionary approval for the site, and City telephone numbers where violations can be reported. The notice shall be posted and maintained at the construction site prior to the start of construction and displayed in a location that is readily visible to the public and approved by the City. MM N-9 Consistent with Policy N 3.1.2 of the City's Noise Element, where the Projected exterior noise levels could exceed 65 CNEL at single-family residences (rear yards), open space areas, and common recreational and open space areas for multi -family developments, the Applicant shall provide noise barriers, setbacks, and site design standards to reduce future on-site traffic noise levels to the maximum extent feasible. MM N-10 Consistent with Policy N 3.1.9 (Mixed -Use Developments) of the City's Noise Element, the Project shall implement a buyer and renter notification program for residences where appropriate, to educate and inform potential buyers and renters of the sources of noise in the area and/or new sources of noise that may occur in the future. As determined by the reviewing authority, notification may be appropriate in the following areas: within 200 feet of commercial uses in mixed-use developments, potential buyers and renters should receive notice that the commercial uses within the mixed-use developments may generate noise in excess of levels typically found in residential areas, that the commercial uses may change over time, and the associated noise levels and frequency of noise events may change along with the use. MM N-11 The Project shall comply with Title 24 Noise Insulation Standards, which specifies the maximum allowable sound transmission between dwelling units in multi -family September 2017 48 Packet Pg. 139 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report residential buildings, and limits allowable interior noise levels in habitable spaces to 45 dBA CNEL. MM N-12 Prior to the issuance of building permits for uses fronting Sand Canyon and Soledad Canyon Roads, the Project developer shall submit evidence demonstrating that all feasible design features have been considered to meet the City's exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL. Locations that could be exposed to future exterior noise levels above 65 dBA CNEL shall consider at least the following: 1) Increase setbacks along Sand Canyon and Soledad Canyon Roads to the maximum extent feasible; 2) Consider the use of noise barriers between the roadway sources and the receptors (earthen berms, masonry walls, and vegetation may be appropriate); and/or 3) Prohibit balconies for multi -family units facing Sand Canyon and Soledad Canyon Roads. MM N-13 The Project shall implement a buyer and renter notification program for residences where appropriate, to educate and inform potential buyers and renters that due to traffic levels on Sand Canyon Road, Soledad Canyon Road and the SR -14 Freeway, noise in excess of levels typically found in residential areas may be possible. GROUND- BORNEN-2 WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN EXPOSURE OF PERSONS TO OR • •• • =: • Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential project -generated operational vibration noise impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the regulatory compliance measures and mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Regulatory Compliance and Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-7. September 2017 49 Packet Pg. 140 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report The project's potential impacts to fire protection services that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.15, Fire Protection, of the Final EIR. Identified impacts include the need for new or expanded fire facilities or unacceptable service ratios during project construction and operation, and wildland fire hazards. PS -1 WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN 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 FIRE PROTECTION, POLICE PROTECTION, SCHOOLS, PARKS, OR OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES? • PROJECT CONSTRUCTION • PROJECT OPERATIONS • WILDLIFE FIRE HAZARD Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts associated with the need for new or expanded fire facilities or unacceptable service ratios during project construction and operation, and wildland fire hazards have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: MM PS -1 Concurrent with the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall participate in the Developer Fee Program to the satisfaction of the Los Angeles County Fire Department and/or City of Santa Clarita. Construction MM PS -2 Adequate access to all buildings on the Project site shall be provided for emergency vehicles during the building construction process. MM PS -3 Adequate water availability shall be provided to service construction activities September 2017 50 Packet Pg. 141 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Operational MM PS -4 All on-site development shall comply with the applicable Los Angeles County and City of Santa Clarita code requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants, as stipulated by the Los Angeles County Fire Department or the City of Santa Clarita through Project approvals or building plan reviews. MM PS -5 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant, or responsible party, shall obtain the necessary clearances from and shall comply with all applicable conditions imposed by Los Angeles County Fire Department, including but not limited to those from the Planning Division, Land Development Unit, Forestry Division, or Fuel Modification Unit. MM PS -6 The Project Applicant, or responsible party, shall file all landscape plans with the Los Angeles County Fire Department Fuel Modification Unit to ensure compliance with the High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. PUBLIC SERVICES — POLICE PROTECTION The project's potential impacts to police protection services that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.16, Police Protection, of the Final EIR. Identified impacts include the need for new or expanded police facilities or unacceptable service ratios during project construction and operations. PS -1 WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN 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 FIRE PROTECTION, POLICE PROTECTION, SCHOOLS, PARKS, OR OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES? • PROJECT CONSTRUCTION • PROJECT OPERATIONS Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts associated with the need for new or expanded police facilities or unacceptable service ratios during project construction and operation have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. September 2017 51 Packet Pg. 142 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report September 2017 52 Packet Pg. 143 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Measures: MM PS -7 During construction, private security patrols shall be utilized to protect the Project site. MM PS -8 Prior to construction activities, the Project Applicant shall have a construction traffic control plan approved by the City of Santa Clarita. MM PS -9 Project Applicant, or designee, shall pay the City's law enforcement facilities impact fee in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit. MM PS -10 As final development plans are submitted to the City of Santa Clarita for approval in the future, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department design requirements that reduce demands for service and ensure adequate public safety shall be incorporated into the building design. The design requirements for this Project shall include: • Proper lighting in open areas and parking lots to the satisfaction of the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, around and throughout the development to enhance crime prevention and enforcement efforts • Sufficient street lighting for the Project's streets • Good visibility of doors and windows from the streets and between buildings on the Project site • Building address numbers on both residential and commercial/retail uses are lighted and readily apparent from the streets for emergency response agencies • Plant low -growing groundcover and shade trees, to the extent feasible, rather than a predominance of shrubs that could conceal potential criminal activity around buildings and parking areas. PUBLIC SERVICES — SCHOOLS The project's potential impacts to schools that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.17, Schools, of the Final EIR. Identified impacts include the need for new or expanded school facilities or unacceptable service ratios. PS -1 WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN 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 FIRE PROTECTION, POLICE PROTECTION, SCHOOLS, PARKS, OR OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES? • IMPACTS TO SULPHUR SPRINGS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT • IMPACTS TO WILLIAM A. HART UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT September 2017 53 Packet Pg. 144 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts associated with the need for new or expanded school facilities or unacceptable service ratios have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: MM PS -11 The Project Applicant, or responsible party, shall pay the required mitigation fees to the Sulphur Springs Union School District as stipulated in the School Facilities Mitigation Agreement. MM PS -12 The Project Applicant, or responsible party, shall enter into an Agreement with the William S. Hart Union High School District prior to final map. All fees shall be paid in accordance with the Agreement. PUBLIC SERVICES — LIBRARY SERVICES The project's potential impacts to library services that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.18, Library Services, of the Final EIR. Identified impacts include the need for new or expanded library facilities or unacceptable service ratios. PS -1 WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN 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 FIRE PROTECTION, POLICE PROTECTION, SCHOOLS, PARKS, OR OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES? Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts associated with the need for new or expanded library facilities or unacceptable service ratios have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. September 2017 54 Packet Pg. 145 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Measures: MM PS -13 The Project Applicant shall pay a library facilities mitigation fee. Currently this fee is $800.00 per residential unit. This is the estimated fee that would be collected to pay for new library construction and items totaling $464,000.00. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION The project's potential traffic and circulation impacts that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.19, Traffic and Circulation, of the Final EIR. Identified impacts include conflicts with an applicable plan (project operations); conflicts with the applicable congestion management program (project construction and project operations); impacts affecting emergency access; and cumulative impacts. T-1 WOULD THE PROJECT CONFLICT WITH AN APPLICABLE PLAN, ORDINANCE OR POLICY ESTABLISHING MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL MODES OF TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING MASS TRANSIT AND NON - MOTORIZED TRAVEL AND RELEVANT COMPONENTS OF THE CIRCULATION SYSTEM, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INTERSECTIONS, STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND FREEWAYS, PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PATHS, AND MASS TRANSIT? • PROJECT OPERATIONS Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings a :a The potential impacts associated with project operations conflicting with adopted transportation plans, ordinances, or policies have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less w than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. c 0 Mitigation Measures: o us MM T-1 Sand Canyon at Soledad Canyon. Modify traffic signal timing to coordinate with ¢�Q Kenroy Avenue and SR -14 SB Ramp intersections along Soledad Canyon Road. W `i, MM T-2 SR -14 SB Ramps at Soledad Canyon. Modify traffic signal to change westbound left -turn phasing from permissive to protected left -turn phasing. E V MM T-3 The Project Developer shall enter into a Mitigation Agreement with Caltrans. Said Mitigation Agreement shall be finalized prior to the recordation of a final map. C September 2017 55 Packet Pg. 146 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report T-2 WOULD THE PROJECT CONFLICT WITH AN APPLICABLE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP), INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS AND TRAVEL DEMAND MEASURES, OR OTHER STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THE CMP FOR DESIGNATED ROADS OR HIGHWAYS? • PROJECT CONSTRUCTION • PROJECT OPERATIONS Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts associated with project construction and project operations conflicting with an adopted congestion management project or standards have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure MM T-3. T-5 WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN INADEQUATE EMERGENCY ACCESS? Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts associated with the provision of adequate emergency access have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measure MM Haz-2. CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC IMPACTS Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. September 2017 56 Packet Pg. 147 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Facts in Support of Findings The potential cumulative traffic impacts have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: MM T-4 Sand Canyon at Soledad Canyon (Cumulative Conditions). Modify traffic signal timing to coordinate with Kenroy Avenue and SR -14 SB Ramp intersections along Soledad Canyon Road. MM T-5 Sand Canyon at Soledad Canyon (Cumulative Conditions). Modify intersection to restripe one northbound right -turn lane to a through lane (for 2 NB Left, 2 NB Through and 1 NB Right) (Project Share = 24%). MM T-6 SR -14 SB Ramps at Soledad Canyon (Cumulative Conditions). Modify traffic signal to change westbound left -turn phasing from permissive to protected left -turn phasing. MM T-7 SR -14 Freeway Mainline (Cumulative Conditions). Contribute pro -rata share to the anticipated costs for design and implementation of future improvements. (Project Share = 1.6%). UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — SOLID WASTE The project's potential solid waste impacts that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.20, Solid Waste, of the Final EIR. Identified impacts include sufficient capacity in landfills to accept waste from the project. UTIL-1 WOULD THE PROJECT BE SERVED BY A LANDFILL WITH SUFFICIENT PERMITTED CAPACITY TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROJECT'S SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL NEEDS? Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts associated with project -generated waste being disposed of a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: MM Util-1 The project application shall complete and submit to the Building & Safety Division a Construction and Demolition Materials Management Plan (C&DMMP), approved by September 2017 57 Packet Pg. 148 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report the City's Director of Public Works, or the Director's Designee, on a C&DMMP form approved by the City. The completed C&DMMP, at a minimum, shall indicate all of the following: 1. the estimated weight of project C&D materials, by materials type, to be generated; 2. the maximum weight of C&D materials that it is feasible to divert, considering cost, energy consumption and delays, via reuse or recycling; 3. the vendor or facility that the applicant proposes to use to collect, divert, market, reuse or receive the C&D materials; 4. the estimated weight of residual C&D materials that would be transported for disposal in a landfill or transformation facility; and 5. the estimated weight of inert waste to be removed from the waste stream and not disposed of in a solid waste landfill. (General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 3.17-6) MM Util-2 The Project Applicant shall provide adequate areas for the collection and loading of recyclable materials (i.e., paper products, glass, and other recyclables) in compliance with the State Model Ordinance, implemented on September 1, 1994, in accordance with AB 1327, Chapter 18, California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991. (General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 3.17-2) MM Util-3 The Project Applicant shall be required to implement waste reduction programs in conformance with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element program. (General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 3.17-4) MM Util-4 Any hazardous waste that is generated on site, or is found on site during demolition, rehabilitation, or new construction activities shall be remediated, stored, handled, and transported in compliance per appropriate local, state, and federal laws, as well as with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element. (General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 3.17-5) UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS —WASTEWATER The project's potential solid waste impacts that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.21, Wastewater, of the Final EIR. Identified impacts include exceedance of Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, requiring the construction of new or expansion of existing facilities; and adequate capacity by a provider to accept the project -generated wastewater. UTIL-3 WOULD THE PROJECT EXCEED WASTEWATER TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPLICABLE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD? UTIL-4 WOULD THE PROJECT REQUIRE OR RESULT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW WATER OR WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES OR EXPANSION OF EXISTING FACILITIES, THE CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD CAUSE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS? September 2017 58 Packet Pg. 149 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report UTIL-5 WOULD THE PROJECT RESULT IN A DETERMINATION BY THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROVIDER THAT 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? Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The potential impacts associated with project -generated wastewater causing an exceedance of Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, requiring the construction of new or expansion of existing facilities; and impacting the provider's capacity to accept the project - generated wastewater have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level of less than significant by virtue of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures: MM Util-5 Payment of a connection fee to the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County shall be made prior to issuance of a permit to connect (directly or indirectly) to the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County's Sewerage System. 6-K,I4.WUs] ►IJiI4.III r_10499tot &S l:II@]:MI4Ji/_1IZ h-]IdZI19H-1► III r_1►I1111►/_VL•]I7.11,4F_I;ki4AJiIIII i[C7_Ar[•].I AND FINDINGS The City of Santa Clarita, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, Technical Appendices and the administrative record, finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code 21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines 15091(a)(3), that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR and, therefore, the project would cause significant unavoidable impacts in the categories of Air Quality and Noise, as summarized below. • Air Quality: Regional Operational Emissions • Air Quality: Cumulative Operational Emissions • Noise: Construction Noise • Noise: Construction Vibration Levels (Human Annoyance) • Noise: Traffic Noise on Exterior Space for Residential and Assisted Living Facility • Noise: Cumulative Traffic Noise September 2017 59 Packet Pg. 150 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Regional Operational Air Emissions. The project's regional operational air quality emissions associated with area sources, energy demand, and mobile sources (motor vehicles) would exceed the regional thresholds of significance set by the SCAQMD for ROG and NOx during the summertime and the wintertime. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(3), specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The net increase in regional operational emissions generated by the project would exceed the regional thresholds of significance set by the SCAQMD for ROG and NOx during the summertime and the wintertime. These emissions are primarily due to motor vehicles and area source emissions associated with the operation of a relatively high number of proposed residential uses. These emissions are typical for a mixed-use commercial and residential project of this size. Impacts associated with project implementation have been reduced to the extent feasible. There are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce ROG or NOx emissions; thus, the impacts would constitute a significant and unavoidable impact. Mitigation Measures: MM AQ -1 The Project Applicant, or designee, shall require that all commercial -related landscaping activities utilize electric lawn mowers and electric leaf blowers to the extent feasible. Cumulative Operational Air Emissions. The project's cumulative operational air quality emissions associated with area sources, energy demand, and mobile sources (motor vehicles) would exceed the regional thresholds of significance set by the SCAQMD for ROG and NOX. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(3), specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. September 2017 60 Packet Pg. 151 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report September 2017 61 Packet Pg. 152 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Facts in Support of Findings Due to the non -attainment status of 03, PM10, and PM2.5, the generation of daily operational emissions associated with cumulative development would result in a cumulative significant impact associated with the cumulative net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is in non -attainment. With respect to operational emissions, the SCAQMD has indicated that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants (CO, ROG, NOX, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5) that exceed the SCAQMD-recommended daily thresholds for project -specific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants for which the project region is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. As discussed previously, the operational emissions associated with the project would exceed the established SCAQMD thresholds for ROG and NOX during the operation of the Project. Because ROG and NOX are considered 03 precursors, and given the region's non -attainment status of 03, the cumulative impact of the project's operational emissions would be significant. Impacts associated with project implementation have been reduced to the extent feasible. There are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce ROG and NOX; thus, the impacts would constitute a significant and unavoidable impact. NOISE Construction Noise. The project's construction -related noise levels at the above mentioned sensitive receptors would have the potential to exceed the City's exterior daytime noise standards. . . Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(3), specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The project's construction -related noise levels at the above mentioned sensitive receptors would have the potential to exceed the City's exterior daytime noise standards. However, it should be noted that the project would be consistent with section 11.44.080 of the SCMC (special noise sources—construction and building), which states no person shall engage in any construction work which requires a building permit from the city on sites within 300 feet of a residentially zoned property except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Impacts associated with construction noise have been reduced to the extent feasible. However, after implementation of regulatory compliance measures and mitigation measures contained in the EIR, temporary construction noise levels would exceed exterior daytime noise standards and the impacts would constitute a significant and unavoidable impact. September 2017 62 Packet Pg. 153 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Regulatory Compliance and Mitigation Measures: MM N-1 The Project shall adhere to Section 11.44.080 of the SCMC (Special Noise Sources—Construction and Building). As stated therein, no person shall engage in any construction work which requires a building permit from the City on sites within 300 feet of a residentially zoned property except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Further, no work shall be performed on the following public holidays: New Year's Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Memorial Day, and Labor Day. MM N-2 Noise and ground -borne vibration construction activities whose specific location on the Project site may be flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and generators, cement mixing, general truck idling) shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest off-site land uses. MM N-3 When possible, construction activities shall be scheduled so as to avoid operating several pieces of equipment simultaneously, which causes high noise levels. MM N-4 Flexible sound control curtains shall be placed around all drilling apparatuses, drill rigs, and jackhammers when in use. MM N-5 The Project contractor shall use power construction equipment with state-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling devices. MM N-6 Barriers such as flexible sound control curtains shall be erected around heavy equipment to minimize the amount of noise on the surrounding land uses to the maximum extent feasible during construction. MM N-7 All construction truck traffic shall be restricted to truck routes approved by the City, which shall avoid residential areas and other sensitive receptors to the extent feasible. MM N-8 A construction notice shall be prepared and shall include the following information: job site address, permit number, name and phone number of the contractor and owner or owner's agent, hours of construction allowed by code or any discretionary approval for the site, and City telephone numbers where violations can be reported. The notice shall be posted and maintained at the construction site prior to the start of construction and displayed in a location that is readily visible to the public and approved by the City. Construction Vibration Levels (Human Annoyance). Construction activities that would occur within the project site would have the potential to generate low levels of ground -borne vibration to off-site receptors. September 2017 63 Packet Pg. 154 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(3), specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. Facts in Support of Findings Vibration velocities could reach as high as approximately 0.089 inches per second PPV at 25 feet from the source activity, depending on the type of construction equipment in use. This corresponds to a RMS velocity level (in VdB) of 87 VdB at 25 feet from the source activity. With respect to human annoyance, residential sensitive receptors located within 75 feet of the project site boundaries (Sensitive Receptor No. 1 located as close as 20 feet from project site) could experience construction related vibration levels of up to approximately 73-87 VbB. These levels would exceed the FTA's vibration impact threshold of 72 VdB for residences and buildings where people normally sleep. However, similar to construction noise sources, it should be noted that the project would be consistent with Section 11.44.080 of the SCMC (Special Noise Sources—Construction and Building), which states that no person shall engage in any construction work that requires a building permit from the City on sites within 300 feet of a residentially zoned property except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Further, impacts associated with construction vibration levels have been reduced to the extent feasible through imposition of mitigation measures. Nevertheless, as temporary construction vibration levels would exceed residential annoyance thresholds, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Regulatory Compliance and Mitigation Measures: Refer to Mitigation Measures MM N-1 through MM N-8 for construction vibration. Traffic Noise on Exterior Space for Residential and Assisted Living Facility. Exterior noise levels from traffic noise for the Project's residential uses, the assisted living facility, rear yard areas, open space areas, and recreational areas would be inconsistent with the City's exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL. . . Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(3), specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. September 2017 64 Packet Pg. 155 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report September 2017 65 Packet Pg. 156 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Facts in Support of Findings Future cumulative exterior noise levels could reach up to 71.5 dBA CNEL and 73.6 dBA CNEL for the Project frontages along the segments of Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road, respectively. In addition to these arterial roadway noise levels, the SR -14 Freeway to the south of the Project site could cause future cumulative on-site noise levels to reach up to 74.7 dBA CNEL along the southern boundary of the Project site fronting Soledad Canyon Road. While the Project would contribute to these future cumulative traffic noise levels (less than 0.8 dBA CNEL increase at worst-case location), these noise levels are primarily a result of traffic from existing conditions, ambient growth, cumulative development, and general plan buildout to the future year 2030. Based on a review of the Project plans, exterior spaces fronting Sand Canyon and Soledad Canyon Roads with a direct line -of -sight to these roadways may experience exterior noise levels above the City's exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL. Specifically, such uses fronting Sand Canyon Road include multi -family attached units in Planning Areas 2 and 3, and open space and recreational areas in Planning Areas 2 and 3. And, such uses fronting Soledad Canyon Road include the assisted living facility in Planning Area 1, and open space areas in Planning Area 1. However, it should be noted that these calculations are based on the worst- case locations immediately adjacent to the property lines along the roadways. Uses with greater setbacks and without a direct line -of -sight to these roadways are expected to experience exterior noise levels below the City's exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL (i.e., locations where Project building facades along the site's boundary will shield internal on-site uses from the roadway noise). Based on data published by the Federal Highway Administration, such conditions can reduce line -of -sight noise levels by approximately 10 dBA for some locations. Assuming a 10 dBA reduction described above, uses with greater setbacks and without a direct line -of -sight to the roadways would experience exterior noise levels of approximately 61.5 dBA CNEL to 64.7 dBA CNEL. These noise levels would be within the City's exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL. Nevertheless, because exterior spaces fronting Sand Canyon and Soledad Canyon Roads with a direct line -of -sight to these roadways may experience exterior noise levels above the City's exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL, this impact would be potentially significant. Regulatory compliance and Project -specific mitigation (i.e., Mitigation Measures MM N-9, MM N-10, MM N-12, and MM N-13) would reduce this impact to the maximum extent feasible. However, as exterior noise levels of 65 dBA CNEL cannot be guaranteed for all areas of the Project site, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. Regulatory Compliance and Mitigation Measures: MM N-9 Consistent with Policy N 3.1.2 of the City's Noise Element, where the Projected exterior noise levels could exceed 65 CNEL at single-family residences (rear yards), open space areas, and common recreational and open space areas for multi -family developments, the Applicant shall provide noise barriers, setbacks, and site design standards to reduce future on-site traffic noise levels to the maximum extent feasible. MM N-10 Consistent with Policy N 3.1.9 (Mixed -Use Developments) of the City's Noise Element, the Project shall implement a buyer and renter notification program for September 2017 66 Packet Pg. 157 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report residences where appropriate, to educate and inform potential buyers and renters of the sources of noise in the area and/or new sources of noise that may occur in the future. As determined by the reviewing authority, notification may be appropriate in the following areas: within 200 feet of commercial uses in mixed-use developments, potential buyers and renters should receive notice that the commercial uses within the mixed-use developments may generate noise in excess of levels typically found in residential areas, that the commercial uses may change over time, and the associated noise levels and frequency of noise events may change along with the use. MM N-12 Prior to the issuance of building permits for uses fronting Sand Canyon and Soledad Canyon Roads, the Project developer shall submit evidence demonstrating that all feasible design features have been considered to meet the City's exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL. Locations that could be exposed to future exterior noise levels above 65 dBA CNEL shall consider at least the following: 1) Increase setbacks along Sand Canyon and Soledad Canyon Roads to the maximum extent feasible; 2) Consider the use of noise barriers between the roadway sources and the receptors (earthen berms, masonry walls, and vegetation may be appropriate); and/or 3) Prohibit balconies for multi -family units facing Sand Canyon and Soledad Canyon Roads. MM N-13 The Project shall implement a buyer and renter notification program for residences where appropriate, to educate and inform potential buyers and renters that due to traffic levels on Sand Canyon Road, Soledad Canyon Road and the SR -14 Freeway, noise in excess of levels typically found in residential areas may be possible. Cumulative Traffic Noise. Cumulative mobile source noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to the project, ambient growth, and related projects/cumulative development within the study area. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a)(3), specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. Facts in Support of Findings Cumulative mobile source noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to the project, ambient growth, and related projects/cumulative development within the study area. Cumulative traffic noise levels for the year 2030 would increase by a maximum of 4.3 dBA CNEL for the roadway segment of Sand Canyon Road, between Sand Canyon "C" Project Driveway & S. Silver Saddle Circle. Additional increases September 2017 67 Packet Pg. 158 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report along Sand Canyon Road would range from 1.8 dBA CNEL to 4.0 dBA CNEL. All increases along Soledad Canyon Road would be less than 1.7 dBA CNEL. Although the project would only contribute a maximum increase of 0.8 dBA CNEL for future 2030 traffic noise levels, cumulative impacts would be considered significant for the following roadway segments along Sand Canyon because cumulative increases exceed 3 dBA between: • N. Silver Saddle Circle & Sand Canyon "C" Project Driveway • Sand Canyon "C" Project Driveway & S. Silver Saddle Circle • S. Silver Saddle Circle & Sand Canyon "A" Project Driveway • Sand Canyon "A" Project Driveway & Soledad Canyon Road Cumulative mobile source noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to the project, ambient growth, and related projects/cumulative development within the study area. Although the project would only contribute a maximum increase of 0.8 dBA CNEL for future 2030 traffic noise levels, cumulative traffic noise level increases would be considered significant for the following roadway segments along Sand Canyon: between N. Silver Saddle Circle and Sand Canyon "C" Project Driveway, between Sand Canyon "C" Project Driveway and South Silver Saddle Circle, between South Silver Saddle Circle and Sand Canyon "A" Project Driveway, and between Sand Canyon "A" Project Driveway and Soledad Canyon Road. As no feasible mitigation is available to reduce this impact, cumulative traffic noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable. 5.5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT As set forth in these findings, the implementation of the proposed project will result in significant impacts that are considered unavoidable. CEQA requires that an EIR include an analysis of a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to a proposed project capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant adverse environmental impact associated with the project. The Final EIR addresses the environmental effects of alternatives to the proposed project. A description of these alternatives, a comparison of their environmental impacts to the proposed project, and the City's findings are listed below. These alternatives are compared against the project relative to the identified project impacts, summarized in the sections above, to the project objectives, as stated in Chapter 3.0, Project Description, of the Final EIR. In making the following alternatives findings, the City independently reviewed and considered the information EIR, including the information provided in the comments thereto. Alternatives Analyzed of Santa Clarita certifies that it has on alternatives provided in the Final on the Final EIR and the responses Four alternatives to the Project were analyzed in the Final EIR: ■ Alternative 1: No Project Alternative ■ Alternative 2: Increased Commercial and Office ■ Alternative 3: Ridgeline Preservation September 2017 68 Packet Pg. 159 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report ■ Alternative 4: ACOS-CDFW Avoidance September 2017 69 Packet Pg. 160 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Off -Site Alternatives. Alternative sites of generally the same size in the eastern of the City of Santa Clarita do not exist. Consistent with General Plan intent, the Project involves development of an infill parcel. No potential alternative project sites in the local vicinity are similar in acreage or provide similar characteristics. No potential alternative sites could serve primary project objectives. For the reasons cited above, no alternative sites were analyzed for this Project. Table 2 provides a comparison of environmental impacts for each of the alternatives in relation to environmental impacts associated with the Project. Table 2 Comparison of Impacts for Alternatives to Project Environmental Issue No Project Increased Commercial/Office Ridgeline Preservation ACOE-CDFW Avoidance Aesthetics greater similar fewer fewer Agriculture and Forestry Resources similar similar similar similar Air Quality fewer similar fewer fewer Biological Resources fewer similar fewer fewer Cultural (Historic) Resources similar similar similar fewer Geology and Soils fewer similar fewer fewer Greenhouse Gas fewer similar similar fewer Hazards greater similar similar similar Hydrology/Water Quality fewer similar similar fewer Land Use and Planning greater similar similar greater Mineral and Energy Resources similar similar similar similar Noise fewer similar similar fewer Population and Housing greater similar similar greater Public Services - Fire fewer similar similar fewer Public Services - Police fewer similar similar fewer Public Services - Schools fewer similar similar fewer Public Services - Recreation fewer similar similar fewer Public Services - Libraries fewer similar similar fewer Transportation fewer similar similar fewer Utilities - Solid Waste fewer similar similar fewer Utilities -Wastewater fewer similar similar fewer Utilities - Water Supply fewer similar similar fewer ALTERNATIVE 1 — NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The No Project Alternative is required by CEQA and compares the impacts that might occur if the site is left in its current condition with those impacts that would be generated by the September 2017 70 Packet Pg. 161 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report proposed project. Under this Alternative, no development or redevelopment would occur beyond what exists today, and the project area would retain the existing general plan and zoning designations of Mixed Use Neighborhood (MXN) and Urban Residential 3 (UR -3). In addition, the existing circulation system would remain the same. Findings Alternative 1 would eliminate the significant and unavoidable air quality and noise impacts. 2. Alternative 1 would reduce and eliminate potentially significant impacts for, aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards, noise, public services, traffic and circulation, and utilities. 3. The findings of the proposed project set forth in this document and the overriding social, economic, and other issues set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide support for the proposed project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration. Facts in Support of Findings: With the No Project Alternative, the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project would not be implemented and the existing mobile home units would remain. Because no grading, construction, or operational activities would occur under this alternative, there would not be associated impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas, hazards, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, traffic and circulation, and utilities. Adoption of Alternative 1 would not necessarily preclude ultimate development of the Project site in accordance with the existing General Plan and zoning regulations for the site, or land use designations or regulations subsequently adopted by the City. However, if development is proposed in the future, like the Project, such development would be subject to environmental review. In comparison to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative results in greater impacts for aesthetics; hazards and hazardous materials; land use; and population and housing. The No Project Alternative results in similar impacts for agriculture and forestry resources; cultural resources; and mineral and energy resources. The No Project Alternative results in fewer impacts to air quality; biological resources; geology and soils; greenhouse gas emissions; hydrology and water quality; noise; public services; transportation/traffic; solid waste; wastewater; and water supply. All significant unavoidable impacts related to air quality and noise impacts would be eliminated with this Alternative. The No Project Alternative would not implement any of the overarching objectives of the proposed project to create a new mixed-use community with connected neighborhoods that provides for residential, commercial, and recreational uses in close proximity to each other; provide a rich set of public spaces; implement sustainable development principles, including greater energy efficiency, waste reduction, drought -tolerant landscaping, use of water efficiency measures, and use of recycled materials and renewable energy sources; provide a September 2017 71 Packet Pg. 162 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report tax base to support public services and infrastructure; create permanent jobs on-site through the incorporation of commercial land uses to assist the City in meeting its jobs/housing balance, and restore and minimize impacts to important biotic resources, including heritage oak trees. Therefore, none of the project objectives would be met under the No Project Alternative. Project Objective Ntemative 1: No Project Land Use Planning Objectives Create a new mixed-use community with connected neighborhoods that provides for residential, Does Not Meet commercial and recreational uses in close proximity to each other. Provide a sensitive and compatible Project through the use of appropriate grading, landscape, Does Not Meet and water quality methods. Provide development and transitional land use patterns that do not conflict with surrounding Does Not Meet communities and land uses. Arrange land uses to reduce vehicle miles traveled and energy consumption, and to encourage Does Not Meet pedestrian mobility. Design neighborhoods to create a unique identity and sense of place. Does Not Meet Design neighborhoods to locate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses in close Does Not Meet proximity to each other and major road corridors, transit, and trails. Provide a rich set of public spaces. Does Not Meet Implement sustainable development principles, including greater energy efficiency, waste Does Not Meet reduction, drought -tolerant landscaping, use of water efficiency measures, and use of recycled materials and renewable energy sources. Create and enhance opportunities for non -vehicular travel and encourage pedestrian mobility by Does Not Meet providing an internal pedestrian circulation system that links residential neighborhoods to on-site recreation areas, regional trail systems, and neighborhood retail/commercial areas. Foster the design and integration of a mutually beneficial relationship between the natural and Does Not Meet built environments, and implement sensitive land use transition treatments, attractive streetscapes, and high quality design themes. Integrate a new community into the City's existing and planned circulation network. Does Not Meet Provide a landscape design emphasizing a pleasant neighborhood character and inviting Does Not Meet streetscapes. �7 Provide on-site recreational facilities to meet the demands of future residents. Does Not Meet Economic Objectives Enhance and augment the housing market by providing a variety of housing types and densities to Does Not Meet meet the varying needs of future residents. Adopt development regulations that provide flexibility to respond and adjust to changing economic Does Not Meet and market conditions. Provide a tax base to support public services and infrastructure. Does Not Meet Create permanent jobs on-site through the incorporation of commercial land uses to assist the Does Not Meet City in meeting its jobs/housing balance. Adopt development regulations and guidelines that allow site, parking and facility sharing, and Does Not Meet other innovations that reduce the costs of providing public services. Resource Conservation Objectives Restore and minimize impacts to important biotic resources. Does Not Meet September 2017 72 Packet Pg. 163 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Project Objective Ntemative 1: No Project Minimize impacts to oak trees and incorporate, where possible, oak trees into public spaces. Does Not Meet ALTERNATIVE 2 — INCREASED COMMMERCIAL AND OFFICE Alternative 2 would increase the commercial building area by 29,400 commercial square feet and the office building area by 30,000 square feet. Alternative 2 would also remove 60 dwelling units from Planning Area 2. None of the assisted living units would be constructed in Planning Area 1. All other uses on the project site would remain as proposed. Findings Alternative 2 would not reduce or eliminate the significant and unavoidable air quality and noise impacts. Alternative 2 would not reduce or eliminate potentially significant impacts for, aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards, noise, public services, traffic and circulation, and utilities. The findings of the proposed project set forth in this document and the overriding social, economic, and other issues set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide support for the proposed project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration. Facts in Support of Findings: In comparison to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts relative to aesthetics; agriculture and forestry resources; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; greenhouse gas emissions; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; mineral and energy resources; noise; population and housing; parks and recreation; public services; transportation/traffic; solid waste; wastewater, and water supply. Air Quality. Under Alternative 2, commercial building area would increase by 29,400 square feet and office building area would increase by 30,000 office square feet. These uses would replace the assisted living facility and 60 residential units. This Alternative would result in a change in project trip generation; however, this change would be minor and therefore would result in similar air quality impacts as compared to the Project. Noise. Under this alternative, the development footprint would remain the same as the Project. There would be no changes to project grading, installation of infrastructure and building construction, and therefore no change in construction related noise impacts. As indicated previously, there will be no significant change in vehicle trip generation with this alternative. Consequently, operational noise impacts would remain substantially the same as compared to the Project. As noted above, the significant unavoidable impacts related to air quality and noise would be similar to the Project, and thus, would not be reduced or eliminated under Alternative 2. September 2017 73 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Alternative 2 fully meets 14 objectives and partially meets the remaining six objectives, as shown below. September 2017 74 Packet Pg. 165 Altemative 2: Project Objective Increased Commercial and Office Land Use Planning Objectives Create a newmixed-use community with connected neighborhoods that provides for residential, Partially Meets commercial and recreational uses in close proximity to each other Provide a sensitive and compatible Project through the use of appropriate grading, landscape, Meets and water quality methods. Provide development and transitional land use patterns that do not conflict with surrounding Meets communities and land uses. Arrange land uses to reduce vehicle miles traveled and energy consumption, and to encourage Meets pedestrian mobility. Design neighborhoods to create a unique identity and sense of place. Meets Design neighborhoods to locate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses in close Meets proximity to each other and major road corridors, transit, and trails. Provide a rich set of public spaces. Meets Implement sustainable development principles, including greater energy efficiency, waste reduction, drought -tolerant landscaping, use of water efficiency measures, and use of recycled Meets materials and renewable energy sources. Create and enhance opportunities for non -vehicular travel and encourage pedestrian mobility by providing an internal pedestrian circulation system that links residential neighborhoods to on-site Partially Meets recreation areas, regional trail systems, and neighborhood retail/commercial areas. Foster the design and integration of a mutually beneficial relationship between the natural and built environments, and implement sensitive land use transition treatments, attractive Meets streetscapes, and high quality design themes. Integrate a new community into the City's existing and planned circulation network. Meets Provide a landscape design emphasizing a pleasant neighborhood character and inviting Meets streetscapes. Provide on-site recreational facilities to meet the demands of future residents. Partially Meets Economic Objectives Enhance and augment the housing market by providing a variety of housing types and densities to Partially Meets meet the varying needs of future residents. Adopt development regulations that provide flexibility to respond and adjust to changing economic Meets and market conditions. Provide a tax base to support public services and infrastructure. Partially Meets Create permanent jobs on-site through the incorporation of commercial land uses to assist the Meets City in meeting its jobs/housing balance. Adopt development regulations and guidelines that allow site, parking and facility sharing, and Partially Meets other innovations that reduce the costs of providing public services. Resource Conservation Objectives Restore and minimize impacts to important biotic resources. Meets Minimize impacts to oak trees and incorporate, where possible, oak trees into public spaces. Meets September 2017 74 Packet Pg. 165 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report September 2017 75 Packet Pg. 166 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Approximately 1,200 lineal feet of the City -identified significant ridgeline would be preserved under this Alternative due to the elimination of the northerly portion of Planning Area 5. To a lesser extent, the Ridgeline Preservation Alternative would remove 29 dwelling units from Planning Area 5. This alternative would also increase open space/landscape areas within the project area. None of the other site plan specifics would be changed. Findings 1. Alternative 3 would reduce but not eliminate the significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, and would not eliminate the significant and unavoidable noise impacts. 2. Alternative 3 would reduce but not eliminate potentially significant impacts for aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, and geology and soils. 3. Alternative 3 would not reduce or eliminate potentially significant impacts for cultural resources, hazards, noise, public services, traffic and circulation, and utilities. 4. The findings of the proposed project set forth in this document and the overriding social, economic, and other issues set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide support for the proposed project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration. Facts in Support of Findings: The development anticipated under the Alternative 3 includes the same mix of land uses anticipated for the proposed Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project, although with less residential units. In comparison to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would result in fewer impacts relative to aesthetics; air quality; and geology and soils. Impacts for the remaining 19 topical areas would be similar under Alternative 3 as those anticipated for the proposed project. Air Quality. Under Alternative 3, 29 dwelling units would not be constructed, resulting in a reduction in Project grading and an increase in open space. This reduction in project grading would reduce construction related impacts. From an operational standpoint, this alternative would reduce vehicle trips, which in turn would reduce emissions. Alternative 3 would result in a reduction of air quality impacts as compared to the Project. Noise. Under this alternative, the development footprint would remain substantially the same as the Project. There would be minor reductions in project grading, the development footprint, installation of infrastructure, and building construction. However, these changes would not be significant. Consequently, noise impacts would remain substantially the same as compared to the Project. As noted above, the significant unavoidable impacts related to air quality would be reduced but not eliminated under Alternative 3. And the noise impacts would not be reduced or eliminated under Alternative 3. September 2017 76 Packet Pg. 167 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Alternative 3 fully meets all 20 project objectives, as shown below. Project Objective Altemative 3: Ridgeline Preservation Land Use Planning Objectives Create a new mixed-use community with connected neighborhoods that provides for residential, Meets commercial and recreational uses in close proximity to each other. Provide a sensitive and compatible Project through the use of appropriate grading, landscape, Meets and water quality methods. Provide development and transitional land use patterns that do not conflict with surrounding Meets communities and land uses. Arrange land uses to reduce vehicle miles traveled and energy consumption, and to encourage Meets pedestrian mobility. Design neighborhoods to create a unique identity and sense of place. Meets Design neighborhoods to locate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses in close Meets proximity to each other and major road corridors, transit, and trails. Provide a rich set of public spaces. Meets Implement sustainable development principles, including greater energy efficiency, waste reduction, drought -tolerant landscaping, use of water efficiency measures, and use of recycled Meets materials and renewable energy sources. Create and enhance opportunities for non -vehicular travel and encourage pedestrian mobility by providing an internal pedestrian circulation system that links residential neighborhoods to on-site Meets recreation areas, regional trail systems, and neighborhood retail/commercial areas. Foster the design and integration of a mutually beneficial relationship between the natural and built environments, and implement sensitive land use transition treatments, attractive Meets streetscapes, and high quality design themes. Integrate a new community into the City's existing and planned circulation network. Meets Provide a landscape design emphasizing a pleasant neighborhood character and inviting Meets streetscapes. Provide on-site recreational facilities to meet the demands of future residents. Meets Economic Objectives Enhance and augment the housing market by providing a variety of housing types and densities to Meets meet the varying needs of future residents. Adopt development regulations that provide flexibility to respond and adjust to changing economic Meets and market conditions. Provide a tax base to support public services and infrastructure. Meets Create permanent jobs on-site through the incorporation of commercial land uses to assist the Meets City in meeting its jobs/housing balance. Adopt development regulations and guidelines that allow site, parking and facility sharing, and Meets other innovations that reduce the costs of providing public services. Resource Conservation Objectives Restore and minimize impacts to important biotic resources. Meets Minimize impacts to oak trees and incorporate, where possible, oak trees into public spaces. Meets Alternative 3 was identified as the environmentally superior alternative to the Project. September 2017 77 Packet Pg. 168 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report The modifications made by the Planning Commission during their review have resulted in a revised Project that is similar to this Alternative. Additionally, those modifications have resulted in the creation of a two -acre private park, which is a benefit as compared to this Alternative. ALTERNATIVE 4 — ACOE-CDFW AVOIDANCE Alternative 4 would avoid jurisdictional areas associated with Sand Canyon Wash. Specifically, 7,800 square feet of commercial building area would be eliminated in Planning Area 1, 44 units would be eliminated in Planning Area 2, Planning Area 3, consisting of 10.1 acres, would be converted from residential use to open space (removing 122 units), Planning Area 4 would be reduced by 42 units, and Planning Area 5 would be reduced by 42 dwelling units. The above modifications would result in an increase of 22.4 acres of open space. In total, Alternative 4 would remove 250 units when compared to the project. Findings Alternative 4 would reduce but not eliminate the significant and unavoidable air quality and noise impacts. Alternative 4 would reduce but not eliminate potentially significant impacts for aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, noise, public services, traffic and circulation, and utilities. Alternative 4 would not reduce or eliminate potentially significant impacts for hazards. 4. The findings of the proposed project set forth in this document and the overriding social, economic, and other issues set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations provide support for the proposed project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration. Facts in Support of Findings: The development anticipated under the Alternative 4 includes the same mix of land uses anticipated for the proposed Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project, although with much less residential units and non-residential square footage. In comparison to the proposed project, the Alternative 4 would result in greater impacts for land use and planning and population and housing. Alternative 4 results in fewer impacts for aesthetics; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; geology and soils; greenhouse gas emissions; hydrology and water quality; noise; public services; transportation/traffic; solid waste; wastewater, and water supply. Alternative 4 results in similar impacts for agriculture and forestry resources and hazards and hazardous materials. Air Quality. Under Alternative 4, 250 residential units and 7,800 square feet of commercial space would not be constructed, resulting in a reduction in Project grading and increase in open space. This reduction in Project grading would reduce construction related impacts. From an operational standpoint, this alternative would reduce vehicle trips, which in turn would reduce emissions. Alternative 4 would result in a reduction of air quality impacts as compared to the Project. September 2017 78 Packet Pg. 169 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Noise. Under Alternative 4, the development footprint would be reduced as compared to the proposed Project. There would be reductions in project grading, the installation of infrastructure, and building construction. From an operational standpoint, there would be fewer residential units and less commercial square footage, resulting in reduced on-site noise generation. Consequently, noise impacts would be reduced as compared to the Project. As noted above, the significant unavoidable impacts related to air quality and noise would be reduced but not eliminated under Alternative 4. Alternative 4 partially meets 10 project objectives and fully meets the remaining 10 project objectives, as shown below. September 2017 79 Packet Pg. 170 Altemative 4: Project Objective ACOE-CDFW Avoidance Land Use Planning Objectives Create a new mixed -ase community with connected neighborhoods that provides for residential, Partially Meets commercial and recreational uses in close proximity to each other. Provide a sensitive and compatible Project through the use of appropriate grading, landscape, and Meets water quality methods. Provide development and transitional land use patterns that do not conflict with surrounding Partially Meets communities and land uses. Arrange land uses to reduce vehicle miles traveled and energy consumption, and to encourage Partially Meets pedestrian mobility. Design neighborhoods to create a unique identity and sense of place. Meets Design neighborhoods to locate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses in close Partially Meets proximity to each other and major road corridors, transit, and trails. Provide a rich set of public spaces. Meets Implement sustainable development principles, including greater energy efficiency, waste reduction, drought-tderant landscaping, use of water efficiency measures, and use of recycled materials and Meets renewable energy sources. Create and enhance opportunities for non -vehicular travel and encourage pedestrian mobility by providing an internal pedestrian circulation system that links residential neighborhoods to on-site Partially Meets recreation areas, regional trail systems, and neighborhood retail/commercial areas. Foster the design and integration of a mutually beneficial relationship between the natural and built environments, and implement sensitive land use transition treatments, attractive streetscapes, and Meets high quality design themes. Integrate a new community into the City's existing and planned circulation network. Meets Provide a landscape design emphasizing a pleasant neighborhood character and inviting Meets streetscapes. Provide on-site recreational facilities to meet the demands of future residents. Partially Meets Economic Objectives Enhance and augment the housing market by providing a variety of housing types and densities to Partially Meets meet the varying needs of future residents. Adopt development regulations that provide flexibility to respond and adjust to changing economic Partially Meets and market conditions. September 2017 79 Packet Pg. 170 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report September 2017 80 Packet Pg. 171 Alternative 4: Project Objective ACOE-CDFW Avoidance Provide a tax base to supportpublic services and infrastructure. Partially Meets Create permanentjobs on-site through the incorporation of commercial land uses to assist the City in Partially Meets meeting itsjobs/housing balance. Adopt development regulations and guidelines that allow site, parking and facility sharing, and other Partially Meets innovations that reduce the costs of providing public services. Resource Conservation Objectives Restore and minimize impacts to important biotic resources. Meets Minimize impacts to oak trees and incorporate, where possible, oak trees into public spaces. Meets September 2017 80 Packet Pg. 171 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report 6.0 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR The City of Santa Clarita City Council hereby declares that no new significant information as defined by the CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 has been received by the City Council after circulation of the EIR that would require recirculation. The City of Santa Clarita City Council hereby recommends certification of Final Environmental Impact Report based on the following findings and conclusions. 6.1 FINDINGS The project would have the potential for creating significant adverse impacts. These significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified in the EIR and will require mitigation as set forth in the Findings. Significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance after mitigation include air quality and noise. 6.2 CONCLUSIONS Except as to those impacts stated above relating to air quality and noise, all other significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the proposed project have been identified in the EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a less than significant level. Alternatives to the proposed project, which could potentially achieve the basic objectives of the proposed project, have been considered and rejected in favor of the proposed revised project. Environmental, economic, social, and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the proposed project, as further discussed in Section 7.0, override and make infeasible any alternatives to the proposed project or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the proposed project. September 2017 81 Packet Pg. 172 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report 7.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 INTRODUCTION The City of Santa Clarita (City) is the Lead Agency under CEQA for preparation, review, and certification of the Final EIR for the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project (project). As the Lead Agency, the City is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and which of those impacts are significant, and which can be mitigated through imposition of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA then requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the proposed project. In making this determination the City is guided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, which provides as follows: a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposal (sic) project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. In addition, Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby leave significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of the project. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the project against the following unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the project and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to these impacts. The City also has examined alternatives to the project, none of September 2017 82 Packet Pg. 173 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report which both meet the project objectives and is environmentally preferable to the project for the reasons discussed in the Statement of Facts and Findings (above). The City of Santa Clarita City Council, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project, the Final EIR, Responses to Comments, and the public record in its entirety, hereby adopts the following Statement of Overriding Considerations that have been balanced against the unavoidable adverse impacts in reaching a decision on this project. 7.2 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS Although all potential project impacts have been substantially avoided or mitigated as described in the preceding findings, there is no complete mitigation for the following project impacts: • Air Quality: Regional Operational Emissions • Air Quality: Cumulative Operational Emissions • Noise: Construction Noise • Noise: Construction Vibration Levels (Human Annoyance) • Noise: Traffic Noise on Exterior Space for Residential and Assisted Living Facility • Noise: Cumulative Traffic Noise Details of these significant unavoidable adverse impacts were discussed in the Final EIR and are summarized or were otherwise provided in the Statement of Facts and Findings (above). 7.3 OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS To the extent that the significant effects of the project are not avoided or substantially lessened to below a level of significance, the City of Santa Clarita City Council, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and the public record, and having balanced the benefits of the project against the unavoidable effects which remain, finds such unmitigated effects to be acceptable in view of the following overriding economic, social and other considerations, each of which the City Council finds is individually sufficient to justify issuance of a Statement of Overriding Considerations: The City Council hereby finds that each of the specific economic, legal, social, technological, environmental, and other considerations, and the benefits of the project separately and independently outweigh these remaining significant, adverse impacts and is an overriding consideration independently warranting approval of the project. The remaining significant adverse impacts identified in Section 7.2, above are acceptable in light of each of these overriding considerations, and the substantial evidence that supports the enumerated benefits of the project can be found in the Statement of Facts and Findings herein, the Final EIR, the project itself, and the record of all proceedings in connection with the approval of the project. In the event that any court decision or regulatory action results in a determination that there are additional remaining significant impacts resulting from the City's approval of the project that cannot be avoided even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures into the project, September 2017 83 Packet Pg. 174 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report the Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations herein shall be deemed to apply to such additional remaining significant impacts. 2. The project establishes various objectives that will improve the project site and provide a benefit to the community, namely: • Create a new mixed-use community with connected neighborhoods that provides for residential, commercial and recreational uses in close proximity to each other. • Provide a sensitive and compatible Project through the use of appropriate grading, landscape, and water quality methods. • Provide development and transitional land use patterns that do not conflict with surrounding communities and land uses. • Arrange land uses to reduce vehicle miles traveled and energy consumption, and to encourage pedestrian mobility. • Design neighborhoods to create a unique identity and sense of place. • Design neighborhoods to locate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses in close proximity to each other and major road corridors, transit, and trails. • Provide a rich set of public spaces. • Implement sustainable development principles, including greater energy efficiency, waste reduction, drought -tolerant landscaping, use of water efficiency measures, and use of recycled materials and renewable energy sources. • Create and enhance opportunities for non -vehicular travel and encourage pedestrian mobility by providing an internal pedestrian circulation system that links residential neighborhoods to on-site recreation areas, regional trail systems, and neighborhood retail/commercial areas. • Foster the design and integration of a mutually beneficial relationship between the natural and built environments, and implement sensitive land use transition treatments, attractive streetscapes, and high quality design themes. • Integrate a new community into the City's existing and planned circulation network. • Provide a landscape design emphasizing a pleasant neighborhood character and inviting streetscapes. • Provide on-site recreational facilities to meet the demands of future residents. • Enhance and augment the housing market by providing a variety of housing types and densities to meet the varying needs of future residents. • Adopt development regulations that provide flexibility to respond and adjust to changing economic and market conditions. • Provide a tax base to support public services and infrastructure. • Create permanent jobs on-site through the incorporation of commercial land uses to assist the City in meeting its jobs/housing balance. • Adopt development regulations and guidelines that allow site, parking and facility sharing, and other innovations that reduce the costs of providing public services. • Restore and minimize impacts to important biotic resources. September 2017 84 Packet Pg. 175 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Minimize impacts to oak trees and incorporate, where possible, oak trees into public Er! 3. The project establishes the general type, parameters, and character of the development in order to develop an integrated mixed-use development that is compatible with the surrounding area. 4. The project incorporates objectives and visioning efforts for the area from the One Valley One Vision Plan. Furthermore, the project is intended to implement the City of Santa Clarita's General Plan. 5. The project will positively contribute to the economic vitality and revitalization in the City by developing a project that supports a market driven economy, creates a mixed-use environment, and redevelops an underutilized site with the highest and best use. 6. The project will enhance the aesthetic environment by replacing existing mobile home units with new buildings and providing increased and improved landscaping and open space areas. The project provides a spectrum of housing which will help to meet the long-term housing needs of the City of Santa Clarita Valley, and will satisfy a wide array of economic and social needs, and lifestyles. Project housing includes: multi -family rental apartments; multi -family attached townhomes; and multi -family detached or attached condominiums. The project will provide a range of quality housing opportunities, including 580 residential units, as well as on-site recreation and landscaped areas, that contribute to the projected housing needs in the City of Santa Clarita and the Santa Clarita Valley. The project will provide 60,000 square feet of retail commercial uses and an 85,000 - square -foot assisted living facility to contribute to the commercial space needs in the City of Santa Clarita and for future residents of the project. 10. The project will result in the creation of up to 149 permanent jobs within its commercial areas on a site where no jobs currently exist. 11. The project will create a highly livable, sustainable, pedestrian -friendly environment that encourages alternative means of transportation. 12. The project provides for non -vehicular modes of transportation in a system of trails, sidewalks and pedestrian pathways. The project's Mobility Plan creates and enhances opportunities for non -vehicular travel through encouraging pedestrian mobility from the project's residential areas to the commercial uses, and to existing and future off-site bicycle facilities and trails. 13. The project would complete various improvements to Soledad Canyon Road to include widening for roadway purposes. The project would also widen Sand Canyon Road for roadway and trail purposes and construct two single lane roundabouts; one at "B" Drive and Sand Canyon Road and the other at "C" Drive and Sand Canyon Road. Most of September 2017 85 Packet Pg. 176 12.c Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations forthe Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report Sand Canyon Road would remain at two lanes (one in each direction), with grading of the full right-of-way to potentially accommodate widening if needed in the future. 14. The project will provide off-site roadway and intersection improvements to the arterial highway system and to the SR -14 SB Ramps at Soledad Canyon, which will benefit residents and businesses within the area. 15. The project will preserve or replace biotic resources and heritage oaks. 16. The project will encourage the use of drought -tolerant, fire -retardant, and native plants in landscaping, and thereby promote water conservation. 17. The applicant has voluntarily entered into a school mitigation agreements with the Sulphur Springs Union School District and will be entering into an agreement with the William S. Hart Union High School District. These agreements call for payments that are in excess of the current development fees required by State law. 18. The projects residents and businesses would generate revenue in the form of sales taxes, property taxes, fees, etc. that would be available to the City to fund public services. Therefore, the City of Santa Clarita City Council, having reviewed and considered all of the information contained in the Final EIR and the public record, adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations that has been balanced against the unavoidable adverse impacts in reaching a decision on this project. September 2017 86 Packet Pg. 177 12.d RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MASTER CASE NO. 14-077 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 53074, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-014, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 14-001, RIDGELIKE ALTERATION PERMIT 14-001, MINOR USE PERMIT 14-016, AND OAK TREE PERMIT 14-008) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SAND CANYON PLAZA MIXED USE PROJECT IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact: A. The approximately 87 -acre Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project (Project) site is located at the northeast confer of Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road. Approximately 84 acres of the Project site are located in the Mixed Use Neighborhood (MXN) zone and General Plan land use designation, and approximately 2.5 acres in the southeast confer of the site are located in the Urban Residential 3 (UR3) zone and General Plan land use designation. Approximately 34 acres in the southwest confer of the site are located within the Planned Development (PD) overlay zone. No development is proposed in the UR3 zone. The MXN zone is intended for mixed-use development, which is encouraged to integrate residential uses with complementary commercial uses. The MXN zone allows for maximum density of 18 dwelling units per acre. Approximately 77 acres are dedicated to residential land uses and accompanying open space. Under this designation, and not taking into account Hillside Ordinance requirements, the Project site could support up to 1,386 residential units. Under the MXN and UR3 designations the Project site could accommodate up to 217,800 square feet of commercial uses. B. The Project site has been previously disturbed for the construction of a manufactured home park and associated infrastructure, along with roadway improvements for Soledad Canyon Road and drainage infrastructure along Sand Canyon Road. The existing 123 -unit manufactured home park is in the process of being closed, with the site being cleared and coaches being removed from the site. The property owner received approval from the Manufactured Home Rental Adjustment Panel (MHRAP) to close the park on December 17, 2008, and began removing coaches from the Project site. Due to the downturn in the economy, some coaches were returned to the site and rented out on month-to-month leases. The property owner has agreements in place for the purchase and relocation of all remaining owner -occupied coaches, and will continue to remove these coaches from the site, in accordance with Resolution No. MHP 08-03 of the MHRAP. C. Surrounding land uses include a mixture of residential uses and undeveloped property to the north, residential uses to the east, a mix of commercial uses and transportation corridors to the south, with a mix of commercial and residential uses to the west. State Route 14 (SR14) is located to the south of the site, across Soledad Canyon Road, with the Santa Clara River to the south of SR14. Packet Pg. 178 D. In Juie 2002, the City Council approved the Sand Canyon Joint Venture Project on this property. The Project included two development areas, including residential and commercial components. The first Project area included the construction of 63 single-family homes on 34 acres on the nortiem portion of the site. The second Project area included the removal of 44 manufactured home units from the site to leave a 92 -unit manufactured home park, the construction of 24 single-family homes, and the construction of a new 200,000 square -foot comm-nercial/retail center on 55 acres. The total Project included 87 single-family residential units, a 92 -unit manufactured home park, and a 200,000 square -foot commercial center. While the Project was approved by the City Council, the developer did not move forward with construction of the Project and the approvals expired. E. On Juie 14, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11 -fin, adopting the General Plan of the City of Santa Clarita, and Resolution No. 11-62 certifying the Environmental Impact Report. The General Plan's land use and zoning designation for the approximately 84 acres of the subject site is Mixed Use Neighborhood (MXN), with the approximately 2.5 acres of the southeast portion of the site as Urban Residential 3 (UR3). Development of the property will be located predominantly in the MXN portion of the site, with the only development activity occurring in the UR3 portion of the site to be grading and landscape activities. Approximately 34 acres on the southwest portion of the site are located within the Planned Development (PD) overlay zone. Under the MXN designation, a mix of residential units at a minimun of six to a maximun of 18 dwelling units per acre, and maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for the non- residential portion of the development, shall be .5 to 1. F. The southwest portion of the property is relatively flat, sloping up to the north and east. A significant ridgeline identified in the General Plan ruis in a north -south direction along the eastem portion of the site. Three oak trees are located on the site, one of which is designated as a heritage oak tree wider the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. Other natural vegetation is dispersed throughout the site. Above-grouid utility lines rui along the western portion of the site along Sand Canyon Road. A man-made drainage course and stonn-drain nuns through the western portion of the property, all of which would be channelized in a box culvert. A City conmmuiity identification sign is located on the southern portion of the site, welcoming residents to the City as they exit westbouid SR14 and enter the City. This sign would be replaced with the construction of the Project. G. On May 28, 2014, an application for Master Case No. 14-077, the Project, was filed by Sand Canyon Plaza. LLC. (applicant) with the City of Santa Clarita (City). The original entitlement application (collectively, Entitlements) includes: Tentative Tract Mab 53074 to subdivide the 87 -acre Project site into residential, commercial, and open space/recreational lots. In addition, the residential lots within the subdivision would have the ability to create condominium units with a maximun of 580 residential units. 2. Conditional Use Pen -nit 14-014 to allow for the construction of an assisted living facility in the MXN zone, as well as fornew construction in the PD overlay zone. 3. Hillside Development Review 14-001 to allow for development on property with an average cross -slope in excess of 10%. 12.d Packet Pg. 179 12.d 4. Rideeline Alteration Pen -nit 14-001 to allow for the development within the Ridgeline Preservation (RP) overlay zone. 5. Minor Use Pen -nit 14-016 to allow for the development of a mixed-use Project that does not meet the minimum commercial FAR of 0.2 of the allowable commercial space for the Project. 6. Oak Tree Permit 14-008 to allow for the removal of two non -heritage oak trees, and the encroachment into the protected zone of one heritage oak tree. The original Project has been revised since the submittal of the application for the entitlements. The modifications to the Project generally reduce the amount and extent of site development, thereby reducing environmental impacts and avoiding the creation ofnew impacts. 11. The Project site is approximately 87 acres located at the northeast confer of Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road in the MXN and UR3 zones. The original Project submittal included the development of 580 residential units, a retail/cohmnercial center, and a senior assisted living facility, and was divided into five planning areas as follows: Plannine Area i Planning Area i (PA 1) is located at the northeast intersection of Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road. This area included 56,000 square feet of retail/commercial space and a 60,000 square -foot (up to 120 beds) assisted living facility, with associated parking and infrastructure on approximately 10 acres. Access for PA would be at the first entrance to the Project on Sand Canyon Road, and at Soledad Canyon Road. Plannine Area 2 Planning Area 2 (PA2) consisted of 312 attached apartment units, a community recreation facility, and associated infrastructure on approximately i i acres. PA2 is located just north of PA i along Sand Canyon Road. Access for PA2 would be at the first and second entrances to the Project on Sand Canyon Road. The second entrance would be at the first roundabout on Sand Canyon Road. Planning Area 3 Planning Area 3 (PA3) consisted of 122 attached townhome units, a community recreation facility, and associated infrastructure on approximately i i acres. PA3 is located to the north of PA2 along Sand Canyon Road. Access for PA3 would be at Sand Canyon Road at the third entrance to the Project site, and at the second roundabout proposed for the Project. Plannine Area 4 Planning Area 4 (PA4) consists of 71 single-family, detached or attached condominium units on approximately 10 acres. PA4 is located in the center of the Project site, just north of PA 1, and east and south of PA2 and PA3. Access for PA4 would be through PA2 and PA3 out to Sand Canyon Road. • Plannine Area 5 Planning Area 5 (PA5) consists of 75 single-family, detached or attached condominium units on approximately 13 acres. PA5 is located in the nortiem and eastem portion of the Project site to the east of PA4. Access for PA5 is through PA4 and out to Sand Canyon Road through PA2 and PA3. 12.d I. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City is the lead agency and the City Council is the decision-making body for the Project. The City's Planning Commission is a recommending body for the Project. The City detennined that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared. The City detennined that the following areas must be addressed in the EIR for the Project: aesthetics; agriculture and forestry resources; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; geology and soils; greenhouse gas/climate change; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use; mineral and energy resources; noise; population and housing; parks and recreation; fire protection; police protection; schools; library services; traffic and circulation; solid waste; wastewater; and water supply. K. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project was circulated to affected agencies, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, from April 30, 2015 to May 29, 2015. Agencies that received the NOP included the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, South Coast Air Quality Management District, law enforcement agencies, school districts, waste haulers, water agencies, and transportation agencies serving the Santa Clarita Valley, in accordance with CEQA's consultation requirements. Comments from public agencies, organizations, and members of the public were received in response to the NOP. L. A scoping meeting was held at the City of Santa Clarita Activities Center May 27, 2015, to obtain infonnation from the public regarding issues that should be addressed in the EIR. Notice of the scoping meeting was published in The Signal newspaper on April 30, 2015, was mailed to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project site, and to approximately 55 agencies. Three people attended the scoping meeting. M. Based on comments from staff through the Development Review Committee (DRC), revisions were made to the Project as follows: • Plasnina Area 1 PAI was revised to include 55,600 square feet of retaiUcormnercial space and a 75,000 square -foot (up to 120 beds) assisted living facility, with associated parking and infrastructure on approximately 9.89 acres. • Planning Area 2 PA2 remained at 312 attached apartment units, with a community recreation facility and associated infrastructure, however was adjusted from 11 acres to 12.24 acres. • Planning Area 3 PA3 was revised to include 122 attached townhome units, with a community recreation facility and associated infrastructure, on approximately 10.21 acres. • Planning Area 4 PA4 remained at 71 single-family, detached or attached condominium units, but was adjusted in area to 7.33 acres. • Planning Area 5 PA5 was revised to include 75 single-family, detached or attached condominium units, and was adjusted in area to 9.97 acres. Packet Pg. 181 12.d N. On January 18, 2017, the Planning Commission conducted a site tour of the Project site. O. The City prepared a Draft EIR for the Project that addressed all issues raised in comments received on the NOP. The Draft EIR was circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, in compliance with CEQA. Specifically, the Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion for the Draft EIR was filed, posted, and advertised on March 3, 2017, and the 45 -day public review period ended on April 17, 2017, at 5:00 p.m., in accordance with CEQA. Late written comments received after April 17, 2017, but prior to May 10, 2017, were responded to in the Draft Final EIR Responses to Comments. Draft Responses to Comments were forwarded to those commenting agencies and other commenters in advance of the Planning Commission's June 6, 2017, hearing. Oral and written comments received on the Draft EIR have been responded to and those comments received after the Planning Commission's review of the Project will be responded to prior to certification and approval of the Project by the City Council, if granted. P. The City prepared a Planning Commission Final EIR (June 2017). The Planning Commission Final EIR complied with all applicable CEQA requirements, and contained draft responses oral and written comments received prior to May 10, 2017. The Planning Commission Final EIR also contained a description of modifications to the Project made in response to public comment and Planning Commission changes. Q. The Project was duly noticed in accordance with the noticing requirements for each of the Entitlements. The Project was advertised in The Sigepal, through on-site posting 14 days prior to the hearing, and by direct first-class mailing to property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project site. In addition, the date and time of each public hearing was posted on two signs at the Project site. R. The Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing on the Project on February 21, which was continued to the meeting of March 21, May 16, and June 6, 2017. These hearings were held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at or after 6:00 p.m. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing on June 6, 2017. 1. On February 21, 2017, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing for the Project; received a presentation from staff on the Project setting, a detailed description of the requested entitlements, and a detailed description of the Project proposed under Master Case No. 14-077. In addition, the Planning Commission received a presentation from the applicant, and received public testimony regarding the Project. 2. On March 21, 2017, City staff responded to questions raised by the Planning Commission at the February 21, 2017, Planning Commission meeting. In addition, staff made a detailed presentation on the Draft EIR Sections (Aesthetics, Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Climate Change, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use, Mineral and Energy Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Parks and Recreation, Fire Protection, Police Protection, Schools, Library Services, Traffic and Circulation, Solid Waste, Wastewater, Water Supply, and Project Alternatives). The Planning Commission also received a presentation from the applicant regarding proposed modifications to address comments received at the February 21 Planning Commission meeting to increase the commercial component of the Project and reduce the development Packet Pg. 182 12.d proposed in the Ridgeline Preservation Overlay Zone. In addition, the Planning Commission received public testimony regarding the Project. 3. On May 16, 2017, City staff responded to questions raised by the Planning Commission and presented a revised site plan that incorporated the changes presented by the applicant at the March 21, 2017, meeting. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission directed staff to incorporate the following modifications into the revised site plan and/or Conditions of Approval for the Project: a. Elimination of grading on the northern portion of the significant ridgeline through the transfer of 27 units from PA5 to PA3. This Project revision incorporates aspects of Draft EIR Altemative 3 (Ridgeline Preservation); Creation of a two -acre private park in PA5 to further enhance recreational opportunities Oil the Project site; c. Increase to the assisted living facility by 10,000 square feet (from 75,000 square feet to 85,000 square feet) to accommodate up to 140 beds, and an increase to the commercial component of the Project site by 4,400 square feet (from 55,600 square feet to 60,000 square feet). This Project revision incorporates aspects of Draft EIR Alternative 2 (Increased Commercial and Office); d. Addition of a three-level, 264 -space parking structure to PAI; and e. Require, as a condition of approval, the Project applicant to re -design the building layout in PA2 (locating buildings along the Saud Canyon Road frontage) to further reduce noise impacts to adjacent properties. In addition, a condition of approval has been added to require enhanced landscaping along Sand Canyon Road. S. On June 6, 2017, the modified site plan, Planning Commission Final EIR, resolutions, and Conditions of Approval were presented to the Planning Commission, who also received public testimony regarding the Project. As a result of the modifications made during the proceedings before the Planning Commission, the revised site plan recommended by the Planning Commission includes 580 units and 145,000 square feet of commercial space as follows: • Planning Area 1 PA includes 60,000 square feet of retail/connnercial space, an 85,000 square -foot (up to 140 beds) assisted living facility, and a three story (one level partially below grade) parkin.- structure arkingstructure on approximately 9.6 acres. • Planning Area 2 PA2 includes 312 attached apartment units, with a community recreation facility and associated infrastructure, however was increased from 11 to 12.24 acres. • Planning Area 3 PA3 includes 149 attached townihome units with a community recreation facility and associated infrastructure, on approximately 10.3 acres. • Planning Area 4 PA4 includes 71 single-family, detached or attached condominium units, but was adjusted in area to 7.33 acres. Packet Pg. 183 12.d Planning Area 5 PA5 includes 48 single-family, detached or attached condominium units on 6.3 acres. In addition, a two -acre park was included in the Project just north of PA4 and PA5. T. Based upon the staff and consultant presentations, staff reports, applicant presentations, and public comments and testimony, the Planning Commission finds that the Project, as modified, will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the area; nor will the Project be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property in the vicinity of the Project site; nor will the Project jeopardize, endanger, or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, or general welfare, since the Project conforms with the zoning ordinance and is compatible with surrounding land uses. The Project proposes the extension of all utilities and services to the Project site. Currently, all required utilities and services are available at locations adjacent to the site. U. At the conclusion of the June 6, 2017, public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council certify the Planning Commission Final FIR (see Resolution P17-11) and approve the Project as revised (see Resolution P17-12). The Planning Commission also recommended that the City Council adopt (1) a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts of the Project that cannot be mitigated to less -than -significant levels, and (2) the Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP). The Planning Commission considered the Draft FIR (March 2017) and Planning Corr nission Final FIR (June 2017) prepared for the Project, as well as information in staff reports, public testimony, and letters submitted to the Planning Commission, prior to recommending approval of the Project. V. Following the June 6 public hearing, the City prepared the Final FIR (August 2017). The Final FIR contained copies of all comment letters, responses to oral and written comments received on the Draft EIR, and results from updated biological surveys conducted in the spring of 2017, but not completed by June 6. Notice of the Final EIR's availability was provided on August 30, 2017, to commenting agencies, organizations and persons. W. The City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing on the Project on September 12, 2017 This hearing was held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita at 6:00 p.m. X. At this meeting, the City Council received public testimony, closed the public hearing, certified the Final EIR, and adopted all necessary approval documents (i.e. resolutions) for approval of the Project. The Draft EIR (March 2017), Planning Corr nission Final EIR (June 2017) and Final EIR (August 2017) have been prepared and circulated in compliance with CEQA. Y. Based upon the Draft EIR (March 2017), the Planning Commission Final EIR (June 2017), the Final EIR (August 2017), staff and consultant presentations, staff reports, applicant presentations, and public comments and testimony, the City Council finds that the Project will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the area; nor will the Project be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property in the vicinity of the Project site; nor will the Project jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, or general welfare, since the Project conforms with the zoning ordinance and is compatible with surrounding land uses. 12.d Z. Additionally, the City Council finds that all public hearings pertaining to the Project were duly noticed in accordance with noticing requirements for each of the entitlements. The Project was advertised in The Signal, through on-site posting 14 days prior to each hearing, and by direct first-class mailing to property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project site. AA. The location of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the City Council is based for the Master Case No. 14-077 Project file is with the Community Development Department; specifically in the custody of the Director of Community Development. SECTION 2. GENERAL FINDINGS FOR MASTER CASE NO. 14-077. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and the City Council, and upon studies and nnvestigationns made by the Planning Commission and the City Council, the City Council finds as follows: A. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan; The Project is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the General Plan of the City of Santa Clarita as documented in Section 4.10 in the Sand Canyon Mixed Use EIR. The Project is consistent with the following portions of the General Plan: Urban Fortn Goal LUl: An interconnected Valley of Villages providing diverse lifestyles, surrounded by a greenbelt of natural open space. The Project is consistent with Goal LU1 as a Project that proposes to develop a mixed-use Project in the urban portion of the City. The City's General Plan identified properties in the City that were either underutilized, or appropriately situated for mixed-use development, to concentrate orderly development in an urban environment while preserving natural open spaces. The Project site is located on the northeast confer of Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road (two major roadways in the City's Circulation Element) designated as MXN in the City's General Plan, and surrounded by existing developed laud. The site is currently developed with a manufactured home park that was approved for closure in 2008. Redevelopment of the site will allow for the creation of a mixed-use Project consistent with the MXN zone as prescribed in the General Plan, providing a balanced mix of commercial and residential uses. Redeveloping the previously developed and disturbed site will further preserve rural portions of the City and Santa Clarita Valley, concentrating uses in the urban center. Mixed Land Uses Goal LU2: A mix of land uses to accommodate growth, supported by adequate resources and maintaining community assets. The Project site is located in the MXN zone and General Plan land use designation of the City. The Project includes a mix of 580 residential units and 145,000 square feet of commercial uses. The residential components of the Project provide a range of housing types, including for -rent apartment units, single-family townihomes for sale, and single-family condominium units for sale to provide a variety of living options for existing and future residents of the City. In Packet Pg. 185 12.d addition. the Project provides an assisted living facility to serve senior citizens in the City. The commercial uses proposed with the Project will provide a variety of retail and restaurant uses for existing and future residents of the City. The commercial uses will be located within walking distance of existing developed areas. The pedestrian connectivity will reduce vehicle trips to other portions of the City, and will enhance the community by providing improved quality of retail and restaurant options in the Canyon Country community. Healthy Neighborhoods Goal LU3: Healthy and Safe Neighborhoods for all residents. Goal LU4: A diverse healthy economy. The Project will provide a mix of residential and commercial uses that will serve the existing comm-mmnity of Canyon Country by providing a variety of shopping and dining options. The commercial space will be in vicinity of existing and future residential uses that will be walkable in nature. The Project will include the construction of a new transit stop on Soledad Canyon Road that will provide transportation options on City Transit, as well as future connections to the Vista Canyon Metrolink Station once completed. Creating a walkable and safe pedestrian environment, with a variety of transportation options, encourages healthy lifestyle habits consistent with the General Plan. Economic Vitality Goal LU4: A diverse and healthy economy. The Project proposes amix ofretail/corr nercial uses along with abalance of residential uses. The addition of walkable commercial uses in close proximity to residents will provide additional commercial options that are not available in the Canyon Country community. While the Project proposes to build below the minimun commercial floor area prescribed in the MXN zone, an economic study prepared for the Project indicates that the nearby Vista Canyon Project will absorb a majority of the large/anchor tenants that would be potential candidates for the Project site. Therefore, the commercial square footage associated with the Project is appropriate. Additionally, the mix of commercial uses included in the Project, along with the residential uses, is anticipated to be appropriate for the Canyon Country community and would provide additional options to residents. CommunityAnearance Goal LU6: A scenic and beautiful urban environment that builds on the community's history and natural setting. The Project site has been previously disturbed for the construction of a manufactured home park, as well as the development neighboring roadways and infrastructure. A General Plan - designated ridgeline runs from the northeast portion of the Project site to the south, along the eastern portion of the site. A steep slope was cut in this ridgeline to allow for the construction of Soledad Canyon Road that cannot be planted to soften views. The Project will grade portions of this ridgeline to create a slope that is more natural in appearance that can be planted. The Project will build benn portions of PA4 to soften views to residents east of the site. Packet Pg. 186 12.d B. The proposal is allowed within the applicable underlying zone and cotnplies with all other applicable provisions of this code; The Project requires the approval of entitlements consisting of a Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit, Hillside Review, Ridgeline Alteration Permit, Minor Use Permit, and an Oak Tree Permit, in accordance with the City's Unified Development Code (UDC). C. The proposal will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, or be tnaterially detritnental or injurious to the itnprovetnents, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located; The Project has been evaluated and designed to be in keeping with the provisions of the UDC, as well as the goals and policies of the City's General Plan. The Project will blend the development into the hillsides on the Project site by laying back previously graded slopes, and using land form grading techniques to blend them into the topography on the Project site. Berns will be installed in appropriate locations to further screen views to the public and reduce any potential impacts to views of the community. Lights will be directed down and will be screened as appropriate, to further reduce and impact to nighttime views. Buildings will be situated on the Project site to minimize impacts to surrounding uses to ensure that noise is properly screened and minimized. Finally, the Project will be consistent with all applicable requirements for law enforcement and emergency services for the site. Therefore, the Project will not impact the public health, interest, safety, or general welfare, or be materially detrimental or injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity of the Project site. D. The proposal is physically suitable for the site. The factors related to the proposal's physical suitability for the site shall include, but are not litnited to, the following: The design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics are suitable for the proposed use; The Project site has been designed consistent with the City's UDC, including the required provisions for hillside development, development of a mixed-use development, as well as the applicable commercial and residential code requirements. The Project site is in an MXN zone and was identified as an MXN site in the City's General Plan. The Project will use the topography to concentrate higher density/intensity uses on the flat, previously disturbed portions of the site, while less intense, single-fanily residential uses will be built on the previously undisturbed portions of the site. With the Conditions of Approval, the Project will be suitable for the site and the uses entitled with the Project. 2. The highways or streets that provide access to the site are of sufficient width and are itnproved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such proposal would generate; A detailed traffic analysis was completed to evaluate the improvements required for the Project. The General Plan identifies Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road as major roadways wider the General Plan. The applicant will install improvements on both roadways to ensure the Project will have the necessary traffic infrastructure to service the site and uses in the vicinity of the Project site. Packet Pg. 187 12.d 3. Public protection services (e.g., Fire protection, Sheriff protection, etc.) are readily available; and The Project site is located in an established, urban environment that is serviced by existing Sheriff and Fire protection services. The applicant will pay applicable fees to the Sheriff's and Fire Departments to assist in offsetting any impacts to the services necessary to properly service the Project. 4. The provision of utilities (e.g., potable rater, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, stortn drainage, wastewater collection, treattnent, and disposal, etc.) is adequate to serve the site. The Project is in a portion of the City that is developed with access to the necessary utilities to service the site. These utilities provide services to the existing uses on the Project site. A Water Supply Assessment was completed for the Project determining that adequate water is available to meet the needs of the site. SECTION 3. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 53074. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and City Coulcil, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and City Cowlcil, the City Council finds as follows: A. The design of the subdivision or type of itnprovetnents will not conflict with easetnents, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The subdivision proposed as a part of the Project is located in an existing developed portion of the City. The Project will not obstruct any public access as a result of the proposed subdivision. The Project will provide improved public access in the form of additional right-of-way necessary for the future buildout of Sand Canyon Road. The Project will grade Sand Canyon Road to its ultimate width, while paving the roadway to one lane in each direction. This improvement will provide the City with the necessary right-of-way to buildout Sand Canyon Road to its General Plan width at the time that the improvement is necessary. No additional right-of-way is required for Soledad Canyon Road, however a new bus stop will be constructed for the City to integrate the site with the City's existing transit system. No public access exists on the Project site, and no public lands are identified on, or adjacent to the Project site that would require access through the Project site. The onsite roadways necessary for the Project will be installed and accessible for the future residents, as well as the comm-nercial/retail customers, and any police and emergency services. Therefore, the will not obstruct any public access with the subdivision of the site. SECTION 4. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 14-001. As documented in the Project and based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other transmittals 12.d from City staff to the Planning Commission and City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds as follows: A. That the natural topographic features and appearances are conserved by means of landfortn grading to blend any tnanufactured slopes or required drainage benches into the natural topography; and B. That natural, topographic protninent features are retained to the tnaximum extent possible; The southwest portions of the Project site are relatively flat and are developed with an existing manufactured home park. The Basten and northers portions of the site have hillsides in excess of 10% average cross -slope, requiring the approval of a Hillside Development Review in accordance with the UDC. A graded slope exists along Soledad Canyon Road constructed with the extension of Soledad Canyon Road. The slope is nearly 1:1 and cannot be planted. The Project will lay back the slope and will further grade existing portions of a General Plan -designated ridgeline. The grading will blend into the neighboring hillsides, and will use appropriate grading techniques to soften the impacts associated with the grading. The Project was revised by the Planning Commission to reduce grading on the northers portion of the ridgeline to further minimize grading associated with the Project and minimize impacts to the ridgeline on the Project site. C. That clustered sites and buildings are utilized where such techniques can be detnonstrated to substantially reduce grading alterations of the terrain and to contribute to the preservation of trees, other natural vegetation and protninent landtnarkfeatures and are compatible with existing neighborhood; No clustered application is associated with this Project; however, the more intense commercial and residential uses are located in the flat, previously disturbed portions of the Project site. D. That building setbacks, building heights and compatible structures and building fortns that would serve to blend buildings and structures with the terrain are utilized, The Project complies with the applicable setback requirements of the UDC. To ensure construction of each planning area is compliant with the provisions of the UDC, the Conditions of Approval (attached as Exhibit A) has been incorporated into the Project, requiring the approval of a Development Review application by the Director of Community Development. E. That plant tnaterials are conserved and introduced so as to protect slopes from slippage and soil erosion and to tninitnize visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas, including the consideration of the preservation of protninent trees and, to the extent possible, while tneeting the standards of the Fire Department; Portions of the Project site have been previously disturbed for the construction of Soledad Canyon Road along the souther portion of the Project site. The previously graded slopes are nearly 1:1 straight cut slopes and cannot be planned due to the steep grade. These previously graded slopes do not use any landform grading techniques to blend grading Packet Pg. 189 12.d work into the natural topography on the Project site. The Project will grade the site to accommodate the development of a mix of commercial and residential uses. The previously graded slopes will be graded by laying back the hillside to allow for planting of the new graded slopes. In addition, the new slopes will use landform and contour grading techniques to further blend into the existing slopes on the Project site. Planting of the graded slopes will be consistent with the City's Landscape Ordinance, along with the requirements of the Los Angeles County Fuel Modification Unit for development within a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Planting will generally consist of the use of native vegetation and plant material that is compatible with the climate of the Santa Clarita Valley. The Project will remove two non -heritage oak trees for the purposes of grading of the site. The applicant will mitigate these removals by replanting oak trees on the Project site, in accordance with the City's Oak Tree Ordinance. One heritage oak tree will be preserved on the site with appropriate measures to allow for the encroachment into the protected zone for grading purposes. Therefore, planting the graded slopes will be conducted in a manner consistent with the City's Landscape and Hillside Ordinances, as well as the requirements of the Los Angeles County Fire Department. F. That street design and itnprovetnents that serve to tninitnize grading alterations and emulate the natural contours and character of the hillsides are utilized; Roadways proposed on the hillside portions of the Project will be integrated into the hillside grading to take advantage of the natural grades to the extent possible. The roadway creates a loop road up to Planning Areas 4 and 5 and, while visible, will be integrated into the topography on the site to the extent practicable. G. That grading designs that serve to avoid disruption to adjacent properties are utilized, and H. That site design and grading that provide the tninitnutn disruption of vier corridors and scenic vistas frotn and around any proposed developtnent are utilized. Grading proposed with the Project does not impact any identified scenic vistas or view corridors. Views from the west and south of the site will remain, with the Project site being most visible from the existing residences to the west of the site. Residents living west of the site will have new views through the site to the mountains east of the site. These views, while far off are generally views of open space in the Angeles National Forest. To soften views to residents west of the site, the applicant has agreed, and has further been conditioned, to provide enhanced landscape along the western portion of the site to soften views and obscure sound generated with the Project. Views to the site from the north and east will continue to be predominantly obscured. The applicant has designed the Project to include benns along the eastern portions of the developed areas to assist in obscuring the views of the development from residents to the east of the site. The applicant has revised the Project to remove development from the northern portions of the ridgeline on the site to reduce impacts to previously undisturbed portions of the site, as well to further screen the Project from view to the property to the north of the site. The most intense portions of the Project include the commercial center, assisted living facility, and the apartment units. These components are located in the southwest portion of the site at, or near, the intersection of Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road. These portions of the site have been previously developed or disturbed for the creation of a manufactured home park and improvements to Soledad Canyon Road. The Project will lay back the Packet Pg. 190 12.d previously graded slopes on the site to allow for these slopes to be planted, improving the views of these steep, wivegetated slopes. The applicant is proposing to install a water feature at the southwester portion of the site that, in addition to serving as a part of the stonnwater treatment train, will provide an aesthetic amenity for the site. Therefore, the Project will not impact any scenic vistas and will further not have a significant impact to neighboring view corridors. SECTION 5. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR RIDGELIKE ALTERATION PERMIT 14-001. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Sand Canyon Plaza EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds as follows: A. The use or developtnent will not be tnaterially detritnental to the visual character of the neighborhood or cotntnunity, nor will it endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare; The Project would not be materially detrimental to the visual character of the site, as the proposed uses would be proper in relation to adjacent uses and the development of the community, as is evidenced by nearby existing residential and commercial developments. The Project's proposed uses and development would not be materially detrimental to the visual character of the neighborhood or community because the contour grading would limit visual impacts to hillside areas by helping them blend with the existing topography. The applicant revised the Project to reduce development on the norther portion of the ridgeline by transferring 27 units from PA5 to PA3. The Project grading would "lay back" the existing manufactured slope along Soledad Canyon Road, which allows for this slope to be landscaped, further softening its appearance from SR14, Soledad Canyon Road, and areas to the south. Mitigation measures recommended in this EIR ensure that the Project would not endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare. B. The appearance of the use or developtnent will not be substantially different than the appearance of adjoining ridgeline areas so as to cause depreciation of the ridgeline appearance in the vicinity; Portions of the Project site have been previously disturbed for development of an existing manufactured home park on the western portion of the site, as well as for the construction of adjacent roadways and utility infrastructure. Nearly all of the commercial development, and over one-half of the residential development proposed with the Project, has been concentrated within the disturbed portions of the site. The Project would also incorporate site design and grading techniques that would avoid disruption of view corridors and scenic vistas, and blend the Project into the surrounding community. In addition, the applicant revised the Project to reduce development on the norther portion of the ridgeline by transferring 27 units from PA5 to PA3. This will allow for the northern portion of the ridgeline to be preserved as open space, further preserving previously undisturbed portions of the ridgeline. Packet Pg. 191 12.d C. The establishtnent of the proposed use or developtnent will not impede the nortnal and orderly developtnent and itnprovetnent of surrounding properties, nor encourage inappropriate encroachtnents to the ridgeline area; Implementation of the Project would not impede the non -nal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property; nor encourage inappropriate future encroachments into the ridgeline areas. Overall, the Project would not violate the visual integrity of the ridgeline, as the ridgeline on the Project site is indistinguishable from other hills in the surrounding area, and the Project would not restrict views of more prominent ridgelines located off the site. Development would be concentrated in the previously disturbed areas, and would "lay back" the previously disturbed portions of the ridgeline to reduce visual impacts associated to areas south of the Project site. D. The proposed use or developtnent detnonstrates creative site design resulting in a Project that will completnent the cotntnunity character and provide a direct benefit to current and future cotntnunity residents of not only the proposed use or developtnent, but the residents of the City as a whole; '17ie majority of residential units (79%) and commercial land uses are within portions of the site previously disturbed and mostly in areas with less than 25% grade. Approximately 461 of the 580 residential units would be located in an area of the site with an average cross slope of 13% or less. In areas of the site that are in excess of 25% grade, there are 119 units proposed, or 25% of the total residential units. Development in this area would conform to the City's requirements for cluster developments. Clustering within disturbed, flatter portions of the Project site would contribute to the preservation of natural areas onsite. Finally, the Project, including grading, would be compatible with surrounding existing development. E. The use or developtnent tninitnizes the effects of grading to the extent practicable to ensure that the natural character of the ridgeline is preserved; '17ie Project would conserve natural topographic features and appearances by means of landform grading to blend any manufactured slopes or required drainage benches into the natural topography. '17ie applicant revised the Project to reduce the development on the previously undisturbed portions of the ridgeline by transferring 27 units from PA5 to PA3. 'Mis allows for the northern portion of the ridgeline to be preserved, further minimizing the impacts to the ridgeline and to preserve additional portions of the site as open space. F. The proposed use or developtnent is designed to tnitnic the existing topography to the greatest extent possible through the use of landfortn contour grading; and '17ie Project would conserve natural topographic features and appearances by means of landforn grading to blend any manufactured slopes or required drainage benches into the natural topography. '17ie Project would lay back the previously disturbed portions of the ridgeline along Soledad Canyon Road. Packet Pg. 192 12.d G. The proposed use or developtnent does not alter natural landmarks and protninent natural features of the ridgelines. The Project site does not include any prominent natural features or landmarks. The Project would utilize a number of methods for reducing grading impacts, and ultimately create a development that would, to the greatest extent possible, blend in with the natural contours of the site. For example, the Project places most of the residential and commercial development in previously disturbed areas to avoid disruption of view corridors and scenic vistas. The Project would also incorporate curvilinear street design and improvements that would serve to minimize grading alterations and simulate the natural contours and character of the hillside. SECTION 6. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR OAK TREE PERMIT 14-008. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public bearings, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and City Council, the City Council finds as follows: A. The approving authority shall tnake one (1) or snore of the follo144ng findings before granting an oak tree pertnit: i. The condition or location of the oak tree(s) requires cutting to tnaintain or aid its health, balance, or structure; ii. The condition of the trees} with respect to disease, danger of falling, proxitnity to existing lots, pedestrian walk -ways or interference with utility services cannot be controlled or retnedied through reasonable preservation andlor preventative procedures and practices; iii. It is necessary to retnove, relocate, prune, cut or encroach into the protected zone of an oak tree to enable reasonable use of the subject property which is otherwise prevented by the presence of the tree and no reasonable alternative can be accotntnodated due to the unique physical developtnent constraints of the property; or iv. The approval of the request will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of the code. The Project site contains three oak trees (one heritage oak tree, and two non -heritage oak trees). In order to develop the Project, the two non -heritage oak trees would need to be removed. The oak trees are located in portions of the site where grading will need to take place, and no alternatives are available to preserve these oak trees. However, the heritage oak tree is located in a portion of the site where it can be preserved. Encroachment into the protected zone (identified as five feet outside the dripline of the oak tree) of this tree will be required for grading purposes. The oak tree report prepared for the trees on the Project site include mitigation measures to ensure the health of this tree. In addition, the report establishes valuations of the two non -heritage trees to be removed, as well as mitigation for the removals. Compliance with the recommendations of the applicant's arborist, in coordination with the City's Oak Tree Specialist will ensure the preservation of the heritage tree, as well as proper mitigation for the removal of the two non -heritage trees. Packet Pg. 193 B. No heritage oak tree shall be removed unless one (1) or more of the above findings are made and the review authority also finds that the heritage oak tree's continued existence would prevent any reasonable development of the property and that no reasonable alternative can be accommodated due to the unique physical constraints of the property. It shall further be found that the removal of such heritage oak tree will not be unreasonably detrimental to the community and surrounding area. No heritage oak trees will be removed with the Project. SECTION 7. The City Council hereby approves Master Case No. 14-077; Tentative Tract Map 53074, Conditional Use Permit 14-014, Hillside Development Review 14-001, Ridgeline Alteration Pen -nit 14-001. Minor Use Pen -nit 14-016, and Oak Tree Pen -nit 14-008 for the development of the Project, in the City of Santa Clarita, subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and certify this record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 12a' day of September, 2017. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK DATE: STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES } ss CITY OF SANTA CLARITA } I, Mary Cusick, City Clerk, of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 17- was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof held on the 12a' day of September, 2017, by the following vote of the City Couicil: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK 12.d Packet Pg. 194 12.e EXHIBIT A MASTER CASE NO. 14-077: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 50374, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-014, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 14-001, RIDGELIKE ALTERATION PERMIT 14-001, MINOR USE PERMIT 14-016, OAK TREE PERMIT 14-008. AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCFI NO. 2015051005 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL CONDITIONS GCI. The approval of this project shall expire if the approved use is not commenced within two (2) years from the date of this approval, unless it is extended in accordance with the terns and provisions of the Santa Clarita Unified Development Code (UDC). GC2. To the extent the use approved with this project is a different use than previously approved for the property, the prior approval shall be tenninated along with any associated vested rights to such use, unless such prior approved use is still in operation, or is still within the initial pre -commencement approval period. Once commenced, any discontinuation of the use approved with this project for a continuous period of one hundred eighty (180) calendar days or more shall tenninate the approval of this use along with any associated vested rights to such use. The use shall not be re-established or resumed after the one hundred eighty (180) day period. Discontinuation shall include cessation of a use regardless of intent to resune. GC3. The applicant may file for an extension of the conditionally approved project prior to the date of expiration. If such an extension is requested, it must be filed no later than sixty (60) days prior to expiration. GC4. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying the Director of Conmmuiity Development in writing of any change in ownership, designation of a new engineer, or change in the status of the developer within thirty (30) days of said change. GC5. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the tern "applicant" shall include the applicant and any other persons, corporation, or other entity making use of this grant. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and bold harmless the City of Santa Clarita, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or armul the approval of this project by the City, including any related environmental approvals. In the event the City becomes aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the City shall promptly notify the applicant. If the City fails to notify the applicant or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or bold harmless the City. Nothing contained in this condition prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, if both of the following Packet Pg. 195 Master Case No. 14- 07 7 Conditions o/ Approval September 12, 2017 Page 2 of �7 occur: 1) the City bears its awn attorneys' fees and casts; and 2) the City defends the action in goad faith. The applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement is approved by the applicant. GC6. The property shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approvals granted by the City. Any modifications shall be subject to further review by the City. GC7. The applicant and property owner shall comply with all inspections requirements as deemed necessary by the City of Santa Clarita. GCB. The owner, at the time of issuance of permits or other grants of approval, agrees to develop the property in accordance with City codes and other appropriate ordinances including, but not limited to, the California Building Cade (Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, Green Building, and Energy Codes), Fire Cade, Unified Development Cade (Grading Cade and Undergrounding of the Utilities Ordinance), Utilities Cade (Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance), and Highway Permit Ordinance. GC9. This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant has filed their affidavit (Acceptance Farm) with the Director of Community Development stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all of the conditions of this grant. GC10. Details shown on the site plan are not necessarily approved. Any details which are inconsistent with the requirements of state or local ordinances, general Conditions of Approval, or City policies, and not modified by this permit, must be specifically approved. GC 11. It is hereby declared and made a condition of this permit that if any condition hereof is violated, or if any law, statute, or ordinance is violated, the City may commence proceedings to revoke this approval. PLANNING DIVISION PLI . The applicant is approved for the fallowing entitlements for the Sand Canyon Mixed Use Project associated with Master Case No. 14-077: a. Tentative Tract Map 53074; b. Conditional Use Permit 14-014; c. Ridgeline Alteration Permit 14-001; d. Hillside Review 14-001; e. Minor Use Permit 14-016; and f. Oak Tree Permit 14-008. 12.e Packet Pg. 196 12.e iifaster Case No. 14- 07 7 Conditions o/ Approval September 13, 3017 Page 3 oj'37 PL2. The project is approved to include a maximum of 580 residential units, 60,000 square feet of restaurant and commercial space, and an 85,000 square -foot assisted living facility with up to 140 beds. PL3. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) as identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) prepared for the project (SCH 2015051005). PLA. The applicant shall construct the commercial portion of the mixed use project prior to occupancy of the 290`h residential unit, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development. PL5. The parking structure and water feature in Planning Area 1 shall be substantially consistent with the approved site plan. Removing these features will be subject to the Planning Commission approval of a Development Review application. PL6. The applicant shall have approval to construct the 580 residential units within the Planning Areas with the fallowing breakdown: a. Planning Area 2: 312 apartment units b. Planning Area 3: 149 townhome units c. Planning Area 4: 71 single-family units d. Planning Area 5: 48 single-family units Subject to the approval of a Development Review by the Director of Community Development, the applicant may shift up to 20 percent of the units between Planning Area 2 and Planning Area 3. At no time shall the total number of units exceed 580 units within all Planning Areas. PL7. Development of each of the five planning areas (including the parking structure) shall be subject to the approval of a Development Review by the Director of Community Development. PL8. The applicant shall install berming along the eastern portions of Planning Area 5 to provide a visual buffer to existing residences to the east of the project site. PL9. The applicant shall orient the apartment buildings within Planning Area 2 to reduce noise impacts to the existing residences to the west of the project site. This may include positioning buildings parallel to the Sand Canyon frontage to provide a buffer between the parking areas and the residences. In addition, the applicant shall include a mixture of 24 -inch, 36 -inch, and 48 -inch box trees along the western property line of the project site to further buffer noise and views to residences to the west. PLIO. All lighting shall be directed dawn and shielded from neighboring uses. The applicant shall prepare a photometric study for review and approval with each Development Packet Pg. 197 Master Case No. 14- 07 7 Conditions o/ Approval September 13, 3017 Page 4 oj'37 Review application for each planning area that demonstrates that no light will spill over property lines. PLI 1. Pedestrian connections shall be provided throughout the development. A final pedestrian plan shall be submitted for each planning area to ensure connections to the adjacent planning areas, recreational facilities, the on-site private park, the commercial portion of the project, as well as the assisted living portion of the project. The applicant shall further connect all pedestrian paths to the trail system along the project frontage, transit stops along the project frontage, as well as the City's sidewalk system along the project frontage. PL12. The architecture of the proposed facility shall be consistent with the Community Character and Design Guidelines (CCDG) for the Valencia community. The applicant shall provide elevations that incorporate 360 -degree architecture that complies with the CCDG. A copy of the CCDG can be found at http://www.santa-clarita.com/planning. PL13. All roof -mounted equipment shall be screened from public view. PL14. The proposed project shall comply with all applicable sections of the UDC. PL15. All drive aisles shall be a minimum of 26 feet in width unless required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. PL16. The applicant shall provide shaded employee break areas within the commercial portions of the project. PLIT All ground -mounted mechanical equipment shall be identified on the site plan and screened from view. PL18. All utility connections shall be designed to coordinate with the architectural elements of the building. Power lines and aver -head cables less than 34 KV shall be installed underground. PL19. The applicant shall landscape a minimum of 10 percent of the project site, with five percent of the parking lot being landscaped. PL20. The applicant shall install a minimum of two fully operational electric vehicle charging stations within Planning Area 1. PL21. No signage is included within this approval and is subject to a separate permit. The applicant shall provide a sign program prior to the installation of signs on the project site. PL22. The project, and all construction related activity associated with the project, shall comply with UDC Section 11.44.040, the City of Santa Clarita Noise Ordinance. Landscape Conditions 12.e Packet Pg. 198 iifaster Case No. 14- 07 7 Conditions o/ Approval September 12, 2017 Page 3 oj'27 LR 1. Prior to issuance of grading permits) the applicant shall provide final landscape, lighting and irrigation plans (Landscape Document Package) for Planning Division review and approval. The plan must be prepared by a California -registered landscape architect and shall be designed with the plant palette suitable for Santa Clarita (Sunset Western Garden Book Zane 18, minimum winter night temperatures typically 20° to 30° F; maximum summer high temperatures typically 105° F to 110° F). The Landscape design plan shall meet the design criteria of the State Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance as well as all other current Municipal Code/UDC requirements. LR2. The applicant shall be aware that additional fees will be required to be paid by the applicant for the review of required landscape and irrigation plans by the City's landscape consultant based on an hourly rate. An invoice will be provided to the applicant at the completion of the review of the plans. The applicant will be required to pay all associated fees to the City of Santa Clarita prior to the release of the approved landscape and irrigation plans for the project. LR3. Required Landscape Plan Elements. Final landscape plans shall contain all elements as Listed in the checklist for preliminary Landscape plans (Attachment A), and shall conform to the Landscaping and Irrigation Standards ($17.51.030) in the UDC. The following elements need to be addressed on the preliminary and/or final landscape plans: a. Landscape plans shall show plant material to screen at maturity all trash enclosures, transformer boxes, vault boxes, backflow devices, and other exterior mechanical equipment. Screening material may include trees, shrubs (15 gallon minimum size), clinging vines, etc. Masonry block (concrete masonry unit) trash enclosures shall be screened with both shrubs and clinging vines; b. Landscape plans shall show all lighting fixtures, base dimensions, and typical finish elevations; c. The applicant shall place water -conserving mulching material on all exposed soil in planting areas not covered by turfgrass. Mulching material may include, and is not limited to, shredded bark, river rock, crushed rock, pea gravel, etc., and must be at Least two (2) inches deep; d. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall install all proposed irrigation and landscape, including irrigation controllers, staking, mulching, etc., to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. The Director may impose inspection fees for more than one landscape installation inspection; and e. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall submit to the Director of Community Development a letter from the project landscape architect certifying that all landscape materials and irrigation have been installed and function according to the approved landscape plans. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION General Comments 12.e Packet Pg. 199 12.e iifaster Case No. 14- 07 7 Conditions o/ Approval September 13, 3017 Page 6 oj'37 BSL Construction drawings for this project shall be prepared and submitted to the Building and Safety Division for plan review and building permit issuance. Supporting documents; such as structural and energy calculations, and geotechnical reports shall be included in the plan submittal package. BS2. Construction drawings submitted for plan review shall show full compliance with all applicable local, county, state and federal requirements and codes. Plan review will be based on the fallowing current state building codes: The 2016 California Building (CBC), Mechanical (CMC), Plumbing (CPC), and Electrical (CEC) Codes, the 2017 County of Las Angeles Fire Cade, 2016 California Energy Cade, and the 2016 California Green Building Standards Cade. BS3. Construction drawings submitted to Building and Safety for plan review shall be complete. Submitted plans shall show all Architectural work (including accessibility requirements), along with all Structural, Mechanical, Plumbing, and Electrical work that will be part of this project. Civil, landscape and other plans not related to the building code are not reviewed by the Building and Safety Division. BS4. Construction drawings shall be prepared by qualified licensed design professionals (California licensed architects and engineers). Incomplete plans or plans prepared by unqualified individuals will delay the plan review and permit process. BS5. The City of Santa Clarita has amended some portions of the California Building Codes. A copy of these amendments is available at the Building and Safety public counter and on our website at: http://www.santa-clarita.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=13248. BS6. Plans may be submitted electronically using our ePLANS system. For more information about ePLANS, please visit: http:llwww.santa-clarita.cam/city-ha111departnientslpublic- workslbuilding-safetyleplans. BST The submitted plans to building and safety shall have a Building Cade Analysis and floor area justification for each building containing the fallowing minimum information: types of construction, occupancy groups, occupant loads, any area increases from frontage and/or fire sprinklers, height of building, number of stories, summary of any fire rated walls, occupancy and all other related data. BSB. The submitted site plan shall show all Int lines, easements, fire separation distances, restricted use areas, etc. Any construction proposed in an easement shall obtain the easement holder's written permission. BS9. Clean Air, Van Pool, and Electric Vehicle parking spaces (including future EV Charging Stations) shall be provided within the parking areas for new commercial buildings per the California Green Building Standards Cade. In proposed parking areas, 8% of the total provided parking spaces, shall be designated as clean air vehicle parking spaces. 0 0 a x c >1 c R U c R r.. r.. 0 v U R 0 CL CL Q 0 w c 0 c 0 U Q a x x UJ 12.e Master Case No. 14- 07 7 Conditions o/ Approval September 13, 3017 Page 7 oj'37 13S10. Electric Vehicle Charging Spaces (future EV Charging Stations) shall be provided within parking facilities for new commercial buildings per the California Green Building Standards Cade. The submitted plans shall show the size, location and infrastructure of the future EV charging stations. Some EV Charging Stations shall be sized to be accessible and located on as accessible route to the building entrance per CBC Sections I I B-228.3 and I I B-812. For multi -building projects, such EV Charging Stations shall be dispersed based on the parking spaces provided for each building/facility. EV charging spaces for the residential portions of the project shall comply with Section 4.106.4 of the California Green Building Standards Cade. BSII. Bicycle parking (bath short-term and Lang -term) shall be provided for the commercial portions of the project, based on 5% of the total vehicle parking spaces per the California Green Building Standards Cade. BS12. For an estimate of the building permit fees and the estimated time for plan review, please contact the Building and Safety Division directly at (661) 255-4935. 13S13. Prior to submitting plans to Building and Safety for plan review, please contact Deanna Hamrick or Racheal Allen, at (661) 255-4935, for project addressing. Clearances BS14. Prior to issuance of building permits, clearances from the fallowing agencies will be required: a. Santa Clarita Planning Division, b. Santa Clarita Engineering Services, c. Santa Clarita Environmental Services (Construction & Demolition Plan deposit), d. Las Angeles County Fire Prevention Bureau, e. Las Angeles County Environmental Services (Health Dept. for food service & sales), f. Las Angeles County Environmental Programs (Industrial Waste), g. Las Angeles County Sanitation District, h. Castaic Lake Water Agency, i. William S. Hart Schaal District and appropriate elementary school district, j. Santa Clarita Urban Forestry Division (far construction near Oak Trees). An agency referral list with contact information is available at the Building and Safety public counter. Please contact the agencies above to determine if there are any plan review requirements and/or fees to be paid. Clearances from additional agencies may be required and will be determined during the plan review process. BS15. Accessibility (disabled access) requirements for the commercial portions of the project shall comply with Chapter I I B of the California Building Cade, shall be shown and detailed on the plans. General requirements include but not limited to the fallowing: 0 0 a` x x c >1 c R U c R N r.. r.. 0 v U R 0 CL CL Q 0 w c 0 c 0 U Q Z xx UJ Packet Pg. 201 12.e iifaster Case No. 14- 07 7 Conditions o/ Approval September 13, 3017 Page S oj'37 a. The plans shall clearly show all areas that are usable by the public and employees to be fully accessible. b. An accessible route shall be provided between all building entrances, the accessible parking spaces (including an EV charging space) and the public sidewalk. c. All disable access requirements, including site accessibility information and details, shall be shown on the architectural plans (vs the civil plans). BS16. Accessibility (disabled access) requirements for the residential portions of the project shall comply with Chapter 11 A of the California Building Code, shall be shown and detailed on the plans. General requirements include but not limited to the following: a. All multi -family residential buildings (ground -floor dwelling units and all dwelling units in buildings with elevators) shall be accessible and comply with the Housing Accessibility requirements per CBC Chapter 11 A. b. All common use areas in multi -family residential buildings such as lobbies, laundry facilities, community rooms, clubhouse, swimming pools, fitness rooms, elevator, interior and exterior routes of travel, etc. shall be fully accessible for the disabled per CBC Chapter 11 A. c. Accessible parking spaces shall be provided for each type of parking facility; including garages, carports, assigned and unassigned parking, and guesUvisitor parking. BSIT Covered Multifamily residential projects shall also follow all accessibility regulations including federal requirements that may be more restrictive. Please refer to the following: a. Fair Housing Act (FHA) Design Manual (over 300 pages). b. Joint Statement of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued April 30, 2013 (www.hud.gov). FHA, HUD and DOJ regulations are not enforced by the local building and safety jurisdictions but are the responsibility of the designer, architect, owner and developer of the project. Soils Reports and Grading BS18. A complete soils and geology investigation report will be required for this project. The report shall be formally submitted to the Engineering Services Division for review and approval. The recommendations of the report shall be followed and incorporated into the plans for the project. A copy of the report shall be submitted to Building & Safety at time of plan submittal. When the soils/geology report recommends grading and/or recompaction, the following shall be completed prior to issuance of building permits: a. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Division and all rough grading and/or re -compaction shall be completed. Packet Pg. 202 12.e iifaster Case No. 14- 07 7 Conditions o/ Approval September 12, 2017 Page 9 oj'27 b. A final compaction report and a Pad Certification shall be submitted to and approved by the Engineering Services Division. BS19. The footings for all new buildings, additions and other structures, including retaining walls and fences, shall be setback from any adjacent ascending or descending slopes. See Section 1808.7 CBC and/or the Slope Setback handout. Hazard Zones BS20. The project is located within the City's Fire Hazard Zane. New buildings shall comply with the California Building Code Chapter 7A: MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS FOR EXTERIOR WILDFIRE EXPOSURE. A summary of these requirements are available at the Building and Safety's public counter or visit: http:llwww.santa-clarita.com/home/showdocument?id=10685. The submitted plans to Building & Safety shall show all Fire Zane requirements. BS21. The site for this project is NOT located within the FEMA Flood Zane. Assisted Living Facilities BS22. Residential assisted living facilities with personal care services, shall comply with all requirements for a Group R-2.1 Occupancy, including the additional detailed requirements of CBC Section 420. Licensed 24 -Hour Care Facilities in a Group R-2.1 Occupancy shall comply with the Special Provisions of CBC Section 435. Additional Information BS23. Each separate detached structure, such as trash enclosures, fences, retaining walls, shade structures require separate applications and building permits. These other structures need not be on separate plans, but may be part of the same plans for the main project. BS24. Additional comments and more detailed building code requirements will be listed during the plan review process. ENGINEERING DIVISION General Requirements EN I. Prior to Plan approval, the applicant must inform the City if he intends to file multiple Tract Maps. The City Engineer and the Director of Community Development shall approve the phase boundaries and recording sequence. EN2. Prior to Grading Plan approval, the applicant shall submit a storm drain exhibit that clearly shows and labels the maintenance responsibility of all storm drain reaches. In addition, all necessary storm drain easements shall be shown and labeled on the exhibit. Packet Pg. 203 12.e Raster Case No. 14- 07 7 Conditions o/ Approval September 13, 3017 Page 10 oj'37 EN3. Prior to Grading Plan approval, the applicant shall obtain approval of a drainage concept study for the proposed public storm drain system from the Los Angeles County EN9. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall establish a Property/Home Owners' Association (POA/HOA), or similar entity, to ensure the continued maintenance of all shared/common lots and drainage devices not transferable to the County Flood Control District. EN 10. Prior to first certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall transfer ownership of open space lots to the HOA. The grant deed shall be submitted to Engineering Services for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to Final Map Approval. Grading, Drainage and Geology Requirements EN 11. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall submit a grading plan consistent with the approved Plan, oak tree report, and conditions of approval. The grading plan Department of Public Warks, Land Development Division. v 0 0 EN4. Prior to Grading Plan approval, the applicant shall submit a sewer area study for review a.. and approval. Any downstream sewer upgrades required by the study shall be shown on the Plan. 0 X ENS. Prior to Grading Plan approval, the applicant shall provide an exhibit that clearly shows and labels the maintenance responsibility of all slopes, basins, and open space areas. c 0 EN6. Prior to issuance of first building permit, the applicant shall establish a Property/ Home c R Owners' Association (POA/HOA), or similar entity, to ensure the continued maintenance of all shared/common lots and drainage devices not transferable to the „N County Flood Control District. o v ENT Prior to Tract Map approval, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer � and the City Attorney for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for this development. The applicant shall reimburse the City for the City Attorney's review and 0 approval fee. The CC&Rs shall: a 4 a. Include a disclosure to comply with the Geologist's recommendations in the Geology Report concerning restrictions on watering, irrigation, and recommend plant types. 0 b. Grant the City the authority to review and approve/disapprove amendments :t (including dissolution) of the CC&Rs or the association. c c. Grant the City the right (though not the obligation) to enforce the CC&Rs (at a minimum those provisions related to City -required items). 4 :a EN8. Prior to first building permit, the applicant shall record the approved CC&Rs with the X Los Angeles County Recorder's office. w EN9. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall establish a Property/Home Owners' Association (POA/HOA), or similar entity, to ensure the continued maintenance of all shared/common lots and drainage devices not transferable to the County Flood Control District. EN 10. Prior to first certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall transfer ownership of open space lots to the HOA. The grant deed shall be submitted to Engineering Services for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to Final Map Approval. Grading, Drainage and Geology Requirements EN 11. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall submit a grading plan consistent with the approved Plan, oak tree report, and conditions of approval. The grading plan 12.e Raster Case No. 14- 07 7 Conditions o/ Approval September 13, 3017 Page 11 oj'37 shall be based on a detailed engineering geotechnical report specifically approved by the geologist and/or soils engineer that addresses all submitted recommendations. EN 12. Prior to grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a notarized Letter of Permission for grading outside of the property lines/tract boundary from the adjacent property owner(s). EN 13. Prior to issuance of grading permits within their respective jurisdiction, the applicant shall acquire applicable permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game, and the Regional Water Control Board. A copy of the permits, or a response letter from each agency indicating a permit is not required, shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of grading permits. EN 14. Prior to the issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall obtain approval and connection permit from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Land Development Division to connect the on-site storm drain system to a public storm drain system. EN 15. Prior to the City's release of any bond monies posted for the construction of storm drain infrastructure, the applicant or subsequent property owners shall be responsible for providing all required materials and documentation to complete the storm drain transfer process from the City of Santa Clarita to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. The applicant or subsequent property owners shall also be responsible for providing regularly scheduled maintenance of the storm drain infrastructure, as directed by the City Engineer, until such time that full maintenance is assumed by the Flood Control District. EN 16. Prior to recordation of the Tract Map, the applicant shall form an assessment district to finance the future ongoing maintenance and capital replacement of SUSMP devices/systems identified on the latest approved Drainage Concept/Storm drain Plan/Plan. The applicant shall cooperate fully with the City in the formation of the assessment district, including, without limitation, the preparation of the operation, maintenance, and capital replacement plan for the SUSMP devices/systems and the prompt submittal of this information to City for review and approval. The applicant shall pay for all costs associated with the formation of the assessment district. SUSMP devices/ systems shall include but are not limited to catch basin inserts, debris excluders, biotreatment basins, vortex separation type systems, and other devices/systems for stormwater quality. The applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance of all SUSMP devices/systems until the district has been established EN 17. This project is a development planning priority project under the City's NPDFS Municipal Stormwater Permit as a development with 10 or more dwelling units. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall have approved by the City Engineer, an Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (USMP) that incorporates appropriate post construction Best Management Practices (BMPs), maximizes pervious surfaces, and Packet Pg. 205 12.e Raster Case No. 14- 07 7 Conditions o/ Approval September 13, 3017 Page 13 oJ'?7 includes infiltration into the design of the project. Refer to the County of Los Angeles Low Impact Development Manual, and the City's LID Ordinance for details. EN 18. This project will disturb one acre or more of land. Therefore the applicant must obtain coverage under a statewide General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit (General Permit). In accordance with the General Permit, the applicant shall file with the State a Notice of Intent (NOI) for the proposed project. Prior to issuance of grading permit by the City, the applicant shall have approved by the City Engineer a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP shall include a copy of the NOI and shall reference the corresponding Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number issued by the State upon receipt of the NOI. Street Improveii?ent Requirements EN 19. Prior to any construction (including, but not limited to, drive approaches, sidewalks, curb and gutter, etc.), trenching or grading within public or private street right-of-way, the applicant shall submit a street improvement plan consistent with the approved Plan, oak tree report, and conditions of approval; and obtain encroachment permits from the Engineering Division. EN20. Prior to building final, all new and existing power lines and overhead cables less than 34 KV within or fronting the project site (including alleys) shall be installed underground. EN21. The property boundaries of the site abut the State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans) jurisdiction. Encroachments into Caltrans jurisdiction shall be permitted by Caltrans prior to issuance of any building permits by the City. EN22. Prior to street plan approval, the applicant shall submit a street tree location plan to the City's Urban Forestry Division for review and approval. The location of the street trees shall not conflict with sewer or storm drain infrastructure. The plan shall include proposed sewer lateral locations and storm drain infrastructure for reference. EN23. Prior to Tract Map approval, the applicant shall prepare the required documents/maps to vacate that portion of Sand Canyon Road that is no longer needed for roadway purposes within Planning Area 2 (PA2), as directed by the City Engineer. EN24. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall record easements for all utility companies for the proposed vacated area. EN25. Prior to the Tract Map being filed with the County Recorder, the applicant shall not grant or record easements within areas proposed to be granted, dedicated, or offered for dedication for public streets or highways, access rights, building restriction rights, or other easements; unless subordinated to the proposed grant or dedication. If easements are granted after the date of tentative map approval, subordination must be executed by the easement holder prior to the filing of the Tract Map. 12.e iifaster Case No. 14- 07 7 Conditions o/ Approval September 13, 3017 Page 13 oj'37 EN26. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall construct street pavement per either of the following options. Prior to street plan approval, the selected option shall be indicated on the plan. a. The applicant shall construct the full pavement section including the final lift of asphalt to finish grade in conformance with the design T1. Prior to building final, the applicant shall refurbish the pavement to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. b. The applicant shall construct a pavement section that is a minimum of 1'h" lower than finish grade, in conformance with the design T1. Prior to building final, the applicant shall refurbish the pavement, and complete the final lift of asphalt to meet finish grade to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN27. Prior to first building final, the applicant shall construct the following street improvements along the frontage of the project site, as directed by the City Engineer: Street Name Inverted Shoulder Curb & Gutter Base & Pavin = Street Lights Street Trees Sidewalk Width Landscaped Median Soledad Canyon Road X X X X X X B Street X X X X 10'n ( (10' null) Canyon Sand Can Rd y X X X X X X D Street X X X X inivalkn}� (5' null)* ( 5' *See condition TE13 for clarification on the design for the sidewalk on Sand Canyon Road. EN28. Prior to building final for each phase, the applicant shall construct full street improvements within the project site, as directed by the City Engineer: Street Name Inverted Shoulder Curb & Gutter Base & Paving Street Lights Street Trees Sidewalk 5'inin) Landscaped Median A Street X X X X X B Street X X X X X C Street X X X X X D Street X X X X X E Street i I X X X X X Sewer Improvement Requirements EN29. The on-site sewer shall be a publicly maintained sewer. EN30. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall annex the property into the County Sanitation District. The applicant shall provide the City's Building and Safety Division with written confirmation from the Sanitation District that the property has been annexed. EN31. Prior to issuance of building permits, the proposed building(s) shall be connected to the existing sewer main in Sand Canyon Road (PC 10434). Packet Pg. 207 12.e Master Case No. 14- 07 7 Conditions o/ Approval September 13, 3017 Page 14 oj'37 EN32. Prior to sewer plan approval, the applicant shall provide a sewer area study in accordance with City policies for review and approval by the City Engineer. EN33. Prior to building final, the applicant shall construct all sewer upgrades per the approved sewer area study, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION TEL Adequate sight visibility is required at all intersections (street -street intersections or driveway -street intersections) and shall follow the latest Caltrans manual for applicable requirements. Adequate sight visibility (including corner sight visibility) shall be demonstrated on the final map and grading plan. All necessary easements for this purpose shall be recorded with the final map. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TE2. All private driveways and streets shall intersect at 90 degrees or as close to 90 degrees as topography permits (no less than 80 degrees). This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TE3. The location, width and depth of all project driveways and drive aisles shall conform to the approved site plan. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. No additional driveways shall be permitted. TE4. No access will be permitted within curb return. This shall be included as a note on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TES. Minimum width of all interior driveways shall be 26 feet and shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TE6. Any dead-end drive aisles serving more than one unit shall extend a minimum of five feet beyond the edge of the last driveway or have turn -around area to facilitate vehicular movements. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. Parking stalls are not permitted at the end of any dead-end drive aisles. TET Prior to street plan approval, the applicant shall show on the street plan drive approaches using a modified commercial driveway design. (APWA 110-2, Type C or equivalent) that will provide a streeUdrive approach transition with a maximum algebraic grade difference of 10%. Construction details shall be shown on the street plan providing a transition no greater than this maximum. TE8. Prior to issuance of the first building occupancy permit, the applicant shall post "No Parking—Fire Lane" signs along all private streets and driveways with a curb -to -curb width of less than 34 feet and serving more than one unit. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. Q v 0 a` w X X c >1 c R U c R r.. r.. 0 v U R 0 CL CL Q 0 w c 0 c 0 U Q Z X X UJ Packet Pg. 208 iifaster Case No. 14- 07 7 Conditions o/ Approval September 12, 2017 Page l5 oj'27 TE9. Prior to issuance of the first building occupancy permit, the applicant shall obtain approval from the Las Angeles County Fire Department for any private street and driveway sections. TE10. Prior to issuance of first building permit, the applicant shall acquire and dedicate to the City the right-of-way required for all street improvements as identified in the Traffic Study and all subsequent revisions/additions/addenda, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. TEL 1. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall dedicate additional street right- of-way along Sand Canyon Road for a total of 92 feet within the project site, as directed by the City Engineer. TE12. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall dedicate additional street right- of-way along Soledad Canyon Road for a total of 116 feet within the project site, as directed by the City Engineer. TE13. Prior to issuance of first building occupancy permit, Sand Canyon Road, along the project frontage, shall be improved to include a Class 11 bicycle lane and one vehicular travel lane in each direction, and a meandering 12 -foot Paseo within a 24 - foot landscaped parkway along the east side (project side). TE14. Per the Caltrans comment letter (April 17, 2017) on the Draft FIR, prior to completion of the Caltrans Mitigation Agreement, the applicant shall complete a traffic study for the operation of the off- and on-ramp for SR -14, east of Soledad Canyon Road, especially for the movement and queue analysis of the westbound left - turn phasing from Soledad Canyon Road onto the SR -14 on-ramp. This traffic study shall also include the adjacent intersection of Soledad Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road. If any improvements to either intersection are required as a result of this study, these improvements shall be completed prior to the 1001h certificate of occupancy for the residential component or equivalent trip generation. TE15. Prior to issuance of the first building occupancy permit, the applicant shall pay a traffic - signal timing fee for the update of the traffic -signal timing at up to ten intersections in the surrounding area. The cast is $4,000 per intersection ($40,000 total). This fee shall be used to improve traffic flaw and minimize traffic congestion along the corridors impacted by project -related traffic, through traffic signal retiming and related infrastructure improvements. TE16. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay the applicable Bridge and Thoroughfare (B&T) District Fee to implement the Circulation Element of the General Plan as a means of mitigating the traffic impact of this project. This project is located in the Eastside B&T District. The current rate for this District is $18,910. The B&T rate is subject to change and is based on the rate at the time of payment. Standard B&T Fee Calculation: 12.e Packet Pg. 209 Haster Case No. 14- 07 7 Conditions o/ Approval September 13, 3017 Page Moj'37 Commercial Townhouse Mobile Home Total B&T = the gross acres (9.6) x the district rate ($18,910) x 5.0 = $907,680 until June 30, 2017 = the number of units (580) x the district rate ($18,910) x 0.8 = $8,774,240 until June 30, 2017 = the number of units (123) x the district rate ($18,910) x 0.5 = $1,162,965 (credit) until June 30, 2017 = $907,680 + $8,774,240 — $1,162,965 = $8,518,955 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION ES 1. For the commercial portion of the project: Provide sufficient trash enclosures to house at least six three -yard bins. Three of the bins should be reserved for recyclable materials only. This requirement is subject to change once more information on the project is provided. In addition, space should be added for organics/food waste recycling bins per A131826. More information is needed to detennine what is necessary to meet these requirements. Please contact Environmental Services to discuss. ES2. For the assisted living portion of the project: Please provide sufficient trash enclosures to house at least 18 three -yard bins. Nine of the bins should be reserved for recyclable materials only. This requirement is subject to change once more information on the project is provided. In addition, space should be added for organics/food waste recycling bins per A131826. More information is needed to detennine what is necessary to meet these requirements. Please contact Environmental Services to discuss. ES3. The enclosure(s) should be shown on the site plan with dimensions, consistent with the surrounding architecture and shall be constructed with a solid roof. The enclosure(s) shall be located to provide convenient pedestrian and collection vehicle access (You may place the containers in the underground parking structure if a minimum of 20 feet overhead clearance is provided to allow collection vehicles the ability to enter the parking area and service the container(s)). ES4. For the residential portion of the project: All single family residential dwellings shall be designed with space provided (out of public view) for three 90 -gallon trash carts, one each for trash, recycling, and greenwaste. ES5. All demolition projects regardless of valuation, all renovation or improvement projects valuated greater than $100,000, and all new construction projects valuated greater than $500,000 must comply with the City's Construction and Demolition Materials (C&D) Recycling Ordinance. ES6. C&D Materials Recvcline Ordinance: 12.e Packet Pg. 210 Haster Case No. 14- 07 7 Conditions o/ Approval September 13, 3017 Page U oj'37 a. A Construction and Demolition Materials Management Plan (C&DMMP) must be prepared and approved by the Environmental Services Division prior to obtaining any grading or building permits. b. A minimum of 50% of the entire project's inert (dirt, rock, bricks, etc.) waste and 50% of the remaining C&D waste must be recycled or reused rather than disposing in a landfill. c. A deposit of 3% of the estimated total project cost or $25,000, whichever is less, is required. The full deposit will be returned to the applicant upon proving that 50% of the inert and remaining C&D waste was recycled or reused. EST Per the California Green Building Standards Code, 100% of trees, stumps, rocks and associated vegetation and soils resulting primarily from land clearing shall be reused or recycled. For a phased project, such material may be stockpiled on site until the storage site is developed. ESB. All projects within the City that are not self -hauling their waste materials must use one of the City's franchised haulers for temporary and roll -off bin collection services. Please contact Environmental Services staff at (661) 286-4098 for a complete list of franchised haulers in the City. SPECIAL DISTRICTS DIVISION Landscape Maintenance District SDI. 'nits parcel is located within Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) Zone 2008-1, which was established to fund the construction and maintenance of landscaped medians on major thoroughfares throughout the City of Santa Clarita. Applicant is required to financially contribute to Zone 2008-1 in a manner reflective of this LMD zone's assessment methodology. SD2. No on-site private property landscaping shall be maintained by LMD. SD3. Prior to the issuance of a grading pen -nit, the applicant shall form a local LMD under the 1972 Act for the ongoing funding of required maintenance and improvement of landscaping, street trees, irrigation, and monunennt signage on the perimeter of the project, abutting Sand Canyon and Soledad Canyon Roads. SD4. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall, at their sole expense, relocate or remove and re- install the existing monunennt sign in a prominent location in the vicinity of the existing easement that has been granted to the City of Santa Clarita. The monunennt sign and surrounding landscaping shall be approved by the LMD prior to issuance of a grading pen -nit. The applicant shall grant an easement for landscape maintenance purposes to the City of Santa Clarita for any areas to be maintained by the LMD that are not within the public right of way. Urban Forestry 12.e Packet Pg. 211 12.e Master Case No. 14- 07 7 Conditions o/ Approval September 13, 3017 Page 1 S oj'37 SDS. Upon fon-nal submittal, the applicant shall be required to install street trees within the public right of way. Tree species shall be approved by the City Urban Forestry. SD6. The applicant shall be required to install and maintain ifrigation to all trees planted within the public right of way. Irrigation to trees shall be bubbler type irrigation only. SD7. All trees shall be planted according to the City of Santa Clarita tree planting and staking detail sheet and/or the American Public Works Association (APWA) standard plans for Public Works construction (Section 5,520-3). SD8. Parkway trees shall be a minimum 24 -inch box. SD9. All trees shall be placed a minimum of five feet from any uidergrouid utilities. Streetlight Maintenance District SD10. Five of the parcels in this project have been annexed into the City's Streetlight Maintenance District (SMD). The applicant will work with the Special Districts Office to detennine bow many contiguous parcels they own that remain to be annexed. SDI 1. The applicant shall annex the remaining parcels into the SMD to fund the operations and maintenance of street lights and traffic signals. a. Following the completed annexation, the annual SMD assessment will be included on the property tax bill. The current assessment, for FY 16/17, is $77.34 per Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU). b. EBUs are based on land use (table attached). Vacant/unimproved parcels are not assessed. c. A minimun of 120 days is required to process the annexation, which must be completed prior to final map approval, grading or building pen -nit issuance, whichever occurs first. Oak Trees OT1. The project site has a total of three (3) protected oak trees, one (1) of which is Heritage size, Oak Tree Number 2. The other two (2) oaks are of non -heritage size and are proposed for removal due to grading and development requirements of the project. The proposed oak removals include Oak Tree Nunber 1, and Oak Tree Number 3. OT2. The applicant is approved to remove two (2) Coast Live Oaks as documented in the submitted oak tree reports dated February 9, 2016, and the addendun dated January 5, 2017, by Kerry Nonnan of Arbor Essence. a. The approved oak tree removals include Oak Tree Nunber 1 and Oak Tree Number 3. iAlaster Case No. 14- 07 7 Conditions o/ Approval September 13, 3017 Page Noj'37 b. Collectively these two (2) oaks have an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) appraised tree values of $43,400. c. The project/applicant is required to mitigate with approved replacement oak trees within the project site equal to the ISA appraised monetary value of $43,400 for the two (2) oak tree removals. Approved Oak Tree Removals: OT3. The applicant is required to bond for the entire ISA Dollar Value of all oak trees proposed for removal and/or relocation prior to issuance of grading permit. The bond will remain in place for the entire mitigation period. Upon successful completion of the three (3) year mitigation, the applicant may request bond exoneration OT4. The applicant is approved to remove: a. Oak Tree Number 1 which has an ISA value of $33,200. i. Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifotia). ii. Four trunks measuring 22", 15", 13" and 5" in diameter. b. Oak Tree Number 3 with an ISA value of $10,200. in. Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifotia) iv. Four trunks measuring 5", 8", 11" and 1 P' in diameter. c. Collectively these approved oak removals equal $43,400. Oak Tree Preservation and Protection: OT5. Oak Tree Number 2 — SHALL NOT BE REMOVED OR ENCROACHED UPON. This Heritage oak has an ISA value of $53,300 and shall be protected at all times throughout development. Oak tree encroachments are pennitted into the protected zone as shown on the approved site plan, and in accordance with the Oak Tree Specialist. a. Additionally this oak shall be protected with temporary chain link fencing five feet tall installed at the oak tree protected zone, five feet beyond the drip line, prior to any construction activities, including but not limited to, demolition, grading, excavation, or construction. b. This oak shall be monitored by the project arborist every 60 to 90 days depending on construction activities and condition of tree. c. Oak Tree Monitoring shall continue for an additional three years after the last certificate of occupancy for the project. d. Supplemental oak tree monitoring reports shall be submitted electronically to the City Oak Tree Specialist atrsartaintfsanta-clarita.com. e. The applicant may be required to provide additional preservation measures to ensure the preservation of the oak tree and may include mulching, watering, and pest control. Oak Tree Mitigation Plan: 12.e Q 4) 0 a x x c >1 c R U c R r.. r.. 0 v U R 0 CL CL Q 0 w 0 0 c 0 U Q 7 xx w Packet Pg. 213 12.e Master Case No. 14- 07 7 Conditions o/ Approval September 13, 3017 Page 30 oj'37 OT6. The applicant is required to submit an Oak Tree Mitigation Plan for the replacement oaks trees to be planted within the project site. The Oak Tree Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to the City Planning Division and the City Oak Tree Specialist prior to Grading Pen -nit Approval. a. The oak tree mitigation and replacement plan shall equal the removed ISA tree value of $43,400. b. The oak tree mitigation plan shall include the location of all the proposed oak tree replacements, including the quantity, size, cost, placement and species, of boxed trees. c. The oak tree mitigation site plan shall have a summary table/legend with the quantity, type, value/cost and size of the replacement oaks. d. The Oak Tree Mitigation Plan shall be an independent and separate plan from the Landscape Plan. (The Mitigation Oaks shall also be shown on the Landscape Plan). e. All replacement mitigation oaks shall be native Coast Live Oaks, unless otherwise approved by the City. f. The project is encouraged to locate the replacement mitigation oaks in highly visible prominent locations such as rouid-a-bouts, large parkways, parks, open space and landscape areas. g. All mitigation oaks shall have some form of pennanent irrigation approved by the City; however, spray or rain -bird type irrigation will not be accepted. OTT All mitigation oaks are required to be monitored by the project arborist on behalf of the developer for a minimun of three (3) years or until sufficiently established. Monitoring shall consist of intervals of three-month, six-month or annual depending on health and condition of mitigation oaks. Monitoring reports shall be submitted electronically to the City Oak Tree Specialist. OT8. All mitigation oaks that do not live or become sufficiently established shall be replaced and the monitoring continued until adequate establishment. OT9. Applicant shall comply with the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Ordinance and Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines at all times throughout the completion of the project. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT FDI. The proposed development may necessitate multiple ingress/egress access for the circulation of traffic an emergency response issues. FD2. The development of this project must comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants. FD3. Specific fire and life safety requirements for the construction phase will be addressed at the building fire plan check. There may be additional fire and life safety requirements during this time. Packet Pg. 214 12.e Master Case No. 14- 07 7 Conditions o/ Approval September 13, 3017 Page ?.1 of 27 FD4. Every building constructed shall be accessible to Fire Department apparatus by way of access roadways with an all-weather surface of not less than the prescribed width. The roadway shall be extended to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls when measured by an unobstructed route around the exterior of the building. FD5. When involved with subdivision in a city contracting fire protection with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Fire Department requirements for access, fire flows, and hydrants are addressed during the subdivision map stage. FD6. Fire Department requirements for access, fire flows, and hydrants are addressed during the building permit stage. FD7. Fire sprinkler systems are required in some residential and most commercial occupancies. For those occupancies not requiring fire sprinkler systems it is strongly suggested that fire sprinkler systems be installed. This will reduce potential fire and life losses. Systems are now technically and economically feasible for residential use. FD8. The development may require fire flows up to 8,000 gallons per minute at 20 poinids per square inch residual pressure for up to a four hour duration as outlined in the 2016 County of Los Angeles Code Appendix B. Final fire flows will be based on the size of buildings, its relationship to other structures, property lines, and types of construction used. FD9. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet and shall meet the following requirements: a. No portion of lot frontage shall be more than 200 feet via vehicular access fonn a public fire hydrant. b. No portion of a building shall exceed 400 feet via vehicular access from a properly spaced public fire hydrant. c. Additional hydrants will be required if hydrant spacing exceeds specified distances. d. When cul-de-sac depth exceeds 200 feet on a commercial street, hydrants shall be required at the confer and mid -block. e. A cul-de-sac shall not be more than 500 feet in length when serving land zoned for commercial use. FD 10. Turning radii shall not be less than 32 feet. This measurement shall be determined at the centerline of the road. A Fire Department approved turning area shall be provided for all driveways exceeding 150 feet in -length and at the end of all cul-de-sacs. IT) I L All on-site driveways/roadways shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet clear -to -sky. The on-site driveway is to be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building. The centerline of the access driveway shall be located parallel to and within 30 feet of an exterior wall on one side of the proposed strueture. Packet Pg. 215 Master Case No. 14- 07 7 Conditions o/ Approval September 12, 2017 Page 22 ol 27 FD 12. Driveway width for non-residential developments shall be increased when any of the following conditions will exist: a. Provide 34 feet in -width when parallel parking is allowed on one side of the access roadway/driveway. Preference is that such parking is not adjacent to the structure. b. Provide 42 feet in -width when parallel parking is allowed on each side of the access roadway/driveway. c. Any access way less than 34 feet in -width shall be labeled "Fire Lane" on the final recording map and final building plans. d. For streets or driveways with parking restrictions: The entrance to the street/driveway and intermittent spacing distances of 150 feet shall be posted with Fire Department approved signs stating. "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE" in three- inch high letters. Driveway labeling is necessary to ensure access for Fire Department use. FD 13. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet and shall meet the following requirements: a. No portion of lot frontage shall be more than 200 feet via vehicular access from a public fire hydrant. b. No portion of a building shall exceed 400 feet via vehicular access from a properly spaced fire hydrant. c, When cul-de-sac depth exceeds 200 feet hydrants will be required at the comer andmid-block. d. Additional hydrants will be required if the hydrant spacing exceeds specified distances. FD 14. Turning radii shall not be less than 32 feet. This measurement shall be determined at the centerline of the road. A Fire Department approved turning area shall be provided for all driveways exceeding 150 feet in -length and at the end of allcul-de-sacs. FD 15. All on-site driveways shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet clear -to - sky. The 28 foot width does not allow for parking and shall be designated as a "Fire Lane" and have appropriate signage. The centerline of the on-site driveway shall be located parallel to and within 30 feet of an exterior wall on one side of the proposed structure. The on-site driveway is to be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building. FD 16. The 28 feet in -width shall be increasedto: a, 34 feet in -width when parallel parking is allowed on one side of the access way. b, 36 feet in -width when parallel parking is allowed on both sides of the access way. c, Any access way less than 34 feet in -width shall be labeled "Fire Lane" on the final recording map and final building plans. d. For streets or driveways with parking restrictions: The entrance to the street/driveway and intermittent spacing distances of 150 feet shall be posted with I Packet Pg. 216 1 Master Case No. 14- 07 7 Conditions o/ Approval September 12, 2017 Page 23 ol 27 Fire Department approved signs stating. "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE" in three- inch high letters. Driveway labeling is necessary to ensure access for Fire Department use. FD 17. When serving land zoned for residential uses having a density of more than four units per net acre: a. A cul-de-sac shall be a minimum of 34 feet in -width and shall not be more than 700 feetin-length. b. The length of the cul-de-sac may be increased to 1000 feet if a minimurn of 36 feet in -width is provided. c, A Fire Department approved turning area shall be provided at the end of a cul-de- sac. FD 18. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 600 feet and shall meet the following requirements: a. No portion of lot frontage shall be more than 450 feet via vehicular access from a public fire hydrant, b. No portion of a structure should be placed on a lot where it exceeds 750 feet via vehicular access from a properly spaced public fire hydrant. c, When cul-de-sac depth exceeds 450 feet on aresidential street, hydrants shall be required at the corner andmid-block. d. Additional hydrants will be required if hydrant spacing exceeds specified distances. FD19. A Fire Department approved turning area shall be provided for all driveways exceeding 150 feet in -length and at the end of all cul-de-sacs, FD20. Fire Department access shall provide a minimurn unobstructed width of 28 feet clear - to -sky and be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any single unit. If exceeding 150 feet provide 20 feet minimum paved width "Private Driveway/Fire Lane" clear -to -sky to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the unit. Fire Lanes serving three or more units shall be increased to 26 feet. FD2 1. Streets or driveways within the development shall be provided with the following: a. Provide 36 feet in -width on all streets where parking is allowed on both sides. b. Provide 34 feet in -width on cul-de-sacs tip to 700 feet in -length. This allows parking on both sides of the street. c, Provide 36 feet in -width on cul-de-sacs from 701 to 1000 feet in -length. This allows parking on both sides of the street. d. For streets or driveways with parking restrictions: The entrance to the street/driveway and intermittent spacing distances of 150 feet shall be posted with Fire Department approved signs stating "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE" in three- inch high letters. Driveway labeling is necessary to ensure access for Fire Department use. Turning radii shall not be less than 32 feet. This measurement I Packet Pg. 217 1 Master Case No. 14- 07 7 Conditions o/ Approval September 12, 2017 Page 24 ol 27 shall be determined at the centerline of the road. FD22. All access devices and gates shall comply with California Code of Regulations. Title 19, Articles 3.05 and 3.16. FD23. All access devices and gates shall meet the following requirements: a. Any single -gated opening used for ingress and egress shall be a minimum of 26 feet in-widthclear-to-sky. b. Any divided gate opening (when each gate is used for a single direction of travel i.e., ingress or egress) shall be a minimum width of 20 feet clear -to -sky. c. Gates and/or control devices shall be positioned a minimum of 50 feet from a public right-of-way and shall be provided with a turnaround having a minimum of 32 feet of turning radius. If an intercom system is used the 50 feet shall be measured from the right-of-way to the intercom control device. d. All limited access devices shall be of a type approved by the Fire Department. e, Gate plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department prior to installation. These plans shall show all locations, widths, and details of the proposed gates. FD24. All proposals for traffic calming measures (speed humps/bumps/cushions, traffic circles, roundabouts, etc.) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review prior to implementation. FD25. Disruptions to water service shall be coordinated with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department and alternate water sources shall be provided for fire protection during suchdisruptions. TRANSIT DIVISION TD 1. There is fixed route bus service between the hours of 4:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. on Soledad Canyon daily. TD2. At this time the Transit Impact Fee does not apply to corm-nercial/industrial developments. This fee is currently under revision. Applicant shall pay the fee in place at the time of building pen -nit issuance. TD3. Applicant shall provide a bus stop/s at the location of: Northwest comer of Soledad Canyon and "A" Street. TD4. Applicant shall construct a pedestrian path from the bus stop/s to the development. TD5. Bus stop/s may require additional right of way (ROW) as approved by the City Engineer. TD6. At the location of the bus stop/s, the applicant shall provide a pen-naricin stylized shelter structure. The bus stops shall consist of: a 10' x 25' concrete pad placed behind the sidewalk, a bench, a trash receptacle, and lighting. Proposed shelter structure and all bus I Packet Pg. 218 1 12.e Haster Case No. 14- 07 7 Conditions o/ Approval September 13, 3017 Page 35 oj'37 stop amenities shall be approved by City Transit staff prior to installation. All specifications and appropriate paperwork shall be supplied to the Transit Division prior to installation. TD7. Applicant shall provide a site plan showing amenities within a 100 -foot radius of the bus stop/s. This plan shall show the locations of all utility meters, utility structures, landscaping, buildings, pedestrian walkways, and parking spaces. This plan shall also show all other items not listed above located within the I 00 -foot radius of the bus stop/s. TD8. Shelter design, structure and amenities shall be approved by appropriate city staff including Transit, Planning, Building and Safety, and Engineering. All specifications and appropriate paperwork for the bus stop shall be supplied to the Transit Division prior to installation. TD9. A color elevations and materials board for the proposed bus shelter shall be supplied to Planning with project submittal. TDIO. The bus stopts location shall be a minimun of 100 feet from the curb return or as specified by city staff. TD 11. At the location of the bus stop/s, the sidewalk shall meet the street for no less than 25 feet. TD12. The bus stopts shall comply with all ADA regulations as specified in the most recent version of the California Disabled Accessibility Guidebook (CalDag). Proposed disabled access shall be drawn on all plans. TD 13. Bus stops shall be shown and labeled on the site plan. TD 14. Prior to occupancy of the first building, the bus stopts shall be installed to the satisfaction of city staff. PARKS. RECREATION. AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION PR 1. Prior to the recordation of an applicable final tract/parcel map, the applicant shall set the required Park Dedication Fee equal to the value of the amownt of land established per the City's General Plan, "Parks and Recreation Element". Private Park credit shall be measured after the Multi -family requirement from UDC 17.57.030 Multifamily Residential Standards, Section G Recreation Facilities has been calculated by the City's Planning Department. The final park dedication fee calculation is attached. There is a variance to the code requiring fees to be paid at Final Map currently in place by City Couticil authority that allows fees to be paid at Building Pen -nit for each phase. PR2. The developer shall construct a Class II bike path with meandering sidewalk, on Sand Canyon Road from Soledad Canyon Road north to the extent of the project boutidary. The Class II Trail shall be built to City standards. Packet Pg. 219 2.e 1ac',ii lawn ca,ea:o,..dasj7 J1,,, le, d =ot2 sa=; PR3. The developer shall construct a Class B Bike Zane oil Soledad Canyon Road. PR4. All interior trails and pascos shall be HOA owned and maintained. PR5. All open space parcels shall beoAa3edand maintainedbyan HOA or POA. PrOfect Desiccation: sane Canyon Plaza TractlMCik 530T4 14 Oz] I� Housing Uses Ddi ginning 5Aow Perzggg "FMV Sub Toel 20's Off Site Improeenenrs In Lieu Fee 580 2 an Uses $880 000 moa 456 Total oensM Total Acres due KUl Probe Park Crede Up to 30% $6,302,619 $9,003,456 Fictential Passed Park Total Final Ifill Credit Final Reviewed by: j,dim,ri 'Ree applicant will be required to prove& a cedded MAI real estate appraiul to establish the Fab Marked Vale (FMV) of an acre of land within this project. mil nmaimmmtre Wdsmda vxmaaiNstakal �-awmae �� x - annual x ti - m�vwell ren SCU'PL,AYA'ING UIV IOION'b1iRREYI" 20t P.tH-OTT Scud Q1 PLn.Wli ( a GtH-0TT CY Atinda lwi rs li-0TT Condii oT ApFm"Adou 12.e Haster Case No. 14- 07 7 Conditions o/ Approval September 12, 2017 Page 27 oj'27 ATTACHMENT A Preliminary Landscape Plan — Fifteen (15) copies of a landscape plan drawn to scale (minimum plan size 24' x 36") indicating: ❑ Project name and location, vicinity map, north arrow and scale (scale to match site plan), property lines and dimensions; label all adjacent streets and provide dimensions to centerline ❑ Date of preparation; date(s) of revisions, if applicable ❑ Name and contact information of the project landscape architect or designer ❑ Existing and proposed land use and zoning ❑ Lot square footage or acreage, proposed lot area for landscaping in square feet, percentage of parking lot area proposed for landscaping, ❑ Location of buildings, parking areas, vehicular/pedestrian circulation, etc. ❑ Location and dimensions of doorways, windows and overhangs, where applicable ❑ Location and dimensions of retaining walls, including top -of -wall and base -of -wall spot elevations ❑ Spot elevations indicating pad elevations, hardscape footing elevations, pathway elevations, retaining walls, and all other places where grade change would affect design implementation ❑ Location and dimensions of doorways, windows and overhangs, where applicable ❑ Location and dimensions of all growid-mowned mechanical, electrical, or other equipment, if known (air conditioner condensers, Edison transformer boxes, cable TV boxes, backflow preventers, fire equipment/backflow preventers, gang mailboxes, water, sewer, telephone, etc.) ❑ Location of existing and proposed easements ❑ Location and graphic dimensions of all existing and proposed trees and shrubs ❑ Location of all proposed and existing oak trees ❑ Location of all exterior light standards ❑ A Tree Legend in table form indicating symbol or abbreviation, botanical name, common name, size, quantity, and water usage (low, medium, high) ❑ A Plant Legend in table forn for all shrubs and ground cover, indicating: symbol or abbreviation, botanical name, common name, size, quantity, water usage (low, medium, high), height and canopy diameter for mature shrubs. Replace height and width with typical spacing for grouidcover plantings. ❑ Location, dimensions, and gradient (if applicable) of any turf area ❑ Notes indicating design intent at key locations (e.g. screening, entry treatment, streetscape, property line treatment, etc.). ❑ Detail pedestrian plazas/site furniture and enhanced paving if not shown on the plans. ❑ The height and design of all fencing, walls, trash enclosures, and/or adjacent development, including retaining walls, slopes, fences, etc., that could influence on- site landscaping. ❑ Irrigation system point -of -connection Q 0 0 a` X X c >1 c R U c R r.. r.. 0 v U R 0 CL CL Q 0 c 0 c 0 U Q 7 X X UJ u fi:6au§agefi"�s°3.§�wwF s as zBeE i%�e 3@E §lFaE esieE alis Il€a Keeea 0ofr's� y • N _ li � E d gee 6e5fi a�® p g .. ego wm �u ���j11J11 Q oo I J o CL A �I a-EL Z O w 1 Q -J \ a i5 Q �> v>o w C) z �' Q w RE `33 4cf— oa. x r9gBa!! 8 ! �� alae fiSga � � g? m . igl;s " a: J3 ¢9S � 0■®�®■AAAAA■ ■®■■■11111© • ����IIIII e /� � p8S g � asi a�i � • " eig @e4 Fs° � nd W �e@ 0- 51�g ?§a �all �a R d€ d u c tl pq��yA s ORE fi @ :8i:oegRs8� Ll I Wu . Ug 1 Z• ` Q� g Jg ¢9 SCH No. 2015051005 Prepared for: City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355-2196 Prepared by: Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. 300 E. Esplanade Drive, Suite 1660 Oxnard, CA 93036 August 2017 Contents 1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Process................................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Content of the Final EIR................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Review and Recommended Certification of the Final FIR .......................................................... 2 2. Corrections and Additions.......................................................................................................................... 3 3. Responses to Comments.............................................................................................................................. 5 3.1 State/Governmental Agencies.........................................................................................................5 3.2 Public Comments..........................................................................................................................121 3.3 Public Comments During Planning Commission Meetings ................................................... 159 4. Project Revisions....................................................................................................................................... 185 4.1 Revisions to Project Description................................................................................................. 185 4.2 Revised Project Description for Final EIR.................................................................................. 189 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ................................. 201 Appendices Appendix 2 — Air Quality Appendix 2-4 — Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Noise Analyses Supplemental Memorandum, dated May 2017 Appendix 3 — Biological Resources Appendix 3-3 — Rare Plant Surveys, dated July 2017 Appendix 3-4—Focused California Gnatcatcher Surveys, dated July 2017 Appendix 3-5 — Habitat and Acoustic Bat Surveys, dated July 2017 Appendix 11— Traffic and Circulation Appendix 11-3—Traffic Study Supplemental Memorandum, dated May 2017 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR August 2017 iii 1. Introduction This document is the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project. This document, together with the Draft EIR and its technical appendices, comprise the Final EIR. The document has been prepared by the City of Santa Clarita in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Final EIR is required under §15132 of the CEQA Guidelines to include the Draft EIR, comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR, the responses of the lead agency to significant environmental issues raised by those comments in the review and consultation process, and any other relevant information added by the lead agency (including minor changes to the Draft EIR). A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is also required; it can be a separate document, or, as in this case, included in the Final EIR. The evaluation and responses to comments is an important part of the CEQA process, because it allows the following: 1) the opportunity to review and comment on the methods of analysis contained within the Draft EIR; 2) the ability to detect any omissions that may have occurred during preparation of the Draft EIR; 3) the ability to check for accuracy of the analysis contained within the Draft EIR; 4) the ability to share expertise; and 5) the ability to discover public concerns. This document provides revisions to the Draft EIR made in response to comments and/or changes to the proposed project. These revisions also correct, clarify, and amplify the text of the Draft EIR, as appropriate, and do not alter the conclusions of the Draft EIR. 1.1 Process In accordance with §15050 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Santa Clarita is the lead agency that prepared both the Draft EIR and the Final EIR for the Project. The Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for a period of 45 days, extending from March 3, 2017 to April 17, 2017. The Draft EIR was available for review at the City Hall/Community Development Department at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355; Canyon Country— JoAnne Darcy Library, 18601 Soledad Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, CA 91351; Old Town Newhall Library, 24500 Main Street, Santa Clarita, CA 91321; and Valencia Library, 23743 W. Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita CA 91355. An electronic copy of the Draft EIR was posted on the City of Santa Clarita website. A Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR was transmitted to regulatory agencies and others to request comments on the Draft EIR, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15086. Public hearings on the Draft EIR were held by the Planning Commission on March 21, 2017, May 16, 2017, and June 6, 2017 at the City Council Chambers, Santa Clarita City Hall —First Floor, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Comments on the Draft EIR were received during the comment period, and those comments are responded to in the Final EIR. The City Council will consider the Project and the Final EIR at a regularly scheduled City Council meeting on September 12, 2017. The Final EIR, together with the proposed Project, will be recommended for certification and approval by the City Council (Master Case No. 14-077, Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project). Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR August 2017 1 1. Introduction 1.2 Content of the Final FIR As discussed above, the primary intent of the Final FIR is to provide a forum to air and address comments pertaining to the analysis contained within the Draft FIR. Pursuant to §15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City has reviewed and addressed all comments received on the Draft FIR by the comment period deadline. Included within the Final FIR are the written comments that were submitted during the public comment period, as well as oral and written comments (relevant to the FIR) received at the public hearings conducted before the Planning Commission. To adequately address the comments provided by interested agencies and the public in an organized manner, the Final FIR includes the following chapters and appendices: Section 1: Introduction. This chapter provides a brief introduction to the Final FIR and its contents. Section 2: Corrections and Additions. This chapter provides a list of corrections and additions to the Draft FIR. None of the changes significantly impact the conclusions presented in the Draft FIR. Section 3: Responses to Comments. This chapter provides a list of commenting agencies, organizations, and individuals. Responses to all comments on the Draft FIR are also included in this chapter. Section 4: Project Revisions. This chapter outlines the changes made to the project description. Section 5: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This chapter includes the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) prepared in compliance with the requirements of §21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code and §15091(d) and §15097 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Final FIR also includes the previously circulated Draft FIR, herein incorporated by reference. The Draft FIR was circulated from March 3, 2017 to April 17, 2017. 1.3 Review and Recommended Certification of the Final FIR Consistent with CEQA (California Public Resource Code §21092.5), responses to agency comments were forwarded to each commenting agency in advance of the Planning Commission's June 6, 2017 meeting where they recommended certification of the Final FIR and approval of the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed - Use Project to the City Council. Final responses, including the responses within this Final FIR, will be forwarded to each commenting agency 10 days prior to certification of the Final FIR by the City Council. In addition, responses are also being distributed to all commenters who provided an address. The Final FIR is available for public review at: • City of Santa Clarita, Community Development Department, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, California, 91355: Attn: Patrick LeClair, Senior Planner • Canyon Country—Joanne Darcy Library, 18601 Soledad Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, California, 91351 • Old Town Newhall Library, 24500 Main Street Santa Clarita, California, 91321 • Valencia Library (Main Office), 23743 W. Valencia Blvd., Santa Clarita, California, 91355 The Final FIR is also located on the City's website at: httl2://www.santa-clarita.com/cit�r- hall/departments/community-development/planning/environmental-impact-reports-under-review. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR August 2017 2 2. Corrections and Additions The following corrections and additions are set forth to update the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR in response to the comments received during and after the public review period. Changes to the Draft EIR are listed by section and page number, and new text is noted in underline with 4f €ciit of deleted text. The following additions and corrections have been reviewed in relation to the standards in §15088.5(a) and (b) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines on when recirculation of a Draft EIR is required prior to certification. The additions and corrections to the Revised Draft Subsequent EIR document do not constitute new significant information requiring recirculation of the Draft Subsequent EIR. Sections 15088.5(a) and (b) of the CEQA Guidelines state: (a) A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section, the term "information" can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not "significant" unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement. "Significant new information" requiring recirculation include, for example, a disclosure showing that: (1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. (2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from other previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponent decline to adopt it. (4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (b) Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR August 2017 3 2. Corrections and Additions Changes to the Draft EIR are identified below by the corresponding Draft EIR section and subsection, if applicable, and the page number. Additions are in underline and deletions are shown in StFiketliFeug format. Changes to the Draft EIR may be made until action taken by the City Council. The following pages from the Draft EIR have been revised as a result of comments received during the public review process. Only those pages that have been revised are included in this section. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR August 2017 4 1. Introduction 1.1 — Purpose and Legal Authority This introduction is included to provide the reader with a general overview of 1) the purpose of an environmental impact report (EIR); 2) a description of the environmental review process conducted for this Project to date; 3) the lead, responsible, and trustee agencies for the Project; and 4) the general format of this EIR. 1.1 Purpose and Legal Authority This EIR evaluates the proposed Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project. The approximately 87 -acre Project site is located immediately north of Soledad Canyon Road, east of Sand Canyon Road, north of State Route 14 (SR -14), and west of the Pinetree residential community in the City of Santa Clarita. The Project includes redevelopment of the property (currently developed with 123 mobile homes) with a mixed-use community including five Planning Areas as summarized below. • Planning Area 1 (Commercial) —Approximately 145,000439;699 square feet of commercial floor including 60,00055,,699 square feet of general retail (including restaurants) and an .85000;5,W4 -square -foot assisted living facility (up to 140 bedsi-20 reaffis) on approximately 2.640 acres. Planning Area 1 is located at the northeast intersection of Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road. • Planning Area 2 (Multi -Family AttachedApaftweF40 — 312 multi -family rental units and required parking (including resident and guest spaces) would be developed on 12.2 acres. Planning Area 2 is located directly north of Planning Area 1 along Sand Canyon Road. • Planning Area 3 (Multi -Family AttachedT -z o,. � —1494Q townhomes with required parking (including resident and guest spaces) on approximately 10.349:1 acres. Planning Area 3 is located north of Planning Area 2 along Sand Canyon Road. • Planning Area 4 (Single Family Detached Condominium) — 71 unitssingle with required parking spaces (resident and guest parking) on approximately 7.3 acres. Planning Area 4 is located in the central portion of the Project site north and east of Planning Area 2. • Planning Area 5 (Single Family Detached Condominiumseigkhertreed &) — 48 units;a_ single f afflily d4aFliP9 sr attaFlipd eandes with required parking (resident and guest parking) on approximately 6_314,0 -_acres. Planning Area 5 is located in the eastern and northern portions of the Project site. The Project includes a total of 580 residential units. There are 123 mobile homes on-site that would be removed and replaced by the Project. Vehicular access to the Project site would come from Soledad Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road. Two private driveways/streets would access Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 1-1 2. Executive Summary This section summarizes the characteristics of the proposed Sand Canyon Mixed -Use Project, alternatives, environmental impacts associated with the Project, recommended mitigation measures, and the level of significance of impacts after mitigation. 2.1 Project Applicant Sand Canyon Plaza, LLC Contact: Tom Clark 28504 Soledad Canyon Road Santa Clarita, CA 91387 2.2 Project Description 2.2-1 Project Characteristics This EIR evaluates the proposed Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project. The approximately 87 -acre Project site is located immediately north of Soledad Canyon Road, east of Sand Canyon Road, north of State Route 14 (SR -14), and west of the Pinetree residential community in the City of Santa Clarita. The Project includes redevelopment of the property (currently developed with 123 mobile homes) with a mixed-use community including five Planning Areas as summarized below. Planning Area 1 (Commercial) —Approximately 145,000444,499 square feet of commercial floor including 60,00055,k99 square feet of commercial general retail (inelodingietail and restaurants) and an 85,000;999 -square -foot assisted living facility (up to 140 beds! -20 s) on approximately 9.644 acres. PA -1 also includes a water quality/water feature located at the southwest corner of the Project site. Planning Area 1 is located at the northeast intersection of Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road. Planning Area 2 (Apartments) — 312 multi -family rental units and required parking (including resident and guest spaces) would be developed on 12.2 acres. Planning Area 2 is located directly north of Planning Area 1 along Sand Canyon Road. Planning Area 3 (Townhomes) —1491 townhomes with required parking (including resident and guest spaces) on approximately 10.34- acres. Planning Area 3 is located north of Planning Area 2 along Sand Canyon Road. Planning Area 4 (Single Family Neighborhood A) — 71 single-family detached or a� a ta�phod condominiums with required parking spaces (resident and guest parking) on approximately 7.3 acres. Planning Area 4 is located in the central portion of the Project site north and east of Planning Area 2. Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 2-1 2. Executive Summary Planning Area 5 (Single Family Neighborhood B) — 4875 single-family detached or a� a ta�phod condominiums with required parking (resident and guest parking) on approximately 6_349.8 acres. A 2.0 -acre private recreational area, internal drive aisles, water quality improvements, trails, and other open areas would be provided within PA -5. Planning Area 5 is located in the eastern and northern portions of the Project site. The Project includes a total of 580 residential units. There are 123 mobile homes on-site that would be removed and replaced by the Project. Vehicular access to the Project site would come from Soledad Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road. Two private driveways/streets would access Planning Area 1 (Commercial) from Soledad Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road. Two private streets would access the remaining Planning Areas from Sand Canyon Road. The Project would include grading approximately 2_l million cubic yards of cut and fill balanced on-site. Additional remedial grading (7950,000 cubic yards) would be necessary to accommodate the Project. 2.2-2 Project Objectives The Applicant's Objectives for the proposed Project are as follows: Land Use Planning Objectives 1. Create a new mixed-use community with connected neighborhoods that provides for residential, commercial and recreational uses in close proximity to each other. 2. Provide a sensitive and compatible Project through the use of appropriate grading, landscape, and water quality methods. 3. Provide development and transitional land use patterns that do not conflict with surrounding communities and land uses. 4. Arrange land uses to reduce vehicle miles traveled and energy consumption, and to encourage pedestrian mobility. 5. Design neighborhoods to create a unique identity and sense of place. 6. Design neighborhoods to locate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses in close proximity to each other and major road corridors, transit, and trails. 7. Provide a rich set of public spaces. S. Implement sustainable development principles, including greater energy efficiency, waste reduction, drought -tolerant landscaping, use of water efficiency measures, and use of recycled materials and renewable energy sources. 9. Create and enhance opportunities for non -vehicular travel and encourage pedestrian mobility by providing an internal pedestrian circulation system that links residential Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 2-2 2. Executive Summary 2.6 — Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation be maintained on the Project site for security purposes. The Sierra Hills nighttime lighting during project construction be limited to only those Mitigation community and Sand Canyon Ranch Apartments to the west, Canyon features on the construction site requiring illumination. Collection community to the northwest, and Stetson Ranch community to the MM Aes-5 The Project Applicant, or designee, shall require that all security lights north are considered light-sensitive uses nearest to the Project site. The be properly shielded and projected downwards during construction, ridgeline on the eastern boundary of the Project site would provide buffers such that light is directed only onto the work site. between the construction areas and the light-sensitive uses to the east. MM Aes-6 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City of Santa C a to Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM Aeand MM Aes-5 would Planning Division shall ensure that the following dements are included those planning areas limit the use of construction security lighting to those project plans, as appropriate: in p requiring illumination, and would require all security lights to be properly Al exterior lighting shall be designed and located as to avoid shielded and projected downwards. Furthermore, construction lighting would intrusive effects on adjacent residential properties and be temporary and removed upon completion of construction activities. undeveloped areas adjacent to the Project site. Low -intensity theextProjectrior sing Accordingly, with implementation of mitigation, impacts due to light and glare street lighting and low -intensity shall be used generation during construction are considered less than significant. throughout the development to the extent feasible. Lighting In compliance with City standards and to minimize impacts to off-site fixtures shall use shielding, if necessary, to prevent spill lighting residential uses, the Project would include a Lighting Plan that indicates the on adjacent off-site uses. proposed locations of all outdoor lighting installations. The lighting must Design and placement of site lighting shall minimize glare comply with UDC Chapter 17.15, Property Development Standards, which affecting adjacent properties, buildings, and roadways. requires all light sources to be directed downward and shielded from streets Outdoor lighting along the Project site boundary shall consist of or adjoining properties and would prevent light spillover to adjacent low -intensity downlights, or be equipped with louvers, shields, residential uses. Regardless, mitigation measures have been included to hoods or other screening devices. ensure lighting impacts to off-site uses would be less than significant. Fixtures and standards shall conform to state and local safety and llumination requirements. Therefore, implementation of the Mitigation Measure MM Aes-6 and Buildings shall use low -reflective glass and building materials on compliance with the UDC would reduce long-term light and glare impacts to building exteriors. surrounding uses to a less than significant level. Automatic timers on lighting shall be designed to maximize personal safety during nighttime use while saving energy. Agriculture and Forestry Resources Impact AG -1 — The ateFemeateaedsignificance threshold states that a None required Less than Significant significant impact would occur if a project converts prime agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. The Project site is not within an area of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as identified by the California Department of Conservation's California Important Farmland Finder (accessed March 14, 2016). Therefore, the Project would have no impact to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Impact AG -2 —Within the City of Santa Clarita, there are no agricultural None required Less than Significant Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 2-7 2. Executive Summary 2.6 — Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation preserve areas, no land under a Williamson Act contract, and no land zoned exclusively for agricultural use. Horticulture for commercial sale is permitted in the City's Business Park (BP) and Industrial (1) zones and conditionally permitted in the City's Non -Urban zones and Urban Residential zones 1 and 2. The Project is within the Mixed Use Neighborhood (MXN) and Urban Residential 3 (UR -3) zones, which does not allow horticulture for commercial sale. As-sta�s4y the Property is not located within a Williamson Act Contract. Impacts AG -3 and AG-4—AG-3 and AG -4 address issues regarding the None required Less than Significant rezoning of timberland lands and the loss of forest land or conversion of forestland., or cause rezoning of, forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned as Timberland Production. in add t on, the PpejeGt s to dges net senta n The Project site is currently zoned Mixed Use Neighborhood (MXN) and Urban Residential 3 (UR -3) zones and is not located within an area zoned as Open Space -National Forest (OS -NF). Therefore, implementation of the Project would not conflict with the existing zoning for any forestland. Impact AG -5 — No agricultural operations are currently being conducted on None required Less than Significant the Project site, and the site is not zoned for agricultural uses. In addition, there is no forest land located on the Project site or in the vicinity of the site, as the area is highly urbanized. No farmland or forest land would be converted to other uses under the Project, and therefore, no impact would occur. e. Impact AQ -1 — The net increase in regional operational emissions No mitigation measures are feasible Significant and Unavoidable generated by the Project would exceed the regional thresholds of significance set by the SCAQMD for ROG and NOX during the summertime and the wintertime. These emissions are primarily due to motor vehicles and area source emissions associated with the operation of a relatively high number of proposed residential uses. These emissions are typical for a mixed-use commercial and residential project of this size, and there is no feasible mitigation to reduce these emissions to a less -than -significant level. As such, regional operational air quality impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable. Impact AQ -6 — Will the Project increase the frequency or severity of existing None required Less than Significant air quality violations or cause or contribute to new air quality violations? Impact AQ -7 Will the Project exceed the assumptions utilized in preparing Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 2-8 2. Executive Summary 2.6 — Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants for which the Project region is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. As discussed previously, the operational emissions associated with the Project would exceed the established SCAQMD thresholds for ROG and NOx during the operation of the Project. Because ROG and NOx are considered 03 precursors, and given the region's non -attainment status of 03, the cumulative impact of the Project's operational emissions would be significant. Biological MM Bio -1 Less than Significant After Mitigation The 2011951194araSanta Clarita General Plan Final Environmental Impact (§9999),If activities associated with construction or grading are planned Report (General Plan EIR) reviewed biological resources in Section 4.46 — during the bird nesting/breeding season, generally February through Conservation and Open Space. As shown on General Plan EIR Figure CO- March for early nesting birds .., 4, Sensitive Species Occurrrences,4A ^ �� the Project site has and from mid-March through mid-September for most bird species, the not been found to contain special dant species, and none were observed Applicant shall have a qualified biologist conduct surveys for active nests. To determine the presence/absence of active nests, pre - construction nesting bird surveys shall be conducted weekly beginning 30 days prior to initiation of ground -disturbing activities, with the last survey conducted no more than 3 days prior to the start of clearance/construction work. If ground -disturbing activities are delayed, additional pre- construction surveys shall be conducted so that no more than 3 days have elapsed between the survey and ground -disturbing during rare plant surveys conducted in April, May, and June of 2014 and 2015. One special status plant species, slender mariposa lily, was observed during rare plant surveys in May and June 2017.E PFQ At At,,,.OF8 ,,,,Rd''At,,dfQ119VARG FQ'@t;, G'Y a.'VARt,.., @Rd tt,eP9f9F Eiene„_,,,,, 000F. H,,,.,, VGF ,.,,..,a,.. ,„,,,;,,ose 1 ly has „ MOdGFat„ 00te-Rt;a' t GGGUF R t activities. No special -status amphibians or mammals were found or are likely to occur. �„ exam ; t „� Fes. m n on Of , GG 86 6uGh as 6, , , and the gFOURd f0F �t hawks known to nest on bape . Protected bird nests that are found due to lack of habitat. One special -status reptile has been observed on-site. and one other has a moderate occu rence potential.nest 49vaJhree bird species included on the CDFW Special Animals List were within the construction zone shall be protected by a buffer deemed suitable by a qualified biologist, and verified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Typically, a 300 -foot buffer is required for most species and a 500 -foot buffer for raptor and special -status observed or detected during 2017 field surveys on the subject property. ;JareeOne species of bat does and two other special -status mammals could 4saoccur on the property. There is undeveloped property immediately north of the property, but that is species (CDFW may reduce these buffers on a site-specific basis). Buffer areas shall be delineated with orange construction fencing or other exclusionary material that would inhibit access within the buffer zone. Installation of the exclusionary material delineating the buffer zone shall be verified by a qualified biologist prior to initiation of also bordered by residential land uses that continue to the north and east. There is currently no linkage to nearby natural habitat areas, or corridors to facilitate movement between such areas and the subject property. des ;gnated a A,,,,G,,,t,,, w th the ,,.ea6 ,,,,,,O,,,,,,;Rg the 6 to des ;gnated Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 2-10 2. Executive Summary 2.6 — Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation as _Fban. ISIG thop of these hab tats S gene doped a sons tvq hab tat The construction activities. The buffer zone shall remain intact and maintained while the nest is active (i.e., occupied or being constructed by the adult bird(s)) and until young birds have fledged and no continued use of the nest is observed, as determined by a qualified biologist. Qbsewat on System (PIGS) 5 tool, aGGessed August 17, 2915, gQn4med MM Bio -2 A qualified biologist, approved by the City and CDFW, shall prepare a that nQ sons tve hab tats oF sons We speG es oGGuF on the PFejGGt S to. detailed capture and relocation plan for San Diego tiger (coastal) Implementation of the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on whiptail and coast horned lizard that will include measures to avoid or any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species, minimize take of these sensitive species and identify appropriate One special status plant relocation sites. The plan shall be submitted to CDFW for approval prior community, holly leaf cherry chaparral, would be adversely impacted. liven to implementation. The plan shall specify the pre -construction time frame for the biologist to conduct surveys within appropriate habitat implementation of the Project would not interfere with the movement of any -native resident or migratory fish or areas to capture and relocate individual San Diego tiger whiptail and wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife coast horned lizard in accordance with the approved relocation plan. corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Also, Results of the surveys and relocation efforts shall be provided to the implementation of the Project would not substantially reduce the habitat of a City with a copy to CDFW. fish or wildife species, cause a fish or wild ife population to drop below self- MM Bio -3 A qualified biologist, approved by the City and CDFW, shall prepare a sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or detailed capture and relocation plan for San Diego black -tailed reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or jackrabbit and San Diego desert woodrat that will include measures to animal. Lastly, implementation of the Project would not have a substantial avoid or minimize take of these sensitive species and identify adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of appropriate relocation sites. The plan shall be submitted to the city and the Clean Water Act as no wetlands exist on-site. CDFW for approval prior to implementation. The plan shall specify the pre -construction timeframe for the biologist to conduct surveys within to co 129 and mat -Fe tees exqt e#g,te ;mm, d atel„ „a,,,, ent to toe appropriate habitat areas to capture and relocate individual San Diego ea6t^A�Construction of the Project has the potential to affect black -tailed jackrabbit and San Diego desert woodrat in accordance mature trees that could support nests by native bird species. Such an impact with the approved relocation plan. Results of the surveys and relocation would be a potentially significant under CEQA and a violation of state and efforts shall be provided to the City with a copy to CDFW. federal laws pertaining to the protection of native bird species. MM Bio -4 The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist, approved by the City, to conduct focused bat surveys utilizing visual and electronic detection methods. The qualified biologist shall conduct the surveys between late May and mid-July, the recognized maternity season for most bats in southern California. If any special -status bat species are determined to be roosting on-site, bat boxes of a size and design suitable for the estimated number of bats on-site shall be installed, under the supervision of a qualified bat biologist, in the outer perimeter of the Project site, as close as feasible to adjacent undeveloped land, and a suitable height and solar aspect. Further, if any maternity sites are identified on site, CDFW will be notified immediately. In addition to Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 2-11 2. Executive Summary 2.6 — Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation any other direction by CDFW, no site disturbance shall occur within 300 feet of the occupied roost until it is determined that the maternity roost(s) is no longer active. Additional bat boxes designed to serve as maternity roosts shall be placed as directed by the qualified bat biologist and CDFW. MM Bio -5 A qualified restoration specialist shall ensure that the proposed landscape plants Will not naturalize and cause maintenance or vegetation community degradation in open -space areas of the Project site. Container plants to be installed Within public areas shall be inspected by a qualified restoration specialist for the presence of disease, weeds, and pests, including Argentine ants. Plants With pests, weeds, or diseases shall be rejected. In addition, landscape plants shall not be on the CaHPC California Invasive Plant Inventory. MM Bio-6The Pro iectApplicant shall retain a qualified biologist, approved by the City, to develop a Mariposa Lily Restoration Plan. The Plan shall include the following actions: Mark the extant population when plants are flowering. Collect bulbs (when plant is dormant; summer to fall). • Careful excavation is required to assure collection of the entire bulb and associated bulblets. • Record average depth of bulbs for redication at receiver site. Plant collected bulbs immediately or store bulbs for later direct Panting or growing in pots. A monitoring and reporting program to assure successful establishment of the transplanted lilies. Impact Bio -2 Approximately." aGFe6 of hey leaf GheFFy Cal fGFn'a MM Bio-7MM R A 6 The oF^'^^t A^^"^^n' OF the F^^^^^^'b'^ paFt shall pFepaFe a Less than Significant after x.35 acre of holly leaf cherry chaparral are s Watedn holly leaf Ghepry Festopat on plan that deta is plant ng plans to m t gate Mitigation the nerthernand occur in the northwestern portions of the site. Holy leaf the 'Ass Af 1.66 agpes Af holly leaf Ghen:y 41 anGe vegetat on. Th s plan cherry chaparralauianses-haye has a state rank of S3, meaning they-areit is shall enta 1 plant ng one holly leaf Ghepry shpub fop 9aGh holly leaf rare to uncommon, not yet susceptible to becoming extirpated in the state, but may be if additional populations are destroyed. Therefore, they t meets the CDFW criteria as a sensitive habitat. RethAll of the holly leaf cherry chaparral^"'^^^ s-�^^^��T'^y on-site would be eliminated With development, Wth R the'^^d^^aped ^F^^^ of the ^F^^^Fty.The ProiectApplicant. or equaling 0.354-66 acres and resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation the responsible party, shall prepare a holly leaf cherry chaparral restoration Pan that details planting plans to mitigate the loss of 0.35 Measure MM Bio -76 proposes mitigation through restoration (on-site or off- acres of hdlg leaf cherry chaparral. This plan shall entail five -to -one site), thereby reducing the impact to less than significant. restoration of the removed hdlg leaf cherry alliances to equal 1.75 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 2-12 2. Executive Summary 2.6 — Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation acres. The panting palette shall include a range of native dant species typical of this alliance. The plan shall include temporary irrigation and monitoring for five years after the initial installation to assure establishment of the installed shrubs. Quantifiable success criteria will be based on species diversity, species richness, abundance, percent cover, and non- native cover. The restoration will be deemed successful when the site has been irrigation -free for at least five years and success criteria have remained for five years. The panting site may be located within the landscaped areas of the property. Impact Bio -3 As proposed, all federal and state jurisdictional areas on the MM Bio-8MN! 9 a; The Project impacts shall be subject to the regulations set forth Less than Significant after property would be removed by Project development. Federal jurisdictional by regulatory agencies as part of the jurisdictional permitting process. Mitigation areas impacted would incl ude 0.09 acre of wetland and 1.471 acres of non- The Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and wetland waters. State jurisdictional areas impacted would encompass 0.09 Wildlife, andor the Regional Water Quality Control Board shall require acre of wetland and 2.87 of non -wetland waters. Without appropriate the Project Applicant, or the responsible party, to explore alternatives to authorizations, such a removal would be in violation of federal and state avoid or reduce impacts and shall also require mitigation for all laws, resulting in a significant impact. unavoidable impacts. The Army Corps of Engineers has a "no net loss" policy that requires that any unavoidable impacts to stream values and functions be replaced. In addition, the Regional Water Quality Control Board shall add restrictions to control runoff from the site, require on the site treatment of runoff to improve water quality, and impose Best Management Practices on the construction. Al of the features of the Project that address water quality issues shall be mitigated within the Water Quality Management Plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Impact Bio -4 The Project site is sempletely surrounded on 9three sides by None required Less than Significant development, is not connected to adjacent natural habitat areas, and does not lie within nor provide a corridor that would facilitate movement between such areas and the subject property. On the fourth side to the north, there is a small area of undeveloped open space which is itself bordered by development. The western ephemeral drainage is undergrounded at the existing mobile home development in the southwest portion of the site, and does not serve as a localized movement path, except for a short distance off site to the north. As such, impacts to wildife movement from Project implementation are anticipated to be less than significant. Impact Bio -5 Three protected trees have been identified as coast live oak MM Bio -98 The Project Applicant, or the responsible party, shall be responsible for Less than Significant after (Quercus agnfolia) on the Project site. The trees are identified as #1, #2 and implementing the following maintenance and care measures for on-site Mitigation #3. Tree #2 is classified as a "heritage tree' having a trunk diameter of 46 oak trees prior to, dud ng, and post -construction. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 2-13 2. Executive Summary 2.6 — Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation Wildlife. Therefore, the Project would not affect a Significant Ecological Area or Significant Natural Area. Cultural Resources Impact CR -1 — Records searches performed for the Project site and a site None required Less than Significant survey did not identify any historical resources within the Project site. Currently, there are 123 mobile home units on the Project site. Development of the residential or commercial uses proposed by the Project would therefore not affect any historical resources. There are no previously recorded cultural resources within the Project site. Therefore, impacts related to historic resources would be less than significant. Impact CR -2 — Previous cultural resources technical investigations and CR -1 Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the Less than Significant significance of a historical resource, as defined in &15064.57Weuk he archival records for the Project vicinity indicate that there is a low potential for the inadvertent discovery of cultural resources during earth moving activities related to the Project. Furthermore, the Project Applicant has §15964.52 entered into a consultation agreement with the Tataviam that would ensure their involvement through Project implementation. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant. Thus, a mitigation measure has been provided in the unlikely scenario that artifacts are found during grading and construction activities. Impact CR -3 — Portions of the Project site are hilly in nature and the site None required Less than Significant does not contain any prominent geologic features or known paleontological resources. The records search and the site survey performed for the Project site did not identity any existing paleontological resources within the site. Consequently, there is little potential for the Project to disturb or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologic resource site or geologic feature, and less than significant impacts would occur. Impact CR-4—There are no known cemeteries or burial grounds on the MM CR -2 If human remains are encountered during excavation and grading Less than Significant after Project site. As previously discussed, the site, as with other areas in the activities within the project site, the contractor shall stop such activities. Mitigation Santa Clanta Valley, has a history of use by Native Americans, therefore, In the event of accidental discovery or recognition of any human there is potential for archaeological resources, including burial grounds, to remains there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the exist on the Project site. Because the potential exists for human remains to subject site or any nearby areas reasonably suspected to overlie be unearthed during earthwork and grading of the Project site, impacts adjacent human remains and the following steps shall betaken: would be potentially significant. The coroner of the City in which the remains are discovered must be contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required, and, If the remains are of Native American origin, either of the following steps shall be taken: Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 2-15 2. Executive Summary 2.6 — Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation unavoidable. Population PH -1 '^ 4ddi.,m' ^n 'The City of Santa Oarita General Plan contains numerous None required Less than Significant other goals, policies, and actions supporting the creation of housing opportunities within the City. The City of Santa Clarita General Plan also includes various policies that encourage infill development and would be expected to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and associated air pollutant emissions compared to previous low density development within the City. The Project is considered an infill development, as the site is surrounded on all sides by urban development. Nnew Project residential and employment generating land uses would result in a total population increase of 2,26120 persons. The additional population associated with potential employees relocating to the City and occupying existing either vacant housing or new housing has already been accounted for in the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. Further, approximately 3,116 unemployed persons currently reside within the City. Some of these currently unemployed persons could fill jobs created by the Project. In conclusion, the additional 149 jobs to be provided by the Project have been accounted for in the City of Santa Clarita General Plan and in SCAG's 2020 forecasts. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. PH -2 and PH -3 Implementation of the Project would result in less than None required Less than Significant impacts with respect to resident displacement or the need for replacement housing. Parks and Recreation Rec 1 and Rec-2 Based on 3.10 persons per household, the development None required Less than Significant of 580 single-family and multi -family residential units would result in a population increase of 1,798 persons, which would require a minimum of 5.39 acres of parkland. However, the City's General Plan strongly encourages new development to provide fees and/or parkland at a rate of five acres per 1,000 persons. Therefore, consistent with the General Plan the Project would be required to provide 8.99 acres of parkland. On-site recreational areas may receive credit against a portion (up to 30%) of the parkland acreage requirement. Prior to Project development, the Project Applicant will be required to pay for an appraisal to establish the value of a finished acre of land in the Project area. The City will collect fees based on Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 2-42 2. Executive Summary 2.6 — Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation PS -Libraries Residents of the Project would generate new tax revenues MM PS -13 The Project Applicant shall pay a library facilities mitigation fee. Less than Significant after and, as noted above, funding sources for the Santa Clarita Public Library Currently this fee is $800.00 per residential unit. This is the estimated Mitigation consist of property taxes, state assistance, and revenue from fines, fees, fee that would be collected to pay for newlibrary construction and items and other miscellaneous revenue. According to Library staff, increased tax totaling $464,000.00. revenues funding addresses only library operations and, because of uncertainty regarding General Fund contribution levels, it is not adequate to offset the impact of the Project on the Santa C arita Public Library's ability to construct new libraries and purchase new items (e.g., books, periodicals, audio cassettes, videos). Consequently, the tax revenues collected would not adequately cover all the costs of serving the Project population, and a significant impact on the library system would result. Traffic and Circulation Buildout of the Project would occur over approximately 18 months. During MM T-1 Sand Canyon at Soledad Canyon. Modify traffic signal timing to Less than Significant after construction of the Project, construction workers would arrive at and depart coordinate with Kenroy Avenue and SR -14 SB Ramp intersections Mitigation from the Project site during off-peak hours, minimizing trips during the AM along Sdedad Canyon Road. and PM peak traffic periods. As such, construction -related trips associated MM T-2 SR -14 SB Ramps at Soledad Canyon. Modify traffic signal to change with buildout of the Project would result in less than significant impact. westbound left -turn phasing from permissive to protected left -turn Based on the mixed-use trip generation model described above, which was hasin approved by the Santa Clarita Department of Public Works, buildout of the MM T-3 The Project Developer shall enter into a Mitigation Agreement with Project would generate approximately 393 new AM peak hour trips, 695 new Caltrans. Said Mitigation Agreement shall be finalized prior to the PM peak hour trips, and 7,986 new daily trips. recordation of a final map. The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two None required Less than Significant miles of an airport or a private airstrip. There are no airports or private airstrips within or adjacent to the City of Santa Clarita. Thus, implementation of the Project would not result in any change in air traffic patterns or traffic levels. Therefore, no impact would occur in this regard. Implementation of the Project would not result in the construction and/or operation of hazardous design features (e.g., sharp curves and/or dangerous intersections) or the interaction of incompatible uses. However, the Project's goals and policies do encourage pedestrian linkages, the implementation of bicycle facilities, and the reconfiguration of roadways. Thus, it is imperative that facilities designed for non -automobile modes include enhanced safety features to minimize conflicts between transit riders, bicyclists, pedestrians, and motor vehicles. The Project incorporates street improvement standards that would provide a defined and often separated space for pedestrians, motorists, and bicyclists. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 2-45 2. Executive Summary 2.6 — Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impacts Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation project design. As proposed, the Project would not conflict with transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, but instead, enhances these facilities. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur. Even though the amount of increased traffic due to the Project would not MM T-4 Sand Canyon at Soledad Canyon (Cumulative Conditions). Modify exceed the CMP threshold of significance since the V/C increase due to the traffic signal timing to coordinate with Kenroy Avenue and SR -14 SB Project would be less than 0.02 at each location, the Project would Ramp intersections along Soledad Canyon Road. contribute its pro rata share to the anticipated costs for design and MM T-5 Sand Canyon at Soledad Canyon (Cumulative Conditions). Modify implementation of future improvements on SR -14 as required by Caltrans. intersection to reshipe one northbound right -turn lane to a through lane (for 2 NB Left, 2 NB Through and 1 NB Right) (Project Share = 24%). MM T-6 SR -14 SB Ramps at Soledad Canyon (Cumulative Conditions). Modify traffic signal to change westbound left -turn phasing from permissive to protected left -turn phasinopFetoGWe pei:m 66ve. MM T-7 SR -14 Freeway Mainline (Cumulative Conditions). Contribute pro -rata share to the anticipated costs for design and implementation of future improvements. (Project Share = 1.6%). Utilities and Service Systems Util - Solid Waste The implementation of Mitigation Measures MM Util-2 MM Util-1 The project application shall complete and submit to the Building & Less than Significant after through MM Util-4 and compliance with the Municipal Code and General Safety Division a Construction and Demolition Materials Management Mitigation Plan goals and policies, long-term operational impacts on a Project -specific Plan (C&DMMP), approved by the City's Director of Public Works, or basis would be less than significant. the Directors Designee, on a C&DMMP form approved by the City. The completed C&DMMP, at a minimum, shall indicate all of the following: 1. the estimated weight of project C&D materials, by materials type, to be generated, 2. the maximum weight of C&D materials that it is feasible to divert, considering cost, energy consumption and delays, via reuse or recycling, 3. the vendor or facility that the Applicant proposes to use to collect, divert, market, reuse or receive the C&D materials, 4. the estimated weight of residual C&D materials that would be transported for disposal in a landfill or transformation facility, and 5. the estimated weight of inert waste to be removed from the waste stream and not disposed of in a solid waste landfill. (General Plan El Mitigation Measure 3.17-6) MM Util-2 The Project Applicant shall provide adequate areas for the collection and loading of recyclable materials (i.e., paper products, glass, and other recyclables) in compliance with the State Model Ordinance, Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 2-47 3. Project Description 3.8 — Land Use Designations and Zoning 3.8 Land Use Designations and Zoning The Project site has a General Plan and zoning designation of MXN (Mixed Use Neighborhood) and Urban Residential 3 (UR -3). This zone is intended for mixed-use development, which is encouraged to create neighborhoods that integrate residential uses with complementary commercial uses. The MXN zone allows for a maximum density of 18 dwelling units per acre. Approximately 2.7 acres of the site are in the Urban Residential 3 (UR -3) General Plan and zoning designations. No development (i.e., buildings) is proposed within the UR -3 zoned area. Approximately 77 acres of the Project site are dedicated to residential land uses and accompanying open space. Under this designation, and not taking into account hillside ordinance requirements, the Project site could support up to 1,386 residential units. Approximately 10 acres of the site are designated for commercial land use. Under the MXN and UR -3 designations the Project site could accommodate up to 217,800 square feet of commercial uses. 3.9 Phasing The Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project would likely be developed in a single phase. Grading and site development would occur site -wide. It is expected that the three residential product types, the commercial area, and various on-site and off-site infrastructure would be constructed at or near the same time. 3.10 Requested Project Approvals The Applicant is requesting the Project approvals described below, which would govern development of the proposed Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project. Prior to issuing Project approvals, the City must certify that this EIR: 1) has been reviewed and considered; 2) has adequately analyzed the potential impacts of the Project; 3) has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Environmental Guidelines, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The requested Project approvals are described in further detail below. Tentative Tract Map No. 53074. The Applicant is proposing to subdivide the property to facilitate construction of 580 residential units (119 detached44_slot condominium units, 14942 attached townhomes/condominium units, and 312 apartment units), up to 60,00055,,600 square feet of commercial uses (retail and restaurants), an 85,000 ;999 -square -foot assisted living facility (up to 1404-29 beds), other lots for landscape/open space, private streets, and recreation areas. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 3-6 3. Project Description 3.10 — Requested Project Approvals 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 14-014. The Applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for development within a Planned Development (PD) Overlay Zone. Any new proposal for development in a PD Overlay requires the submittal of a Conditional Use Permit, which is intended to provide for additional discretion for previously vacant or underutilized parcels. Additionally, the Applicant is requesting approval of an 85,000 5,QW-square-foot assisted living facility with up to 140420 beds. A Conditional Use Permit is required to permit the assisted living facility within the zone. 3. Hillside Development Review No. 14-001. The Applicant is requesting approval of a Hillside Development Review Permit to allow development on slopes over 10%. 4. Ridgeline Alteration Permit No. 14-001. The Applicant is requesting approval of a Ridgeline Alteration Permit to allow for development in a Ridgeline Preservation (RP) Overlay Zone, more specifically to allow for development within 100 feet vertically and horizontally of a significant ridgeline. 5. Minor Use Permit No. 14-016. The Applicant is requesting approval of a Minor Use Permit to allow for the commercial floor area ratio (FAR) to be less than the minimum required by the MXN zone. Under the MXN zone requirements, the minimum floor area ratio of commercial uses on the site would be 0.2:1 or 83,63587,728 square feet of commercial floor area. The Applicant is proposing to develop the site with up to 60,0005-5,600 square feet of commercial uses, which is a floor area ratio of 0.14013. 6. Oak Tree Permit No. 14-008. The Applicant is requesting approval of an Oak Tree Permit to allow for removal of two non -heritage oak trees and to permit Project grading to encroach within the protected zone of one heritage oak tree. Permits and Approvals for the Project are highlighted in Table 3-1 below. Table 3-1 Future Agency Actions Agency Action Required California Department of Transportation Encroachment Permit Regional Water Quality Control Board National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit, Section 401 permit under the federal CI can Water Act California Department of Fish and Wildife Streambed Alteration Agreement per Fish & Wildlife Code Section 1602 U.S. Department of Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit under the federal Clean Water Act South Coast Air Quality Management District Various permits for air emissions regulation found in the Air Quality Management Plan This table is not intended to provide the complete and final list of future actions required to implement the Project. This is an attempt to identify those actions that are known at this time to be required in the future. Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 3-9 3. Project Description 3.13 — Description of Project Table 3-2 Sand Canyon Land Use Summary Planning Residential Area No. Project Use Commercial Square Footage Dwelling Units Acreage PA -1 Commercial/Retail/Restaurant/ 6060 00066 99 -SF Commercial n/a 9.&19-0 Assisted Living Retail/Restaurant, 85 0007 -5,999 -SF Assisted Living Facility Beds, 29 Rooms) N/A Open Space PA -2 Multi -Family Attached PA -3 Multi -Family Attached PA -4 Single -Family Detached 7.3 Condominiums PA -5 Single -Family Detached Condominiums 6 319-9 Streets Private Park/Recreation Center N//A Drainage Basin 6_37.2 Open Space/Landscaped Areas N/A Riaht of Wav Dedication N/A 312 12.2 N/A 122 10.1 71 7.3 N/A 75 6 319-9 N/A N//A N/A 6_37.2 N/A N/A 2_0 N/A N/A 1.0 N/A N/A 31.428.13 N/A N/A 1.11-9 Total 60 00065,699 -SF commercial retail/restaurant, 580 apprex87.5 85 00076;999 -SF assisted living facility Source: Tentative Tract Map No. 053074, July 2017"GvGm4er-2 ^ As provided in Table 3-2 above, the approximately 87 -acre Project site would be developed with up to 60,00055-,6W square feet of commercial/retail/restaurant uses and 85,00075 099 square feet of assisted living facilities (up to 1404,24 beds). Also proposed on the Project site are 580 residential units comprising 461434 multi -family units (including up to 312 apartment units) and 119446 single-family condos. If approval of the Project is granted, Project conditions of approval would permit modifications to building locations, building footprints, and product types shown on Figure 3-4, Tentative Tract Map 5307 The approximately 87 -acre Project site is divided into five Planning Areas. Figure 3-5 depicts each Planning Area in relationship to the entire Project site. Details further describing the Planning Areas are provided below. Planning Area 1 (PA -1), Commercial — Approximately 145,000139,699 square feet of commercial/residential floor including 60.000-55,640 square feet of commercial (retail and restaurants) and an 85.000,E_999 -square -foot assisted living facility (up to 140 bed"Q9 reaffis) on approximately 9_649 acres. Planning Area 1 is located at the northeast intersection of Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road and is depicted in Figure 3-6. PA -1 also includes a water quality/water feature located at the southwest corner of the Project site. Consistent with the requirements of the MXN zone, the maximum building height in PA -1 would be 5055 feet (assisted living facility). The remaining commercial buildings in PA -1 would range in height from 20 to 35 feet. Access to PA -1 would occur via Soledad Canyon Road and "A" Drive (left in/right in and right out) and Sand Canyon Road and "A" Drive (left in/right in and right out). Up Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 3-12 3. Project Description 3.13 — Description of Project to 41527$ parking spaces would be provided for the retail commercial area contingent upon final uses and square footage, which includes 151 surface spaces and 264 spaces in a parking structure. Of the 415 parking_ps aces, uJTTp to 7069 spaces would be provided for the assisted living facility contingent upon the final bed count. Illustrative renderings are provided in Figure 3-7 and Figure 3-8. Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 3-13 3. Project Description 3.13 — Description of Project Source: Alliance Land Planning & Engineering Inc., Tentative Tract Map 053074, Site Development Plan, July 20174QL1"^R Figure 3-4 Tentative Tract Map 53074 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 3-14 �� dill lyr--- Is Source: Alliance Land Planning & Engineering Inc., Tentative Tract Map 053074, Site Development Plan, July 20174QL1"^R Figure 3-4 Tentative Tract Map 53074 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 3-14 3. Project Description 3.13 — Description of Project Source: Alliance Land Planning & Engineering, July 2017404a 44 Figure 3-5 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Planning Areas Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 3-15 3. Project Description 3.13 — Description of Project Source: Alliance Land Planning & Engineering, July 201794494 Figure 3-6 Planning Area 1 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 3-16 3. Project Description 3.13 - Description of Project Planning Area 2 (Multi -Family Attached) - 312 multi -family units (intended to be rental units) and required parking per the MXN aBa�3 zone requirements would be developed on 12.2 acres. One private recreational area, internal drive aisles, water quality improvements, and other open areas would be provided within PA -2. The maximum building height in PA -2 is 50; feet. Access to PA -2 would be from Sand Canyon Road via "A" and 'B" Drives. Approximately 1 acre of the existing Sand Canyon Road right-of-way would be vacated by the City and included in PA -2, as it would no longer be needed for roadway purposes. Planning Area 2 is located directly north of PA -1 along Sand Canyon Road and is depicted in Figure 3-9, Planning Area 24anping-A+ea-2. An illustrative rendering is provided in Figure 3-10. Planning Area 3 (Multi -Family Attached Townhomes) -1494 townhomes with required parking (per the MXNdTT zone requirements) on approximately 10.344:1 acres. One prA,ate Water quality improvements, internal drive aisles, trails and other open areas would be provided within PA -3. The maximum building height in PA -3 is 40 feet. Access to PA -3 would be from Sand Canyon Road via 'B", "C" and "D" Drives. Planning Area 3 is located north of Planning Area 2 along Sand Canyon Road and is depicted in Figure 3-11, Planning Area Mlanning Area 3. Planning Area 4 (Single -Family Detached Condominium nPt_,.h Pd .._ 4ttae ed (,.._aas) -71 units with required parking (per MXN and UR -3 zone requirements) on approximately 7.3 acres. Internal drive aisles, water quality improvements, trails, and other open areas would be provided within PA - 4. The 2.0 -acre private recreational area located in PA -5 would also service PA -4. Access to PA -4 would be from Sand Canyon Road via 'B," "C," and "D" Drives. Planning Area 4 is located in the central portion of the Project site north and east of Planning Area 2 and is depicted in Figure 3-12, Planning Area Vlanning-Afvea 4. Planning Area 5 (Single -Family Detached Condominiums44u4i-F-a _PPta,.w,.a of -Attached Condos) - 4875 units with required parking (per MXN and UR -3 zone requirements) on approximately 6_314.0 acres. A 2.0-acreOne private recreational area, internal drive aisles, water quality improvements, trails and other open areas would be provided within PA -5. Access to PA -5 would be from Sand Canyon Road via 'B", "C" and "D" Drives. Planning Area 5 is located in the eastern and northern portions of the Project site and is depicted in Figure 3-13 Figs 3 14. The Project includes a total of 580 residential units (replacing the existing 123 mobile homes), 60,00055,600 square feet of retail commercial uses, and an 85,000 _400 -square -foot assisted living facility. Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 3-19 3. Project Description 3.13 — Description of Project Figure 3-9 Planning Area 2 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 3-20 3. Project Description 3.13 — Description of Project Figure 3-11 Planning Area 3 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 3-22 3. Project Description 3.13 — Description of Project Source: Alliance Land Planning & Engineering, AUQUSt 201694049 Figure 3-12 Planning Area 4 Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 3-23 3. Project Description 3.13 — Description of Project Source: Alliance Land Planning & Engineering, July 201794494 Figure 3-13 Planning Area Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 3-24 3. Project Description 3.13 — Description of Project Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 3-25 �4 LANNING /W 5 w „� AREA .aiv sa%�r �� � \ � !6i •� // � /` SRT � yv �/ l^rl�/�/ \�ti.;; /PLANNING PLANNING AREA 5 SUMMARY coM1AERCwL NESIOENTIPL ACRE P NIW LOT PROJECTNBE SGCARE DWELLING MEAW. NDS. POCTAGE UNITS e n UNCLE rAWLV U �mm xR ALLIANCE LANN NGV ��� / RLANNING I9-21 ie IO.O un[ 1LOMN'r e1.nNNnc x 0.1m 1 DETACHED (3,DOO sr, x LOT SIZE) 9961..,,. AIN.,.,.,, .,.,a pIaRRRog. 9RO ROOF RO W4W46 Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 3-25 3. Project Description 3.15 — Grading PDF -12 The Applicant shall implement all control measures required and/or recommended by the SCAQMD (i.e., Rules 403, 1108, and 1113), including but not limited to the following: • Use watering to control dust generation during demolition of structures or break-up of pavement; • Water active grading areas and unpaved surfaces at least three times daily; • Cover stockpiles with tarps or apply non-toxic chemical soil binders; • Limit vehicle speed on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour; • Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved construction parking areas and staging areas; • Provide daily clean-up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets from the Project site; • Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 15 miles per hour over a 30 -minute period or more; and • An information sign shall be posted at the entrance to the construction site that identifies the permitted construction hours and provides a telephone number to call and receive information about the construction project or to report complaints regarding excessive fugitive dust generation. Any reasonable complaints shall be rectified within 24 hours of their receipt. 3.15 Grading Demolition/Site Clearing The Project would require demolition of the remaining mobile home units and site clearing. In addition to the removal of the mobile homes, demolition would include the removal of asphalt, concrete, other ancillary structures to the existing mobile home park, trees, fences, and other existing debris. Grading/Foundation The Project would include grading approximately 2_12 million cubic yards of cut and fill balanced on-site and is depicted on Figure 3-14Pig - ? 1°, Cut and Fill Mav(;t1t anti Pill Map. Additional remedial grading (approximately 750,000 0,QW cubic yards) would be necessary to accommodate site development. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 3-27 3. Project Description 3.15 — Grading l i ,l MEND 0 FLL (Z=,OW A ✓�J d 6 a iH � � t��- n' - 3 Source: Alliance Land Planning & Engineering, AUQUSt 2017&F2443 Figure 3-14 Cut and Fill Map Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 3-28 3. Project Description 3.16 — Mobility Plan 3.16 Mobility Plan The Project provides for non -vehicular modes of transportation in a system of trails, sidewalks and pedestrian pathways commonly known as the Mobility Plan). The Mobility Plan achieves Project objectives by creating and enhancing opportunities for non -vehicular travel through encouraging pedestrian mobility from the Project's residential areas to the commercial uses. The Mobility Plan can be found in Figure 4.19-3, Existing and Future Bicycle Facilitiesr*istmg and c..tm@ Pie el@ Papi„�itos (page 4.19-144-49-T4), and Figure 4.14-2, City of Santa Clarita Trail Sytternr'44a (page 4.14-1Q4'n-io). Off-site access to surrounding uses and the future Vista Canyon Metrolink Station are shown on Figure 3.15, Off -Site Mobility Plan, and Figure 3.16, Off -Site Mobility Plan to Metrolink. 3.17 Drainage/Water Quality The Drainage and Water Quality Plan incorporates methodologies to meet or exceed the ongoing National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. The plan includes a comprehensive series of drainage, flood control and water quality improvements designed for the Project. Project Design Features (PDFs) incorporated into the Project include site design, source control, treatment control and infiltration. As currently planned, storm water runoff from all developed areas of the Project would be routed to bioretention areas, vegetated swales and infiltration treatment control devices. These water quality improvements would be designed to operate off-line, receiving dry weather flows, small storm flows and the initial portion of large storm flows. 3.18 Conceptual Landscape Plan The Conceptual Landscape Plan is shown on Figure 34ZP�. The conceptual landscape plan for the Project focuses primarily on the use of native and drought tolerant trees and plant species to create a natural and vibrant environment. All plant species have been selected due to their ability to thrive in the Santa Clarita climate and their potential to add complexity and texture to the open space/landscaped areas within the Project. The use of turf shall be very limited and only used in locations where it would serve for passive or active recreation. The irrigation systems would be designed, installed, operated and maintained in conformance with the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and the City of Santa Clarita Landscaping Standards. The main objective for the irrigation design is to minimize water use and maximize efficiency. These objectives would be met using Smart ET Based controllers, hydro -zoning, moisture sensors, rain shut-off devices, and drip irrigation. Although portions of the native planting areas may receive temporary irrigation, a permanent irrigation system is important for a majority of the landscape areas to comply with the Los Angeles County Fire Department Fuel Modification Guidelines. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 3-29 3. Project Description - ear•^,.� as IMALK r eouri.ournan � A ry e N Pieore 315 Off -Site Mobility Plan 3.18—Conceptual Landscape Plan a ` Tebo Envirorunental Consulting, Inc Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed- Use Project Draft EM March 2017 330 3. Project Description 3.18 — Conceptual Landscape Plan Figure 3-16 Off -Site Mobility Plan to Metrolink Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 3-31 SAISL�NYN PUVA OFF-SITE SrATZ ROUTE 14 (� I 1 I� JI `A.I+��I IJ IJ LILT JJI.TJT7 3 �fl '•'Y ~� �i 7 •. u • L • Jt K �I �fLF^�I - - TM ,< Sourm Alliance Land Planning & g Inc., April 2017 Figure 3-16 Off -Site Mobility Plan to Metrolink Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 3-31 3. Project Description 3.18 — Conceptual Landscape Plan F�¢ure 3-17 Conceptual Landscape Plan Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 3-32 3. Project Description 3.19 — Existing Regional Circulation 3.19 Existing Regional Circulation The City of Santa Clarita is served by an existing network of highways, roadways, multi -use trails, commuter rail and transit service. Primary regional access in the Santa Clarita Valley is provided by the I-5 Freeway, located south and west of the Project site. SR -14, located south of the Project site, also provides a regional link between the Los Angeles basin and the high desert communities of Palmdale and Lancaster. Soledad Canyon Road, directly south of the Project site, provides secondary regional access extending north to Palmdale and Lancaster and south and west to Saugus and Valencia. The Metrolink Antelope Valley line serves the region by connecting the Antelope Valley with points south, including Santa Clarita, to Union Station in downtown Los Angeles. The Sand Canyon Plaza Project would be located less than 1 mile away from the approved Vista Canyon Metrolink Station which is expected to open in 2019/2020. The City is also served by the City -owned and operated bus service. Santa Clarita Transit (SCT) provides local and regional bus service, operating local routes within the Santa Clarita Valley and regional routes to and from Los Angeles, Antelope Valley, Van Nuys and Warner Center. 3.20 Local Roadway Circulation and Access The Project's roadway network is designed as an orderly extension of the regional circulation patter in the Santa Clarita Valley. The network is designed to integrate modes of travel, accommodate anticipated traffic demands generated by the Project and surrounding development and provide roadway improvements that connect the Project to SR -14 and the rest of the Valley. Vehicular access to and from the Project site is proposed from two existing roadways (Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road). More specifically, access to the site would be from: 1) Soledad Canyon Road via "A" Drive; 2) Sand Canyon Road via "A" Drive; 3) Sand Canyon Road via "B" Drive; and, 4) Sand Canyon Road via "C" Drive. Sand Canyon Road is a north -south arterial with two lanes between Sierra Highway and Soledad Canyon Road, four lanes between Soledad Canyon Road and SR -14 northbound ramps, and back down to two lanes south of SR -14 northbound ramps. It is designated as a Major Highway between Soledad Canyon Road and Lost Canyon Road, a Secondary Highway between Sierra Highway and Soledad Canyon Road, and a Limited Secondary Highway south of Lost Canyon Road. Proposed roadway improvements are depicted in Figure 3- 18Figa Soledad Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road Cross-Section2S ale dad (;a yan The Project would complete various improvements to Soledad Canyon Road to include widening for roadway purposes. The Project would also widen Sand Canyon Road for roadway and trail purposes and construct two single lane roundabouts; one at "B" Drive and Sand Canyon Road and the other at "C" Drive and Sand Canyon Road. Most of Sand Canyon Road would remain at two lanes (one in each direction), with grading of the full right-of-way to potentially accommodate widening if needed in the future. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 3-33 3. Project Description 3.20 - Local Roadway Circulation and Access The interior of the Project would be served by private roadways. Private roadway right-of-way dimensions are provided in Figure 3-1214g+me-3-1d, Private Roadways Cross-SectionsPfivatp Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 3-34 3. Project Description 3.20 — Local Roadway Circulation and Access SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD NOT TO SCALE SAND CANYON ROAD NOT TO SCALE Source: Sand Canyon Plaza Tentative Tract Map 053074, Alliance Land Planning & Engineering, Juv 20174424Q4 asaF�¢ure 3-18 Soledad Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road Cross -Sections Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 3-35 3. Project Description 3.20 — Local Roadway Circulation and Access CA W1 ttl tS m' �tl wux raver u vwwr wue —S ve t NOW M Yr ys (ruT y� � u ax t, DRIVE 'A' (PRIVATE) NOT N e CA w. tS if N' le' s' e' Y S wMlt PItwY RtW 9CEYWN M � 7 DRIVE 'B' AND 'C' (PRIVATE) NOT TO $CILE C 1e• y DRIVES 'Q' (PRIVATE WfIHOUT PARKING) Nor TOecu[ n• u' u• e' 2, PMNLEL PKO wY aIOfNWM vuwro (M7 a' , lnP7M1A r y I u a u zx ply DRIVES 'D' (PRIVATE WITH PARKING) wor m uua Source: Sand Canyon Plaza Tentative Tract Map 053074, Alliance Land Planning & Engineering, July 2017442kg,-'"^R asaZF�¢ure 3-19 Private Roadways Cross -Sections Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 3-36 3. Project Description 3.21 Recreation 3.21— Recreation As Eliscussed lgrev" ttsl. t4 fee Two private recreational areas are planned for the 19repesed Project, including a two -acre private park. At least one of the faciliitesyAaek€a would contain a pool, a spa, a restroom facility, and a recreation building. 3.22 Open Space The Project includes 31.4 acres of open space throughout the site, including natural habitat areas on the northern portion of the ridgeline. Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 3-37 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.3 - Air Quality Table 4.3-7 Localized On -Site Peak Daily Construction Emissions Construction Phasea Total On -Site Emissions NOxb co Pounds Per Da PM10 PM2.5 Demolition/Site Clearing 45.66 35.03 2.34 2.15 SCAQMD Localized Thresholds 114.00 590.00 4.00 3.00 Significant Impact? No No No No Site Preparation/Grading/Foundations 74.81 49.14 6.20 4.62 SCAQMD Localized Thresholds 216.69 1,385.92 10.00 5.31 Significant Impact? No No No No Buil din Construction Emissions 45.58 34.47 2.87 2.66 SCAQMD Localized Thresholds 246.00 1,644.00 12.00 6.00 Significant Impact? No No No No Note: Calculations assume compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust. a Based on the Project's construction assumptions outlined previously, the applicable LST for demolition is 1.0 acre, grading is 4.0 acres, and building construction is 5.0 acres. The localized thresholds for each phase are based on a receptor distance of 25 meters (82 feet) in SCAQMD's SRA 13. Where necessary, LST calculated per SCAQMD Linear Regression Methodology. b The localized thresholds listed for NOx in this table takes into consideration the gradual conversion of NOx to NO2, and are provided in the mass rate look -up tables in the "Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology' document prepared by the SCAQMD. The analysis of localized air quality impacts associated with NOx emissions is focused on NO2 levels as they are associated with adverse health effects. c The building construction emission total includes architectural coating and paving emissions. CalEEMod data provided in the Air Quality Technical Report (PES, December 2015) included in Appendix 2-1 to this EIR. Project Design Features The following project design feature has been incorporated into the Project. PDF -12 The Applicant shall implement all control measures required and/or recommended by the SCAQMD (i.e., Rules 403, 1108, and 1113), including but not limited to the following: • Use watering to control dust generation during demolition of structures or break-up of pavement; • Water active grading areas and unpaved surfaces at least three times da�1v; • Cover stockpiles with tarps or apply non-toxic chemical soil binders; • Limit vehicle speed on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour; • Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved construction parking areas and staging areas; • Provide daily clean-up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets from the Project site; • Suspend excavation and grading activitv when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 15 miles per hour over a 30 -minute period or more; and An information sign shall be posted at the entrance to the construction site that identifies the permitted construction hours and provides a telephone number to call and receive information about the construction project or to report complaints regarding excessive fugitive dust generation. Anv reasonable complaints shall be rectified within 24 hours of their receipt Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Draft EIR 4.3-28 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.3 — Air Quality q4uptufps of break up of 19aveFnent-; 3. Operational Emissions Operational emissions associated with the Project were also calculated using CalEEMod 2013.2.2 and the information provided in the traffic study prepared for the Project. Operational emissions associated with the Project would be comprised of mobile source emissions, energy demand, and other area source emissions. Mobile source emissions are generated by the increase in motor vehicle trips to and from the Project site associated with operation of the Project. Area source emissions are generated by natural gas consumption for space and water heating, and landscape maintenance equipment. To determine if a regional air quality impact would occur, the increase in emissions is compared with the SCAQMD's recommended regional thresholds for operational emissions (see Table 4.3-5, SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholdscr n - page 4.3-20 above). As discussed above, the SCAQMD has developed LSTs that are based on the number of pounds of emissions per day that can be generated by a project that would cause or contribute to adverse localized air quality impacts. However, because the LST methodology is applicable to projects where emission sources occupy a fixed location, LST methodology would typically not apply to the operational phase of the Project because emissions are primarily generated by mobile sources traveling on local roadways over potentially large distances or areas. LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a project if the project includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 4.3-29 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 — Biological Resources 4.4 Biological Resources 4.4-1 Summary No special status plant species have been reported to occur on the Project site, and none were observed during focused rare plant surveys conducted in April, May, and June of 2014 and 2015. One special status plant species, slender mariposa lily, was observed during focused rare plant survevs in Mav and Tune 2017. �n�ex�se�aeedsxrs �raseeee�e�!esxsrs�edsr�eetxee�ee� No special -status amphibians were found or are likely to occur, due to lack of habitat. One special - status reptile has been observed on-site, and one other has a moderate occurrence potential. ThreeSe�-ex bird species included on the CDFW Special Animals List were observed or detected during 2017 field surveys on the subject property. One Tkree-species of bats does occur and two other special -status mammals could alss occur on the property. There is undeveloped property immediately north of the property, but that is also bordered by residential land uses that continue to the north and east. There is currently no linkage to nearby natural habitat areas, or corridors to facilitate movement between such areas and the subject property. Implementation of mitigation measures would result in less than significant impacts. 4.4-2 Introduction This section identifies plant and animal resources within and adjacent to the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project site and evaluates the significance of the potential changes in these factors that could result from implementation of the Project. 1. Investigative Methods A Biological Assessment (Biological Assessment — Sand Canyon Plaza, November 2015) was prepared for the Project by Impact Sciences, Inc. (Appendix 3). The investigative methods used to prepare the Biological Assessment are summarized below. Subsequent to the 2015 Biological Assessment. the following survevs were conducted: 11 Focused Rare Plant Survevs (Mav and Tune 2017): 21 Habitat and Acoustic Bat Survevs (Mav and Tune 2017): and 31 Focused Gnatcatcher Surveys (March through Tune 2017 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 4.4-1 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 — Biological Resources Literature Search The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)11 and the California Native Plant Society database (CNPS)11 were queried prior to the site survey to identify previously reported special - status plants and wildlife. The CNDDB search included the areas within the USGS 7.5 -minute Mint Canyon Quadrangle, which contains the site and the surrounding eight quadrangles: Agua Dulce, Green Valley, Newhall, Oat Mountain, San Fernando, Sleepy Valley, Sunland, and Warm Springs Mountain. Fire history maps from the County of Los Angeles were also reviewed, as was the Natural Resources Conservation Service soil map. Biological Assessment Appendix A, Special -Status Flora, and Appendix B, Special -Status Fauna, list species previously reported as occurring in the Project vicinity and discuss occurrence potential. The potential for each recorded special -status plant and animal species to occur on the subject property was analyzed based on site-specific information such as vegetation and habitat characteristics, topography, elevation, soils, surrounding land uses, known habitat preferences, and geographic ranges. For the bat surveys, primary data sources reviewed to evaluate the occurrence potential of both common and special -status bat species included, but were not necessarily limited to: California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB 2017), historic distributional and ecological data contained in Hall 1981; Ingles 1965; Iameson and Peeters 1988), review of available reports from the site vicinity, Natural History and Management of Bats in California and Nevada (The Wildlife Society 196), and Ecology, Conservation and Management of Western Bat Species -Bat Species Accounts (Western Bat Working Group (1998). Vegetation was classified based on the species -dominance approach used by the 2009 Manual of California Vegetation " Where necessary, new names for vegetation alliances were developed to describe alliances because they _elgrP, ent the a,....inant and si not described by the current Mtttanual. For the jurisdictional determination, the National Wetlands Inventory maps and the USGS topographic map were reviewed to identify potentially jurisdictional features. Federal and state guidelines were reviewed for delineation protocols. These are reviewed and summarized in Biological Assessment Appendix C, Jurisdictional Delineation. Delineation criteria defined by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife19 (CDFW) and the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations21 were followed to determine the amount and location of jurisdictional waters. 16 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base. Commercial Version. 17 California Native Plant Society. Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California. Online database available at: htt2://www.rarel2lants.rnps.org/ accessed 2015. 18 Sawyer, J.T. Keeler -Wolf and J. Evens. A Manual of California Vegetation. Th Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. July 2013. 19 Cahfomia Fish S Game Code §§1600-1616. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 4.4-2 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 — Biological Resources Field Surveys Systematic field techniques were used to assure thorough visual coverage of all accessible on-site habitats of the entire property. Transects of opportunity provided access to all habitatswP4:P ugod to using unaided and binocular -aided vision to apposs a" h abitat tyle.,. The entire property was walked, with the exception of the very steep areas in the eastern portion of the property; those areas were studied with binoculars. Biological conditions were noted during field surveys conducted in 2014.2015, and 2017 for special - status flora and fauna. Previous mapping and characterizations of the dominant plant communities were field truthed to check for substantial changes since the 2006-2008 surveys. Plant species found during the 2014 and 2015 se surveys are listed in Biological Assessment Appendix D, Observed Flora. Wildlife species identified or detected during field surveys are listed in Biological Assessment Appendix E, Observed Fauna. Focused Studies Several focused biological studies were conducted for this report and are summarized herein, with the full reports provided in Appendix 3 to this EIR. Special -Status Flora F�9644sed rare plant sor*e�xs were Gandoeted in Apri� Ma�x, and �one .2015 b�x lt+ipaet Seienees Known locations of special status plants occurrences discovered during the 2017 literature search were checked for phenology of the target species, with the condition of those populations used to gauge the appropriate timing for the 2017 field surveys. The specific reference sites checked in the project vicinitv are located on the Aqua Dulce, Mint Canvon, and Newhall USGS 7.5 minute quadrangles. Two focused rare plant survevs were conducted in Mav and Tune 2017 to search for special -status plant species previously identified as occurring in the project vicinity in habitats similar to those found on-site (Appendix 3-3 to EIR). All field work and plant identification was completed by Tackie Bowland Worden and Rick Burgess of Impact Sciences, Inc. Field surveys were systematic, covering the entire site using transects of opportunity to provide thorough visual coverage. These surveys were timed to coincide with the blooming periods of potentially occurring special -status flora, and followed the survev protocols of the California Native Plant Societv and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 20 Clean Water Act of 1972§404. See also 33 U.S.C. §1341 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 4.4-3 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 — Biological Resources Bats Ecological Sciences Principal Biologist, Scott Cameron, conducted a series of bat surveys to sample various locations and habitat tykes throughout the project site during the period between May and Tune 2017, which is the maternity period (Appendix 3-5 to EIR). Instruments designed for identifying individual bat species were used to detect bat presence without deploying capture and release tactics (e.g., mist netting). Methods used included habitat assessments and active acoustic surveys utilizing five different types of acoustic equipment, along with several known bat call analysis and reference software. Jurisdictional Delineation The jurisdictional delineation was prepared by Edith Read, Ph.D. based on the field determination conducted on September 9, 2014 and September 29, 2015 (Appendix C of the Biological Assessment, Appendix 3 to EIR) 22 Site features were assessed for indicators of stream, riparian, or wetland functions. Soils were evaluated at one location near the north site boundary where hydrology and vegetation indicated potential wetland conditions. Determination of hydrophyte rating of plant species was based on the 2012 ratings for the Arid West Regional Supplement 2a Special -Status Fauna Protocol surveys for the federally listed threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica) were conducted by Dave CrawfordRan f4aneis, �r. of Compliance • Biology Inc. Seienees 2017" ( Appendix 3-4 to this EIR).24 Six surveys were conducted each year over roughly 50 acres of marginally suitable scrub and buffer habitat between March and June 20172414,H . Existing Conditions Elevations on the Project site vary from approximately 1,620 feet up to 1,825 feet. Hillsides with exposed bedrock dominate the ravines in the eastern half of the property, while the dry wash of an unnamed drainage parallel to Sand Canyon Road occupies the western portion. 2. Flora Two main vegetation series dominate the Project site: California sagebrush (California buckwheat scrub) and chamise chaparral (California buckwheat scrub), with annual grassland/ruderal 22 Edith Read, PhD. Assessment of Federal and State Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands, Proposed Residential Development at Sand/Soledad Canyon Roads, Santa Clarita, California. October 20, 2015. E. Read and Associates, Inc. 23 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). September 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). Wetlands Regulatory Assistance Program. 24 Impact Sciences, Inc. September 2014 and June 2015. Results of Focused Coastal California Gnatcatcher Surveys, Sand-Soledad Project, Santa Clarita, California. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 4.4-4 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 – Biological Resources herbs that favor open sandy soil, such as sun -cups (Camissonia bistorta) and chia (Salvia columbariae), are also present in this community. Disturbed Chamise Chaparral -Buckwheat Scrub is a transitional vegetation type that occurs on the terrace adjacent to Sand Canyon Road, generally parallel to and between Sand Canyon Road and the dry wash, occupying approximately 4.16 acres. It is sparsely vegetated with the indicator species of chamise and California buckwheat, along with non-native weedy species such as mustard, Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), red -stem filaree, and various annual grasses. Litter, broken glass, and other debris are common, apparently originating from the adjacent roadway. California Buckwheat -Acton Encelia Scrub - 0.93 Acres (G5 S5) - This alliance is typical of the Santa Clarita Valley, and is characterized by the co -dominance of California buckwheat and Acton encelia (Encelia actoni). One stand occurs in the northern portion of the property. Holly Leaf Cherry Alliances -1.66 Acres (G33 S3) -Two distinct holly leaf cherry alliances occur on the property: holly leaf cherry -buckwheat scrub (1.31 acres) and holly leaf cherry chaparral (0.35 acre). The latter occurs in two batches, bothis confined to a narrow gullye` below a storm drain outlet in the northwest area of the property. Canopy cover is 100%, with holly leaf cherry forming great than 50 percent of the relative cover along with and i Pludesas one mature Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) as well as a group of non-native palms (Washingtonia sp.). Holly leaf cherry chaparral (Prunus ilicifolia shrubland alliance is ranked G3 S3, and occupies approximately 0.35 acre. The holly leaf cherry chaparral -California buckwheat scrub alliances is an open and sparsely vegetated covertype, occupying about 1.31 acres in the wash adjacent to Sand Canyon Road. This community is —open -canopied and more diverse than holly leaf cherry chaparral, with substantial unvegetated areas and widely spaced holly leaf cherry shrubs forming less than 50 percent relative cover. in addition to holly leaf cherr California buckwheat is common along with- perennial species 41 Ekls eaffifflonity such as scalebroom (Lepidospartum squamatum), skunkbrush (Rhus aromatica), thick leaf yerba santa (Eriodictyon crassifolium), chaparral yucca, and blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea). Arroyo Willow Thickets - 0.55 Acre (G4 S4) - Arroyo willows (Salix lasiolepis) occupy the northern section of the wash near Sand Canyon Road, where runoff enters the property from off-site. Fremont cottonwoods are also present but not abundant. Examination of historical aerial photographs indicates that this riparian vegetation matured sometime after 1978 and coincided with extensive development on the west side of Sand Canyon Road. Runoff is directed from this development into the wash by a large storm drain. Based on presence of holly leaf cherry adjacent to this community Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 4.4-8 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 — Biological Resources and elsewhere in the wash, it appears that the riparian vegetation replaced a more xeric, historical community of holly leaf cherry -buckwheat scrub. Holly leaf cherry occupies relatively mesic sites within chaparral alliances26 but is not known to be associated with riparian zones or wetlands. Thick Leaf Yerba Santa Scrub - 0.40 Acre (G4 S4) -A stand of thick leaf yerba santa scrub occurs in an ephemeral drainage on the east side of the site. Deerweed is also present but not dominant. This drainage terminates at a detention basin, where storm flows are conveyed through an inlet and buried off-site culvert to the Santa Clara River. Ornamental Trees/Landscaping Non-native (ornamental/landscal2e trees are not abundant on the site but include Peruvian pepper (Schinus molle), pines (Pinus sp.), tamarisk (Tamarix sp.), and gum (Eucalyptus spp.) which occur primarily along the boundary of the mobile home park in the southwest portion of the site A few ornamentals trees also were found scattered about the southeast are of the property adjacent to the parcel boundary. Tall, mature tamarisk trees are abundant in the wash off site to the north. bot these Plants ivere fiat stwveyed. Special -Status Flora No special status plant species have been reported to occur on the Project site, and none was observed during focused rare plant surveys conducted in April, May, and June of 2014 and 2015. While the surveys of the Project site were conducted following relatively dry winters, and therefore not ideal conditions for detecting rare plants, habitat quality for rare plants is generally poor. In 2017, one special -status plant species was found: slender mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis). This lily is ranked 113.2 by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), and defined as "rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere." One small population, comprised of approximately 20 to 30 plants, was found near the center of the Project site. This is the same general location were several mariposa lilies were found in 2015; however, they were in seed at that time and therefore could not be identified to the subspecies level. paiv&ver, slender fflarivesa lily has a ffiederate Potential to Beettr an the property. Slender mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis) - CNPS List 113.2 - Slender mariposa lily is a summer -deciduous herb that grows from a perennial bulb. Yellow flowers, club -shaped hairs on the petals, and a dark band above the 26 Sawyer, J.T. Keeler -Wolf and J. Evens. A Manual of California Vegetation. Th edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. 2009. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 4.4-9 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 — Biological Resources nectary generally distinguish the subspecies. Populations of this lily have been found nearby on property south of the Santa Clara River, and it is known to occur throughout the Santa Clarita Valley. These adjacent populations were in flower at the same time field surveys were being conducted on the subject property, indicating that the drought did not prevent flowering in the region. Mariposa lily plants were found in seed on the property but could not be identified to the species level without flowers. The habitat where this population occurs is chamise chaparral -California buckwheat scrub, on a steep west to northwest -facing slope. Common constituents include California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum var. polifolium), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), deerweed (Acmispon glabra), and non-native annual grasses (Avera barbata; Bromus spp.; Ehrharta calucina). Oak Trees The Oak Tree Report prepared by Arbor Essence (February 2016, Addendum January 2017) (Appendix 3-2) identified three coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) trees on the Project site. Two non - heritage oak trees are proposed to be removed, while the other (a heritage oak) will be retained with the Project. 3. Fauna All vertebrate wildlife detected during the course of field surveys conducted in 2014 and 2015 are listed in Appendix F of the Biological Assessment (Appendix 3 to this EIR). Based on the site surveys, wildlife use of the site appears to be limited by the low habitat quality and the apparent high human activity levels. Most birds recorded on site were seen near the upper reaches of the wash adjacent to Sand Canyon Road, where storm drain runoff from off-site periodically provides surface water. Wildlife use over the majority of the subject property is also reflective of the overall low botanic habitat availability and ongoing disturbance levels. Special -Status Fauna Wildlife species included on the CDFW July 2015 Special Animals list considered to have at least a moderate occurrence potential on-site, and those that were observed or detected during site surveys are discussed in this section 27 Appendix B of the Biological Assessment (Appendix 3 to this EIR) provides the list of all special -status wildlife recorded in the Project nine -quad region. Special -Status Herpetofauna No special -status amphibians were found or are likely to occur, due to lack of habitat. One special - status reptile has been observed on-site, and one other has a moderate occurrence potential. Each is discussed below. 27 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Special animals. July 2015. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Natural Diversity Data Base. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 4.4-10 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 — Biological Resources San Diego tiger [coastal] whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejuegeri) - CDFW Special Animal: A relatively long and slender lizard, San Diego tiger whiptails occur in a variety of semiarid grassland and scrub habitats, usually where there are some open areas to forage in adjacent to dense scrub that they can escape to for cover. Suitable habitat is present on the subject property, and several whiptails were seen. Coast horned Lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii) - CDFW Species of Special Concern: Coast horned lizard habitat includes areas with friable, rocky, or shallow sandy soils in scrub and chaparral habitat, in and or semiarid climates where native harvester ants (Pogonomyrmex spp.) are present. Although not found during the field surveys, suitable habitat is present on the property, where loose sandy soils occur. Native ants were also observed. Special -Status Birds n ___--'__a __ "-= 12@@j@_` _-_=.In 2017, a total of 36 avian species was observed or detected on the Project site. A complete list of all vertebrate species observed during the 2017 survey efforts is included as Appendix 3-5 Attachment A. Three bird species included on the Tuly 2017 California Department of Fish and Wildlife "Special Animals List" were observed or detected during the 2107 survey effort, are are listed below. No federal special -status birds were found. Copper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii) - Watch List, nesting. Cooper's hawks typically hunt other bird species on the wing and nest in dense stands of live oaks and riparian woodlands with dense canopies and sparse ground cover, typically in trees taller than 20 feet. A Cooper's hawk was observed on the Project site once during the second 2017 survey the preper#y. However, there is no suitable nesting habitat on the site, and there was no indication of nesting. Costas hummingbird (Calypte costae) - California special animal when nesting. Costa's hummingbirds normally inhabit dry and brushy scrubland, chaparral, desert and semi -desert arid habitats, with breeding occurring in February through April in desert habitats. This species was observed twice during the 2015 surveys and four times during the 2014 surveys. Also, this species was observed twice during the 2017 surveys. CDFW is primarily interested in tracking nest locations of this species and Costa's hummingbird is not anticipated to be nesting in the vicinity of the Project site. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 4.4-11 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 — Biological Resources • Southern California rufous -crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens) - CDFW Watch List. Four subspecies of rufous -crowned sparrows are recognized in California. The Southern California subspecies, canescens, is on the CDFW Watch List as populations have been declining as a result of development and agriculture. Southern California rufous -crowned sparrow was observed during four of the 2017 protocol surveys. Therefore, it is anticipated this species nested on or near the project site this year. This sparrow nests on the ground, typically under shrubs or on overhanging rocks. Seven bird species included on the CDFW Special Animals List were observed or detected during 2014 and 2015 field surveys on the Project sit2t! " i ciir•21 Two additional species were 12revious4y reported as occurrin in the Project area. Two sl2ecies, Coo er's hawk and Costa's hummingbird, were noted above as part of the 2017 surveys. The additional seven species are listed below. Allen's hummingbird (Selasphorus sasin) - California special animal when nesting. Allen's humming- birds were seen during several of the spring surveys. This hummingbird locates its nest in shrubs and trees with dense vegetation (such as vines and thickets) anywhere from 0.5 to 15 meters off the ground. CDFW is primarily interested in tracking nest locations of this species. There is little dense vegetation suitable for nesting on the property; however, given the dates this species was sighted (May and early June), it is assumed it is nesting on or adjacent to the site. Nuttall's woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii) - California special animal when nesting. Nuttall's woodpeckers primarily occur in oak or riparian woodlands, where they feed mostly on insects and arthropods. Nests are built in tree cavities. As with many of the other avian species included on the CDFW Special Animals List, the nesting locations is what CDFW is interested in tracking. Nuttall's woodpeckers were observed or detected during three of the 2015 surveys, indicating they are likely residents of the oak trees occurring adjacent to the site. There is very little suitable nesting habitat on the property. Southern California rufous -crowned sparrow (Aimophilaraficeps canescens) - CDFW Watch List. Four subspecies of rufous -crowned sparrows are recognized in California. The Southern California subspecies, canescens, is on the CDFW Watch List as populations have been declining as a result of development and agriculture 30 This sparrow was observed several times during surveys conducted 30 California Partners in Flight. Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Bird Conservation Plan. httl2://www.12rbo.org/call2if/htmldocs/species/scrub/rufous crowned sparrow.htm (accessed April 2016). Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 4.4-12 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 — Biological Resources in 2014 and 2015 and is assumed to be nesting in the Project vicinity. Nests are built on the ground, typically under shrubs or on overhanging rocks. No nests were found during field surveys. Loggerhead shrike (Lanus ludoviciamis) - California Species of Special Concern when nesting. This shrike forages in grasslands and ecotones with scattered shrubs, trees, fences, or other perches. Preferred nest sites are in thorny trees or shrubs, but loggerhead shrike may also nest in brush piles or tumbleweed. Suitable habitat appears to be present, but this species has not been found; however, it was seen in July 2015 nearby in the Santa Clara River, less than 1,000 feet to the south. California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia) - California special animal. Horned lark occur in grasslands, disturbed areas, agriculture fields, and beach areas. Suitable habitat is present on the property, but species has not been seen on- site. Bell's sage sparrow (Amphispiza Belli Belli) - California Watch List. Bell's sage sparrow uses coastal sage scrub and chamise chaparral. Pairs were seen during spring 2015 field surveys, and this sparrow is assumed to be nesting on or near the property; however, no nests were seen. Lawrence's goldfinch (Spinus [Carduelisl lawrencei) - California special animal when nesting. This uncommon species is known to inhabit arid woodlands, chaparral, and open grasslands where they feed on seeds. Lawrence's goldfinch may nest in oaks, conifers or deciduous trees, though nests are consistently located within about 0.3 mile of a stream or other water source. Suitable nesting habitat is extremely limited on the subject property and although this species was seen on the property, it is unlikely to be nesting on the site. Seas al California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica 66p. ealf)cei,iiiea)31- Federal Threatened; California Species of Special Concern. Protocol surveys were conducted in 2014 and 2015 and no California gnatcatchers were recorded (Appendix G). Additional protocol surveys were conducted on May 18, 27, Tune 5, 12, 19, and 26, 2017, and no California gnatcatchers were recorded (Appendix 3-4 to EIR J. Coastal sage scrub dominated by California sagebrush is the preferred habitat of California gnatcatcher, though they may also use adjacent chaparral, grassland, riparian, or even disturbed habitats along the margins (ecotones) of the favored coastal sage scrub plant community. Coastal sage scrub is characterized by the prevalence of California sagebrush as dominant, with perennial sages such as black or purple sage (Salvia mellifera; S. leucophylla) and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum). There are contiguous stands of coastal sage scrub on the 3' Previously known as coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila califarmica ssp. califarmica): now identified as California gnatcatcher (Polioptila califamica). The CDFW Special Animals List uses the old nomenclature. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 4.4-13 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 — Biological Resources site; however, most of it occurs on steep slopes and is disturbed, with sparse relative cover. Such slopes are typically avoided by nesting California gnatcatchers; therefore, the habitat quality of the property is considered marginal for this species. Further, because none was detected during focused surveys, they are considered absent from the site. Designated Critical Habitat is located approximately two miles to the southwest, in the Placerita Canyon area. Special -Status Mammals Five bat species were recorded during the 2017 acoustic bat surveys. These species included Canyon bat (Parastrellus hesperus), big brown bat (EEptesicus fuscus), California mvotis (Mvotis californicus), western small -footed mvotis (Mvotis ciliolabrum), and Yuma mvotis (Myotis yumanensis). One species of bat and two other special -status mammals could occur on the property and are discussed below. Yuma myotis (MUotis yuntanensis) - CDFW Special Animal). Yuma mvotis were only recorded at acoustic surve3:12oints located near the u12per riparian area on one evening, so it was presumed to be migrating through the site. The Yuma myotis is common and widespread in California. It is found in a wide variety of habitats from the coast to mid -elevation. Yuma mvotis is considered one of the most tolerant of human habitation. This species day roosts in buildings, trees, mines, caves, bridges, and rock crevices. Yuma myotis distribution is closely to bodies of water, which is uses as foraging sites and sources of drinking water. Open forests and woodlands are considered optimal habitat No evidence was detected of maternity colonies which can range from hundreds to thousands, and contain only adult females and their young. Males roost singly or in small groups (The Wildlife Society,1996). Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 4.4-14 vsctsr�r.�en!eee��rrr��rrs esseerss�eses ■ Y Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 4.4-14 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 - Biological Resources Special Cancer -n. 14 ,.. tom .......tiff hats 1..«:.. aril. f,.«.., a in affeaq .4h r foa-,7 a foost's un -d -Of Oxfoliating rack slabs, but may also use crevices and buildings. Roast SiteS R404 4'044i�al dFaF 491+1 feast sites, t�xpieall�x a 1+4nimum ef a courring an site and may pefiedically forage ever the site. Although exfoliating • San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit (Lepsis californicus bennettii) - CDFW Species of Special Concern. This large jackrabbit uses coastal sage scrub of intermediate cover with components of open shrub, herbaceous and tree elements, and herbaceous edges. This subspecies has a moderate potential of occurring on the site. Although suitable habitat is present on-site and this rabbit has been seen in the vicinity, ongoing human activities may explain why it has not been found on the property. • San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida interwnedia) - CDFW Species of Special Concern. This subspecies of woodrat is most commonly associated with chaparral and coastal sage scrub. They often are found where rock outcrops or other rocky areas are present, but will also occur where rocks are not present. Suitable habitat is present for this subspecies. Two middens were found in the northwest corner of the site near the small riparian area, habitat more typical of the common big -eared woodrat species (N. macrotis). Identification to the species level cannot be made solely from a midden. 4. Wildlife Movement Wildlife movement is currently unrestrained within the Project site (excepting the developed portion of the property), but movement on or off the site is constrained on three sides. Residential development lies to the west and east, and busy roadways abut the western and southern property boundaries. Sand Canyon Road to the west and Soledad Canyon Road to the south are high volumesheavily-k,a*e� roadways that create significant barriers to wildlife movement, Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 4.4-15 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 — Biological Resources particularly larger species such as Eleer, coyote, and be Sand Canyon Road along the west side of the property is busy road, with a speed limit of 45 mph. Soldedad Canyon Road, which parallels the south side of the subject property, is a heavily traveled four -lane thoroughfare with a posted speed limit of 50 mph. Although wildlife may attempt to cross to the Santa Clara River to the south, there are no undercrossings of SR -14 directly adjacent to the site and Soledad Canyon Road forms a barrier to wildlife movement and a mortalit s�There is undeveloped property immediately north of the property, but that is also bordered by residential land uses that continue to the north and east. There is currently no linkage to nearby natural habitat areas, or corridors to facilitate movement between such areas and the subject property. The drainage course along the western side of the property flows into an underground storm drain at the southern perimeter of the site; therefore, this tributary does not provide a wildlife movement corridor or linkage connecting to the Santa Clara River. 5. Jurisdictional Waters, Streambeds and Riparian Resources Work within the bed, bank, or channel of streams, wetlands, and certain water is regulated by federal and state laws. One jurisdictional area is subject to federal and state regulations, the ephemeral wash parallel to Sand Canyon Road (Figure 4.4-2, Federal and State Jurisdiction ). This wash traverses the western edge of the subject property and terminates in a storm drain inlet at the north boundary of the existing mobile home development. Flow is then conveyed via underground culvert to an open ditch, and then to another buried culvert to daylight in the Santa Clara River. Federal Jurisdiction Federal jurisdictional areas are restricted to the ephemeral wash, as noted above. Soils sampled in a reach in the north part of wash dominated by arroyo willows (Salix lasiolepis - FAC[) consisted of gravel and sand with no wetland indicators. Downstream sections are dominated by upland vegetation. Therefore, this reach, and the rest of the wash downstream to the edge of the mobile home development, were determined to be non -wetland waters. A narrow -maintained drainage swale between Sand Canyon Road and a drain inlet was also determined to be non -wetland waters. While it exhibited no characteristics of a streambed, this appeared due to the highly maintained condition of the swale. Flows are conveyed through the above-mentioned features to grated inlets adjacent to the north edge of the mobile home park. From these points, flows are conveyed through buried culverts to an open ditch on the west side of the mobile home park. The upper section, totaling about 0.09 acre was determined to be a wetland due to the presence of both hydric soil and the dominance of obligate wetland vegetation. Below this section, the soil substrate transitions to well -drained Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 4.4-16 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 — Biological Resources undisturbed areas support chamise chaparral - California buckwheat scrub, except the southeast corner, which has been cleared in the past and supports a ruderal assemblage of non-native plants. Construction activity and grading operations of the Project would disturb and/or threaten the survival of common wildlife species on the site. Some species would be expected to relocate to other areas of similar habitat within the local area. However, wildlife that migrate from the site are vulnerable to mortality by predation, potential conflicts with people and cars, and unsuccessful competition for food and territory. Species of low mobility (particularly amphibians and reptiles) could be eliminated during site preparation and construction. Replacement of existing vegetation with structures and ornamental landscaping would eliminate natural communities on developed portions of the site and result in a reduction in native wildlife species diversity. A number of animal species would be replaced with a fauna composed of species more tolerant of, or even dependent upon, urban settings. Although some loss of common wildlife is expected during construction of the Project, because of the relatively common occurrence of these common wildlife species that would be displaced or lost, Project implementation is not expected to cause a current wildlife population on or adjacent to the Project site to drop below self-sustaining levels. Therefore, impacts to common reptile, amphibian, or mammal species would be less than significant. Common native bird species are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code, which prohibit actual or attempted hunting, pursuing, catching, capturing, killing, offering for sale, selling, offering to purchase or transport of any migratory bird, parts of birds, eggs and/or nests. Thirt,LPavian species were observed in 2017 on the site during general biological surveys and the coastal California gnatcatcher surveys, and these species, if nesting, could be adversely affected as a result of implementation of the Project. No CAGN were observed or detected during the series of six protocol surveys in 2017, and therefore are, considered to be absent from the Project site. Also, multiple focused CAGN surveys have been performed on the Project over the past 10 years, all with negative results. Implementation of the Project would impact bird nesting habitat as it involves the removal of mature trees and shrubs from the property. Construction- related activities could result in the direct loss of active nests or the abandonment of active nests by adult birds during that year's nesting season. The loss of active nests of native birds would be a significant impact, according to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code. Therefore, if Project construction would take place during the nesting season, pre -construction nesting bird surveys (Mitigation Measure MM Bio -1) would be required and would mitigate this impact to less than significant. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 4.4-27 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 — Biological Resources River farther downstream. Therefore, these impacts would be considered potentially significant. The Water Quality Technical Report evaluates these potential impacts in further detail and discusses the storm water runoff system Best Management Practices (BMPs) that have been incorporated into the Project design to reduce these water quality impacts to less than significant." Special Status Plant Species No special status plant species were observed during focused rare plant surveys in 2014 and 2015- -affl-d- HaRe have been relgarted to occur an the Project site- 4-3aqpd on field qurveys and habitat high Potential for 8FF4H4:4:P41FP 841 flipsobjeet site. One special status plant, slender mariposa lily, was observed during the 2017 surveys. The Project would remove the mariposa lilies during site grading, which is considered a significant impact. Therefore, a mariposa lily relocation plan would be developed to salvage the lilies (Mitigation Measure MM Bio -6), and would mitigate this impact to less than significant. -affl-d- dist-fibution of the species. Although 2014 and 22015 ivere drought years, slender Therefore, if slender fflarivesa lily ivere to Beettf, they ivatfid be egEreeted in �Very law , jyhose leqq viould fiat substantially affect a local or regional 19aigulatiEffl. As sffGh, iffil9aCts tE) Special -Status Fauna Amphibians and Reptiles No special -status amphibians are expected to occur on site, because there is no suitable habitat on site. One special -status reptile was seen (San Diego tiger [coastal] whiptail; Special Animal) and another has the potential to occur (coast horned lizard; Species of Special Concern). Because of their sensitivity status, the loss of habitat and the associated loss of individuals of these species within the Project site would be considered a significant impact. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM Bio -2, which provides for the relocation of any coast horned lizards or San Diego tiger whiptails to appropriate off-site locations, would minimize the direct loss of these animals, and direct impacts to these special -status reptile species would be reduced to a level of less than significant. Birds Suitable foraging and/or nesting habitat exists on the site for several bird speciesthe (;;a alger's , 33 Water Quality Technical Report, Geosyntec, June 2016 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 4.4-30 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 — Biological Resources and Pell's sage sparraw. Cooper's hawk was observed soaring over the site, and southern California rufous -crowned sparrow and Bell's sage sparrow were observed foraging on the Project site during the 2014 and 2015 focused surveys for coastal California gnatcatcher, and thus wereare assumed to be nesting on-site or in the vicinity. The fPocused surveys in 2014, 2015, and 2017 for the coastal California gnatcatcher determined this species was absent from the Project site. Three bird species, considered 'special animals' by CDFW, were observed during the 2017 protocol surveys: Cooper's hawk, Costa's hummingbird, and Southern California rufous -crowned sparrow. • A Cooper's hawk was observed on the site once during the second survey. There was no indication of nesting. • The Costa's hummingbird was observed twice during the surveys. CDFW is primarily interested in tracking nest locations of this species and Costa's hummingbird is not anticipated to be nesting in the vicinity of the Project site. • Southern California rufous -crowned sparrow was observed during four of the surveys. Therefore, it is anticipated this species nested on or near the Project site this year. This sparrow nests on the ground, typically under shrubs or on overhanging rocks. During site preparation activities associated with Project implementation, special -status bird species are expected to be displaced to remaining undisturbed sage scrub habitat in other undeveloped habitat in the Project vicinity. Because foraging birds are able to escape to other foraging habitats in the region during construction, the Project would have a less than significant impact to foraging special -status bird species. Vegetation clearing and grading within the scrub habitats, if conducted during the nesting season of these special -status bird species, could result in the direct loss of active nests, including eggs, young, or incubating adults, which would be considered a significant impact as it would be in violation of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code. If Project construction is commenced during the nesting season, a pre -construction nesting bird survey (Mitigation Measure MM Bio -1) would be required and temporary buffer zones maybe required around active nests. These measures would reduce this potential impact to less than significant. Mammals San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit, a California Species of Special Concern, has the potential to inhabit the open, sparse coastal sage scrub found on the Project site. The dense areas of chaparral and sage scrub are suitable habitats for the San Diego desert woodrat, also a California Species of Special Concern. These special -status mammal species were not observed during the general field surveys, but because suitable habitat occurs on-site for these species, there is potential for their Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 4.4-31 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 — Biological Resources presence. Because of their sensitivity status, the loss of individuals of these species within the Project site would be considered a significant impact. Pre -construction surveys for special -status mammals (Mitigation Measure MM Bio -3) are required. With implementation of this mitigation measure, impacts to special status mammals on the Project site would be reduced to levels that are not considered significant. Bats e ba s are -_e P_ 1.a pd 81flip Bibi a s present. Five bats 12ecies were recorded during the 2017 acoustic surveys: Canyon bat (Parastrellus hesperus), big brown bat LEptesicus fuscus), California myotis (Muotis californicus), western small -footed mvotis Muotis ciliolabrum), and Yuma myotis (M,uotis uumanensis). The Yuma myotis is considered special -status (CDFW Special Animal. Common bats may use any portion of the study area as foraging habitat, and moderate to high potential roosting habitat is present in trees, abandoned buildings, and cliff face crevices. The bats could have emerged from these resources during the study. However, no direct evidence of bat roosting or maternity roosts (e.g., emerging bats, batug ano, prey remains, urine stains) was observed at any of the acoustic sites or indirectly during habitat assessments. Some sandstone crevices are in areas that are not readily observable due to their location on cliff faces, and thus could not be analyzed within the scope of the survey effort. Sandstone crevices that were accessible did not contain observable bat evidence, but did include avian evidence of perch site usage on the outer crevice ledge. Small mammal (e.g., rodents) evidence was also noted in the lower crevices. Additional bat species with potential to occur, but were not directly recorded in 2017, include: Brazilian free -tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis), fringed myotis (M ou tis thusanodes), hoar, bat (Lasiurus cinereus), Townsend's big -eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), long-legged myotis (Muotis volans)_pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), silver -haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans)_pocketed free - tailed bat (Nuctinomopss femorosaccus), western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus), and western red bat (Lasiurus blossevilhi). Special -status bat species generally have a low occurrence potential to roost on-site. Prior to construction activities, additional survey be necessary to fully determine all bat species use of the site. These surveys should be conducted during the active period of mid-August to late October to fully analyze bat utilization of the site. The Yuma myotis, a CDFW Special Animal, and other bat species may be utilizing the rock crevices and small caves occurring on the steep slopes in the center of the property for daytime roosting, resting between bouts of nighttime feeding, and possibly rearing young. Project implementation would permanently remove this important bat habitat, and all species using those areas would be displaced. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 4.4-32 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 — Biological Resources The presence of the Yuma myotis and the loss of roosting habitat for this special -status mammal would be a potentially significant impact. 4 The presence of other bats fe r-- eseR4and- the loss of roosting habitat for them would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure MM Bio -4 (requiring pre -construction surveys and implementation of bat boxes) would reduce impacts to special -status mammals to a less than significant level. The loss of on-site vegetation would be considered less than significant impact to bat feeding, because bats generally fly large to very large distances to forage during the night, and many bat species occurring in the area prefer feeding over water. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Impacts would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures . If activities associated with construction or grading are planned during the bird nesting/breeding season, generally February through March for early nesting birds ., and from mid-March through mid-September for most bird species, the Applicant shall have a qualified biologist conduct surveys for active nests. To determine the presence/absence of active nests, pre- construction nesting bird surveys shall be conducted weekly beginning 30 days prior to initiation of ground - disturbing activities, with the last survey conducted no more than 3 days prior to the start of clearance/construction work. If ground -disturbing activities are delayed, additional pre- construction surveys shall be conducted so that no more than 3 days have elapsed between the survey and ground -disturbing activities. �eeee�ns Protected bird nests that are found within the construction zone shall be protected by a buffer deemed suitable by a qualified biologist, and verified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Typically, a 300 -foot buffer is required for most species and a 500 -foot buffer for raptor and special -status species (CDFW may reduce these buffers on a site-specific basis). Buffer areas shall be delineated with orange construction fencing or other exclusionary material that would inhibit access within the buffer zone. Installation of the exclusionary material delineating the buffer zone shall be verified by a qualified biologist prior to initiation of construction activities. The buffer zone shall remain intact and maintained while the nest is active (i.e., occupied or being constructed by the adult bird(s)) and until young birds have fledged and no continued use of the nest is observed, as determined by a qualified biologist. MMBio-IA The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a pre -construction Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 4.4-33 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 — Biological Resources biological survey for special -status species determined to have potential to occur in suitable habitat within the Project site prior to the start of construction activities. If special -status species are detected duringpre-construction surveys, a"ropriate mitigation plans will be prepared by a qualified biologist and submitted to the City of Santa Clarita for review and aRproval. Additionally, a biological monitor will be present periodically during construction to ensure that impacts to special -status species are minimized or do not occur. MM Bio -2 A qualified biologist, approved by the City and CDFW, shall prepare a detailed capture and relocation plan for San Diego tiger (coastal) whiptail and coast horned lizard that will include measures to avoid or minimize take of these sensitive species and identify appropriate relocation sites. The plan shall be submitted to CDFW for approval prior to implementation. The plan shall specify the pre -construction time frame for the biologist to conduct surveys within appropriate habitat areas to capture and relocate individual San Diego tiger whiptail and coast horned lizard in accordance with the approved relocation plan. Results of the surveys and relocation efforts shall be provided to the City with a copy to CDFW. MM Bio -3 A qualified biologist, approved by the City and CDFW, shall prepare a detailed capture and relocation plan for San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit and San Diego desert woodrat that will include measures to avoid or minimize take of these sensitive species and identify appropriate relocation sites. The plan shall be submitted to the city and CDFW for approval prior to implementation. The plan shall specify the pre -construction timeframe for the biologist to conduct surveys within appropriate habitat areas to capture and relocate individual San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit and San Diego desert woodrat in accordance with the approved relocation plan. Results of the surveys and relocation efforts shall be provided to the City with a copy to CDFW. MM Bio -4 The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist, approved by the City, to conduct focused bat surveys utilizing visual and electronic detection methods. The qualified biologist shall conduct the surveys between late May and mid-July, the recognized maternity season for most bats in southern California. If any special - status bat species are determined to be roosting on-site, bat boxes of a size and design suitable for the estimated number of bats on-site shall be installed, under the supervision of a qualified bat biologist, in the outer perimeter of the Project site, as close as feasible to adjacent undeveloped land, and a suitable height and solar aspect. Further, if any maternity sites are identified on site, CDFW will be notified immediately. In addition to any other direction by CDFW, no site disturbance shall occur within 300 feet of the occupied roost until it is determined that the maternity roost(s) is no longer active. Additional bat boxes designed to serve as maternity roosts shall be placed as directed by the qualified bat biologist and CDFW. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 4.4-34 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 — Biological Resources MM Bio -5 A qualified restoration specialist shall ensure that the proposed landscape plants will not naturalize and cause maintenance or vegetation community degradation in open - space areas of the Project site. Container plants to be installed within public areas shall be inspected by a qualified restoration specialist for the presence of disease, weeds, and pests, including Argentine ants. Plants with pests, weeds, or diseases shall be rejected. In addition, landscape plants shall not be on the Cal -IPC California Invasive Plant Inventory. MM Bio -6 The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist, approved by the City, to develop a Mariposa Lily Restoration Plan. The Plan shall include the following actions: • Mark the extant population when plants are flowering • Collect bulbs (when plant is dormant; summer to fall). - Careful excavation is required to assure collection of the entire bulb and associated bulblets. - Record average depth of bulbs for replication at receiver site. • Plant collected bulbs immediately or store bulbs for later direct planting or growing in pots. • A monitoring and reporting program to assure successful establishment of the transplanted lilies. Level of Significance After Mitigation With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM Bio -1 through MM Bio -G" ".19V ,1 mf, impacts would be less than significant. Bio -2 Would the project 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Holly Leaf Cherry Chaparral — Prunus ilicifolia Shrubland Alliances (G3 S3) Approximately 0.351 acres of holly leaf cherry he 11y leaf eherry chaparral a_p situ a1pa in the _s_ i.p__ a_a occurs in the northwestern portions of the site. Polly lea€eherf-yThis alliance has lime a state rank of S3, meaning they-aize covertype is rare to uncommon; not yet susceptible to becoming extirpated in the state, but may be if additional populations are destroyed. Therefore, theythis alliance meets the CDFW criteria as a sensitive habitat. $eElrAll of the holly leaf cherrychaparral a occurring on-site would be eliminated with development, equaling 0.351:66 acres and resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation Measure MM Bio-ZN4N4 Pia 6 proposes mitigation through restoration (on-site or off-site), thereby reducing the impact to less than significant. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 4.4-35 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 — Biological Resources Level of Significance Before Mitigation Impacts would be significant. Mitigation Measures 4�" MM Bio -7 holly leaf cherry alliance vegetation. This 191an shall entail 191anting afle holly leaf landscalged areas of the 19ralger The Project Applicant, or the responsible party, shall prepare a holly leaf cherry chaparral restoration plan that details planting121ans to mitigate the loss of 0.35 acres of holly leaf cherry chaparral. This plan shall entail five -to -one restoration of the removed holly leaf cherry alliances to equal 1.75 acres. The planting palette shall include a range of native plant species tunical of this alliance. The plan shall include temporary irrigation and monitoring for five years after the initial installation to assure establishment of the installed shrubs. Quantifiable success criteria will be based on species diversity, species richness, abundance, percent cover, and non- native cover. The restoration will be deemed successful when the site has been irrigation -free for at least five years and success criteria have remained for five vears. The nlantinQ site may be located within the landscaped areas of the propert Level of Significance After Mitigation With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM Bio -7n M Bines, impacts would be less than significant. Bio -3 Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected 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. As proposed, all federal and state jurisdictional areas on the property would be removed by Project development. Federal jurisdictional areas impacted would include 0.09 acre of wetland and 1.471 acres of non -wetland waters. State jurisdictional areas impacted would encompass 0.09 acre of wetland and 2.87 of non -wetland waters. Without appropriate authorizations, such a removal would be in violation of federal and state laws, resulting in a significant impact. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 4.4-36 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 — Biological Resources Federal Jurisdiction Impacts — 0.090 -acre Wetland; 1.471 acres Non -Wetland Waters Permits would be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for work within Waters of the U.S. in accordance with Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act.34 State Jurisdiction Impacts— 0.09 -acre Wetland; 2.87 acres Non -Wetland Waters Any work within the bed, bank, or channel of state waters requires a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement." The Regional Water Quality Control Board exerts authority over "Waters of the State" and water quality by means of state law 36 Of the estimated 1.471 acres of non -wetland state waters, about 27% (0.54 acre) includes dense willow riparian vegetation. The remaining area is upland habitat of sparse holly leaf cherry — buckwheat scrub. City of Santa Clarita The City of Santa Clarita defines disturbance of, or encroachment into, any blue -line streams as potentially significant. Adherence with the requirements of the federal and state regulatory agencies would provide compliance with City of Santa Clarita policies. The Project Applicant shall consider the following measures as part the regulatory agency compliance and permit process to reduce impacts Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Wildlife jurisdictional areas: On-site or off-site creation, restoration, or enhancement of Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and/or wetlands at a minimum ratio of 1:1 in accordance with the resource agencies; On-site or off-site creation, restoration, or enhancement of California Department of Fish and Wildlife jurisdictional areas at a minimum ratio of 1:1 in accordance with the resource agencies; and/or Incorporation of design features into the Project that shall avoid or minimize impacts to drainages on-site. Mitigation Measure MM Bio -°""T has been included to ensure that the Project complies with federal and state regulatory agencies, thereby reducing impacts to less than significant levels. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Impacts would be significant. 34 Clean Water Act of 1972§401 & §4044. See also 33 U.S.C. §1341 35 Cahfomia Fish S Game Code §§1600-1616 36 Cahfomia Water Code §13050(e) Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 4.4-37 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 — Biological Resources Mitigation Measures 44M-�MM Bio -8 The Project impacts shall be subject to the regulations set forth by regulatory agencies as part of the jurisdictional permitting process. The Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board shall require the Project Applicant, or the responsible party, to explore alternatives to avoid or reduce impacts and shall also require mitigation for all unavoidable impacts. The Army Corps of Engineers has a "no net loss" policy that requires that any unavoidable impacts to stream values and functions be replaced. In addition, the Regional Water Quality Control Board shall add restrictions to control runoff from the site, require on the site treatment of runoff to improve water quality, and impose Best Management Practices on the construction. All of the features of the Project that address water quality issues shall be mitigated within the Water Quality Management Plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Level of Significance After Mitigation With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM Bio -8;, impacts would be less than significant. Bio -4 Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native 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?ln a ffla the project intp«F,.«,. ,...l.stam4:..11. with the movement of an nati. p fPsi dent of migratory fish or - wildlife ,...,.,.:, s or, with ,.,.tabl:,.hod n ati. o r -psi dont of ...:,.....ta f wildlife ,.......ider-,. o The Project site is completely surrounded on all three sides by development, is not connected to adjacent natural habitat areas, and does not lie within nor provide a corridor that would facilitate movement between such areas and the subject property.. On the fourth side to the north, there is a small area of undeveloped oven space which is itself bordered by development. The western ephemeral drainage is undergrounded at the existing mobile home development in the southwest portion of the site, and does not serve as a localized movement path, except for a short distance off site to the north. As such, impacts to wildlife movement from Project implementation are anticipated to be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 4.4-38 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 — Biological Resources Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant. Bio -5 Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Per Unified Development Code §17.51.040 (Oak Tree Preservation), the City requires the preservation of all healthy oak trees unless compelling reasons justify the removal of such trees. The Project site contains three oak trees subject to the City of Santa Clarita's Oak Tree Preservation ordinance. As such, an inventory of on-site oak trees was conducted by a registered arborist, which included an evaluation of the trees' current condition, assessment of the level of encroachment/ impact due to proposed construction, and identification of recommendations and mitigation measures for their preservation, if necessary. Three protected trees have been identified as coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) on the Project site. The coast live oak trees were found to be in average good condition with no significant insect pest or disease problems. The trees are identified as #1, #2 and #3. Tree #2 is classified as a "heritage tree" having a trunk diameter of 46 inches. Tree #2 has a sizeable trunk cavity at the root collar; however, the main stem is believed to have a high volume of sound wood, enough to reasonably support the tree with minimal risk at present. Two non -heritage oak trees are proposed for removal due to required road improvements/widening of Sand Canyon Road (refer to Figure 4.4-4) and on-site land development. A heritage oak tree (Tree #2) would be preserved in place with minimal impacts (refer to Figure 4.4-5). The daylight limit for work near Tree #2 is about 60 feet, which is 5 feet outside the dripline. The Applicant would be subject to conditions imposed as part of the Oak Tree Permit per Unified Development Code §17.51.040.B.3, including required mitigation for the two proposed removals. Conditions can include, but not are limited to, requiring the Applicant to plant trees on-site or pay into the City's Oak Tree Fund the equivalent of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) value of the tree to be removed. These conditions, along with Mitigation Measure MM N4N4 pia 4"9, reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Impacts would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures MM 43io 8MM Bio -9 The Project Applicant, or the responsible party, shall be responsible for implementing the following maintenance and care measures for on-site oak trees prior to, during, and post -construction. 1. Thoroughly irrigate all preserved trees one-week prior to any excavation that takes place within the tree protection zone. 2. Provide quarterly Arborist monitoring of Tree #2 for not less than 2 years. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 4.4-39 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 — Biological Resources 3. Install and maintain protective fencing around trees as illustrated on the plans in the Oak Tree Report. There must be a three-foot opening in the protective fencing to allow for inspection and maintenance, position openings every 50 to 75 feet. 4. Any work taking place in the ground, grading, trenching, drilling etc., within the tree protection zone shall be supervised by the arborist on record and be performed using hand tools only. 5. Any tree roots encountered, measuring 1 -inch or greater must preserved in place, or if unavoidable, properly pruned as deemed acceptable by project arborist 6. Preserved tree roots that are left exposed shall be wrapped in burlap or other moisture retentive material and must be kept moist. 7. Construction materials or debris shall not be stored or disposed of within the protected zone of any tree. S. No irrigation shall be installed within the dripline of any oak tree. 9. Any planting within the tree protection zone must maintain a minimum distance of 15 feet from the trunk, and must consist of drought tolerant or native plant species, plant pallet must be approved by the city of Santa Clarita. 10. No changes in soil grade shall be made within the tree protection zone other than in the permitted work area. 11. All drainage shall be directed away from the root zone of all oak trees. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 4.4-40 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 — Biological Resources Level of Significance After Mitigation With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM Bio -%04 n Bin 8, impacts would be less than significant. Bio -6 Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? local, regional, or- state habitat ,...nse fyati n plan? No habitat conservation plans (TICE) or natural community conservation plans (NCCP) are present within the City of Santa Clarita. As such, the Project site is not within a habitat conservation plan (TICE), a natural community conservation plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any adopted habitat conservation plans, and the Project impacts would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation No impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required. Level of Significance After Mitigation No impact. Bio -7 Would the project affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) as identified on the City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map. The Project site is not within a Significant Ecological Area as identified on General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Exhibit CO -5, Significant Ecological Areas. The Project site is also not within a Significant Natural Area identified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Therefore, the Project would not affect a Significant Ecological Area or Significant Natural Area. Level of Significance Before Mitigation No impact. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 4.4-43 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.4 — Biological Resources 4.4-7 Sources Cited Santa Clarita General Plan, adopted June 14, 2011. This source is necessary to determine consistency with Goals and Policies. Arbor Essence, Oak Tree Report, Sand Canyon Plaza, N/E corner Sand Canyon & Soledad Canyon, Santa Clarita, CA, February 9, 2016. Arbor Essence, Oak Tree Report (Addendum), Sand Canyon Plaza, N/E corner Sand Canyon & Soledad Canyon, Santa Clarita, CA, January 5, 2017. Compliance • Biology, Inc., Results of Focused California Gnatcatcher Surveys; Sand Canyon Plaza, Santa Clarita, CA, July 19, 2017. Ecological Sciences, Inc., Results of Habitat and Acoustic Bat Surveys, Sand Canyon Plaz Project, Los Angeles County, California, July 14, 2017. Impact Sciences, Inc., Biological Assessment, Sand Canyon Plaza, TTM 053074, Santa Clarita, California, November 2015. This sources is necessary to ascertain information about potential biological species near the project area. Impact Sciences, Inc., Rare Plant Report: Sand Canyon Plaza (Sand/Soledad Ranch) Project, Santa Clarita, California, July 24, 2017. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 4.4-45 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.7 — Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Climate Change 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Climate Change 4.7-1 Summary The emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) em' sby a single project into the atmosphere is not itself necessarily an adverse environmental effect. Rather, it is the increased accumulation of GHG from more than one project and many sources in the atmosphere that may result in global climate change. The resultant consequences of that climate change can cause adverse environmental effects. A project's GHG emissions typically are relatively very small in comparison to state or global GHG emissions and, consequently would, in isolation, have no significant direct impact on climate change. The Project's GHG emissions would not be considered substantial when compared to California's statewide GHG emissions. �ees�ess�nr �2emra�eneee�e��ss�senvs��errsi�eeeneiaseme�e�r.� r�eeriss�� ___ ..� ----------- Given the Project's mixed-use design, walkability, location, compliance with the CALGreen Code, and consistency with the City's Climate Action Plan (CAP). and associated GHG reduction measures, the Project would be consistent with local and statewide goals and policies aimed at reducing the generation of GHGs, including SB 375 and AB 32's goal of achieving 1990 GHG emission levels by 2020. This discussion is discussed in Section 4.10, Land Usel a4iA ase. Therefore, the Project's generation of GHG emissions would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to GHG emissions and climate change, and impacts would be less than significant. 4.7-2 Introduction This report provides a discussion of global climate change, existing regulations pertaining to global climate change, an inventory of the approximate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would result from the Project, and an analysis of the significance of the impact of these GHGs. The analysis and conclusions reached in this section are based on the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report (Pomeroy Environmental Services, December 2015) included as Appendix 6-1 to this EIR. 1. General Terms and Scientific Literature Earth's natural warming process is known as the "greenhouse effect." This greenhouse effect compares the Earth and the atmosphere surrounding it to a greenhouse with glass panes. The glass allows solar radiation (sunlight) into Earth's atmosphere, but prevents radiative heat from Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 4.7-1 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.13 Population and Housing 4.13-1 Summary 4.13 — Population and Housing Between 2000 and 2014, the population of the City of Santa Clarita increased from 151,088 residents to 181,559 residents, an increase of 30,471 residents, or approximately 16.78% over a 14 -year period s7 The CDF estimates the City's 2015 population at 213,331 residents ss The City's average household size is estimated at 3.10 residents for 2015. The City of Santa Clarita General Plan forecasts the City's population to be 275,000 89 at buildout. The General Plan forecasts a range of 98,322 to 128,850 jobs in the City at buildout. Impacts associated with the Project would be less than significant. 4.13-2 Introduction This section describes the existing population, housing, and employment within the City, identifies the regulatory framework with respect to regulations that address population and housing, and evaluates the significance of the potential changes in these factors that could result from implementation of the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project. 4.13-3 Existing Conditions 1. Regional Population and Housing Forecasts Forecasts for population and households for Los Angeles County by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are shown in Table 4.13-1 below. Table 4.13-1 SCAG Population and Housing Forecasts - Los Angeles County Source: SCAG, 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, Growth Forecast Appendix, April 2012 87 Southern California Association of Governments, Profile of the City of Santa ClaritaSax-Bxexauext�xa, (May 2015) 88 California Department of Finance, E-1 City/County Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change, January 1, 2014 and 2015 (2015). 89 City of Santa Clarita, One Valley One Vision Program Environmental Impact Report, Table 2.0-1, Summary of Population, Housing, and Employment Projections for the OVOV Planning Area and City's Planning Area at Buildout (May 2011). Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 4.13-1 2008 2020 2035 Change 2008-2035 Total Percent Population 9,778,000 10,404,000 11,353,000 1,575,000 13.87 Households 3,228,000 3,513,000 3,852,000 624,000 16.20 Employment 4,340,000 4,558,000 4,827,000 487,000 10.09 Source: SCAG, 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, Growth Forecast Appendix, April 2012 87 Southern California Association of Governments, Profile of the City of Santa ClaritaSax-Bxexauext�xa, (May 2015) 88 California Department of Finance, E-1 City/County Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change, January 1, 2014 and 2015 (2015). 89 City of Santa Clarita, One Valley One Vision Program Environmental Impact Report, Table 2.0-1, Summary of Population, Housing, and Employment Projections for the OVOV Planning Area and City's Planning Area at Buildout (May 2011). Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 4.13-1 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.13 — Population and Housing 2. Existing Population, Housing, and Employment Population data from the 2000 and 2010 Census, an estimate from the California Department of Finance (CDT) for 2015, and forecasts from SCAG for 2008, 2020, and 2035 are presented in Table 4.13-2 below. Between 2000 and 2014, the population of the City of Santa Clarita increased from 151,088 residents to 181,559 residents, an increase of 30,471 residents, or approximately 16.78% over a 14 -year period91 The CDF estimates the City's 2015 population at 213,331 residents 91 The Citys average household size is estimated at 3.10 residents for 201592 Between 2000 and 2014, the number of housing units in the City of Santa Clarita increased from 50,787 to 61,405, an increase of 10,618 housing units, or approximately 17.29% over a 14 -year period91 The DOF estimates the City's 2015 housing supply at 71,374 units94 Table 4.13-2 City of Santa Clarita Population, Housing, and Employment: Census Data and Forecasts Sources: US Census Bureau 2014 DP -1, California Department of Finance, 2015 SCAG, 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, Growth Forecast Appendix, April 2012 The City of Santa Clarita General Plan forecasts the City's population to be 275,00015 with a range of 98,322 to 128,850 jobs in the City at buildout of the General Plan. 3. Project Site A portion of the Project site is currently developed with 123 mobile homes. Fifteen (15) of these mobile home units are owner -occupied. The Applicant has reached relocation and/or purchase 90 Southern California Association of Governments, Profile of the City of Santa ClaritaSan PB exauext�xa, (May 2015). 91 California Department of Finance, E-1 City/County Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change, January 1, 2014 and 2015 (2015). 92 California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2011- 2015, with 2010 Benchmark (2015). 93 Southern California Association of Governments, Profile of the City of San Buenaventura (2015). 94 California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2011- 2015, with 2010 Benchmark (2015). 95 City of Santa Clarita, One Valley One Vision Program Environmental Impact Report, Table 2.0-1, Summary of Population, Housing, and Employment Projections for the OVOV Planning Area and City's Planning Area at Buildout (May 2011). Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 4.13-2 CDF US Census Estimate SCAG Forecasts Change 2000-2010 Change 2012-2035 Total Percent Total Percent 2000 2010 2015 2008 2020 2035 Population 151,088 176,320 25,232 14.31 213,231 175,900 201,300 237,100 61,200 25.81 Housing 50,787 59,507 8,720 14.35 71,374 59,300 70,100 81,900 22,600 27.59 Employment 92,900 108,700 122,600 29,700 24.23 Sources: US Census Bureau 2014 DP -1, California Department of Finance, 2015 SCAG, 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, Growth Forecast Appendix, April 2012 The City of Santa Clarita General Plan forecasts the City's population to be 275,00015 with a range of 98,322 to 128,850 jobs in the City at buildout of the General Plan. 3. Project Site A portion of the Project site is currently developed with 123 mobile homes. Fifteen (15) of these mobile home units are owner -occupied. The Applicant has reached relocation and/or purchase 90 Southern California Association of Governments, Profile of the City of Santa ClaritaSan PB exauext�xa, (May 2015). 91 California Department of Finance, E-1 City/County Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change, January 1, 2014 and 2015 (2015). 92 California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2011- 2015, with 2010 Benchmark (2015). 93 Southern California Association of Governments, Profile of the City of San Buenaventura (2015). 94 California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2011- 2015, with 2010 Benchmark (2015). 95 City of Santa Clarita, One Valley One Vision Program Environmental Impact Report, Table 2.0-1, Summary of Population, Housing, and Employment Projections for the OVOV Planning Area and City's Planning Area at Buildout (May 2011). Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 4.13-2 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.13 — Population and Housing Table 4.13-6 Project Employment Forecasts Notes: 1. Southern California Association of Governments, Empbyment Density Study Summary Report, October 31, 2001. 2. Number of employees extrapolated from City of San Jose, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Thornton Way Assisted Living Facility, August 2013 (20 employees, 81 units, 60,155 square feet) 3. Calculation based on 98,322 employees in City. The jobs/housing ratio is used as a general measure of balance between a community's employment opportunities and the housing needs of its residents. A ratio of 1.0 or greater generally indicates that a City provides adequate employment opportunities, potentially allowing its residents to work within the City. The Citys current (2013) jobs/housing ratio is approximately 1.12, indicating employment opportunities for residents to work within the City are readily available." As indicated in Table 4.13-6, implementation of the Project would increase the City's employment by 149444 jobs on the site, as no jobs currently exist. These new jobs have been accounted for in future forecasts, and represent 0.144% of the SCAG 2020 forecast and 0.154% of the City's buildout forecast. This new employment growth would result in population growth within the City, as the potential exists that future employees (and their families) would choose to relocate to the City. However, estimating the number of these future employees who would choose to relocate to the City would be highly speculative, since many factors influence personal housing location decisions. Based on the City's vacancy rate of 4.4%, 3,116 dwelling units were available (vacant) as of January 1, 2015. Therefore, if all 149 future Project employees occupied existing available dwelling units in the City, implementation of the employment generating uses of the Project could potentially increase the City's population by approximately 463422 persons. Collectively, new Project residential and employment generating land uses would result in a total population increase of 2,26128 persons. The additional population associated with potential employees relocating to the City and occupying existing either vacant housing or new housing has 97 Southern California Association of Governments, Local Profiles of SCAG Jurisdictions, Profile of the City of Santa Clarita, May 2015. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 4.13-10 Employment Factor Project (SF per Employment Employment Percentage of Land Use Square Feet Employee) (Jobs) Estimate Forecasts Forecasts Project Retail/Restaurant X5,80060 000 5001 414120 Assisted Living Facility 75;00085 000 3,0002 2529 Total Project 43MN145,000 436149 2020 RTP/SCS Forecast for 108,700 0.13% City of Santa Clarita General Plan Forecast (at Buildout) 98,322-128,050 0.14%3 Notes: 1. Southern California Association of Governments, Empbyment Density Study Summary Report, October 31, 2001. 2. Number of employees extrapolated from City of San Jose, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Thornton Way Assisted Living Facility, August 2013 (20 employees, 81 units, 60,155 square feet) 3. Calculation based on 98,322 employees in City. The jobs/housing ratio is used as a general measure of balance between a community's employment opportunities and the housing needs of its residents. A ratio of 1.0 or greater generally indicates that a City provides adequate employment opportunities, potentially allowing its residents to work within the City. The Citys current (2013) jobs/housing ratio is approximately 1.12, indicating employment opportunities for residents to work within the City are readily available." As indicated in Table 4.13-6, implementation of the Project would increase the City's employment by 149444 jobs on the site, as no jobs currently exist. These new jobs have been accounted for in future forecasts, and represent 0.144% of the SCAG 2020 forecast and 0.154% of the City's buildout forecast. This new employment growth would result in population growth within the City, as the potential exists that future employees (and their families) would choose to relocate to the City. However, estimating the number of these future employees who would choose to relocate to the City would be highly speculative, since many factors influence personal housing location decisions. Based on the City's vacancy rate of 4.4%, 3,116 dwelling units were available (vacant) as of January 1, 2015. Therefore, if all 149 future Project employees occupied existing available dwelling units in the City, implementation of the employment generating uses of the Project could potentially increase the City's population by approximately 463422 persons. Collectively, new Project residential and employment generating land uses would result in a total population increase of 2,26128 persons. The additional population associated with potential employees relocating to the City and occupying existing either vacant housing or new housing has 97 Southern California Association of Governments, Local Profiles of SCAG Jurisdictions, Profile of the City of Santa Clarita, May 2015. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 4.13-10 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.15 - Fire Protection 4.15 Fire Protection 4.15-1 Summary Fire protection and emergency medical response services for the Project site and the surrounding area are provided by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Specifically, 416 fire stations with 15447 engine companies,' ass e , .. ent efia_ne ,.afnlg ...;, 5 paramedic squads, 1 hazardous materials squad, and g ladder trucks serve the Santa Clarita Valley. Fire Station 132 is the jurisdictional engine company that would respond to emergencies on the project site. Fire Station 132, located at 29310 Sand Canyon Road, is also approximately 0.5 mile north (1 minute) from the Project site. Fire Station 107, located at 18239 West Soledad Canyon Road, is approximately 2.8 miles (6 minutes) southwest of the Project site. Fire Station 123, located at 26321 Sand Canyon Road, is approximately 3 miles (6 minutes) south of the Project site. The Project site is located within an area described by the Forester and Fire Warden for Los Angeles County as a Fire Zone 4, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, which denotes the County Forester's highest fire hazard potential. All applicable fire code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire hydrants, water fire flows, brush clearance and fuel modification plans would need to be met by the Project. The Project Applicant also would pay fire facility fees, which would be used to help fund the construction of new facilities and purchase of additional equipment. In addition, tax revenues generated by the Project would assist in securing additional equipment and hiring of firefighter personnel for the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The Project would be required to comply with City codes and requirements relative to the provision of adequate fire protection services to the site during both the construction and operational stages of the Project. Thus, the Project would not diminish the staffing or the response times of existing fire stations in the City of Santa Clarita, nor would it create a special fire protection requirement on the Project site that would result in a decline in existing service levels in the City. In summary, the Project with mitigation would result in less than significant project -specific and cumulative impacts on fire protection services in the City of Santa Clarita. 4.15-2 Introduction This section describes the existing fire protection facilities within the City, identifies the regulatory framework with respect to regulations that address fire protection, and evaluates the significance of the potential changes in these factors that could result from implementation of the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 4.15-1 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.15-3 Existing Conditions Urban Fire Protection Services 4.15 - Fire Protection As part of the Los Angeles County Consolidated Fire Protection District (a special district of Los Angeles County), the City of Santa Clarita receives urban and wildland fire suppression service from the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD). Mutual aid or assistance pacts are maintained with several local, state, and federal agencies. As of 20179, there areae 1644 fire stations with 154 engine companies, , five paramedic squads, one hazardous materials squad, and two ladder trucks serving the City's Planning Area. A nine -person hazardous materials squad operates out of Fire Station 150S}ae,'u. Approximately 7564 firefighters are on duty every day, 24 hours a day (not including chief officers and fire prevention staff). in 2007-, Ave temigaranv fire stations with T=as Angeles (;;aufAvx were moving ahead to build - had established tomparary Stations 1 The LACoFD has indicated there are no planned improvements in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. However, the LACoFD's 20165-y;ea+ Developer Fee Detailed Fire Station Plan indicates one replacement station for temporary Station 104 and eight additional stations in the Santa Clarita Valley, and of those eight, Fire Station s143 became operational in October 2016BiBp .aa:." Bal gtatieB iB .r.,. SaBta (;;' ._:.. v4k-J-14 Aside from the personnel and equipment listed above, the LACoFD has additional resources available to provide back-up services to the City as needed, including additional engine companies, truck companies, paramedic squads, hazardous material squads, firefighting helicopters, other fire camps, and a variety of specialty equipment. The jurisdictional station for the Project site is Fire Station 132, located at 29310 Sand Canyon Road, is approximately 0.5 mile north of the Project site. Additional fire protection services are provided by Fire Stations 107 and 123. Fire Station 107, located at 18239 West Soledad Canyon Road, is approximately 2.8 miles southwest of the Project site. Fire Station 123, located at 26321 Sand Canyon Road, is approximately 3 miles south of the Project site. If a significant incident occurs, the Project site would be served by the full resources of the LACoFD, not just the stations located closest to the site or that have primary jurisdiction within the Santa Clarita Valley."' Valley One VisiHn Geetefal i «aifie4 J e 1 201 i i i i i 100 Correspondence from Kevin T. Johnson, Acting Chief, Forestry Division, Prevention Services Bureau, County of Los Angeles Fire Department, January 6, 2016. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 4.15-2 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.15 - Fire Protection Table 4.15-1, Los Angeles County Fire Stations Serving the Santa Clarita Valley AreaEes n..,.ele r..oHt a40 stations c04:1 -i .g the c *t Cl fit Valley Are describes the fire stations within the Santa Clarita Valley and their location. A description of the operational characteristics of the stations closest to the Project site and, therefore, most likely to respond is provided below. Los Angeles County Fire Station 132 maintains a 4 -person engine company (1 fire captain, 1 fire fighter specialist, and 2 fire fighters). All uniform personnel at this station are trained and certified as Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT) and are capable of providing basic life support. The emergency response time from the station to the Project site would be approximately 1 minute. Los Angeles County Fire Station 107 maintains a 3 -person engine company (1 fire captain, 1 fire fighter specialist, and 1 fire fighter/paramedic) and a 2 -person paramedic squad (2 fire fighter/paramedic). In addition to all personnel being certified as EMTs, three of the personnel are certified as paramedics and are capable of providing advanced life support. The emergency response time from the station to the Project site would be approximately 6 minutes. Los Angeles County Fire Station 123 maintains one engine company. The emergency response time from the station to the Project site would be approximately 6 minutes. Table 4.15-1 Los Angeles County Fire Stations Serving the Santa Clarita Valley Area Fire Station Location Fire Station 731 24875 N. Railroad Avenuggan PoFnando Road, Santa ClaritalSlw,haµ, CA 91321 Fire Station 761,2 27223 Henry Mayo Drive, Valencia, CA 91355 Fire Station 81 8710 W. Sierra Highway, Aqua Dulce, CA 91350 Fire Station 104 (Temporary) 26201 Golden Valley Road, Santa Clarita, CA 91359 Fire Station 1071 18239 W. Soledad Canyon Road, Canyon Country, CA 91351 Fire Station 108 28799 N. Rock Canyon Drive, Santa Clarita, CA 91390 Fire Station 1111 26829 Seco Canyon Road, Saugus, CA 91350 Fire Station 123 26321 N. Sand Canyon Road, Canyon Country, CA 91387 Fire Station 1241,2 25870 Hemingway Avenue, Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381 Fire Station 126 26320 Citrus StreetAveaNe, Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Fire Station 132 (Temporary) 29310 Sand Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, CA 91387 Fire Station 143 28580 Hasley Canyon Road, Castaic, CA 91355 Fire Station 1491,2 31770 Ridge Route, Castaic, CA 91387 Fire Station 150 19190 Golden Valley Road, Santa Clarita, CA 91387 Fire Station 156 (Temporary)2 24525 W. Copper Hill Drive, Santa Clarita, CA 91350 geur�e� Table 3.15 7, Pn al PFegwn Env Pqnmental !FnpaGt Re p94 * the Gty of Santa GlaFta's PFepesed One Valley One Vs on GeneFal Plan, Vol uFne !,One Valley One Vs on 2010, !FnpaGt SGenGes, in G., dated May 2011, Ge4 fie d june 14, 2011. Notes: 1. With paramedic units. 2. Outside City boundaries (including Sphere of Influence) No LACoFD improvements are planned in the immediate area of the Project site. There are eight additional fire stations identified in the LACoFD's Developer Fee Detailed Fire Station Plan, and of Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 4.15-3 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.15 - Fire Protection those eight, Fire Station 143 become operational in October 2016. , LACoFD facilities in the Santa Clarita Valley are funded with impact fee revenues generated within the City of Santa Clarita and the unincorporated areas of the Santa Clarita Valley."' The LACoFD also maintains three fire camps with three fire crews, which include Los Angeles County Jail inmate teams of 12 to 15 fire laborers. These camps are located in San Francisquito Canyon, in Soledad Canyon, and at the Peter Pitchess Honor Rancho. An additional County non - inmate crew of eight to ten members provides wildland fire fighting protection for the Santa Clarita Valley area. The level of service provided to areas within the City is determined by the LACoFD, and LACoFD does not calculate service -to -population ratios. Such ratios do not properly reflect the need for fire protection and emergency medical services because they do not account for demand caused by non-residential structures, vacant land with combustible vegetation, vehicular incidents, and transient population. Indicators of need for additional units or fire stations is based on a combination of response times, incident loads, resident and transient populations, and square footage of improvements. Nationally recognized response time targets for urban areas is five minutes for a basic life support unit (engine company) and eight minutes for an advanced life support unit (paramedic squad). The LACoFD uses the following response guidelines: In urban areas, a 5 -minute or less response time for the first arriving unit for fire and emergency medical service responses, and an 8 -minute or less response for the advanced life support (paramedic) unit, or In suburban areas, an 8 -minute response time for the first arriving unit, and 12 minutes for the advanced life support (paramedic unit). The LACoFD is currently meeting these guidelines. The LACoFD annually updates its Five -Year Capital Plan, which identifies anticipated facilities that would be constructed during the specified planning horizon. Funding used for land acquisitions, facility improvements, and partial funding of new equipment is generated through the LACoFD's Developer Fee Program, and funding used for increases in staffing is generated from local property taxes. The LACoFD has a developer fee in effect in the Antelope Valley, Santa Clarita Valley, and Santa Monica/Malibu Area. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and City Council for Santa Clarita recently approved an update to the developer fee amount to 1.1846$4 9884 per square foot of new floor areas of buildings, effective February 1, 2017294Fr The fee is adjusted on an annual basis. The Applicant is required to pay fees in effect at the time of building permit for the construction of fire stations, and the full cost of firefighting equipment. 101 Correspondence from Kevin T. Johnson, Acting Chief, Forestry Division, Prevention Services Bureau, County of Los Angeles Fire Department, January 6, 2016. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 4.15-4 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.15 - Fire Protection that all construction -related requirements of the landscape plan and the irrigation plan be fulfilled, as approved by the LACoFD. Implementation of the applicable General Plan goals and policies, conditions of approval, and Mitigation Measures MM PS -2 and MM PS -3 below would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Operational Impacts Although the Project would be in close proximity to existing fire stations, it would increase the demand on existing fire protection resources in the general area. Additional manpower, equipment, and facilities would be needed to accommodate future growth, and the LACoFD has long-range plans to upgrade the level of fire protection in the area as growth occurs. Thus, as required by Mitigation Measure MM PS -1 the Project Applicant would be required to pay fees, under the Developer Fee Program to provide funds for fire protection facilities, which are required by new residential, commercial, or industrial development in an amount proportionate to the demand created by the Project. Currently, the developer fee is1 1846$9883 per square foot of building space, and is due and payable at the time a building permit is issued. Because the Project site is located within a VHFHSZ, the Project must comply with all applicable Building and Fire Code requirements for such items as types of roofing materials, building construction, brush clearance, water mains, fire hydrant flows, hydrant spacing, access and design, and other hazard reduction programs for a VHFHSZ. The above requirements would ensure that Project operations would not diminish the staffing or the response times of existing fire stations in the Santa Clarita Valley, and that would not create a special fire protection problem on the site that would result in a decline in existing service levels in the Valley. Implementation of the applicable General Plan goals and policies and Mitigation Measures MM PS -4 through MM PS -6 would ensure that operational -related fire service impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. Wildland Fire Hazards As indicated previously, pursuant to the Los Angeles County Fire Code, a proposed project would create a significant threat to the safety of future residents and users of the project site if the project would result in the following. • Be located in a high fire hazard area (such as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone). • Be located in a high fire hazard area, and is served by inadequate access due to length, width, surface material, turnarounds, or grade of access roads. • Be located in a high fire hazard area and has more than 75 dwelling units on a single means of access. • Be located in an area having inadequate water and pressure to meet fire flow standards. • Be located in close proximity to potential dangerous fire hazard conditions or uses such as refineries, storage of flammable materials, or explosives manufacturing. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 4.15-11 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.15 - Fire Protection 4.15-7 Cumulative Impacts Future development within the City and surrounding unincorporated areas associated with the Project and related projects would be required to pay fees in accordance with the €e-LACoFD Developer Fees program, and to the satisfaction of LACoFD and/or the Cita a,....,.a The fees provide the tax revenues for the operation and staffing of local fire service facilities. Furthermore, the Project and related cumulative projects are required to meet City/County codes and requirements relative to providing adequate fire protection services to the site during both the construction and operational stages of the Project. Additionally, because development projects in the Santa Clarita Valley are subject to review and approval by the LACoFD, all developments must meet LACoFD's fire flow, fuel modification, and site access requirements to protect developments against structure and wildland fire hazards. Consequently, operation of cumulative projects would not diminish the staffing or the response times of existing fire stations in the Santa Clarita Valley, and would not create a special fire protection problem on the various sites that would result in a decline in existing service levels in the area or pose an unacceptable fire risk to people or structures. Therefore, payment of fees and/or development of new fire facilities, as required by the LACoFD, would reduce cumulative fire service impacts to a less than significant level. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required. Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant. 4.15-8 Sources Cited Santa Clarita General Plan, adopted June 14, 2011. Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the City of Santa Clarita's Proposed One Valley One Vision General Plan, Volume I, One Valley One Vision 2010, Impact Sciences, Inc., dated May 2011, certified June 14, 2011. Written correspondence from Kevin T. Johnson, Acting Chief, Forestry Division, Prevention Services Bureau, County of Los Angeles Fire Department, January 6, 2016. Los Angeles County GIS Viewer, Fire Hazard Zones, accessed February 16, 2016. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 4.15-13 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.19 - Traffic and Circulation Table 4.19-23 Freeway Ramp Peak Hour Volumes and V/C Summary — Opening Day Conditions Source: Table 5-5, Traffic Impact Analysis, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., dated December 21, 2016 (Appendix 11-1 to this EIR) LOS — level of service NB— northbound V/C— volume/capacity ratio SB— southbound Table 4.19-24 Ramp Intersection Peak Hour Queue Length Summary— Opening Day Conditions Peak Without Project With Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Hour Volume VIC I LOS Volume VIC LOS Volume VIC LOS Volume VIC LOS Interchange Ramp Lanes Capacity SR -14 at SB On 1 1,500 770 .51 A 590 .39 A 870 .58 A 710 .47 A Sand Canyon NB On 1 1,500 200 .13 A 570 .38 A 220 .15 A 600 .40 A EBLT SB Off 1 1,500 370 .25 A 240 .16 A 380 .25 A 270 .18 A 381 NB Off 1 1,500 490 .33 A 11080 .72 C 530 .35 A 1,200 .80 C Source: Table 5-5, Traffic Impact Analysis, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., dated December 21, 2016 (Appendix 11-1 to this EIR) LOS — level of service NB— northbound V/C— volume/capacity ratio SB— southbound Table 4.19-24 Ramp Intersection Peak Hour Queue Length Summary— Opening Day Conditions Source: Table 5-6, Traffic Impact Analysis, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., dated December 21, 2016 (Appendix 11-1 to this EIR) NB — northbound, SB — southbound; NBL — northbound left -tum lane, NBL R — northbound shared left- and right- turn lane EBL — eastbound left -turn lane, EBLT — eastbound shared left -turn and through lane, EBR— eastbound right -turn lane Level of Significance Before Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant during Project construction. Impacts would be significant during Project operations. Mitigation Measures MM T-1 Sand Canyon at Soledad Canyon. Modify traffic signal timing to coordinate with Kenroy Avenue and SR -14 SB Ramp intersections along Soledad Canyon Road. MM T-2 SR -14 SB Ramps at Soledad Canyon. Modify traffic signal to change westbound left - turn phasing from permissive to protected left -turn phasing MM T-3 The Project Developer shall enter into a Mitigation Agreement with Caltrans. Said Mitigation Agreement shall be finalized prior to the recordation of a final map. Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant during Project construction. Impacts during Project operations would be less than significant. Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 4.19-32 Without Project With Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Lane Length Queue Length Queue Length Queue Length Queue Length Interchange Lane feet feet feet feet feet SR -14 SB Off -Ramp at Soledad Cyn NBL 1,070 220 112 302 228 NBLR 450 298 287 286 243 SR -14 NB Off -Ramp at Sand Cyn EBL 270 117 314 140 461 EBLT 1,150 89 312 109 473 EBR 580 68 86 87 381 Source: Table 5-6, Traffic Impact Analysis, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., dated December 21, 2016 (Appendix 11-1 to this EIR) NB — northbound, SB — southbound; NBL — northbound left -tum lane, NBL R — northbound shared left- and right- turn lane EBL — eastbound left -turn lane, EBLT — eastbound shared left -turn and through lane, EBR— eastbound right -turn lane Level of Significance Before Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant during Project construction. Impacts would be significant during Project operations. Mitigation Measures MM T-1 Sand Canyon at Soledad Canyon. Modify traffic signal timing to coordinate with Kenroy Avenue and SR -14 SB Ramp intersections along Soledad Canyon Road. MM T-2 SR -14 SB Ramps at Soledad Canyon. Modify traffic signal to change westbound left - turn phasing from permissive to protected left -turn phasing MM T-3 The Project Developer shall enter into a Mitigation Agreement with Caltrans. Said Mitigation Agreement shall be finalized prior to the recordation of a final map. Level of Significance After Mitigation Impacts would be less than significant during Project construction. Impacts during Project operations would be less than significant. Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 4.19-32 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.19 - Traffic and Circulation Source: Table 4-17, Traffic Impact Analysis, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., dated December 21, 2016 (Appendix 11-1 to this EIR) Level of Significance Before Mitigation Impacts would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures MM T-4 Sand Canyon at Soledad Canyon (Cumulative Conditions). Modify traffic signal timing to coordinate with Kenroy Avenue and SR -14 SB Ramp intersections along Soledad Canyon Road. MM T-5 Sand Canyon at Soledad Canyon (Cumulative Conditions). Modify intersection to restripe one northbound right -turn lane to a through lane (for 2 NB Left, 2 NB Through and 1 NB Right) (Project Share = 24%). MM T-6 SR -14 SB Ramps at Soledad Canyon (Cumulative Conditions). Modify traffic signal to change westbound left -turn phasing from permissive to protected left -turn hp asingfIrstee *e peri+4ssi*e. MM T-7 SR -14 Freeway Mainline (Cumulative Conditions). Contribute pro -rata share to the anticipated costs for design and implementation of future improvements. (Project Share=1.6%). Level of Significance After Mitigation With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM T-4 through MM T-7, impacts would be less than significant. 4.19-8 Sources Cited Santa Clarita General Plan, adopted June 14, 2011. Information sourced for consistency determination of goals and policies. Stantec Consulting Services Inc., Sand Canyon Plaza Traffic Impact Analysis, December 2016. Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 4.19-44 Cumulative With Project Net Change Cumulative Without Project and Miti ation with Miti ation AM PeatHour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Location Dela Dela LOS Dela LOS Dela LOS2. Kenroy & Soledad Cyn 14.315.8 B 8.5 A 18.5 B3. Sand Cyn & Soledad Cyn 54.371.6 E 48.2 D 67.8 E4. SR -14 SB Rams & Soledad C n 27.512.8 B 33.9 C 29.6 C 6.4 16.8 Source: Table 4-17, Traffic Impact Analysis, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., dated December 21, 2016 (Appendix 11-1 to this EIR) Level of Significance Before Mitigation Impacts would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures MM T-4 Sand Canyon at Soledad Canyon (Cumulative Conditions). Modify traffic signal timing to coordinate with Kenroy Avenue and SR -14 SB Ramp intersections along Soledad Canyon Road. MM T-5 Sand Canyon at Soledad Canyon (Cumulative Conditions). Modify intersection to restripe one northbound right -turn lane to a through lane (for 2 NB Left, 2 NB Through and 1 NB Right) (Project Share = 24%). MM T-6 SR -14 SB Ramps at Soledad Canyon (Cumulative Conditions). Modify traffic signal to change westbound left -turn phasing from permissive to protected left -turn hp asingfIrstee *e peri+4ssi*e. MM T-7 SR -14 Freeway Mainline (Cumulative Conditions). Contribute pro -rata share to the anticipated costs for design and implementation of future improvements. (Project Share=1.6%). Level of Significance After Mitigation With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM T-4 through MM T-7, impacts would be less than significant. 4.19-8 Sources Cited Santa Clarita General Plan, adopted June 14, 2011. Information sourced for consistency determination of goals and policies. Stantec Consulting Services Inc., Sand Canyon Plaza Traffic Impact Analysis, December 2016. Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 4.19-44 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.21 - Wastewater 4.21 Wastewater 4.21-1 Summary Construction related impacts to wastewater disposal would not be significant, because portable, on-site sanitation facilities would be utilized during construction. The Project, at buildout 02ased on the project characteristics provided in Section 3.0), would generate a worst-case average total of 124,30^"4,94-2 gallons per day of wastewater that would be treated by the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District (the Saugus and Valencia Water Reclamation Plants). These facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the Project's wastewater generation. For this reason and based on supporting analysis provided below, wastewater disposal impacts would not be significant. 4.21-2 Introduction This section describes the existing wastewater facilities within the City, identifies the regulatory framework with respect to regulations that address wastewater, and evaluates the significance of the potential changes in these factors that could result from implementation of the Sand Canyon Plaza Canyon Mixed -Use Project. 4.21-3 Existing Conditions Wastewater Service Most wastewater generated within the Santa Clarita Valley is treated at two existing water reclamation plants, which are operated by the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (CSDLAC). These two treatment facilities, the Saugus Water Reclamation Plant (SWRP) located at 26200 Springbrook Avenue in Saugus, and the Valencia Water Reclamation Plant (VWRP) located at 28185 The Old Road in Valencia, have been interconnected to form a regional treatment system known as the Santa Clarita Valley Joint Sewerage System (SCVJSS). The relationship between the two water reclamation plants was established through a joint powers agreement that created the regional treatment system and permits the VWRP to accept flows that exceed the capacity of the SWRP. These two facilities provide primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment. The SCVJSS has a combined permitted treatment capacity of 28.1 million gallons per day (mgd) and currently processes an average flow of 17.9444 mgd?19 The mechanism used to fund expansion projects is the CSDLAC's Connection Fee Program. Prior to the connection of the local sewer network to the CSDLAC system, all new users are required to pay their fair share of the CSDLAC sewerage system expansion through a connection fee. The fees 119 Written correspondence from Adriana Raza, Customer Service Specialist, County Sanitation District of Los Angeles County, January 15, 2016 and April 17, 2017. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 4.21-1 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.21 - Wastewater Chloride 121 On November 4, 2008, the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District Board approved the Santa Clara River Chloride Reduction Ordinance of 2008. The ordinance took effect January 1, 2009. The ordinance prohibits residential automatic water softeners in the Santa Clarita Valley and prescribes measures the Sanitation Districts must undertake to reduce chloride. The standard method of disinfection using chlorine gas would be replaced with an ultraviolet (UV) system in an effort to further reduce all possible sources of chloride in the wastewater. SWRP and VWRP Upgrade 122 The nitrification and denitrification modification was constructed at the VWRP and the SWRP in 2004. The implementation of the Santa Clara River Chloride Reduction Ordinance prohibits residents from owning salt -based water softeners within the Santa Clarita Valley. While removal of these softeners would reduce the chloride discharge to the Santa Clara River, it does not eliminate the need to install some advanced treatment to meet discharge regulations. Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District Recirculated Supplemental Environmental Impact Report fall: RFin , Glan .entFatio.. and I imoted T.....L:„., IIRllRSRRR7RRlf■!!!llE7R!!'7RlRlR!!RS!�Rll72t�Rll7SRRS�RlR!!7.'!!7E■!lRRIAEY��RIIdIRl7l11 ■ ■!�[SZV NI!'��IY 1 1. Y ■ 1 ----------------- Jill, in I 121 Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the City of Santa Clarita's Proposed One Valley One Vision General Plan, Volume I, One Valley One Vision 2010, Impact Sciences, Inc., September 2010. 122 Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the City of Santa Clarita's Proposed One Valley One Vision General Plan, Volume I, One Valley One Vision 2010, Impact Sciences, Inc., September 2010. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 4.21-3 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.21 - Wastewater 0 .r existing ifidustfial facility. The currendy 19ralgased location is the joint Watof 42ollution C-O" (;;nnn. In October 2013, after nearly two years of extensive Public input, meetings, hearings, and environmental review, the SCVSD Board of Directors (SCVSD Board) approved as project to comply with the State-mandated chloride limit (Chloride Compliance Project) and certified that the associated 2013 Facilities Plan and EIR complied with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Chloride Compliance Project includes new reverse osmosis equil2ment at the Valencia WRP. The water that passes through a reverse osmosis membrane becomes ultra-clean water and the remaining salty water becomes a byproduct called brine that requires proper disposal. Brine was originally to be managed by deep well injection (DWI). Based on Public input regarding DWI, the SCVSD Board withdrew the DWI proposal and directed staff to investigate alternative deep well sites and additional brine management alternatives. In 2015, the SCVSD proposed to modify, teapproach to brine management by replacing DWI with the installation of enhanced brine concentration equipment at the Valencia WRP and disposal of the smaller amount of concentrated brine by limited trucking to an existing industrial facility, the Sanitation Districts' Joint Water Pollution Control Point in Carson. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for Brine Concentration and Limited Trucking (Trucking SEIR) was prepared to describe the environmental impacts from this brine management approach. On March 23, 2016, the SCVSD Board certified the Final Trucking SEIR and approved the change in the method of brine management. Most of the chloride compliance solutions investigated in the 2013 Facilities Plan and EIR included the production of brine. Because this brine cannot be discharged to the River, the Chloride Compliance Project would minimally reduce discharge of treated (recycled) water from at least one of SCVSD's WRPs to the River. As analyzed in the Trucking SEIR the reduction in discharge related to brine management would be a maximum of 52,000 gallons Per day or 0.4 Percent of the Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 4.21-4 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.21 - Wastewater discharged flow. Unrelated to the chloride compliance solutions, the SCVSD has considered the potential impacts of further reducing the discharge of treated water from the WRPs to the River, under the Recycled Water Project, to permit the direction of recycled water to community reuse such as landscape irrigation. Even though the Chloride Compliance Project and the Recycled Water Project are independent efforts (i.e., implementation of one does not require or necessitate implementation of the other), both projects were addressed in the 2013 Facilities Plan and EIR. The 2013 Facilities Plan and EIR described the Recycled Water Project as "Support for Municipal Reuse of Recycled Water" and contained an analysis of the potential environmental impacts to biological resources (including an endangered fish known as the unarmored threespine stickleback, or UTS) that could occur due to a proposed one-third reduction in discharge. The technical analysis that supported the EIR concluded that no significant impact would occur. Following the certification of the 2013 Facilities Plan and EIR, the Affordable Clean Water Alliance ("ACWA") filed a petition for writ to set aside the District's certification on the grounds that the documents failed to comply with CEOA in a number of respects. While the Trucking SEIR was being finalized, the Los Angeles County Superior Court (Court) ruled in February 2016 that the EIR for the 2013 Facilities Plan failed to comply with CEOA in two particulars . First, the Court determined that additional environmental study was necessary with respect to the impact of reduced discharge to the River resulting from the Recycled Water Project on the UTS. Secondly Court considered SCVSD's pursuit of an alternate method of brine management to be an "abandonment" of deep well injection, which left the SCVSD with an incomplete chloride compliance project because it had no approved method of brine management. The Court did not find fault with the environmental review related to the Chloride Compliance Project, but nonetheless set aside the 2013 Facilities Plan and EIR and related approvals until SCVSD complied with CEOA with respect to the two issues identified by the Court. On March 23, 2016, the SCVSD Board recertified the 2013 Facilities Plan and EIR without the Recycled Water Project to address the Court's first issue. SCVSD also certified the Trucking SEIR, approved a new brine management approach, and created a Modified Chloride Compliance Project to address the Court's second issue. As noted in the Trucking SEIR, the modified project would result in no more than a 0.4 percent reduction in discharge to the River. Such a reduction would have a negligible impact on biological resources, including UTS. Following the February, rig, SCVSD returned to the Court in April 2016 seeking approval to proceed with the Chloride Compliance Project while deferring implementation of the Recycled Water Project until further UTS study could be completed. On Tune 2, 2016, the Court determined that SCVSD could not do so because it had not studied the potential impacts of implementing the Chloride Compliance Project separate from the Recycled Water Project, delaying th��work to comply with the State chloride mandates. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 4.21-5 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.21 - Wastewater On August 4, 2016, SCVSD issued a Notice of Preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for Study of Impacts to the Unarmored Threespine Stickleback Fish Under Reduced Discharge Conditions from the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District's Water Reclamation Plants (Stickleback SEIR). The intent of Stickleback SEIR is to maintain support of both the Chloride Compliance Project and the Recycled Water Project under one CEQA document record. Since August, SCVSD and California Department of Fish and Wildlife have been working together to determine the appropriate criteria for analyzing impacts to UTS. Based on the progress of these discussions and the projected work remaining to complete the study, to minimize fines to ratepayers, SCVSD has decided to pursue the Recycled Water Project separately from the Chloride Compliance Project and recirculate the EIR. In response to the most recent Court ruling with regard to the Chloride Compliance Project, SCVSD is preparing a Recirculated Draft FIR for the Chloride Compliance Project, which was released for public review in August 2017 -y1 -'_A Jq aBtjgjpated tq bo 4:plpa ,.a i Iq Iato , p.:..�. 'n" CSDLAC Facilities Plan The CSDLAC prepared a 2015 Facilities Plan for the SCVJSS and an Environmental Impact Report dated January 1998. The 2015 Facilities Plan estimates future wastewater generation for the probable future service area of Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation Districts (SCVSD) in order to anticipate future treatment capacity and wastewater conveyance needs. According to CSDLAC estimates, total flows projected from the Santa Clarita Valley, exclusive of Newhall Ranch, would be 34.1 mgd. This projection is based upon SCAG 1996 population projections exclusive of Newhall Ranch. As a result of this finding, CSDLAC proposed to incrementally expand the treatment facilities to meet future needs in two expansions to a total of 34.1 mgd. This two-phase expansion plan, which increases treatment capacity by approximately 15 mgd, has been completed and has expanded treatment capacity by approximately 9 mgd (approximately a 47% increase) from 19.1 mgd. The second phase would increase treatment capacity by an additional 6 mgd and would be constructed as dictated by actual flow increases. Wastewater Collection System The CSDLAC wastewater collection system is composed of service connections that tie into the local collection network. This local network, comprising secondary and primary collectors, flows into the CSDLAC's trunk wastewater mains and the water reclamation plants. The CSDLAC maintains the wastewater trunk mains that lead to the two reclamation plants, and the local collection network is maintained by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Sewer Maintenance for the City of Santa Clarita. The SCVSD of Los Angeles County operates the Saugus Water Reclamation Plant (SWRP) and the Valencia Water Reclamation Plant (VWRP). The project site is currently developed, and as such, includes a wastewater collection and conveyance system on the property. Sewer lines exist on-site and in the immediate vicinity. The CSDLAC has indicated that a portion of the Project site is outside the jurisdictional boundaries of Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 4.21-6 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.21 - Wastewater 4.21-6 Impacts Analysis Util-3 Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Util-4 Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Util-5 Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that 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? Wastewater flow originating from the project site would discharge to a local sewer line, which is not maintained by the CSDLAC, for conveyance to the CSDLAC's Soledad Canyon Trunk Sewer, Section 5, located in the Sand Canyon Road at Lost Canyon Road 124 This pipeline is 18 inches in diameter and has the capacity of 5.7 mgd and conveyed a peak flow of 2.3 mgd when last measured in 2012.124 As previously discussed, the SCVJSS provide regional wastewater treatment. Thus, the SCVJSS would accept flows from the project site. The CSDLAC anticipates the Project would generate an average wastewater flow of 124,30^"4,°42 gallons per day based on the project characteristics provided in Section 3.0124 The wastewater generated by the Project would be approximately 0.449:4932% of the SCVJSS' treatment capacity of 28.1 mgd for average day flows. The Soledad Canyon Trunk Sewer, Section 5, had an available capacity of 3.4 mgd in 2011124 The Project represents 4.09% of the available capacity in Section 5. As previously discussed, the CSDLAC requires new users to pay a fee to connect to the CSDLAC's Sewerage System. Therefore, the CSDLAC would require payment of a connection fee to construct any incremental expansion of the SCVJSS to accommodate the Project. Furthermore, the City of Santa Clarita would not issue connection permits to the sewer system if it cannot be demonstrated that sufficient capacity exists to serve the proposed development. The Project Applicant has prep areprovided a sewer area study that been reviewed and approved by the City. The sewer area study shows that there is adequate capacity for the Project. Thus, the Project could not cause an exceedance of capacity of the wastewater conveyance system or SCVJSS treatment plants, since adequate capacity must be demonstrated in order to contribute flows to the system. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM Util-5 would ensure impacts to the wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities would be less than significant. Level of Significance Before Mitigation Impacts would be potentially significant. 124 Written correspondence from Adriana Raza, Customer Service Specialist, County Sanitation District of Los Angeles County, January 15, 2016 and April 17, 2017. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR March 2017 4.21-10 4. Environmental Impact Analysis 4.22 — Water Supply Ranch WRP, is approved as part of the Newhall Ranch project. A fourth Valley water reclamation plant, the Vista Canyon Water Factory, is approved as a part of the Vista Canyon Project. Waste Discharge Requirements and Water Recycling Requirements for the Vista Canyon Water Factory were issued by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board issued on June 9, 2016. Construction of this facility is expected to begin in late 2016. Overall, the current projections estimate that after discharging an instream flow requirement of recycled water to the Santa Clara River to protect aquatic species and habitat, up to 17,400 AT of recycled water would be available for beneficial reuse on golf courses, landscaping and other non - potable uses, as set forth in the 2015 UWMP. The majority of recycled water uses are projected to be landscape and golf course irrigation, both of which have high demands in the summer and low demands in the winter. In optimizing the customers served to eliminate the need to provide a backup supply of potable water in the summer, an anticipated 10,054 AFY is planned to be served in 2050. Refer to Section 4.4 and Table 4.3 of the 2015 UWMP for additional detail. No recycled water is proposed to be used on the Project site; and, therefore, SCWD is not relying on recycled water as a water source for the Project. If recycled water were to become available in the future for use on the Project site, it would be used for non -potable purposes such as landscape irrigation and in accordance with all applicable and relevant regulatory requirements. Although not part of the Project water supplies, recycled water rights add to the overall water supply availability and reliability in the Santa Clarita Valley as further discussed below. Effluent from the Valencia and Saugus WRPs has historically been discharged to the Santa Clara River (SCR) and must comply with the Upper Santa Clara River Chloride Total Maximum Daily Limit (TMDL) for chloride established by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB). The SCLA7SP 19relgared a Chloride C-empliance facilities Plan (facilities Plan) and inereasing the ttse of reeyeled water to help offset deffiands of potable ivatpr 41 flip sa4lta Qa In response to the most recent Court ruling with regard to the Chloride Compliance Project, SCVSD is preparing a Recirculated Draft FIR for the Chloride Compliance Project, which was released for public review in August 2017i " :_ a to he _ ' a e �- 244-7. This document updates and supplements the 2013 Facilities Plan and FIR to include brine concentration and limited trucking as the brine disposal option and to separate the Recycled Water Project. The production, discharge, distribution, and use of recycled water are subject to federal, state and local regulations and can be affected by court decisions. A specific example of how recycled water supplies can be affected by legal and regulatory factors is the recent litigation filed against the SCVSD in Affordable Clean Water Alliance v. Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District of Los Angeles12' and Affordable Clean Water Alliance v. Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District of Los 1e Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BS 145869 Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc. March 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Draft EIR 4.22-20 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies 3.1 State/Governmental Agencies Letter Agency Date Page Comment Letter 1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife ............. April 20, 2017................. 6 Comment Letter 2 Governor's Office of Planning and Research ........... April 18, 2017 ............... 22 Comment Letter 3 SoCalGas........................................................................ March 22, 2017 ............28 Comment Letter 4 Fire Department, County of Los Angeles ................. March 30, 2017.............30 Comment Letter 5 Department of Regional Planning.............................April 5, 2017.................44 Comment Letter 6 County of Los Angeles Public Health ...................... April 13, 2017...............62 Comment Letter 7 SCAQMD....................................................................... April 14, 2017............... 70 Comment Letter 8 Department of Animal Care and Control ................. April 17, 2017...............82 Comment Letter 9 County of Los Angeles Public Health ...................... April 17, 2017...............84 Comment Letter 10 California Department of Transportation ................. April 17, 2017............... 88 Comment Letter 11 Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County .............. April 17, 2017............... 94 Comment Letter 12 County of Los Angeles Public Library ...................... April 17, 2017.............104 Comment Letter 13 Office of the Sheriff, County of Los Angeles............ May 5, 2017 ................106 Comment Letter 14 Office of the Sheriff, County of Los Angeles............ May 5, 2017 ................110 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR August 2017 5 3. Responses to Comments Comment Letter 1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife April 20, 2017 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies State of California— Natural Resources Agency EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, DimcMr South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road San Diego, CA 92123 www.wildlife.ca.gov April 20, 2017 Mr. David Koontz City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dkoontz(cDsanta-clarita. com Dear Mr. Koontz: Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project (PROJECT) DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) SCH# 2015051005 The California CDFW of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Notice of Availability of a DEIR from the City of Santa Clarita for the Project pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.' The City of Santa Clarity provided the CDFW an extension to April 20, 2017 to provide comments. ] -j Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife. Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code. CDFW ROLE CDFW is California's Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources, and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State. [Fish & Game Code, §§ 711.7, subdivision (a) & 1802; Public Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subdivision (a)]. CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802.). 1-2 Similarly for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect state fish and wildlife resources. CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Public Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381.) CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code, including lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & Game Code, § 1600 at seq.) Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in "take", 1-3 as defined by state law, of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & Game Code, § 2050 at seq.), or state -listed rare plant pursuant to the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA; Fish and Game Code §1900 et seq.) authorization as provided by the applicable Fish and Game Code will be required. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY Proponent: Sand Canyon Plaza, LLC Objective: The objective of the Project is to develop the approximately 87-acreSand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project site with up to 580 residential units, 55,600 square 1-4 ' CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 at seq. The "CEQA Guidelines" are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR August 2017 6 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies Response to Comment Letter 1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife April 20, 2017 1-1 The comment is informational in nature and does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. However, because the comment does not raise an environmental issue, no further response is required. 1-2 The comment is informational in nature and does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. However, because the comment does not raise an environmental issue, no further response is required. 1-3 The comment is informational in nature and does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. However, because the comment does not raise an environmental issue, no further response is required. 1-4 The comment restates information contained in the Draft EIR, specifically information relating to the Project Description, and does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. However, because the comment does not raise an environmental issue, no further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR August 2017 7 3. Responses to Comments Mr. David Koontz City of Santa Clarita April 20, 2017 Page 2 3.1 - State/Governmental Agencies feet of retail commercial (including restaurants), and a 75,000 -square -foot (up to 120 - bed) assisted living facility. The Project includes three private recreation areas, commercial plaza areas, various private streets, driveways and landscaped areas, and adjacent roadway improvements to Sand Canyon Road (including the construction of two roundabouts) and Soledad Canyon Road. The Project would result in 2.2 million cubic yards of cut and fill balanced on-site, filling approximately 3 -acres of CDFW regulated streams/waterways. Project site is located immediately north of Soledad Canyon Road, east of Sand Canyon Road, north of State Route 14 (SR -14), and west of the Pinetree residential community in the City of Santa Clarita. The site consists of native coast live oak, California sagebrush scrub, holly leaf cherry and riparian vegetation communities. Location: City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, Timeframe: Developed in one phase, timeframe not specified. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City of Santa Clarita in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project's significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. Editorial comments or other suggestions may also be included to improve the document. Project Description and Related Impact Shortcoming Issue #1: Use of CBDDB and BIOS 5 tool to determine impacts. Issue: The DEIR states the lack of California Natural Diversity Database/BIOS data for the Project site as evidence these species don't appear on-site. The DEIR states "... the Project site is designated as Agriculture, with the areas surrounding the site designated as Urban. Neither of these habitats is considered a sensitive habitat. The California Natural Diversity Database, indicates no special status species (sensitive plants and wildlife) from the California Natural Diversity Database (December 2004) were documented for the Project site. A review of the California CDFW of Fish and Wildlife Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS) 5 tool, accessed August 17, 2015, confirmed that no sensitive habitats or sensitive species occur on the Project site." The DEIR then continues to disclose the site contains state ranked rare holly leaf cherry vegetation communities as well as numerous other native vegetation communities, as well as bats (protected mammals by CDFW), a special status reptile with the potential for numerous other special status species to be present. Specific impact: Impacts to sensitive, rare, threatened and/or endangered fish and wildlife resources potentially on-site would be missed using this methodology. Why impact would occur: The statement that the CNDDB/BIOS were consulted and due to lack of documentation on the Project site, it is concluded (confirmed) that special status plants and animals do not occur. CNDDB/BIOS are a positive sighting database. This means that if the site was not surveyed, or if results were not reported, there would be no record of resources on the property. CNDDB/BIOS disclaimer states that the results obtained from searches cannot and should not be used to determine presence/absence of species for a Project. 1-4 cont'd 1-5 1-6 1-7 The DEIR also states "transects of opportunity" were used for a baseline biological assessment. The DEIR should define "transects of opportunity" and how this 1-8 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies 1-5 The DEIR correctly states that no special status plants, animals, or plant communities have been reported previously for this subject property in the CNDDB. The report continues by stating that none were found during focused rare plant surveys. The DEIR has been revised to indicate that the site's current use as a mobile home park and that surrounding uses include residential and commercial uses. 1-6 The comment restates information contained in the Draft EIR, specifically information relating to the Project Description, and does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. However, because the comment does not raise an environmental issue, no further response is required. 1-7 The DEIR discusses each special status species and analyzes its occurrence potential on the subject property, based on existing conditions and known habitat requirements for each species. By definition, the literature search is a desktop predictive tool, the findings of which are verified during on-site field surveys. The findings reported in the DEIR result from the field investigations — not from the literature search. 1-8 The DEIR has been revised to clarify that systematic field techniques were used to thoroughly survey all habitats. "Transects of opportunity" is a term intended to indicate that all areas of the site were thoroughly investigated by field biologists. The entire site was walked, with the exception of the very steep areas in the eastern portion of the property; those areas were studied with binoculars. It should be noted that the survey protocols referenced in the CDU W letter do not speak to a requirement for replicable surveys. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR August 2017 9 3. Responses to Comments Mr. David Koontz City of Santa Clarita April 20, 2017 Page 3 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies methodology meet CDFW and USFWS protocol standards. Opportunistic broad scale 'surveys' often are not adequate for CEQA disclosure purposes as they are 1-8 limited to a "snap shot" in time. Biological field surveys should be methodical and cont'd repeatable during the appropriate times of year to determine the diversity of the biological resources on-site. Evidence impact would be significant: CDFW is unable to determine the extent of impacts based on the biological analysis conducted for the DEIR. CDFW can only 1-9 speculate on the impacts to biological resources and proposed mitigation measures. Absent survey data, CDFW is unable to provide meaningful avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures related to biological resources. CDFW recommends the lead agency request the project applicant to conduct appropriate biological surveys and to consult with CDFW for avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures prior to finalizing the DER. Issue #2: Botanical Surveys during drought conditions Issue: The DER describes botanical survey efforts conducted on the Project site during April, May, and June of 2014 and 2015 and concludes that surveys were conducted during a drought and not ideal for detecting rare plants. CDFW is concerned that focused botanical surveys were conducted 2 years ago during an ongoing drought, during conditions that do not maximize detection of flowering plant species. The DER also contends the habitat on-site is of "poor quality for rare plants' but gives provides no substantial evidence in the record to support these determinations. CDFW protocols state, especially with periods of extended drought, surveys may need supplemental work to be considered accurate or make a determination of negative finding. Moreover, botanical surveys within one year are typically considered representative of site conditions for determining impact analysis provided they are conducted at the appropriate time of year and proper weather conditions. Because the most recent surveys were conducted over two years ago during a prolonged drought, CDFW recommends that additional botanical surveys be conducted at the appropriate time of year with proper weather conditions and the results incorporated into the environmental document for review and comment. Specific impact: Project induced native plant population declines or local extirpation of special status plant species may result from immediate death or injury, habitat fragmentation, alteration of soil chemical and physical makeup, increased competition with exotic invasive weeds, and reduce photosynthesis and reproductive capacity. The effects of these impacts would be permanent or occur over several years. Why impact would occur: Impacts to botanical resources could occur from Project construction, maintenance, mitigation, irrigation, and fuel modification activities that result in vegetation crushing, trimming or removal, human intrusion, and the erosion, crushing and compaction or excavation of soil. The Project may introduce exotic invasive species such as Argentine ant (Linepithema humile) onto habitats supporting botanical resources and their arthropod pollinators and dispersal agents. It has been documented that wildlife habitat located within 200 meters of areas infested with Argentine ants were more likely to have been invaded. Within invaded sites, native ants were largely displaced, and their median species richness declined by more than 60% compared with uninvaded sites. (Fisher, Mitrovich, Matsuda and Pease., 2010). Evidence impact would be significant: Botanical surveys that are outdated (i.e., greater than 1.5 years as determined by CDFW) or conducted during conditions that do not maximize detection may overlook the presence or actual density of some special status plant species. Botanical surveys should be conducted on the Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 1-10 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 10 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies 1-9 The DEIR provides species survey data in the form of compendiums for all flora and fauna identified during all field surveys, and provides a vegetation map. Further, the DEIR quantifies impacts to each vegetation covertype, and provides mitigation measures. This information meets the standards for adequacy for EIRs under CEQA. 1-10 The DEIR specifically discusses the degraded conditions of the subject property, apparently resulting from a combination of ongoing drought heavy use by off-road vehicles (motorcycles), and previous fires. The actual text of the DEIR — "... habitat quality for rare plants is generally poor" — is supported previously in the document where existing conditions are described in detail. Finally, at the request of CDFW, sensitive plant surveys were conducted in the summer of 2017. The results concluded that no rare plants were found in the project area (Appendix 3). The results will be submitted to CDFW. 1-11 The DEIR discusses the potential impact of non-native ants, and includes mitigation measures that would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. See Response to Comment 1-10 above as it relates to updated surveys. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 11 3. Responses to Comments Mr. David Koontz City of Santa Clarita April 20, 2017 Page 4 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies Project site after optimal precipitation and timing stimulate emergence within the seed bank. Based on the current record, Take of special status plant species including state- and federal- listed species may occur on site without adequate cont'd detection, avoidance and mitigation measures. Therefore, the Project may result in a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on special status species. Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s) Mitigation Measure: To reduce impacts to less than significant CDFW recommends that protocol -botanical surveys be repeated using methods to maximize detection of special status plants on the Project site during 2017, a non - drought year, and that these results be disclosed in the DEIR. All botanical surveys should be floristic in nature and follow CDFW's Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (Survey Protocols) see: (http://www.dfg.ca.govlbiogeodata/vegeamp/natural communities.asp). Special status plants should be assumed to occur in areas of suitable habitat regardless of survey results during drought conditions. As indicated above, reliance on delineations performed during periods of extended drought and surveys over 1 year old should be updated to fully disclose the current condition and botanical resources on-site. CDFW recommends that additional botanical surveys be conducted at the appropriate time of year with proper weather conditions and the results incorporated into the environmental document for review and comment. CDFW recommends avoidance of any special status plant species. CDFW does not consider translocation, or planting of rare/sensitive plant resource into a developments' landscaping appropriate mitigation to offset biological values. Issue #3: Inadequate mitigation proposed for impacts to CDFW rare holly leaf cherry vegetation community 1-12 Issue: The DEIR MM Bio -6 proposes a 1:1 ratio (one holly leaf shrub to be planted for each holly leaf shrub impacted) to mitigate the loss of 1.66 -acres of state rare 1-13 holly leaf cherry alliance vegetation, and that the planting may be located within the landscaped areas of the property. The measure also specifies a 3 year monitoring period and allows for unspecified temporary irrigation. CDFW does not consider planting 1 plant of a diverse vegetation community, within a development, adequate mitigation for impacts to holly leave cherry communities. Specific impact: Holly leaf cherry communities that occur on-site are made up of many different plants with different percent cover, diversity and abundance of species that comprise these two communities on-site. Simply planting one species, the holly leaf cherry, does not mitigate the two holly leaf cherry vegetation communities found on the Project site. CDFW considers MM Bio -6 inadequate mitigation that would result in the loss of 1.66 acres of rare these vegetation communities. Additionally, the DEIR should contain a discussion as to the local significance and distribution of these rare holly leaf cherry vegetation communities. CEQA (Guidelines §§ 15125(c)) require the Lead Agency to include information on the 1-14 regional setting that is critical to an assessment of environmental impacts, with special emphasis placed on analyzing resources that are rare or unique to the region must to be incorporated into the DEIR. Evidence impact is significant: CDFW has ranked the holly leaf cherry vegetation communities as S3, rare to uncommon and rare for the purposes of CEQA analysis. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 12 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies 1-12 At the request of CDFW, floristic and focused rare plant surveys were conducted in spring 2017. The focused rare plant surveys found evidence of slender mariposa lilies (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis). A restoration plan will be prepared as required per MM Bio -6. (Please see Appendix 3). A report describing the methodology and findings will be prepared and submitted to CDFW. 1-13 The DEIR has been revised to clarify the distinction between the holly leaf cherry chaparral (0.35 acre) and the holly leaf cherry buckwheat scrub (1.31 acres) alliances on the subject property. Only the holly leaf cherry chaparral is ranked G3 S3, and thus considered rare under CEQA. 1-14 The regional distribution of holly leaf cherry vegetation was not found mapped nor discussed in published literature, and was not discussed or included in the list of "Sensitive Communities" in the June 2011 City General Plan, Conservations and Open Space Element (page CO -27). No changes were made to the DEIR, because this information does not appear to be available. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 13 3. Responses to Comments Mr. David Koontz City of Santa Clarita April 20, 2017 Page 5 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies The continued loss of this vegetation community, without appropriate mitigation, 1-14 concerns CDFW and could result in local extirpation. cont'd Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s): 1) CDFW recommends avoiding impacts to the 1.66 -acres of holly leaf cherry vegetation communities, if avoidance is not feasible, minimizing impacts to the maximum 1-15 extent possible. 2) Any impacts to the holly leaf cherry vegetation communities should be mitigated at a minimum 5 acres of preservation/restoration for every 1 acre of impact. All mitigation should be held to quantifiable success criteria including species diversity, species richness, abundance, percent cover, and non- native cover below 3%. Success criteria should be based on the composition of the vegetation communities being impacted. Success should not be determined until the site has been irrigation4ree for at least 5 years and the metrics for success have remained stable (no negative trend for richness/diversity/abundance/cover and no positive trend for invasive/non-native cover) for at least 5 years. Issue #4: Deferred mitigation Issue: CEQA Guidelines §15070 and §15071 require the DEIR to analyze if the Project may have a significant effect on the environment as well as review if the 1-16 Project will `avoid the effect or mitigate to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur'. Relying on future surveys, the preparation of future management plans, or mitigating by obtaining permits from CDFW are considered deferred mitigation under CEQA. In order to analyze if a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Project related impacts, including survey results for species that occur in the Project footprint need to be disclosed during the public comment period. This information is necessary to allow CDFW to comment on alternatives to avoid impacts, as well as to assess the significance of the specific impact relative to the species (e.g., current range, distribution, population trends, and connectivity) Issue #5: MM Bio -4 (requiring pre -construction surveys and implementation of bat boxes) Issue: MM Bio4 "If any special -status bat species are determined to be roosting on-site, bat boxes of a size and design suitable for the estimated number of bats 1-17 on-site shall be installed". Bat boxes have a very low success rate, and many bat species, including those with the potential to occur on-site do not utilize bat box type of habitat. Impacts to Bats: The DEIR states several species of bats have the potential to occur onsite; however, surveys were not conducted prior to circulation of the DEIR. Therefore, the DEIR does not adequately describe the potential for impacts to bats. The Project site contains mature oak trees, structures, rock outcrops, riparian habitat and is adjacent to a water source (Santa Clara River). The Project site has the potential to support several species of bats. Bats are considered non -game mammals and are protected by state law from take and/or harassment (Fish and Game Code §4150, CCR §251.1). Several bat species are also considered Species of Special Concern (SOC), which meet the CEQA definition of rare, threatened, or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines §15065). CDFW considers adverse impacts to a SOC, for the purposes of CEQA, to be significant without mitigation. CDFW recommends bat surveys be conducted by a qualified bat specialist to determine baseline conditions within the Project and within a 500 -foot buffer, and analyze the potential significant effects of the proposed Project on the species (CEQA Guidelines §15125). CDFW recommends the DEIR include the use of acoustic recognition technology to maximize detection of bat species to minimize impacts to sensitive bat species. The DEIR should document the presence of any Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 14 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies 1-15 The DEIR has been revised to clarify that the holly leaf cherry restoration plan shall include an appropriate matrix of native plant species typical of that vegetation alliance at a ratio of 5:1. 1-16 The DEIR provides species survey data in the form of compendiums for all flora and fauna identified during all field surveys, and provides a vegetation map. Further, the DEIR quantifies impacts to each vegetation covertype, and provides mitigation measures. This information meets the standards for adequacy for EIRs under CEQA. Furthermore, the biological mitigation measures will be required by the City of Santa Clarita as a condition of approval. With the exception of the holly leaf cherry restoration plan, all other biological mitigations must be conducted immediately prior to ground -disturbing activities. 1-17 At the request of CDFW, bat surveys have been conducted qualified biologists and confirm that no habitat of bats were found in the project area. The results of these surveys will be provided to the City and CDFW and are included in Appendix 3. Additionally, Mitigation Measure Bio -4 will be expanded to include the preparation of a relocation and monitoring plan in coordination with the City and the CDFW. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 15 3. Responses to Comments Mr. David Koontz City of Santa Clarita April 20, 2017 Page 6 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies bats and include species specific mitigation measures to reduce impacts to below a level of significance. To avoid the direct loss of bats that could result from removal of trees, rock crevices, structures, that may provide roosting habitat (winter hibernacula, summer, 1-17 and maternity), CDFW recommends the following steps are implemented: cont'd 1. Identify the species of bats present on the site; 2. Determine how and when these species utilize the site and what specific habitat requirements are necessary [thermal gradients throughout the year, size of crevices, tree types, location of hibernacula/roost (e.g., height, aspect, etc.)]; 3. Avoid the areas being utilized by bats for hibernacula/roosting; if avoidance is not feasible, a bat specialist should design alternative habitat that is specific to the species of bat being displaced and develop a relocation plan in coordination with CDFW. 4. The bat specialist should document all demolition monitoring activities, and prepare a summary report to the Lead Agency upon completion of tree/rock disturbance and/or building demolition activities. CDFW requests copies of any reports prepared related to bat surveys (e.g., monitoring, demolition); 5. If confirmed occupied or formerly occupied bat roosting/hibernacula and foraging habitat is destroyed, habitat of comparable size, function and quality should be created or preserved and maintained at a nearby suitable undisturbed area. The bat habitat mitigation shall be determined by the bat specialist in consultation with CDFW; 6. A monitoring plan should be prepared and submitted to the Lead Agency. The monitoring plan should describe proposed mitigation habitat, and include performance standards for the use of replacement roosts/hibernacula by the displaced species, as well as provisions to prevent harassment, predation, and disease of relocated bats; and, 7. Annual reports detailing the success of roost replacement and bat relocation should be prepared and submitted to Lead Agency and the CDFW for five years following relocation or until performance standards are met, whichever period is longer. Evidence Impact would be significant. Absent the above requested information, the DEIR does not analyze impacts to bats, and the DEIR does not provide any alternatives discussion or any avoidance strategies and proposes bat boxes that have a very poor success record and are not appropriate habitat for most bats residing in the Project area. Issue #6: Wildlife Corridor. Issue: The DEIR does not fully analyze the site for purposes of local and regional 1-18 wildlife movement potential from the foothills, under SR -14 to the Santa Clara River. Wildlife Movement and Connectivity. The Project area supports significant biological resources, and is located in the Mint Canyon/Soledad Canyon region. The Project is currently available to facilitate wildlife movement from the foothills to the north, under SR -14 to Santa Clara River. The foothills surrounding the project contain low density development, with pockets of open space. The project area contains habitat connections and supports movement across the broader landscape, sustaining both transitory and permanent wildlife populations. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 16 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies 1-18 The DEIR discusses the current conditions of the Project site and surrounding land uses relative to wildlife movement corridors. As described in the DEIR, the site is an island surrounded by residential and commercial development and busy roadways. Wildlife movement from the Project site to the south is currently restricted. Soledad Canyon Road, which parallels the south side of the subject property, is a designated major highway in the City's General Plan with a posted speed limit of 50 mph. Directly south of Soledad Canyon Road is State Route 14, a six- to eight -lane freeway. Although wildlife may attempt to cross to the river, this street is a barrier to wildlife movement and a mortality sink. There is a vehicle underpass of SR 14 at Oak Spring Canyon Road, east of the Project site, which is located in a developed residential neighborhood. To use this undercrossing, wildlife would need to cross Soledad Canyon Road in a residential neighborhood to reach this underpass. Sand Canyon Road along the west side of the property is secondary highway in the City's General Plan with a speed limit of 45 mph. Residential uses are located directly west of Sand Canyon Road. The drainage course along the western side of the property flows into an underground storm drain at the southern perimeter of the site; therefore, this tributary does not provide a wildlife movement corridor connecting the Santa Clara River. Based upon the above identified constraints, the City respectfully disagrees with CDFW's assertion that the site could potentially be used as a wildlife corridor. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 17 3. Responses to Comments Mr. David Koontz City of Santa Clarita April 20, 2017 Page 7 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies The DEIR did not address how the project may be used as a wildlife corridor. The DEIR dismisses any value while providing no rationale or substantial evidence to support this conclusion. The DEIR should include a discussion of current wildlife movement routes available through the foothills to the Santa Clara River. The DEIR should also evaluate if the loss of this passage is the significance. The DEIR should identify other local corridors that exist and will continue to allow wildlife movement to the Santa Clara River from the foothills. Evidence impact would be significant. Aspects of the project could create physical barriers to wildlife movement from direct or indirect project -related activities. Indirect impacts from lighting, noise, dust, and increased human activity may displace wildlife in the general area. CDFW recommends the DEIR include studies that track wildlife movement and dispersal across the Project site, including large mammals, and discuss how the Project will affect the use and dispersal patterns. CDFW also recommends the DEIR include maps showing local and regional wildlife movement patterns and analyze how the Project will affect these corridors. The DEIR asserts the Project will not have a significant effect on wildlife movement. CDFW requests the DEIR include data and maps to support these conclusions. Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s) (Regarding Environmental Setting and Related Impact Shortcoming): CDFW recommends reducing or clustering the development footprint to reduce the total area impacted and providing a larger buffer between housing and preserving the tributary to the Santa Clara River on-site. Issue #7: Preconstruction Surveys as Mitigation. Issue: The DEIR addressed the potential for a few sensitive species to be found within the Project footprint, and requires limited preconstruction surveys and relocation as mitigation measures to bring impacts below the significance threshold. Specific surveys were not conducted to disclose if these resources would be impacted and if alternative Project design would avoid or lessen these impacts. CEQA Guidelines §15070 and §15071 require the document to analyze if the Project may have a significant effect on the environment as well as review if the Project will `avoid the effect or mitigate to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur'. Relying on future surveys, the preparation of future management plans, or mitigating by obtaining permits from CDFW are considered deferred mitigation under CEQA. In order to analyze if a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Project related impacts, including survey results for species that occur in the entire Project footprint need to be disclosed during the public comment period. This information is necessary to allow CDFW to comment on alternatives to avoid impacts, as well as to assess the significance of the specific impact relative to the species (e.g., current range, distribution, population trends, and connectivity). ENVIRONMENTAL DATA CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey form can be found at the following link: http://www.df.g.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/CNDDB FieldSurvevForm.pdf. The completed form can be mailed electronically to CNDDB at the following email address: CNDDBftwildlife.ca.gov. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link: httr)://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/plants and animals.asp. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 1-18 1-19 1-20 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 18 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies 1-19 Since this comment letter was prepared, the Project Applicant has prepared updated rare plant surveys (spring 2017), focused California Gnatcatcher surveys July 2017 and Habitat and Acoustic Bat Surveys, July 2017 (Appendix 3). The focused rare plant surveys detected slender mariposa lilies (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis) on-site. A restoration plan will be prepared as required per MM Bio -6. (Please see Appendix 3). California Gnatcatchers were not found on- site during the 2017 surveys. However, habitat for bats and one special status bat species, Yuma myotis (Myotic yumanensis), was detected migrating through the site during the 2017 surveys. Given the typically lengthy timeframe between DEIR preparation, Project approval, and initial construction, it was deemed appropriate to require survey capture, and relocation work to be conducted immediately prior to ground -disturbing activities. These biological mitigations will be required by the City of Santa Clarita as conditions of approval. To further clarify this requirement the following mitigation measure MM Bio -1A has been added to the Final FIR. MM Bio -1A The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a pre - construction biological survey for special -status species determined to have potential to occur in suitable habitat within the Project site prior to the start of construction activities. If special -status species are detected during pre -construction surveys, appropriate mitigation plans will be prepared by a qualified biologist and submitted to the City of Santa Clarita for review and approval. Additionally, a biological monitor will be present periodically during construction to ensure that impacts to special - status species are minimized or do not occur. 1-20 The comment is informational in nature and does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. However, because the comment does not raise an environmental issue, no further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 19 3. Responses to Comments Mr. David Koontz City of Santa Clarita April 20, 2017 Page 8 FILING FEES 3.1- State/Governmental Agencies The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment 1-21 of filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089). CONCLUSION CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the DEIR to assist the City of Santa Clarita in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources. CDFW recommends addressing the information raised in this letter. CDFW also recommends 1-22 the City and Project Applicant consult with CDFW regarding these issues. Questions regarding this letter and further coordination on these issues should be directed to Kelly Schmoker at (949-581-1015), and Kelly.SchmokerCa�wildlife.ca.gov. Sincerely, Betty J. Courtney Environmental Program Manager I cc: CDFW Victoria Chau — Los Alamitos Scott Harris — Ventura Erinn Wilson — Los Alamitos Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, Sacramento Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 20 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies 1-21 The comment is informational in nature and does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. However, because the comment does not raise an environmental issue, no further response is required. 1-22 The comment is informational in nature and does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. However, because the comment does not raise an environmental issue, no further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 21 3. Responses to Comments Comment Letter 2 Governor's Office of Planning and Research April 18, 2017 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearingbouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on April 17, 2017, and the comments from the responding agency fes) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State 2-1 Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten -digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, in Eorgar r Director, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 1400 10th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 (916)445-0613 FAX(916)323-3018 w .opnca.gov Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 22 STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH00��i) e�A6 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT EDMUND G. BROWN SR. KRN Aixx GOVERNOR DIRECIOR April 18, 2017 oN BION Rpt�pPlNING Patrick LeClair TV of Santa Clarim APR 2 M 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 W1\ OVOF Subject: Sand Canyon-Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project SCH#: 2015051005 Dear Patrick LeClair: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. On the enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearingbouse has listed the state agencies that reviewed your document. The review period closed on April 17, 2017, and the comments from the responding agency fes) is (are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order, please notify the State 2-1 Clearinghouse immediately. Please refer to the project's ten -digit State Clearinghouse number in future correspondence so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104(c) of the California Public Resources Code states that: "A responsible or other public agency shall only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. Those comments shall be supported by specific documentation." These comments are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need more information or clarification of the enclosed comments, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency directly. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, in Eorgar r Director, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 1400 10th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 (916)445-0613 FAX(916)323-3018 w .opnca.gov Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 22 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies Response to Comment Letter 2 Governor's Office of Planning and Research April 18, 2017 2-1 The comment is informational in nature and does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. However, because the comment does not raise an environmental issue, no further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 23 3. Responses to Comments Document -.Details Report State Clearinghouse .Data Base SCH# 2015051005 Project"Title Sand Canyon-Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project Lead Agency Santa Clarita, City of 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies Type EIR Draft EIR Description The project includes redevelopment of the property with a mixed-use community including five Planning Areas. The project includes a total of 580 residential units. Vehicular access to the project site would come from Soledad Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road. Three privates streets would access the remaining Planning Areas,from Sand Canyon Road. The project would include grading approx. two million cubic yards of cut and fill balanced on-site. Additional remedial grading would be necessary to accommodate the project. Lead Agency Contact Name Patrick LeClair Agency City of Santa Clarita Phone 661-255-4349 Fax email Address 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 City Santa Clarita State CA Zip 91355 -Project.Location County Los Angeles .City Santa Clarita Region .Lat/.Long 34°.25' 44.00" N / 118° 25' 19.74" W Cross Streets Sand Canyon/Soledad Canyon Roads Parcel No. Various Township Range Section Base 'Proximity to: Highways 14 Airports Railways Waterways Santa Clara River Schools Canyon Springs Elem. .Land Use General Plan/Zoning: MXN-Mixed Use Neighborhood Zone Project Issues Agricultural Land; Air Quality; Archaeologic -Historic; Biological Resources; Drainage/Absorption; Flood Plain/Flooding; Forest Land/Fire Hazard; Geologic/Seismic; Minerals; Noise; Population/Housing Balance; Public Services; Recreation/Parks; Schools/Universities; Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Solid Waste; Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Water Supply; Wetland/Riparian; Growth Inducing; Landuse; Cumulative Effects; Aesthetic/Visual Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 5;.Department of Parks and Recreation; Agencies Department of Water Resources; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 7; Department of Housing and Community Development; State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 4; Department of Toxic Substances Control; Native American Heritage Commission Date Received 03/03/2017 Start of Review 03/03/2017 End of Review 04/17/2017 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR August 2017 24 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies STATLnrCALIEORNIA—CALIK)IMIASTATE-TRANSI'OItrA�{jj l;�r► EDA�li131? re DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 7 — Office of Regional Planning 100 S. MAIN STREET, MS 16 LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 PHONE (213) 897-0673 FAX (213) 897-1337 www.dot.ca.gov ��deRno�sQi��2`c April 17, 2017 Mr. Patrick LeClair Senior Planner City of Santa Clarita Community Development Dept. 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. LeClair: %1 CLEARINGHOUSE illakrng Conservation a California Way ofLlfe. r RE: Sand Canyon-Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH#2015051005 GTS#07-LA-2016-00723-FL Vic. LA/ 14/ PM 3.3.423 Thank, you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above referenced project. The proposed project consists of approximately 130,600 square feet (sf of commercial uses (includes 55,600 sf of retail/restaurants, and a 75,000 sf assisted living facility with up to 120 beds) and 580 residential units (includes 312 apartment units, 122 townhome units, and 146 condominium units), and it currently includes 123 mobile homes that would be removed as part of the proposed project. After reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) dated March 2017 and Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) in the Appendices (Appendix 11) dated December 21, 2016, Caltrans offers the following comments: • For Figure 2-3 of #15 intersection on Page 2.4 .of the TIA, it is currently labeled "SR -115 On -Ramp", a correction is needed to change to SR -14 On -Ramp. • TIA, Appendix A, Intersection Count Worksheets, the AM/PM Peak Hours should be between 6-9am for AM and 4-7pm for PM. To fully evaluate the potential impacts, Caltrans will need the counts to include these said hours, Please verify/validate this information with Caltrans Traffic Operations. "Provide a safe, sustainable, inlegrated and efcieni transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 25 3. Responses to Comments Mr. Patrick LeClair 04/17/2017 Page 2 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies • For MM T-2 and MM T-6, "SR -14 SB ramps at Soledad Canyon. Modification traffic signal to change westbound left -turn phasing from permissive to protective permissive." (DEIR, Executive Summary, Page 2.46-2.47) Caltrans acknowledges the proposed mitigation mentioned above but would recommend protected left -tum phasing. Caltrans requests that prior to completion of the Caltrans Mitigation Agreement, the applicant shall complete a study for the operations of the off.- and on-ramp for SR -14 east of Soledad Canyon Road, especially for the movement and queue analysis of the westbound left -turn phasing from Soledad Canyon on to the SR -14 SB on-ramp. If any improvements to the on-ramp are required as a result of that study, these improvements shall be completed prior to the 1001" certificate of occupancy. For MM T-3 and MM T-7, "The Project Developer shall enter into a Mitigation Agreement with Caltrans. Said Mitigation Agreement shall be finalized prior to the recordation of a final map," (DEIR, Executive Summary, Page 2.46-2.47) Caltrans acknowledges that "under cumulative conditions, the intersection of Sand Canyon Road at Soledad Canyon Road would be significantly impacted by the Project. Because of this impact is under ctumulative conditions, the Project would contribute its pro rata share of the improvement cost, and the improvement would be implemented when necessary given the anticipated growth in future traffic volumes." (DEIR, Traffic and Circulation, Page 4.19-1) Caltrans encourages the applicant to work with Caltrans early on to streamline the process of Mitigation Agreement for the Project's pro rata share (1.6%) of the SR -14 Freeway mainline (cumulative conditions). In view of SB 743, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is working to develop an alternative to LOS for evaluating transportation impacts pursuant to CEQA. Such as using Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the primary metric in identifying transportation impacts for all future development projects. Once OPR provides new guidance, Caltrans hopes to collaborate with the City to adopt methods of traffic analysis and new thresholds that are mutually acceptable. Caltrans acknowledges the Project's goals and policies to encourage pedestrian linkages, the implementation of bicycle facilities., and the reconfiguration of roadways. Such as to include enhanced safety features to minimize conflicts between transit riders, bicyclists, and motor vehicles. (DEIR, Executive Summary, Page 2.45) Caltrans continues to strive to improve its standards and processes to provide flexibility while maintaining the safety and integrity of the State's transportation system. It is our goal to implement strategies that are in keeping with our mission statement., which is to `provide a safe, sustainable, integrated, and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability. " Good geometric and traffic engineering design to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians are critical at every on and off ramp and freeway terminus intersection with local streets. Caltrans Trovide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transporlation system to enhance California's economy and livability" Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 3. Responses to Comments Mr. Patrick LeClair 04/17/2017 Page 3 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies will work with the City to look for every opportunity to develop projects that improve safety and connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists. Opportunities for improvements may exist on State facilities such as: freeway tennini, on/off--ramp intersections, overcrossings, under crossings, tunnels, bridges, on both conventional state highways and freeways. With regard to public transit, we recommend planning for gradual continual improvement of transit stops, bus bays, or other facilities, to accommodate traffic flow, especially on streets that are State Route locations or are near freeway intersections. As a reminder, storm water run-off is a sensitive issue for Los Angeles and Ventura counties. Please be mindful of your need to discharge clean run-off water and it is not permitted to, discharge onto State highway facilities. Any work to be performed within the State Right-of-way will need an Encroachment Permit and any transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials, which requires the use of oversized -transport vehicles on State highways, will require a Caltrans transportation permit. For inforination on the Permit process, please contact Caltrans District 7 Office of Permit at (213) 897-3631. If you have any questions or concerns regarding these comments and/or wish to schedule a meeting, please feel free to contact the project coordinator, Frances Lee at (213) 897-0673 or electronically at frances.lee@dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, DIANNA WATSON Branch Chief, Community Planning & LD IGR Review cc: Scott Morgan, State Clearinghouse 'Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livabilih Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 27 3. Responses to Comments Comment Letter 3 SoCalGas March 22, 2017 3.1- State/Governmental Agencies James Chuang Environmental Specialist SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company Sempra Energy utilities GT17E2 555 Fifth Street A Sempra Energy uwity Los Angeles, Ca. 90013 Tel: 213-244-5817 Fax 323 518 2324 03/22/2017 Mr. Patrick LeClair Senior Planner City of Santa Clarita/Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Re: The Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Dear Mr. Leclair: Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) appreciates the opportunity to review and respond to The Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project. SoCalGas understands that the proposed project would involve construction of a mixed use project consisting of up to 580 residential dwelling units, 55,600 square -feet of retail commercial (including restaurants), and a 75,000 square -feet (up to 120 bed) assisted living facility. The proposed project also 3-1 includes three private recreational areas, commercial plaza areas, various private streets, driveways, parking and landscaped areas, and adjacent roadway improvements to Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road. The project would abut approximately 0.6 mile along the eastern side of Sand Canyon Road and approximately 0.4 mile along the northern side of Soledad Canyon Road, and impact all internal streets of the existing mobile home park. We respectfully request that the following comments be incorporated in the administrative record. • SoCalGas has a distribution pipeline that runs along Sand Canyon Road and along Soledad Canyon Road. SoCalGas has service laterals and distribution pipelines that run along all of the internal streets of the existing mobile home park and single family residences along N Prairie Lane. 3-2 • SoCalGas recommends that the project proponent call Underground Service Alert at 811 at least two business days prior to performing any excavation work for the proposed project. Underground Service Alert will coordinate with SoCalGas and other Utility owners in the area to mark the locations of buried utility -owned lines. Once again, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on The Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project. If you have 3 —3 any questions, please feel free to contact me at (213) 244-5817 or wcchuangkn,semprautilities.com. 7 Sincerely, r' James Chuang Environmental Specialist Southern California Gas Company cc. Abagale Taylor, SoCalGas Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies Response to Comment Letter 3 SoCalGas March 22, 2017 3-1 This comment reiterates information contained within the Draft EIR. The comment is informational in nature and does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. However, because the comment does not raise an environmental issue, no further response is required. 3-2 This comment reiterates information contained within the Draft EIR. The comment is informational in nature and does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. However, because the comment does not raise an environmental issue, no further response is required. 3-3 The comment is a conclusion to the comment letter and does not raise an environmental issue; no further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 29 3. Responses to Comments Comment Letter 4 Fire Department, County of Los Angeles March 30, 2017 3.1— State/Governmental Agencies #`°�"` COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES i FIRE FIRE DEPARTMENT 5 1320 NORTH EASTERN AVENUE * . '�uKnn,n"' LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90063-3294 ��pART1A�ah DARYL L. OSBY FIRE CHIEF FORESTER & FIRE WARDEN March 30, 2017 Patrick Leclair, Senior Planner City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Leclair: NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, "SAND CANYON PLAZA MIXED USE PROJECT," IS REQUESTING APPROVAL TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO 580 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS, RETAIL COMMERCIAL INCLUDING RESTAURANTS, AND ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, LOCATED NORTH OF SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD EAST OF SAND CANYON ROAD, SANTA CLARITA, FFER 201700032 The Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report has been reviewed by the Planning Division, Land Development Unit, Forestry Division, and Health 4-1 Hazardous Materials Division of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. The following are their comments: PLANNING DIVISION: 4.15 FIRE PROTECTION 4.15-1 Summary Paragraph one should be updated to reflect that there are 16 fire stations servicing the Santa Clarita Valley with 15 engine companies, five paramedic squads, one hazardous 4-2 materials squad, and two ladder trucks. SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF: AGOURA HILLS BRADBURY CUDAHY HAWTHORNE LA HABRA LYNWOOD PICO RIVERA SIGNAL HILL ARTESIA CALABASAS DIAMOND BAR HIDDEN HILLS LA MIRADA MALIBU POMONA SOUTH EL MONTE AZUSA CARSON DUARTE HUNTINGTON PARK LA PUENTE MAYWOOD RANCHO PALOS VERDES SOUTH GATE BALDWIN PARK CERRITOS EL MONTEINDUSTRY LAKEWOOD NORWALK ROLLING HILLS TEMPLE CITY BELL CLAREMONT GARDENA INGLEWOOD LANCASTER PALMDALE ROLLING HILLS ESTATES WALNUT BELL GARDENS COMMERCE GLENDORA IRWINDALE LAWNDALE PALOS VERDES ESTATES ROSEMEAD WEST HOLLYWOOI BELLFLOWER COVINA HAWAIIAN GARDENS LA CANADA-FLINTRIDGE LOMITA PARAMOUNT SAN DIMAS WESTLAKE VILLAG SANTA CLARITA WHITTIER Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 30 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies Response to Comment Letter 4 Fire Department, County of Los Angeles March 30, 2017 4-1 This comment is an introduction to comments that follow and notes that the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was reviewed by the Planning Division, the Land Development Unit the Forestry Division, and the Health Hazardous Materials Divisions of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. No further response is required. 4-2 to 4-6 The text changes requested for DEIR Section 4.15, pages 4.15-1 through 4.15-3 by the Los Angeles County Fire Department will be incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The text on DEIR pages 4.15-1 through 4.15-3 will be revised as shown in the FEIR. DEIR page 4.15-1 (first paragraph, second sentence) Fire protection and emergency medical response services for the Project site and the surrounding area are provided by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Specifically, 16 3 -3 -fire stations with 15 34 -engine companies, 4 ss ssi: nt engine eew r an , 5 paramedic squads, 1 hazardous materials squad, and gladder trucks serve the Santa Clarita Valley. DEIR Page 4.15-2 (first paragraph under Urban Fire Protection Services heading) As part of the Los Angeles County Consolidated Fire Protection District (a special district of Los Angeles County), the City of Santa Clarita receives urban and wildland fire suppression service from the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD). Mutual aid or assistance pacts are maintained with several local, state, and federal agencies. As of 2017, the City's Planning Area is served by 16 fire stations with 15 engine companies, 5 paramedic souads. 1 hazardous materials squad, and 2 ladder trucks. ^ g of '2PP - aP • e;e �A nine -person hazardous materials squad operates out of Fire Station 150. �44j eR 74 Approximately 75 44 -firefighters are on duty every day, 24 hours a day (not including chief officers and fire prevention staff). The LACoFD has indicated there are no planned improvements in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. However, the LACoFD's 2016 5 �,eaFDeveloper Fee Detailed Fire Station Plan indicates one replacement station for temporary Station 104 and eight additional stations in the Santa Clarita Valley; of those eight additional stations, Fire Station 143 became operational in October 2016. Rlq�-.-a1qe ne Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 31 3. Responses to Comments Patrick Leclair, Senior Planner March 30, 2017 Page 2 4.15-3 Existing Conditions Urban Fire Protection Services 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies For paragraph one we have the following updates and/or corrections: Sentence three should be updated to state, "As of 2017, there are 15 engine 4-3 companies, five paramedic squads, one hazardous materials squad, and two ladder trucks serving the city's planning area." Since our last communication some resources in the Santa Clarita Valley have been reassigned; therefore sentence four should be updated to state that a nine -person 4-4 hazardous materials squad operates out of Fire Station 150. Sentence five should be updated to reflect that the daily on -duty firefighter personnel is 75. Sentences six through eight provide obsolete information and should be deleted. ] 4-5 Sentence ten should be updated to state, "However, the 2016 LACoFD's Developer Fee Detailed Fire Station Plan indicates one replacement station for temporary Fire Station 4-6 104 and efoht additional stations in the Santa Clarita Valley and of those eight, Fire Station 143 became operational in October 2016." Table 4.15-1 Los Angeles County Fire Stations Serving the Santa Clarita Valley Area should be updated as follows: Fire Station Location Fire Station 73 24875 N. Railroad Avenue, Santa Clarita, CA 91321 27223 Henry Mayo Drive, Valencia, CA 91355 Fire Station 76 Fire Station 81 8710 W. Siena Highway, Aqua Dulce, CA 91350 Fire Station 104 (Temporary) 26201 Golden Valley Road, Santa Clarita, CA 91359 Fire Station 107 18239 W. Soledad Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, CA 91351 Fire Station 108 28799 N. Rock Canyon Drive, Santa Clarita. CA 91390 26829 Seco Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, CA 91350 Fire Station 111 Fire Station 123 26321 N. Sand Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, CA 91387 Fire Station 124 25870 Hemingway Avenue, Stevenson Ranch, CA 91381 Fire Station 126 26320 Citrus Street, Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Fire Station 128 28450 Whites Canyon Road, Canyon Country. CA91351 29310 Sand Canyon Road, Santa Clarita, CA 91387 Fire Station 132 Fire Station 143 28580 Hasley Canyon Road, Castaic. CA 91355 31770 N. Ridge Route, Castaic, CA 91384 Fire Station 149 Fire Station 150 19190 Golden Valley Road, Santa Clarita, CA 91387 24525 W. Copper Hill Drive, Santa Clarita, CA 91350 Fire Station 156 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 32 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies 4-7 The text changes requested for DEIR Section 4.15, Table 4.15-1, page 4.15-3 by the Los Angeles County Fire Department will be incorporated into the Draft FEIR. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 33 3. Responses to Comments Patrick Leclair, Senior Planner March 30, 2017 Page 3 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies Paragraph five should be updated to state, "There are eight additional fire stations identified on the LACoFD's Developer Fee Detailed Fire Station Plan and of those eight, 4-8 Fire Station 143 became operational in October 2016." Paragraph eight sentence four should be updated to reflect the current developer fee amount is $1.1846 per square -foot effective February 1, 2017. 1 4-9 4.15-6 Impacts Analysis Operational Impacts The last sentence in paragraph one should update the developer fee amount to $1.1846 4-10 per square -foot. 4.15-7 Cumulative Impacts Level of Significance before Mitigation Correction: 4-11 Impacts could be potentially significant. Mitigation Measures Correction: All development projects in the Santa Clarita Valley shall participate in the Developer Fee Program to the satisfaction of the Los Angeles County Fire Department and/or City of Santa Clarita. LAND DEVELOPMENT UNIT: 1, The proposed development may necessitate multiple ingress/egress access for the circulation of traffic and emergency response issues. 2. The development of this project must comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants. 3. Specific fire and life safety requirements for the construction phase will be addressed at the building fire plan check. There may be additional fire and life safety requirements during this time. 4-12 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR August 2017 34 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies 4-8 The text changes requested for DEIR Section 4.15, page 4.15-3 (last paragraph, first sentence following Table 4.15-1) by the Los Angeles County Fire Department will be incorporated into the Final FIR. 4-9 The text changes requested for DEIR Section 4.15, page 4.15-4 (last full paragraph, fourth sentence) by the Los Angeles County Fire Department will be incorporated into the Final FIR. 4-10 The text changes requested for DEIR Section 4.15, page 4.15-11 (top of the page, first full sentence) by the Los Angeles County Fire Department will be incorporated into the Final FIR. 4-11 & 4-12 The City does not concur with the suggested text change that the Level of Significance Before Mitigation be changed to "Impacts count be potentially significant' from the DEIR statement that "Impacts would be less than significant' for the reasons noted below. The comments provided by the Land Development Unit will be made Conditions of Approval on the Projects Tentative Tract Map and/or site plans for each planning area. The City acknowledges the Land Development Units input and comment. The comments will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the Project. 2. Given that development projects are already required to participate in the LACoFD Developer Fees Program, it is not necessary to revise the text as requested. Instead, the text on DEIR Section 4.15, page 4.15-12 (first paragraph, first sentence) will be revised as shown below in the Final EIR. Future development within the City and surrounding unincorporated areas associated with the Project and related projects would be required to pay fees in accordance with the fe�LACOFD Developer Fees program7 and to the satisfaction of LACoFD and/or the Cites The fees provide the tax revenues for the operation and staffing of local fire service facilities. 4-12 The comments provided by the Land Development Unit will be made Conditions of Approval on the Projects Tentative Tract Map and/or site plans for each of the planning areas. The City acknowledges the Land Development Units input and comment. The comments will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the Project. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 35 3. Responses to Comments Patrick Leclair, Senior Planner March 30, 2017 Page 4 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies 4. Every building constructed shall be accessible to Fire Department apparatus by way of access roadways with an all-weather surface of not less than the prescribed width. The roadway shall be extended to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls when measured by an unobstructed route around the exterior of the building. 5. When involved with subdivision in a city contracting fire protection with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Fire Department requirements for access, fire flows, and hydrants are addressed during the subdivision tentative map stage. 6. Fire Department requirements for access, fire flows, and hydrants are addressed during the building permit stage. 7. Fire sprinkler systems are required in some residential and most commercial occupancies. For those occupancies not requiring fire sprinkler systems it is strongly suggested that fire sprinkler systems be installed. This will reduce potential fire and life losses. Systems are now technically and economically feasible for residential use. 8. The development may require fire flows up to 8,000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for up to a four hour duration as outlined in the 2016 County of Los Angeles Fire Code Appendix B. Final fire flows will be based on the size of buildings, its relationship to other structures, property lines, and types of construction used. 9. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet and shall meet the following requirements: a) No portion of lot frontage shall be more than 200 feet via vehicular access from a public fire hydrant. b) No portion of a building shall exceed 400 feet via vehicular access from a properly spaced public fire hydrant. c) Additional hydrants will be required if hydrant spacing exceeds specified distances. d) When cul-de-sac depth exceeds 200 feet on a commercial street, hydrants shall be required at the corner and mid -block. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 4-12 (cont'd) Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 36 3. Responses to Comments Patrick Leclair, Senior Planner March 30, 2017 Page 5 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies e) A cul-de-sac shall not be more than 500 feet in -length when serving land zoned for commercial use. 10. Turning radii shall not be less than 32 feet. This measurement shall be determined at the centerline of the road. A Fire Department approved turning area shall be provided for all driveways exceeding 150 feet in -length and at the end of all cul-de-sacs. 11. All on-site driveways/roadways shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet clear -to -sky. The on-site driveway is to be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building. The centerline of the access driveway shall be located parallel to and within 30 feet of an exterior wall on one side of the proposed structure. 12. Driveway width for non-residential developments shall be increased when any of the following conditions will exist: a) Provide 34 feet in -width when parallel parking is allowed on one side of the access roadway/driveway. Preference is that such parking is not adjacent to the structure. b) Provide 42 feet in -width when parallel parking is allowed on each side of the access roadway/driveway. c) Any access way less than 34 feet in -width shall be labeled "Fire Lane" on the final recording map and final building plans. d) For streets or driveways with parking restrictions: The entrance to the street/driveway and intermittent spacing distances of 150 feet shall be posted with Fire Department approved signs stating, "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE" in three-inch high letters. Driveway labeling is necessary to ensure access for Fire Department use. 13. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet and shall meet the following requirements: a) No portion of lot frontage shall be more than 200 feet via vehicular access from a public fire hydrant. b) No portion of a building shall exceed 400 feet via vehicular access from a properly spaced fire hydrant. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 4-12 (cont'd) Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 37 3. Responses to Comments Patrick Leclair, Senior Planner March 30, 2017 Page 6 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies c) When cul-de-sac depth exceeds 200 feet hydrants will be required at the corner and mid -block. d) Additional hydrants will be required if the hydrant spacing exceeds specified distances. 14. Turning radii shall not be less than 32 feet. This measurement shall be determined at the centerline of the road. A Fire Department approved turning area shall be provided for all driveways exceeding 150 feet in -length and at the end of all cul-de-sacs. 15. All on-site driveways shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet clear -to -sky. The 28 foot width does not allow for parking and shall be designated as a "Fire Lane" and have appropriate signage. The centerline of the on-site driveway shall be located parallel to and within 30 feet of an exterior wall on one side of the proposed structure. The on-site driveway is to be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building. 16. The 28 feet in -width shall be increased to: a) 34 feet in -width when parallel parking is allowed on one side of the access way. b) 36 feet in -width when parallel parking is allowed on both sides of the access way. c) Any access way less than 34 feet in -width shall be labeled "Fire Lane" on the final recording map and final building plans. d) For streets or driveways with parking restrictions: The entrance to the street/driveway and intermittent spacing distances of 150 feet shall be posted with Fire Department approved signs stating, "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE" in three-inch high letters. Driveway labeling is necessary to ensure access for Fire Department use. 17. When serving land zoned for residential uses having a density of more than four units per net acre: a) A cul-de-sac shall be a minimum of 34 feet in -width and shall not be more than 700 feet in -length. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 4-12 (cont'd) Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 38 3. Responses to Comments Patrick Leclair, Senior Planner March 30, 2017 Page 7 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies b) The length of the cul-de-sac may be increased to 1000 feet if a minimum of 36 feet in -width is provided. c) A Fire Department approved turning area shall be provided at the end of a cul-de-sac. 18. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 600 feet and shall meet the following requirements: a) No portion of lot frontage shall be more than 450 feet via vehicular access from a public fire hydrant. b) No portion of a structure should be placed on a lot where it exceeds 750 feet via vehicular access from a properly spaced public fire hydrant. c) When cul-de-sac depth exceeds 450 feet on a residential street, hydrants shall be required at the corner and mid -block. d) Additional hydrants will be required if hydrant spacing exceeds specified distances. 19. A Fire Department approved turning area shall be provided for all driveways exceeding 150 feet in -length and at the end of all cul-de-sacs. 20. Fire Department access shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet clear -to -sky and be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any single unit. If exceeding 150 feet provide 20 feet minimum paved width "Private Driveway/Fire Lane" clear -to -sky to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the unit. Fire Lanes serving three or more units shall be increased to 26 feet. 21. Streets or driveways within the development shall be provided with the following: a) Provide 36 feet in -width on all streets where parking is allowed on both sides. b) Provide 34 feet in -width on cul-de-sacs up to 700 feet in -length. This allows parking on both sides of the street. c) Provide 36 feet in -width on cul-de-sacs from 701 to 1000 feet in -length. This allows parking on both sides of the street. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 4-12 (cont'd) Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 39 3. Responses to Comments Patrick Leclair, Senior Planner March 30, 2017 Page 8 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies d) For streets or driveways with parking restrictions: The entrance to the street/driveway and intermittent spacing distances of 150 feet shall be posted with Fire Department approved signs stating "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE" in three-inch high letters. Driveway labeling is necessary to ensure access for Fire Department use. Turning radii shall not be less than 32 feet. This measurement shall be determined at the centerline of the road. 22. All access devices and gates shall comply with California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Articles 3.05 and 3.16. 23. All access devices and gates shall meet the following requirements: a) Any single -gated opening used for ingress and egress shall be a minimum of 26 feet in -width clear -to -sky. b) Any divided gate opening (when each gate is used for a single direction of travel i.e., ingress or egress) shall be a minimum width of 20 feet clear -to -sky. c) Gates and/or control devices shall be positioned a minimum of 50 feet from a public right-of-way and shall be provided with a turnaround having a minimum of 32 feet of turning radius. If an intercom system is used the 50 feet shall be measured from the right-of-way to the intercom control device. d) All limited access devices shall be of a type approved by the Fire Department. e) Gate plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department prior to installation. These plans shall show all locations, widths, and details of the proposed gates. 24. All proposals for traffic calming measures (speed humps/bumps/cushions, traffic circles, roundabouts, etc.) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review prior to implementation. 25. Disruptions to water service shall be coordinated with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department and afternate water sources shall be provided for fire protection during such disruptions. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 4-12 (cont'd) Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 40 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies this page intentionally blank Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 41 3. Responses to Comments Patrick Leclair, Senior Planner March 30, 2017 Page 9 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies The County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Land Development Unit appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. FORESTRY DIVISION — OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: The statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Forestry 4-13 Division include erosion control, watershed management, rare and endangered species, vegetation, fuel modification for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones or Fire Zone 4, archeological and cultural resources, and the County Oak Tree Ordinance. Potential impacts in these areas should be addressed. The loss of Oak tree habitat should be mitigated for pursuant to the provisions of the 4-14 City's Oak Tree Ordinance. This property is located in an area described by the Forester and Fire Warden as being in a Very High Fire Severity Zone. The development of this project must comply with all 4-15 Fire Hazard severity zone code and ordinance requirements for fuel modification. Specific questions regarding fuel modification requirements should be directed to the Fuel Modification Office at (626) 969-2375. HEALTH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISION: The Health Hazardous Materials Division of the Los Angeles County Fire Department has 4-16 no comments or requirements for the project at this time. If you have any additional questions, please contact this office at (323) 890-4330. Very truly yours, l! MICHAEL Y. TAKESHITA, ACTING CHIEF, FORESTRY DIVISION PREVENTION SERVICES BUREAU MYT:ac Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 42 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies 4-13 The comment notes the statutory responsibilities of the Forestry Division. Erosion control impacts are addressed in DEIR Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. Rare and endangered species and vegetation impacts are addressed in DEIR Section 4.4, Biological Resources. Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone impacts are addressed in DEIR Section 4.81 Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Archaeological and cultural resources impacts are addressed in DEIR Section 4.5, Cultural Resources. Oak tree impacts are addressed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources. 4-14 DEIR Section 4.4, Biological Resources reviews impacts to oak trees and the Project's compliance with the City's Oak Tree Ordinance. As concluded in DEIR Section 4.4, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -8, impacts to oaks trees would be less than significant. 4-15 DEIR Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, reviews impacts relative to the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, while DEIR Section 4.15, Fire Protection, reviews impacts relative to the provision of fire protection services to the Project site. As concluded in DEIR Section 4.8, with implementation of Mitigation Measures PS -4 through PS -6, impacts would be less than significant. 4-16 The comment notes that the Health Hazardous Division has no comments or requirements for the project. No further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 43 3. Responses to Comments Comment Letter 5 Department of Regional Planning, County of Los Angeles April 5, 2017 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies �ti OF L0.5 '% Los Angeles County � � ; Department of Regional Planning ce ^ ^Planningfor the Challenges Ahead Richard J. Bruckner April 5, 2017 Director Mr. Patrick LeClair City of Santa Cladta [Via e-mail: pleclair@santa-clarita.com] Dear Mr. LeClair: COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SAND CANYON PLAZA MIXED-USE PROJECT The Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning (DRP) is interested in providing comments regarding the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project. The project is 5-1 located within the City of Santa Clarita, however, it borders unincorporated Los Angeles County and is not far from a small housing tract off of Sand Canyon Road which is unincorporated. Please find below comments from the DRP regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Land Use • Properties in the unincorporated areas adjacent to and within V2 mile of the proposed project are designated as follows: LOS ANGELES COUNTY DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION HS Residential 5 (Maximum 5 dwelling units per acre) RL5 Rural Land 5 (Maximum 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres) o5 -C Open Space -Conservation • With the exception of the OS -C, these lands would provide for residential development at densities ranging from one unit per five acres to five units per acre. • OS -C identifies open space lands preserved as open space or used for passive recreation. • The concept of the Valley of Villages in the Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan (One Valley One Vision or OVOV) was cited in the DEIR and is applicable and the project is consistent with the OVOV Plan's goals and policies. • The site is bordered immediately to the north by much less intense rural land use of RL5; sensitivity to that interface with the rural lands area in the unincorporated 320 West Temple Street • Los Angeles, CA 90012 •213-974-6411 • Fax: 213-626-0434 • TDD: 213-617-2292 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 5-2 5-3 5-4 5-5 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 44 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies Response to Comment Letter 5 Department of Regional Planning April 5, 2017 5-1 The comment notes that the County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning is providing comments on the Project, which is located within the City of Santa Clarita and borders property within unincorporated Los Angeles County. The comment goes on to note that the Project site is in close proximity to a small housing tract in unincorporated Los Angeles County. The housing tract is the Canyon Collection gated community. The comments are introductory and informational. No further response is required. 5-2 The comment provides the Los Angeles County General Plan 2035 land use designations for properties within the unincorporated areas adjacent to and within one-half mile of the Project site. The text below also provides the corresponding zoning designation. These General Plan land use/zoning designations include: • H5 (Residential 5—maximum 5 dwelling units per acre)/R-1 (minimum 5,000 square foot lot) • RL5 (Rural Land 5—maximum 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres)/A-2-2 (Heavy Agricultural) • OS -C (Open Space Conservation)/O-S (Open Space) No further response is required. 5-3 The comment provides statements as to what uses and/or residential densities the H5, RL5, and OS -C designations permit. No further response is required. 5-4 The comment notes that the Project is consistent with the One Valley One Vision Plan's goals and policies. No further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 45 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies 5-5 The comment notes that the Project site is bordered by RL5 zoning to the north, and the Project should consider the urban -rural interface and the inclusion of additional landscaping and buffering techniques along the northern boundary of the Project site. County of Los Angeles and City of Santa Clarita General Plans The Santa Clarita City Council and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors initiated a joint planning effort, called One Valley One Vision, in recognition of a mutual need to coordinate land uses and the pace of development with provision of adequate infrastructure, conservation of natural resources, and common objectives for the Valley. The One Valley One Vision planning process reflects the City's and the County's mutual decision to coordinate land uses and the pace of development with provision of adequate infrastructure, conservation of natural resources, and common objectives for the Santa Clarita Valley. Major goals of the One Valley One Vision joint planning effort were to achieve greater cooperation between the County and the City, coordinated planning for roadways, infrastructure, and resource management, and enhanced quality of life for all who live and work in the Santa Clarita Valley. The One Valley One Vision public outreach efforts resulted in the development of a Vision and Guiding Principles that are the framework of consistent General Plans for the Santa Clarita Valley by the City of Santa Clarita and the County of Los Angeles. The Guiding Principles were incorporated into various elements of the General Plans as part of the policies. In addition, City and County staff compiled growth statistics and projections for the Santa Clarita Valley and collaborated when preparing the Land Use Map and land use designation for the 2012 Area Plan and 2011 General Plan. Implementation of the common One Valley One Vision goals and policies will be managed by the County of Los Angeles through the 2012 Santa Clarita Valley Area Plan for unincorporated portions of the Santa Clarita Valley and by the City of Santa Clarita through the 2011 General Plan. 2012 Area Plan Land Use Designations Adjacent to Project Site The existing land use designations in the immediate vicinity of the Project site include RL5, H5, H2, and OS -C. The RL5, H5, and H2 designations provide a transition between higher density, urban development in the City of Santa Clarita. 2012 Area Plan Land Use Designation Land Use Description RL5 Rural Land 5 (Maximum 1 dwelling per 5 acres) H5 Residential 5 (Maximum 5 dwelling units per acre) H2 Residential 2 (Maximum 2 dwelling units per acre) OS -C Open Space Conservation Existing On -Site and Surrounding Land Uses It is important to provide a context of the character of the Project site and surrounding uses. At stated Draft EIR (DEIR) page 4.10-1 "Residential uses are located to the north, Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 46 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 - State/Governmental Agencies east, and west, including Stetson Ranch and the Pinetree residential community. Commercial uses are located to the south and west along Sand Canyon Road." Additional language on DEIR page 4.10-12 further explains the existing character of the site and surrounding uses, "A portion of the Project site is currently developed with mobile home units. Remaining portions of the site are undeveloped. Surrounding uses include single-family residential to the west and north; single-family and multi -family residential to the east; and commercial uses to the south and west along Sand Canyon Road, north of SR 14." This is further exemplified with the following aerial photograph, which illustrates that urban uses surround the project site in all directions. The four parcels north of the Project site are zoned RL5 (Assessor Parcel Number [APN] 2839-005-021, -025, -026, -027). The northernmost parcel (APN 2839-005-025, approximately 7.57 acres) is occupied by Los Angeles County Fire Station No. 132, which is north of Thompson Road. The parcel immediately to the north (approximately 3.75 acres) is a Los Angeles County Flood Control easement (APN 2839-005-021). The two intermediate parcels (APN 2839-005-027, approximately 9.15 acres; APN 2839-005-026, approximately 3.64 acres) are under private ownership. The Canyon Collection gated residential community, zoned RL5, is located west of these four parcels in unincorporated Los Angeles County, as is the open space zoned O -S that surrounds this residential community. The Canyon Collection gated community includes 75 single-family detached homes that were constructed in 2005. Given that the four parcels north of the Project site include single-family residences and the Los Angeles County Fire Station, and parcels to the northwest include the Canyon Collection gated residential community, an urban -rural interface is not necessary. The Project site is located within an urban area. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 47 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies It is worth noting that there is a proposed development for the two parcels immediately north of the Project site to develop a single-family residential detached condominium subdivision with 41 units on APNs 2839-005-021 and 2839-005-027. The Los Angeles County Case Project Number is 03-251, and includes the following requested entitlements: • Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 54372 (pending) • Zone Change No. ZC03-251 (Zone change from A-2-2 to RPD -5,000-3.9U) • Conditional Use Permit No. CP03-251 (Hillside management area, grading exceeding 100,000 cubic yards) • Environmental Assessment No. IS03-251 A Los Angeles County Subdivision Committee Meeting report was prepared on December 29, 2016 with a status report to reschedule with the Subdivision Committee pending the requests outlined in the report. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 48 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies this page intentionally blank Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 49 3. Responses to Comments Mr. Patrick LeClair April 5, 2017 Page 2 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies area bordering the proposed development site in its design of the Project Area 3 (multi -family homes) and the Project Area 5 (single family homes) would minimize J 5-5 the impacts to the unincorporated communities adjacent to and near the project. Additional landscaping and other buffering techniques are suggested for the northern perimeter of the project area with the final project implementation to ease 5-6 the transition from a compact urban development to the unincorporated rural land that borders the northern edge of the project site. Aesthetics • Offsite aesthetic and other impacts would be lessened in the transition area between the urbanized development project site and the rural unincorporated area to the north with the adoption of Alternative 3: Ridgeline Preservation, which would5-7 preserve 1,200 lineal feet of a significant ridgeline and increase internal open space and landscaped areas with only 29 fewer residential units. • The mitigation measures currently proposed are inadequate in reducing impacts to less than significant as conceptual grading has already been designed to 5-8 remove ridgeline within property. • Please review the Los Angeles County Hillside Management Ordinance and consider if these standards can be implemented in the project. Figure 4.1-8 is 5-9 misleading in averaging slopes within the three areas — it makes it unclear how much development is occurring on over 50% slopes. • The analysis on pages 4.1-31 relies on the number of homes and the averaging of slope areas as a way to explain that the impacts are less than significant. However, there is no analysis which includes how much development is actually occurring in 5-10 the steeper areas. Development, which includes the grading footprint, is a more meaningful way of determining the scope of the project and its impact on hillsides. The use of averaging slopes also does not clearly provide information as to how steep these natural slopes are, and how the development is designed with respect to these slopes. • It is not made clear in the DEIR analysis how the removal of a significant ridgeline is not considered a significant impact when the slope alterations are to this scale. The natural topographic and prominent features are not retained to the extent 5-11 possible, as stated on page 4.1-27. Clustering 75% of the residential units and commercial land uses mostly in areas of less than 25% slope does not adequately address or lessen the environmental impact to less than significant when considering the entire footprint of the project in the areas of the site which have more than 25% slopes and also contain 50% slopes and a significant ridgeline. • It is unclearfrom the information provided in the DEIR why alteration of short-range views, in some cases quite dramatically (such as Viewing Locations 1 through 5), 5-12 are not considered a significant impact. For some of these Viewing Locations, the short-range view is the only view visible. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 50 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies 5-6 Please see Response to Comment 5-5 (page 46 above). 5-7 The comment states that the Department of Regional Planning's opinion that the Alternative 3: Ridgeline Preservation lessens aesthetics and other impacts in the urban -rural interface and that Alternative 3 should be adopted for the Project. As noted in Response to Comment 5-5 (page 46 above), an urban -rural interface is not needed. Also, the Draft EIR concluded that Alternative 3 is considered to be the "Environmentally Superior Alternative" for purposes of CEQA. The City acknowledges the Department of Regional Planning's input and comment. It should be noted that one of the Project modifications required by the Planning Commission eliminated grading on the northern portion of the ridgeline. This modification is very similar to DEIR Alternative 3. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. 5-8 The Project site includes a Significant Ridgeline identified by the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. As noted on DEIR page 4.1-32, the Project site has been previously disturbed for the development of the existing mobile home park and adjacent roadways, including impacts to the existing ridgeline and hillsides on the site. The Project as proposed includes the alteration of the ridgeline, and as such, is subject to a Ridgeline Alteration Permit. In addition, the Applicant is requesting approval of a Hillside Development Review Permit to allow development on slopes over 10%. DEIR Section 4.1, Aesthetics, provides a detailed justification of how the Project complies with Hillside Ordinance and Ridgeline Preservation Overlay Zone requirements, which included but are not limited to grading, buffers, setbacks, landscaping, and onsite placement of structures. As detailed on DEIR pages 4.1-23 through 4.1-33, the Project is consistent Hillside Development Ordinance. Also, as stated in the Ridgeline Preservation findings, the Project would be consistent with the overlay zone requirements with the approval of a ridgeline alteration permit. Mitigation Measures MM Aes-1 through MM Aes-3 ensure that previously disturbed portions of the ridgelines are blended into the neighboring topography and replanted. These mitigation measures supplement the Project's requirements and compliance with the Hillside Ordinance and Ridgeline Preservation Overlay Zone, and reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant. The City acknowledges the Department of Regional Planning's comment regarding the Project's proposal to alter the on-site ridgeline. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. 5-9 The Project site is located within the City of Santa Clarita, and thus, hillside development is regulated through the Santa Clarita Unified Development Code Chapter 17.51, not the Los Angeles County Hillside Management Ordinance. Unified Development Code Section 17.51.020.0 identifies the City's standards for hillside review and average slopes, and is restated below for your reference. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR August 2017 51 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies C. Development Standards for Hillside Development Review. The development standards shall apply to any use, development or alteration of land included in these regulations. 1. Hillside Classifications. Hillside categories have been identified by percentage of average slope in the following categories: a. Average slopes under ten percent (10%) are considered relatively flat and would not cause any conditions necessary for the implementation of this section. b. Projects with slopes which average ten percent (10%) or greater qualify for hillside plan review and shall be reviewed under the provisions of this section. Within the DEIR, the Project has been reviewed for its consistency with the City of Santa Clarita's Hillside Development Ordinance. Thus, the Project is not subject to Los Angeles County Hillside Management Ordinance, nor is it necessary to review the Project for its consistency with County Hillside Management Ordinance as the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning is not the Lead Agency, nor it is responsible or trustee agency under CEQA. 5-10 The analysis on page 4.1-31 is consistent with the requirements of the Ridgeline Preservation Overlay Zone. Also, please see Response to Comment 5-11 below. 5-11 The Project is altering a significant ridgeline in the City of Santa Clarita. The ridgeline alteration is subject to requirements in the City of Santa Clarita's Ridgeline Preservation Overlay Zone, as well as approval of a Ridgeline Alteration Permit. The Project does propose 2.2 million cubic yards of cut and fill on-site to create the five planning areas and open space, along with 850,000 cubic yards associated with remedial grading. DEIR Section 4.1 provides analysis showing the Project's consistency with the Hillside Development Ordinance (DEIR pages 4.1-23 through 4.1-28) and the Ridgeline Preservation Overlay Zone (DEIR pages 4.1-28 through 4.1-32). The analysis within the DEIR provides a review of each of the requirements listed above, and concludes the Project is consistent with and complies with both the Hillside Development Ordinance and Ridgeline Preservation Overlay Zone. Mitigation Measures MM Aes-1 through MM Aes-3 provided additional assurances relative to on-site grading and continued compliance with Hillside Development Ordinance and Ridgeline Preservation Overlay Zone requirements, and do reduce potentially significant aesthetics impacts to less than significant. 5-12 From both a land use and visual context it is important to understand surrounding uses. As stated on DEIR page 4.10-12, "A portion of the Project site is currently developed with mobile home units. Remaining portions of the site are undeveloped. Surrounding uses include single- family residential to the west and north; single-family and multi -family residential to the east; and commercial uses to the south and west along Sand Canyon Road, north of SR 14." Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 52 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies It is also important to understand a site's zoning. As stated on DEIR, page 4.10-17: The Project site is currently zoned MXN (Mixed Use Neighborhood) and UR -3 (Urban Residential 3). No residential or commercial land uses are proposed in the UR -3 zone. The MXN zone is intended for mixed-use development which is encouraged to create neighborhoods that integrate residential uses with complementary commercial services, including retail and office uses. Mixed-use neighborhoods should be designed in consideration of surrounding development patterns, proximity to public transit providing roadway and trail linkages to adjacent development where appropriate." The Project is consistent with the MXN (Mixed Use Neighborhood) zoning designations, and proposes 2-story/35-foot single-family detached and multi -family detached townhomes, 3-story/50-foot maximum multi -family detached apartments. The heights for the proposed residential uses are at or below the maximum 50 feet. The proposed commercial uses would not exceed 35 feet which is below the maximum 50 feet. The analysis on DEIR pages 4.1-15 through 4.1-23 focuses on Project impacts of scenic vistas. The text below is restated from DEIR pages 4.1-15 and 4.1-16. Viewing Location 1, which is within the Sierra Hills community west of the Project site, would be altered. Middle -ground views would include the multi -family apartment buildings in Planning Area 2, single-family detached homes in Planning Areas 4 and 5, and open space areas in Planning Area 5. Background views of the mountains would remain. Refer to Figure 4.1-2, Viewing Location 1, Existing and Proposed Views. Viewing Location 2, which is from the service station on the southwest corner of the Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road, would be altered. Middle -ground views would include the commercial uses in Planning Area 1 and the multi -family apartment buildings in Planning Area 2. The background view would only be of the commercial uses in Planning Area 1, as the manufactured slope along Soledad Canyon Road would be regraded and laid back. Refer to Figure 4.1-3, Viewing Location 2, Existing and Proposed Views. Viewing Location 3, which is from vacant land immediately west of the SR -14 Sand Canyon Road westbound off -ramp, would be altered. The foreground and middle - ground view from Soledad Canyon Road would include the commercial uses and assisted living facility in Planning Area 1 and single-family detached homes in Planning Area 5. Refer to Figure 4.1-4, Viewing Location 3, Existing and Proposed Views. Viewing Location 4, which is from the Santa Clara River and Oak Springs, just north of Lost Canyon Road and south of SR -14, would be altered. The foreground view of the Santa Clara River would not be altered. The middle -ground view would be altered to show the single-family residential homes and open space area in Planning Area 5, the multi -family apartment buildings in Planning Area 2, and the commercial uses and assisted living facility in Planning Area 1. The existing manufactured slope along Soledad Canyon Road would be regraded and laid back to allow for Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 53 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies landscaping. The background view consists of residential development west of the Project site and other prominent ridgelines in the City would remain. Refer to Figure 4.1-5, Viewing Location 4, Existing and Proposed Views. Viewing Location 5 is from westbound SR -14, slightly west of the Oak Springs Canyon Road overpass. The foreground view of the highway and the sound wall would not be altered. The middle -ground view would be altered to show the commercial uses and assisted living facility in Planning Area 1 and the multi -family apartment buildings in Planning Area 2. The background view consists of the Santa Susana Mountains west of the City would remain. Refer to Figure 4.1-6, Viewing Location 5, Existing and Proposed Views. Viewing Location 6, which is from Oak Spring Canyon Park east of the Project site, would be partially altered. The foreground view consists of the park and homes along the west side of Oak Canyon Springs Road would not be altered. The background view of the ridgeline would be partially altered to show open space areas and single- family detached homes in Planning Area 5. However, there are no scenic vistas in the foreground view. The DEIR acknowledges that there is a change in the short-range view from current conditions, and describes what off-site uses would see from the six viewing locations. While the Project would redevelop the site with a mix of single-family, multi -family, and commercial uses, these uses are consistent with the underlying zoning and are compatible with surrounding residential and commercial uses. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 54 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies this page intentionally blank Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 55 3. Responses to Comments Mr. Patrick LeClair April 5, 2017 Page 3 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies • The information provided in the DEIR is inadequate as to how the project meets the intent of polices addressing ridgelines and hillside resources in the Santa Clarita General Plan without causing significant environmental impacts. Those 5-13 relevant polices include: o Policy LU 1.3.2: Substantially retaining the integrity and natural grade elevations of significant ridgelines and prominent landforms; o Policy LU 1.3.3: Discourage development on ridgelines and on 50% slopes so that they remain natural; open space, and; o Policy LU 6.1.3: Ensuring new development protects the scenic backdrop of foothills through compatible hillside management techniques. • The information provided is inadequate to support a less than significant determination of impacts to ridgelines and sensitive hillside resources and is also 5-14 not clear how the project meets the intent of the City of Santa Clarita Unified Code Ridgeline Preservation Overlay Zone in Section 17.38.070 without incurring significant environmental impacts. • The information provided is also inadequate to support a less than significant determination of impacts to hillside management areas or how the project meets 5-15 the intent of the Hillside Development in Section 17.51 without significant environmental impacts to hillside resources. • We recommend for your Citys consideration a smaller project footprint and the inclusion of more sensitively designed project elements, such as leaving more 5-16 open space on the slopes above 25% and preserving the significant ridgeline which would require less grading and have less aesthetic and other environmental impacts to the hillsides and significant ridgelines and surrounding areas. • We also recommend for your Citys consideration incorporating some of the hillside design and development standards in the County Hillside Management Ordinance5-17 in County Code Section 22.56.217 which address site planning, grading, open space and other sensitive hillside design techniques. • Mitigation Measures MM Aes-1, MM Aes-2, and MM Aes-3 are inadequate to reduce impacts to less than significant due to the removal of the significant 5-18 ridgeline on the project site with the conceptual grading plan of 2.2 million cubic yards and additional remedial grading of 850,000 cubic yards of total cut and fill. Circulation The following are roadways as designated on the Master Plan of Highways, and intended to provide for regional circulation in the project area: 5-19 • Soledad Canyon Road: Major Highway— Existing • Sand Canyon Road — Proposed Limited Secondary Highway • The Antelope Valley (14): Freeway— Existing Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 56 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies 5-13 Table 4.10-1, General Plan Consistency Analysis, in DEIR Section 4.10, provides an analysis of the Project's consistency with the relevant General Plan Land Use Element policies, inclusive of Policies LU 1.3.2, LU 1.3.3, and 6.1.3 identified in the comment. The consistency analysis for the three policies has been excerpted from Table 4.10-1 and provided below. Policy LU 1.3.2: Substantially retain the integrity and natural grade elevations of significant natural ridgelines and prominent landforms that form the Valley's skyline backdrop. Consistent. The Project's design substantially retains the integrity and natural grade elevations of the site's significant natural ridgelines to the extent feasible. Development of the Project site would not impact prominent landforms in the Valley's skyline backdrop. Policy LU 1.3.3: Discourage development on ridgelines and Consistent. Project development is focused on areas of lands containing 50% slopes so that these areas are the site with slopes less than 50%. The Project would maintained as natural open space. impact a small portion of the site containing a manufactured slope previously graded as part of the Soledad Canyon Road widening. This area has an average slope of 73%. As indicated above, the Project would "lay back" this existing slope to soften its appearance to Soledad Canyon Road and SR -14. Policy LU 6.1.3: Ensure that new development in hillside Consistent. As concluded in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, areas is designed to protect the scenic backdrop of foothills the Project has been designed to preserve long-range and canyons enjoyed by Santa C arita Valley communities, views of scenic resources. In addition, the Project is through requiring compatible hillside management seeking a Hillside Development Review Permit, which techniques that may include but are not limited to clustering would address hillside management techniques. of development, contouring and landform grading, revegetation with native plants, limited site disturbance, avoidance of tall retaining and build-up walls, use of stepped ads; and other techniques as deemed appropriate. The analysis in Table 4.10-1 concludes the Project is consistent with the policies. 5-14 Please see Response to Comment 5-11 (page 52 above). 5-15 Please see Response to Comment 5-11 (page 52 above). 5-16 The comment suggests the City consider a smaller project footprint, leaving more land as open space on areas with slopes greater than 25%, and not altering the ridgeline. It should be noted that one of the Project modifications made by the Planning Commission included the elimination of grading on the northern portion of this ridgeline, similar to DEIR Alternative 3 in the DEIR. However, the City acknowledges the Department of Regional Planning's input and comment. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. Also, please see Response to Comment 5-7 (page 51 above). 5-17 Please see Response to Comment 5-9 (page 51 above). 5-18 Please see Response to Comment 5-11 (page 52 above). 5-19 The comment identifies three roadways designated on the Master Plan of Highways. No further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR August 2017 57 3. Responses to Comments Mr. Patrick LeClair April 5, 2017 Page 4 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies Comments: • There are supportive provisions for bikeways and pedestrian walkways in the 5-20 project's design. • Local commercial establishments in the development, such as grocery stores, pharmacies and banks, which are frequently used by residents, should be 5-21 enhanced to include such amenities as ample bicycle parking. • Provisions could be made in the project's design for the operation and charging of electric neighborhood vehicles for the further reduction of project -generated 5-22 automobile trips, lessening the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts and the impacts of transportation/traffic on the local roadways. Biological Resources Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures (p 2-10): Under Biological Resources,5-23 the first row cites the Ventura County General Plan Final EIR. This plan is not germane to the project at hand and this is presumed to be a typo. Ensure the proper documents were referenced and the land -use designation for the project site is as stated. Use of CNDDB Data (p 2-10): Statements provided in the Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures suggest a misunderstanding of the proper use of CNDDB. CNDDB 5-24 should not be used as a proxy for real on -the -ground surveys. The database is not a complete survey of California and is not suitable as a source for conclusive information regarding presence/absence information on particular parcels; it only provides data on observations where surveys have already been conducted and the information has been voluntarily submitted. The summary seems to rely on the fact that no CNDDB records exist for species on the parcel to assert that no impacts to sensitive species will occur from project implementation. Los Angeles County recommends revision of these passages. Wildlife Movement (p 2-10): The significance threshold referred to here (wildlife5-25 movement and nursery sites) pertains to all wildlife, not just sensitive species. Hence all species should be considered. Slender Mariposa Lily: Identify the species of mariposa lily referenced on page 4.4-6. Many species in the project region are sensitive, including one that has been determined to be potentially present on this site (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis). Fruits of many 5-26 Calochortus spp. are distinctive so dried individuals may have been identifiable if fruit capsules were still attached to the plant. Nevertheless, the 2017 bloom is robust and C. clavatus var. gracilis should be easily identifiable if present. It would be an easy matter to settle the presence or absence of C. clavatus var. gracilis prior to the certification of the project DEIR with a spring 2017 survey. Wildlife Movement (p 4.4-13): A statement is made that local barriers to wildlife movement are particularly insurmountable to large species such as deer, mountain lion, 5-27 etc.; however, these species would be the most capable of local wildlife to cross the barriers surrounding the site and access would be particularly difficult for smaller species. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 58 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies 5-20 The comment notes that the Project provides for bikeways and pedestrian walkways. The comment does not raise an environmental issue; therefore, no further response is required. 5-21 The City appreciates the comment for the Project to "include such amenities as ample bicycle parking." As site plans for each of individual planning areas submitted to the City for review, the plans will be required to comply with and provide on-site bicycle parking spaces per Santa Clarita Unified Development Code Section 17.51.060.I. 5-22 The City is responsible for the assessment and mitigation of air emissions resulting from its land use decisions, and as such has identified goals, objectives and policies in the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element. The Project's consistency with applicable goals are discussed on DEIR page 4.3-33, Table 4.3-9, Project Consistency with Applicable Air Quality Policies of the General Plan. Excerpts from Table 4.3-9 are provided below. Policy CO 7.1.1: Through the mixed land use patterns Consistent. The Project's mixed-use nature and urban and multi -modal circulation policies set forth in the Land location would serve to reduce trips by approximately 9% Use and Circulation Elements, limit air pollution from compared to a project without those features. This reduction in transportation sources. trips would serve to reduce vehicles mile traveled (VMT), congestion and associated air quality emissions. Policy CO 7.1.2: Support the use of alternative fuel Consistent. The Project would provide on-site electric vehicle vehicles. (EV) charging stations, supporting and promoting the use of electric vehicles. In addition, DEIR pages 4.7-27 and 4.7-28 discuss the Project's primary GHG reduction measures and design features, which include, but are not limited to: Land Use Transportation, Pedestrian Network Improvements, Low -Flow Water Fixtures, Vegetation and Landscape Irrigation Systems, Energy Reduction, and Alternative Fuel Vehicles. Thus, the Project would both reduce vehicle miles traveled and associated air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, as well as provide on-site electric vehicle charging stations. 5-23 The DEIR has been corrected. 5-24 The DEIR has been clarified to indicate that the CNDDB was used to understand the potential occurrence of special status species. The report discusses the findings of the field surveys, independent of the results of the literature search. The DEIR continues by discussing each special status species and analyzing its occurrence potential on the subject property, based on existing conditions and known habitat requirements for each species. By definition, the literature search is a desktop predictive tool, the findings of which are verified during on-site field surveys. The findings reported in the DEIR result from the field investigations — not from the literature search. 5-25 The language used in the Summary Section 2.0 reflects the Thresholds of Significance defined in Appendix G of the CEQA Statutes and Guidelines. The DEIR has been revised to clarify that all wildlife were considered in the discussion of regional and local wildlife movement. 5-26 Seed pods were present during the field surveys, which allowed the lilies to be identified as a species of the genus Calochortus. Rare plant surveys were prepared in the spring 2017 and detected slender mariposa lilies (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis) on-site. A restoration plan will be prepared as required per MM Bio -6. (Please see Appendix 3-3). 5-27 The DEIR has been revised to reflect this comment. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 59 3. Responses to Comments Mr. Patrick LeClair April 5, 2017 Page 5 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies Wildlife Movement/Nursery Sites (p 4.4-32): In discussion of impact Bio -4, note the potential for impacts to bat roosts (i.e., nursery sites) through implementation of the 5-28 proposed project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (213) 974-5-29 6461, or by email at phachiva(a)planning.lacounty.aov. Sincer Vat Patricia L. Hachiya, AICP Supervising Regional Planner Environmental Planning and Sustainability Section Advance Planning Division PLH:plh:ems Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies 5-28 DEIR Section 4.4, Biological Resources, discusses potential impacts to bats and includes Mitigation Measure MM Bio -4, which addresses the potential impacts to bats. The Draft FIR concludes that impacts would be less than significant. Also, at the request of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, bat surveys were conducted in spring/summer 2017. Section 4.4, Biological Resources has been revised to incorporate the 2017 bat surveys. The revised pages are included in Final FIR Chapter 2.0, Corrections and Additions. 5-29 The comment provides contact information for staff at County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning Department. No further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 61 3. Responses to Comments Comment Letter 6 County of Los Angeles Public Health April 13, 2017 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies a un ciai� S ANGELESHealth G L BARBARA FERRER, Ph.D., M.P.H., M.Ed. Director en4BD or wvuv8o8s Xllda L Salo JEFFREY D. GUNZENHAUSER, M.D., M.P.H. Ftrse District Interim Health Officer Mark Bidhy-rhu,nas Sewnd Dieria CYNTHIA A Sheila Kuehl HARDING, M.P.H. Third District Chief Deputy Director lapin Hahn Faurch Dmwdt ANGELO J. BELLOMO, R.E.H.S., (L.E.P. Deputy Director for Health Protection TERRI S. WILLIAMS, R.E.H.S. Director of Environmental Health BRENDAJ. LOPEZ, R.E.H.S. Assistant Director of Environmental Health 5050 Commerce Drive Baldwin Park, California 91 706 TEL (626) 430-5374 • FAX (626) 813-3000 www.ouhlichealth.lacounivr oovleh April 13, 2017 Mr. Patrick LeClair, Associate Planner City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 SUBJECT: Review of Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)-San Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Dear Mr. LeClair, The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (DPH) Bureau of Toxicology and Environmental Assessment is submitting this comment letter on the San Canyon Plaza Project 6-1 DEIR. DPH has reviewed the DEIR for potential health impacts from this proposed development. Our review revealed the following: 1. Air Quality • Grading and disturbance of the ground surface (up to 6 inches deep) can result in6.2 fugitive dust emissions, which can release fungal spores that can cause Valley Fever Branch of Toxicology a Environmental Assessment • Cyrus Rangan. M.D., F.A.A.P., F.A,C.M.T., Director 695 South Vermont Avenue South Tower -14a Floor Los Angeles, CA 90005 TEL (213) 738-3220 • FAX (213) 252-4503 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 62 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies Response to Comment Letter 6 County of Los Angeles Public Health April 13, 2017 6-1 This comment is an introduction to comments that follow. No further response is required. 6-2 The comment states that the FIR should discuss and disclose Valley Fever and potential effects. The comment appears to misstate the Project location by noting that the Antelope Valley and many parts of California are "known geographical areas where the fungus is ubiquitous." The Project Site is located in an urbanized area of the City of Santa Clarita. While some areas of the Project site have not been previously developed, the site has historically been occupied by mobile homes on the southwest portion of the site. The site is also bordered by developed land to the west, south, and east and the Project is considered infill development. The Los Angeles County General Plan Update Draft FIR provides the following summary of Valley Fever and standard control measures to address the issue: Valley Fever is an infectious disease caused by the fungus Coccidioides immitis and Coccidioides psadasii. According to the County Department of Public Health (2014), this fungus is a major cause of community -acquired pneumonia in the southwestern United States. Valley Fever fungus is most prevalent in the San Joaquin Valley and the Central Valley where land is arid to semi -arid and receives moderate rainfall (5 to 20 inches per year). Several factors indicate a project's potential to expose sensitive receptors to Valley Fever: disturbance of the top soil of undeveloped land, dust storms, strong winds, earthquakes, archaeological digs, agricultural activities, and construction activities. There is the potential that construction activities could result in exposure of sensitive receptors to Valley Fever in the arid, desert portions of the unincorporated areas. Individual projects developed under the Proposed Project would be required to reduce potential risk of exposing sensitive receptors to Valley Fever through implementation of AVAPCD' and SCAQMD fugitive dust control measures. SCAQMD and AVAQMD2 dust control rules would reduce fugitive dust emissions as well as exposure to on-site workers. Proposed General Plan Update policies, including Policy AQ 1.3, would further reduce the impacts from fugitive dust during construction, as described further below. Implementation of SCAQMD and AVAQMD measures and Proposed Project policies would limit exposure of sensitive receptors to Valley Fever. Policy AQ 1.3: Reduce particulate inorganic and biological emissions from construction, grading, excavation, and demolition to the maximum extent feasible. 1 Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District 2 Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 63 3. Responses to Comments San Canyon Plaza Page 2 of 3 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies (Coccidioidomycosis). The Antelope Valley or many parts of California for that matter are known geographical areas where the fungus is ubiquitous. Although the DEIR includes mitigation measures to control fugitive dust during construction, there should 6-2 be a discussion or disclosure to include Valley Fever and how proposed dust mitigation Cont'd would affect the public's and construction worker's exposure to these fungal spores. The DEIR should include a disclosure to prospective tenants on information on Valley Fever and associated health risks. In addition, the DEIR should include measures that would minimize fugitive dust intrusion into sensitive receptors. Weather -proofing of buildings, applying appropriate vegetation in vacant parcels, are some dust control measures that can be applied, if feasible. Near roadway (freeway and major vehicular arteries) air pollution is a growing concern especially to children. Given the association between traffic pollution and health, the 6-3 California Air Resources Board (ARB) recommends that freeways be sited at least 500 feet from residences and other sensitive development. Public Health strongly recommends a buffer of at least 500 ft. between the development of new schools, residences, other sensitive land uses and freeways. In addition, the construction of new schools, housing or other sensitive land uses built within 1,500 ft. of a freeway should adhere to best -practice mitigation measures to reduce exposure to air pollution (please refer to the attached document "Public Health's Air Quality Recommendations for Local Jurisdictions.") The DEIR, based on the findings in the HRA, recommends project design features (Land -Use: PDF7-I1) to minimize the effects of exposure to elevated ambient air 6-4 quality conditions for sensitive uses. The implementation of the design features should be applied or extended for sensitive land uses within 1.500 ft. of the freeway (refer to Public Health's document). PDF -7 recommends incorporating HVAC systems with air filters meeting or exceeding MERV-11. We suggest incorporating air filtration meeting or exceeding MERV-13. 6-5 This is based in part on ASHRAE's Guideline 24-2015, Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in Low-rise residential Buildings. The air filtration recommended would help to better remove and minimize ultra -fine panicles. • Regional air quality impacts as well as cumulative air quality impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable. No feasible mitigation measures were proposed. Are there any traffic management plans or other measures that are 6-6 implemented by other localities that can be included to help to minimize the air quality impacts to surrounding communities? 2. Noise • To minimize the construction and operational noise impacts associated with the project, 6-7 we recommend that the mitigation measures listed in the DEIR (MM -NI -13) be Branch of Toxicology & Environmental Assessment • Cyrus Rangan, M.D., F.A.A.P., F.A.C.M.T., Director 695 South Vermont Avenue South Tower -14a Floor Los Angeles, CA 90005 TEL (213) 738-3220 • FAX (213) 2S2-4503 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 64 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies Response to Comment 6-2 (continued) The Project's Draft EIR concluded that regional and localized air quality emissions would be less than significant, including impacts with respect to fugitive dust emissions. In addition, the Draft EIR included the following project design feature to ensure that all required and recommended dust control measures are implemented: PDF -12 The Applicant shall implement all control measures required and/or recommended by the SCAQMD (i.e., Rules 403, 1108, and 1113), including but not limited to the following: • Use watering to control dust generation during demolition of structures or break-up of pavement; • Water active grading areas and unpaved surfaces at least three times daily; • Cover stockpiles with tarps or apply non-toxic chemical soil binders; • Limit vehicle speed on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour; • Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved construction parking areas and staging areas; • Provide daily clean-up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets from the Project site; • Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts exceed 15 miles per hour over a 30 -minute period or more; and • An information sign shall be posted at the entrance to the construction site that identifies the permitted construction hours and provides a telephone number to call and receive information about the construction project or to report complaints regarding excessive fugitive dust generation. Any reasonable complaints shall be rectified within 24 hours of their receipt. See also Response to Comment 7-8 (page 75 below) regarding further information demonstrating compliance with required fugitive dust control measures outlined in SCAQMD Rule 403(e) —Additional Requirements for Large Operations. No further response is required. 6-3 This comment restates information contained in the Draft EIR (see DEIR pages 3-25, 4.3-1, 4.3-2, 4.3-12, 4.10-17, 4.10-20, and 4.10-21) regarding placement of sensitive receptors near freeways, including a recommended buffer distance of 500 feet from freeways. The comment also suggests the application of best -practice mitigation measures to reduce exposure for all land uses within 1,500 feet of the freeway, with a reference to a County of Los Angeles document that was not attached to the comment letter. This comment does not specify any feasible best - practice mitigation measures for the Project. It should be noted that California Supreme Court case law' has determined that agencies subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) generally are not required to analyze or mitigate the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project's future users or residents. 3 Supreme Court of California, California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015), 5213478, Ct.App. 1/5, A135335, A136212, Alameda County, Super. Ct. No. RG10548693. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR August 2017 65 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies As such, the Project Draft FIR included a Freeway Adjacent Health Risk Assessment (HRA) (Appendix 2-3 to the Draft FIR) for informational purposes, and as outlined by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the City's Unified Development Code, Title 17, Sections 17.53.020.E and 17.57.020.I. As suggested in the comment, the Draft FIR includes several project design features (PDFs) to minimize exposure to existing conditions (see PDF -7 through PDF -11 on pages 3-25 and 4.10-21 of the Draft FIR). No further response is required. 6-4 This comment acknowledges the Draft EIR's inclusion of project design features to reduce exposure to existing air quality conditions, and recommends that the project design features be applied to all sensitive uses within 1,500 feet. As stated in Response to Comment 6-3 above, California Supreme Court case law has determined that agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze or mitigate the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project's future users or residents. As such, the Project's inclusion of the current project design features meets and exceeds environmental planning requirements related to existing conditions. The City acknowledges the County's input and the comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. 6-5 This comment suggests the Project should include MERV 13 filters instead of the MERV 11 filters identified in the Draft FIR. It should be noted that there is no state, regional, or local requirement applicable to the Project for the inclusion of MERV 11 or MERV 13 filters for residential or commercial development projects. See also Response to Comment 6-3 above regarding the CEQA-applicability of this comment. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) identifies MERV 11 for superior residential uses and states it is effective at filtering some auto emissions 4In addition, the County of Los Angeles' Air Quality Recommendations for Local Jurisdictions (County of Los Angeles Public Health, January 2013) cites the California EPA and CARB publication Status of Research on Potential Mitigation Concepts To Reduce Exposure Nearby Traffic Pollution (CARB, August 2012). The CARB publication states an estimated 80% reduction in outdoor fine mode particles with stand-alone air cleaners using filters in the MERV 11 to 13 range, and the publication also includes that a MERV rating chart identifying filters rated between MERV 9 and MERV 12 are typically reserved for superior residential uses and are effective at filtering auto emissions. As such, the Project Draft EIR's inclusion of MERV 11 would serve to feasibly reduce exposure to existing environmental conditions, and this design feature would meet and exceed all state, regional and local requirements related to this issue. The City acknowledges the County's input and the comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. 6-6 This comment restates the Draft EIR's conclusion of significant and unavoidable operational air quality emissions. The comment asks if there are any traffic management plans or other measures to minimize air quality impacts. However, the comment does not provide any suggested measures to reduce impacts. As concluded in the Project's Draft FIR, air quality 4 httns://www.ena.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/residential-air-cleaners-second-edition-summary-available- information#definine Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 66 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies emissions are primarily due to motor vehicles and area source emissions associated with the operation of a relatively high number of proposed residential uses. These emissions are typical for a mixed-use commercial and residential project of this size, and there is no feasible mitigation to reduce these emissions to a less than significant level. However, it should be noted that the Project would be consistent with the City's Climate Action Plan (CAP) and CalGreen Code, which require several project design features that would reduce air quality and greenhouse gas emissions (see Draft FIR pages 4.7-27 and 4.7-28). These features include mixed- use design resulting in VMT reductions, pedestrian network improvements, low -flow water fixtures, low impact vegetation and irrigation, energy reduction (e.g., high efficiency appliances, lighting and solar panels), and on-site electric vehicle charging stations. As such, the Project does include several features that would reduce air quality and GHG emissions. However, the Draft FIR correctly stated that operational air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. 6-7 This comment recommends that the noise mitigation measures identified in the Draft FIR be included as conditions of the Project. The comment also states that additional measures may be needed to minimize nuisance problems to neighbors, but the comment does not provide any suggested additional measures to consider. All mitigation measures and project design features identified in the Draft FIR and the Final FIR will be included in the Project's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which the City will be required to adopt if the Project is approved. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 67 3. Responses to Comments San Canyon Plaza Page 3 of 3 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies implemented as conditions of the project. Further mitigation measures may need to be incorporated as needed to minimize nuisance problems to neighboring communities. For further questions please contact Evenor Masis or Robert Vasquez at (213) 738-3220. Sincerely, r} Cyrus Rangan, M.D., F.A.A.P., F.A.C.M.T. Director, Bureau of Toxicology & Environmental Assessment Environmental Health Division, Department of Public Health Branch oP Toxicology& Environmental Assessment • Cyrus Rangan, M.D.. F.A.A.P., F.A.C.M.T., Director 695 South Vermont Avenue South Tower -146 Floor Los Angeles, CA 90005 TEL (213) 736-3220 • FAX (213) 2S2-4503 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 6-7 cont'd Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 68 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies 6-8 This comment is a conclusion to the comment letter, provides contact information, and does not raise an environmental issue. No further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 69 3. Responses to Comments Comment Letter 7 SCAQMD April 14, 2017 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies ®South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 • (909) 396-2000 • www.agmd.gov SENT VIA E-MAU, AND USPS: pleclairAsanta-clarita. com Patrick Leclair, Senior Planner City of Santa Clarita - Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Proposed Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project April l4, 2017 The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above-mentioned document. The following comments are meant as guidance for the lead 7-1 agency and should be incorporated into the Final EIR. Proiect Description and Au Quality Analysis The Lead Agency proposes to demolish the existing mobile home community and construct a mixed-use development consisting of 580 residential units, 55,600 square feet of retail commercial space, a 75,000- 7-2 square -foot assisted living facility with up to 120 beds, and two roundabouts to the roadway improvements on an 87 -acre site. In the Air Quality Section, the Lead Agency quantified the proposed project's construction and operational air quality impacts and compared those impacts to the SCAQMD's regional and localized significance thresholds. Based on the analyses, the Lead Agency found that the proposed project's operational air emissions would exceed the SCAQMD's regional operational thresholds for ROG and NOx emissions. SCAOMD's 2016 Air Quality Management Plan Adopted on March 3, 2017, the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP) is a regional blueprint for achieving air quality standards and healthful air in the South Coast Air Basin. Built upon the progress 7-3 in implementing the 2007 and 2012 AQMPs, the 2016 AQMP provides a regional perspective on air quality and lays out the challenges facing the South Coast Air Basin. The most significant air quality challenge in the Basin is to reduce an additional 45 percent reduction in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions in 2023 and an additional 55 percent reduction in NOx emissions beyond 2031 levels for ozone attainment. For more information on the 2016 AQMP, please visit the SCAQMD's website, at: http://www. agmd. gov/home/library/clean-air-plans/air-quality-met-plan. As described in the 2016 AQMP, to achieve NOx emissions reductions in a timely manner is critical to attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone before the 2023 and 2031 deadlines. SCAQMD is committed to attain the ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable. 7-4 Therefore, the SCAQMD staff recommends additional mitigation measures to further reduce air emissions, particularly from NOx. Please see the attachment for more information. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, SCAQMD staff requests thatthe Lead Agency provide the SCAQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the certification 7-5 of the Final EIR. Further, when the Lead Agency makes the finding that the above-mentioned mitigation measure is infeasible, the Lead Agency shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting it in the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091). Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 70 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies Response to Comment Letter 7 SCAQMD April 14, 2017 7-1 This comment is an introduction to comments that follow. No further response is required. 7-2 This comment restates the project description, air quality analysis, and significant air quality impact conclusion disclosed in the Draft FIR. The comment is informational in nature and does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. However, because the comment does not raise an environmental issue, no further response is required. 7-3 This comment provides information regarding the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan and notes that the reduction of nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions is the most significant challenge facing the Basin. The comment is informational in nature and does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. However, because the comment does not raise an environmental issue, no further response is required. 7-4 This comment notes that SCAQMD staff has recommended mitigation measures to further reduce air emissions, particularly from NOx. These recommendations are addressed in Responses to Comments 7-13 through 7-20. 7-5 The comment requests written responses to all comments prior to certification of the Final FIR, and requests that if the Lead Agency rejects the recommended mitigation measures, the Lead Agency should describe the reasons for rejecting them in the Final FIR. Consistent with CEQA, the City, as Lead Agency, will provide a written response to all public agencies on comments made by that public agency at least 10 days prior to certifying an environmental impact report. In this case, the responses have been provided to each commenting public agency in advance of the Planning Commission's June 6, 2017 meeting to consider recommending certification of the Draft FEIR to the City Council. Responses will also be forwarded again to each public agency at least 10 days prior to the City Council taking final action on the Final FIR. With respect to the inclusion or rejection of the comment's suggested mitigation measures, Responses to Comments 7-13 through 7-20 provide a detailed response to each recommendation. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 71 3. Responses to Comments Mr. Patrick Leclair 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies April 14, 2016 SCAQMD staff is available to work with the lead agency to address these issues and any other questions that may arise. Please contact Jack Cheng Air Quality Specialist, CEQA IGR Section, at (909) 396-7-6 2448, if you have any questions regarding the enclosed comments. LS:JC LAC170322-02 Control Number Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 SiinAncerely, [� .Cc'ug Sint Lijin Sun, J.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 72 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies 7-6 This comment is a conclusion to the comment letter, provides contact information, references attached information, and does not raise an environmental issue; no further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 73 3. Responses to Comments Mr. Patrick Leclair 3.1 - State/Governmental Agencies April 14, 2016 ATTACHMENT Compliance with SCAQMD Rules 1403 and 403(e) 1. SCAQMD Rule 1403. Since the proposed project includes demolition, the Lead Agency should discuss and provide additional information to demonstrate compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1403 — Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation in the Final EIR. 7-8 2. SCAQMD Rule 403(e). Since the proposed project is considered a large operation on a 87 -acre site (50 acres or more of disturbed surface area; or daily earth -moving operations of 3,850 cubic yards or more on three days in any year) in the South Coast Air Basin, the Lead Agency is required to comply with all SCAQMD Rule 403(e) — Additional Requirements for Large Operations'. The requirements may include, but not limited to, Large Operation Notification (Form 403N), appropriate signage, additional dust control measures, and employment of a dust control supervisor that has successfully completed the Dust Control in the South Coast Air Basin training class2. Therefore, the Final EIR should contain a detailed description to demonstrate compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403(e). Proiect Design Features (PDFs) 3. PDF -7 in the Draft EIR: The Lead Agency requires air filtration systems with filters meeting or exceeding the ASHRAE 52.2 Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) of 11 for sensitive uses 7-9 within 500 feet of the SR -14 Freeway.. SCAQMD Staff Recommendation: The SCAQMD staff believes that there are limitations to enhanced filtration units. The Lead Agency should consider the limitations of MERV filters on housing residents. For example, in a study that SCAQMD conducted to investigate filters' similar to 7-10 those proposed for this project, costs were expected to range from $120 to $240 per year to replace each filter. In addition, because the filters would not have any effectiveness unless the HVAC system is running, there may be increased energy costs to the resident. The proposed PDF assumes that the filters operate 100 percent of the time while residents are indoors and does not account for the times when the residents have their windows or doors open or are in common space areas of the project. MERV filters are effective in improving indoor air quality as compared to lower efficiency filters for PM10 and PM2.5 but they have no ability to filter out any toxic gasses from vehicle exhaust. The presumed effectiveness and feasibility of this PDF should therefore be evaluated in more detail prior to assuming that it will sufficiently alleviate near roadway exposures. Therefore, the SCAQMD staff recommends that the Lead Agency evaluate the effectiveness of MERV filters and include a discussion on the effectiveness of this PDF -7 in the Final EIR. 4. PDF -9 in the Draft EIR: The Lead Agency requires planting vegetation between sensitive receptors 11 and freeway sources. 7- SCAQMD Staff Recommendation: The SCAQMD staff recommends the Lead Agency provide information on vegetation and landscaping types, materials, and design details that will be used to 7-12 improve near road air quality in the Final EIR. This information will assist the SCAQMD staff in reviewing the effectiveness of these features in mitigating air quality impacts on sensitive receptors ' SCAQMD Rule 403. Last amended June 3, 2005. Available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule- book/rule-iv/rule-403.pdf. 2 SCAQMD Compliance and Enforcement Staff Contact Information for Rule 403(e) Large Operations is (909) 396- 2608 or by e-mail at dustcontrol(a)agmd.gov. ' This study evaluated filters rated MERV 13+ while the proposed mitigation calls for less effective MERV 11 or better filters. Accessed at: http://www. agmd. gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/agmdpilotstudyfinalreport.12df. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 74 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies 7-8 This comment states that the Project is subject to SCAQMD 403(e) requirements for large operations. The Draft FIR stated that the Project will be required to comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations, including Rule 403. See PDF -12 in the Draft FIR. Because Rule 403 is 23 pages long, and to ensure that the entire rule is captured herein, the rule as has been added as an attachment to PDF -12 and will be included in the Project's MMRP contained in this Final FIR. The MMRP will describe how the Project will comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and mitigation measures. In addition, as required by CEQA, the MMRP will identify the appropriate monitoring phase for each measure (e.g., project construction), the party responsible for implementing the measure, the agency with the authority to enforce the measure, and the agency responsible for monitoring compliance and implementation of the measure. 7-9 This comment restates PDF -7 from the Project's Draft FIR. The comment is informational in nature and does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. However, because the comment does not raise an environmental issue, no further response is required. 7-10 This comment provides information related to the potential effectiveness of MERV 11 filtration. It should be noted that California Supreme Court case law' has determined that agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze or mitigate the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project's future users or residents. As such, the Project Draft FIR included a Freeway Adjacent HRA (Appendix 2-3 to the Draft FIR) for informational purposes, and as outlined by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the City's Unified Development Code, Title 17, §17.53.0201 and §17.57.020.I. Thus, the inclusion of this PDF is intended as a best -management practice. It should also be noted there is no state, regional, or local requirement applicable to the Project for the inclusion of MERV 11 filters for residential or commercial development projects. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) identifies MERV 11 for superior residential uses and states that MERV 11 it is effective at filtering some auto emissions' In addition, a CARB publication Status of Research on Potential Mitigation Concepts To Reduce Exposure Nearby Traffic Pollution (CARB, August 2012), states an estimated 80% reduction in outdoor fine mode particles with stand-alone air cleaners using filters in the MERV 11 to 13 range, and the publication also includes a MERV rating chart identifying that filters rated between MERV 9 and MERV 12 are typically reserved for superior residential uses and are effective at filtering auto emissions. As such, the Project Draft EIR's inclusion of MERV 11 would serve to feasibly reduce exposure to existing environmental conditions, and this design feature would meet and exceed all state, regional, and local requirements related to this issue. The City acknowledges the SCAQMD's input, and the comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. 5 Supreme Court of California, California Building Industry Association o. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015), S213478, Ct.App. 1/5, A135335, A136212, Alameda County, Super. Ct. No. RG10548693. 6 httys://www.eya.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/residential-air-cleaners-second-edition-summary-available- inform ation# definin e Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 75 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies 7-11 This comment restates PDF -9 from the Project's Draft EIR. The comment is informational in nature and does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. However, because the comment does not raise an environmental issue, no further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 76 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies this page intentionally blank Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 77 3. Responses to Comments Mr. Patrick Leclair 3.1 - State/Governmental Agencies April 14, 2016 potential mitigating effects. For additional information on road side vegetation barriers, please visit: 7-12 hgps://www.epa. bov/air-research/recommendations-constructing-roadside-vegetation-barriers- improve-near-road-air-quality. c0nt�d Additional Mitigation Measures 5. CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation measures that go beyond what is required by law be utilized during project construction and operation to minimize or eliminate these impacts. The 7-13 SCAQMD staff recommends the Lead Agency incorporate the following mitigation measures in the Final EIR to further reduce air emissions, particularly from NOx. Additional information on potential mitigation measures as guidance to the Lead Agency are available on the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook website'. a) Improve walkability design and pedestrian network. ] 7-14 b) Increase transit accessibility and frequency by incorporating Bus Rapid Transit lines with 7_ 15 permanent operational funding stream. c) Limit parking supply and unbundle parking costs. Lower parking supply below ITE rates and -1 7-16 separate parking costs from property costs. d) Require use of electric lawn mowers and leaf blowers. ] 7-17 e) Require that 240 -Volt electrical outlets or Level 2 chargers be installed in residential garages on- 7-18 site that would enable charging of NEVs and/or battery powered vehicles. f) Require at least 5% of all commercial vehicle parking spaces include EV charging stations. At a 7-19 minimum, electrical panels should appropriately sized to allow for future expanded use. g) Vehicles that can operate at least partially on electricity have the ability to substantially reduce the significant NOx impacts from this project. It is important to make this electrical infrastructure 7-20 available when the project is built so that it is ready when this technology becomes commercially available. The cost of installing electrical charging equipment onsite is significantly cheaper if completed when the project is built compared to retrofitting an existing building. Therefore, the SCAQMD staff recommends the Lead Agency require the proposed project to be constructed with the appropriate infrastructure to facilitate sufficient electric charging for vehicles to plug-in. ' South Coast Air Quality Management District. hqp://www.agmd.gov/home/regulations/cepa/air-quality-anal handbook. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies 7-12 This comment requests information related to the Project's landscape plan to assess potential effectiveness of the proposed PDF. As stated in Response to Comment 7-10, California Supreme Court case law has determined that agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze or mitigate the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project's future users or residents. Thus, the inclusion of this PDF is intended as a best -management practice. The Project's Landscape Plan is discussed in detail in Section 3. Project Description of the Draft FIR, and the Conceptual Landscape Plan is illustrated on Figure 3-16 therein. The City acknowledges the SCAQMD's input, and the comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. 7-13 This comment states that the SCAQMD has recommended the incorporation of additional mitigation measures in the Final FIR to further reduce operational air quality emissions. Each recommendation has been responded to below. 7-14 This comment suggests "improve walkability design and pedestrian network." However, this comment provides no direction on how best to improve these features, and the comment fails to recognize the existing walkability design and pedestrian network already identified in the Project's Draft FIR. Consistent with goals of the City's Climate Action Plan (CAP), the Project would include pedestrian network improvements (see Draft FIR, page 4.7-27). As stated therein, the Project would create and enhance opportunities for non -vehicular travel and encourage pedestrian mobility by providing an internal pedestrian circulation system that links residential neighborhoods to on-site recreation areas, regional trail systems, and neighborhood retail/commercial areas. The City acknowledges the SCAQMD's input and the comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. 7-15 This comment suggests to "increase transit accessibility and frequency by incorporating Bus Rapid Transit lines with permanent operational funding stream." A Bus Rapid Transit program is initiated and administered by public transportation authority agencies and is outside the scope of authority for an individual development project. The Project Site is currently served by existing public transportation. As stated on page 4.19-11 of the Draft FIR, the Project site is currently serviced by City of Santa Clarita Transit (SCT) Route 5, with the nearest stop at the intersection of Kenroy Avenue and Soledad Canyon Road. SCT Route 5 travels along Soledad Canyon Road and provides services between the east side of the City and Stevenson Ranch with stops at the Santa Clarita and Newhall Metrolink stations, as well as at the McBean Regional Transit Center. Additional routes, accessible from this route, provide service to the greater Santa Clarita Valley area. SCT Commuter Express offers express commuter bus travel to Los Angeles, Warner Center, Van Nuys, Century City, and the Antelope Valley. Three Metrolink stations exist within the City of Santa Clarita, which serve the Antelope Valley line. This line travels between Lancaster and Union Station, Los Angeles. The City acknowledges the SCAQMD's input, and the comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 79 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies 7-16 This comment suggests to "limit parking supply, unbundle parking costs, lower parking supply below ITE rates, and separate parking costs from property costs." The Project's parking supply is based on the City's zoning requirements for a Mixed Use Neighborhood (MXN) and Urban Residential 3 (UR -3). As such, the comment's suggestion to reduce parking spaces would be infeasible and inconsistent with the City's planning and zoning code. The City acknowledges the SCAQMD's input, and the comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. 7-17 This comment suggests to "require the use of electric lawn mowers and leaf blowers." A large portion of the Project is private residential uses, and the enforcement of electric lawn mowers and leaf blowers would be infeasible on the private residents associated with the Project. However, the Project Applicant is committed to implementing this suggestion as feasible for the commercial components of the Project, and the following mitigation measure will be included in the Project's MMRP contained in the Final FIR: MM AQ -1: The Project Applicant or designee, shall require that all commercial -related landscaping activities utilize electric lawn mowers and electric leaf blowers to the extent feasible. 7-18 This comment suggests to "require that 240 -Volt electrical outlets or Level 2 chargers be installed in residential garages on-site that would enable charging of NEVs and/or battery powered vehicles." The Project would be consistent with residential mandatory measures of the CalGreen Code Sections 4.106.4.1 and 4.106.4.2 to facilitate future installation and use of Electric Vehicle (EV) chargers. Relevant and applicable components of the code include the following: • 4.106.4.1 New one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses with attached private garages. For each dwelling unit, install a listed raceway to accommodate a dedicated 208/240 -volt branch circuit. • 4.106.4.2 New multifamily dwellings. Where 17 or more multifamily dwelling units are constructed on a building site, 3 percent of the total number of parking spaces provided for all types of parking facilities, but in no case less than one, shall be electric vehicle charging spaces (EV spaces) capable of supporting future EVSE. No additional mitigation measures are warranted. The City acknowledges the SCAQMD's input, and the comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. 7-19 This comment suggests to "require at least 5% of all commercial vehicle parking spaces include EV charging stations, and, at a minimum, electrical panels should appropriately sized to allow for future expanded use." The Project would be consistent with non-residential mandatory measures of the CalGreen Code §5.106.5.3 Electric vehicle (EV) charging. [N] Construction shall comply with §5.106.5.3.1 or §5.106.5.3.2 to facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE). As stated in the Project Draft FIR, up to 278 parking spaces would be provided for the commercial component of the Project contingent upon final uses and square footages. Based on this estimate and per CalGreen Code §5.106.5.3.2, up to 6% of the total commercial spaces would be required to support EVSE. The code also stipulates that the service Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR August 2017 80 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies panel or subpanel(s) shall have sufficient capacity to accommodate the required number of dedicated branch circuit(s) for the future installation of the EVSE. No additional mitigation measures are warranted. The City acknowledges the SCAQMD's input, and the comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. 7-20 This comment restates the recommendations in Responses to Comments 7-18 and 7-19 associated with EV charging and necessary infrastructure. See those responses above. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 81 3. Responses to Comments Comment Letter 8 Department of Animal Care and Control, County of Los Angeles April 17, 2017 Dr. Mr. LeClair: 3.1- State/Governmental Agencies Thank you for making available the DER for the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project available for the County to assess impact. Our department would like to advise that based on the number of new 8-1 residences to be constructed (580) and the current average monthly net city costs for Animal Care and Control services in Santa Clarita, we project that the impact to city costs will be minimal, with a projected increase of less than 1% per year, when the project is fully constructed and populated. This is based on the following: • Estimating the current population of the City of Santa Clarita at 220,000 • Estimating that 580 additional new residences may add about 1,600 residents net, after replacing residents from the 123 existing mobile homes. 8-2 • Average monthly net city costs for animal care and control services has been $18,399 over the last 12 months, and increasing the population by .73% would commensurately mean about $135 more in net costs per month, or $1,620 annually. Please note that we have advised all contract cities that our billing methodology is currently under review, and any adopted changes may increase future costs. We will promptly notify you of any such changes. We hope this information is helpful to you. Please let us know if you have any questions. ] 8-3 Ann Marie Johansen Administrative Deputy County of Los Angeles Department of Animal Care and Control 5898 Cherry Avenue Long Beach, CA 90805 Tel (562)256-2400/Fax(562)256-2400 alohansen@animalcare.lacounty.gov Webpage: http://animalcare.lacountV.gov Follow us: http://twitter.com/LACoAnimalCare Like us: http://facebook.com/CountVofLosAngelesAnimalCare Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies Response to Comment Letter 8 Department of Animal Care and Control April 17, 2017 8-1 The comment is informational in nature and does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. However, because the comment does not raise an environmental issue, no further response is required. 8-2 The comment is informational in nature and does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. However, because the comment does not raise an environmental issue, no further response is required. 8-3 The comment is a conclusion to the comment letter and does not raise an environmental issue; no further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 83 3. Responses to Comments Comment Letter 9 County of Los Angeles Public Health April 17, 2017 3.1- State/Governmental Agencies t{ or Loa J, COUNTY OF Los ANGELES ++ Pubic Health {- x X C�LIfOlT1\1` BARBARA FERRER, Ph.D., M.P.H., M. Ed. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Director Hilda L, Solis First Dlsldct JEFFREY D. GUNZENHAUSER, M.D., M.P.H. Mark Ridley-Thomas Interim Health Officer second DIsMct Sheila Kuehl CYNTHIA A- HARDING, M.P.H. Third District Chief Deputy Director Janice Hahn Furth District ANGELO J. BELLOMO, REHS, QEP Fis Barger FiTlfthh DDistrict Deputy Director for Health Protection TERRI S. WILLIAMS, REHS Director of Environmental Health BRENDA J. LOPEZ, REHS Assistant Director of Environmental Health 5050 Commerce Drive Baldwin Park, California 91706 TEL (626) 430-5100 ■ FAX (626) 813-3000 www. ou b I li; hgglth.lacou ntv. a ov April 17, 2017 TO: Patrick LeClair, Senior Planner City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department Planning Division FROM: Jeanne Biehler, REHS Department of Public Health Environmental Health Division Environmental Protection Branch SUBJECT: CEQA CONSULTATION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project The Department of Public Health - Environmental Health Division — Environmental Protection Branch has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DElR) for the project identified above. The project is for a 9-1 mixed-use development with up to 480 residential units, retail/commercial including restaurants, an assisted living facility, recreation areas, and appurtenant infrastructure such as private streets, landscaped areas and roadway improvements. Potable Water Supply The 2015 Water Supply Assessment (WSA) that was prepared by the Santa Clarita Water District (SCWD) for The Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project. An update with the E I R far the Water Supply was also conducted in March 2017 that noted an increase in the water demand numbers and an additional water 9-2 demand augmentation due to the potential for a 10% buildout increase. The water demand could be 428 Acre Feet per Year for the Project. While the Sand Canyon Plaza WSA notes that there should be sufficient water to meet the projected water demand for this development, it is recommended that the following be required before final map approval: Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 84 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies Response to Comment Letter 9 County of Los Angeles Public Health April 17, 2017 9-1 This comment is an introduction to comments that follow. No further response is required. 9-2 Consistent with California law, Santa Clarita Water Division will be required to provide the City with a water verification letter prior to the City approving a final map for the Project. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 85 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project 4/17/17 Page 2 of 2 A written contract, proof of entitlement, or water will -serve letter from the SCW D that notes the project's9-2 final buildout phase water demand in acre-feet in addition to the amount of water that the SCWD will <OOt'd guarantee in acre-feet for the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use project. For questions regarding this potable water supply section, please contact Vincent Gallegos of the Drinking Water Program at 626 430-5420 or at vealleeosCdoh.lacounty.aov. 9-3 Starmwater Harvesting, Potable Water Protection, and Recycled Water The Department's Cross Connections and Water Pollution Control Program is actively involved with 9-4 stormwater harvesting. The Program requests to be updated and notified during the design phase of stormwater capture system as described on page 1330 of the EIR Appendices (http://filecenter.santa- clarita.com/Plan n i ne/SandCanyon Plaza/Sand%2OCa neon%2OD EI R%20-%2OVol %202%2OAopendices. odf). The Program also requests to be involved with all industrial and irrigation use of potable water use 9-5 throughout the project. In addition, will recycled water be incorporated into the project since it is available in the City of Santa 9-6 Clarite? For questions regarding this section, please contact Daniel Bacani of the Cross Connections and Water Pollution Control Program at 626 430-5290 or at dbacani@oh.lacountv.eov. 9.7 For questions regarding this comment letter, please contact Jeanne Biehler of the Land Use Program at Ibiehler�oh.lacountv.Rov or at 626 430-5380. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 86 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies 9-3 The comment is informational in nature and does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. However, because the comment does not raise an environmental issue, no further response is required. 9-4 The Project Applicant will contact the County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Health, regarding the design phase of the storm water capture system as described on page 1330 of the Draft EIR Appendices. 9-5 The comment states that the 'Program also requests to be involved with industrial and irrigation use of potable water use throughout the Project." The Project does not include any industrial uses. Additionally, the City does not understand the comment related to potable use of water for irrigation and what involvement the County Department of Health Services has in the potable water distribution on-site. Regardless, the comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. 9-6 Recycled water is not available in this area of the City of Santa Clarita and therefore will not be incorporated into the Project design. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. 9-7 The comment is informational in nature and does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. However, because the comment does not raise an environmental issue, no further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 87 3. Responses to Comments Comment Letter 10 California Department of Transportation April 17, 2017 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies SIAIL F CALTFORNINSPORTATION AGENCY EO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 7 — Office of Regional Planning 100 S. MAIN STREET, MS 16 LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 PHONE (213) 897-0673 FAX (213) 897-1337 www.dot.ca.gov April 17, 2017 Mr. Patrick LeClair Senior Planner City of Santa Clarita Community Development Dept. 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. LeClair: P+� Making Conservation a California Way ofLife. RE: Sand Canyon-Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH#2015051005 GTS#07-LA-2016-00723-FL Vic. LA/ 14/ PM 33.423 Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above referenced project. 10-1 The proposed project consists of approximately 130,600 square feet (sf) of commercial uses (includes 55,600 sf of retail/restaurants, and, a 75,000 sf assisted living facility with up to 120 beds) and 580 residential units (includes 312 apartment units, 122 townhome units, and 146 condominium units), and it currently includes 123 mobile homes that would be removed as part of the proposed project. After reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) dated March 2017 and Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) in the Appendices (Appendix 11) dated December 21, 2016, Caltrans 10-2 offers the following comments: • For Figure 2-3 of #15 intersection on Page 2.4 of the TIA, it is currently labeled "SR -115 On -Ramp", a correction is needed to change to SR -14 On -Ramp. • TIA, Appendix A, Intersection Count Worksheets, the AM/PM Peak Hours should be between 6-9am for AM and 4-7pm for PM. To fully evaluate the potential impacts, Caltrans 10-3 will need the counts to include these said hours. Please verify/validate this information with Caltrans Traffic Operations. "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 88 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies Response to Comment Letter 10 California Department of Transportation April 17, 2017 10-1 This comment is an introduction to comments that follow. No further response is required. 10-2 In Appendix 11 of the DEIR — Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), Intersection #15 of Figure 2-3 on page 2.4, the label "SR -115 On -Ramp" is changed to "SR -14 On -Ramp." 10-3 In Appendix 11 of the DEIR— Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), Intersection Count Worksheets pages A.11 and A.39, the Caltrans intersections were counted for 8 hours based on discussions with Caltrans staff. City intersections were counted for the time periods used by the City. The time periods counted are 6:00 to 9:00 a.m., 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., and 3:00 to 6:00 p.m. The 15 -minute period with the highest volume of traffic occurs at 5:15 p.m. for each ramp intersection. Therefore, counting 6:00 p.m. is not necessary. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 89 3. Responses to Comments Mr. Patrick LeClair 04/17/2017 Page 2 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies For MM T-2 and MM T-6, "SR -14 SB ramps at Soledad Canyon. Modification traffic signal to change westbound left -turn phasing from permissive to protective permissive." (DEIR,10-4 Executive Summary, Page 2.46-2.47) Caltrans acknowledges the proposed mitigation mentioned above but would recommend protected left -turn phasing. Caltrans requests that prior to completion of the Caltrans Mitigation Agreement, the applicant shall complete a study for the operations of the off- and on-ramp for SR -14 east of 10-5 Soledad Canyon Road, especially for the movement and queue analysis of the westbound left -turn phasing from Soledad Canyon on to the SR -14 SB on-ramp. If any improvements to the on-ramp are required as a result of that study, these improvements shall be completed prior to the 100`" certificate of occupancy. For MM T-3 and MM T-7, "The Project Developer shall enter into a Mitigation Agreement with Caltrans. Said Mitigation Agreement shall be finalized prior to the recordation of a final map." (DEIR, Executive Summary, Page 2.46-2.47) Caltrans acknowledges that "under 10-6 cumulative conditions, the intersection of Sand Canyon Road at Soledad Canyon Road would be significantly impacted by the Project. Because of this impact is under cumulative conditions, the Project would contribute its pro rata share of the improvement cost, and the improvement would be implemented when necessary given the anticipated growth in future traffic volumes." (DEIR, Traffic and Circulation, Page 4.19-1) Caltrans encourages the applicant to work with Caltrans early on to streamline the process of Mitigation Agreement for the Project's pro rata share (1.6%) of the SR -14 Freeway mainline 10-7 (cumulative conditions). In view of SB 743, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) is working to develop an alternative to LOS for evaluating transportation impacts pursuant to CEQA. Such as using Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the primary metric in identifying transportation impacts for all 10-8 future development projects. Once OPR provides new guidance, Caltrans hopes to collaborate with the City to adopt methods of traffic analysis and new thresholds that are mutually acceptable. Caltrans acknowledges the Project's goals and policies to encourage pedestrian linkages, the implementation of bicycle facilities, and the reconfiguration of roadways. Such as to include 10-9 enhanced safety features to minimize conflicts between transit riders, bicyclists, and motor vehicles. (DEIR, Executive Summary, Page 2.45) Caltrans continues to strive to improve its standards and processes to provide flexibility while maintaining the safety and integrity of the State's transportation system. It is our goal to10-10 implement strategies that are in keeping with our mission statement, which is to `provide a safe, sustainable, integrated, and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability. " Good geometric and traffic engineering design to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians are10-11 critical at every on and off ramp and freeway terminus intersection with local streets. Caltrans "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transinmation system to enhanre California's economy, and livability" Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR all 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies 10-4 The comment acknowledges the proposed mitigation but recommends the use of protected left - turn phasing instead of protected/permissive left -turn phasing, which the City traffic engineers are in agreement with. Accordingly, Mitigation Measures T-2 and T-6 have been modified to require the use of protected left -turn phasing at this intersection. 10-5 An operational analysis of the ramp intersection has been completed as requested by Caltrans, and ramp modifications are not necessary to mitigate impacts due to the proposed Project (see Appendix 11, TIA Chapter 5.0—Supplemental Analysis). Separately from this project the City has been coordinating with Caltrans to implement dual left -turn lanes for the WB to SB Ramp movement. 10-6 The comment acknowledges review of the Draft EIR and concurs with Mitigation Measures MM T-3 and MM T-7 as they relate to impacts to intersections. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. 10-7 The City acknowledges Caltrans' input and comment. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. However, because the comment does not raise an environmental issue, no further response is required. 10-8 The City acknowledges Caltrans' input and comment. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. 10-9 The comment acknowledges the Project goals and policies related to pedestrian, biking, and circulation improvements. The comment will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration prior to taking any action on the Project. 10-10 The comment is informational in nature and does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. However, because the comment does not raise an environmental issue, no further response is required. 10-11 The City acknowledges Caltrans' input and comment. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 91 3. Responses to Comments Mr. Patrick LeClair 04/17/2017 Page 3 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies will work with the City to look for every opportunity to develop projects that improve safety and connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists. Opportunities for improvements may exist on State 10-11 facilities such as: freeway termini, on/off-ramp intersections, overcrossings, under crossings, contd tunnels, bridges, on both conventional state highways and freeways. With regard to public transit, we recommend planning for gradual continual improvement of transit stops, bus bays, or other facilities, to accommodate traffic flow, especially on streets that 10-12 are State Route locations or are near freeway intersections. As a reminder, storm water run-off is a sensitive issue for Los Angeles and Ventura counties.10-13 Please be mindful of your need to discharge clean ran -off water and it is not permitted to discharge onto State highway facilities. Any work to be performed within the State Right-of-way will need an Encroachment Permit and any transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials, which requires the use of 10-14 oversized -transport vehicles on State highways, will require a Caltrans transportation permit. For information on the Permit process, please contact Caltrans District 7 Office of Permit at (213)897-3631. If you have any questions or concerns regarding these comments and/or wish to schedule a meeting, please feel free to contact the project coordinator, Frances Lee at (213) 897-0673 or 10-15 electronically at frances.lee@dot.ca.gov. Sincerely, DIANNA WATSON Branch Chief, Community Planning & LD IGR Review cc: Scott Morgan, State Clearinghouse "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient tmnspornition system to enhance Califomm's economy and livability" Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 92 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies 10-12 The City acknowledges Caltrans' input and comment. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. 10-13 The City acknowledges Caltrans' input and comment. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. 10-14 The City acknowledges Caltrans' input and comment. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. 10-15 The comment is a conclusion to the comment letter and does not raise an environmental issue; no further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 93 3. Responses to Comments Comment Letter 11 Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County April 17, 2017 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies WAX COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY 1955 Workman Mill Road, Whittier, CA 90601-1400 Mailing Address: P.O. Boz 4998, Whinier, CA 90607-4998 Telephone: (562) 699-7411, FAX: (562) 699-5422 www.locsd.org Mr. Patrick Leclair, Senior Planner Community Development Department City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Leclair. GRACE ROBINSON HYDE Chief Engineer and General Manager April 17, 2017 Ref. Doc. No.: 4070472 Response to the DEIR for the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Districts) received a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the subject project on March 7, 2017. Previous comments submitted by the Districts in correspondence dated June 2, 2015 (copy enclosed), to Ms. Collette L. Morse of the Morse Planning Group, still apply to the subject project with the following comments and updates: I. 4.21-1 Summary, page 4.21-1, under Summary — The Project, at buildout (as described in 2.2-1 Proiect Characteristics of the DEIR — 55.600 square feet of general retail, an assisted livingfacility of an to 120 rooms 312 multi -family rental units 122 townhomes a total of 146 single family homes, and the demolition of the existing 123 mobile home units), would generate a worst-case average total of "a,^"^ 124,304 gallons per day of wastewater that would be treated by the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District (tire Saugus and Valencia Water Reclamation Plants). 2. 3 4.21-3 Existing Conditions, page 4.21-1, under Wastewater Service — These two facilities provide primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment. The SCVJSS has a combined permitted treatment capacity of 28.1 million gallons per day (mgd) and currently processes an average flow of 4841 17.9 mgd. 4.21-3 Existing Conditions, pages 4.21-3 to 4.21-4, under Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District Supplemental E�avifeameatal lPapast Report for _AF'nP al1d Limited Trucking Recirculated Environmental Impact Repo r[ — The °--`- " a�.�—"-'TS--'.9ate^n n.�ect ..a Limited T... ,.1 inn m -,.n cnmi This e ffc n is part of a pPejeeE to « ply with a state mandan,d limit gn the level of�chloride .,aaT- that -cmbe e<.so,.,:.sem.. ....... ..... ......,.- .. DOC: "1216663CVD99 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 11-2 11-3 11-4 A Rerycled Paper 4ito Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 94 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies Response to Comment Letter 11 Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County April 17, 2017 11-1 In this introductory paragraph, the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County acknowledges receipt of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). In addition, the correspondence provided by the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County to the environmental consultant remains applicable with the comments and updates identified in the remainder of the letter. No further response is required. 11-2 The text changes requested for DEIR Section 4.21, page 4.21-1 (first paragraph, second sentence) by the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County will be incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The text on page 4.21-1 will be revised as shown in the Draft FEIR. Construction related impacts to wastewater disposal would not be significant, because portable, on-site sanitation facilities would be utilized during construction. The Project, at buildout (based on the project characteristics provided in Section 3), would generate a worst-case average total of 124,30444P-94-2 gallons per day of wastewater that would be treated by the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District (the Saugus and Valencia Water Reclamation Plants). 11-3 The text change for DEIR Section 4.21-3, page 4.21-1 requested by the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County will be incorporated into the Draft FEIR. 11-4 The text changes requested for DEIR Section 4.21-3, page 4.21-3 to 4.21-4 starting with the heading Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Brine Concentration and Limited Trucking will be incorporated into the Draft FEIR. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 95 3. Responses to Comments Mr. Patrick Leclair -2- 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies April 17, 2017 In October 2013, after nearly two years of extensive public input, meetings, hearings, and environmental review, the SCVSD Board of Directors (SCVSD Board) approved a project to comply with the State -mandated chloride limit (Chloride Compliance Project) and certified that the associated 2013 Facilities Plan and FIR complied with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Chloride Compliance Project includes new reverse osmosis equipment at the Valencia WRP. The water that passes through a reverse osmosis membrane becomes ultra -clean water and the remaining salty water becomes a byproduct called brine that requires proper disposal. Brine was originally to be managed by deep well injection (DWI). Based on public input regarding DWI, the SCVSD Board withdrew the DWI proposal and directed staff to investigate alternative deep well sites and additional brine management alternatives. In 2015, the SCVSD proposed to modify the approach to brine management by replacing DWI with the installation of enhanced brine concentration equipment at the Valencia WRP and disposal of the smaller amount of concentrated brine by limited trucking to an existing industrial facility, the Sanitation Districts' Joint Water Pollution Control Point in Carson. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for Brine Concentration and Limited Trucking (Trucking SEIR) was prepared to describe the environmental impacts from this brine management approach. On March 23, 2016, the SCVSD Board certified the Final Trucking SEIR and approved the change in the method of brine management. Most of the chloride compliance solutions investigated in the 2013 Facilities Plan and EIR included the production of brine. Because this brine cannot be discharged to the River, the Chloride Compliance Project would minimally reduce discharge of treated (recycled) water from DOC 44121666.SCVD99 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 11-4 (ont'd Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 0. 3. Responses to Comments Mr. Patrick Leclair -3- 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies April 17, 2017 at least one of SCVSD's WRPs to the River. As analyzed in the Trucking SEIR the reduction in discharge related to brine management would be a maximum of 52,000 gallons per day or 0.4 percent of the discharged flow. Unrelated to the chloride compliance solutions, the SCVSD has considered the potential impacts of further reducing the discharge of treated water from the WRPs to the River, under the Recycled Water Project, to permit the direction of recycled water to community reuse such as landscape irrigation. Even though the Chloride Compliance Project and the Recycled Water Project are independent efforts (i.e., implementation of one does not require or necessitate implementation of the other), both projects were addressed in the 2013 Facilities Plan and EIR. The 2013 Facilities Plan and FIR described the Recycled Water Project as "Support for Municipal Reuse of Recycled Water" and contained an analysis of the potential environmental impacts to biological resources (including an endangered fish known as the unarmored threespine stickleback, or UTS) that could occur due to a proposed one-third reduction in discharge. The technical analysis that supported the EIR concluded that no significant impact would occur. Following the certification of the 2013 Facilities Plan and EIR, the Affordable Clean Water Alliance ("ACWA") filed a petition for writ to set aside the District's certification on the grounds that the documents failed to comply with CEQA in a number of respects. While the Trucking SEIR was being finalized, the Los Angeles County Superior Court (Court) ruled in February 2016 that the FIR for the 2013 Facilities Plan failed to comply with CEQA in two particulars. First, the Court determined that additional environmental study was necessary with respect to the impact of reduced discharge to the River resulting from the Recycled Water Project on the UTS. Secondly, the Court considered SCVSD's pursuit of an alternate method of brine management to be an "abandonment" of deep well injection, which left the SCVSD with an incomplete chloride compliance project because it had no approved method of brine management. The Court did not find fault with the environmental review related to the Chloride Compliance Project, but nonetheless set aside the 2013 Facilities Plan and EIR and related approvals until SCVSD complied with CEQA with respect to the two issues identified by the Court. On March 23, 2016, the SCVSD Board recertified the 2013 Facilities Plan and EIR without the Recycled Water Project to address the Court's first issue. SCVSD also certified the Trucking SEIR, approved a new brine management approach, and created a Modified Chloride Compliance Project to address the Court's second issue. As noted in the Trucking SEIR, the modified project would result in no more than a 0.4 percent reduction in discharge to the River. Such a reduction would have a negligible impact on biological resources, including UTS. Following the February ruling, SCVSD returned to the Court in April 2016 seeking approval to proceed with the Chloride Compliance Project while deferring implementation of the Recycled Water Project until further UTS study could be completed. On Jane 2, 2016, the Court determined that SCVSD could not do so because it had not studied the potential impacts of implementing the Chloride Compliance Project separate from the Recycled Water Project, delaying the work to comply with the State chloride mandates. On August 4, 2016, SCVSD issued a Notice of Preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for Study of Impacts to the Unarmored Threespine Stickleback Fish Under Reduced Discharge Conditions from the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District's Water Reclamation Plants (Stickleback SEIR). The intent of Stickleback SEIR is to maintain support of both the Chloride Compliance Project and the Recycled Water Project under one CEQA document record. Since August, SCVSD and California Department of Fish and Wildlife have been working together to determine the appropriate criteria for analyzing impacts to UTS. Based DOC: #4121666.SCVD99 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 11-4 (ont'd Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 97 3. Responses to Comments Mr. Patrick Leclair -4- 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies April 17, 2017 on the progress of these discussions and the projected work remaining to complete the study, to minimize fines to ratepayers, SCVSD has decided to pursue the Recycled Water Project 11-4 separately from the Chloride Compliance Project and recirculate the EIR. In response to the most recent Court ruling with regard to the. Chloride Compliance Project,(Ontd SCVSD is preparing a Recirculated Draft EIR for the Chloride Compliance Project, which is anticipated to be released in late spring 2017. 4. 4.21-6 Impact Analysis, page 4.21-8, second paragraph under Util-5 — The CSDLAC anticipates the Project would generate an average wastewater flow of 138;942 124.304 gallons per day (based on the project characteristics provided 2.2-1 Project Characteristics of the DEIR — 55,600 11-5 square feet of general retail an assisted living facility of up to 120 rooms, 312 multi -family rental units 122 townhomes a total of 146 single family homes, and the demolition of the existing 123 mobile home units). The wastewater generated would be approximately 0,447% 0.44% of the SCVJSS' treatment capacity of 28.1 mgd for average day flows. 5. 4.22-3 Existing Conditions, page 4.22-20, third paragraph down — The SCV9D __epiaed help efAe demands of potable wateF in the S 11-6 In response to the most recent Court ruling with regard to the Chloride Compliance Project, SCVSD is preparing a Recirculated Draft EIR for the Chloride Compliance Project, which is anticipated to be released in late spring 2017. This document updates and supplements the 2013 Facilities Plan and EIR to include brine concentration and limited trucking as the brine disposal option and to separate the Recycled Water Project. 6. All other information concerning Districts' facilities and sewerage service contained in the 11-7 document is current. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (562) 908-4288, extension 2717. ] 11-8 AR:ar Enclosure cc: M. Sullivan M. Tatalovich DOC'. U121M6.SCVD99 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Very truly yours, driana Raza Customer Service Specialist Facilities Planning Department Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 98 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies 11-5 The text changes for DEIR Section 4.21-6, page 4.21-8 (second paragraph) requested by the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County will be incorporated into the Draft FEIR. The text on DEIR page 4.21-8 will be revised as shown in the Draft FEIR. The CSDLAC anticipates the Project would generate an average wastewater flow of 124,3L4 -4 -38,442 -gallons per day based on the project characteristics provided in Section 3_0124 The wastewater generated by the Project would be approximately 0.44% 9-437-°�of the SCVJSS' treatment capacity of 28.1 mgd for average day flows. 11-6 The text changes for DEIR Section 4.22-3, page 4.22-20 requested by the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County will be incorporated into the Draft FEIR. 11-7 The comment notes that all other information concerning the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County's facilities and sewerage service in the DEIR is current. No further response is required. 11-8 The comment provides contact information for staff at the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. No further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 99 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies COUNTY SANITATION OISTRICTS OF LCIS ANGELES COUNTY 1955 Workman Mill Road, Whittier, CA 90601-1400 GRACE ROBINSON HYDE Mailing Address: P.O. Be. 4998, Whither, CA 90607-4998 Telephone: (562) 699-7411, FAX; )562) 6995422 Chief Engineer and Gen erol M.o.ge, w J.csd.org Ms. Collette L. Morse, AJCP Principal Morse Planning Group 145 North C Street Tustin, CA 92780 Dear Ms. Morse: January 15, 2016 Ref File No.: 3559576 Response Letter for Sand Canyon- Soledad Canyon Mixed Use Project Ouestionnaire This is in reply to your questionnaire, which was received by the Santa Clarity Valley Sanitation District (District) on December 22, 2015. We offer the following responses to your inquiry: Please indicate the location of facilities which serve the project area and present available capacity for the affected trunk line and treatment plant. The wastewater flow originating from the proposed project will discharge to a local sewer line, which is not maintained by the District, for conveyance to the District's Soledad Canyon Trunk Sewer Section 5, located in Sokdad Canyon Road at Lost Canyon Road. The District's 18 -inch diameter trunk sewer has a design capacity of 5.7 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak flow of 2.3 mgd when last measured in 2012. 2. What is the estimated sewage flow for the project based upon information provided? The expected average wastewater flow from the proposed project, identified as 55,600 square feet of commercial development, 148 single. family homes, 120 town homes, 312 apartments, and 120 assisted living units, is 138,942 gallons per day. For a copy of the District's average wastewater generation factors, go to www:lacsd ora, Wastewater & Sewer Systems, click on Will Serve Program, and click on the Table 1, t oadings for Each Class of Land Use link. Would implementation of the proposed project present a significant increase in service demand based upon project development? As indicated in item 1 above, the available capacity for the District's Soledad Canyon Trunk Sewer Section 5 is 3.4 mgd as of 2011. Please note availability of sewer capacity depends upon project size and timing of connection to the sewerage system. Because there are other proposed developments in the area, the availability of trunk sewer capacity should be verified as the project advances. Please submit a copy of the project's build -out schedule to the undersigned to ensure the project is considered when planning future sewerage system relief and replacement projects. DOC: k35661723CVDA Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 A Recycled Peper 4W Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 100 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies Ms. Collette L. Morse -2- January 1.5, 2016 4. Does the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project area have adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? The District operates two water reclamation plants (WRPs), the Saugus WRP and the Valencia WPP, which provide wastewater treatment in the Santa Clarita Valley. These facilities have a combined design capacity of 28.1 mgd and currently process an average flow of 18.9 mgd. Is there any other relevant information regarding significant project impacts of the proposed project? Portions of the project area are outside the jurisdictional boundaries of the District and will require annexation into the District before sewerage service can be provided to the proposed development. For a copy of the District's Annexation Information and Processing Fee sheets, go to www.lacsdnre, Wastewater & Sewer Systems, Will Serve Program, and click on the appropriate link. For more specific information regarding the annexation procedure and fees, please contact Ms. Donna Curry at (562) 9084288, extension 2708. Do you have any assessment fees for other required or recommended mitigation measures for the proposed project? The District is empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee for the privilege of connecting (directly or indirectly) to the District's Sewerage System or for increasing the strength or quantity of wastewater discharged from connected facilities. This connection fee is a capital facilities fee that is imposed in an amount sufficient to construct an incremental expansion of the Sewerage System to accommodate the proposed project. Payment of a connection fee will be required before a permit to connect to the sewer is issued. For more information and a copy of the Connection Fee Information Sheet, go to www.laesd or¢, Wastewater & Sewer Systems, click on Will Serve Program, and search for the appropriate link. In determining the impact to the Sewerage System and applicable connection fees, the District's Chief Engineer will determine the user category (e.g. Condominium, Single Family home, etc.) that best represents the actual or anticipated use of the parcel or facilities on the parcel. For more specific information regarding the connection fee application procedure and fees, please contact the Connection Fee Counter at (562) 908-4288, extension 2727. 7. Please include any additional information you feel is pertinent to the Environmental Impact Report analysis for the proposed project. In order for the District to conform to the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the design capacities of District wastewater treatment facilities are based on the regional growth forecast adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG), Specific policies included in the development of the SCAG regional growth forecast are incorporated into clean air plans, which are prepared by the South Coast and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management Districts in order to improve air quality in the South Coast and Mojave Desert Air Basins as mandated by the CCA. All expansions of District facilities must be sized and service phased in a manner that will be consistent with the SCAG regional growth forecast for tyre counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. The available capacity of District treatment facilities will, therefore, be limited to levels associated with the approved growth identified by SCAG. As such, this letter does not coastimte a guarantee of wastewater service, but is to advise you that the District intends to provide this DOC: 01596172.SCVD99 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 101 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies Ms. Collette L. Morse -3- January 15, 2016 service up to the levels that are legally permitted and to inform you of the currently existing capacity and any proposed expansion of District facilities. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (562) 908-4288, extension 2717. i Ver ruly yours, na Raza Customer Service Specialist Facilities Planning Department AR:ar cc: D. Curry M. Sullivan M. Tatalovich DOC', N35861723CVD99 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 102 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies this page intentionally blank Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 103 3. Responses to Comments Comment Letter 12 County of Los Angeles Public Library April 17, 2017 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies County Library Skye Patrick County Librarian April 17, 2017 Patrick LeClair 23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Patrick LeClair: NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SAND CANYON PLAZA, MASTER CASE 06-143 This is in response to the Sand Canyon Plaza Project Draft Environmental Impact10-1 Report. The project includes 580 residential units and the development's overall impact to the County of Los Angeles Public Library (Public Library) as follows: 10-2 • The project site is located in the City of Santa Clarita and the jurisdiction is not served by the Public Library. The City of Santa Clarita withdrew from the County Library system in 2011. The closest Public Libraries are Stevenson Ranch Library (14.5 miles), San Fernando Library (16.8 miles) and Castaic Library (22.7 miles). • There will be no impact on the Library Mitigation Fee or special tax as the10-3 area is by the City Santa Clarita. project served of If you have any questions or require additional information regarding this matter, please 10-4 contact Elsa Munoz at (562) 940-8450. Sincerely, Ja a e us C ie Deputy :YDR:EB:EM:KK:SS:cn JASTAFFSERVICESOEVELOPER FEET MSand Canyon Plan. LLC.doc c: Ting Fanti, Head, Budget and Fiscal Services, Public Library Jesse Walker -Lanz, Library Administrator, Public Library Jason Tajima, Chief Executive Office Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 104 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies Response to Comment Letter 12 County of Los Angeles Public Library April 17, 2017 12-1 This comment is an introduction to comments that follow. No further response is required. 12-2 The comment is informational in nature and does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. However, because the comment does not raise an environmental issue, no further response is required. 12-3 The comment is informational in nature and does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. However, because the comment does not raise an environmental issue, no further response is required. 12-4 The comment is a conclusion to the comment letter and does not raise an environmental issue; no further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 105 3. Responses to Comments Comment Letter 13 Office of the Sheriff, County of Los Angeles May 5, 2017 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies Pl rni r or -r _ ffEF rIR r Jb� COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES a r JIM McDoNNrxL, SurRIFP R`, E_w E orvD 1 ,5 o May 5, 2017 MAY 1 p 2117 cmr oc SAWAcLAWA Mr. Patrick Leclair, Senior Planner Community Development Department City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 320 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Dear Mr. Leclair: REVIEW COMMENTS DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SAND CANYON PLAZA MIXED-USE PROJECT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2015051005) Thank you for inviting the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department (Department) to review and comment on the March 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project (Project). The proposed Project site encompasses 87 acres north of Soledad Canyon Road, east of Sand Canyon Road, north of State Route 14, and west of the Pinetree residential community in the City of Santa Clarita. The proposed Project will remove an existing 123 -unit mobile home park from the Project site, and will construct up to 580 residential units, 55,600 square feet of retail commercial spaces, and a 120 -bed assisted living facility. The proposed Project will also construct related site amenities and improvements adjacent to Sand Canyon Road. The Project is located within the service area of the Department's Santa Clarita Valley Station (Station). Accordingly, the Station reviewed the DEIR and authored the attached review comments (see correspondence, dated April 17, 2017, from Captain Robert J. Lewis). For future reference, the Department provides the following updated contact information for all requests for review comments, law enforcement service information, California Environmental Quality Act documents, and other related correspondence: 211 WEST TEMPLE .STREET, Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9012 Idalicn `7' �itrce Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 13-1 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 106 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies Response to Comment Letter 13 Office of the Sheriff, County of Los Angeles May 5, 2017 13-1 Staff has received this comment, but did not receive the referenced attachment. Staff has contacted the Sheriff Department and received a copy of the attachment, which is provided as Comment Letter 14. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 107 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies Mr. Leclair - 2 - May 5, 2017 Tracey Jue, Director Facilities Planning Bureau Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department 4700 Ramona Boulevard, Fourth Floor Monterey Park, California 91754 Attention: Maynora Castro, Facilities Planner II MGCastro@lasd.org Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (323) 526- 5657, or your staff may contact Ms. Maynora Castro of my staff at (323) 526-5578. Sincerely, JIM McDONNELL, SHERIFF ;Kr - Tracey Jue, Director Facilities Planning Bureau Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 13-1 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 108 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies Mr. Leclair - 3 - May 5, 2017 TJ:MC:mc/mm Attachment c: Robert J. Lewis, Captain, Santa Clarita Valley Station (SCV) Justin Diez, Operations Lieutenant, SCV David Culver, Assistant Director, Facilities Planning Bureau (FPB) Meghan Wang, Supervising Facilities Project Manager, FPB Maynora Castro, Departmental Facilities Planner II, FPB Chrono (EIR-Sand Canyon Plaza) Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 109 3. Responses to Comments Comment Letter 14 Office of the Sheriff, County of Los Angeles May 5, 2017 LETTER 14 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES �. F idSTICE JIM McDONNELL, SHERIFF May 5, 2017 Mr. Patrick Leclair, Senior Planner Community Development Department City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 320 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Dear Mr. Leclair: REVIEW COMMENTS DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SAND CANYON PLAZA MIXED-USE PROJECT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2015051005) Thank you for inviting the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department (Department) to review and comment on the March 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project (Project). The proposed Project site encompasses 87 acres north of Soledad Canyon Road, east of Sand Canyon Road, north of State Route 14, and west of the Pinetree residential community in the City of Santa Clarita. The proposed Project will remove an existing 123 -unit mobile home park from the Project site, and will construct up to 580 residential units, 55,600 square feet of retail commercial spaces, and a 120 -bed assisted living facility. The proposed Project will also construct related site amenities and improvements adjacent to Sand Canyon Road. 14-1 The Project is located within the service area of the Department's Santa Clarita Valley Station (Station). Accordingly, the Station reviewed the DEIR and authored the 114-2 attached review comments (see correspondence, dated April 17, 2017, from Captain Robert J. Lewis). For future reference, the Department provides the following updated contact information for all requests for review comments, law enforcement service information, California 14-3 Environmental Quality Act documents, and other related correspondence: 211 WEST TEMPLESTREET, .Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, 90012 WG d4aC�if.I " e/ yew e; e —9'. XMv Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 110 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies Response to Comment Letter 14 Office of the Sheriff, County of Los Angeles May 5, 2017 14-1 The comment restates information contained in the Draft FIR, specifically information relating to the project location and Project Description, and does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the Project. However, because the comment does not raise an environmental issue, no further response is required. 14-2 The comment notes that the Project site is within the service area of the Sheriff's Department Santa Clarita Valley Station (Station), and that the Station reviewed the Draft FIR and provided comments in the attached correspondence, dated April 17, 2017. Refer to Responses 14-4 through 14-8. 14-3 The comment provides updated contact information for the Sheriff's Department Facilities Planning Bureau. The comment does not raise an environmental issue; thus, no further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 111 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies Mr. Leclair - 2 - May 5, 2017 Tracey Jue, Director Facilities Planning Bureau Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department 4700 Ramona Boulevard, Fourth Floor Monterey Park, California 91754 Attention: Maynora Castro, Facilities Planner II MGCastro@lasd.org Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (323) 526- 5657, or your staff may contact Ms. Maynora Castro of my staff at (323) 526-5578. Sincerely, JIM McDONNELL, SHERIFF J rr Tracey Jue, Director Facilities Planning Bureau Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 14-3 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 112 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies this page intentionally blank Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 113 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies Mr. LeClair - 3 - May 5, 2017 TJ:MC:mc/mm Attachment c: Robert J. Lewis, Captain, Santa Clarita Valley Station (SCV) Justin Diez, Operations Lieutenant, SCV David Culver, Assistant Director, Facilities Planning Bureau (FPB) Meghan Wang, Supervising Facilities Project Manager, FPB Maynora Castro, Departmental Facilities Planner Il, FPB Chrono (EIR-Sand Canyon Plaza) Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 114 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies this page intentionally blank Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 115 3. Responses to Comments 761551 N25A - SH -AD (3/16) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SHERIFF'S DEPARTMEI "A Tradition of Service Since 1850" DATE: FILE: 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies RECLIVED � 9h MAY a 201i D��9��N(� Leser FAC1[.MES PtA!k#MNG WMEAU Cc 40'T aeey t DAVf- / l OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE FROM: ROBERT J. LEWIS, CAPTAIN TO: TRACEY JUE, DIRECTOR SANTA CLARITA STATION FACILITIES PLANNING BUREAU SUBJECT: REVIEW COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SAND CANYON PLAZA MIXED-USE PROJECT The Santa Clarita Valley Station (Station) reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), dated March 2017, for the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project (Project). The proposed Project is located north of Soledad Canyon Road, east of Sand Canyon Road, north of State Route 14, and west of the Pinetree residential community in the City of Santa Clarita. The proposed Project site encompasses 87 acres, a portion of which is currently occupied by a 123 -unit mobile home park. The remainder of the site is undeveloped. The proposed Project is located within the Station's service area. The proposed Project will remove the existing mobile home park, and will construct up to 580 residential units, 55,600 square feet of retail commercial, and a 120 -bed assisted living facility. The proposed Project will also construct related site amenities and adjacent road improvements to Sand Canyon Road. Upon full build -out, the proposed Project will have a resident population of 1,798 persons. Section 4.16 of the DEIR contains various information pertaining to the Station, including staffing, service area, service ratio, assets, and response times. The DEIR acknowledges the Station's current shortfall of deputies, and that the proposed Project will exacerbate that shortfall by two (2). The DEIR also acknowledges that Project build -out is expected to result in an increased volume of calls for service, and that Project -related construction activities could temporarily affect emergency access. Nevertheless, the DEIR concludes the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact on the Station following implementation of mitigation measures that require private security patrols during construction, the City's approval of a traffic control plan, the payment of applicable law enforcement facility impact fees, and incorporation of various physical design features intended to discourage criminal activities. Lastly, the DEIR notes the planned development of a new Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff's Station. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 14-4 IE161 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 116 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies 14-4 Similar to Comments 14-1 and 14-2, this comment restates information contained in the Draft EIR, specifically information relating to the project location, Project Description, population at buildout, and that the Project site is within the service area of the Sheriffs Department Santa Clarita Valley Station (Station). The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the Project. However, because the comment does not raise an environmental issue, no further response is required. 14-5 The comment summarizes environmental setting and impact analysis from Draft EIR Section 4.16, Police Protection. The comment also notes that the Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff Station does not dispute the information or findings in the Draft EIR. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the Project. No further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 117 3. Responses to Comments -2- 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies April 17, 2017 The Station does not dispute the information or findings stated in the DER. However, 114-5 the Station notes the following cost impact analysis, based on the build -out population of the proposed Project contained therein. The calculated cost of assigning two (2) 14-6 additional deputies to the Station for patrol and traffic enforcement operations is $501,639.94. This estimate is based on the Fiscal Year 2017-18 rate schedule, and anticipates an annual increase of 3.5%. Also, the Station recommends the proposed Project be forwarded to the California Highway Patrol (CHP) for review and comment. CHP is the primary law enforcement 14-7 service provider in this portion of unincorporated Los Angeles County, and the Station expects the primary impact of the proposed Project to be increased traffic flow. The Station has no further comment at this time. However, the Station reserves the right to amend or supplement our assessment upon subsequent reviews of the proposed 114-8 Project. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Operations Lieutenant Justin Diez at (661) 799-5102 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 118 3. Responses to Comments 3.1 — State/Governmental Agencies 14-6 The comment provides a cost impact analysis for the Santa Clarita Valley Station of assigning two additional deputies to the Santa Clarita Valley Station for patrol and traffic enforcement operations. The cost is estimated at $501,639.94 based upon the Fiscal Year 2017-2017 rate schedule. The City contracts services with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and include costs for these services in the Public Safety component of the City's annual budget. The City acknowledges the cost estimate for the two additional deputies, which will be considered as part of the City's annual budget review, update, and adoption process. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the Project. No further response is required. 14-7 The California Highway Patrol received notification of the Draft FIR, but did not submit any comments. 14-8 This comment is a conclusion to the comment letter and provides contact information at the Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff Station. No further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 119 3. Responses to Comments 3.2 — Public Comments 3.2 Public Comments Letter Individual or Organization Date Page Comment Letter 15 Sherilyn Koss................................................................ March 27, 2017...........122 Comment Letter 16 Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance .......... April 8, 2017 ...............126 Comment Letter 17 Castaic Lions Club ........................................................ undated ......................156 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR August 2017 121 3. Responses to Comments Comment Letter 15 Sherilyn Koss March 27, 2017 3.2 — Public Comments From: Sherilyn Koss[mailto:sherilynjk@sboglobal.net] Sent: Monday, March 27, 2017 1:13 AM To: Patrick Leclair Subject: Sand Canyon Plaza Project - Koss RE: Request for Altering plan of Sand Cyn Plaza Bldg's G -H -I and PA -2 Hello Patrick, Since I met with you last week, my husband and I have had time to look over the newest renderings you provided me (Plan 2, 3, and our view of Sand Canyon Plaza from 28702 Macklin Ave). We now have greater concerns over Cumulative noise and light, specifically because of the current layout of Apartment Buildings G -H -I around the PA -2 parking lot. As they are planned now, the buildings are in a 'U' shape with the open end on Sand Canyon Rd (and directly adjacent to us), plus the plan has no substantial berm indicated along that segment of Sand Canyon Rd. In this layout, generous trees would be our only recourse to shield noise and light from us, and still may not guarantee a reasonable reduction of noise and light. We are concerned the layout itself would nullify the benefits of both trees and a berm (if added). We have read that the DEIR foresees a substantial Increase in sound and light for us (Cumulative). However we believe the 'U' shape could potentially create a WORSE noise problem then the DEIR may have projected, because all the noise (and light) from the parking lot will reverberate out/up towards Macklin Ave. We believe this potential cumulative outcome is highly likely, considering we (and our neighbors) already experience a considerable 'bowl effect' with sound from the direction of the mobile home park; noise 'carries' uphill and we can often hear a far-off conversation from the mobile home park as easily as if it's 10 feet away. Currently, most winds that blow to us travel through the small valley in which the Sand Canyon Plaza is to be built, and uphill to us (hence the 'bowl effect'). After making these considerations, we looked closer at Mr. Clark's plan for a possible change for the better. We believe that the layout of the buildings around the parking lot (BLDG's G -H -I and PA -2) can b changed to our benefit (and other Macklin neighbors') by simply 'flipping the U shape' of the buildings to open In the opposite direction. I have attached a MOCK UP'flip' Image of what I am describing, with the hope that we can communicate better through imagery. This mock up is not to scale and probably not entirely accurate - but I hope it is close enough to help you judge whether this could be a feasible alternative plan. - You should note: I have flipped BLDG's I,H, but only moved BLDG G to the right. I have kept the same number of parking spaces, and added covered parking to the left of BLDG G to keep noise and light minimal. I have lengthened the parking structures at center (PA -2) to gain 4 parking places. We believe that by moving BLDG I to the street, the light and noise we might be subjected to from within the 'U' of the current plan can be greatly reduced. Additionally, we believe that sounds on the street may increase by way of reverberating from BLDG I towards us, but we hope this noise can be diminished by trees planted along the perimeter of Sand Canyon Plaza, along our side of Sand Canyon, and on our own property. Faced with the choice, we would prefer the increase of 'road noise' to 'parking lot noise and light.' We have discussed this idea with our neighbor at 28712 Macklin Ave., and they feel this idea is a good one. If this idea isn't acceptable, please let me know. Maybe we can find another solution to help mitigate potential cumulative noise and light. 15-1 e 15-2 15-3 15-4 15-5 Patrick, it is my hope that you will look this over first, and if you believe this is a reasonable idea, please forward it to Mr. Clark for his consideration ( rovalclarkdevco(&aol.com ). If either of you need to meet 15-6 with me, or want to discuss anything further please contact me anytime. I hope the picture shown is enough to convey our Idea. Thank you!! See attached: 2 files- '3-2017 Sand Cyn Plaza flip cony' and ' orip copy' (for reference). Sherilyn (and Mark) Koss 28702 Macklin Ave Canyon Country, CA 91387 hm. (661) 251-5797 email: sherllynj kClasbcgloba 1. net Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 122 3. Responses to Comments 3.2 — Public Comments Response to Comment Letter 15 Sherilyn Koss March 27, 2017 15-1 through 15-6 The commenter is requesting that the City and Project applicant make changes to the building configuration in PA -2 to address potential noise and lighting issues. The commenter lives directly to the west of the Project site across Sand Canyon Road. The Project Applicant has agreed to make the change suggested by the commenter and change is required by the conditions of approval. Furthermore, the City has added a condition of approval requiring enhanced landscaping along Sand Canyon Road to further reduce potential noise and lighting impacts. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 123 3. Responses to Comments Comment Letter 16 Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance April 8, 2017 April 8, 2017 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Patrick LeClair, Associate Planner City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 oleclai .santa-clarita.com SUBJECT: SAND CANYON PLAZA MIXED USE PROJECT EIR To whom it may concern 3.2 — Public Comments Page 1 of 8 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Sand Canyon Mixed Use project. Please accept and consider these comments on behalf of Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance. Also, Golden State Environmental 16-1 Justice Alliance formally requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this project. Send all communications to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance P.O. Box 79222 Corona, CA 92877. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 126 3. Responses to Comments 3.2 — Public Comments Response to Comment Letter 16 Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance April 8, 2017 16-1 This comment does not address the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). No response is required. The Project applicant notes that the commenter did not contact City staff or attend any Project hearings before submitting the April 8, 2017 comment letter on the Draft EIR. Many of the issues raised in the comment letter could have been addressed and resolved by communications with City Staff or by presenting questions during the Project processing effort over the last three years since the Project application was filed. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 127 3. Responses to Comments 1.0 Summary 3.2 — Public Comments Page 2 of 8 As we understand it, the proposed project includes the development of the 87.5 acre Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project site with 580 residential units, 55,600 square feet of retail commercial (including restaurants), and a 75,000 -square -foot (120 -bed) assisted living facility. 16-2 The General Plan and Zoning designations on the project site are MXN (Mxed Use Neighborhood) and UR -3 (Urban Residential). No buildings are proposed on the portion of the site designated UR -3. The project includes three private recreation areas, commercial plaza areas, various private streets, driveways and landscaped areas, and adjacent roadway improvements to Sand Canyon 16-3 Road (including the construction of two roundabouts) and Soledad Canyon Road. To implement the project, the City will need to approve the following entitlements: 1) a tentative tract map, 2) a conditional use permit, 3) a hillside review, including a ridgeline alteration 16-4 permit, 4) a minor use permit, and 5) an oak tree permit. Additional subsequent ministerial actions, such as grading permits, building plan review, and building permits, would be required by the City prior to actual grading and construction of the Project. 3.0 Project Description 3.8 Land Use Designations and Zoning The EIR states that the project site has a General Plan and zoning designation of MXN (Mixed Use Neighborhood) and Urban Residential 3 (UR -3). However, a map of the project site 16-5 demonstrating the land use designation at the project site is not provided. Based on a review of the project site in comparison to the General Plan Land Use map, it appears that the project site has a designation of MXN and UR -2. It appears that the UR -3 designation is located on the northwest side of Sand Canyon Road where the existing Sand Canyon Ranch Apartments are located. The EIR must be revised to clarify this discrepancy and adequately inform the public and decision makers of the Land Use designations at the project site. 3.13 Description of Project The EIR states that the assisted living facility located in Planning Area 1 will be "consistent with16-6 the requirements of the MN zone" because the maximum building height is 55 feet. The MXN Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 128 3. Responses to Comments 3.2 - Public Comments 16-2 This comment does not address the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR. No response is required. 16-3 This comment does not address the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR. No response is required. 16-4 This comment does not address the adequacy of the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR. No response is required. 16-5 A Project Site Development Plan with the applicable MXN and UR -3 General Plan designations and zoning classifications overlay is attached (page 155). The General Plan designations and zoning classifications are based on the November 2016 updated City General Plan and Zoning maps found at htW://www.santa-clarita.com/home/showdocument?id-6975 (General Plan Map) and httl2://www.santa-clarita.com/home/showdocument?id=6970 (Zoning Map). The Project site has MXN and UR -3 General Plan designations and zoning classifications as accurately stated in the Draft EIR. A UR -3 designation and zoning covers only a 2.7 -acre area on the southeast edge of the Project site, which area will not be developed with any buildings or structures as explained in Draft EIR Section 4.10-6, page 4.10-13. No UR -2 General Plan designation exists on the Project site. No revision to the Draft EIR is required. 16-6 As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.10-6, page 4.10-18, the 2 -story assisted living facility within Planning Area 1 will be 40 feet in height which is below the maximum 50 -foot height limit for the MXN designation and zone. The statement at Draft EIR Section 3.13, page 3-12, that the assisted living facility would be 55 feet high is in error. No building heights in the Project development will be above 50 feet in height. All building heights in the Project development comply with General Plan designations and zoning regulations. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 129 3. Responses to Comments 3.2 – Public Comments Page 3 of 8 zone of the General Plan states that "Building heights shall not exceed 50 feet". The EIR is misleading to the public and decision makers by stating that a 55 foot tall building is consistent with the MXN maximum 50 foot height requirement. In the Land Use analysis section, the EIR discloses that a conditional use permit is required for building heights exceeding 50 feet. The Project Description is deficient by not including the required conditional use permit for exceeding the 50 foot height limit. Planning Areas 2 -5 proposes a total of 580 attached and detached residential units. The EIR states that "required parking per the MXN and UR -3 zone requirements" will be provided in each Planning Area. However, the EIR stated earlier that no buildings are proposed in the UR -3 area of the proposed project. Since there is no land use designation map provided, the public and decision makers are unable to verify if Planning Areas 2-5 are located within the UR -3 zone or not. The EIR does not provide any reasoning for applying the MXN and UR -3 parking requirements when it has stated that no building is proposed within the UR -3 designated area of the project site. 4.3 Air Quality The Air Quality Analysis assumes a maximum 8 hour day of construction, 5 days per week. Section 11.44.080 Special Noise Sources—Construction and Building of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code permits construction between the hours of 7:00 AM - 7:00 PM, Monday - Friday and 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM on Saturday. The AQA does not present the "worst-case scenario" of construction equipment emitting pollutants for the legal 12 hours per weekday plus 10 hours on Saturday. The Air Quality modeling must be revised to account for these legally possible longer construction days and increased number of construction days. General Plan Consistency The EIR indicates that the proposed project is consistent with General Plan Objective CO 7.1: Reduce air pollution from mobile sources and Policy CO 7.1.1: Through the mixed land use patterns and multi -modal circulation policies set forth in the Land Use and Circulation Elements, limit air pollution from transportation sources. However, the Air Quality Analysis concludes that significant and unavoidable operational emissions impacts from ROG and NOx will occur as a result of the project. These emissions are attributed to mobile vehicle sources. The EIR does not propose any mitigation measures for this significant impact. The EIR is erroneous and misleading to the public and decision makers by stating that the proposed project is consistent Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 16-6 cont'd 16-7 ME 16-9 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 130 3. Responses to Comments 3.2 — Public Comments 16-7 The comment accurately states that Project Areas 2 through 5 propose a total of 580 attached and detached residential units, and that no development will occur in the UR -3 designation and zone located in the southeast portion of the Project site. (See the attached Project Site Development Plan (page 155) with the applicable MXN and UR -3 General Plan designations and zoning classifications overlay.) Accordingly, all Project parking in Planning Areas 1 through 5 will comply with the parking requirements of the MXN zone pursuant to Section 17.55.050 of the City's Unified Development Code. The statement at Draft EIR Section 3.13, page 3-18, that any Project parking will conform to the UR -3 zone requirements is in error. 16-8 This comment questions some of the assumptions utilized in the Draft EIR's construction air quality analysis, including the hours per construction day and number of construction days per week. Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines states: An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure. Section 15003 of the CEQA Guidelines states: CEQA does not require technical perfection in an EIR, but rather adequacy, completeness, and a good -faith effort at full disclosure. A court does not pass upon the correctness of an EIR's environmental conclusions, but only determines if the EIR is sufficient as an informational document. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692) Section 15124(c) of the CEQA Guidelines states: A general description of the project's technical, economic, and environmental characteristics, considering the principal engineering proposals if any and supporting public service facilities. With these factors in mind, the Draft EIR presented and analyzed a realistic and conservative (i.e., worst-case) construction schedule, and applied a set of daily construction assumptions consistent with survey data from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). With respect to the comment's assertion that the number of daily construction hours could vary from the assumptions utilized, the Draft EIR assumed the use of heavy equipment that generate air quality emissions in a manner consistent with SCAQMD survey data for projects of this size, Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 131 3. Responses to Comments 3.2 — Public Comments type and location.' The Draft EIR also applied SCAQMD data related to the equipment's usage hours, horsepower, and load factor' for each piece of equipment. As such, the Project assumed heavy equipment in a manner consistent with published SCAQMD survey data and applied SCAQMD data for use and operations of such equipment. It is also important to note that construction hours do not directly translate to the number of hours per day that heavy equipment would operate on a given day. The air quality analysis is intended to identify the daily air quality emissions associated with the operation of heavy equipment, fugitive dust generated by use of equipment and vehicles, worker, vendor, and haul trips, and off -gas from coatings. As such, many other construction activities such as the use of hammers, nail guns, framing work, and use of other electric tools would have no direct impact on the generation of air quality emissions. It should also be noted that if construction was to occur more days per week as suggested by the comment, the daily emissions would decrease. This is due to the fact that the model averages various emissions over the course of the construction period. These factors would include but not be limited to: 1) more hauling days would result in fewer daily hauling trips, 2) a longer construction period would result in decreased vendor trips associated with bringing building materials to the site, and 3) likely a reduction in daily worker trips due to a longer and slower build -out process. These factors would all lead to lower daily emissions, and the thresholds of significance are based on daily maximums. In conclusion, the Draft EIR includes a schedule of construction equipment that operates 8 hours per day, 5 day per week, which is built into the CaIEEMod programs (Version 2016.3.1 and Version 2013.2.2) used to calculate construction emissions, and the schedule is based on detailed survey data collected by SCAQMD about construction projects comparable in size and scope to the Project. The CaIEEMod programs (Version 2016.3.1 and Version 2013.2.2) are the industry standard programs used to model construction emissions. The 8 -hour -per -day, 5 -day - per -week construction equipment operating schedule is therefore reasonable and recognizes that construction equipment is often not operating even when other daily construction activities are occurring on a site. 16-9 As discussed at Draft EIR Table 4.3-9 (page 4.3-33) and Table 4.10-1 (page 4.10-17), the Project's mixed-use nature and urban location will reduce project -related traffic trips by approximately 9% compared to a project without those features. This reduction in trips would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), congestion, and associated air quality emissions. In addition, it should be noted that the Project would be consistent with the City's Climate Action Plan (CAP) and CalGreen Code, which require several project design features that would reduce air quality and greenhouse gas emissions as discussed at Draft EIR pages 4.7-27 and 4.7-28. These features include: mixed-use design resulting in VMT reductions, pedestrian network improvements, low -flow water fixtures, low impact vegetation and irrigation, energy reduction (e.g., high efficiency appliances and lighting, and solar panels), and on-site electric vehicle charging 7 Based on construction activity surveys performed by the SCAQMD (see Appendix E to the CalEEMod 2013.2 User's Guide, July 2017). 8 The load factor is the ratio of the actual output to the maximum output of a piece of equipment. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR August 2017 132 3. Responses to Comments 3.2 — Public Comments stations. As such, the Project does include several features that would serve to reduce air quality and GHG emissions. Further, as discussed at Draft FIR section 4.19-6, page 4.19-21, the Project would generate nearly 40% less traffic than what was analyzed for the site in the General Plan. The General Plan estimated that a future development of the site with commercial and residential uses would generate approximately 13,400 ADT. The Project would generate 8,163 ADT.9. In addition, as discussed at Draft FIR section 4.19-6, pages 4.19-29 and 4.19-32, MM T-1 and MM T-2 modify and coordinate traffic signal timing to reduce traffic queues and congestion on nearby road segments and improve transportation systems, which reduces air quality impacts from mobile vehicle sources. Furthermore, as discussed at Draft FIR section 4.14-6, pages 4.14-16 to 4.14-17, the Project would provide a Class II bike lane along the Project's frontage on Soledad Canyon Road. A Class I trail would be provided along the east side of Sand Canyon Road along the Project's frontage. Internal trails would connect to each of these facilities allowing for access to regional trail systems such as the Stetson Ranch trails, the Sand Canyon Trail, and the Santa Clara River Trail. All on-site trails would be accessible to homeowners, as well as to the public. Additionally, as discussed at Draft FIR Table 4.3-9 (page 4.3-33), the Project will provide on-site electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, supporting and promoting the use of electric vehicles. This Project Design Features will be included by the City as Project elements in the entitlement approvals for the Project and will be enforceable. Moreover, consistent with goals of the City's CAP, the Project would include walkability design and pedestrian network improvements (see Draft FIR page 4.7-27). As stated therein, the Project would create and enhance opportunities for non -vehicular travel and encourage pedestrian mobility by providing an internal pedestrian circulation system that links residential neighborhoods to on-site recreation areas, regional trail systems, and neighborhood retail/commercial areas. As discussed at Draft FIR Sections 4.3-6.3 (page 4.3-29) and 4.3-6.4 (page 4.3-31), localized operational air quality emissions would not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD") thresholds of significance, and these impacts would be considered less than significant. Further, as concluded at Draft FIR Sections 4.3-6.3 (pages 4.3-28 to 4.3-29) and 4.3-6.4 (page 4.3-30), the Project has a net increase in regional operational emissions that would exceed the regional thresholds of significance set by the SCAQMD for ROG and NOx during the summertime and the wintertime. These emissions are primarily due to motor vehicles and area source emissions associated with the operation of a relatively high number of proposed residential uses. These emissions are typical for a mixed-use commercial and residential project of this size, and there is no feasible mitigation to reduce these emissions to a less -than - 9 As determined in Stantec's May 19, 2017 Traffic Study Supplemental Memorandum for the Project the Project modifications discussed in footnote 4 would generate a net increase of only 176 daily traffic trips, for a total of 8,136 ADT. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 133 3. Responses to Comments 3.2 — Public Comments significant level. There is currently no approved regional plan or program in place into which the project applicant could pay its fair share toward reduction of regional operational emissions that would exceed the regional thresholds of significance set by the SCAQMD for ROG and NOX during the summertime and the wintertime. Therefore, mitigation is infeasible. An FIR is not required to identify and discuss infeasible mitigation measures. Clover Valley Foundation v. City of Rocklin (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 200, 245 ("Nothing in CEQA requires an FIR to explain why certain mitigation measures are infeasible."); see Cherry Valley Pass Acres & Neighbors v. City of Beaumont (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 316, 351. Regional operational air quality impacts will remain regionally significant and unavoidable. Also as discussed at Draft FIR 4.3-6.4 (pages 4.3-31 to 4.3-32), while the Project would exceed regional thresholds of significance primarily related to motor vehicle travel, the Project would not exceed the assumptions utilized in preparing the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and would not have the potential to impair implementation of the AQMP. However, the thresholds of significance developed by the SCAQMD are not sensitive to property or project size, or the type of use proposed by a project. As discussed in more detail below, projects, land uses, and activities that are consistent with the applicable assumptions used in the development of the AQMP would not necessarily jeopardize attainment of the air quality levels identified in the AQMP if they exceed the SCAQMD's recommended daily emissions thresholds. The AQMP was prepared to achieve national and state air pollution standards within the region. A project that is considered to be consistent with the AQMP would not interfere with attainment of AQMP goals, because the growth from the Project is included in the regional projections used to formulate the AQMP. Therefore, projects, land uses, and activities that are consistent with the applicable assumptions used in the development of the AQMP (i.e., the RTP/SCS) would not jeopardize attainment of the air quality levels identified in the AQMP, even if they exceed the SCAQMD's project -level daily emissions thresholds. The Project is a mixed-use commercial and residential development that would increase the City's population, housing, and employment. However, the Project is consistent with City's 2011 General Plan and the zoning designations of MXN (Mixed Use Neighborhood) and Urban Residential 3 (UR -3), and the Project would be consistent with the site's maximum allowable density of 18 dwelling units per acre planned for the site. Because the Project would be consistent with the planned build out of the City's 2011 General Plan, the Project's population, housing, and employment increases would not have the potential to conflict with regional growth projections identified in SCAG's RTP/SCS and the AQMP. Furthermore, the Project would be consistent with primary goals of the RTP/SCS including, but not limited to, mixed-use design and the promotion of active transportation (i.e., non -motorized transportation such as walking and bicycling). Specifically, the Project's traffic analysis indicates the Project's mixed- use nature reduces motor vehicle trips by approximately 9% due to internal capture. As presented in more detail in the Project's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report, this design feature would result in a reduction of approximately 2,378,560 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) compared to a project without similar design features. Therefore, the Project's design would be consistent with the regional VMT reduction strategies identified in the RTP/SCS and AQMP. Based on the information presented above, the Project would not exceed the Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 134 3. Responses to Comments 3.2 — Public Comments assumptions utilized in preparing the AQMP and would not have the potential to impair implementation of the AQMP. Therefore, impacts with respect to regional plans and AQMP consistency would be less than significant. Accordingly, the Project is consistent with City General Plan objectives and policies regarding limiting mobile source air pollution. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 135 3. Responses to Comments 3.2 — Public Comments Page 4 of 8 with any General Plan objective or policy related to limiting mobile source air pollution as � 16-9 mobile vehicle sources will generate a significant and unavoidable impact to air quality. COIN Further, the EIR states that the proposed project is consistent with General Plan Objective CO 7.2: Apply guidelines to protect sensitive receptors from sources of air pollution as developed by the CARB, where appropriate and Policy CO 7.2.1: Ensure adequate spacing of sensitive land uses from the following sources of air pollution: high traffic freeways and roads; distribution centers; truck stops; chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners using perchloroethylene, and large gas stations, as recommended by CARB. The EIR determines consistency with this policy because "the project would be consistent with CARB's recommendations regarding the siting of sensitive receptors" even though a 120 bed assisted living facility is proposed to be located within 500 feet of SR -14. The EIR does not provide evidence in this section of how the project is consistent with the siting requirements when an assisted living facility is proposed to be located within 500 feet of SR -14. 4.10 Land Use 4.10-3 Fxisting General Plan and Zoning Designations The EIR does not provide a General Plan Land Use map or Zoning map to verify the designations of the project site. The EIR states that the MXN designation permits a maximum density of 18 dwelling units per acre but does not include other pertinent information such as the maximum floor area ratio of 0.5 for non-residential development and maximum building heights of 50 feet. The EIR is inadequate as an informational document and must be revised to include this information. LU -2 Local Land Use Consistency - Santa Clarita General Plan The EIR states that the proposed project is consistent with Policy LU 1.1.4: Preserve community character by maintaining natural features that act as natural boundaries between developed areas, including significant ridgelines, canyons, rivers and drainage courses, riparian areas, topographical features, habitat preserves, or other similar features, where appropriate. The EIR maintains that the project is consistent even though alteration of a significant ridgeline is proposed. The EIR continues by stating that "the Project would still maintain natural boundaries between developed areas to the east" but does not provide details on what these natural boundaries consist of or supporting evidence for this statement. Further, it is stated that "the Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 1G2111 16-11 16-12 16-13 16-14 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 136 3. Responses to Comments 3.2 — Public Comments 16-10 The comment addresses the potential impact of the existing environment on the proposed Project. CEQA does not require the City to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on the Project's future users or residents. California Bldg. Indus. Ass'n v. BayArea Air Quality Mgmnt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 377. Notwithstanding as discussed in Draft FIR Section 4.10-6, page 4.10-17, a Freeway Adjacent Health Risk Assessment (HRA), Draft FIR Appendix 2-3, was prepared for the Project in January 2016, which addressed the potential exposure and health risks associated with locating sensitive land uses within 500 feet of the SR -14 Freeway. The HRA identified elevated ambient air quality and health conditions for locations on the Project site within 500 feet of the SR -14 Freeway. As discussed in Draft FIR Sections 3.14 and 4.10-6 (page 4.10-21), the Project includes 5 specific Project Design Features intended to minimize the effects of exposure to elevated ambient air quality conditions for sensitive uses. These Project Design Features will be included by the City as Project elements in the entitlement approvals for the Project and will be enforceable. Also, Project Design Feature PDF -11 (identified at Draft FIR Section 3.14, p. 3-25) will be changed from "consider options for mechanical and ventilation systems ..." to "utilize options for mechanical and ventilation systems ...." Further, the Project Design Features are consistent with the recommendations of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Technical Advisory, Strategies to Reduce Air Pollution Exposure Near High -Volume Roadways (April 2017) as discussed at pages 32 through 39 of the CARB Technical Advisory. Accordingly, substantial evidence demonstrates the Project's compliance with City General Plan Objective CO 7.2 and Policy CO 7.2.1 regarding applying guidelines developed by CARB to protect sensitive receptors from sources of air pollution. 16-11 A Project Site Development Plan with the applicable MXN and UR -3 General Plan designations and Zoning classifications overlay is attached (page 155). 16-12 As discussed in Draft FIR Section 4.10-6, page 4.10-18, the commercial portion of the Project includes up to 60,000 square feet10 in Planning Area 1, resulting in a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.14, which is below the maximum of 0.5, but is also below the minimum of 0.2. Thus, the Project requires a Minor Use Permit for the commercial uses. All commercial development complies with City Unified Development Code standards for maximum floor area ratio. Please refer to Final FIR Chapter 4.0, Project Revisions which includes revisions to the Project, including those referenced in Footnote 10. The Project applicant is processing minor modifications to the Project Site Development Plan in Planning Area 1. The minor modifications include an addition of 1) 4,400 square feet of 10 The Project Applicant is processing minor modifications to the Site Development Plan, which modifications include (1) a reduction in grading and the development footprint at and along the ridgeline in Planning Area 5, (2) the transfer of 27 detached dwelling units from Planning Area 5 to Planning Area 3, (3) an increase of up to 4,400 square feet of commercial retail or restaurant land uses in Planning Area 1, (4) the addition of about 10,000 square feet and 20 beds in the assisted living facility in Planning Area 1, and (5) construction of a three (3) level parking structure with a total of 264 parking spaces in Planning Area 1. No increase in any Project development footprint will occur, but will substantially decrease in Planning Area 5. Total residential dwelling units will remain at 580. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR August 2017 137 3. Responses to Comments 3.2 — Public Comments commercial, retail and restaurant space up to 60,000 total square feet -- an approximately eight percent (8%) increase in this land use type, and 2) 10,000 square feet for the assisted living facility (20 additional beds). The Project FAR is still well below the maximum .5 FAR even with this additional commercial and assisted living square footage. The development footprint of Planning Area 1 will not increase with these minor modifications. The modifications to the Project Site Development Plan are being considered by the City Council at its September 12, 2017 Regular Meeting. Additionally, as stated in Draft FIR Section 4.10-6, page 4.10-18, all building heights in the Project development will be at 50 feet in height or below, which complies with all applicable General Plan designations and zoning regulations. Refer to response to comment 16-6 (page 129 above). 16-13 As discussed in Draft FIR Table 4.10-1, page 4.10-13, although alteration of a significant ridgeline is proposed, the Project will still maintain natural boundaries between developed areas to the east. This is demonstrated on the Project's revised tentative tract map. As shown on the revised tentative tract map, open space lots would be located between developed areas on the project site and the existing residential development to the east maintaining natural features between developed areas. The Project applicant is also processing minor modifications to the Project Site Development Plan in Planning Area 5. The minor modifications include the transfer of 27 detached residential dwelling units from Planning Area 5 to Planning Area 3, which would reduce the development footprint of Planning Area 5 and reduce related impacts to the ridgeline. Approximately 700 linear feet of the ridgeline proposed for development under the original plan would now be preserved under the minor modifications to the Project Site Development Plan. Please refer to Final FIR Chapter 4.0, Project Revisions which includes revisions to the Project, including those referenced previous sentences. The modifications to the Project Site Development Plan are being considered by the City Council at its September 12, 2017 Regular Meeting. 16-14 As discussed in Draft FIR Table 4.10-1, page 4.10-13, portions of the ridgeline on the Property were previously altered for the widening of Soledad Canyon Road. One benefit of the Project includes the "laying back" of the existing manufactured cut slope to soften its appearance along SR -14 and Soledad Canyon Road. As discussed in the Draft FIR Finding No. 7, page 4.1-28, the visual character of most of the Project site would be altered from its current condition; however, the impact would not be considered significant, because the project site is located immediately adjacent to urban areas and is of similar scale and intensity; approximately 40% of the site would be retained as landscaped and open areas; portions of the ridgeline that extend into the site have been disturbed by previous development and adjacent roadways; and the Project would "lay back" the existing manufactured slope along Soledad Canyon Road, which would allow for this slope to be landscaped, further softening its appearance from SR -14, Soledad Canyon Road and areas to the south. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 138 3. Responses to Comments 3.2 — Public Comments Furthermore, as discussed in the Draft FIR, condition a. on page 4.1-25, the Project has been designed consistent with the Hillside Development Ordinance, because nearly all of the commercial development and one-half of the residential development proposed with the Project has been concentrated within disturbed portions of the site. The Project would also utilize building setbacks, building heights, compatible structures, and building forms throughout the site to blend buildings and structures with the terrain and surrounding development as much as possible. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 139 3. Responses to Comments 3.2 - Public Comments Page 5 of 8 Project would "lay back" an existing cut slope to soften its appearance along SR -14 and Soledad16-14 Canyon Road" but does not indicate how softening the appearance of a ridegeline along SR -14 (ond and Soledad Canyon Road complies with Policy LU 1. 1.4 to preserve significant ridgelines. The EIR does not address consistency with Policy LU 2.3.6: Provide parking alternatives in mixed-use developments, including subterranean parking and structured parking to limit the amount of surface area devoted to vehicle storage. The exact number of parking spaces for each of the five Planning Areas is not provided in the EIR, but Figure 3-4 provides a site plan layout that depicts surface parking lots in each of the Planning Areas. The EIR must address the project's consistency or inconsistency with Policy LU 2.3.6. Project Design Features The HRA provides design suggestions for the assisted living facility that will be located within 500 feet of SR -14. The language of the HRA is unenforceable, which has translated to unenforceable project design features. The PDF that states to "consider options for mechanical and ventilation systems (i.e., supply or exhaust based systems). If a supply -based system is proposed (i.e., actively bringing outside air through intake ducts), consider locating intakes as far from the freeway sources as possible" is unenforceable. For another PDF, the unenforceable language of the HRA to "Consider site plan design minimizing operable windows and building entries along the freeway" was changed to be implemented as "Utilize site plan design minimizing operable windows and building entries along the freeway". The EIR language that is unenforceable must be revised to be meaningfully implemented. 4.12 Noise Figure 4.12-1 Noise Monitoring and Sensitive Receptor Location Map indicates that sensitive receptors were not placed at their property lines nearest the project site for the noise analysis and modeling. The Noise Analysis must be revised to model sensitive receptors at their property lines closest to the project site. Further, Table 4.12-3 Existing Noise Levels in the Vicinity of the Project Site does not include the time of day that the measurements were taken. The Noise Analysis must be revised to include a daytime, afternoon, and evening noise measurement in order to provide the most accurate and meaningful analysis. MORI 16-16 16-17 The Ent lists applicable General Plan Noise Element goals, policies, and objectives, but does not16-18 include the following applicable policies and objectives: Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 140 3. Responses to Comments 3.2 — Public Comments 16-15 The Project applicant is processing minor modifications to the Project Site Development Plan in Planning Area 1. The minor modifications include construction of a 3 -level parking structure with a total of 264 parking spaces. The development footprint of Planning Area 1 will not increase with these minor modifications. The modifications to the Project Site Development Plan are being considered by the City Council at its September 12, 2017 Regular Meeting. With the addition of the multi-level parking structure, the Project continues to be consistent with General Plan Policy LU 2.3.6. 16-16 The comment addresses the potential impact of the existing environment on the proposed Project. CEQA does not require the City to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on the Project's future users or residents. California Bldg. Indus. Ass'n v. BayArea Air Quality Mgmnt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 377. Notwithstanding as discussed in Draft FIR Section 4.10-6, page 4.10-17, a Freeway Adjacent Health Risk Assessment (HRA), Draft FIR Appendix 2-3, was prepared for the Project in January 2016, which addressed the potential exposure and health risks associated with locating sensitive land uses within 500 feet of the SR -14 Freeway. The HRA identified elevated ambient air quality and health conditions for locations on the Project site within 500 feet of the SR -14 Freeway. As discussed in Draft FIR Sections 3.14 and 4.10-6 (page 4.10-21), the Project includes five specific Project Design Features intended to minimize the effects of exposure to elevated ambient air quality conditions for sensitive uses. These Project Design Features will be included by the City as Project elements in the entitlement approvals for the Project and will be enforceable. Also, Project Design Feature PDF -11 (identified at Draft FIR Section 3.14, p. 3-25) will be changed from "consider options for mechanical and ventilation systems ..." to "utilize options for mechanical and ventilation systems ...." Further, the Project Design Features are consistent with the recommendations of the CARB Technical Advisory, Strategies to Reduce Air Pollution Exposure Near High -Volume Roadways (April 2017) as discussed at pages 32 through 39 of the CARB Technical Advisory. Accordingly, substantial evidence demonstrates the Project's compliance with City General Plan Objective CO 7.2 and Policy CO 7.2.1 regarding applying guidelines developed by CARB to protect sensitive receptors from sources of air pollution. 16-17 As discussed in Draft FIR Section 4.12-3.3 (page 4.12-6) and Table 4.12-10 (page 4.12-20), noise measurements to model the noise impact analysis occurred at the closest property lines to the Project boundaries. The noise monitoring locations shown on Figure 4.12-1 (page 4.12-7) did not exactly replicate the actual location where noise monitoring equipment was placed, which locations were often closer to the Project boundaries than shown in the Figure. Further, the Noise Technical Report (Appendix 9 to the Draft EIR), at Appendix A, Noise Monitoring Data, identifies the time of day when each measurement of noise levels at a monitoring location occurred. The measurements and monitoring occurred during the day, when construction activities would occur. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 141 3. Responses to Comments 3.2 — Public Comments Page 6 of 8 Policy N 2.1.2: Encourage the use of noise absorbing barriers, where appropriate. � 16-18 cont'd Policy N 2.1.5: Encourage employers to develop van pool and other travel demand management16-19 programs to reduce vehicle trip -generated noise in the planning area. Objective N 4.1: Prevent, mitigate, and minimize noise spillover from commercial and industrial16-20 uses into adjacent residential neighborhoods and other noise sensitive uses. Policy N 4.1.1: Implement and enforce the applicable Noise Ordinance to control noise from16-21 commercial and industrial sources that may adversely impact adjacent residential neighborhoods and other sensitive uses. Policy N 4.1.2: Require appropriate noise buffering between commercial or industrial uses and residential neighborhoods and other sensitive uses. The EIR does not discuss consistency or inconsistency with any Noise Element goals, policies, or objectives in the Noise Analysis. The project could incorporate ideas from the Noise Element policies to mitigate significant and unavoidable impacts to construction related noise and vibrations. 4.19 Traffic and Circulation The proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts to traffic and circulation. Mitigation Measure T-3 states that "the Project Applicant and Caltrans are negotiating a traffic mitigation agreement that would require the Applicant to pay an in -lieu fee to Caltrans for future improvements to SR -14 based on the Project's fair share". Mitigation Measure T-7 states that the applicant will "Contribute pro -rata share to the anticipated costs for design and implementation of future improvements. (Project Share = 1.6%)". An assessment of fees is appropriate when linked to a specific mitigation program. (Anderson First Coalition v City of Anderson (2005) 130 Cal. AppAth 1173, Save our Peninsula Comm. v Monterey County Bd. Of Supers. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 141.) Payment of fees is not sufficient where there is no evidence mitigation will actually result. (Gray v County of Madera (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1099,1122.) 16-22 16-23 16-24 The assessment of fees here is not adequate as there is no evidence mitigation will actually result. MM T-3 indicates that the in -lieu fee will be paid for "future improvements" to SR -14 but 16-25 does not provide details on the specific program or the improvements that will be made. MM T-7 indicates that the improvements to SR -14 are only anticipated and have not yet been Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 142 3. Responses to Comments 3.2 — Public Comments 16-18 City General Plan Noise Element Policy N 2.1.2 is listed at Draft FIR Section 4.12-4.3 (page 4.12-14). The comment incorrectly states that this Policy was not included in the Draft FIR. Further, the Project complies with Noise Element Policy N 2.1.2. As discussed in Draft FIR Section 4.12-5, pages 4.12-20 through 4.12-21, construction noise levels are temporary and not continuous. Also, as identified in Draft FIR Section 4.12-5, page 4.12-21, Mitigation Measures MM N-4 through MM N-6 address barriers and physical sound control measures to be implemented during construction activities. Accordingly, substantial evidence demonstrates the Project's compliance with City General Plan Noise Element Policy N 2.1.2 during construction. As discussed in Draft FIR Section 4.12-5 (page 4.12-24) and Table 4.12-12, the Project's traffic - related off-site noise level increases would be less than the 3 dBA and 5 dBA applicable CNEL thresholds of significance. As such, the off-site traffic noise levels associated with the Project would be less than significant. No use of noise -absorbing barriers would be appropriate, and substantial evidence demonstrates the Project's compliance with City General Plan Noise Element Policy N 2.1.2 as to traffic -related noise levels at off-site locations. As discussed in Draft FIR Section 4.12-5, pages 4.12-24 through 4.12-27, the impacts for Project parking noise, stationary sources, and traffic noise on interior noise levels would be less than significant. No use of noise absorbing barriers would be appropriate, and substantial evidence demonstrates the Project's compliance with City General Plan Noise Element Policy N 2.1.2 as to Project parking noise, stationary sources, and traffic noise on interior noise levels. As discussed in Draft FIR Section 4.12-5, pages 4.12-27 through 4.12-28, MM N-9, MM N-11 and MM N-12 address barriers and physical sound control measures to be implemented during Project build out to address traffic noise on exterior noise levels. Accordingly, substantial evidence demonstrates the Project's compliance with City General Plan Noise Element Policy N 2.1.2 for traffic noise on exterior noise levels. 16-19 The comment addresses a General Plan Policy that does not apply to the Project. The Project does not propose to be a major employment center with significant commercial office or industrial manufacturing uses. Rather, its commercial, retail, and restaurant use types are about 60,000 square feet in size. Accordingly, the use of van pools by employers is not feasible. On the portion of the comment about reducing vehicle trip -generated noise, as discussed at Draft FIR Table 4.3-9 (page 4.3-33) and Table 4.10-1 (page 4.10-17), the Project's mixed-use nature and urban location will reduce project -related traffic trips by approximately 9% compared to a project without those features. This reduction in trips would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). In addition, it should be noted that the Project would be consistent with the City's Climate Action Plan (CAP) and CalGreen Code, which require several project design features that would reduce traffic trips and related noise impacts (see Draft FIR page 4.7-27 and 4.7-28). Consistent with goals of the City's CAP, the Project would include walkability design and pedestrian network improvements The Project would therefore create and enhance opportunities for non -vehicular travel and encourage pedestrian mobility by providing an internal pedestrian circulation system that links residential neighborhoods to on-site recreation Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 143 3. Responses to Comments 3.2 — Public Comments areas, regional trail systems, and neighborhood retail/commercial areas, such as mixed-use design resulting in V MT reductions and pedestrian network improvements. Further, as discussed at Draft FIR section 4.19-6, page 4.19-21, the Project would generate nearly 40% less traffic than what was analyzed for the site in the General Plan. The General Plan estimated that a future development of the site with commercial and residential uses would generate approximately 13,400 ADT. The Project would generate 8,163 ADT. Furthermore, as discussed at Draft FIR section 4.14-6, pages 4.14-16 to 4.14-17, the Project would provide a Class II bike lane along the Project's frontage on Soledad Canyon Road. A Class I trail would be provided along the east side of Sand Canyon Road along the Project's frontage. Internal trails would connect to each of these facilities allowing for access to regional trail systems such as the Stetson Ranch trails, the Sand Canyon Trail, and the Santa Clara River Trail. All on-site trails would be accessible to homeowners, as well as to the public. 16-20 As discussed at Draft FIR section 4.12-6, pages 4.12-27 to 4.12-28, MM N-10 provides mitigation for possible spillover noise from the Project's commercial uses by requiring the Project Applicant to implement a notification program to inform prospective buyers and renters adjacent to commercial uses that the commercial uses may generate noise in excess of levels typically found in residential areas. Further, with respect to interior noise levels, consistent with State and City standards, all habitable spaces associated with the Project would be required to provide indoor noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL or less. This will occur based on mandatory compliance with CCR Title 24 Part 6: California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings under MM N-11 (Draft FIR, page 4.12-28), which requires substantial building insulation, improving exterior -to -interior noise reductions as discussed at Draft FIR, page 4.12-26. 16-21 The comment addresses a General Plan Policy that does not apply to the Project. Enforcing City noise control policies is outside of the capability and authority of the Project Applicant. Regarding the Project's overall compliance with the City's General Plan Noise Element, refer to Responses to Comments 16-18 (page 143 above) and 16-20 above. 16-22 Refer to Response to Comment 16-20 above. 16-23 Information provided in responses to comments 18 through 22 above, and information contained in Draft FIR Section 4.12-5, pages 4.12-18 through 4.12-28, discuss and demonstrate the Project's compliance with applicable provisions of the City General Plan Noise Element. Further, as discussed in Draft FIR Section 4.12-5, pages 4.12-18 through 4.12-23, Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-7 are required to reduce Project construction -related noise and vibrations. Accordingly, substantial evidence demonstrates the Project's compliance with City General Plan Noise Element Policy N 2.1.2 for construction -related noise and vibrations. 16-24 As discussed in Draft FIR Section 4.19-6, page 4.19-25, based on the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) impact criteria (V/C increase greater than 0.02), the Project would not create a significant impact on the SR -14 mainline. Notwithstanding this fact the Project Applicant and Caltrans are negotiating a traffic mitigation agreement (Mitigation Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 144 3. Responses to Comments 3.2 — Public Comments Measure MM T-3) that would require the Applicant to pay an in -lieu fee to Caltrans for future improvements to SR -14 based on the Project's fair share. The agreement would be signed by both parties prior to recordation of a final map for the Project. (Draft FIR p. 4.19-32). Caltrans will not execute any agreement before possible Project entitlement approvals and certification of the Final FIR by the City. The agreement is a coordination effort between Caltrans and the Project Applicant to ensure that Project impacts to mainline SR -14 remain below a level of significance. Further, no improvement plan has yet been finalized by Caltrans for the SR -14 improvements. Nonetheless, MM T-3 requires the subject improvements and related funding amount to be developed in consultation and negotiation with Caltrans, and Caltrans is charged with the duty to ensure that SR -14 improvements are designed and constructed to facilitate continued acceptable operations and LOS on mainline SR -14. MM T-3 (although for a non- significant impact) is proper and enforceable under such circumstances. Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 899, 945. 16-25 As discussed in Draft FIR Section 4.19-6, page 4.19-25, based on the Los Angeles County CMP impact criteria (V/C increase greater than 0.02), the Project would not create a significant impact on the SR -14 mainline. Notwithstanding this fact, the Project Applicant and Caltrans are negotiating a traffic mitigation agreement (Mitigation Measure MM T-3) that would require the Applicant to pay an in -lieu fee to Caltrans for future improvements to SR -14 based on the Project's fair share. The agreement would be signed by both parties prior to recordation of a final map for the Project. (Draft FIR p. 4.19-32). Caltrans will not execute any agreement before possible Project entitlement approvals and certification of the Final FIR by the City. The agreement is a coordination effort between Caltrans and the Project Applicant to ensure that Project impacts to mainline SR -14 remain below a level of significance. Further, no improvement plan has yet been finalized by Caltrans for the SR -14 improvements. Nonetheless, MM T-3 requires the subject improvements and related funding amount to be developed in consultation and negotiation with Caltrans, and Caltrans is charged with the duty to ensure that SR -14 improvements are designed and constructed to facilitate continued acceptable operations and LOS on mainline SR -14. MM T-3 (although for a non-significant impact) is proper and enforceable under such circumstances. Rialto Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rialto (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 899, 945. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 145 3. Responses to Comments 3.2 — Public Comments Page 7 of 8 designed. MM T-3 and MM T-7 represent uncertain mitigation and are improperly deferred in � 16-25 violation of CEQA. Cont d The EIR is not consistent with the following General Plan goals, policies, and objectives: 16-26 Goal C 3: Reduction of vehicle trips and emissions through effective management of travel demand, transportation systems, and parking. Objective C 3.1: Promote the use of travel demand management strategies to reduce vehicle16-27 trips. J Policy C 3.1.1: In evaluating new development projects, require trip reduction measures as feasible to relieve congestion and reduce air pollution from vehicle emissions. 16-28 Policy C 3.1.2: Promote home-based businesses and live -work units as a means of reducing16-29 home -to -work trips. Objective C 3.3: Make more efficient use of parking and maximize economic use of land, while16-30 decreasing impervious surfaces in urban areas, through parking management strategies. Policy C 3.3.2: In pedestrian -oriented, high density mixed use districts, provide for common16-31 parking facilities to serve the district, where appropriate. No trip reduction methods are discussed in the EIR. No live -work units are proposed as part of the project design. No parking management strategies are analyzed in the EIR and all parking at16-32 the project site appears to be surface parking lots, which does not maximize the economic use of land. 5.4 Alternatives to be Analyzed CEQA requires analysis of a "reasonable range" of alternatives. Here, since the No Project Alternative is required, the EIR analyzes only three. This does not comply with a reasonable16-33 range of alternatives. Additional alternatives for analysis could include, but are not limited to: 1. A project design that avoids the removal of two non -heritage oak trees and project grading16-34 that encroaches within the protected zone of one heritage oak tree. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 146 3. Responses to Comments 3.2 — Public Comments 16-26 As discussed at Draft FIR Tables 4.3-9 (page 4.3-33) and 4.10-1 (page 4.10-17), the Project's mixed-use nature and urban location will reduce project -related traffic trips by approximately 9% compared to a project without those features. This reduction in trips would reduce vehicles mile traveled (V MT), congestion and associated air quality emissions. In addition, it should be noted the Project would be consistent with the City's Climate Action Plan (CAP) and CalGreen Code, which require several project design features that would serve to reduce air quality and greenhouse gas emissions as discussed at Draft FIR pages 4.7-27 and 4.7-28. These features include: mixed-use design resulting in VMT reductions, pedestrian network improvements, low -flow water fixtures, low impact vegetation and irrigation, energy reduction (e.g., high efficiency appliances and lighting, solar panels), and on-site electric vehicle charging stations. As such, the Project does include several features that would serve to reduce air quality and GHG emissions. Further, as discussed at Draft FIR section 4.19-6, page 4.19-21, the Project would generate nearly 40% less traffic than what was analyzed for the site in the General Plan. The General Plan estimated that a future development of the site with commercial and residential uses would generate approximately 13,400 ADT. The Project would generate 8,163 ADT. Moreover, the Project applicant is processing minor modifications to the Project Site Development Plan in Planning Area 1. The minor modifications include construction of a 3 -level parking structure with a total of 264 parking spaces. The modifications to the Project Site Development Plan are being considered by the City Council at its September 12, 2017 Regular Meeting. In addition, as discussed at Draft FIR section 4.19-6, pages 4.19-29 and 4.19-32, MM T-1 and MM T-2 modify and coordinate traffic signal timing to reduce traffic queues and congestion on nearby road segments and improve transportation systems to reduce congestion. Furthermore, as discussed at Draft FIR section 4.14-6, pages 4.14-16 to 4.14-17, the Project would provide a Class II bike lane along the Project's frontage on Soledad Canyon Road. A Class I trail would be provided along the east side of Sand Canyon Road along the Project's frontage. Internal trails would connect to each of these facilities allowing for access to regional trail systems such as the Stetson Ranch trails, the Sand Canyon Trail, and the Santa Clara River Trail. All on-site trails would be accessible to homeowners, as well as to the public. Moreover, consistent with goals of the City's CAP, the Project would include walkability design and pedestrian network improvements (see Draft FIR page 4.7-27). As stated therein, the Project would create and enhance opportunities for non -vehicular travel and encourage pedestrian mobility by providing an internal pedestrian circulation system that links residential neighborhoods to on-site recreation areas, regional trail systems, and neighborhood retail/commercial areas. For the reasons stated above, substantial evidence demonstrates the Project's compliance with City General Plan Goal C.3. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 147 3. Responses to Comments 3.2 — Public Comments 16-27 As discussed at Draft FIR Tables 4.3-9 (page 4.3-33) and 4.10-1 (page 4.10-17), the Project's mixed-use nature and urban location will serve to reduce project -related traffic trips by approximately 9% compared to a project without those features. This reduction in trips would serve to reduce vehicles mile traveled (VMT), congestion and associated air quality emissions. Also, as discussed at Draft FIR section 4.14-6, pages 4.14-16 to 4.14-17, the Project would provide a Class II bike lane along the Project's frontage on Soledad Canyon Road. A Class I trail would be provided along the east side of Sand Canyon Road along the Project's frontage. Internal trails would connect to each of these facilities allowing for access to regional trail systems such as the Stetson Ranch trails, the Sand Canyon Trail, and the Santa Clara River Trail. All on-site trails would be accessible to homeowners, as well as to the public. For the reasons stated above, substantial evidence demonstrates the Project's compliance with City General Plan Objective C.3.1. 16-28 Refer to response to comment A-27. In addition, as discussed at Draft FIR section 4.19-6, pages 4.19-29 and 4.19-32, MM T-1 and MM T-2 modify and coordinate traffic signal timing to reduce traffic queues on nearby road segments and improve transportation systems to reduce congestion. 16-29 The comment refers to a General Plan Policy directed toward the City and its land use strategies and programs. The Project Applicant has no mechanism to promote home based businesses and live to work units as a means to reduce home -to -work trips. Nonetheless, the Project does not preclude residents from utilizing home office opportunities for home-based business uses that are allowed under the City Code. 16-30 Refer to response to comment A-7. All Project parking in Planning Areas 1 through 5 will comply with the efficient parking requirements of the MXN zone pursuant to Section 17.55.050 of the City's Unified Development Code. Further, the Project applicant is processing minor modifications to the Project Site Development Plan in Planning Area 1. The minor modifications include construction of a 3 -level parking structure with a total of 264 parking spaces. The modifications to the Project Site Development Plan are being considered by the City Council at its September 12, 2017 Regular Meeting. For the reasons stated above, substantial evidence demonstrates the Project's compliance with City General Plan Policy C.3.3. 16-31 Refer to response to comment A-30. Substantial evidence demonstrates the Project's compliance with City General Plan Policy C.3.3.2. 16-32 Refer to Responses to Comments 16-26 through 16-30. 16-33 The Draft FIR discusses a reasonable range of alternatives consistent with Title 14 Cal Code Regs (CEQA Guidelines) §15126.6(a) and §15126.6(c). Draft FIR Section 2.4 properly identifies Project alternatives that: 1) achieve project objectives, 2) have the ability to reduce impacts, 3) are feasible to implement, and 4) are reasonable. See CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(a). There is no ironclad rule as to the nature or scope of alternatives to be discussed in the Draft FIR. CEQA Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 148 3. Responses to Comments 3.2 — Public Comments Guidelines §15126.6(a). The range of alternatives discussed in the Draft FIR is reasonable and complies with CEQA. See Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 214, 256 (EIR upheld where only two environmentally superior alternatives were identified). 16-34 "CEQA does not require that an agency consider specific alternatives that are proposed by members of the public or other outside agencies." Center for Biological Diversity v. Department ofFish & Wildlife (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 214, 256. Notwithstanding, as discussed at Draft FIR Section 4.4-6, pages 4.4-32 to 4.4-33, two non - heritage oak trees are proposed for removal due to required road improvements/widening of Sand Canyon Road and on-site land development. A heritage oak tree (Tree #2) would be preserved in place with minimal impacts. The proposed project alternative to avoid removal of Tree #1 would interfere with improvements to Sand Canyon Road fronting the Project. This would prevent achievement of Project Objective No. 11 (integrate a new community into the City's existing and planned circulation network) as discussed at Draft FIR Section 3.11. Further, the proposed project alternative to avoid removal of Tree #3 would significantly interfere with the development plan of Project Area 3, which would cause the elimination of dozens of townhome units. This would prevent achievement of Project Economic Objectives No. 1 (enhance and augment the housing market by providing a variety of housing types and densities) and No. 3 (provide a tax base to support public services and infrastructure) as discussed at Draft FIR Section 3.11. Grading within the protected zone of Tree No. 2 would not significantly impact the tree, as the City has added conditions of approval related to this Oak Tree that includes requirements to mitigate the impact of this encroachment. Accordingly, this proposed project alternative would not achieve project objectives, would not be feasible to implement under the circumstances, and would not be reasonable as required under CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(a). Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 149 3. Responses to Comments 3.2 — Public Comments Page 8 of 8 2. A project design that sites the assisted living facility more than 500 feet from SR -14. 3. A project design that incorporates parking and travel management strategies to reduce vehicle miles traveled and emissions from mobile vehicle sources. 4. A reduced intensity alternative that reduces the scope of the project enough to avoid significant impacts to noise. 5. A reduced intensity alternative that reduces the scope of the project enough to avoid significant impacts to air quality. 6. A project design with landscaped setbacks along the sides of the site adjacent to sensitive receptors in order to mitigate significant noise impacts associated with the construction and operation of the project. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, GSEJA believes the EIR is flawed and an amended EIR must be prepared for the proposed project and recirculated for public review. Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance requests to be added to the public interest list regarding any subsequent environmental documents, public notices, public hearings, and notices of determination for this project. Send all communications to Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance P.O. Box 79222 Corona, CA 92877. Sincerely, N(Z" Board of Directors Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 16-35 16-36 16-37 16-38 16-39 16-40 1«31 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 150 3. Responses to Comments 3.2 — Public Comments 16-35 "CEQA does not require that an agency consider specific alternatives that are proposed by members of the public or other outside agencies." Center for Biological Diversity v. Department ofFish & Wildlife (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 214, 256. The comment proposes an alternative to addresses the potential impact of the existing environment on the proposed Project. CEQA does not require the City to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on the Project's future users or residents. California Bldg. Indus. Ass'n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmnt. Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 377. Notwithstanding as discussed in Draft FIR Section 4.10-6, page 4.10-21, impacts relating to locating sensitive land uses within 500 feet of the SR -14 Freeway are less than significant and do not require any mitigation. Notwithstanding as discussed in Draft FIR Sections 3.14 and 4.10-6 (page 4.10-21), the Project includes 5 specific Project Design Features intended to minimize the potential effects of exposure to elevated ambient air quality conditions for sensitive uses. These Project Design Features will be included by the City as Project elements in the entitlement approvals for the Project and will be enforceable. Also, Project Design Feature PDF -11 (identified at Draft FIR Section 3.14, p. 3-25) will be changed from "consider options for mechanical and ventilation systems ..." to "utilize options for mechanical and ventilation systems ...." Relocating the assisted living facility as proposed with this suggested project alternative would not substantially lessen a significant effect of the Project on the environment and therefore would not be consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(a). Further, relocating the assisted living facility significantly to the north as proposed with this suggested project alternative would displace a substantial number of multi -family units in adjacent Planning Area 2 and would disrupt the internal street network of the Project. This would prevent achievement of Project Economic Objectives No. 1 (enhance and augment the housing market by providing a variety of housing types and densities) and No. 3 (provide a tax base to support public services and infrastructure) as discussed at Draft FIR Section 3.11. Accordingly, this proposed project alternative would not achieve project objectives, would not be feasible to implement under the circumstances, and would not be reasonable as required by CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(a). 16-36 "CEQA does not require that an agency consider specific alternatives that are proposed by members of the public or other outside agencies." Center for Biological Diversity v. Department ofFish & Wildlife (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 214, 256. The proposed project alternative is vague and does not identify any specific requested Project modifications or changes as to development intensity and scope. Accordingly, the proposed project alternative is not feasible to implement under the circumstances and is not reasonable as required CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(a). Additionally, the Project already includes the general design and outcome objectives of this proposed project alternative. As discussed at Draft FIR Tables 4.3-9 (page 4.3-33) and 4.10-1 (page 4.10-17), the Project's mixed-use nature and urban location will reduce project -related traffic trips by approximately 9% compared to a project without those features. This reduction in trips would serve to reduce vehicle miles traveled (V MT), congestion and associated air quality Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 151 3. Responses to Comments 3.2 — Public Comments emissions. In addition, it should be noted the Project would be consistent with the City's Climate Action Plan (CAP) and CalGreen Code, which require several project design features that would serve to reduce air quality and greenhouse gas emissions as discussed at Draft FIR pages 4.7-27 and 4.7-28. These features include mixed-use design resulting in VMT reductions, walkability design and pedestrian network improvements, low -flow water fixtures, low impact vegetation and irrigation, energy reduction (high efficiency appliances and lighting, solar panels, etc.), and on-site electric vehicle charging stations. The Project would create and enhance opportunities for non -vehicular travel and encourage pedestrian mobility by providing an internal pedestrian circulation system that links residential neighborhoods to on-site recreation areas, regional trail systems, and neighborhood retail/commercial areas. As such, the Project does include several features that would serve to reduce air quality and GHG emissions. Further, as discussed at Draft FIR section 4.19-6, page 4.19-21, the Project would generate nearly 40% less traffic than what was analyzed for the site in the General Plan. The General Plan estimated that a future development of the site with commercial and residential uses would generate approximately 13,400 ADT. The Project would generate 8,163 ADT. Moreover, the Project applicant is processing minor modifications to the Project Site Development Plan in Planning Area 1. The minor modifications include construction of a 3 -level parking structure with a total of 264 parking spaces. The modifications to the Project Site Development Plan are being considered by the City Council at its September 12, 2017 Regular Meeting. In addition, as discussed at Draft FIR section 4.19-6, pages 4.19-29 and 4.19-32, MM T-1 and MM T-2 modify and coordinate traffic signal timing to reduce traffic queues and congestion on nearby road segments and improve transportation systems. Furthermore, as discussed at Draft FIR section 4.14-6, pages 4.14-16 to 4.14-17, the Project would provide a Class II bike lane along the Project's frontage on Soledad Canyon Road. A Class I trail would be provided along the east side of Sand Canyon Road along the Project's frontage. Internal trails would connect to each of these facilities allowing for access to regional trail systems such as the Stetson Ranch trails, the Sand Canyon Trail, and the Santa Clara River Trail. All on-site trails would be accessible to homeowners, as well as to the public. 16-37 "CEQA does not require that an agency consider specific alternatives that are proposed by members of the public or other outside agencies." Center for Biological Diversity v. Department ofFish & Wildlife (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 214, 256. The proposed project alternative is vague and does not identify any specific requested Project modifications or changes as to development intensity and scope. Accordingly, the proposed project alternative is not feasible to implement under the circumstances and is not reasonable as required CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(a). Refer to Response to Comment 16-18 (page 143 above) for discussion about the many less than significant noise impacts resulting from the Project. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 152 3. Responses to Comments 3.2 — Public Comments 16-38 "CEQA does not require that an agency consider specific alternatives that are proposed by members of the public or other outside agencies." Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 214, 256. The proposed project alternative is vague and does not identify any specific requested Project modifications or changes as to development intensity and scope. Accordingly, the proposed project alternative is not feasible to implement under the circumstances and is not reasonable as required by CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(a). Refer to Response to Comment 16-9 (page 132 above) for discussion about the many less than significant air quality impacts resulting from the Project. 16-39 "CEQA does not require that an agency consider specific alternatives that are proposed by members of the public or other outside agencies." Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 214, 256. The proposed Project alternative is vague and does not identify any specific depth of setback or type and scope of landscaping along Soledad Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road. Significant landscape setbacks along these roads fronting the Project (as suggested by the comment) would substantially impact and reduce the land uses and residential densities proposed in Planning Areas 1, 2 and 3. This would prevent achievement of Project Economic Objectives No. 1 (enhance and augment the housing market by providing a variety of housing types and densities) and No. 3 (provide a tax base to support public services and infrastructure) as discussed at Draft FIR Section 3.11. Accordingly, the proposed project alternative would not achieve project objectives, would not be feasible to implement under the circumstances, and would not be reasonable as required by CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(a). 16-40 No recirculation of the Draft FIR is required. The Draft FIR is detailed, informative, well - researched and documented, and supported by substantial evidence. No basis under CEQA Guidelines §15088.5(a)(4) exists to require recirculation of the document. Further, the minor modifications to the Project result in a reduced development footprint in Planning Area 5 and reduced impacts to the ridgeline, no increase in the Project's development footprint and no increase in any previously identified development footprint for the Project. Please refer to Final FIR Chapter 4.0, Project Revisions. As discussed in Stantec's Traffic Study Supplemental Memorandum dated May 19, 2017 (Appendix 11-3) the minor modifications made during Planning Commission hearings would not change the conclusions and mitigation measures identified in the Project's Traffic Study. The minor Project modifications would result in a net increase of only 176 ADT, which is only about a 2.2% change in traffic generation. Further, as identified by Stantec, the minor Project modifications would result in only 1 additional traffic trip in the AM Peak hour, and only 12 additional traffic trips during the PM Peak hour. Based on a review of the Revised Project Description and modifications: 1) The original impact conclusions and mitigation measures addressed in the 2016 traffic study will not change; 2) No new significant traffic or circulation impacts would result from the Revised Project Description and modifications; 3) No new mitigation measures relating to any new significant traffic or circulation impacts are proposed to be implemented or are required; and Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 153 3. Responses to Comments 3.2 — Public Comments 4) The Revised Project Description and modifications will not result in a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified traffic or circulation impacts that would require mitigation measures to reduce any impact to a level of insignificance. Further, as determined in Pomeroy Environmental Services' May 19, 2017 letter (Appendix 2-4), the minor increase in daily traffic trips from the Project modifications do not change any of the impact conclusions or identified mitigation measures for air quality, GHG, and noise as discussed in detail in the Draft FIR. No basis under CEQA Guidelines §15088.5(a)(4) therefore exists to require recirculation of the Draft FIR. 16-41 Comment noted. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 154 3. Responses to Comments Site Development Plan YAII ��Rf�.�b \ /' � p(pp(SifApE6Wp z 3.2 — Public Comments BP by Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR August 2017 155 3. Responses to Comments Comment Letter 17 Castaic Lions Club undated Castaic Lions Club PO Box 312 Castaic, CA 91384 Dear Patrick LeClair, 501(c)(3) 495-4790421 3.2 — Public Comments The Castaic/Santa Clarita Lions Club has long been concerned about the wellbeing of our cherished senior citizens. For 30+ years, we have put on the Thanksgiving Day Feast at the SCV Senior Center. We are fully aware of the desperate need for local, well planned Senior Assisted Living communities in all parts of our valley. For this reason (and others), we are pleased to endorse the building of the "Sand Canyon Plaza" project. In addition to beautiful Assisted Living facilities, the project provides gorgeous destination restaurants, a safety increase on Soledad Canyon Road with the removal of a dangerous vertical cliff, replaced by a gentle, stable hill, and more. For many years, Castaic/Santa Clarita Lions Club members have joined with all of Santa Clarita to oppose the mammoth CEMEX Sand and Gravel mine. Approval of the "Plaza" project will allow public ownership of some 200 plus acres of unique wilderness park land. This property directly borders the CEMEX mine proposal, and would strengthen the fight to stop that huge mine, if owned by the public. Please rapidly approve this amazing development, and please include this endorsement from the Castaic Lions Club (now folded with the Santa Clarita Lions Club) in all reports, including the pending EIR. Thank you for considering our endorsement. Warm regards, Castaic Lions Club (310)592-4705 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 17-1 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 156 3. Responses to Comments 3.2 — Public Comments Response to Comment Letter 17 Castaic Lions Club April 8, 2017 17-1 The comment is informational in nature and does not raise an environmental issue within the meaning of CEQA. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to a final decision on the proposed Project. However, because the comment does not raise an environmental issue, no further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 157 3. Responses to Comments 3.3 — Public Comments During Planning Commission Meetings 3.3 Public Comments During Planning Commission Meetings Request to Speak 1: Tom Clark Meeting Date: February 21, 2017 aTA c ity of ScANTA CLARITA PlanningCommission to Speak If you wish to speak before the Planning Commission, please complete the following information and turn this form in to the Planning Commission Secretary. (Please print clearly.) L4 Meeting date: a - o' i / ,�t Aggenda item number: -3 Agenda title or subject to be addressed: '0 I (QiN e( -,q tel*,f Please check one: U-6vpport Recommendation ❑ Oppose Recommendation ❑ Neutral City: ZV4142 CZ -",40A , 10-A Phone: 3 l Cl 7( Q 0.1 Z - The Planning Commisi requires that speakers who represent other individuals, groups, or organizations disclose that relationship. Representing I DECLARE THAT THE FOREGOING IS TAUSND CORK Under State law, matters raised under Public Comments cannot have immediate action. The Planning Commission will referthe matterto staff, or it may be scheduled on a subsequent Planning Commission Agenda. Sig ure Speaker For tips on making your presentation, see reverse side. ❑ Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see back of card for more information). Response Tom Clark spoke in favor of the project. This comment will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. No further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 159 3. Responses to Comments 3.3 — Public Comments During Planning Commission Meetings Request to Speak 2: Russell Myers Meeting Date: February 21, 2017 of y�.rr� City Of Planning Commission .ate SANTA CLARITA Request to Speak If you wish to speak before the Planning Commission, please complete the following information and turn this form in to the Planning Commission Secretary. (Please print clearly.) Meeting date: 1--y Agenda item number:,­_3 Agenda title or subject to be addressed:-1 1 o VQ ✓) UOi/L �� z �— Please check one: up I`� I ort Recommendation ❑ Oppose Recommendation ❑ Neutral Name: Pu S 5 P/ L t l./? V. Street Address: City: JC41/Y �/lf� �] I A Phone: R 1 - 9 74-730& Representing: The Planning Commission requires that speakers who represent other individuals, groups, or organizations disclose that relationship. I DECLARE THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. Under State law, matters raised under Public Comments cannot have immediate action. The Planning Commission will referthe matterto staff, or it may be scheduled on a subsequent Planning Commission Agenda. Signature of Speaker For tips on making your presentation, see reverse side. ❑ Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see back of card for more int Response Russell Myers spoke in favor of the project. This comment will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. No further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 160 3. Responses to Comments 3.3 - Public Comments During Planning Commission Meetings Request to Speak 3: James H. Robinson Meeting Date: February 21, 2017 o a m, City 0f SANTA CLARITA Planning Commission Request to Speak If you wish to speak before the Planning Commission, please complete the following information and turn this form in to the Planning Commission Secretary. (Please print clearly.) Meeting date: Z (12-,V I % Agenda item number: _ i Agenda title or subject to be addressed: Sn-.�/ ln.•Ve 1°l/i2 1-, K ryoB 4Sr Ore.S 4c Please check one: D"Support Recommendation ❑ Oppose Recommendation ❑ Neutral Name: JA <S /< 1�O.larn5m•+ Street Address: Y94 S. F1V.2 12, -fay4 WA1 City: ib�r X044o Y37o Phone: 6Gr gds 9s The Planning Commission requires that speakers who represent other individuals, groups, or organizations disclose that relationship. ANWRA Representing: fh O b I L e 14 d. K cpc 'K'4 I DECLARE THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. i Under State law, mattersraised under Public Comments cannot have immediate action. The Planning Commission will referihe matter to stall, orRmay be scheduled on a subsequent Planning Commission Agenda. Signature of Speaker For tips on making your presentation, see reverse side. ❑ Please check here if you area registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see back of card for more information). Response James Robinson spoke in favor of the project. This comment will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. No further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 161 3. Responses to Comments Request to Speak 4: Alan Ferdman Meeting Date: February 21, 2017 3.3 — Public Comments During Planning Commission Meetings Jq City of GLARITA Planning Commission S to Speak If you wish to speak before the Planning Commission, please complete the following information and turn this form in to the Planning Commission Secretary. (Please print clearly.) 11 ` Meeting date: eia Z 1 f 2_cv] Agenda item number. Agenda title or subject to be addressed: Please check one: L41"S upport Re ❑ Oppose Recommendation ❑ Neutral Nama: ALINE i Street Address: Z?Zq8 �lwss AkE City: n cAnutJ 1 Phone: tob1 —7 rs Cis Representing: The Planning Commission requires that speakers who represent other Individuals, groups, or organizations disclose that relationship. I DECLARE THAT THE Under State law, matters raised under Public Comments cannot have Immediate action. The Planning Commission will refer the matter to staff, or it may be scheduled an a subsequent Planning Commission Agenda Slcnature of For tips on making your presentation, see reverse side. ❑ Please check here If you area registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see back of card for more information). Response Alan Ferdman spoke in favor of the project. This comment will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. No further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 162 3. Responses to Comments 3.3 — Public Comments During Planning Commission Meetings Request to Speak 5: Ashley Guardino Meeting Date: February 21, 2017 City of SANTA CLARITA Planning Commission Request to Speak If you wish to speak before the Planning Commission, please complete the following information and turn this form in to the Planning Commission Secretary. (Please print clearly.) Meeting date: r�� IQ' / Agenda item number: I q cg--+ Agenda title or subject to be Please chick one: &r- ❑ 00pose Recommendation ❑ Neutral Street Address: � � L-fi /�_' Y `� CLU -11 Ry--�— / ,^� City: 0"Ulm t li fLl tiles `"� Phone: I l .i�( (� I � � 1 V -7/:�� The Planning Commlas I�h requires that speakers who represent other individuals, groups, or organizations disclose that relationship. Representing: DECLARE THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. Under State law, matters raised under Public Comments cannot have immediate action. The Planning Commission will referthe matterto staff, or it may be scheduled on a subsequent Planning Commission Agenda. Signature of Speaker For tips on making your presentation, see reverse side. ❑ Please check hem if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see back of card for more information). Response Ashley Guardino spoke in favor of the project. This comment will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. No further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 163 3. Responses to Comments 3.3 — Public Comments During Planning Commission Meetings Request to Speak 6: Allan Cameron Meeting Date: February 21, 2017 c� ,nmr� '� City Of SANTA CLARITA Planning Commission Request to Speak If you wish to speak before the Planning Commission, please complete the following information and turn this forth in to the Planning Commission Secretary. (Please print clearly.) POppose Recommendation Street Address: /"v/v — City: Phone: The Planning Comilaission requires that speakers who represent other irWividt. als, groups, or organizations disclose that relationship. Representing: I DECLARE THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. Under State law, matters raised under Public Comments cannot have immediate action. The Planning Commission will referthe matter to staff, or it maybe scheduled on a subsequent Planning Commission Agenda. Signature of Speaker For tips on making your presentation, see reverse side. ❑ Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see back of card for more information). Response Allan Cameron spoke in favor of the project. This comment will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. No further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 164 3. Responses to Comments Request to Speak 7: Brian Springer Meeting Date: February 21, 2017 3.3 — Public Comments During Planning Commission Meetings F `�� City of SANTA CLARITA Request If you wish to speak before the Planning Commission, please complete the following information and turn this form in to the Planning Commission Secretary. (Please print clearly) Meeting date: 2/2-(// / / Agenda Rnumber. numbe Agenda title or subject to be addressed: N -!�i9'Vr) (/_F�/ &A 7/4 Please check one:. ❑ Support Recommendation ❑ Oppose Recommendation Name: AR.j.i,L) VZil4JCr,E�2 Street Address: I T�Li XOA !j/ City: L, A/V✓4 61)4/7&V Phone: 3-224 The Planning Commission requires that speakers who represent other individuals, groups, or organizations disclose that relationship. Representing: - I DECLARE THAT THE FOREGOING Under State law, matters raised under Public Comments cannot have immediate action. The Planning Commission will referthe matterto staff, or it may be scheduled on a subsequent Planning Commission Agenda. For tips on making your presentation, see reverse side. ❑ Please check here if you area registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see back of card for more information). Response Brian Springer indicated that he was neutral on the project. This comment will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. No further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 165 3. Responses to Comments 3.3 — Public Comments During Planning Commission Meetings Written Comment 8: Tracy Hauser Meeting Date: February 21, 2017 144�� City Of Planning Commission SANTA CLARITA Written Comment Card Please complete this toren to register your written comments to the Planning Commission, in lieu of speaking, and turn it in to the Planning Commission Secretary. Your written comments will be considered part of the official proceedings. (Please/print clearly.) Meeting date: J — �/` / Agenda item number: f/- _'1 Agenda title or subject to be addressed: l al7l- A .✓vt.ovi / ,ea ,.{ Please check one: JXSupport Recommendation ❑ Oppose Recommendation ❑ Neutral Name: 71:2a C Y /-/ n u cz i Street Address: 2 K 0 6 -) _� Cr rQ Ce f� ��J`f city: a_"4�C 10 r �C._ Written Comment (Use other side if necessary): a< 2em _'e'm iili-f/t AL v - 0 .. I , r n e .. . The Planning Commission requires tKat persons registering written comments who represent other Individuals, groups, or organizations disclose that relationship. I DECLARE THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. Representing: ❑ Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see back of card for more information). Response Tracy Hauser submitted written comments in favor of the project. This comment will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. No further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 166 3. Responses to Comments Written Comment 9: Danise Davis Meeting Date: February 21, 2017 3.3 - Public Comments During Planning Commission Meetings A.NNT � City Of Planning Commission A SANTA CLARITA Written Comment Card Please complete this form to register your written comments to the Planning Commission, in lieu of speaking, and turn it into the Planning Commission Secretary. Your written comments will be considered part of the official proceedings. (Please print clearly.) Meeting date: ;s'_ ' / - / / Agenda item number. /Z7e'_0 7 7 Agenda title or suhiect to be addressed: dmf' //�/� 71, Please check one: Support Recommendation ❑ Oppose Recommendation ❑ Neutral Name �t )yaw l.5 e. `���, t --it Street Address: %2-62 SV3 1/�V)L City: Written Comment (Use other side if necessary): The Planning Commission requires that persons registering written comments who represent other Individuals, groups, or organizations disclose that relationship. I DECLARE THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. Representing: ❑ Please check here if you area registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see back of card for more information). Response Danise Davis submitted written comments in favor of the project. This comment will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. No further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 167 3. Responses to Comments Written Comment 10: Stacy Soto 3.3 - Public Comments During Planning Commission Meetings Meeting Date: February 21, 2017 City of SANTA CLARITA Planning Commission Written Comment Card Please complete this form to register your written comments to the Planning Commission, in lieu of speaking, and turn it in to the Planning Commission Secretary/. Yourwrittencomments will be considered part of the official proceedings. (Please print clearly.) Meeting date: l l .��) Id -W-7 l Agenda Item number: Agenda title or subject to be Please check one: _ I Support Recommendation ❑ Oppose Recommendation ❑ Neutral Street Address: IoV g -W CIty::vea ' 1)Y Written Comment (Use other side if necessary): ►1�l ,IIpV\r 1 I f H t V l l I� MnY_P, Ginn WMA ra WPX OrUP,A(J The Planning Commission requires that persons registering written comments who represent other individuals, groups, or organizations disclose that relationship. I DECLARE THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. Representing: ❑ Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see back of card for more information). Response Stacy Soto submitted written comments in favor of the project. This comment will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. No further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 168 3. Responses to Comments Written Comment 11: Lisa Bohmer Meeting Date: February 21, 2017 3.3 - Public Comments During Planning Commission Meetings City Of Planning Commission SANTA CLARITA Written Comment Card Please complete this form to register your written comments to the Planning Commission, in lieu of speaking, and tum It In to the Planning Commission Secretary. Your written comments will be considered part of the official proceedings. (Please `print clearly.) Meeting data: �/ - 7Agenda hem number: Agenda title or subject to be addressed: h1n Please check one: Support Recommendation C3 Oppose Recommendation ❑ Neutral \ Name: \r=imbi�'�yyj Street Address: 1-3 Written Comment (Use other side if necessary): The Planning Commission requires that persons registering written comments who represent other individuals, groups, or organizations disclose that relationship. I DECLARE THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. Representing: Signature: ❑ Please check here If you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarha (see hack of card for more information). Y (written comment continued) \N\i i`\V- _c- CN- Lobbyist GLobbyist Registration: Under § 7.03.010of the Santa Clarke Municipal Code, lobbyists are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A "lobbyist" means any individual or entity employed, retained, or otherwise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or any task force, committee, board, commission, or other body of the City for the purpose of Influencing any legislative or administrative action. A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an individual communicating on behalf of a group or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an individual communicating on their own behalf would NOT be considered a lobbyist. Response Lisa Bohmer submitted written comments in favor of the project. This comment will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. No further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 169 3. Responses to Comments Written Comment 12: Scott Young Meeting Date: February 21, 2017 3.3 - Public Comments During Planning Commission Meetings p° c� City Of Planning Commission SANTA GLARITA Written Comment Card Please complete this form to register your written comments to the Planning Commission, in lieu of speaking, and turn it in to the Planning Commission Secretary. Your written comments will be considered part of the official proceedings. (Please print cleariy) Meeting date: 9--2 1- 11 Agenda h(,JJem number: �' o 77 Agenda title or subject to be Please check one: ❑ Support Recommendation ❑ Oppose Recommendation Ik Neutral Name: raLbrr !J DL)V U Street Address: 21-!2V M13d9"1)714 1,1J, City: C_,W ytrtJ LD 04 T7 Li Written Comment (Use other side if necessary): The Planning Commission requires that persons registering written comments who represent other individuals, groups, or organizations disclose that relationship. I DECLARE THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE ANP CORRECT. Representing: Signature: ❑ Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Cladta (sae/back of card for Response Scott Young submitted written comments indicating that he was neutral on the project. This comment will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. No further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 170 3. Responses to Comments Written Comment 13: Sherilyn Koss Meeting Date: February 21, 2017 3.3 — Public Comments During Planning Commission Meetings d MNTe City o, f Planning Commission ,6 SANTA GLARITA Written Comment Card Please complete this form to register your written comments to the Planning Commission, in lieu of speaking, and turn it in to the 1W Planning Commission Secretary. Your written comments will be considered part of the official proceedings. (Please print cleady.) Meeting date: � - � o�-�/" V7 Agenda item number: ^I'r '4-02-7- Agenda 0/ Agenda title or subject to be addressed: C✓ k r t r-� Please check one: ❑ Support Recommendation ❑ Oppose Recommendation ,ir Neut.(� D c' [ 1 . i 7l "z. _� p� p�J Street Address: 2 � � D % I `�l l-' �� l I n� Ci/thy. / 1 t� i�a^�-✓ L �6 Written Comment (Use other side if necessary): L12 2-LlU ij I, L :!� f- Bvl� The Planning Commission requires that persons registering written comments who represent other individuals, groups, or organizations disclose that relationship. I DECLARE THATTHE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. /" I Representing: Signature: j t ❑ Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see back of card for more information). Response Sherilyn Koss submitted written comments indicating that she was neutral on the project. Please see Response to Comment Letter No. 14. This comment will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. No further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR August 2017 171 3. Responses to Comments Written Comment 14: Debbie Young Meeting Date: February 21, 2017 3.3 — Public Comments During Planning Commission Meetings T" °a F City of SANTA CLARITA Planning Commission Written Comment Card Please complete this form to register your written comments to the Planning Commission, in lieu of speaking, and turn It Into the Planning Commission Secretary. Your written comments will be considered part of the official proceedings. (Please print clearly) Meeting date: L Z �' ]� Agenda item number. `[ I Agenda title or subject to Please check one: ❑ Support Recommendation ❑ Oppose Recommendation ,d� Neutral Name: Oi�/��JZ1118 l✓� n) jj,J & �7 /' _ Street Address: A -N4 f l%3"om I)T14 Li4. City: ( eil ybN 6yi✓7 Written Comment (Use other side if necessary): The Planning Commission requires that persons registering written comments who represent other individuals, groups, or organizations disclose that relationship. I DECLARE THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUEAN ECT. '1771Z� Representing: Signature: i ❑ Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see back of card fdr more information) Response Debbie Young submitted written comments indicating that she was neutral on the project. This comment will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. No further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 172 3. Responses to Comments Speaker Request 15: Tom Clark Meeting Date: March 21, 2017 3.3 — Public Comments During Planning Commission Meetings gLNTaC 411yICojt City of Planning Commission SANTA GLARITA Request to Speak If you wish to speak before the Planning Commission, please complete the following information and turn this form in to the Planning Commission Secretary. (Please print clearly.) Meeting date: �u�,(°A _� / 2-,,c)) ((�1 �2 Agenda item number: Agenda title or subject to be addressed:�(,f q Ynly N L d -a d Please check one: Support Recommendations ❑ Oppose Recommendation ❑ Neutral StreetAddress: rees�s SDY '4ao C.4,y y alj/ 0-4 /9 �- City: (p. (, 42 /711 Phone: 3 ) b !2L rQ O I � The Planning Commission requires that speakers who represent other individuals, C1�A groups, or organizations disclose that relationship. Representing:�- I DECLARE THAT THE FOREGOING IS Under State law, matters reisecl under Public Comments cannot have immediate action. The Planning Commission will referthe mattarto staff, or amay be scheduled on a subsequent Planning Ca arnhalon Agenda. For tips on making your CORRECT. Ir6" Speaker see reverse side. ❑ Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see back of card for more information). Response Tom Clark spoke in favor of the project. This comment will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. No further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 173 3. Responses to Comments Speaker Request 16: Alan Ferdman Meeting Date: March 21, 2017 3.3 — Public Comments During Planning Commission Meetings akar,^`� city 0 ANTA CLARITA Planning Commission SANTA to Speak If you wish to speak before the Planning Commission, please complete the following information and turn this form in to the Planning Commission Secretary. (Please print clearly.) Meeting date: 31 Z t 11"l Agenda item number: Agenda title or subject to be addressed: c pcip cbiii. i Tldr'tr/.r Please check one: ❑ Oppose Recommendation ❑ Neutral Street Address: Z.-7- i'TJ 1,y7-��,"'d- rte" L �,1 �/v r 7At4ff. a� ( C City: ✓'-"�- f M CO0Q[ Fiji Phone: GCA 1 1� t6Lb The Planning Commission requires that speakers who represent other individuals, groups, or organizations disclose that relationship. Representing: I DECLARE THAT THE FOREGOING under elate law, matters raised under Public Comments cannot have immediate action.The Planning Commission will ralerthe matterto staff, ord may be scheduled an a subsequent Planning Commission Agenda. For tips on making your presentation, see reverse side. ❑ Please check here if you ars a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see back of card for more information). Response Alan Ferdman spoke in favor of the project. This comment will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. No further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 174 3. Responses to Comments 3.3 — Public Comments During Planning Commission Meetings Speaker Request 17: Allan Cameron Meeting Date: March 21, 2017 City Of Planning Commission SANTA CLARITA Request to Speak If you wish to speak before the Planning Commission, please complete the following information and turn this form In to the Planning Commission Secretary. (Please print clearly.) Meeting date: ,,II yy� /�^^ rr11 '-A/1gennd/a item number. _L/�A) - Acenda title or sublect to beaddressed: A� J L. -AA) Xc)/V �� 47_/.Y Please checonp:, `C)' Syppert Recommendation ❑ Oppose Recommendation ❑ Neutral Street AS�r"aV i city: SI 2 Phone:. The Planning Commission requires that speakers who represent other individuals, groups, or organizations disclose that relationship. Representing: I DECLARE THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. Under state law, matters resell under Public Garments cannot have immediate actlon.The Planning Commission will referthe matterto etae, or R maybe scheduled on a suhssnue n Planning Commission Agenda Signature of Speaker For tips on making your presentation, see reverse side. ❑ Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see back of card for more information) A Response Allan Cameron spoke in favor of the project. This comment will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. No further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR August 2017 175 3. Responses to Comments Speaker Request 18: Russell Myers Meeting Date: March 21, 2017 3.3 — Public Comments During Planning Commission Meetings City A SANTA CLARITA Planning Commission Request to Speak If you wish to speak before the Planning Commission, please complete the following information d turn this form in to the Planning Commission Secretary. (Please print clearly.) T -7 Meeting date: z, Agenda item number: Agenda title or sub act to L addressed: Please check one: )X''8opport Recommendation © Oppose Recommendation ❑ Neutral Street c City: Phone: 71% 7_30 The Planning Commission requires that speakers who represent other individuals, �g�yro.�u/ps/, or organizations disclose that relationship. Representing 'd " cacl"7l.._ I DECLARE THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND_CORRECT. Under State law, madam mised under Public Comments cannot have immediate % action. The Planning Commissionwill Werthe matterto staff, or k maybe scheduled on a subsequent Manning Commission Agenda zz Signdtture of Speaker For tips on making your presentation, see reverse side. ❑ Please check here if you area registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Giants (see back of card for more information). Response Russell Myers spoke in favor of the project. This comment will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. No further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 176 3. Responses to Comments 3.3 — Public Comments During Planning Commission Meetings Speaker Request 19: Daryl Zerfass, Stantec Consulting Meeting Date: May 16, 2017 ,NMT1 City Of Planning Commission SANTA CLARITA Request to Speak If you wish to speak before the Planning Commission, please complete the following information and turn this form in to the Planning Commission Secretary. (Please print clearly.) Meeting date:�A L17 Agenda dem number. G-- Agenda title or subject to be addressed: Please check one: Street City: 7rvinG ❑ Oppose Recommendation q Neutral The Planning Commission requires that speakers who represent other Individuals, /f,�,/1�� L groups, or organizations disclose that relationship. Representing: lam A' Cq�7/ I DECLARE THAT THE FOREGOING IS -TR E ND CORREW.. under State law, matters Commission under Public Comments canna[ have immediate action. Thee Im, m Commission will under P the rrCom to stets, crit meabe scheduled on a subsequent Planning Commission Agenda. Signature �rke( For tips on making your presentation, see reverse side. ❑ Please check here if you area registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarity (see back of card for more information). Response Daryl Zerfass, project traffic consultant, spoke as part of City staff's presentation. This comment will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. No further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 177 3. Responses to Comments Speaker Request 20: Tom Clark Meeting Date: May 16, 2017 3.3 — Public Comments During Planning Commission Meetings ,meet ,----_- dF° !ity Of Planning Commission SANTA CLARITA Request to Speak If you wish to speak before the Planning Commission, please complete the following information and turn this form in to the Planning Commission Secretary. (Please print clearly.) Meeting date:�A 7 Agenda item number: Agenda title or subject to be addressed: X�M� c-sfh50✓/ t'/4QL! Please check one: ❑ Oppose Recommendation q Neutral Street Address: City:Phone: 1L!" !?2,3 The Planning Commission requires that speakers who represent other Individuals, j groups, or organizations disclose that relationship. 1p Representing: AV�lGrlT DECLARE THAT THE FOREGOING IS=A. under State law, matters raised under Public Comment cannot have immediate action. The Planning Commission will referthe rnatterto staff, crit maybe scheduled on a subsequent Planting Commission Agenda. Signature -e ylver For tips on making your presentation, see reverse side. ❑ Please check here if you area registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarity (see back of card for more information). L Response Tom Clark spoke in favor of the project. This comment will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. No further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 178 3. Responses to Comments Speaker Request 21: Jack Ahmadian 3.3 — Public Comments During Planning Commission Meetings Meeting Date: May 16, 2017 City Of 10" Planning Commission SANTA GLARITA Request to Speak H you wish to speak before the Planning Commission, please complete the following information and tum this form in to the Planning Commission Secretary. (Please print clearly.) Meeting date: h - 1 6 — 2 V11 Agenda hem number; / a Agenda title or subject to be addressed: Please check one: "'t Support Recommendation ❑ Oppose Recommendation ❑ Neutral Street Addmss: r L City: C.Va� dirt �N �'9 ' Phone: The Planning Commission requires that speakers who represent other individuals, groups, or organizations disclose that relationship. Representing: I DECLARE THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. Under State law, matters useed under Public Comments cannot have Immediate action. The Plarming Commission will referthe matterto staff, or ifmay be scheduled! ^npI' on a subseque d Planning Commission Agenda r"'+ Signature of Speaker For tips on making your presentation, see reverse side. ❑ Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see back of card for more information). Response Jack Ahmadian spoke in favor of the project. This comment will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. No further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 179 3. Responses to Comments Speaker Request 22: Brian Springer 3.3 — Public Comments During Planning Commission Meetings Meeting Date: May 16, 2017 ity of cANTA GLARITA Planning Commission S to Speak If you wish to speak before the Planning Commission, please complete the following information and turn this form in to the Planning Commission Secretary. (Please print clearly.) Meeting date: G/f Agenda Item number. Agenda title or subject to be addressed: V' A/O Please check one: yt Support Recommendation ❑ Oppose Recommendation ❑ Neutral Name: GiAn/l .1-7 r�7 c 2 Street Address: A P,A City: G -R A-)10 C tVj (7,) Phone: The Planning Commission requires that speakers who represent other individuals, groups, or organizations disclose that relationship. Representing: (DECLARE THATTHE FOREGOING I$ UE DORRECT. Under State law, matters raised! untler Public comments cannot have immediate action. The Planning Commission will relerthe matterwatan, oritmaybe scheduled on a subsequent Planning Commission Agenda. Si nature of Speaker For tips on making your presentation, see reverse side. ❑ Please check here If you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see back of card for more information) Response Brian Springer indicated that he was in favor of the project. This comment will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. No further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 180 3. Responses to Comments 3.3 — Public Comments During Planning Commission Meetings Written Comment 23: Brian W. Thomas Meeting Date: May 16, 2017 City Of Planning Commission SANTA GLARITA Written Comment Card Please complete this form to register your written comments to the Planning Commission, in lieu of speaking, and turn it in to the Planning Co1mmission Secretary, Your written comments will be considered part of the official proceedings.—((P lease print clearly.) Meeting date: 11�l Z,7A 1lAgenda item number. Agenda title or subject to be addressed: Please check one: 0' Support Recommendation e❑ Oppose Recommendation ❑ Neutral Sheet Address: 2%'_i5'U City: L, �r1 , Written Comment (Use other side if necessary): res The Planning Commission requires that persons registering written comments who rephis ort other individuals, groups, or organizations disclose that relationship. p I DECLARE THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. Representing: lx' u f Signature: � ����W ✓ •' `(.� ❑ Please check here N you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarity (see back of card for more Information). (written comment contmued) -Ag-lrzT+i�L.wit— �uwa��s h<th'h�a(cS �, �{-Li2 S, rn�n i6 Fw.q � wo•F-c tea& -l-'t„k �e�t' -rcce v`th� -tYv 'C°rtc �a,�4x yoS s: h❑1 t.lYzstt G'e WiT'\ '-t•y 'j-yv�a.•-� +r'4 -c M!JS. T S4CRo ST -6 ' TJ'CaJ n S i f Al AV ,(, ra a it 0 �Ak.11 \/lAU"? +-f Tl C. "wu A -rt ✓YG 1 h� «w4 5a yCr if(�bd 61 � C6 Z_�.� e6� 'ar �aftirc. Lobbyist Registration: Under§ 7.03.010 of the Santa Clarity Municipal Code, lobbylsts are required to register with the City Clerk's Office. A"lobbyist' means any Individual or entity employed, maned, orothe noise engaged for compensation to communicate with any elective or appointed official, any officer or employee or" task force, committee, board, commission, er other hotly of the Cityforthe purpose of influencing any legislative or administhadve action. A regular employee of an organization, communicating to the City during the course of their employment, an individual communicating on behalf of a group or organization and not receiving compensation for such action, or an individual communicating on their own behalf would NOT be considered a lobbyist. Response Brian Thomas submitted written comments in favor of the project, but indicated concerns regarding how traffic turning right (east) from Sand Canyon onto Soledad would impact traffic heading east on Soledad. Mr. Thomas suggested a sign similar to that on Soledad and Sierra Highway to be installed and used during high volume traffic hours stating "no right turn" or similar. This would allow for a smoother and safer transition of traffic during danger hours. Please see Section 4.19, Traffic and Circulation, page 4,19-32 MM T-2, which requires left -turn phasing from permissive to protective permissive. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR August 2017 181 3. Responses to Comments Written Comment 24: Sherilyn Koss Meeting Date: May 16, 2017 3.3 — Public Comments During Planning Commission Meetings 44,0", City of Planning Commission SANTA CLARITA Written Comment Card Please complete this form to register your written comments to the Planning Commission, in lieu of speaking, and turn it in to the Planning Commission Secretary. Your written comments will be considered part of the official proceedings. (Please print clearly.) Meeting date: MM ( (a Agenda Item number: Z Agenda title or subject to be addressed: �, �' - Q-1-7 &t&jA-AP1 o -2-o,- - Please check one: %. Support Recommendation ❑ Oppose Recommendation ❑ Neutral Name L SIty: Written Comment (Use other side if necessary): F!-,fC- The Planning Comm ssion requires that persons re stering written comments a s, patAi-- who represent other individuals, groups, or organizations disclose that relationship. m "n r OEM (DECLARE THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND /jCorOR,RECT.(//�— Representing: Signature: ❑ Please check here if you are a registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita isse back of card for more information) Lil- Response Sherilynn Koss submitted written comments supporting the project. Ms. Koss queried if the Kenroy/Soledad light has been reconsidered. MM T4 will modify traffic signal timing to coordinate with Kenroy Avenue and SB -14 SB Ramp intersection along Soledad Canyon Road. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR August 2017 182 3. Responses to Comments Speaker Request 25: Sean Weber 3.3 — Public Comments During Planning Commission Meetings Meeting Date: June 6, 2017 J�qoO,N cANTA CLARITA PlanningCommission ity of S to Speak If you wish to speak before the Planning Commission, please complete the following information and tum this form in to the Planning Commission Secretary. (Please print clearly) Meeting date: \_J/ (� Agenda item number: t Agenda title or subject to be addressed:1��, `C C U �'�`- Please check one: ❑ Support Recommendation ❑ Oppose Recommendation ❑ Neutral Name Sp rr (n_R � .e/— Street Adds: City: Z ali l Phone: iO �if—�.51 x'3(3 The Planning Commission requires that speakere who represent other Individuals, groups, or organizations disclose that relationship. Representing: I DECLARE THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. Under State law, matters raised under Public Comments cannot have immediate actlon.ThePlanning commission will Werth@ mattertostaM, oril mW ireschadulad on asubsegumt Planning Commission Agenda. Signature esker_ For tips on making your presentation, see reverse side. ❑ Please check here if you area registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see back of card for more information). ! Response Sean Weber spoke in opposition to the project. Mr. Weber indicated that traffic/transportation was not adequately addressed and that noise and water also required further analysis. Lastly, Mr. Weber stated that there were no concrete plans to the Project. We refer Mr. Weber to section 4.19, Traffic and Transportation, of the Draft EIR and to Section 4.12, Noise and Section 4.22, Water, addressing the impacts of the EIR. Plans for the project can be found in Section 3.0, Project Description. This comment will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. No further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR 183 3. Responses to Comments 3.3 — Public Comments During Planning Commission Meetings Speaker Request 26: Josh Bourgeois Meeting Date: June 6, 2017 A City Of Planning Commission SANTA CLARITA Request to Speak s If you wish to speak before the Planning Commission, please complete the following information G f/I and tum this form In to the Planning Commission Secretary. (Please print clearly.) Meeting date: v/ `' Agenda Item number. — - Agenda title or subject to be addressed: ` "�1 `C 1, U o- A 1' _t Please check one: ❑ Support Recommendation ❑ Oppose Recommendation ❑ Neutral Name: 'Se, Street Address: Z a 6 d ` �u� C4 az s� (3 Z City: e^-✓lw \,3 Phone: (06f —� o The Planning Commission requires that speakers who represent other Indivitluals, groups, or organizations disclose that relationship. Representing: I DECLARE THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE ND CORRECT. Under Stat. law, matters raised under Public Commends cannot have immediate j acted.TnePlanning commission will retertha nn a tosbfff, orit mWicaschadulad on asubse luent Plam,in i Commission Agenda. Signature peaker For tips on making your presentation, see reverse side. U Please check here if you area registered lobbyist with the City of Santa Clarita (see back of card for more information). i Itr'v Response Josh Bourgeois, Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance, stated that he was opposed to the project and that he did not have enough time to respond to the City's draft responses. This comment will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration. No further response is required. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR August 2017 184 4. Project Revisions 4.1 — Revisions to Project Description 4.1 Revisions to Project Description Beginning in February 2017, the Project was reviewed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission held four public hearings: February 21, 2017, March 21, 2017; May 16, 2017, and June 6, 2017. In response to issues raised throughout the public hearing process with the Planning Commission, the Applicant revised the Project as follows: • Increased the retail commercial use by 4,400 square feet in Planning Area 1 from 55,600 square feet to 60,000 square feet. • Increased the assisted living facility in Planning Area 1 from 120 beds (75,000 square feet) to 140 beds (85,000 square feet). • Transferred 27 residential units from Planning Area 5 to Planning Area 3 • Reduction in the building footprint and eliminated approximately 700 lineal feet of grading on the northern portions of the significant ridgeline in Planning Area 5. • Created a 2 -acre private park in Planning Area 5. • Included a three-level parking structure (one level partially below grade) with 264 parking spaces for the commercial uses in Planning Area 1. • Require redesign of the building layout in Planning Area 2 to further reduce noise impacts to adjacent properties. • Require enhanced landscaping along Sand Canyon Road. 4.1-1 Revised Project Components As a result of direction by the Planning Commission, the Applicant revised the Site Plan to: 1) reduce impacts to the ridgeline on the Project site, 2) increase the amount of commercial uses proposed, 3) include a parking structure in Planning Area 1, 4) require redesign of the building layout in Project Area 2 to further reduce noise impacts to adjacent properties, and 5) enhanced landscaping along Sand Canyon Road. The total number of dwelling units proposed remains unchanged at 580 units. 1. Ridgeline and Recreation/Open Space Components (Planning Areas 3 and 5) To reduce impacts to the undisturbed portions of the northern portions of the significant ridgeline on the Project site, the Project has been revised to eliminate grading on approximately 700 lineal feet of the ridgeline in Planning Area 5. This modification reduces the grading impacts by approximately 100,000 cubic yards of cut. This modification also results in the transfer of 27 of units from Planning Area 5 to Planning Area 3. This transfer would reduce impacts to the ridgeline and would shrink the development footprint of Planning Area 5. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 185 4. Project Revisions 4.1 — Revisions to Project Description Some grading would still be necessary to blend the proposed grading into the hillsides on the Project site. The Applicant would take advantage of this grading to create a 2 -acre private park in Planning Area 5. The Applicant has incorporated the revisions for Planning Areas 3 and 5 as shown on the revised site plan (refer to Figure 3-4). 2. Commercial Space Component (Planning Area 1) To address the Planning Commission's concern regarding the amount of commercial space provided with the proposed Project, the Applicant increased the commercial space in Planning Area 1 as follows: 1) added 10,000 square feet (up to 20 additional beds) to the assisted living facility; and 2) added 4,400 square feet to the retail commercial component to increase the total square footage to 60,000 square feet. In addition, a three-level parking structure has been included to provide required parking for the commercial uses for the project. The Applicant has incorporated the increase in commercial square footage for Planning Area 1 into the revised site plan (refer to the FEIR Figure 3-4). 3. Three -Level Parking Structure (Planning Area 1) The revised Project would add a three-level parking structure in Planning Area 1 with 264 parking spaces, which would increase parking spaces for the slightly increased commercial component of the revised Project. The parking structure would be located in an area previously designated for surface parking. When combined with other remaining surface parking, a total of up to 415 parking spaces would be provided in Planning Area 1 under the revised Project to serve the commercial component and the assisted living facility. 4. Noise Attenuation to Adjacent Uses (Planning Area 2) The revised Project would be conditioned through a condition of approval requiring redesign of the building layout in Planning Area 2 to relocate buildings along the Sand Canyon Road frontage. This relocation would create a barrier that would further reduce potential Project noise impacts to adjacent off-site properties from the nearby commercial component and related parking areas within Planning Area 1. 5. Enhanced Landscaping Along Sand Canyon Road The revised Project would be conditioned through a condition of approval requiring enhanced landscaping along Sand Canyon Road, which requires providing a mixture of 24 -inch, 36 -inch, and 48 - inch box trees along Sand Canyon Road to provide a landscape buffer to residences located west of the project site. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR August 2017 186 4. Project Revisions 4.1 — Revisions to Project Description 4.1-2 Environmental Conclusion Regarding Project Revisions 1. Traffic Impacts Stantec prepared a comprehensive traffic impact analysis (2016 Traffic Study) in December 2016, which was included in the Project's Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Stantec prepared a supplemental traffic analysis memorandum in May 2017 (2017 Supplemental Traffic Memorandum) to address the Project changes made by the Planning Commission. When taking into account the removal of the existing mobile homes and the internal capture trips, the 2016 Traffic Study estimated that the Project would generate approximately 393 new AM peak hour trips, 695 new PM peak hour trips, and 7,986 new daily trips. In comparison, the Revised Project Description would generate one additional trip in the AM peak hour, an additional 12 trips in the PM peak hour, and an additional 176 ADT, as shown in Table 2 (2017 Supplemental Traffic Memorandum). This trip generation change is negligible, and because the volume of Project traffic during the AM peak hour is effectively equal to the volume of traffic evaluated in the 2016 Traffic Study, and because the volume of additional Project traffic in the PM peak hour is only 12 trips, which when distributed throughout the area of potential impact results in fewer than 7 additional project trips at any given study area intersection, it can be definitively concluded that the original conclusions and mitigation measures addressed in the 2016 Traffic Study would not change. Thus, based on a review of the DEIR sections discussing the Project's traffic impacts, these minor traffic trip modifications would not: 1) constitute "significant new information" defined in CEQA Guidelines §15088.5; 2) result in a new significant traffic impact identified in the DEIR; 3) cause a substantial increase in the severity of an identified traffic impact identified in the DEIR, or 4) require any new, modified or increased mitigation measures for any traffic impacts identified in the DEIR. 2. Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Noise Impacts Pomeroy Environmental Services (PES) prepared the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas (GHG), and Noise Technical Reports associated with the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project (Project) Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), March 2017. The following discussion addresses the Project changes made by the Planning Commission. Based on PES's review of the Project Traffic Engineer's memorandum, these changes would result in a net increase of 176 daily trips compared to the previously estimated 7,986 daily trips. This represents an approximate 2.2% increase in motor vehicle trips. As motor vehicle trips are the primary source of Project impacts associated with air quality, GHG, and noise, this small increase would not increase the impacts such that they exceed the identified thresholds, and thus would not alter the impact conclusions in the DEIR. In addition, the Revised Project Description would require the redesign of the building layout in Planning Area 2 to relocate buildings along the Sand Canyon Road frontage. This relocation would create a barrier that would further reduce potential Project noise impacts to adjacent offsite properties from the nearby commercial component and related parking areas within Planning Area 1. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR August 2017 187 4. Project Revisions 4.1 — Revisions to Project Description Also, the Revised Project Description would result in the reduction of approximately 100,000 cubic yards of grading in Planning Area 4, which would reduce the previously -identified construction -related noise impacts. Thus, based on a review of the DEIR sections discussing the Project's air quality, GHG, and noise impacts, these minor traffic trip modifications would not: 1) constitute "significant new information" defined in CEQA Guidelines §15088.5; 2) result in a new significant air quality, GHG, or noise impact identified in the DEIR; 3 cause a substantial increase in the severity of an identified air quality, GHG, or noise impact identified in the DEIR, or 4) require any new, modified, or increased mitigation measures for any air quality, GHG or noise impacts identified in the DEIR. 3. Land Use Impacts Consistency with Unified Development Code The commercial portion of the Project originally included 55,600 square feet in Planning Area 1 (10.0 acres), which results in a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.13, which is below the maximum of 0.5, but is also below the recommended minimum of 0.2. The Revised Project Description includes 60,000 square feet in Planning Area 1 (9.6 acres), resulting in a FAR of 0.14, which is also below the maximum of 0.5, but is also still below the recommended minimum of 0.2. The Revised Project Description still requires a Minor Use Permit for commercial uses, as they are below the recommended minimum FAR of 0.2, as did the original Project. For either the original Project or the Revised Project Description, the commercial uses are anticipated to be one to two stories in height (35 feet), which is below the maximum 50 feet allowed. The Revised Project Description would continue to comply with all applicable development standards in the Unified Development Code. As noted previously, the Revised Project Description would require the redesign of the building layout in Planning Area 2 to relocate buildings along the Sand Canyon Road frontage, which would create a barrier that further reduces potential Project noise impacts to adjacent offsite properties from the nearby commercial component and parking areas within Planning Area 1. Thus, based on a review of the DEIR sections discussing the Project's land use impacts, the minor land use modifications would not: 1) constitute "significant new information" defined in CEQA Guidelines §15088.5; 2) result in a new significant land use impact identified in the DEIR; 3) cause a substantial increase in the severity of an identified land use impact identified in the DEIR, or 4) require any new, modified or increased mitigation measures for any land use impacts identified in the DEIR. Other Impact Areas All other impacts identified in the DEIR remain unchanged. In conclusion, the revisions to the Project Description, noted above, do not result in any new substantial environmental impacts, and do not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation pursuant to CEQA §21092.1 or CEQA Guidelines §15088.5. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR August 2017 188 4. Project Revisions 4.2 — Revised Project Description for Final EIR 4.2 Revised Project Description for Final EIR The following sections or Figures in Chapter 3 will be revised as follows in the Final EIR. 3.10 Requested Project Approvals The Applicant is requesting the Project approvals described below, which would govern development of the proposed Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project. Prior to issuing Project approvals, the City must certify that this EIR: 1) has been reviewed and considered; 2) has adequately analyzed the potential impacts of the Project; 3) has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's Environmental Guidelines, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The requested Project approvals are described in further detail below. 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 53074. The Applicant is proposing to subdivide the property to facilitate construction of 580 residential units (119 detached condominium units, 149 attached townhomes/condominium units, and 312 apartment units), up to 60,000 square feet of commercial uses (retail and restaurants), an 85,000 -square -foot assisted living facility (up to 140 beds), other lots for landscape/open space, private streets, and recreation areas. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 14-014. The Applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for development within a Planned Development (PD) Overlay Zone. Any new proposal for development in a PD Overlay requires the submittal of a Conditional Use Permit, which is intended to provide for additional discretion for previously vacant or underutilized parcels. Additionally, the Applicant is requesting approval of an 85,000 -square foot -assisted living facility with up to 140 beds. A Conditional Use Permit is required to permit the assisted living facility within the MXN zone. 3. Hillside Development Review No. 14-001. The Applicant is requesting approval of a Hillside Development Review Permit to allow development on slopes over 10%. 4. Ridgeline Alteration Permit No. 14-001. The Applicant is requesting approval of a Ridgeline Alteration Permit to allow for development in a Ridgeline Preservation (RP) Overlay Zone, more specifically to allow for development within 100 feet vertically and horizontally of a significant ridgeline. 5. Minor Use Permit No. 14-016. The Applicant is requesting approval of a Minor Use Permit to allow for the commercial floor area ratio (FAR) to be less than the minimum required by the MXN zone. Under the MXN zone requirements, the minimum floor area ratio of commercial uses on the site would be 0.2:1 or 83,635 square feet of commercial floor area. The Applicant is proposing to develop the site with up to 60,000 square feet of commercial uses, which is a floor area ratio of 0.14. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 189 4. Project Revisions 4.2 — Revised Project Description for Final EIR 6. Oak Tree Permit No. 14-008. The Applicant is requesting approval of an Oak Tree Permit to allow for removal of two non -heritage oak trees and to permit Project grading to encroach within the protected zone of one heritage oak tree. Permits and Approvals for the Project are highlighted in Table 3-1 below. Table 3-1 Future Agency Actions Agency Action Required California Department of Transportation Encroachment Permit Regional Water Quality Control Board National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit, Section 401 permit under the federal Clean Water Act California Department of Fish and Wildlife Streambed Alteration Agreement per Fish & Wildlife Code Section 1602 U.S. Department of Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit under the federal Clean Water Act South Coast Air Quality Management District Various permits for air emissions regulation found in the Air Quality Management Plan This table is not intended to provide the complete and final list of future actions required to implement the Project. This is an attempt to identify those actions that are known at this time to be required in the future. 3.13 Description of Project The following discussion describes the types and amounts of new land uses proposed by the Applicant and the infrastructure improvements necessary to construct the development. This description is intended to provide a sufficient level of detail from which an evaluation and review of the environmental impacts of the Project can be made. Table 3-2 below summarizes the statistics associated with the Project. Table 3-2 Sand Canvon Land Use Planning Residential Area No. Project Use Commercial Square Footage Dwelling Units Acreage PA -1 Commercial/Retail/Restaurant/ 60,000 -SF Commercial Retail/Restaurant, n/a 9.6 Assisted Living 85,000 -SF Assisted Living Facility (140 Beds) PA -2 Multi -Family Attached N/A 312 12.2 PA -3 Multi -Family Attached N/A 149 10.3 PA -4 Single -Family Detached 71 7.3 Condominiums N/A PA -5 Single -Family Detached 48 6.3 Condominiums N/A Streets N//A N/A 6.3 Private Park/Recreation Center N/A N/A 2.0 Drainage Basin N/A N/A 1.0 Open Space/Landscaped Areas N/A N/A 31.4 Right of Way Dedication N/A N/A 1.1 Total 60,000 -SF Commercial Retail/Restaurant, 580 87.5 85,000 -SF Assisted Livinq Facility Source: Tentative Tract Map No. 053074, July 2017 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR August 2017 190 4. Project Revisions 4.2 — Revised Project Description for Final FIR WaNm 21 Las ANCV£s— LILY C£ SPMA CLAPoi//// — I� A saver+eAoo�aa� 1 � R / �I PA5 IQ — ••• � II I .mo T - q o :- {II L_JI Ili ® II Source: Alliance Land Planning & Engineering Inc., Tentative Tract Map 053074, Site Development Plan, July 2017 Figure 3-4 Tentative Tract Map 53074 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR August 2017 191 4. Project Revisions 4.2 — Revised Project Description for Final EIR As provided in Table 3-2 above, the approximately 87 -acre Project site would be developed with up to 60,000 -square feet of commercial/retail/restaurant uses and 85,000 square feet of assisted living facilities (up to 140 beds). Also proposed on the Project site are 580 residential units comprising 461 multi -family units (including up to 312 apartment units and 149 attached townhomes) and 119 single-family detached condominiums. If approval of the Project is granted, Project conditions of approval would permit modifications to building locations, building footprints, and product types shown on Figure 3-4, Tentative Tract Map 53074. The approximately 87 -acre Project site is divided into five Planning Areas. Figure 3-5 depicts each Planning Area in relationship to the entire Project site. Details further describing the Planning Areas are provided below. Planning Area 1(PA-1), Commercial —Approximately 145,000 feet of commercial/residential floor including 60,000 square feet of commercial (retail and restaurants) and an 85,000 -square -foot assisted living facility (up to 140 beds) on approximately 9.6 acres. Planning Area 1 is located at the northeast intersection of Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road and is depicted in Figure 3-6. PA -1 also includes a water quality/water feature located at the southwest corner of the Project site. Consistent with the requirements of the MXN zone, the maximum building height in PA -1 would be 50 feet (assisted living facility). The remaining commercial buildings in PA -1 would range in height from 20 to 35 feet. Access to PA -1 would occur via Soledad Canyon Road and "A" Drive (left in/right in and right out) and Sand Canyon Road and "A" Drive (left in/right in and right out). Up to 415 parking spaces would be provided for the retail commercial area contingent upon final uses and square footage, which includes 151 surface spaces and 264 spaces in a parking structure. Of the 415 parking spaces, up to 70 spaces would be provided for the assisted living facility contingent upon the final bed count. Illustrative renderings are provided in Figure 3-7 and Figure 3-8. Planning Area 2 (Multi -Family Attached) — 312 multi -family units (intended to be rental units) and required parking per the MXN requirements would be developed on 12.2 acres. One private recreational area with a pool, internal drive aisles, water quality improvements, and other open areas would be provided within PA -2. The maximum building height in PA -2 is 50 feet. Access to PA -2 would be from Sand Canyon Road via "A" and 'B" Drives. Approximately 1 acre of the existing Sand Canyon Road right-of-way would be vacated by the City and included in PA -2, as it would no longer be needed for roadway purposes. Planning Area 2 is located directly north of PA -1 along Sand Canyon Road and is depicted in Figure 3-9, Planning Area 2. An illustrative rendering is provided in Figure 3-10. Planning Area 3 (Multi -Family Attached Townhomes) —149 townhomes with required parking (per the MXN zone requirements) on approximately 10.3 acres. Water quality improvements, internal drive aisles, trails and other open areas would be provided within PA -3. The maximum building height in PA -3 is 40 feet. Access to PA -3 would be from Sand Canyon Road via 'B", "C" and "D" Drives. Planning Area 3 is located north of Planning Area 2 along Sand Canyon Road and is depicted in Figure 3-11, Planning Area 3. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR August 2017 192 4. Project Revisions 4.2 — Revised Project Description for Final EIR Planning Area 4 (Single -Family Detached Condominiums) — 71 units with required parking (per MXN and UR -3 zone requirements) on approximately 7.3 acres. Internal drive aisles, water quality improvements, trails, and other open areas would be provided within PA -4. The 2.0 -acre private recreational area located in PA -5 would also service PA -4. Access to PA -4 would be from Sand Canyon Road via 'B," "C," and "D" Drives. Planning Area 4 is located in the central portion of the Project site north and east of Planning Area 2 and is depicted in Figure 3-12, Planning Area 4. Planning Area 5 (Single -Family Detached Condominiums) — 48 units with required parking (per MXN and UR -3 zone requirements) on approximately 6.3 acres. A 2.0 -acre private recreational area, internal drive aisles, water quality improvements, trails, and other open areas would be provided within PA -5. Access to PA -5 would be from Sand Canyon Road via 'B", "C" and "D" Drives. Planning Area 5 is located in the eastern and northern portions of the Project site and is depicted in Figure 3-13 and Figure 3-14. The Project includes a total of 580 residential units (replacing the existing 123 mobile homes), 60,000 square feet of retail commercial uses, and an 85,000 -square -foot assisted living facility. 3.15 Grading Demolition/Site Clearing The Project would require demolition of the remaining mobile home units and site clearing. In addition to the removal of the mobile homes, demolition would include the removal of asphalt, concrete, other ancillary structures to the existing mobile home park, trees, fences, and other existing debris. Grading/Foundation The Project would include grading approximately 2.1 million cubic yards of cut and fill balanced on- site and is depicted on Figure 3-15, Cut and Fill Map. Additional remedial grading (approximately 750,000 cubic yards) would be necessary to accommodate site development. 3.16 Mobility Plan The Project provides for non -vehicular modes of transportation in a system of trails, sidewalks and pedestrian pathways commonly known as the Mobility Plan. The Mobility Plan achieves Project objectives by creating and enhancing opportunities for non -vehicular travel through encouraging pedestrian mobility from the Project's residential areas to the commercial uses. The Mobility Plan can be found in Figure 4.19-3, Existing and Future Bicycle Facilities, and Figure 4.14-2, City of Santa Clarita Trail System. Off-site access to surrounding uses and the future Vista Canyon Metrolink Station are shown on Figure 3.16, Off -Site Mobility Plan, and Figure 3.17, Off -Site Mobility Plan to Metrolink. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 193 4. Project Revisions 4.2 — Revised Project Description for Final EIR 3.21 Recreation Two private recreational areas are planned for the Project, including a two -acre private park. At least one of the facilities would contain a pool, a spa, a restroom facility, and a recreation building. 3.22 Open Space The Project includes 31.4 acres of open space throughout the site, including natural habitat areas on the northern portion of the ridgeline. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 194 4. Project Revisions 4.2 - Revised Project Description for Final EM � � A � � s -tel r>f� MTML 1 P A And Planning a engineering Inc, Aro 201 Pigure 3.16 Off -Site Mobility Plan Tebo Enviroxunental Consulting,Inc Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed- Use Project Final EM August2019 195 4. Project Revisions 4.2—Revised Project Description for Final FIR Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR August 2017 4196 • i a a. I�._5 r. i�7. n p Yam Y, • Tebo Environmental Consulting Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR August 2017 4196 4. Project Revisions 4.2 — Revised Project Description for Final EIR / `�'Ti r� • f ea/jn' � • • -rv o ��fE a / v -'a� •��1 .i rS Cy ISM �F baa/ '• . ,✓' , 1 Or' �•v� :�saiy ✓6 a a B t Via,{ � e • y .`f M 4, a ° ,� t •t ° a • t / � �x ��;• � n a a �° as ai Ct ° i i • • �� ° '4 d ygnn.m. �i / � / a' =a l • .: a �• Figure 3-18 Conceptual Landscape Plan Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR August 2017 197 4. Project Revisions 4.2 — Revised Project Description for Final FIR SL'Y CA NL'Y R R/W 114' 7' 35' 1 2' 12' 1 35' 23' TUR LANE 8' B' 8' 15' 2' MIN. CLASS II CLASS II SIDEWALK LANDSCAPE BIKE LANE BIKE LANE AREA MEDIAN 1'•� 2% 2% 2% 27 CURB BER SIDEWALKNC. GUTTER (TYP) (TYP) SOLEDAD CANYON ROAD NOT TO SCALE WL'Y CA ECY R/W R/VJ 92 8' I 20' 4' 14' 4' 20' 22' SIDEWALK TRAVEL LANE MEgIAN acv acv TRAVEL LANE 8' S' S' 4' 2' MIN. �a �a SIDEWALK/ BIKE BIKE CURB &my mN PARKWAY LANE LANE GUTTER CURTER �. (TYP) (TYP) 2% 2% 2% SAND CANYON ROAD NOT TO SCALE Source: Sand Canyon Plaza Tentative Tract Map 053074, Alliance Land Planning & Engineering, July 2017 Figure 3-19 Soledad Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road Cross -Sections Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final FIR August 2017 198 4. Project Revisions 4.2 — Revised Project Description for Final EIR 56' Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final CA 19 18' 10' 5' S' ' 10' 13' YY i'�y:\ PKWY x\ 2 PKWY DRIVE 'A' (PRIVATE) NOT TO SCALE C/L s3' 1O' 14' 14' is, 5' 5' ]' B' WALK PKWY PKWY SIDEWALK 2' 2Y RB & CURTTB[[ h (TYP) 2 ER R YTW 'L% (hPTJ 2% <11 21 z% L�A- DRIVE 'B' AND 'C' (PRIVATE) NOT TO SCALE C/L 2X 5' 29' 15' PKWY ]' 9' PKWY SIDEWAIH �qg y pg 9 2X 2R 2X 2% DRIVES 'D' (PRIVATE WITHOUT PARKING) NOT TO SCALE C/L 5' 28' 23' SIDE— WALK 16' 14' B' 7' s' PARALLEL PKWY sIOEWALK 2' .URB & PARKING (TTP) 2' Z.Y (UTI'R y\ W 2% 2% 2% ZR GUTTER (TYP) DRIVES 'D' (PRIVATE WITH PARKING) NOT TO SCALE Source: Sand Canyon Plaza Tentative Tract Map 053074, Alliance Land Planning & Engineering, July 2017 56' Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final 10' 19 18' 10' 5' S' ' 10' 13' 5' 5' WPLK PKWY STRIPED PKWY WALK &MEPIANCDRB(TUY�P)ER2X L�A- 2X Figure 3-20 Private Roadways Cross -Sections EIR August 2017 199 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program This section of the FEIR provides a summary of the Project Design Features (PDFs) listed in the Section 3.14 and cited throughout Chapter 4, Environmental Impact Analysis. In addition, this section identifies the mitigation measures that will be implemented to reduce the impacts associated with the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to proposed development. As stated in California Public Resources Code §21081.6, ... the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted, or made a condition of project approval, in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. Public Resources Code §21081.6 provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring programs and indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be enforced during project implementation, shall be defined prior to certification of the Environmental Impact Report. The mitigation monitoring table that follow lists those mitigation measures that may be included as conditions of approval for the Project. These measures correspond to those outlined in Chapter 4, Environmental Impact Analysis. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been devised that identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoring each measure. The City of Santa Clarita will have the responsibility for implementing the measures, and the Project Applicant will have the primary responsibility for monitoring and reporting the implementation of the mitigation measures. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR August 2017 201 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5.1 Project Design Features The following Project Design Features have been incorporated into the Project. PDF -1 Landscape irrigation plans shall include drought -tolerant and native plants (consistent with General Plan FIR Mitigation Measures 3.13-6 and 3.13-11). PDF -2 Landscape irrigation plans shall incorporate low -water -use devises (such as ET controllers and drip irrigation), to the extent feasible (consistent with General Plan FIR Mitigation Measures 3.13-6 and 3.13-11). PDF -3 Water conservation measures as required by the State of California shall be incorporated into all irrigation systems. PDF -4 The Project Applicant, or responsible party, shall require the installation of low -flow fixtures in all residential units, which may include but are not limited to water conserving shower heads, toilets, waterless urinals and motion -sensor faucets, and encourage use of such fixtures in building retrofits as appropriate (consistent with General Plan FIR Mitigation Measures 3.13-7 and 3.13-13). PDF -5 Prior to commencement of use, all uses of recycled water shall be reviewed and approved by the State of California Health and Welfare Agency, Department of Health Services. PDF -6 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant or responsible party, shall finance the expansion costs of water service extension to the subdivision through the payment of connection fees to the appropriate water agency(ies). PDF -7 For sensitive uses within 500 feet of the SR -14 Freeway, incorporate air filtration systems with filters meeting or exceeding the ASHRAE 52.2 Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) of 11. MERV 11 filters are effective in improving indoor air quality as compared to lower efficiency filters for PM10 and PMz.e. PDF -8 Locate open space areas associated with sensitive uses (e.g., courtyards, patios, balconies) as far from the freeway sources as possible. PDF -9 Plant vegetation between sensitive receptors and freeway sources. PDF -10 Utilize site plan design that minimizes operable windows and building entries along the freeway. PDF -11 For sensitive uses within 500 feet of the SR -14 Freeway, utilize options for mechanical and ventilation systems (i.e., supply or exhaust based systems). If a supply -based system is proposed (i.e., actively bringing outside air through intake ducts), consider locating intakes as far from the freeway sources as possible. PDF -12 The Applicant shall implement all control measures required and/or recommended by the SCAQMD (i.e., Rules 403, 1108, and 1113), including but not limited to the following: • Use watering to control dust generation during demolition of structures or break-up of pavement; • Water active grading areas and unpaved surfaces at least three times daily; Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR August 2017 202 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • Cover stockpiles with tarps or apply non-toxic chemical soil binders; • Limit vehicle speed on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour; • Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved construction parking areas and staging areas; • Provide daily clean-up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets from the Project site; • Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 15 miles per hour over a 30 -minute period or more; and • An information sign shall be posted at the entrance to the construction site that identifies the permitted construction hours and provides a telephone number to call and receive information about the construction project or to report complaints regarding excessive fugitive dust generation. Any reasonable complaints shall be rectified within 24 hours of their receipt. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 203 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks Aesthetics MM Aes-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant, or Prior to Issuance of City of Santa Clarita responsible party, shall submit a grading plan for review and Grading Permit Community approval by the City's Director of Public Works and the Director of Development Community Development. This grading plan shall utilize methods to Department (Planning reduce grading impacts associated with the Project and, to the Division) extent feasible, blend in with the natural contours of the site. Said and grading methods shall include landform grading as well as the Public Works Department blending of any manufactured slopes or required drainage benches (Engineering Services into the natural topography along with the use of curvilinear street Division) design. MM Aes-2 The Project Applicant, or responsible party, shall submit a final site Final Site Plan City of Santa Clarita plan for review and approval by the City's Director of Community Submittal Community Development. This site plan shall utilize building setbacks, building Development heights, and building forms throughout the site to blend buildings Department (Planning and structures with the terrain and surrounding development as Division) much as possible. Additionally, landscaping with natural vegetation shall be used to minimize the visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas. MM Aes-3 As part of any grading on the Project site, the Project Applicant, or Prior to Issuance of City of Santa Clarita responsible party, shall be required to "lay back' and regrade the Grading Permit Community manufactured slope along Soledad Canyon Road, which will allow Development for this slope to be landscaped, further softening its appearance Department (Planning from SR -14, Soledad Canyon Road, and areas to the south. Division) and Public Works Department (Engineering Services Division) MM Aes-4 The Project Applicant, or responsible party, shall require that the During Construction City of Santa Clarita use of nighttime lighting during project construction be limited to Community only those features on the construction site requiring illumination. Development Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 204 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks Department (Planning Division) MM Aes-5 The Project Applicant, or designee, shall require that all security During Construction City of Santa Clarita lights be properly shielded and projected downwards during Community construction, such that light is directed only onto the work site. Development Department (Planning Division) MM Aes-6 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City of Santa Clarita Prior to Issuance of City of Santa Clarita Planning Division shall ensure that the following elements are Building Permit Community included in project plans, as appropriate: Development • Al exterior lighting shall be designed and located as to avoid Department intrusive effects on adjacent residential properties and (Planning Division) undeveloped areas adjacent to the Project site. Low -intensity streetlighting and low -intensity exterior lighting shall be used throughout the development to the extent feasible. Lighting fixtures shall use shielding, if necessary, to prevent spill lighting on adjacent off-site uses. • Design and placement of site lighting shall minimize glare affecting adjacent properties, buildings, and roadways. • Outdoor lighting along the Project site boundary shall consist of low -intensity downlights, or be equipped with louvers, shields, hoods or other screening devices. • Fixtures and standards shall conform to state and local safety and illumination requirements. • Buildings shall use low -reflective glass and building materials on building exteriors. • Automatic timers on lighting shall be designed to maximize personal safety during nighttime use while saving energy. Air Quality MM AQ -1 The Project Applicant, or designee, shall require that all During Project City of Santa Clarita commercial -related landscaping activities utilize electric lawn Operations Community mowers and electric leaf blowers to the extent feasible. Development Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 205 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks Department (Planning Division) Biological Resources MM Bio -1 If activities associated with construction or grading are planned Prior to Issuance of City of Santa Clarita during the bird nesting/breeding season, generally February Grading andor Community through March for early nesting birds and from mid-March through Building Permit Development mid-September for most bird species, the Applicant shall have a Department (Planning qualified biologist conduct surveys for active nests. To determine Division) the presence/absence of active nests, pre -construction nesting bird surveys shall be conducted weekly beginning 30 days prior to initiation of ground -disturbing activities, with the last survey conducted no more than 3 days prior to the start of clearance/ construction work. If ground -disturbing activities are delayed, additional pre- construction surveys shall be conducted so that no more than 3 days have elapsed between the survey and ground - disturbing activities. Protected bird nests that are found within the construction zone shall be protected by a buffer deemed suitable by a qualified biologist, and verified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Typically, a 300 -foot buffer is required for most species and a 500 -foot buffer for raptor and special -status species (CDFW may reduce these buffers on a site-specific basis). Buffer areas shall be delineated with orange construction fencing or other exclusionary material that would inhibit access within the buffer zone. Installation of the exclusionary material delineating the buffer zone shall be verified by a qualified biologist prior to initiation of construction activities. The buffer zone shall remain intact and maintained while the nest is active (i.e., occupied or being constructed by the adult bird(s)) and until young birds have fledged and no continued use of the nest is observed, as determined by a qualified biologist. MM Bio -1A The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a Prior to Issuance of City of Santa Clarita pre -construction biological survey for special -status species Grading andor Community determined to have potential to occur in suitable habitat within the Building Permit Development Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 206 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks Project site prior to the start of construction activities. If special- Department (Planning status species are detected during pre -construction surveys, Division) appropriate mitigation plans Will be prepared by a qualified biologist and submitted to the City of Santa Clarita for review and approval. Additionally, a biological monitor will be present periodically during construction to ensure that impacts to special -status species are minimized or do not occur. MM Bio -2 A qualified biologist, approved by the City and CDFW, shall Prior to Issuance of City of Santa Clarita prepare a detailed capture and relocation plan for San Diego tiger Grading andor Community (coastal) whiptail and coast horned lizard thatwill include measures Building Permit Development to avoid or minimize take of these sensitive species and identity Department appropriate relocation sites. The plan shall be submitted to CDFW (Planning Division) for approval prior to implementation. The plan shall specify the pre - construction time frame for the biologist to conduct surveys Within appropriate habitat areas to capture and relocate individual San Diego tiger whiptail and coast horned lizard in accordance With the approved relocation plan. Results of the surveys and relocation efforts shall be provided to the City With a copy to CDFW. MM Bio -3 A qualified biologist, approved by the City and CDFW, shall prepare Prior to Issuance of City of Santa C arita a detailed capture and relocation plan for San Diego black -tailed Grading andor Community Development jackrabbit and San Diego desert woodrat thatwill include measures Building Permit Department (Planning to avoid or minimize take of these sensitive species and identify Division) appropriate relocation sites. The plan shall be submitted to the city and CDFW for approval prior to implementation. The plan shall specify the pre -construction timeframe for the biologist to conduct surveys Within appropriate habitat areas to capture and relocate individual San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit and San Diego desert woodrat in accordance with the approved relocation plan. Results of the surveys and relocation efforts shall be provided to the City with a copy to CDFW. MM Bio -4 The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist, approved by Prior to Issuance of City of Santa Clarita the City, to conduct focused bat surveys utilizing visual and Grading andor Community electronic detection methods. The qualified biologist shall conduct Building Permit Development Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 207 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks the surveys between late May and mid-July, the recognized Department (Planning maternity season for most bats in southern California. If any Division) special -status bat species are determined to be roosting on-site, bat boxes of a size and design suitable for the estimated number of bats on-site shall be installed, under the supervision of a qualified bat biologist, in the outer perimeter of the Project site, as close as feasible to adjacent undeveloped land, and a suitable height and solar aspect. Further, if any maternity sites are identified on site, CDFW will be notified immediately. In addition to any other direction by CDFW, no site disturbance shall occur within 300 feet of the occupied roost until it is determined that the maternity roost(s) is no longer active. Additional bat boxes designed to serve as maternity roosts shall be placed as directed by the qualified bat biologist and CDFW. The Project Applicant shall also include the preparation of a relocation and monitoring plan in coordination With the City and CDFW. MM Bio -5 A qualified restoration specialist shall ensure that the proposed Prior to Installation of City of Santa Clarita landscape plants Will not naturalize and cause maintenance or On -Site Landscaping Community vegetation community degradation in open -space areas of the Development Project site. Container plants to be installed within public areas Department (Planning shall be inspected by a qualified restoration specialist for the Division) presence of disease, weeds, and pests, including Argentine ants. Plants with pests, weeds, or diseases shall be rejected. In addition, landscape plants shall not be on the CaHPC California Invasive Plant Inventory. MM Bio -6 The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified biologist, approved by Prior to Issuance of City of Santa Clarita the City, to develop a Mariposa Lily Restoration Plan. The Plan Grading andor Community shall include the following actions: Building Permit Development • Mark the extant population when plants are flowering. Department (Planning • Collect bulbs (when plant is dormant, summer to fall). Division) • Careful excavation is required to assure collection of the entire bulb and associated bulblets. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 208 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks • Record average depth of bulbs for replication at receiver site. • Plant collected bulbs immediately or store bulbs for later direct planting or growing in pots. • A monitoring and reporting program to assure successful establishment of the transplanted lilies. MM Bio -7 The Project Applicant, or the responsible party, shall prepare a holly Prior to Issuance of City of Santa Clarita leaf cherry chaparral restoration plan that details planting plans to Grading andor Community mitigate the loss of 0.35 acres of holly leaf cherry chaparral. This Building Permit Development plan shall entail five -to -one restoration of the removed holly leaf Department (Planning cherry alliances to equal 1.75 acres. The planting palette shall Division) include a range of native plant species typical of this alliance. The plan shall include temporary irrigation and monitoring for five years after the initial installation to assure establishment of the installed shrubs. Quantifiable success criteria will be based on species diversity, species richness, abundance, percent cover, and non- native cover. The restoration will be deemed successful when the site has been irrigation -free for at least five years and success criteria have remained for five years. The planting site may be located within the landscaped areas of the property. MM Bio -8 The Project impacts shall be subject to the regulations set forth by Prior to Issuance of City of Santa Clarita regulatory agencies as part of the jurisdictional permitting process. Grading andor Community The Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish Building Permit Development and Wildlife, and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board shall Department (Planning require the Project Applicant, or the responsible party, to explore Division) alternatives to avoid or reduce impacts and shall also require mitigation for all unavoidable impacts. The Army Corps of Engineers has a "no net loss" policy that requires that any unavoidable impacts to stream values and functions be replaced. In addition, the Regional Water Quality Control Board shall add restrictions to control runoff from the site, require on the site treatment of runoff to improve water quality, and impose Best Management Practices on the construction. Al of the features of the Project that address water quality issues shall be mitigated Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 209 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks within the Water Quality Management Plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. MM Bio -9 The Project Applicant, or the responsible party, shall be responsible Prior to, During, and City of Santa Clarita for implementing the following maintenance and care measures for Post- Construction Community on-site oak trees prior to, during, and post -construction. Development 1. Thoroughly irrigate all preserved trees one-week prior to any Department (Planning excavation that takes place within the tree protection zone. Division) 2. Provide quarterly Arborist monitoring of Tree #2 for not less than 2 years. 3. Install and maintain protective fencing around trees as illustrated on the plans in the Oak Tree Report. There must be a three-foot opening in the protective fencing to allow for inspection and maintenance, position openings every 50 to 75 feet. 4. Any work taking place in the ground, grading, trenching, drilling etc., within the tree protection zone shall be supervised by the arborist on record and be performed using hand tools only. 5. Any tree roots encountered, measuring 1 -inch or greater must preserved in place, or if unavoidable, properly pruned as deemed acceptable by project arborist 6. Preserved tree roots that are left exposed shall be wrapped in bur ap or other moisture retentive material and must be kept moist. 7. Construction materials or debris shall not be stored or disposed of within the protected zone of any tree. 8. No irrigation shall be installed within the dripline of any oak tree 9. Any planting within the tree protection zone must maintain a minimum distance of 15 feet from the trunk, and must consist of drought tolerant or native plant species, plant pallet must be approved by the city of Santa Clarita. 10. No changes in soil grade shall be made within the tree protection zone other than in the permitted work area. 11. Al drainage shall be directed away from the root zone of all oak trees. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 210 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks Cultural Resources MM CR -1 In the unlikely event that artifacts are found during grading within During Construction City of Santa Clarita the City's Planning Area or future roadway extensions, an Community archaeologist will be notified to stabilize, recover and evaluate such Development finds. Furthermore, the Project Applicant will comply with the Department (Planning consultation requirements between the Tataviam and the Applicant. Division) MM CR -2 If human remains are encountered during excavation and grading During Construction City of Santa Clarita activities within the project site, the contractor shall stop such Community activities. In the event of accidental discovery or recognition of any Development human remains there shall be no further excavation or disturbance Department (Planning of the subject site or any nearby areas reasonably suspected to Division) overlie adjacent human remains and the following steps shall be taken: • The coroner of the City in which the remains are discovered must be contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required, and, If the remains are of Native American origin, either of the following steps shall be taken: • The coroner should contact the Native American Heritage Commission in order to ascertain the proper descendants from the deceased individual. The coroner should make a recommendation to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods, which may include obtaining a qualified archaeologist or team of archaeologists to properly excavate the human remains. • Implementing orlocal agencies or authorized representatives should retain a Native American monitor, and an archaeologist, if recommended by the Native American monitor, and rebury the Native American human remains and any associated grave goods, with appropriate dignity, on the property and in a location that is not subject to Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 211 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks further subsurface disturbance when any of the following conditions occurs: • The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a descendent. • The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation. • The implementing agency or its authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. Geology and Soils MM Geo -1 Potential debris flow shall be further evaluated once a 40 -scale Review and Approval City of Santa Clarita rough grading plan has been developed for the Project site. of Rough Grading Plan Public Works Appropriate mitigation measures can be provided for any additional Department debris flow areas identified on the rough grading plan. (Engineering Services Division) MM Geo -2 Cut Slope CS -3: Bedrock shall be eliminated during removals within During Grading City of Santa Clarita the adjacent canyons and the slope grades re-established as a 25- Public Works foot -wide, 3 -foot -deep stability fill slope. The stability fill slope Department should be constructed with backdrains in accordance with the (Engineering Services recommendations presented in the "Conclusions and Division) Recommendations" section of the RTF&A report, and as shown on the Stability Fill Details for Grossly Stable Slopes, presented as Figure 4 (Frankian Study). MM Geo -3 Cut Slope CS -6 shall be constructed entirely as a 20 -foot -wide, 3- During Grading City of Santa Clarita foot -deep stability fill slope after landslide removal. Public Works Department (Engineering Services Division) MM Geo -4 Cut Slope CS -7: Bedrock shall be eliminated during the removals During Grading City of Santa Clarita within the adjacent canyons and the slope grades reestablished as Public Works a 25 -foot -wide, 3 -foot -deep stability fill slope. Department (Engineering Services Division) Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 212 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks MM Geo -5 Cut Slope CS -8: Bedrock shall be eliminated during the removals During Grading City of Santa Clarita within the adjacent canyons and the slope grades reestablished as Public Works a 25 -foot -wide, 3 -foot -deep stability fill slope. Department (Engineering Services Division) MM Geo -6 Cut Slope CS -11: A small canyon is situated in the central portion During Grading City of Santa Clarita of Cut Slope CS -11, belowfuture Lot Nos. 19 and 20. The removals Public Works as part of the canyon cleanout in this area, and eventual fill Department placement, shall extend to the bottom of the cut slope at "D" Drive (Engineering Services to eliminate a potential fill -over -cut condition. Division) MM Geo -7 Site Preparation Requirements: Prior to and During City of Santa Clarita Prior to performing earthwork, the existing vegetation and any Grading Public Works deleterious debris should be removed from the site. Department Al unsuitable soils in the areas of grading that are receiving fill (Engineering Services should be removed to competent bedrock materials and replaced Division) with engineered fill. The depth of removal and recompaction of unsuitable soils is noted on the Geotechnical Map. Any fill required to raise the site grades should be properly compacted. Removal of the exposed natural soils should extend to at least the depths indicated on the Site Geology Map (Figure 4.6-1). MM Geo -8 Removal Depth Requirements: The required depth of removal and During Grading City of Santa Clarita recompaction of the natural soils is indicated on the Geotechnical Public Works Map. Department • Deeper removals will be required if disturbed or unsuitable soils (Engineering Services are encountered. Division) • After excavation of the upper natural soils on hillsides and in canyons, further excavation should be performed, if necessary, to remove slope wash or other unsuitable soils. • The Geotechnical Consultant of Record may require that additional shallow excavations be made periodically in the exposed bottom to determine that sufficient removals have been made prior to recompacting the soil in-place. Deeper removals Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 213 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks may be recommended by RTF&A, based on observed field conditions during grading. • During grading operations, the removal depths should be observed by a representative of RTF&A and surveyed by the Project Civil Engineer for conformance with the recommended removal depths shown on the grading plan (Figure 4.6-1). MM Geo -9 Fill Material Requirements: The on-site soils, less any debris or During Grading City of Santa Clarita organic matter, may be used in the required fills. Public Works • Any expansive clays should be mixed with nonexpansive soils to Department result in a mixture having an expansion index less than 30 if (Engineering Services they are to be placed within the upper 8 feet of the proposed Division) rough grades. • Rocks or hard fragments larger than 8 inches may not be placed in the fill without special treatment. Rocks or hard fragments larger than 4 inches shall not be clustered or compose more than 25%by weight of any portion of the fill or a lift. Soils containing more than 25%rock or hard fragments larger than 4 inches must be removed or crushed with successive passes (e.g., with a sheepsfoot roller) until rock or hard fragments larger than 4 inches constitute less than 25%of the fill or lift. MM Geo -10 Oversized Material Requirements: During Grading City of Santa Clarita • Rocks or material greater than 8 inches in diameter, but not Public Works exceeding 4 feet in largest dimension, shall be considered Department oversized rock. The oversized rocks can be incorporated into (Engineering Services deep fills where designated by the Geotechnical Consultant of Division) Record. Rocks should be placed in the lower portions of the fill and should not be placed within the upper 10 feet of compacted fill, or nearer than 15 feet to the surface of any fill slope. Windrows should be excluded from areas of proposed utilities, pools, and other types of future underground improvements. Additional costs and construction difficulties should be anticipated if future improvements are located in areas where there will be conflicts with existing Windrows. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 214 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks • Rocks between 8 inches and 4 feet in diameter shall be placed in windrows or shallow trenches located so that equipment can build up and compact fill on both sides. The width of the windrows shall not exceed 4 feet. The windrows should be staggered vertically so that one windrow is not placed directly above the windrow immediately below. • Rock greater than one foot in diameter shall not exceed 30% of the volume of the windrows. Granular fill shall be placed on the windrow, and enough water should be applied so that soil can be flooded into the voids. Fill should be placed along the sides of the windrows and compacted as thoroughly as possible. After the fill has been brought to the top of the rock windrow, additional granular fill should be placed and flooded into the voids. Flooding is not permitted in fill soils placed more than 1 foot above the top of the windrowed rocks. • Where utility lines or pipelines are to be located at depths greater than 15 feet, rock shall be excluded in that area. Excess rock that cannot be included in the fill, or that exceeds 4 feet in diameter, should be stockpiled for export or used for landscaping purposes. • The oversized material recommendations presented in this report provide for the geotechnical consultant to coordinate with the grading contractor to develop a procedure for construction of compacted fills that have a satisfactory fill performance for the intended use of the fill. It should be understood that it is not feasible and/or cost effective to eliminate all oversized material from constructed fills as part of a conventional grading operation. The exclusion of all oversized material is not necessary for satisfactory fill performance on the majority of projects. MM Geo -11 Compaction Requirements: After the site is cleared and excavated During Grading City of Santa Clarita as recommended, the exposed soils should be carefully observed Public Works for the removal of all unsuitable material. Next, the exposed Department subgrade soils should be scarified to a depth of at least 6 inches, Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 215 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks brought to above optimum moisture content, and rolled with heavy (Engineering Services compaction equipment. The upper 6 inches of exposed soils should Division) be compacted to at least 90% of the maximum dry density obtainable by the ASTM D1557 Method of Compaction. After compacting the exposed subgrade soils, all required fills should be placed in loose lifts, not more than 8 inches in thickness, and compacted to at least 90% of their maximum density. For fills placed at depths greater than 40 feet below proposed finish grade, a minimum compaction of 93% of the maximum dry density is required. The moisture content of the fill soils at the time of compaction should be above the optimum moisture content. Compacted fill should not be allowed to dry out before subsequent lifts are placed. Rough grades should be sloped so as not to direct water flow over slope faces. Finished exterior grades should be sloped to drain away from building areas to prevent ponding of water adjacent to foundations. MM Geo -12 Shrinkage and Bulking Requirements: Shrinkage of about 10%to During Grading City of Santa Clarita 15% is estimated for the on-site natural alluvial soils when removed Public Works and placed as compacted fill. A bulking value of about 3% to 10% is Department estimated for materials generated from Mint Canyon Formation (Engineering Services bedrock cut areas for use as compacted fill. The actual shrinkage Division) and bulking will depend upon the relative compaction obtained by the contractor during grading operations and would be expected to change on a daily basis. MM Geo -13 Permanent Slope Requirements: Permanent cut and fill slopes may During Grading City of Santa Clarita be inclined at 2:1 or flatter. The current site plan indicates that the Public Works steepest slope to be constructed at the site during grading will be Department 21. (Engineering Services Division) MM Geo -14 Proposed Cut Slope Requirements: Cut slopes proposed for the During Grading City of Santa Clarita rough grading of the Project site have been designated as shown Public Works on the Geotechnical Map. Each cut slope is discussed with specific Department Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 216 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks recommendations presented below. Al grading should conform to (Engineering Services the minimum recommendations presented in this report. Division) If these slopes are modified from those that are discussed in this report, the modifications should be reviewed by RTF&A to ascertain the applicability of our recommendations. MM Geo -15 Fill Slope Requirements: During Grading City of Santa Clarita • Where the toe of a fill slope terminates on natural, fill, or cut Public Works materials, a keyway is required at the toe of the fill slope. The fill Department slope keyway should be a minimum width of 12 feet, be founded (Engineering Services within competent material, and extend a horizontal distance Division) beyond the toe of the fill to the depth of the keyway. The keyway should be sloped back at a minimum gradient of 2% into the slope. The width of fill slopes shall be no less than 8 feet, and under no circumstances should the fill widths be less than what the compaction equipment being used can fully compact. Benches should be cut into the existing slope to bind the fill to the slope. Benches should be step-like in profile, with each bench not less than 4 feet in height and established in competent material. Compressible or other unsuitable soils should be removed from the slope prior to benching. Competent material is defined as being essentially free of loose soil, heavy fracturing, or erosion -prone material and is established by the Geotechnical Consultant of Record during grading. • Where the top or toe of a fill slope terminates on a natural or cut slope and the natural or cut slope is steeper than a gradient of 3:1, a drainage terrace with a width of at least 6 feet is recommended along the contact. As an alternative, the natural or cut portion of the slope can be excavated and reconstructed as a stability fill slope to provide an all -fill slope condition. Where the contact between the face of the fill slope and the face of a lower natural or cut slope is inclined at 45 degrees or steeper, a drainage terrace would not be required. • When constructing fill slopes, the grading contractor shall avoid spillage of loose material down the face of the slope during the Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 217 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks dumping and rolling operations. Preferably, the incoming load shall be dumped behind the face of the slope and bladed into place. After a maximum of 4 feet of compacted fill has been placed, the contractor shall backroll the outer face of the slope by backing the tamping roller over the top of the slope, thoroughly covering all of the slope surface with overlapping passes of the roller. The foregoing should be repeated after the placement of each 4 -foot thickness of fill. As an alternative, the fill slope can be overbuilt and the slope cut back to expose a compacted core. If the required compaction is not obtained on the fill slope, additional rolling will be required prior to placement of additional fill, or the slope shall be overbuilt and cut back to expose the compacted core. MM Geo -16 Stability Fill Requirements: Stability fills have been recommended During Grading City of Santa Clarita for several of the cut slopes on-site, as discussed in the "Slope Public Works Stability" section of this report. The stability fill slopes should be Department constructed in accordance with Stability Fill Details for Grossly (Engineering Services Stable Slopes (Figure 4), Frankian study. Backdrains should be Division) installed at the backcut of the stability fill as recommended below in Mitigation Measures MM Geo -17 and MM Geo -18. MM Geo -17 Subdrain Requirements: During Grading City of Santa Clarita • Canyon subdrains are recommended to intercept and remove Public Works groundwater within canyon fill areas. Al subdrains should Department extend up -canyon, with the drain inlet carried to within 15 feet of (Engineering Services final pad grade. The approximate locations for recommended Division) subdrains are shown on Figure 4.6-1, Site Geology Map. Specific subdrain locations should be determined in the field during grading operations. The subdrains should be surveyed by the Project Surveyor to establish line and grade during construction, and for future location reference. Subdrain and backdrain excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant. • The subdrains should be installed in accordance with the manufacturers specifications. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 218 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks • A minimum 2% gradient is to be maintained in the subdrain pipes and the pipe shall have at least eight uniformly spaced narrow slots per foot. The width of the slots should not exceed one -sixteenth of an inch. If PVC pipe with drilled perforations is utilized, the diameter of the holes should not exceed three- eighths of an inch if gravel and filter fabric is used, or one-eighth inch -diameter perforations if Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) Designation F-1 Filter Material is used. There should be at least eight uniformly spaced sets of two perforations per lineal foot of pipe. When constructing the subdrain, the pipe should be placed so that the drilled perforations are positioned on the bottom half of the pipe. The upstream end of subdrains should be capped. The final 20 feet of pipe at the downstream end of canyon, stabilization, buttress, and side hill fills shall not be slotted or perforated. Provisions should be made at all times during construction to prevent damage to the subdrain from construction equipment, and to prevent soils from being washed into an exposed subdrain by surface waters. • For runs up to 500 feet, subdrains for the bottom of canyon fills should consist of at least 6 -inch -diameter pipe. For runs of 500 to 1,500 feet, 8 -inch -diameter pipe shall be used. For runs over 1,500 feet, 10 -inch -diameter pipe shall be used. • Canyon subdrains may be installed in a rectangular trench excavated to expose competent material and shall be approved by the Geotechnical Consultant. The subdrains should be surrounded by at least 3 cubic feet per lineal foot of granular filter material and there should be at least 6 inches of compacted granular filter material or gravel on all sides of the pipe. The granular filter material for subdrains should meet the F1 material criteria, or have a gradation approved by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement. As an alternative to the granular filter material, three -quarter -inch -diameter gravel may be placed around the pipe. The gravel should be separated Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 219 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks from the surrounding soils by a filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N, or equivalent, wrapped around the gravel ('burrito wrapped"). MM Geo -18 Backdrains Requirements: Backdrains are required for all stability During Grading City of Santa Clarita fills or buttress fills. Public Works • Backdrains shall consist of 4 -inch -diameter perforated or slotted Department pipe. (Engineering • The vertical spacing of the backdrains shall be a maximum of Services Division) 15 feet, with a horizontal spacing of 100 feet. • Backdrain outlets shall consist of non -perforated pipe. • The backdrain gradient shall be at least 2% to the discharge end. • The exact location of the backdrains shall be determined in the field by the Geotechnical Consultant after the backcut has been made, so that it can be best positioned to intercept potential seepage. MM Geo -19 Surface Drainage Requirements: During Grading City of Santa Clarita • Al surface drainage shall be directed away from proposed Public Works structures through non-erosive devices. The ponding of water Department must not be allowed, especially adjacent to foundations. The (Engineering Services pad gradients shall not slope toward any descending slopes in Division) order to reduce the potential for surficial erosion. Water that flows towards slopes shall be conducted to appropriate discharge locations via non -erodible drainage devices. Drainage devices, including drainage terraces on graded slopes shall be inspected periodically and kept clear of debris. Drainage and erosion control shall be designed in accordance with the standards set forth in the CBC. • Any modification of the grades of building pads, parking areas, etc., could adversely affect drainage at the site. Future landscaping, construction of walkways, planters and walls, etc. must never modify site drainage unless additional measures to enhance drainage (e.g., area drains, additional grading) are Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 220 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks designed and constructed in accordance with the applicable City of Santa Clarita. MM Geo -20 Erosion Protection Requirements During Grading City of Santa Clarita • To reduce the potential for erosion, all permanent cut -and -fill Public Works slopes on-site should be seeded or planted with lightweight, Department deep -rooting, drought -resistant vegetation. Alandscaping expert (Engineering Services should be consulted for ground cover recommendations. Division) Excessive landscape irrigation or leakage from irrigation lines can cause localized slope failures. Therefore, irrigation systems for slope vegetation should be designed and maintained to minimize leakage onto graded slopes. If automatic sprinkler systems are used, they should be adjusted for seasonal variations in rainfall. Vegetation on natural slopes should remain natural and not be landscaped or irrigated in the same manner as graded slopes. • Rodent burrows are known to provide direct conduits for water flow that can decrease slope stability. Therefore, to maintain the integrity of graded slopes, a rodent abatement program shall be instituted. • Even with the implementation of these recommendations, it is not possible to eliminate erosion within hillside developments. Removal of debris from drainage devices, slope maintenance, and landscaping shall be required, especially after periods of heavy rainfall. MM Geo -21 General Grading Requirements During Grading City of Santa Clarita Al fills, unless otherwise specifically designed, shall be compacted Public Works to at least 90% of the maximum dry unit weight as determined Department by the ASTM D1557 Method of Soil Compaction. (Engineering Services No fill shall be placed until the area to receive the fill has been Division) adequately prepared, and subsequently approved by the Geotechnical Consultant of Record or his representative. Fill soils should be kept free of debris and organic material. Rocks or hard fragments larger than 8 inches may not be placed in the fill without approval of the Geotechnical Consultant of Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 221 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks Record or his representative, and in a manner specified for each occurrence. Bedrock fragments larger than 8 inches, or fill soils containing greater than 25% of bedrock fragments larger than 4 inches in diameter, must be removed or processed using successive passes of a sheepsfoot compactor until rock fragments constitute less than 25% of the fill material. The fill material shall be placed in layers which, when compacted, shall not exceed 8 inches per layer. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be mixed thoroughly during the spreading to ensure uniformity of material and moisture. When moisture content of the fill material is too low to obtain adequate compaction, water shall be added and thoroughly dispersed until the soil is approximately 2% to 4% above optimum moisture content. When the moisture content of the fill material is too high to obtain adequate compaction, the fill material shall be aerated by blading, or other satisfactory methods, until the soil is approximately 2% to 4% above optimum moisture content. Fill and cut slopes shall not be constructed at gradients steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). MM Geo -22 Grading Observation. Construction observation shall be made by During Grading City of Santa Clarita the Geotechnical Consultant of Record during any grading activities Public Works within the Project site, to verity the findings within this report. Department Additional recommendations may be required for landfill design (Engineering Services based on conditions uncovered during grading. Division) MM Geo -23 Temporary Excavation. Based on review of the subject plans, it During Grading City of Santa Clarita does not appear that significant temporary excavations will be Public Works required during the construction of the proposed development. Department However, the fellowing recommendations are applicable in areas (Engineering Services where excavations are to be made. Division) • Temporary excavations are not expected to stand vertically in cuts that exceed 4 feet in height. Temporary excavations in excess of 4 feet may be sloped at a gradient of '/4:1, to a Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 222 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks maximum height of 12 feet in favorably oriented Mint Canyon Formation or Terrace Deposits. Temporary slopes within alluvial soils and slopes greater than 12 feet may be sloped at gradients of 1:1. 'Temporary" means a period not exceeding 60 days. Al regulations of State or Federal OSHA shall be fellowed. • If excavations are made during the rainy season (normally from November through April), particular care shall be taken to protect slopes against erosion. Measures to help mitigate erosion, such as the installation of berms, plastic sheeting, or other devices, may be warranted. Surface water shall be prevented from flowing over or ponding at the top of excavations. MM Geo -24 Expansive Bedrock. It is anticipated that bedrock materials exposed During Grading City of Santa Clarita at pad grade may contain expansive claystone beds that could Public Works cause differential expansion. Therefore, within building areas at Department locations where expansive bedrock units are exposed at pad grade, (Engineering Services it is recommended that the bedrock be removed and recompacted Division) to a depth at least 8 feet below the proposed final pad elevations or 5 feet below the bottom of proposed footings, whichever is greater. It is also recommended that the bedrock be removed and recompacted to a depth at least 3 feet below proposed soil subgrade in exposed bedrock areas receiving pavement or hardscape improvements. The soils generated by these over - excavations should be mixed with nonexpansive soils to yield a relatively nonexpansive mixture. If the resulting fill soil is still expansive, special construction techniques, such as pad subgrade saturation or post -tensioned slabs, may be required to reduce the potential for expansive soil—related distress. MM Geo -25 Transition Lots. Proposed building pads located in a cut and fill During Grading City of Santa Clarita transition zone may experience cracking and movement of the Public Works footings and slab due to differing compressibility of the fill, as Department compared to the bedrock material. To reduce the potential for (Engineering Services cracking and differential settlement, the portion of the lot in cut Division) bedrock or terrace deposits should be over -excavated to a depth at Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 223 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks least 5 feet below the proposed finished pad elevation or 3 feet below the bottom of proposed footings, whichever is greater. The over -excavation shall extend at least 5 feet laterally beyond the building limits. Where removal and recompaction for potentially expansive soils or bedrock is also required that the 8 -foot removals be performed as described in the "Expansive Bedrock" section of the RTF&A 2015 report. MM Geo -26 The applicability of the preliminary recommendations for foundation During Grading City of Santa Clarita and retaining wall design should be confirmed at the completion of Public Works grading. Department (Engineering Services Division) MM Geo -27 Paving studies and soil corrosivity tests should be performed at the At Completion of City of Santa Clarita completion of rough grading, to develop detailed recommendations Rough Grading, Public Works for protection of utilities and structures and for construction of the Conduct Paving Department proposed roads. Studies and Soil (Engineering Services Corrosivity Tests Division) MM Geo -28 Expansive Soils. The on-site alluvial soils and terrace deposits are At Completion of City of Santa Clarita expected to have a very low potential for expansion. Compacted Rough Grading, Public Works fills generated from the Mint Canyon Formation are expected to Collect Samples of Department have up to a medium potential for expansion. The compacted fills Compacted Fill (Engineering Services generated by the on-site materials are expected to be classified as Division) having a very low to medium potential for expansion. Samples of the compacted fill shall be obtained at the completion of the rough grading operations to support final foundation design. MM Geo -29 Foundation During Construction City of Santa Clarita • General: Buildings may be supported on continuous or Public Works individual spread footings established in properly compacted fill Department soils. Foundations and floor slabs should be designed by a (Engineering structural engineer, in accordance with the minimum Services Division) requirements of the CBC. • Design Criteria: The recommendations presented in this section are based on the assumption that the proposed structures will Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 224 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks have column loads not exceeding approximately 100 kips and continuous foundation loads not exceeding 3 kips perlineal foot. A bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used in the design of spread foundations. This value can be increased by one-third when considering seismic and wind forces. The bearing material shall consist of compacted fill soil. Individual column pads and continuous wall footings shall be designed to meet the minimum width and depth requirements as set forth in the CBC. Foundation depths shall be measured from the lowest adjacent final grade. • Building Setbacks: Building setbacks for structures located adjacent to either ascending or descending slopes shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in the CBC. Al foundation excavations shall be observed and approved by a representative from our firm prior to placement of reinforcing steel. Foundations shall be deepened, where necessary, to prevent surcharge loads from being imposed on adjacent foundations or utilities. Observation of foundation excavations may also be required by the appropriate reviewing governmental agencies. The contractor shall be familiar with the requirements of the governing reviewing agencies. • Lateral Design: Lateral restraint at the bases of footings or slabs may be assumed to be the product of the dead load and a coefficient of friction of 0.4. Passive pressure on the faces of footings may also be used to resist lateral forces. A passive pressure of zero at the surface of finished grade, increasing at the rate of 250 psf per foot of depth, to a maximum value of 2,500 psf, may be used at this site. The passive pressure and friction may be combined without reduction when evaluating lateral resistance. • Settlement: Provided that the proposed buildings are supported on shallow foundations established in compacted fill soils, as recommended, column loads do not exceed 100 kips, and continuous footings do not exceed 3 kips per lineal foot, it is Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 225 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks estimated that the maximum static settlement will be about 0.75 inches. The total static and seismic settlement is estimated to be about 1.5 inches. It is further estimated that static and seismic differential settlements will be less than 1.0 inches of vertical movement across a horizontal distance of 30 feet. RTF&A shall review the foundation loads after plans are developed to verify the applicability of our recommendations to the proposed structures. MM Geo -30 Floor Slab Support During Construction City of Santa Clarita • General: The floor slab design recommendations presented in Public Works this section are based upon the assumption that the soil Department subgrade in proposed floor slab areas will consist of compacted (Engineering Services fill soil and that floor slabs will be subjected to normal loads with Division) no special requirements. Any surficial soils that become dried or disturbed during the course of construction shall be moisture - conditioned and compacted prior to casting the floor slab. Conventional floor slabs may be utilized at the subject development, provided the subgrade soils consist of compacted fill soils with a very low (Expansion Index of 0 to 20) potential for expansion. If the subgrade soils are determined to have an expansion potential in the low or higher range (Expansion Index greater than 21), post -tensioned floor slabs, as indicated below, are recommended. Post -tensioned floor slabs can also be used in soils with a very low potential for expansion. • Conventional Floor Slabs: Conventional slabs -on -grade should be designed per the recommendations of the CBC. However, as a minimum, the building floor slabs should have a nominal thickness of at least 4 inches and should be reinforced with a No. 4 rebar spaced at 16 inches on center, in each direction, or equivalent. Thicker slabs may be required depending on CBC requirements, the floor loads, and the structural requirements, we defer to the Project Structural Engineer for design of the floor slabs. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 226 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks • Post -Tensioned Floor Slabs Post -tensioned floor slabs should be designed per the recommendations of the CBC. The design values, presented following this paragraph, assume that the proposed floor slabs will be poured monolithic with continuous perimeter edge footings. Perimeter edge footings should have a minimum depth of 12 inches. Footing depths should be measured from the lowest adjacent grade for perimeter footings or the top of slab for interior footings. • Net Bearing Value: An allowable net bearing value of 2,000 psf may be used for footings with a minimum width of 12 inches and a minimum depth of 12 inches below the top of slab or 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. • Coefficient of Friction: 0.75 • Passive Pressure: 250 pcf for level ground condition • Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (K): 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) for a footing width of one foot. For larger footings or floor slabs, this value should be reduced using the following equation: Z r(B+1)lJ Kr=K 2B where: Kr= Reduced Modulus Value K= Modulus of Subgrade Reaction for a One -Foot -Wide Plate B= Width of Large Footing or Slab • Modulus of Elasticity: 1,000 pounds per square inch (psi) • Edge Moisture Variation Distance: Me (Center Lift): 5.25 feet Me (Edge Lift): 2.5 feet • Estimated Differential Movements My (swelling): Low -0.4, Medium -0.9 My (shrink): Low -0.3, Medium -0.7 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 227 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks • Water Vapor: Water vapor transmitted through floor slabs is a common cause of floor covering problems. An impermeable membrane vapor barrier should be installed to reduce excess vapor drive through the floor slab. The function of the impermeable membrane is to reduce the amount of water vapor transmitted through the floor slab. Vapor -related impacts should be expected in areas where a vapor barrier is not installed. Floor slabs shall be underlain by a vapor barrier surrounded by 2 inches of sand above and below it. The membrane should be at least 10 millimeters thick, care shall be taken to preserve the continuity and integrity of the membrane beneath the floor slab. The sand shall be sufficiently moist to remain in place and be stable during construction, however, if the sand above the membrane becomes saturated before placing concrete, the moisture in the sand can become a source of water vapor. Another factor affecting vapor transmission through floor slabs is a high water -to -cement ratio in the concrete used for the floor slab. A high water -to -cement ratio increases the porosity of the concrete, thereby facilitating the transmission of water and water vapor through the slab. The Project Structural Engineer or a concrete mix specialist should provide recommendations for design of concrete for footings and floor slabs in accordance with CBC. MM Geo -31 Retaining Walls During Construction City of Santa Clarita • General: A bearing value of 2,000 psf maybe used in the design Public Works of retaining wall footings. Backfill placed behind retaining walls Department shall be compacted to a minimum of 90% of the maximum dry (Engineering Services density, as determined by the Soil Compaction Test Method Division) (ASTM Standard D1557). When backfilling, walls should be braced. Heavy compaction equipment shall not be used any closer to the back of the wall than the height of the wall. Soils that have an expansion index in excess of 30 shall not be utilized for backfill behind walls that are greater than 3 feet in Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 228 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks height. The backs of retaining walls shall be water -proofed where aesthetics are concerned. • Lateral Earth Pressure: Cantilevered retaining walls separate and independent of buildings, where the surface of the backfill is level and the retained height of soils is less than 15 feet, may be designed assuming that drained, nonexpansive soils will exert a lateral pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 30 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). The indicated pressure assumes that a lateral deflection of up to about 1% of the well height is acceptable at the top of the well. If it is desired to decrease the amount of potential well deflection, a greater lateral pressure could be used in the wall design. Where the surface of the backfill is inclined at 2:1, it may be assumed that drained soils will exert a lateral pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 45 pcf. For the design of a rigid wall where rotation and lateral movement are not acceptable, as in the case of buildings, it may be assumed that drained, nonexpansive soils will exert a rectangular lateral pressure with a maximum pressure equal to 22H psf, where "H" is the well height in feet. The pressure value and distribution may vary significantly when considering wall rigidity and restraining conditions. The structural characteristics of the wall are referred to the Project Structural Engineer. If requested, we can provide additional geotechnical design parameters for specific restrained conditions. In addition to the recommended earth pressure, walls should be designed to resist any lateral surcharges due to nearby buildings, storage, or traffic loads. A drainage system should be provided behind the walls to reduce the potential for development of hydrostatic pressure. If a drainage system is not installed, walls should be designed to resist an additional hydrostatic pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 55 pcf for the full height of the well. • Seismic Lateral Earth Pressure: The preceding recommended values indicate earth pressures for conventional static loading Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 229 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks conditions. Ground shaking associated with earthquakes may cause additional pressure on walls. In addition to the previously mentioned lateral earth pressures, it is recommended that all rigid (building) walls of any height, and cantilevered retaining walls greater than 6 feet in height, be designed to support an additional seismic earth pressure equal to an inverted equivalent fluid pressure of 29 pcf. • Density of Backfill: When designing retaining walls to resist over -turning, it can be assumed that compacted, on-site soils will have a density of 125 pcf. • Drainage: A drainage system should be provided behind retaining walls, or the walls should be designed to resist hydrostatic pressures. • The drainage system could consist of a 4 -inch -diameter perforated pipe placed 6 inches from the base of the wall, with the perforations down, and connected to an outlet device. • The pipe should be sloped at least 1 inch per 50 feet and surrounded on all sides by at least 6 inches of clean gravel. The gravel should be "burrito -wrapped" with filter fabric, such as Mirafi 140N, or equivalent. As an alternative to the gravel and filter fabric, filter material meeting the requirements of LACFCD Designated F-1 Filter Material, and slotted pipe, may be used. • The backside of the wall should be water -proofed. • Avertical, 6 -inch -wide gravel chimney drain, or a drainage geocomposite such as Miradrain, should be placed against and behind retaining walls that are higher than 3 feet. The top of the back drain should be capped with 18 inches of on-site soils. • The installed drainage system should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant of Record prior to backfilling the system. Inspection of the drainage system may also be required by the reviewing governmental agencies. MM Geo -32 Pavement Design: Samples of the on-site soil should be obtained During Construction City of Santa Clarita from near final grade elevation in proposed pavement areas, Community Public following the grading operations, to perform R -value tests. The Works Department Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 230 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks R -value test results would be used to prepare pavement section (Engineering Services recommendations. The preliminary pavement section Division) recommendations presented below are based on the assumption that the on-site soils have an R -value of at least 20. The final pavement section recommendations could vary depending on the results of the actual R -value tests. We would be pleased to provide pavement section recommendations for alternative Traffic Index values upon request. Traffic Asphalt Thickness (CAB) Base Course Thickness Index (inches) (inches) 4 3 5 6 4 9 8 5 14 • Base course material should consist of crushed aggregate base (CAB), as defined by Section 2002.2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction ("Greenbook"), or crushed miscellaneous base (CMB), as defined by Section 200- 2.4 of the Greenbook. Base course material should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density of that material. • Base course material should be purchased from a supplier who will certify that it will meet or exceed the specifications in the Greenbook, as indicated. We could, upon request, perform sieve analysis and sand equivalency tests on material delivered to the site that appears suspect. Additional tests could be performed, upon request, to determine if the material is in compliance with the remainder of the specifications indicated in the Greenbook. • The pavement section recommendations presented above are based upon assumed Traffic Index values. RTF&A does not take responsibility for the numerical determination of the Traffic Index values, nor the areas where they apply within the site. MM Geo -33 Seismic Design. The following factors are recommended for During Construction City of Santa Clarita seismic force design of structures at the subject site. The Public Works Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 231 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks parameters were determined using the U.S. Seismic Design Maps Department at the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Earthquakes (Engineering Services Hazard website. Division) Site Class D Ss 2.509 S1 0.898 SMs 2.509 SM1 1.347 SDs 1.673 SDI 0.898 PGA 0.899 Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM Haz-1 The structures on-site were constructed prior to 1981. Based on the Prior to Demolition and City of Santa Clarita age of construction, building materials in on-site structures may Construction Community include asbestos containing materials (ACM), and certain building Development materials are presumed to contain ACM (PACM), unless testing has Department (Planning shown otherwise. As of October 1, 1995, OSHA made building Division) owners responsible for complying with the asbestos construction and standard, for buildings built in 1981 or earlier. The building owner is Public Works Department responsible for identifying the presence, location and quantity of (Building and Safety asbestos containing building materials, if warranted. The building Division) owner must tell employees, other employers, and tenants in the building of the presence and location of asbestos or presumed asbestos containing materials (PACM). If the building owner intends to demolish or remodel the structure(s), the building owner shall hire a California Certified Asbestos Consultant for assistance in compliance. MM Haz-2 Prior to construction, the Project Applicant shall prepare a Traffic Prior to Construction City of Santa Clarita Control Plan for review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer Public Works that shall be implemented during the construction phase. Department (Traffic and Transportation Planning Division) Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 232 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks Noise MM N-1 The Project shall adhere to Section 11.44.080 of the SCMC During Construction City of Santa Clarita (Special Noise Sources—Construction and Building). As stated Community therein, no person shall engage in any construction work which Development requires a building permit from the City on sites within 300 feet of a Department (Planning residentially zoned property except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. Division) to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on and Saturday. Further, no work shall be performed on the following Public Works Department public holidays: New Year's Day, Independence Day, Thanksgiving, (Building and Safety Christmas, Memorial Day and Labor Day. Division) MM N-2 Noise and ground -borne vibration construction activities whose During Construction City of Santa Clarita specific location on the Project site may be flexible (e.g., operation Community of compressors and generators, cement mixing, general truck Development idling) shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest off- Department (Planning site land uses. Division) and Public Works Department (Building and Safety Division) MM N-3 When possible, construction activities shall be scheduled so as to During Construction City of Santa Clarita avoid operating several pieces of equipment simultaneously, which Community causes high noise levels. Development Department (Planning Division) and Public Works Department (Building and Safety Division) Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 233 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks MM N-4 Flexible sound control curtains shall be placed around all drilling During Construction City of Santa Clarita apparatuses, drill rigs, and jackhammers when in use. Community Development Department (Planning Division) and Public Works Department (Building and Safety Division) MM N-5 The Project contractor shall use power construction equipment with During Construction City of Santa Clarita state-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling devices. Community Development Department (Planning Division) and Public Works Department (Building and Safety Division) MM N-6 Barriers such as flexible sound control curtains shall be erected During Construction City of Santa Clarita around heavy equipment to minimize the amount of noise on the Community surrounding land uses to the maximum extent feasible during Development construction. Department (Planning Division) and Public Works Department (Building and Safety Division) MM N-7 Al construction truck traffic shall be restricted to truck routes During Construction City of Santa Clarita approved by the City, which shall avoid residential areas and other Community sensitive receptors to the extent feasible. Development Department (Planning Division) and Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 234 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks Public Works Department (Building and Safety Division) MM N-8 A construction notice shall be prepared and shall include the Prior to and During City of Santa Clarita following information: job site address, permit number, name and Construction Community phone number of the contractor and owner or owner's agent, hours Development of construction allowed by code or any discretionary approval for Department (Planning the site, and City telephone numbers where violations can be Division) reported. The notice shall be posted and maintained at the and construction site prior to the start of construction and displayed in a Public Works Department location that is readily visible to the public and approved by the (Building and Safety City. Division) MM N-9 Consistent with Policy N 3.1.2 of the City's Noise Element, where Review and Approval City of Santa Clarita the projected exterior noise levels could exceed 65 CNEL at single- of Site Plan Community family residences (rear yards), open space areas, and common Development recreational and open space areas for multi -family developments, Department (Planning the Applicant shall provide noise barriers, setbacks, and site design Division) standards to reduce future on-site traffic noise levels to the maximum extent feasible. MM N-10 Consistent with Policy N 3.1.9 (Mixed -Use Developments) of the Prior to Certificate of City of Santa Clarita City's Noise Element, the Project shall implement a buyer and Occupancy Community renter notification program for residences where appropriate, to Development educate and inform potential buyers and renters of the sources of Department (Planning noise in the area and/or new sources of noise that may occur in the Division) future. As determined by the reviewing authority, notification may be appropriate in the following areas: within 200 feet of commercial uses in mixed-use developments, potential buyers and renters should receive notice that the commercial uses within the mixed- use developments may generate noise in excess of levels typically found in residential areas, that the commercial uses may change over time, and the associated noise levels and frequency of noise events may change along with the use. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 235 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks MM N-11 The Project shall comply with Title 24 Noise Insulation Standards, Review and Approval City of Santa Clarita which specifies the maximum allowable sound transmission of Site Plan Community between dwelling units in multi -family residential buildings, and Development limits allowable interior noise levels in habitable spaces to 45 dBA Department (Planning CNEL. Division) MM N-12 Prior to the issuance of building permits for uses fronting Sand Prior to Issuance of City of Santa Clarita Canyon and Soledad Canyon Roads, the project developer shall Building Permit Community submit evidence demonstrating that all feasible design features Development have been considered to meet the City's exterior noise standard of Department (Planning 65 dBA CNEL. Locations that could be exposed to future exterior Division) noise levels above 65 dBA CNEL shall consider at least the and following: 1) Increase setbacks along Sand Canyon and Solaced Public Works Department Canyon Roads to the maximum extent feasible, 2) Consider the use (Building and Safety of noise barriers between the roadway sources and the receptors Division) (earthen berms, masonry walls, and vegetation may be appropriate), and/or 3) Prohibit balconies for multi -family units facing Sand Canyon and Sdedad Canyon Roads. MM N-13 The Project shall implement a buyer and renter notification program Prior to Certificate of City of Santa Clarita for residences where appropriate, to educate and inform potential Occupancy Community buyers and renters that due to traffic levels on Sand Canyon Road, Development Soledad Canyon Road and the SR -14 Freeway, noise in excess of Department levels typically found in residential areas may be possible. (Planning Division) Public Services MM PS -1 Concurrent with the issuance of building permits, the Project Payment of Fees at City of Santa Clarita Applicant shall participate in the Developer Fee Program to the Issuance of Building Community satisfaction of the Los Angeles County Fire Department and/or City Permit Development of Santa Oarita. Department (Planning Division) and Los Angeles County Fire Department Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 236 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks MM PS -2 Adequate access to all buildings on the Project site shall be During Construction City of Santa Clarita provided for emergency vehicles during the building construction Community process. Development Department (Planning Division) MM PS -3 Adequate water availability shall be provided to service construction During Construction City of Santa Clarita activities. Community Development Department (Planning Division) MM PS -4 Al on-site development shall comply with the applicable Los Review and Approval City of Santa Clarita Angeles County and City of Santa Clarita code requirements for of Final Site Plan Community construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants, as Development stipulated by the Los Angeles County Fire Department or the City of Department (Planning Santa Clarita through Project approvals or building plan reviews. Division) and Los Angeles County Fire Department MM PS -5 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant, or Prior to Issuance of City of Santa Clarita responsible party, shall obtain the necessary clearances from and Building Permit Community shall comply with all applicable conditions imposed by Los Angeles Development County Fire Department, including but not limited to those from the Department (Planning Planning Division, Land Development Unit, Forestry Division, or Division) Fuel Modification Unit. and Los Angeles County Fire Department MM PS -6 The Project Applicant, or responsible party, shall file all landscape Review and Approval City of Santa Clarita plans with the Los Angeles County Fire Department Fuel of Landscape Plans Community Modification Unit to ensure compliance with the High Fire Hazard Development Seventy Zone. Department (Planning Division) and Los Angeles County Fire Department Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 237 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks MM PS -7 During construction, private security patrols shall be utilized to During Construction City of Santa Clarita protect the Project site. Community Development Department (Planning Division) MM PS -8 Prior to construction activities, the Project Applicant shall have a Prior to Construction City of Santa Clarita construction traffic control plan approved by the City of Santa Community Clarita. Development Department (Planning Division) MM PS -9 The Project Applicant, or designee, shall pay the City's law Payment of Fees at City of Santa Clarita enforcement facilities impact fee in effect at the time of issuance of Issuance of Building Community a building permit. Permit Development Department (Planning Division) and Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department MM PS -10 As find development plans are submitted to the City of Santa Review and Approval City of Santa Clarita C arita for approval in the future, the Los Angeles County Sheriffs of Final Site Plan Community Department design requirements that reduce demands for service Development and ensure adequate public safety shall be incorporated into the Department (Planning building design. The design requirements for this Project shall Division) include: and • Proper lighting in open areas and parking lots to the satisfaction Los Angeles County of the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department, around and Sheriff's Department throughout the development to enhance crime prevention and enforcement efforts • Sufficient street lighting for the Project's streets • Good visibility of doors and windows from the streets and between buildings on the Project site • Building address numbers on both residential and commercial/retail uses are lighted and readily apparent from the streets for emergency response agencies Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 238 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks • Plant low -growing groundcover and shade trees, to the extent feasible, rather than a predominance of shrubs that could conceal potential criminal activity around buildings and parking areas MM PS -11 The Project Applicant, or responsible party, shall pay the required Payment of Fees at City of Santa Clarita mitigation fees to the Sulphur Springs Union School District as Issuance of Building Community stipulated in the School Facilities Mitigation Agreement. Permit Development Department (Planning Division) MM PS -12 The Project Applicant, or responsible party, shall enter into an Agreement with City of Santa Clarita Agreement with the William S. Hart Union High School District prior School District and Community to final map. Al fees shall be paid in accordance with the Payment of Fees at Development Agreement. Issuance of Building Department (Planning Permit Division) MM PS -13 The Project Applicant shall pay a library facilities mitigation fee. Payment of Fees at City of Santa Clarita Currently this fee is $800.00 per residential unit. This is the Issuance of Building Community estimated fee that would be collected to pay for newlibrary Permit Development construction and items totaling $464,000.00. Department (Planning Division) Traffic and Circulation MM T-1 Sand Canyon at Sdedad Canyon. Modify traffic signal timing to Prior to Certificate of City of Santa Clarita coordinate with Kenroy Avenue and SR -14 SB Ramp intersections Occupancy Public Works along Soledad Canyon Road. Department (Traffic and Transportation Planning Division) and Caltrans Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 239 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks MM T-2 SR -14 SB Ramps at Soledad Canyon. Modify traffic signal to Prior to Certificate of City of Santa Clarita change westbound left -turn phasing from permissive to protected Occupancy Public Works left -turn phasing. Department (Traffic and Transportation Planning Division) and Caltrans MM T-3 The Project Developer shall enter into a Mitigation Agreement with Final Mitigation City of Santa Clarita Caltrans. Said Mitigation Agreement shall be finalized prior to the Agreement Prior to Public Works recordation of a final map. Recordation of Final Department (Traffic Map and Transportation Planning Division) and Caltrans MM T-4 Sand Canyon at Sdedad Canyon (Cumulative Conditions). Modify Prior to Certificate of City of Santa Clarita traffic signal timing to coordinate with Kenroy Avenue and SR -14 Occupancy Public Works SB Ramp intersections along Soledad Canyon Road. Department (Traffic and Transportation Planning Division) and Caltrans MM T-5 Sand Canyon at Sdedad Canyon (Cumulative Conditions). Modify Prior to Certificate of City of Santa Clarita intersection to restripe one northbound right -turn lane to a through Occupancy Public Works lane (for 2 NB Left, 2 NB Through and 1 NB Right) (Project Share = Department (Traffic 24%). and Transportation Planning Division) and Caltrans MM T-6 SR -14 SB Ramps at Soledad Canyon (Cumulative Conditions). Prior to Certificate of City of Santa Clarita Modify traffic signal to change westbound left -turn phasing from Occupancy Public Works permissive to protected left -turn phasing. Department (Traffic and Transportation Planning Division) and Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 240 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks Caltrans MM T-7 SR -14 Freeway Mainline (Cumulative Conditions). Contribute pro- Prior to Certificate of City of Santa Clarita rata share to the anticipated costs for design and implementation of Occupancy Public Works future improvements. (Project Share = 1.6%). Department (Traffic and Transportation Planning Division) and Caltrans Utilities and Service Systems MM Util-1 The project application shall complete and submit to the Building & Prior to Construction City of Santa Clarita Safety Division a Construction and Demolition Materials Public Works Management Plan (C&DMMP), approved by the City's Director of Department (Building Public Works, or the Director's Designee, on a C&DMMP form and Safety Division) approved by the City. The completed C&DMMP, at a minimum, shall indicate all of the following: 1. the estimated weight of project C&D materials, by materials type, to be generated, 2. the maximum weight of C&D materials that it is feasible to divert, considering cost, energy consumption and delays, via reuse or recycling, 3. the vendor or facility that the Applicant proposes to use to collect, divert, market, reuse or receive the C&D materials, 4. the estimated weight of residual C&D materials that would be transported for disposal in a landfill or transformation facility, and 5. the estimated weight of inert waste to be removed from the waste stream and not disposed of in a solid waste landfill. (General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 3.17-6) MM Util-2 The Project Applicant shall provide adequate areas for the Review and Approval City of Santa Clarita collection and loading of recyclable materials (i.e., paper products, of Site Plans, and Community glass, and other recyclables) in compliance with the State Model During Project Development Ordinance, implemented on September 1, 1994, in accordance with Operations Department (Planning Division) Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 241 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Verification of Compliance Mitigation Measure Monitoring Timing Monitoring Agency Initials Date Remarks AB 1327, Chapter 18, California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling and Access Act of 1991. (General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure 3.17-2) City of Santa Clarita Public Works Department (Building and Safety Division) MM Util-3 The Project Applicant shall be required to implement waste During Project City of Santa Clarita reduction programs in conformance with the City's Source Operations Community Reduction and Recycling Element program. (General Plan EIR Development Mitigation Measure 3.17-4) Department (Planning Division) MM Util-4 Any hazardous waste that is generated on site, or is found on site During Project City of Santa Clarita during demolition, rehabilitation, or new construction activities shall Operations Community be remediated, stored, handled, and transported in compliance per Development appropriate local, state, and federal laws, as well as with the City's Department (Planning Source Reduction and Recycling Element. (General Plan EIR Division) Mitigation Measure 3.17-5) MM Util-5 Payment of a connection fee to the County Sanitation Districts of Payment of Fee Prior City of Santa Clarita Los Angeles County shall be made prior to issuance of a permit to to Issuance of Public Works connect (directly or indirectly) to the County Sanitation Districts of Connection Permit Department (Building Los Angeles County's Sewerage System. and Safety Division) and County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 242 5. Project Design Features and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5.3 SCAQMD Rule 403 South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, is an attachment to PDF -12. The rule is provided in its entirety on the following pages and shall be implemented during construction. Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. August 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR 243 (Adopted May 7, 1976) (Amended November 6, 1992) (Amended July 9, 1993) (Amended February 14, 1997) (Amended December 11, 1998)(Amended April 2, 2004) (Amended June 3, 2005) RULE 403. FUGITIVE DUST (a) Purpose The purpose of this Rule is to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air as a result of anthropogenic (man-made) fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to prevent, reduce or mitigate fugitive dust emissions. (b) Applicability The provisions of this Rule shall apply to any activity or man-made condition capable of generating fugitive dust. (c) Definitions (1) ACTIVE OPERATIONS means any source capable of generating fugitive dust, including, but not limited to, earth -moving activities, construction/demolition activities, disturbed surface area, or heavy- and light-duty vehicular movement. (2) AGGREGATE -RELATED PLANTS are defined as facilities that produce and / or mix sand and gravel and crushed stone. (3) AGRICULTURAL HANDBOOK means the region -specific guidance document that has been approved by the Governing Board or hereafter approved by the Executive Officer and the U.S. EPA. For the South Coast Air Basin, the Board -approved region -specific guidance document is the Rule 403 Agricultural Handbook dated December 1998. For the Coachella Valley, the Board -approved region -specific guidance document is the Rule 403 Coachella Valley Agricultural Handbook dated April 2, 2004. (4) ANEMOMETERS are devices used to measure wind speed and direction in accordance with the performance standards, and maintenance and calibration criteria as contained in the most recent Rule 403 Implementation Handbook. (5) BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL MEASURES means fugitive dust control actions that are set forth in Table 1 of this Rule. 403-1 Rule 403 (cont) (Amended June 3, 2005) (6) BULK MATERIAL is sand, gravel, soil, aggregate material less than two inches in length or diameter, and other organic or inorganic particulate matter. (7) CEMENT MANUFACTURING FACILITY is any facility that has a cement kiln at the facility. (8) CHEMICAL STABILIZERS are any non-toxic chemical dust suppressant which must not be used if prohibited for use by the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, the California Air Resources Board, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), or any applicable law, rule or regulation. The chemical stabilizers shall meet any specifications, criteria, or tests required by any federal, state, or local water agency. Unless otherwise indicated, the use of a non-toxic chemical stabilizer shall be of sufficient concentration and application frequency to maintain a stabilized surface. (9) COMMERCIAL POULTRY RANCH means any building, structure, enclosure, or premises where more than 100 fowl are kept or maintained for the primary purpose of producing eggs or meat for sale or other distribution. (10) CONFINED ANIMAL FACILITY means a source or group of sources of air pollution at an agricultural source for the raising of 3,360 or more fowl or 50 or more animals, including but not limited to, any structure, building, installation, farm, corral, coop, feed storage area, milking parlor, or system for the collection, storage, or distribution of solid and liquid manure; if domesticated animals, including horses, sheep, goats, swine, beef cattle, rabbits, chickens, turkeys, or ducks are corralled, penned, or otherwise caused to remain in restricted areas for commercial agricultural purposes and feeding is by means other than grazing. (11) CONSTRUCTION/DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES means any on-site mechanical activities conducted in preparation of, or related to, the building, alteration, rehabilitation, demolition or improvement of property, including, but not limited to the following activities: grading, excavation, loading, crushing, cutting, planing, shaping or ground breaking. (12) CONTRACTOR means any person who has a contractual arrangement to conduct an active operation for another person. (13) DAIRY FARM is an operation on a property, or set of properties that are contiguous or separated only by a public right-of-way, that raises cows or 403-2 Rule 403 (cont) (Amended June 3, 2005) produces milk from cows for the purpose of making a profit or for a livelihood. Heifer and calf farms are dairy farms. (14) DISTURBED SURFACE AREA means a portion of the earth's surface which has been physically moved, uncovered, destabilized, or otherwise modified from its undisturbed natural soil condition, thereby increasing the potential for emission of fugitive dust. This definition excludes those areas which have: (A) been restored to a natural state, such that the vegetative ground cover and soil characteristics are similar to adjacent or nearby natural conditions; (B) been paved or otherwise covered by a permanent structure; or (C) sustained a vegetative ground cover of at least 70 percent of the native cover for a particular area for at least 30 days. (15) DUST SUPPRESSANTS are water, hygroscopic materials, or non-toxic chemical stabilizers used as a treatment material to reduce fugitive dust emissions. (16) EARTH -MOVING ACTIVITIES means the use of any equipment for any activity where soil is being moved or uncovered, and shall include, but not be limited to the following: grading, earth cutting and filling operations, loading or unloading of dirt or bulk materials, adding to or removing from open storage piles of bulk materials, landfill operations, weed abatement through disking, and soil mulching. (17) DUST CONTROL SUPERVISOR means a person with the authority to expeditiously employ sufficient dust mitigation measures to ensure compliance with all Rule 403 requirements at an active operation. (18) FUGITIVE DUST means any solid particulate matter that becomes airborne, other than that emitted from an exhaust stack, directly or indirectly as a result of the activities of any person. (19) HIGH WIND CONDITIONS means that instantaneous wind speeds exceed 25 miles per hour. (20) INACTIVE DISTURBED SURFACE AREA means any disturbed surface area upon which active operations have not occurred or are not expected to occur for a period of 20 consecutive days. (21) LARGE OPERATIONS means any active operations on property which contains 50 or more acres of disturbed surface area, or any earth -moving operation with a daily earth -moving or throughput volume of 3,850 cubic 403-3 Rule 403 (cont) (Amended June 3, 2005) meters (5,000 cubic yards) or more three times during the most recent 365 -day period. (22) OPEN STORAGE PILE is any accumulation of bulk material, which is not fully enclosed, covered or chemically stabilized, and which attains a height of three feet or more and a total surface area of 150 or more square feet. (23) PARTICULATE MATTER means any material, except uncombined water, which exists in a finely divided form as a liquid or solid at standard conditions. (24) PAVED ROAD means a public or private improved street, highway, alley, public way, or easement that is covered by typical roadway materials, but excluding access roadways that connect a facility with a public paved roadway and are not open to through traffic. Public paved roads are those open to public access and that are owned by any federal, state, county, municipal or any other governmental or quasi -governmental agencies. Private paved roads are any paved roads not defined as public. (25) PM10 means particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter smaller than or equal to 10 microns as measured by the applicable State and Federal reference test methods. (26) PROPERTY LINE means the boundaries of an area in which either a person causing the emission or a person allowing the emission has the legal use or possession of the property. Where such property is divided into one or more sub -tenancies, the property line(s) shall refer to the boundaries dividing the areas of all sub -tenancies. (27) RULE 403 IMPLEMENTATION HANDBOOK means a guidance document that has been approved by the Governing Board on April 2, 2004 or hereafter approved by the Executive Officer and the U.S. EPA. (28) SERVICE ROADS are paved or unpaved roads that are used by one or more public agencies for inspection or maintenance of infrastructure and which are not typically used for construction -related activity. (29) SIMULTANEOUS SAMPLING means the operation of two PM10 samplers in such a manner that one sampler is started within five minutes of the other, and each sampler is operated for a consecutive period which must be not less than 290 minutes and not more than 310 minutes. (30) SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN means the non -desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties and all of Orange 403-4 Rule 403 (cont) (Amended June 3, 2005) County as defined in California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Section 60104. The area is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the north and east by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains, and on the south by the San Diego county line. (31) STABILIZED SURFACE means any previously disturbed surface area or open storage pile which, through the application of dust suppressants, shows visual or other evidence of surface crusting and is resistant to wind - driven fugitive dust and is demonstrated to be stabilized. Stabilization can be demonstrated by one or more of the applicable test methods contained in the Rule 403 Implementation Handbook. (32) TRACK -OUT means any bulk material that adheres to and agglomerates on the exterior surface of motor vehicles, haul trucks, and equipment (including tires) that have been released onto a paved road and can be removed by a vacuum sweeper or a broom sweeper under normal operating conditions. (33) TYPICAL ROADWAY MATERIALS means concrete, asphaltic concrete, recycled asphalt, asphalt, or any other material of equivalent performance as determined by the Executive Officer, and the U.S. EPA. (34) UNPAVED ROADS means any unsealed or unpaved roads, equipment paths, or travel ways that are not covered by typical roadway materials. Public unpaved roads are any unpaved roadway owned by federal, state, county, municipal or other governmental or quasi -governmental agencies. Private unpaved roads are all other unpaved roadways not defined as public. (35) VISIBLE ROADWAY DUST means any sand, soil, dirt, or other solid particulate matter which is visible upon paved road surfaces and which can be removed by a vacuum sweeper or a broom sweeper under normal operating conditions. (36) WIND -DRIVEN FUGITIVE DUST means visible emissions from any disturbed surface area which is generated by wind action alone. (37) WIND GUST is the maximum instantaneous wind speed as measured by an anemometer. (d) Requirements (1) No person shall cause or allow the emissions of fugitive dust from any active operation, open storage pile, or disturbed surface area such that: 403-5 Rule 403 (cont) (Amended June 3, 2005) (A) the dust remains visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source; or (B) the dust emission exceeds 20 percent opacity (as determined by the appropriate test method included in the Rule 403 Implementation Handbook), if the dust emission is the result of movement of a motorized vehicle. (2) No person shall conduct active operations without utilizing the applicable best available control measures included in Table 1 of this Rule to minimize fugitive dust emissions from each fugitive dust source type within the active operation. (3) No person shall cause or allow PM10 levels to exceed 50 micrograms per cubic meter when determined, by simultaneous sampling, as the difference between upwind and downwind samples collected on high-volume particulate matter samplers or other U.S. EPA -approved equivalent method for PM10 monitoring. If sampling is conducted, samplers shall be: (A) Operated, maintained, and calibrated in accordance with 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 50, Appendix J, or appropriate U.S. EPA -published documents for U.S. EPA -approved equivalent method(s) for PM 10. (B) Reasonably placed upwind and downwind of key activity areas and as close to the property line as feasible, such that other sources of fugitive dust between the sampler and the property line are minimized. (4) No person shall allow track -out to extend 25 feet or more in cumulative length from the point of origin from an active operation. Notwithstanding the preceding, all track -out from an active operation shall be removed at the conclusion of each workday or evening shift. (5) No person shall conduct an active operation with a disturbed surface area of five or more acres, or with a daily import or export of 100 cubic yards or more of bulk material without utilizing at least one of the measures listed in subparagraphs (d)(5)(A) through (d)(5)(E) at each vehicle egress from the site to a paved public road. (A) Install a pad consisting of washed gravel (minimum -size: one inch) maintained in a clean condition to a depth of at least six inches and extending at least 30 feet wide and at least 50 feet long. 403-6 Rule 403 (cont) (Amended June 3, 2005) (B) Pave the surface extending at least 100 feet and at least 20 feet wide. (C) Utilize a wheel shaker/wheel spreading device consisting of raised dividers (rails, pipe, or grates) at least 24 feet long and 10 feet wide to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the site. (D) Install and utilize a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the site. (E) Any other control measures approved by the Executive Officer and the U.S. EPA as equivalent to the actions specified in subparagraphs (d)(5)(A) through (d)(5)(D). (6) Beginning January 1, 2006, any person who operates or authorizes the operation of a confined animal facility subject to this Rule shall implement the applicable conservation management practices specified in Table 4 of this Rule. (e) Additional Requirements for Large Operations (1) Any person who conducts or authorizes the conducting of a large operation subject to this Rule shall implement the applicable actions specified in Table 2 of this Rule at all times and shall implement the applicable actions specified in Table 3 of this Rule when the applicable performance standards can not be met through use of Table 2 actions; and shall: (A) submit a fully executed Large Operation Notification (Form 403 N) to the Executive Officer within 7 days of qualifying as a large operation; (B) include, as part of the notification, the name(s), address(es), and phone number(s) of the person(s) responsible for the submittal, and a description of the operation(s), including a map depicting the location of the site; (C) maintain daily records to document the specific dust control actions taken, maintain such records for a period of not less than three years; and make such records available to the Executive Officer upon request; 403-7 Rule 403 (cont) (Amended June 3, 2005) (D) install and maintain project signage with project contact signage that meets the minimum standards of the Rule 403 Implementation Handbook, prior to initiating any earthmoving activities; (E) identify a dust control supervisor that: (i) is employed by or contracted with the property owner or developer; (ii) is on the site or available on-site within 30 minutes during working hours; (iii) has the authority to expeditiously employ sufficient dust mitigation measures to ensure compliance with all Rule requirements; (iv) has completed the AQMD Fugitive Dust Control Class and has been issued a valid Certificate of Completion for the class; and (F) notify the Executive Officer in writing within 30 days after the site no longer qualifies as a large operation as defined by paragraph (c)(18). (2) Any Large Operation Notification submitted to the Executive Officer or AQMD-approved dust control plan shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of written acceptance by the Executive Officer. Any Large Operation Notification accepted pursuant to paragraph (e)(1), excluding those submitted by aggregate -related plants and cement manufacturing facilities must be resubmitted annually by the person who conducts or authorizes the conducting of a large operation, at least 30 days prior to the expiration date, or the submittal shall no longer be valid as of the expiration date. If all fugitive dust sources and corresponding control measures or special circumstances remain identical to those identified in the previously accepted submittal or in an AQMD-approved dust control plan, the resubmittal may be a simple statement of no -change (Form 403NC). (f) Compliance Schedule The newly amended provisions of this Rule shall become effective upon adoption. Pursuant to subdivision (e), any existing site that qualifies as a large operation will have 60 days from the date of Rule adoption to comply with the notification and recordkeeping requirements for large operations. Any Large Operation 403-8 Rule 403 (cont) (Amended June 3, 2005) Notification or AQMD-approved dust control plan which has been accepted prior to the date of adoption of these amendments shall remain in effect and the Large Operation Notification or AQMD-approved dust control plan annual resubmittal date shall be one year from adoption of this Rule amendment. (g) Exemptions (1) The provisions of this Rule shall not apply to: (A) Dairy farms. (B) Confined animal facilities provided that the combined disturbed surface area within one continuous property line is one acre or less. (C) Agricultural vegetative crop operations provided that the combined disturbed surface area within one continuous property line and not separated by a paved public road is 10 acres or less. (D) Agricultural vegetative crop operations within the South Coast Air Basin, whose combined disturbed surface area includes more than 10 acres provided that the person responsible for such operations: (i) voluntarily implements the conservation management practices contained in the Rule 403 Agricultural Handbook; (ii) completes and maintains the self-monitoring form documenting sufficient conservation management practices, as described in the Rule 403 Agricultural Handbook; and (iii) makes the completed self-monitoring form available to the Executive Officer upon request. (E) Agricultural vegetative crop operations outside the South Coast Air Basin whose combined disturbed surface area includes more than 10 acres provided that the person responsible for such operations: (i) voluntarily implements the conservation management practices contained in the Rule 403 Coachella Valley Agricultural Handbook; and (ii) completes and maintains the self-monitoring form documenting sufficient conservation management practices, as described in the Rule 403 Coachella Valley Agricultural Handbook; and (iii) makes the completed self-monitoring form available to the Executive Officer upon request. 403-9 Rule 403 (cont) (Amended June 3, 2005) (F) Active operations conducted during emergency life-threatening situations, or in conjunction with any officially declared disaster or state of emergency. (G) Active operations conducted by essential service utilities to provide electricity, natural gas, telephone, water and sewer during periods of service outages and emergency disruptions. (H) Any contractor subsequent to the time the contract ends, provided that such contractor implemented the required control measures during the contractual period. (1) Any grading contractor, for a phase of active operations, subsequent to the contractual completion of that phase of earth- moving activities, provided that the required control measures have been implemented during the entire phase of earth -moving activities, through and including five days after the final grading inspection. (J) Weed abatement operations ordered by a county agricultural commissioner or any state, county, or municipal fire department, provided that: (i) mowing, cutting or other similar process is used which maintains weed stubble at least three inches above the soil; and (ii) any discing or similar operation which cuts into and disturbs the soil, where watering is used prior to initiation of these activities, and a determination is made by the agency issuing the weed abatement order that, due to fire hazard conditions, rocks, or other physical obstructions, it is not practical to meet the conditions specified in clause (g)(1)(H)(i). The provisions this clause shall not exempt the owner of any property from stabilizing, in accordance with paragraph (d)(2), disturbed surface areas which have been created as a result of the weed abatement actions. (K) sandblasting operations. (2) The provisions of paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(3) shall not apply: (A) When wind gusts exceed 25 miles per hour, provided that: 403-10 Rule 403 (cont) (Amended June 3, 2005) (i) The required Table 3 contingency measures in this Rule are implemented for each applicable fugitive dust source type, and; (ii) records are maintained in accordance with subparagraph (e)(1)(C). (B) To unpaved roads, provided such roads: (i) are used solely for the maintenance of wind -generating equipment; or (ii) are unpaved public alleys as defined in Rule 1186; or (iii) are service roads that meet all of the following criteria: (a) are less than 50 feet in width at all points along the road; (b) are within 25 feet of the property line; and (c) have a traffic volume less than 20 vehicle -trips per day. (C) To any active operation, open storage pile, or disturbed surface area for which necessary fugitive dust preventive or mitigative actions are in conflict with the federal Endangered Species Act, as determined in writing by the State or federal agency responsible for making such determinations. (3) The provisions of (d)(2) shall not apply to any aggregate -related plant or cement manufacturing facility that implements the applicable actions specified in Table 2 of this Rule at all times and shall implement the applicable actions specified in Table 3 of this Rule when the applicable performance standards of paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(3) can not be met through use of Table 2 actions. (4) The provisions of paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2), and (d)(3) shall not apply to: (A) Blasting operations which have been permitted by the California Division of Industrial Safety; and (B) Motion picture, television, and video production activities when dust emissions are required for visual effects. In order to obtain this exemption, the Executive Officer must receive notification in writing at least 72 hours in advance of any such activity and no nuisance results from such activity. (5) The provisions of paragraph (d)(3) shall not apply if the dust control actions, as specified in Table 2, are implemented on a routine basis for 403-11 Rule 403 (cont) (Amended June 3, 2005) each applicable fugitive dust source type. To qualify for this exemption, a person must maintain records in accordance with subparagraph (e)(1)(C). (6) The provisions of paragraph (d)(4) shall not apply to earth coverings of public paved roadways where such coverings are approved by a local government agency for the protection of the roadway, and where such coverings are used as roadway crossings for haul vehicles provided that such roadway is closed to through traffic and visible roadway dust is removed within one day following the cessation of activities. (7) The provisions of subdivision (e) shall not apply to: (A) officially -designated public parks and recreational areas, including national parks, national monuments, national forests, state parks, state recreational areas, and county regional parks. (B) any large operation which is required to submit a dust control plan to any city or county government which has adopted a District - approved dust control ordinance. (C) any large operation subject to Rule 1158, which has an approved dust control plan pursuant to Rule 1158, provided that all sources of fugitive dust are included in the Rule 1158 plan. (8) The provisions of subparagraph (e)(1)(A) through (e)(1)(C) shall not apply to any large operation with an AQMD-approved fugitive dust control plan provided that there is no change to the sources and controls as identified in (h) Fees the AQMD-approved fugitive dust control plan. Any person conducting active operations for which the Executive Officer conducts upwind/downwind monitoring for PM10 pursuant to paragraph (d)(3) shall be assessed applicable Ambient Air Analysis Fees pursuant to Rule 304.1. Applicable fees shall be waived for any facility which is exempted from paragraph (d)(3) or meets the requirements of paragraph (d)(3). 403-12 N M t 'ct ct ct .0 2C�o U O O U N u .-CL U N > > > > > > > > > > > w � °oma° cC w M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 h U U U 1i v 0 O O O O O O O O ct O -o O O U ct Y j ct N N bA it it Y Y"Ji y W t ct cC 'C O U O s. y .,y t .Vi N 0 U t to � ♦+ .� Eo v 0 O O O O O O O O ct O -o O O U ct Y j ct N N bA O O s. y .,y v 0 O O O O O O O O ct O -o O O O s. y .,y Eo U U QI cC Ui cC Ui cC .1. cC Ui Ui U cC Ui cC Vi Ui N �/� QI W 'O 'O Ui QU v 0 O O O O O O O O . N M 0� oc 00 O O O ct O O O . N M 0� oc 00 O O O N M u v s. s. �' O cC 'O G � U f,J O• qD i-• v� � vii O O U ¢' U ct O ^O ♦+ Q N U � W U ♦+ � ,�' �• � ... sem. � U O.. � � O �" act ct ct > > > > > > > > > > > U ap O ". cct U w c�ct cC cC O 'O ^C 'C$ + � U O p c� � C� O ' ct .Si bA O � � U N M ct ys:, bA N +3 O ct O O O t ¢ t .� iy U 7 N N Ct p N O ct cC T bA ct ct ^� ct �.y. �..N .N..N .. ,k CO p. �l c�C Vl c�C c�C Vl Vl C'5 5l —0 ct 2 + bOp cC O cC N M 00 bA c� '.O Ct O Y O 9 U O � a+ ct U N U Cy Vl Vl Vl \O \O r r CO 00 to 4 W to O O O cC OU to � p � pU h cC h h h N M � U � O O � O � N s. � � C � U ' .Ni U U U rn U bA � N � 01 01 O � � N O bA O O Rule 403 (cont.) (Amended June 3, 2005) Table 2 DUST CONTROL MEASURES FOR LARGE OPERATIONS FUGITIVE DUST SOURCE CATEGORY CONTROL ACTIONS Earth -moving (except (la) Maintain soil moisture content at a minimum of construction cutting and 12 percent, as determined by ASTM method D- £illing areas, and mining 2216, or other equivalent method approved by operations) the Executive Officer, the California Air Resources Board, and the U.S. EPA. Two soil moisture evaluations must be conducted during the first three hours of active operations during a calendar day, and two such evaluations each subsequent four-hour period of active operations; OR (la -1) For any earth -moving which is more than 100 feet from all property lines, conduct watering as necessary to prevent visible dust emissions from exceeding 100 feet in length in any direction. Earth -moving: (lb) Maintain soil moisture content at a minimum of Construction rill areas: 12 percent, as determined by ASTM method D- 2216, or other equivalent method approved by the Executive Officer, the California Air Resources Board, and the U.S. EPA. For areas which have an optimum moisture content for compaction of less than 12 percent, as determined by ASTM Method 1557 or other equivalent method approved by the Executive Officer and the California Air Resources Board and the U.S. EPA, complete the compaction process as expeditiously as possible after achieving at least 70 percent of the optimum soil moisture content. Two soil moisture evaluations must be conducted during the first three hours of active operations during a calendar day, and two such evaluations during each subsequent four- hour period of active operations. 403-19 Rule 403 (cont.) Table 2 (Continued) (Amended June 3, 2005) FUGITIVE DUST SOURCE CATEGORY CONTROL ACTIONS Earth -moving: (lc) Conduct watering as necessary to prevent visible Construction cut areas emissions from extending more than 100 feet and mining operations: beyond the active cut or mining area unless the area is inaccessible to watering vehicles due to slope conditions or other safety factors. Disturbed surface areas (2a/b) Apply dust suppression in sufficient quantity and (except completed frequency to maintain a stabilized surface. Any grading areas) areas which cannot be stabilized, as evidenced by wind driven fugitive dust must have an application of water at least twice per day to at least 80 percent of the unstabilized area. Disturbed surface (2c) Apply chemical stabilizers within five working days areas: Completed of grading completion; OR grading areas (2d) Take actions (3a) or (3c) specified for inactive disturbed surface areas. Inactive disturbed (3a) Apply water to at least 80 percent of all inactive surface areas disturbed surface areas on a daily basis when there is evidence of wind driven fugitive dust, excluding any areas which are inaccessible to watering vehicles due to excessive slope or other safety conditions; OR (3b) Apply dust suppressants in sufficient quantity and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface; OR (3c) Establish a vegetative ground cover within 21 days after active operations have ceased. Ground cover must be of sufficient density to expose less than 30 percent of unstabilized ground within 90 days of planting, and at all times thereafter; OR (3d) Utilize any combination of control actions (3a), (3b), and (3c) such that, in total, these actions apply to all inactive disturbed surface areas. 403-20 Rule 403 (cont.) Table 2 (Continued) (Amended June 3, 2005) FUGITIVE DUST SOURCE CATEGORY CONTROL ACTIONS Unpaved Roads (4a) Water all roads used for any vehicular traffic at least once per every two hours of active operations [3 times per normal 8 hour work day]; OR (4b) Water all roads used for any vehicular traffic once daily and restrict vehicle speeds to 15 miles per hour; OR (4c) Apply a chemical stabilizer to all unpaved road surfaces in sufficient quantity and frequency to maintain a stabilized surface. Open storage piles (5a) Apply chemical stabilizers; OR (5b) Apply water to at least 80 percent of the surface area of all open storage piles on a daily basis when there is evidence of wind driven fugitive dust; OR (5c) Install temporary coverings; OR (5d) Install a three -sided enclosure with walls with no more than 50 percent porosity which extend, at a minimum, to the top of the pile. This option may only be used at aggregate -related plants or at cement manufacturing facilities. All Categories (6a) Any other control measures approved by the Executive Officer and the U.S. EPA as equivalent to the methods specified in Table 2 may be used. 403-21 Rule 403 (cont.) (Amended June 3, 2005) TABLE3 CONTINGENCY CONTROL MEASURES FOR LARGE OPERATIONS FUGITIVE DUST SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES CATEGORY Earth -moving (1A) Cease all active operations; OR (2A) Apply water to soil not more than 15 minutes prior to moving such soil. Disturbed surface (013) On the last day of active operations prior to a areas weekend, holiday, or any other period when active operations will not occur for not more than four consecutive days: apply water with a mixture of chemical stabilizer diluted to not less than 1/20 of the concentration required to maintain a stabilized surface for a period of six months; OR (113) Apply chemical stabilizers prior to wind event; OR (213) Apply water to all unstabilized disturbed areas 3 times per day. If there is any evidence of wind driven fugitive dust, watering frequency is increased to a minimum of four times per day; OR (313) Take the actions specified in Table 2, Item (3c); OR (413) Utilize any combination of control actions (113), (213), and (313) such that, in total, these actions apply to all disturbed surface areas. Unpaved roads (1C) Apply chemical stabilizers prior to wind event; OR (2C) Apply water twice per hour during active operation; OR 3C Stop all vehicular traffic. Open storage piles (11)) Apply water twice per hour; OR 21) Install temporary coverings. Paved road track -out (1E) Cover all haul vehicles; OR (2E) Comply with the vehicle freeboard requirements of Section 23114 of the California Vehicle Code for both public and private roads. All Categories (1F) Any other control measures approved by the Executive Officer and the U.S. EPA as equivalent to the methods specified in Table 3 may be used. 403-22 Rule 403 (cont.) (Amended June 3, 2005) Table 4 (Conservation Management Practices for Confined Animal Facilities) SOURCE CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PRACTICES CATEGORY Manure (la) Cover manure prior to removing material off-site; AND Handling (lb) Spread the manure before 11:00 AM and when wind conditions are less than 25 miles per hour; AND (Only (lc) Utilize coning and drying manure management by removing applicable to manure at laying hen houses at least twice per year and maintain Commercial a base of no less than 6 inches of dry manure after clean out; or Poultry in lieu of complying with conservation management practice Ranches) (lc), comply with conservation management practice (ld). (ld) Utilize frequent manure removal by removing the manure from laying hen houses at least every seven days and immediately thin bed dry the material. Feedstock (2a) Utilize a sock or boot on the feed truck auger when filling feed Handling storage bins. Disturbed (3a) Maintain at least 70 percent vegetative cover on vacant portions Surfaces of the facility; OR (3b) Utilize conservation tillage practices to manage the amount, orientation and distribution of crop and other plant residues on the soil surface year-round, while growing crops (if applicable) in narrow slots or tilled strips; OR (3c) Apply dust suppressants in sufficient concentrations and frequencies to maintain a stabilized surface. Unpaved (4a) Restrict access to private unpaved roads either through signage Roads or physical access restrictions and control vehicular speeds to no more than 15 miles per hour through worker notifications, signage, or any other necessary means; OR (4b) Cover frequently traveled unpaved roads with low silt content material (i.e., asphalt, concrete, recycled road base, or gravel to a minimum depth of four inches); OR (4c) Treat unpaved roads with water, mulch, chemical dust suppressants or other cover to maintain a stabilized surface. Equipment (5a) Apply dust suppressants in sufficient quantity and frequency to Parking Areas maintain a stabilized surface; OR (5b) Apply material with low silt content (i.e., asphalt, concrete, recycled road base, or gravel to a depth of four inches). 403-23 Appendices Appendix 2 - Air Quality Appendix 2-4 - Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Noise Analyses Supplemental Memorandum, dated May 2017 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR August 2017 Appendix 2-4 - Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Noise Analyses Supplemental Memorandum, dated May 2017 ?"ES I SE VRCES May 19, 2017 Mr. Patrick Leclair& Mr. Ian Pari City of Santa Clarita Community Development, Planning Division 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Re: Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project— Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas and Noise Analyses Dear Mr. Leclair& Mr. Pari: Pomeroy Environmental Services (PES) prepared the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas (GHG), and Noise Technical Reports associated with the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project (Project) Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) published by the City of Santa Clarita (City) in March 2017. The following discussion addresses the project description changes made by the City's Planning Commission during its hearings on the Project. Per City Planning Commission direction, the updated project description includes the following project modifications: 1. A 4,400 square -foot increase to the general retail and restaurant component of the project (from 55,600 square feet to 60,000 square feet); 2. An increase to the assisted living facility of 20 beds (from 120 beds to up to 140 beds; a total of 85,000 square feet); and 3. 27 detached condos in Planning Area 5 were removed and relocated to Planning Area 3 (attached condos). Planning Area 5 now has a total of 48 detached condos and Planning Area 3 now has 149 units. Based on a review of the Project Traffic Engineer's memorandum,' these changes would result in a net increase of 176 daily trips compared to the previously estimated 7,986 daily trips. This represents an approximate 2.2% increase in motor vehicle trips. As motor vehicle trips are the primary source of Project impacts associated with air quality, GHG and noise, this small increase would not have the potential to alter the impact conclusions disclosed in the DEIR. Further, ' Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project—Traffic Study Supplemental Memo, Stantec, May 15, 2017. Pomeroy Environmental Services 25101 The Old Road #246 Santa Clarita, C 91381 Tel: (661) 388-2422 www.pomeroyes.com Mr. Patrick Leclair& Mr. Ian Pari City of Santa Clarita Re: Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project May 17, 2017 Page 2 of 2 based on a review of the DEIR sections discussing the Project's air quality, GHG and noise impacts, these minor traffic trip modifications would not constitute "Significant new information" defined in in CEQ4 Guidelines 15088.5, would not result in a new significant air quality, GHG or noise impact identified in the DIER, would not cause a substantial increase in the severity of an identified air quality, GHG or noise impact identified in the DIER, and would not require any new, modified or increased mitigation measures for any air quality, GHG or noise impacts identified in the DEIR. Mr. Leclair & Mr. Pari, if you have any questions with these conclusions please do not hesitate to contact me at (661) 388-2422 or brett@pomeroyes.com. Sincerely, Pomeroy Environmental Services (PES) Brett Pomeroy President/Owner Pomeroy Environmental Services 25101 The Old Road #246 Santa Clarita, C 91381 Tel: (661) 388-2422 www.pomeroyes.com Appendices Appendix 3 - Biological Resources Appendix 3-3 - Rare Plant Surveys, dated July 2017 Appendix 3-4 - Focused California Gnatcatcher Surveys, dated July 2017 Appendix 3-5 - Habitat and Acoustic Bat Surveys, dated July 2017 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR August 2017 Appendix 3-3 - Rare Plant Surveys, dated July 2017 ���� 231 Village Commons Boulevard, Suite 17 Camarillo, California 93012 SCIENCES 7-1900 www.impactsciences.com July 24, 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza, LLC 28504 Soledad Canyon Road Santa Clarita, CA 91387 Attn: Mr. Tom Clark Re: Rare Plant Report: Sand Canyon Plaza (Sand/Soledad Ranch) Project, Santa Clarita, California Dear Mr. Clark: This letter provides the results of the focused rare plant surveys conducted in May and June, 2017 at the proposed Sand Canyon Plaza project site. The purpose of the field surveys was to confirm the presence or absence of special status plants on the project site and adjacent areas within the fuel modification zones. The California Department of Fish & Wildlife survey protocol was followed.1 Project Location The 87 -acre project site is in the Sand Canyon area of the City of Santa Clarita, north of the Antelope Valley Freeway (State Route 14), east of Sand Canyon Road, west of Oak Spring Canyon Road, and immediately north of Soledad Canyon Road. Figure 1 illustrates the regional location of the subject property. The site is found on the Mint Canyon US Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle, Section 14, Township 4N, Range 15W. About 15 acres of the property was a mobile home park (being removed), located at the intersection of Santa Canyon Soledad Canyon roads. Residential neighborhoods lie to the east and west, with undeveloped open space immediately to the north of the site, and residential land uses further north. METHODS Literature Search The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)2 and the California Native Plant Society database (CNPS)3 databases were queried to identify previously reported special -status plants in the project vicinity. The CNDDB search 1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plan Populations and Natural Communities. State of California Natural Resources Agency Department of Fish and Game. November 24, 2009. 2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base. April, 2017. included the areas within the USGS 7.5 -minute Mint Canyon Quadrangle which contains the site and the surrounding eight quadrangles: Agua Dulce, Green Valley, Newhall, Oat Mountain, San Fernando, Sleepy Valley, Sunland, and Warm Springs Mountain. Reference Sites Known locations of special status plants occurrences discovered during the literature search were checked for phenology of the target species, with the condition of those populations used to gauge the appropriate timing for the 2017 field surveys. The specific reference sites checked in the project vicinity are located on the Aqua Dulce, Mint Canyon, and Newhall USGS 7.5 minute quadrangles. Field Surveys Two field surveys were conducted in May and June 2017 to search for special -status plant species previously identified as occurring in the project vicinity in habitats similar to those found on-site. All field work and plant identification was completed by Jackie Bowland Worden and Rick Burgess of Impact Sciences, Inc. Field surveys were systematic, covering the entire site using transects of opportunity to provide thorough visual coverage. These surveys were timed to coincide with the blooming periods of potentially occurring special -status flora, and followed the survey protocols of the California Native Plant Society and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The field surveys were floristic; i.e. all plants found were identified and are listed in Appendix A, Flora Identified on the Project Site. Plants specifically searched for included those designated as CNPS 1A, 113, 213, and 3 as well as state and federally listed species and are listed in Appendix B, Special Status Flora Reported from the Sand Canyon Project Vicinity. RESULTS One special -status plant species was found, slender mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis). This lily is ranked 113.2 by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), and defined as "rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere". One small population was found near the center of the property, comprised of approximately 20-30 plants (refer to Figure 1). This is the same general location were several mariposa lilies were found in 2015, which were in seed at the time and therefore could not be identified to the subspecies level. The habitat where this population occurs is chamise chaparral -California buckwheat scrub, on a steep west to northwest - facing slope. Common constituents include California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum var. polifolium), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), deerweed (Acmispon glabra), and non-native annual grasses (Avera barbata,Bromus spp.; Ehrharta calycina). 3 California Native Plant Society. 2017. Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California. Online database available at: http://www.rareplmts.mps.org/. IMPACTS & RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed project would remove the mariposa lilies during site grading. It is recommended that a mariposa relocation plan be developed to salvage these lilies prior to site development. Such a program would entail the following key actions: • Mark the extant population when plants are flowering • Collect bulbs (when plant is dormant; summer to fall) o Careful excavation is required to assure collection of the entire bulb and associated bulblets. o Record average depth of bulbs for replication at receiver site • Plant collected bulbs immediately or store bulbs for later direct planting or growing in pots. • A monitoring and reporting program would be necessary to assure successful establishment of the transplanted lilies. Please contact me with any questions or comments on this report. Sincerely, IMPACT SCIENCES, INC. Jacqueline Bowland Worden Associate Principal Biologist Attachments APPENDIX A Flora Observed on the Sand Canyon Plaza Project Site May & June 2017a Gymnosperms - Cone -bearing Plants Cupressaceae - Cypress Family Juniperus californica / California juniper Class Dicotyledones (Dicots) Adoxaceae - Muskroot Family Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea / blue elderberry Anacardiaceae — Sumac Family Rhus aromatica / basket bush Apiaceae — Carrot Family Foeniculum vulgare/ fennel Asteraceae — Sunflower Family Acourtia microcephala/ sacapellote Ambrosia acanthicarpa / annual bur -sage Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata / big sagebrush Artemisia douglasiana/ mugwort Baccharis pilularis / coyote brush Baccharis salicifolia / mule fat Brickellia nevinii / Nevin's brickellbush Centaurea melitensis/ tocalote Chaenactis glabriuscula var. glabriuscula / yellow pincushion Cirsium occidentale var. occidentale/ cobweb thistle Corethrogyne filaginifolia/California aster Encelia actoni /Acton encelia Ericameria nauseosa var. mohavensis / Mojave rabbitbrush Ericameria pinifolia / pine -leaf goldenbush Eriophyllum confertiflorum var. laxiflorum / lax -flowered golden -yarrow Lepidospartum squamatum / scale -broom Lessingia glandulifera var. glandulifera / valley lessingia Logfla filaginoides / California cottonrose Malacothrix saxatalis/cliff aster Senecio flaccidus var. douglasii / Douglas' ragwort Psilocarphus tenellus Nutt. var. tenellus/ woolly heads Raflnesquia californica / California chicory Stephanomeria exigua ssp. exigua / small wirelettuce Stephanomeria virgata / virgate wirelettuce Boraginaceae — Borage Family Amsinckia intermedia / common fiddleneck Emmenanthe penduliflora var. pendulifora / whispering bells Eriodictyon crassifolium var. nigrescens / bicolored yerba santa Eriodictyon traskiae Eastw. ssp. smithii Munz / Smith's yerba santa Eucrypta chrysanthemifolia var. chrysanthemifolia / common eucrypta Brassicaceae — Mustard Family Hirschfeldia incana [Brassica geniculata]l Mediterranean mustard Sisymbrium altissimum / tumble mustard Cactaceae — Cactus Family Opuntia basilaris var. basilaris / beavertail cactus Caryophyllaceae — Pink Family Cerastium glomeratum/ mouse-ear chickweed Silene gallica/ windmill pink Stellaria media/ common chickweed Chenopodiaceae — Goosefoot Family Atriplex lentiformis/ quail bush Atriplex semibaccata/ Australian saltbush Chenopodium album / Iamb's quarters Chenopodium californicum/ California goosefoot Salsola tragus (Salsola ibericaj/ Russian thistle Cleomaceae - Spiderflower Family Peritoma arborea var. arborea / bladderpod Convolvulaceae — Morning-glory Family Calystegia macrostegia ssp. intermedia/ chaparral morning-glory Cuscuta sp. / dodder Crassulaceae — Stonecrop Family Crassula connata (Tillaea erecta]/ pygmy-weed Dudleya lanceolata/ lance-leaf dudleya Cucurbitaceae — Gourd Family Marah macrocarpus var. macrocarpus/ manroot Euphorbiaceae — Spurge Family Euphorbia polycarpa / small seed sandmat Stillingia linearifolia / narrow-leaved stillingia Fabaceae — Legume Family Acmispon glaber/ deerweed Lathyrus vestitus var vestitus/ chaparral sweet pea Lupinus bicolor/ miniature lupine Lupinus concinnus / bajada lupine Fagaceae — Oak Family Quercus agrifolia/ coast live oak Quercus john-tuckeri / Tucker's oak Geraniaceae — Geranium Family Erodium cicutarium/ red-stemmed filaree Lamiaceae — Mint Family Marrubium vulgare/ horehound Salvia columbariae / chia 2 Salvia mellifera/ black sage Myrsinaceae - Myrsine Family Anagallis arvensis/ scarlet pimpernel Nyctaginaceae - Four O'clock Family Mirabilis laevis var. crassifolia /wishbone bush Onagraceae — Evening Primrose Family Eulobus californicus /mustard primrose Papaveraceae - Poppy Family Eschscholzia californica / California poppy Polemoniaceae - Phlox Family Eriastrum sapphirinum ssp. dasyanthum / Southern California woolly -star Gilia capitata ssp. abrotanifolia / bluehead gilia Polygonaceae — Buckwheat Family Chorizanthe staticoides / Turkish rugging Chorizanthe xanti var. xanti / pinyon spineflower Eriogonum fasciculatum var. polifolium / California buckwheat Rhamnaceae — Buckthorn Family Ceanothus cuneatus var. cuneatus / common buckbrush Rhamnus ilicifolia / hollyleaf redberry Rosaceae — Rose Family Adenostoma fasciculatum var. fasciculatum / chamise Prunus ilicifolia ssp. ilicifolia holly -leaved cherry Rubiaceae — Madder Family Galium angustifolium ssp. angustifolium Salicaceae —Willow Family Populus fremontii ssp. fremontii Fremont cottonwood Salix laevigata / red willow Salix lasiolepis / arroyo willow Solanaceae — Nightshade Family Datura wrightii / Wright's jimsonweed Class Monocotyledones (Monocots) Agavaceae - Century Plant Family Hesperoyucca whipplei / chaparral yucca Liliaceae — Lily Family Calochortus clavatus var. gracilis / slender mariposa lily RPR: 1113.2 Poaceae — Grass Family Avena barbata/ slender wild oat Bromus diandrus/ ripgut brome Bromus hordaceus [B. mollis]/ soft chess Bromus madritensis ssp. madritensis/ Madrid brome Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens / red brome Cynodon dactylon/ Bermuda grass Ehrharta calycina / perennial veldt grass Elymus condensatusl giant wild rye Elymus glaucus ssp. glaucus / blue wild -rye 3 Festuca perennis / rye grass Schismus arabicus / Arabian schismus Stipa lepida / foothill needlegrass Stipa miliacea / smilo grass Stipa speciosa / desert needlegrass Vulpia myuros var. hirsuta (Festuca magalura]/ hirsute rattail fescue Themidaceae - Brodiaea Family Bloomeria crocea var. crocea / common goldenstar a Field surveys and identification conducted by Rick Burgess & Jackie Worden # )}\\ )»- )) §0 ±j§}\ 0.5 LE0()2 _ \\0� \E \) \ \\\\ \ \\\ � _\\E\_ _ _\: \\\\ E2t \\\//§f§0{}\/3 _ )2 =«e&C:2a2&sz==&§�fzuz=§ ] } - / , . E E / E [ / \ } ) } \ § ( \ ± 4 \ @ 4 ) ` , _ — » ` , 2!) m ° j ! \ r { o \\ - _ \ \\ \\\\\a\\\ \\ \\� }\�\ c }&fjm Nfj \fj7 \{ }§)CO u>wu E U //E§ E 3>E § / / / ) / / )\ \ _ ) \ \ } \ E \\ ] J } \ 2 ) 7 } C) \ E - _ 2 u 5 \� \}0\ \\ \f\\\0'Z Ola 0 §�03:oD 0 _ - 2 D- _- \/U uo \m _ WDƒCL§ 0 a0o 00 )\\ ))((§-9 a §)/f§)([ §0 ac ] E E E E } E ®° c 5 § § § a \ r §) ] \ = j \ / = \ o| ;/< e 4 j 4 j ( 4 j u± T = 0 ( , \ / / J - » » » » ! _ _ k\ ){ ( {2/\ __ - Emu SE 3: \_\\ \\\\\\\�\\�«\\ \�\\\} / }( \\k\k \ / k\c o um/ u{ § / / / / / / / \ \Ci ci\ } § n = \ _ \ { } { \ \ } } } / | | Z \ \ \ \ ) \ } \ [ u O O O O O O = 9 v-6 0 0 0 -6 'y 0 0 y v > O i O v > v > Y v > v > 9 v > v N v > E '—uO .'^ O O O .'^ O N t 'C O t 9 v� � v 9uu N v Q .0 " O v Yv N v v> C Q 1 d O w 9 w 9 v w 9 a 9 Y 'p w w 9 N N a .'' N .0 f0 f0 N f0 f0 t0 i .'' N f0 N 3 ° 0 ^ c o=° '�, 0= v o' '�, ° _ '�, o c o' v v°i u Y O x z �', z a z ,'� z> O z a 0 c E E o Ou E Eo CC p o o D o pO a C o a a a op a o :0. p a o o N o a Q •� Q `-' c J W OU u O ty J 0 C K w c t �. v .? > N 0 0 NU v -6 Y t0 9 N Y N C C bA N C C O. � C v Y C f0 f0 = L f0 �' f0 _ L M v O. in 9 N O t - ° C -6 1E p_ -6 9 -o Q _o .0 00 °O O O mu O L f0 N v `a O O L O O u v f0 .� a v 3° u 3 3> u 3 � a N ci ci ci N ci N Z co co co co co co co (.7 ci ci ci ci ci ci N N Q� 3 m Ln W Y VI d LL O � '6 — j � 3 a L a ° > N a O N p vE= v c .C) a o on o Y= c a s m o a D 0 3 m p L° .a° c 9 s v on f0 a Z Z v i .c s N o c v 0 v ,a Z > p .a 0 0 c Y v ° a un E i a o i a c f0 v a � a -o � d c i E o s o a a o � v c` i u a �y �0 vy vY in v u E c C N Y O v0 0 v° vY � i C 0 v 0 a J 0 O v N v v 1- v 9 v O Y Y J J 'O U1 _C t0 v a p � N Y a v v Y a 0 9 C N O C u O 0 z N C N N p _ N v U v U v N m 9 O O N v 3 n 0 v o w on N u v a t .0 O 0 v v Y> 'v E D Y E C J>u N O p E a 0 C° v O O v LL 3 O >' 0 C N v y '- m in u xa v o � Y O Y m E v - 9U O C C 0 u 0 O u v C ? N Y O C N O o ao Eo 2 9 C.- ola o o o C W O u v i t Y bA Ov o`o3`w a O _ O O m t i LL o LL 0 3 N Y v 'U v :=. .0 v aEY.Yy-o N J t c v o r90 v v YO t N 0 9 O t m W Y C O > E fO�Y'� av Z -=Y 3 v00 QN cD Y- taO o avO ov Oa I a u u v 0 t O C O o 9 d E 0 o v C o t0 d C C E E O v .Y \ y C O O O Y 0 a C O i v ^ U N 0 N E o E c ro c a t u va .O o a o Y ,� v~ t o Y o Y 0 U 9 N \ 0 a t Y v E J C 0 o Y u O a ow O O o = O 00 'C 00 O t N p ro .L E J 0 0 m` u 3 u 3 a p C Y v; ° 9 0 � a m v in m 0 z m o ~ v 'w v 3 c Y in t N a00 U v f0 m z Y 0 °1 '`0 \o t v N Q� v" C y C C C O- O C '0 v N f0 C 0 N Y In Y N bA WN O a v `0 Jo Y VI z 3 v _�� _ va�Ew2a2=aaa d LL v 0 a v E s y � E U m c Z Z = N N s a 0 o ° E E v U C7 a �y �0 vy vY in v v o f0 f0 Q E EC C N Y O v0 0 v° vY C E o a a J 0 O v N v v 1- v U v Y " _> 0 Y Y J J 'O U1 _C t0 v a p � N Y a v v Y p i C 9 C N O C � a � a a v on � Vl N p _ N v U v U v N m 9 O O N v 3 n 0 v o w on N u w a 0 c D O C u C O Y> 'v E D Y E C J>u N O p E a 0 C° v O O v LL m y O >' 0 C v y '- m in u xa v 9 9 a t a U 0 E v C O Y m E v - 9U O C C 0 u 0 O u v C ? N Y O C N O o a Y o9 v 2 C.- ola o o o O O Y a U v i t Y bA Ov a a O m t v C t Y a v C O O O 3 p� Y v 'U v :=. .0 v aEY.Yy-o N u t c v o r90 v v YO t N 0 9 O t m Y C O > E fO�Y'� av Z -=Y 3 v00 QN cD Y- taO o avO ov Oa I a u u v 0 t O C O o 9 N E O Y a'E E O Y rNo m v °A C E O v .Y \ y C O O O Y U pp .- o > v 0.- u u0 0 N E C v v o v E c ro c a t u va .O 0 a o Y ,� v~ t o Y y =' p C 9 v a v 9 0.- J U_ 9 ? 0 a t o E C 0 o Y u O ? Y J N .� O O- a O O C U M t -O >' v t p C v U= v- Y by N u N 0 E C t > `O O t N p ro .L E J 0 0 v 0 - N v= on J -o z m o a p C Y v; ° 9 0 v in m 0 o ~ v 'w v 3 c Y in t N a00 v f0 m z Y 0 °1 '`0 \o t v v UFu .ti 7 v" C y C C C O- O C '0 v N f0 C 0 N Y In x9 a�� bA WN O a v `0 Jo °n o c v v 3 v o v v o z 3 v _�� _ va�Ew2a2=aaa Appendix 3-4 - Focused California Gnatcatcher Surveys, dated July 2017 15 compliance• biology July 19, 2017 Impact Sciences, Inc. 231 Village Commons Boulevard Suite 17 Camarillo, CA 93012 Attention: Ms. Jaqueline Wooden SUBJECT: Results of Focused California Gnatcatcher Surveys; Sand Canyon Plaza, Santa Clarita, CA. Dear Ms. Wooden, This letter report summarizes the methodology and findings of surveys for the federally -listed Threatened California gnatcatcher (Polioptila califomica)(CAGN) conducted by Compliance Biology, Inc on the Sand Carryon Plaza project site in Santa Clarita, California (Figure 1). The surveys were conducted for the purpose of determining the presence or absence of CAGN and other special -status bird species within the study area. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Field office was appropriately notified of intent to initiate surveys and provided approval from Mr. Chris Kofron via email on April 27, 2017. Survey Site The 87 -acre project site is in the Sand Canyon area of the City of Santa Clarita, north of the Antelope Valley Freeway (State Route 14), east of Sand Carryon Road, west of Oak Springs Carryon Road, and immediately north of Soledad Carryon Road. Residential development borders the west and east sides of the property. Specifically, the site is found on the Mint Carryon US Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle, Section 14, Township 4N, Range 15W (Figure 2). 1936 Croydon Avenue, Camarillo, California 93010 ph: 805.377.6590 Sand Cyn Plaza `•`row` J'°�L1 tilt '.I a a i-Uenj rre, I 34.431 degrees Narth 118 419 degrees iNes[ "1r � 23 Reject Site MapSourcaIN c_ y —t OSGSMnt Canyon 75Quadrangle c IP .� RArance Denim aP iaakn_ �,. NAD nce kat California SYak Plane Zone 5 S / G(J N -'�. c o Rso 1,700 r' 1on E� -11111 is 19 yr Figure 2. Topographic Setting Source_ E. Read &Associates Sand Canyon Jurisdictional Delineation. June 23, 201 Sand Canyon Plaza CA GN S.rxy Regvrt Site Description The site is characterized by hillsides in eastern and northern portions of the property, with more gentle, down- gradient topography alongside Sand Canyon Creek along the western extent of the site Elevations vary from approximately 1600 feet up to 1825 feet Numerous trails occur on the property that were observed to be used by bicycles and hikers. The northern half of the site burned twice over a period of 10 years, and the southern half burned in 1970, 1980, and 2007. The southwestern portion of the site has been developed with a mobile home park, though it is apparently in the process of being abandoned. The combination of these disturbances has influenced the type, quality, and quantity of vegetation. Various California sagebrush, chaparral, and disturbed vegetation associations dominate the vegetation on site There are also small areas of yerba santa and willow thickets. Figure 3 provides the vegetation map for the property. This site occurs north and east of the final designated Critical Habitat for CAGN (Figure 4). Coastal sage scrub dominated by California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) is the preferred habitat of California gnatcatcher, though they may also use adjacent chaparral, grassland, riparian or even disturbed habitats along the margins (ecotones) of the favored coastal sage scrub plant community. Coastal sage scrub is characterized by the prevalence of California sagebrush as dominant, with perennial sages such as black or purple sage (Salvia mellifera; S. leucopiylla) and California buckwheat (Enogonum fasiculata). There are contiguous stands of coastal sage scrub on the site; however most of it occurs on steep slopes. Such slopes are typically avoided by nesting California gnatcatchers, therefore the habitat quality of the property is considered marginal for this species. Methodology The US Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines for California gnatcatcher stipulate that a minimum of six surveys shall be conducted at least one week apart, between March 24 and June 30, or if surveying from July 1 through March 14, a minimum of nine surveys shall be conducted at least two weeks apart.1 The guidelines also recommend that surveys be completed between 6:00 AM and 12 PM; that they shall avoid periods of inclement weather or excessive heat, rain, wind, and fog; and the area covered should be no more than 100 acres per day per permitted biologist Six gnatcatcher surveys were conducted in accordance with these guidelines. Surveys were focused within and adjacent to potentially suitable sage scrub and in adjacent buffer habitats. All field surveys were performed by Dave Crawford under the authority of his individual Endangered Species Recovery Permit The survey area totaled less than 50 acres. 1 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1997. Coastal California gnatcatcher (Pokopola coliforruca colifornica) presence/absence protocol survey guidelines. USFWS field Office, Carlsbad, California. •do1VAY Figure 3. Vegetation Associations Sand Cvn Plaza Source_ E. Read & Associates Sand Canyon Jurisdictional Delineation. June 23, 2017 14 air O ZE t4 00 10 O 0 ♦ 10 %OW t-:� �11111111111111111100 LEI - _F:1 -lt— LO a_ C) 0 C) LL ti Eo > z cf eu ip�Aj@ eoqleq 10 SIPAIS ep-DH LQ Al v eu IIt pq13 uoruco e6uedol eny 400AIJIL'i e4elp, ------------ L pj liedioul'i .v m 0 a m I I LLI cu LL cu n 0 N 0 < M M 70 70 C.) U cv) LO a_ C) 0 C) LL ti Eo > z cf eu ip�Aj@ eoqleq 10 SIPAIS ep-DH LQ Al v eu IIt pq13 uoruco e6uedol eny 400AIJIL'i e4elp, ------------ L pj liedioul'i .v m 0 a m I I LLI cu LL cu n 0 N 0 L pj liedioul'i .v m 0 a m I I LLI cu LL cu n 0 N 0 Sand Canyon Plaza CA GN Surrxy R,p,,t Surveys were conducted on May 18, 27, June 5, 12, 19, and 26, 2017. The survey area was systematically surveyed on foot by walking slowly and methodically along random transect routes. The location of transects and survey points along each transect were based on the vegetation and topographic conditions (size, location, and shape of habitat) of the survey area to ensure complete coverage A combination of taped vocalizations (played at 30-60 second increments) and "pishing" sounds were used at each calling point Weather conditions during the surveys were generally conducive to a high level of bird activity. All surveys were conducted between the hours of about 6:00 AM and approximately ]2:00 PM Temperatures varied from approximately 55 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) to a maximum of 88T. Wind speed ranged from 0 to 15 mph during the surveys, typically averaging less than 5 mph. Cloud cover varied from overcast (morning haze) to completely clear. All birds identified during the surveys were noted and are listed on Attachment A. Results No California gnatcatchers were recorded during the protocol surveys. A total of 36 avian species was observed or detected on the subject property. A complete list of all vertebrate species observed during the survey efforts is included as Attachment A. Three bird species included on the July 2017 California Department of Fish and Wildlife "Special Animals List' were observed or detected during the survey effort; no federal special -status birds were found. Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii) - Watch List, nesting. Cooper's hawks typically hunt other bird species on the wing. A Cooper's hawk was observed on the site once, during the second survey. There was no indication of nesting. Costa's hummingbird (Calypte costae) - California special animal when nesting. Costa's hummingbirds normally inhabit desert and semi -desert and habitats, with breeding occurring in February through April in desert habitats. This species was observed only twice during these surveys. CDPW is primarily interested in tracking nest locations of this species and Costa's hummingbird is not anticipated to be nesting in the vicinity of the project site Southern California rufous -crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescem) - CDFW Watch List. Pour subspecies of rufous -crowned sparrows are recognized in California. The Southern California subspecies, canescens, is on the CDPW Watch List as populations have been declining as a result of development and agriculture.2 Southern California rufous -crowned sparrow was observed during four of the protocol surveys. Therefore, it is anticipated this species nested on or near the project site this year. This sparrow nests on the ground, typically under shrubs or on overhanging rocks. 2 Thomgate, N. and M. Parsons. 2005. Rufous -crowned Sparrow (Aimopkla rq/Iceps). In The Coastal Scrub and Chaparral Bird Conservation Plan: a strategy for protecting and managing coastal scrub and chaparral habitats and associated birds in California. California Partners in Flight http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/scmb.h"l Sand Canyon Plaza CA GN S.rxy Regvrt Conclusions No CAGN were observed or detected during the series of six protocol surveys and are, therefore, considered to be absent from the project site at this time Also, neither the site nor immediately adjacent areas support very much 'typical' CAGN habitat The habitats present could support CAGN, but more commonly these sorts of vegetation associations are only utilized when adjacent to more typical, mature coastal sage scrub. Multiple focused CAGN surveys have been performed on this site over the past 10 years, all with negative results. Three bird species, considered 'special animals by CDFW, were observed during the protocol surveys. Assuming development on site is timed to avoid the nesting season, and because birds can leave the site during site preparation, direct impacts are not anticipated. Although most of the individual birds observed are not afforded any protection under state or federal laws, most avian species present on site are protected under the California Fish and Game Code and the Federal Migratory Bird Species Treaty Act while actively nesting. As such, grading and/or any other activity resulting in the removal of vegetation should be conducted outside the typical nesting season (February 1 through September 15). Should such activities be required during this period of time, it is recommended that nesting bird surveys be conducted consistent with Service and CDFW guidelines. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding the information provided in this report Sincerely, Dave Crawford President/Principal Biologist Compliance Biology, Inc Permit No. TE -821229-7 cc: USFWS Ventura Field Office Attachment A Vertebrate Species Observed or Detected on the Sand Canyon Plaza Project Site Spring 2017 Scientific Name' Common Name Listing Status" Notes BIRDS Calli e la californica California quail Stre to elia decaocto Eurasian collard -dove* Zenaida macroura Mourning dove Cal to anna Anna's hummingbird Calypte costae Costa's hummingbird sa (nesting) Cathartes aura Turkey vulture Accipitercooperii Cooper's hawk WL (nesting) Buteo amaicensis Red-tailed hawk Picoides nuttallii Nuttall's woodpecker Falco s arvenus American kestrel Sa ornis ni ricans Black phoebe M iarchus cinerascens Ash -throated flycatcher T rannus verticalis Western kingbird A helocoma californica California scrub - ay Corvus brach rh nchos American crow Corvus corax Common raven Stet ido ter x serri ennis Northern rough -winged swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff swallow Psaltri arus minimus Bushtit Thr omanes bewickii Bewick's wren Chamaea fasciata Wrentit Turdus mi ratorius American robin Toxostoma redivivum California thrasher Mimus polyglottos Northern mockingbird Phaino e la nitens Phaino e la Haemorhous mexicanus House finch Spinus psaltria Lesser goldfinch Spinus tristis American goldfinch Pipilo maculatus Spotted towhee Aimophila ruficeps canescens Southern California rufous- crowned sparrow WL Melozone crissalis California towhee Chondested grammacus Larks arrow Melos iza melodia Song sparrow Melos iza lincolnii Lincoln's sparrow Pheucticus melanoce halus Black -headed grosbeak Icterus cucullatus Hooded oriole AMPHIBIANS and REPTILES Anax rus boreas halo hilus California toad Pseudacris hypochondrlaca Baa California treefro Sceloporus occidentalis lon i es Great Basin fence lizard Uta stansburiana ele ans Western side-blotched lizard MAMMALS S lvils us audubonii Desert cottontail Thomom s bottae Botta's pocket gopher Di odour s a ills Agile kangaroo rat Otos ermo hilus beeche i California groundsquirrel Canis latrans Coyote Odocoileus hemionus Mule deer Scientific and common names are from California Herps for amphibians & reptiles (http://www.californiahems.com/index.htmll, American Ornithologist's Union(htfi://mturalhstorv.si.edu/mna/1 for birds and Smithsonian Museum of Natural History for mammals (http://mturalhstory.si.edu/= . California Department of Fish and Wildlife Status, based on the most recent "Special Animals List", available here: http://vvw..dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/SPAnimals.pdf Listing Status California Department of Fish and Wildlife SSC: California Species of Special Concern WL: CDFW Watch List species sa: "Special Animals" is a general term that refers to all of the taxa the CNDDB is interested in tracking, regardless of their legal or protection status. This list is also referred to as the list of "species at risk" or "special status species". The Department of Fish and Wildlife considers the taxa on this list to be those of greatest conservation need. (nesting) = For most taxa the CNDDB is interested in sightings for the presence of resident populations. For some species (primarily birds), the CNDDB only tracks certain parts of the species range or life history (e.g., nesting locations). The area or life stage of interest is indicated in parenthesis after the common name. : Non-native or introduced species Results from focused California gnatcatcher protocol surveys: 5/18/17, 5/27/17, 6/5/17, 6/12/17, 6/19/17, 6/26/17 Appendix 3-5 - Habitat and Acoustic Bat Surveys, dated July 2017 '; �wV� ECOLOGICAL S C I E N C E 5, inc. Results of Habitat and Acoustic Bat Surveys Sand Canyon Plaza Project Los Angeles County, California Prepared for. Jacqueline Bowland Worden Associate Principal Biologist 231 Village Commons Blvd., Suite 17 Camarillo, CA 93012 805.437.1900 JWorden@impactsciences.com Prepared by. Scott Cameron Principal Biologist Ecological Sciences, Inc. 24307 Magic Mountain Parkway, #538 805.921.0583 scam eron@ecosciencesinc.com July 14, 2017 July 14, 2017 Jacqueline Bowland Worden Associate Principal Biologist 231 Village Commons Blvd., Suite 17 Camarillo, CA 93012 SUBJECT., Results of Habitat and Acoustic Bat Surveys, Sand Canyon Plaza Project, Los Angeles County, California Dear Jackie: This letter report presents findings of both habitat and acoustic bat surveys conducted on the Sand Canyon Plaza project site in support of the environmental review process. The objectives of the bat surveys were to identify both common and/or special -status species potentially present within the proposed development area. Introduction The project site is regionally located in Los Angeles County (Figure 1). The site is specifically located east of Sand Canyon Road and north of the Antelope Valley Freeway. The site occurs on the Mint Canyon 7.5 -minute USGS quadrangle map, Township 4 North, Range 15 West, Section 14 (Figure 2). Investigative Methods Information Review Primary data sources reviewed to evaluate the occurrence potential of both common and special -status bat species included, but were not necessarily limited to: (1) California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB 2017), (2) historic distributional and ecological data contained in Hall 1981; Ingles 1965; Jameson and Peeters 1988), (3) review of available reports from the site vicinity, (4) Natural History and Management of Bats in California and Nevada (The Wildlife Society1996), and (5) Ecology, Conservation and Management of Western Bat Species -Bat Species Accounts (Western Bat Working Group (1998). Field Surveys Ecological Sciences Principal Biologist, Scott Cameron, conducted a series of bat surveys to sample various locations and habitat types throughout the project site during the period between May and June 2017 (a maternity period). Instruments designed for identifying individual bat species were used to detect bat presence without deploying capture and release tactics (e.g., mist netting). Methods used included habitat assessments and active acoustic surveys utilizing five different types of acoustic equipment, along with several known bat call analysis and reference software. Specific methods are detailed below. Weather conditions during the 2017 surveys included variable cloud cover (clear to cloudy/overcast), 0-7 m.p.h. breezes, air temperatures of approximately 65-80oF and humidity ranging between 5-17%. Acoustic survey locations (n=9) are depicted on Figure 3. 24307 Magic Mountain Pkwy #538 ♦ Valencia, CA 91335 ♦ Office: 805.921.0583 Fax 805.921.0683 ♦ Cell: 805.415.9595 ♦ email: scameron@ecosciencesinc.com EGO LOGI GAL SCI EN CES,mc. July 14, 2017 Jacqueline Bowland Worden Associate Principal Biologist 231 Village Commons Blvd., Suite 17 Camarillo, CA 93012 SUBJECT., Results of Habitat and Acoustic Bat Surveys, Sand Canyon Plaza Project, Los Angeles County, California Dear Jackie: This letter report presents findings of both habitat and acoustic bat surveys conducted on the Sand Canyon Plaza project site in support of the environmental review process. The objectives of the bat surveys were to identify both common and/or special -status species potentially present within the proposed development area. Introduction The project site is regionally located in Los Angeles County (Figure 1). The site is specifically located east of Sand Canyon Road and north of the Antelope Valley Freeway. The site occurs on the Mint Canyon 7.5 -minute USGS quadrangle map, Township 4 North, Range 15 West, Section 14 (Figure 2). Investigative Methods Information Review Primary data sources reviewed to evaluate the occurrence potential of both common and special -status bat species included, but were not necessarily limited to: (1) California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB 2017), (2) historic distributional and ecological data contained in Hall 1981; Ingles 1965; Jameson and Peeters 1988), (3) review of available reports from the site vicinity, (4) Natural History and Management of Bats in California and Nevada (The Wildlife Society1996), and (5) Ecology, Conservation and Management of Western Bat Species -Bat Species Accounts (Western Bat Working Group (1998). Field Surveys Ecological Sciences Principal Biologist, Scott Cameron, conducted a series of bat surveys to sample various locations and habitat types throughout the project site during the period between May and June 2017 (a maternity period). Instruments designed for identifying individual bat species were used to detect bat presence without deploying capture and release tactics (e.g., mist netting). Methods used included habitat assessments and active acoustic surveys utilizing five different types of acoustic equipment, along with several known bat call analysis and reference software. Specific methods are detailed below. Weather conditions during the 2017 surveys included variable cloud cover (clear to cloudy/overcast), 0-7 m.p.h. breezes, air temperatures of approximately 65-80oF and humidity ranging between 5-17%. Acoustic survey locations (n=9) are depicted on Figure 3. 24307 Magic Mountain Pkwy #538 ♦ Valencia, CA 91335 ♦ Office: 805.921.0583 Fax 805.921.0683 ♦ Cell: 805.415.9595 ♦ email: scameron@ecosciencesinc.com Nr `mss •-... - > - 8 � r • 1. _ SCIEN CESA. July 2017 } Survey Area plate 1 Regional Site Location Sand Canyon Plaza Site B: �= Study Area Boundary plate W�-� USGS Topographic Vicinity Map July 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Site Habitat Assessments Because many North American bat species tend to congregate at preferred roosting sites or at isolated water sources, several field methods are available to identify species and broad habitat associations (Cooperrider, et al. 1986). Bat surveys were performed in areas (habitats) within the project site where presence of both common and special -status bats were most likely to occur based on the presence of tree cavities, exfoliating bark, bark fissures, crevices, cliff faces, and/or dense foliage. The habitat assessment included using vehicle surveys with aerial photographs and topographic maps for orientation. Active Acoustic Surveys Acoustic surveys convert the ultrasonic echolocation signals of bats into audible electronic signals, which can be recorded and processed to assist in identification of the species. Flying bats produce high frequency sounds for communication, orientation, and prey capture (Cooperrider, et al. 1986). Ultrasonic, echolocation calls are usually recognizable to species-specific with standard printed reference sonograms and identification software for each species. Hardware utilized included a Wildlife Acoustics Echo Meter 3 (EM3) with an internal recorder and external Garmin GPS, Pettersson D240X attached to an external Samson Zoom H2 recorder, Wildlife Acoustics Acoustics Echo Meter Touch attached to an Apple IPad with included Echo Meter identification software (app version 1.2), and a elekon Batlogger M. Identification software used for three of the acoustic systems was SonoBat 2 bat call analysis in conjunction with standard reference views sonograms. In addition, a Pettersson ultrasound D100 detector was used to listen for particular species at selected known frequencies. Night vision binoculars were also used to view potential roost areas (cliff faces, large trees with cavities) so bats could also be observed if emerging after dark. Existing Site Conditions Native and naturalized vegetation communities present within the project site are representative of those found in the region. The major communities present included California sagebrush scrub, chamise chaparral, Holly -leaved cherry chaparral, arroyo willow thickets (near outfall area on the north), thick leaf yerba santa scrub, and scattered live oak trees in the Sand Canyon Wash. In addition, steep sandstone cliffs are present primarily in the southeastern portion of the site that contain numerous crevices and erosional holes. An abandoned trailer park is located in the southwestern part of the site. Plates 4a -4c illustrate representative survey areas. Results Five bat species were recorded during the 2017 acoustic bat surveys. These species included Canyon bat (Parastrellus hesperus), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), California myotis (Myotis californicus), western small -footed myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum), and Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis). The Yuma myotis is considered special -status (CDFW Special Animal). Yuma myotis were only recorded at acoustic survey points located near the upper riparian area on one evening, so it was presumed to be migrating through the site. The Yuma myotis is common and widespread in California. It is found in a wide variety of habitats from the coast to mid -elevation. Yuma myotis is considered one of the most tolerant of human habitation. This species day roosts in buildings, trees, mines, caves, bridges, and rock crevices. Yuma myotis distribution is closely tied to bodies of water, which is uses as foraging sites and sources of drinking water. Open forests and woodlands are considered optimal habitat No evidence was detected of maternity colonies which can range from hundreds to thousands, and contain only adult females and their young. Males roost singly or in small groups (The Wildlife Society,1996). Common bats may use any portion of the study area as foraging habitat and moderate to high potential roosting habitat is present in trees, abandoned buildings, and cliff face crevices and bats could have emerged from these resources during the study. However, no direct evidence of bat roosting or maternity roosts (e.g., emerging bats, bat guano, prey remains, urine stains) was observed at any of the Impact Science; Inc. Results cf Habitat and Acoustic Bat Surveys July 14, 2017 plate 4a ECOLOGICAL S C I E N C ES Site Photographs ;uly 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Site :+k, View to north in Sand Canyon Wash t e .A..._ .S� View to southeast plate 4a ECOLOGICAL S C I E N C ES Site Photographs ;uly 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Site �& plate 4b %1 w: 16) oLo� c. L _"`"`E= Site Photographs july 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Site Am plate 4c s"EN`E3 Site Photographs july 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Site View to northwest �t '`' + ' Y • + _.Y F � y., 3 t V ew to n orth Am plate 4c s"EN`E3 Site Photographs july 2017 Sand Canyon Plaza Site acoustic sites or indirectly during habitat assessments. However, some of the sandstone crevices are located in areas that are not readily observable due to their location on cliff faces and could not be analyzed within the scope of this survey effort. Those crevices that were accessible, did not contain observable bat sign, rather had avian sign from perch site utilization on the outer crevice ledge. Small mammal (e.g., rodents) sign was also evident in the lower crevices. Additional species with potential to occur, but were not directly recorded in 2017, include Brazilian free - tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis), fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), Townsend's big -eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), long-legged myotis (Myotis volans), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), silver -haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), pocketed free -tailed bat (Nyctinomops femorosaccus), western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus), and western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillil). Addition surveys may be necessary to fully determine all bat species use of the site. These surveys should be conducted during the active period of mid-August to late October to fully analyze bat utilization of the site. Special -status bat species generally have a low occurrence potential to roost on site. CDFW recommends the DER include the use of acoustic recognition technology to maximize detection of bat species to minimize impacts to sensitive bat species (completed in May -June 2017). The DER should document the presence of any bats and include species specific mitigation measures to reduce impacts to below a level of significance. Accordingly, in order to avoid the direct loss of bats that could result from removal of trees, rock crevices, and structures that may provide roosting habitat (winter hibernacula, summer, and maternity), CDFW recommends that preconstruction surveys be conducted prior to demolition to determine how and when these species utilize the site and to avoid any areas being utilized by bats for hibernacula/roosting (if subsequently applicable -no evidence in May -June 2017 of roosting on site). I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this biological survey, and that the facts, statements, and information presented herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Sincerely, Ecological Sciences, Inc. Scott D. Cameron Principal Biologist Impact Science; Inc. Results cf Habitat and Acoustic Bat Surveys July 14, 2017 References California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). 2017. Computer Report, Mint Canyon USGS 7.5 -minute quadrangle map. Cooperrider, A.Y., R.J. Boyd, and H.R. Stuart (eds.). 1986. Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Service Center, Denver, Colorado. 858 pp. Hall, E.R. 1981. The Mammals of North America. John Wiley and Sons, New York (2 vol.). Ingles, L.G. 1965. Mammals of the Pacific States: California, Oregon, and Washington. Third edition. Palo Alto, California: Stanford. Jameson, E.W., Jr., and H. J. Peeters. 1988. California Mammals: California Natural History Guides: 52. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. The Wildlife Society. 1996. Natural History and Management of Bats in California and Nevada. Western Bat Working Group. 1998. Ecology, Conservation and Management of Western Bat Species -Bat Species Accounts. 10 Impact Science; Inc. Results cf Habitat and Acoustic Bat Surveys July 14, 2017 Appendix 11- Traffic and Circulation Appendix 11-3 -Traffic Study Supplemental Memorandum, dated May 2017 Tebo Environmental Consulting, Inc. Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project Final EIR August 2017 Appendix 11-3 -Traffic Study Supplemental Memorandum, dated May 2017 ® Stantec Memo To: Patrick Leclair From: Charlie Ho & Ian Pari & Daryl Zerfass City of Santa Clarita Stantec File: 2073008930 Date: May 19, 2017 Reference: Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project -Traffic Study Supplemental This memorandum presents supplemental traffic analysis data for the proposed Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use development (Project) in the City of Santa Clarita. In December 2016, a comprehensive traffic impact analysis was prepared (2016 traffic study) and included in the Project's Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The following memorandum addresses the changes made by the Planning Commission during its hearings on the project. Revised Project Description The 2016 traffic study was based on the project description prior to Planning Commission hearings, which included development of a mixed-use community consisting of approximately 130,600 square feet of commercial uses (including 55,600 square feet of general retail and restaurants and a 75,000 square foot assisted living facility with up to 120 beds), 312 apartment units, 122 townhome units, and 146 detached condominium units, for a total of 580 units. The project site also includes 123 mobile homes (as of 2016) that will be removed as part of the proposed development. The updated project description includes the following project modifications: 1) a 4,400 square foot increase to the general retail and restaurant component of the project (from 55,600 square feet to 60,000 square feet); and, 2) an increase to the assisted living facility of 20 beds (from 120 beds to up to 140 beds; a total of 85,000 square feet). 3) 27 detached condos in Planning Area 5 were removed and relocated to Planning Area 3 (attached condos). Planning Area 5 now has a total of 48 detached condos and Planning Area 3 now has 149 units. Table 1 on the following page lists the trip generation rates used for the traffic study. When taking into account the removal of the existing mobile homes and the internal capture trips, the 2016 traffic study estimated that the Project would generate approximately 393 new AM peak hour trips, 695 new PM peak hour trips, and 7,986 new daily trips. In comparison, the Revised Project Description would generate one additional trip in the AM peak hour, an additional 12 trips in the PM peak hour, and an additional 176 ADT, as shown in Table 2. This trip generation change is negligible, and because the volume of project traffic during the AM peak hour is effectively equal to the volume of traffic evaluated in the 2016 traffic study, and because the volume of additional project traffic in the PM peak hour is only 12 trips, which when distributed throughout the area of potential impact results in fewer than 7 additional project trips at any given study area intersection, it can be definitively concluded that the original impact conclusions and mitigation measures addressed in the 2016 traffic study will not change. Design with community in mind dzv:A2073\activeA2073008930AcorrespondenceAmemos\mem sandcyn suppl_20170519.docx May 19, 2017 Patrick Leclair & Ian Pari Page 2 of 5 Reference: Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project -Traffic Study Supplemental Table 1 Trip Generation Rates Table 2 Land Use and Trip Generation Summary - Revised Project Description Category Amount Units AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Average Daily Tripends Average Out Total In ITE Daily Category Code Units In Out Total In Out Total Tripends 1. Single -Family Detached Housing 210 DU 0.19 0.56 0.75 0.63 0.37 1.00 9.52 2. Condominium/Townhouse NA DU 0.06 0.48 0.54 0.47 0.26 0.73 8.00 3. Apartment 220 DU 0.10 0.41 0.51 0.40 0.22 0.62 6.65 4. Assisted Living 254 Beds 0.09 0.05 0.14 0.1 0.12 0.22 2.66 5. Mobile Home Park 240 DU 0.09 0.35 0.44 0.37 0.22 0.59 4.99 43 114 204 AM Ln(T) = 0.61 Ln(X)+2.24, 62% IB / 38% OB 6. Shopping Center (Retail & Rest.) 820 TSF PM Ln(T) = 0.67 Ln(X)+3.31, 48% IB / 52% OB 1 317 464 1 488 ADT Ln(T) = 0.65 Ln(X)+5.83, 50% IB / 50% OB DU = Dwelling Unit 9,644 Internal % X = Amount of Land Use in Thousand Square Feet TSF = Thousand Square Feet 3% 10% IB = Inbound ADT = Average Daily Tripends 9% Internal OB = Outbound T = Tripends 16 50 48 Table 2 Land Use and Trip Generation Summary - Revised Project Description Category Amount Units AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Average Daily Tripends In Out Total In Out Total Revised Project 1. Detached Housing (Condo Lots) 119 DU 23 67 90 75 44 119 1,133 2. Townhouse 149 DU 9 72 81 70 39 109 1,192 3. Apartment 312 DU 31 128 159 125 69 194 2,075 4. Assisted Living 140 Beds 13 7 20 14 17 31 372 6. Shopping Center (Retail & Rest.) 60 TSF 71 43 114 204 221 425 4,872 Revised Project Total 147 1 317 464 1 488 390 1 878 9,644 Internal % 5% 3% 3% 10% 12% 11% 9% Internal 7 9 16 50 48 98 868 External 140 308 448 438 342 780 8,776 Existing Trips to be Removed 11 43 54 46 27 73 614 Total Trips Added to Roadways Revised Land Use 129 265 394 392 315 707 8,163 Total Trips Added to Roadways Previous Land Use 128 265 393 386 309 695 7,986 Net Trips Added vs. Previous Land Use 1 0 1 6 6 12 176 Note: See attached for detailed calculation worksheet Design with community in mind dz v:\2073\active\2073008930\correspondence\memos\mem_sandcyn_suppl_20170519.docx May 19, 2017 Patrick Leclair & Ian Pari Page 3 of 5 Reference: Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project -Traffic Study Supplemental Lost Canyon Road Roundabout Analysis In addition, the Planning Commission requested additional information on the Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road intersection. The Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road intersection is a four-way intersection located approximately 0.5 mile south of the proposed Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project, and is currently controlled by stop signs at all four legs of the intersection. The intersection was analyzed in the 2016 traffic study, and it was concluded that this location would not be significantly impacted by the project under either existing -plus -project conditions or cumulative conditions based on the current stop -control configuration. A roundabout is approved for construction at the Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road intersection as part of another project (Vista Canyon). Therefore, a roundabout intersection level of service (LOS) analysis has subsequently been conducted to evaluate the long-term traffic conditions after the construction of the roundabout. This cumulative analysis includes traffic from the Sand Canyon Mixed Use project as well as the nearby Vista Canyon project. Methodology outlined in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2010) produces estimates of average vehicle delay as a function of intersection capacity and the volume of traffic passing through the intersection. From this a corresponding LOS is defined. Traffic LOS is designated "A" through "F" with LOS "A" representing free flow conditions and LOS "F" representing severe traffic congestion. LOS for arterial roadway intersections is determined based on operating conditions during the AM and PM peak hours and the geometric configuration of the intersection. Table 3 summarizes the range of vehicle delay that corresponds to LOS "A" through "F" for arterial intersections. The ranges are those defined in the HCM 2010 and are used by the City of Santa Clarita for estimating intersection LOS. Table 3 Roundabout Delay Level of Service Ranges LOS Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Average Delay (sec/veh) for Signalized Intersections and Roundabouts A <-10 B >10-20 C >20 - 35 D >35 - 55 E >55 - 80 F >80 The City of Santa Clarita has established performance standards for determining impact significance using both the level of delay and the LOS. An intersection is considered to be significantly impacted if the proposed project would worsen an intersection maintained by the City of Santa Clarita from LOS "D" or better to LOS "E" or "F", or if the project would cause more than a 4 -second increase in delay at an intersection that operates at LOS "D" with the project, or more than a 2 -second increase in delay at an intersection that operates at LOS "E" or "F". Design with community in mind dz v:\2073\active\2073008930\correspondence\memos\mem_sandcyn_suppl_20170519.docx May 19, 2017 Patrick Leclair & Ian Pari Page 4 of 5 Reference: Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project -Traffic Study Supplemental To assess the LOS for the Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road roundabout intersection, Sidra Intersection, a specialized micro -analytical modeling software is used. Sidra Intersection is widely accepted for roundabout analysis, and is recognized by HCM 2010 and the TRB-FHWA Roundabout Guide. The geometry of the Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road intersection roundabout is based on the design included in Appendix H of the May 2010 "Transportation Impact Study for Vista Canyon Transit -Oriented Development", and the traffic volumes used for this analysis are based on the cumulative conditions forecast volumes in the December 2016 "Sand Canyon Plaza Traffic Impact Analysis" report. The results of this peak hour intersection LOS analysis are summarized in Table 4, and the detailed LOS calculation worksheets are attached at the end of this memorandum. Table 4 Sand Canyon Road and Lost Canyon Road Intersection LOS Summary As shown in Table 4, the Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road intersection would operate at LOS "B" or better under the cumulative conditions with or without the proposed Project, and it would not be significantly impacted by the proposed Project. Soledad Canyon Road Left -turn Signal at Freeway Ramp The Planning Commission also requested additional information on the operation of the Soledad Canyon Road/SR-14 Southbound Ramp intersection. The Project's mitigation measures include modifications to the existing traffic signal at the Soledad Canyon Road/SR-14 Southbound Ramp intersection. Currently, left -turns from Soledad Canyon Road onto the freeway on-ramp do not have a dedicated signal phase (i.e., left -turn arrow), and must wait for a gap in the opposing traffic to make a turn. This configuration is referred to as "permissive" control. Project mitigation includes adding left -turn arrows such that left -turning vehicles have a dedicated, or "protected", phase to make turns. The 2016 traffic study recommended "protected/permissive" left -turn phasing, which provides a left - turn arrow in a dedicated left -turn signal phase, but also allows left -turns during the standard green phase when gaps in opposing traffic allow. Subsequent consideration by City engineering staff has led to a recommendation that the signal be configurated as a standard "protected" left -turn arrow. Caltrans has also been consulted and recommends use of the standard "protected" left -turn arrow at this location. Design with community in mind dz v:\2073\active\2073008930\correspondence\memos\mem_sandcyn_suppl_20170519.docx Cumulative No -Project Cumulative With -Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Traffic Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Delay (s) LOS Location Control Sand Canyon & Roundabout 12.3 B 8.4 A 14.4 B 11.1 B Lost Canyon As shown in Table 4, the Lost Canyon Road/Sand Canyon Road intersection would operate at LOS "B" or better under the cumulative conditions with or without the proposed Project, and it would not be significantly impacted by the proposed Project. Soledad Canyon Road Left -turn Signal at Freeway Ramp The Planning Commission also requested additional information on the operation of the Soledad Canyon Road/SR-14 Southbound Ramp intersection. The Project's mitigation measures include modifications to the existing traffic signal at the Soledad Canyon Road/SR-14 Southbound Ramp intersection. Currently, left -turns from Soledad Canyon Road onto the freeway on-ramp do not have a dedicated signal phase (i.e., left -turn arrow), and must wait for a gap in the opposing traffic to make a turn. This configuration is referred to as "permissive" control. Project mitigation includes adding left -turn arrows such that left -turning vehicles have a dedicated, or "protected", phase to make turns. The 2016 traffic study recommended "protected/permissive" left -turn phasing, which provides a left - turn arrow in a dedicated left -turn signal phase, but also allows left -turns during the standard green phase when gaps in opposing traffic allow. Subsequent consideration by City engineering staff has led to a recommendation that the signal be configurated as a standard "protected" left -turn arrow. Caltrans has also been consulted and recommends use of the standard "protected" left -turn arrow at this location. Design with community in mind dz v:\2073\active\2073008930\correspondence\memos\mem_sandcyn_suppl_20170519.docx May 19, 2017 Patrick Leclair & Ian Pari Page 5 of 5 Reference: Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project -Traffic Study Supplemental With the current "permissive" left -turn configuration, vehicles have been observed having to wait through multiple cycles of the light when opposing traffic is heavy. When opposing traffic is light to moderate, vehicles generally can make left -turns during one cycle. During the PM peak hour, when opposing traffic volumes are the heaviest, delays can be substantial and vehicles may have to wait through several signal cycles before turning left. The intersection operations are also influenced by the freeway conditions, as more traffic uses Soledad Canyon Road when the freeway is congested. An analysis of cumulative conditions with the project and the addition of a "protected" left -turn signal phase has been prepared using the Synchro and SimTraffic micro -analytical modeling software. The microsimulation, which has been provided to City staff for their use to develop signal timing parameters, indicates that by providing a left -turn arrow, all left -turning vehicles would typically be able to make a turn in a single signal cycle, significantly reducing delay for the left -turn movement. The left -turn queue length would be expected to be no greater than 375 feet, which can be accommodated by the proposed 500 foot turn -pocket length. Conclusion This supplemental analysis evaluated an update to the project's trip generation estimates, an evaluation of the Lost Canyon Road roundabout, and the evaluation of a "protected" left -turn phase for the Soledad Canyon Road/SR-14 Southbound Ramps intersection. In each case, based on the results of this supplemental analysis as discussed above, it is concluded that no new significant traffic or circulation impacts would result from the Revised Project Description and modifications. Furthermore, no new mitigation measures relating to any new significant traffic or circulation impacts are proposed to be implemented or are required. The Revised Project Description and modifications will not result in a substantial increase in the severity of any previously identified traffic or circulation impacts that would require mitigation measures to reduce any impact to a level of insignificance. Based on the above analysis, it is concluded that the original impact conclusions and mitigation measures addressed in the 2016 Traffic Study will not change. STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. Charlie Ho, PE Transportation Engineer Phone: (949) 923-6063 Charlie.Ho@stantec.com Daryl Zerfass, PE, PTP Principal Phone: (949) 923-6058 Daryl.Zerfass@stantec.com Attachment: Internal Capture Calculation Worksheets Roundabout Delay and LOS Calculation Worksheets Soledad/SR-14 Ramp Delay, LOS and Queue Calculation Worksheets Design with community in mind dz v:\2073\active\2073008930\correspondence\memos\mem_sandcyn_suppl_20170519.docx NCHRP 694 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool Project Name: Sand-Soledad Table 2-A: Mode Split and Vehicle Occupancy Estimates Organization: Stantec Consulting Project Location: Santa Clarita, CA Performed By: Charlie Ho Scenario Description: Project Buildout Date: 5/15/2017 Analysis Year: 2030 Checked By: %Non -Motorized Analysis Period, AM Street Peak Hour Date: 43 Table 4-A: Internal Person -Trip Origin -Destination Matrix* Table 1-A: Base Vehicle -Trip Generation Estimates (Single -Use Site Estimate) Table 2-A: Mode Split and Vehicle Occupancy Estimates Land Use Development Data (For Information Only) ITE LUCs' Quantity Units Land Use Veh. Occ.' Estimated Vehicle -Trips' Restaurant Total Entering Exiting Office Veh. Occ.' %Transit %Non -Motorized Retail 820 60 TSF 114 71 43 Restaurant 1.16 0% 0% Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 Residential 0 3 Residential 210220 580 DU 330 63 267 Hotel 1.09 0% 2% All Other Land Uses' 254 140 Beds 20 13 7 All Other Land Uses' 464 147 317 Table 4-A: Internal Person -Trip Origin -Destination Matrix* Table 3-A: Average Land Use Interchange Distances (Feet Walking Distance) Table 2-A: Mode Split and Vehicle Occupancy Estimates Destination (To) Office Retail Restaurant Cinema/Entertainment Residential Hotel Office Land Use Veh. Occ.' Entering Trips %Transit %Non -Motorized Restaurant 0 0 Exiting Trips 0 Veh. Occ.' %Transit %Non -Motorized Office N/A 0 Retail 1.17 0% 0% 1.16 0% 0% Restaurant 0 0 Residential 0 3 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 Residential 1.13 0% 4% 1.09 0% 2% Hotel All Other Land Uses' 1% Table 4-A: Internal Person -Trip Origin -Destination Matrix* Table 3-A: Average Land Use Interchange Distances (Feet Walking Distance) Origin (From) Destination (To) Office Retail Restaurant Cinema/Entertainment Residential Hotel Office Residential Hotel Retail 0 Restaurant 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 Residential 1 0 Hotel N/A Table 4-A: Internal Person -Trip Origin -Destination Matrix* Destination (To) Origin (From) Office Retail Restaurant Cinema/Entertainment Residential Hotel Office 0 0 0 0 0 Retail 0 0 0 1 0 Restaurant 0 0 N/A 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 140 0 0 Residential 0 3 0 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 Table 5-A: Computations Summary Land Use Entering Trips Total Entering Exiting Al Person -Trips 515 167 348 Internal Capture Percentage 2% 2% 1 % N/A N/A Residential 1% External Vehicle -Trips' 448 140 308 External Transit -Tri ss 0 0 0 External Non -Motorized Trips' 9 3 6 Table 6-A: Internal Trip Capture Percentages by Land Use Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips Office N/A N/A Retail 4% 2% Restaurant N/A N/A Cinema/Entertainment N/A N/A Residential 1% 1% Hotel N/A N/A ' Land Use Codes (LUCs) from Trip Generation Manual, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 'Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator. 'Enter trips assuming no transit or non -motorized trips (as assumed in ITE Trip Generation Manual). 'Enter vehicle occupancy assumed in Table 1-Avehicle trips. Ifvehicle occupancy changes for proposed mixed-use project, manual adjustments must be made to Tables 5-q 9-A (O and D). Enter transit, non -motorized percentages that will result with proposed mixed-use project complete. 'Vehicle -trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-A. 'Person -Trips *Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. Estimation Tool Developed by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute- Version 2013.1 Project Name: Sand-Soledad Analysis Perioc!71 AM Street Peak Hour 'Vehicle-tnps computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancyvalues provided in Table 2-A Person -Taps 'Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator 'Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. Table 8-A (0): Internal Person -Trip Origin -Destination Matrix (Computed at Origin) Table 7-A: Conversion of Vehicle -Trip Ends to Person -Trip Ends Origin (From) Land Use Table 7-A (D): Entering Tnps Veh. Occ. Vehicle -Trips Person -Tops' Restaurant Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment Table 7-A (0): Exiting Tnps Hotel Veh. Occ. Vehicle -Tops Person -Tops' Office 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Retail 1.17 71 83 1.16 43.15420194 50 Restaurant 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Residential 1.13 63 71 1.09 267 291 Hotel 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 'Vehicle-tnps computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancyvalues provided in Table 2-A Person -Taps 'Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator 'Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. Table 8-A (0): Internal Person -Trip Origin -Destination Matrix (Computed at Origin) Table 9-A (D): Internal and External Trips Summary (Entering Trips) Origin (From) Office Retail Restaurant Destination (To) Cinema/Entertainment Residential Hotel Office Office 0 0 0 0 0 Retail 15 27 7 0 7 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 6 3 58 0 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 'Vehicle-tnps computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancyvalues provided in Table 2-A Person -Taps 'Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator 'Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. Table 8-A (D): Internal Person -Trip Origin -Destination Matrix (Computed at Destination) Table 9-A (D): Internal and External Trips Summary (Entering Trips) Origin Destination Land Use Internal Person -Trip Estimates External Destination (To) (From) Office Retail Restaurant Cinema/Entertainment Residential Hotel Office 68 0 27 0 0 0 0 Retail 0 Residential 1 70 71 0 0 1 0 Restaurant 0 7 0 0 4 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 0 14 0 0 0 Hotel 0 3 0 0 0 'Vehicle-tnps computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancyvalues provided in Table 2-A Person -Taps 'Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator 'Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. Table 9-A (D): Internal and External Trips Summary (Entering Trips) Destination Land Use Internal Person -Trip Estimates External Total External Tnps by Mode' Vehicles' Transit Non -Motorized Office 0 0 0 0 0 0 Retail 3 80 83 68 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 1 70 71 59 0 3 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Other Land Uses' 0 13 13 13 0 0 'Vehicle-tnps computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancyvalues provided in Table 2-A Person -Taps 'Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator 'Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. Table 9-A (0): Internal and External Trips Summary (Exiting Trips) Origin Land Use Internal Person -Trip Estimates External Total External Tnps by Mode' Vehicles Transit Non -Motorized Office 0 0 0 0 0 0 Retail 1 49 50 42 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 3 288 291 259 0 6 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 All Other Land Uses' 0 7 7 7 0 0 'Vehicle-tnps computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancyvalues provided in Table 2-A Person -Taps 'Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator 'Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. NCHRP 694 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool Project Name: Sand-Soledad Table 2-P: Mode Split and Vehicle Occupancy Estimates Organization: Stantec Consulting Project Location: Santa Clarita, CA Performed By: Charlie Ho Scenario Description: Project Buildout Date: 5/152017 Analysis Year: 2030 Checked By: Analysis Period: PM Street Peak Hour Date: Table 5-P: Computations Summary Table 1-P: Base Vehicle -Trip Generation Estimates (Single -Use Site Estimate) Table 2-P: Mode Split and Vehicle Occupancy Estimates Land Use Development Data (For Information Only) ITE LUCs' Quantity Units Land Use Veh. Occ° Estimated Vehicle -Trips' Restaurant Total Entering Exiting Office 0 %Non -Motorized Retail 820 60 TSF 425 204 221 Restaurant 0 0% Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 Residential 210 580 DU 422 270 152 Hotel 0 4% All Other Land Uses 254 140 Beds 31 14 17 All Other Land Uses 878 488 390 Table 5-P: Computations Summary Table 3-P: Average Land Use Interchange Distances (Feet Walking Distance) Table 2-P: Mode Split and Vehicle Occupancy Estimates Destination (To) Office Retail Restaurant Cinema/Entertainment Residential Hotel Office Land Use Veh. Occ° Entering Trips Transit %Non -Motorized Restaurant Hotel Exiting Trips 10% Veh. Occ.° Transit %Non -Motorized Office Retail 0 Retail 1.21 0% 0% 1.18 0% 0% Restaurant 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 Cinema/Entertainment Residential 1.15 0% 3% 1.21 0% 4% Hotel Residential 0 All Other Land Uses 0 Table 5-P: Computations Summary Table 3-P: Average Land Use Interchange Distances (Feet Walking Distance) Origin (From) Destination (To) Office Retail Restaurant Cinema/Entertainment Residential Hotel Office Origin (From) Retail 2000 Restaurant Hotel Cinema/Entertainment 10% Residential 2000 Hotel Retail Table 5-P: Computations Summary Land Use Table 4-P: Internal Person -Trip Origin -Destination Matrix* Total Entering Origin (From) Office Destination (To) Retail Restaurant Cinema/Entertainment Residential Hotel Office 10% 0 0 0 0 0 Retail 0 0 0 43 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 0 8 0 0 0 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 Table 5-P: Computations Summary Land Use Entering Trips Total Entering Exiting All Person -Trips 1,034 572 462 Internal Capture Percentage 10% 9% 11% N/A N/A Residential 14% External Vehicle -Tri ss 780 438 342 External Transit -Tris 1 1 0 External Non -Motorized Tris 14 7 7 Table 6-P: Internal Trip Capture Percentages by Land Use Land Use Entering Trips Exiting Trips Office N/A N/A Retail 3% 16% Restaurant N/A N/A Cinema/Entertainment N/A N/A Residential 14% 4% Hotel N/A N/A 1 Land Use Codes (LUCs) from Trip Generation Manual, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator. 'Enter trips assuming no transit or non -motorized trips (as assumed in ITE Trip Generation Manuab. 'Enter vehicle occupancy assumed in Table 1-P vehicle trips. Ifvehicle occupancy changes for proposed mixed-use project, manual adjustments must be made 'Vehicle -trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-P. e Person -Trips *Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. Estimation Tool Developed by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute - Version 2013.1 Project Name: Sand-Soledad Analysis Period:1 PM Street Peak Hour Table 7-P: Conversion of Vehicle -Trip Ends to Person -Trip Ends Land Use Table 7-P (D): Entering Veh. Occ. Vehicle -Trips Trips Origin Table 7-P (0): Exiting Trips Person -Trips* Veh. Occ. Vehicle -Trips Person -Trips* Office 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Retail 1.21 204 247 1.18 221.4769848 261 Restaurant 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Residential 1.15 270 311 1.21 152 184 Hotel 1.00 0 0 1.00 0 0 Table 9-P (D): Internal and External Trips Summary (Entering Trips) Table 8-P (0): Internal Person -Trip Origin -Destination Matrix (Computed at Origin) Table 9-P (0): Internal and External Trips Summary (Exiting Trips) Origin Origin External Trips by Mode* Total Destination (To) Destination (To) Office 0 0 (From) (From) Office Retail Restaurant Cinema/Entertainment Residential Hotel Office 0 0 0 0 0 0 Retail 5 311 76 10 43 13 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 7 25 39 0 0 6 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 Table 9-P (D): Internal and External Trips Summary (Entering Trips) Table 8-P (D): Internal Person -Trip Origin -Destination Matrix (Computed at Destination) Table 9-P (0): Internal and External Trips Summary (Exiting Trips) Origin Origin Land Use External Trips by Mode* Total Destination (To) Transit' Non -Motorized' Office 0 0 (From) Office Retail Restaurant Cinema/Entertainment Residential Hotel Office 0 20 0 0 12 0 Retail 0 311 0 0 143 0 Restaurant Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 124 10 0 0 50 12 0 0 Residential 0 8 0 0 0 Hotel 0 5 0 0 0 Table 9-P (D): Internal and External Trips Summary (Entering Trips) Destination Land Use Person -Trip Estimates Internal External Table 9-P (0): Internal and External Trips Summary (Exiting Trips) Origin Land Use External Trips by Mode* Total Vehicles' Transit' Non -Motorized' Office 0 0 0 0 0 0 Retail 8 239 247 198 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 43 268 311 226 1 7 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 WI Other Land Uses' 0 14 14 14 0 0 'Vehicle -trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-P 'Person -Trips 'Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator *Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. Table 9-P (0): Internal and External Trips Summary (Exiting Trips) Origin Land Use Internal Person -Trip Estimates External Total External Trips by Mode* Vehicles Transitz Non -Motorized i Office 0 0 0 0 0 0 Retail 43 218 261 185 0 0 Restaurant 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cinema/Entertainment 0 0 0 0 0 0 Residential 8 176 184 140 0 7 Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 WI Other Land Uses' 0 17 17 17 0 0 'Vehicle -trips computed using the mode split and vehicle occupancy values provided in Table 2-P 'Person -Trips 'Total estimate for all other land uses at mixed-use development site is not subject to internal trip capture computations in this estimator *Indicates computation that has been rounded to the nearest whole number. Table 7.1a Adjusted Internal Trip Capture Rates for Trip Origins within a Multi-Use Development Land Use Pairs Weekday AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour From OFFICE To Office 0.0% 0.0% To Retail 28.0% 20.0% To Restaurant 63.0% 4.0% To Cinema/Entertainment 0.0% 0.0% To Residential 1.0% 2.0% To Hotel 0.0% 0.0% From RETAIL To Office 29.0% 2.0% To Retail 0.0% 0.0% To Restaurant 13.0% 29.0% To Cinema/Entertainment 0.0% 4.0% To Residential 14.0% 16.4% To Hotel 0.0% 5.0% From RESTAURANT To Office 31.0% 3.0% To Retail 14.0% 41.0% To Restaurant 0.0% 0.0% To Cinema/Entertainment 0.0% 8.0% To Residential 4.0% 18.0% To Hotel 3.0% 7.0% From CINEMA/ENTERTAINMENT To Office 0.0% 2.0% To Retail 0.0% 21.0% To Restaurant 0.0% 31.0% To Cinema/Entertainment 0.0% 0.0% To Residential 0.0% 8.0% To Hotel 0.0% 2.0% From RESIDENTIAL To Office 2.0% 4.0% To Retail 1.0% 13.4% To Restaurant 20.0% 21.0% To Cinema/Entertainment 0.0% 0.0% To Residential 0.0% 0.0% To Hotel 0.0% 3.0% From HOTEL To Office 75.0% 0.0% To Retail 14.0% 16.0% To Restaurant 9.0% 68.0% To Cinema/Entertainment 0.0% 0.0% To Residential 0.0% 2.0% To Hotel 1 0.0% 0.0% Table 7.2a Adjusted Internal Trip Capture Rates for Trip Destinations within a Multi -Use Development Land Use Pairs Weekday AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour To OFFICE From Office 0.0% 0.0% From Retail 4.0% 31.0% From Restaurant 14.0% 30.0% From Cinema/Entertainment 0.0% 6.0% From Residential 3.0% 57.0% From Hotel 3.0% 0.0% To RETAIL From Office 32.0% 8.0% From Retail 0.0% 0.0% From Restaurant 8.0% 50.0% From Cinema/Entertainment 0.0% 4.0% From Residential 17.0% 3.2% From Hotel 4.0% 2.0% To RESTAURANT From Office 23.0% 2.0% From Retail 50.0% 29.0% From Restaurant 0.0% 0.0% From Cinema/Entertainment 0.0% 3.0% From Residential 20.0% 14.0% From Hotel 6.0% 5.0% To CINEMA/ENTERTAINMENT From Office 0.0% 1.0% From Retail 0.0% 26.0% From Restaurant 0.0% 32.0% From Cinema/Entertainment 0.0% 0.0% From Residential 0.0% 0.0% From Hotel 0.0% 0.0% To RESIDENTIAL From Office 0.0% 4.0% From Retail 2.0% 46.0% From Restaurant 5.0% 16.0% From Cinema/Entertainment 0.0% 4.0% From Residential 0.0% 0.0% From Hotel 0.0% 0.0% To HOTEL From Office 0.0% 0.0% From Retail 0.0% 17.0% From Restaurant 4.0% 71.0% From Cinema/Entertainment 0.0% 1.0% From Residential 0.0% 12.0% From Hotel 0.0% 0.0% INPUT VOLUMES Vehicles and pedestrians per 60 minutes ® Site: Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Cumulative No -Project AM Peak Hour Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Volume Display Method: Total and % Volumes are shown for Movement Class(es): All Classes and Heavy Vehicles Total Intersection Volumes (veh) All Movement Classes: 2040 Light Vehicles (LV): 1999 Heavy Vehicles (HV): 41 Sand Canyon 360 ..J M12% 0 0 2% o 0 T mmmmm*20 m 16110 U M10w 2% 0 Ir 0 I.. Sand Canyon 480 140 2% 10 *11rr Created'. Wednesday April 2020170:41'. 05 PM Copyright O 20062013 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd S DRA SIDRA INTERSECTI ON 60113995 www sidrasolufions com Project V:/2073[actlve/207300893manalysls\sldra/2073008930SandCyn&LostC.ynslay INTERSECTION 6 8001309, SLANTED CONSULTING SVCS INC, PLUS/ 1 PC DELAY (AVERAGE) Average control delay per vehicle, or average pedestrian delay (seconds) ® Site: Sand Canvon & Lost Canvon Cumulative No -Project AM Peak Hour Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Roundabout All Movement Classes j�a 7.7 Sand Canyon r oCC M15.9 O T 12.7 MMM� 9.6 j g 0 10.90 O 17.7 J J Sand Canyon Colour code based on Level of Service LOSA LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F Continuous Level of Service Method: Delay &v/c (HCM 2010) LOS F will result ifv/c> 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection). Roundabout Level of Service Method: Same as Signalised Intersections SIDRAStandard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay. Processed'. Wednesday April 26, 20176: 41.40 PM Copyright O 20002013 Akcelik and Associates W Ltd SIDRA S DPA INTERSECTION 6.0.113995 www sidrasolutions com Prefect V/2073Vactive/207300893aanalysis\Sidra/207300893aSandWn&Lo4Wnsipy INTERSECTION 6 8001309, STANTEC CONSULTING SVCS INC, PLUS / UPC South East North West Intersection Dela (Average) 159 1 139 8.6 1 14.6 123 LOS I B I B I A I B B j�a 7.7 Sand Canyon r oCC M15.9 O T 12.7 MMM� 9.6 j g 0 10.90 O 17.7 J J Sand Canyon Colour code based on Level of Service LOSA LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F Continuous Level of Service Method: Delay &v/c (HCM 2010) LOS F will result ifv/c> 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection). Roundabout Level of Service Method: Same as Signalised Intersections SIDRAStandard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay. Processed'. Wednesday April 26, 20176: 41.40 PM Copyright O 20002013 Akcelik and Associates W Ltd SIDRA S DPA INTERSECTION 6.0.113995 www sidrasolutions com Prefect V/2073Vactive/207300893aanalysis\Sidra/207300893aSandWn&Lo4Wnsipy INTERSECTION 6 8001309, STANTEC CONSULTING SVCS INC, PLUS / UPC Detailed Output Page 1 of 4 DETAILED OUTPUT ® Site: Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Cumulative No - Project AM Peak Hour Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Roundabout IOUTPUT TABLE LINKS ® Roundabouts Roundabout Basic Parameters Roundabout Circulating / Exiting Stream Parameters Roundabout Gap Acceptance Parameters Roundabout Flow Rates 7111' Movements Lanes Lane, Approach and Intersection Performance �= Other Model Settings Summary Diagnostics Roundabouts Roundabout Basic Parameters Site Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Cumulative No -Project AM Peak Hour Intersection IB: 16 Roundabout Central Circ Insc Entry Entry Circ Entry Av.Entry Island Width Diam. Radius Angle Lanes Lanes Lane Biam Width ft ft ft ft deg ft South: Sand Canyon 90.0 20.0 130.0 65.0 30.0 1 1 15.00 East: Lost Canyon 90.0 20.0 130.0 65.0 30.0 1 1 15.00 North: Sand Canyon 90.0 20.0 130.0 65.0 30.0 1 1 15.00 West: Lost Canyon 90.0 20.0 130.0 65.0 30.0 1 1 15.00 Roundabout Capacity Model: SIBRA Standard Roundabout Circulating / Exiting Stream Parameters Site Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Cumulative No -Project AM Peak Hour Intersection IB: 16 Roundabout Best Turn Lane Lane No. Type South: Sand Canyon W L2 1 Dominant N T1 1 Dominant E R2 1 Dominant East: Lost Canyon S L2 1 Dominant Opng FIE Ant. %Near %Eait Cap. Flow pcu/ Flow Lane Flow Const. veh/h veh pcu/h Only Incl. Effect 911 1.02 919 0.0 0.0 N 911 1.02 919 0.0 0.0 N 911 1.02 919 0.0 0.0 N 1032 1.02 1052 0.0 0.0 N 0-B Aver In -Bunch Prop. Factor Speed Headway Bunched mph sec 0.907 15.3 2.00 0.900 0.907 15.3 2.00 0.900 0.907 15.3 2.00 0.900 0.795 19.2 2.00 0.756 about:blank 4/26/2017 Detailed Output W T1 1 Dominant 1032 1.02 1052 0.0 0.0 N 0.795 19.2 N R2 1 Dominant 1032 1.02 1052 0.0 0.0 N 0.795 19.2 North: Sand Canyon 2.00 0.900 y 1.02 9.66 109.3 E L2 1 Dominant 168 1.02 172 0.0 0.0 N 0.960 15.6 S T1 1 Dominant 168 1.02 172 0.0 0.0 N 0.960 15.6 W R2 1 Dominant 168 1.02 172 0.0 0.0 N 0.960 15.6 West: Lost Canyon 2.00 0.756 y 1.02 3.96 111.7 N L2 1 Dominant 992 1.02 951 0.0 0.0 N 0.889 23.0 E T1 1 Dominant 992 1.02 951 0.0 0.0 N 0.889 23.0 S R2 1 Dominant 992 1.02 951 0.0 0.0 N 0.889 23.0 Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard 2.00 0.756 2.00 0.756 2.00 0.188 2.00 0.188 2.00 0.188 2.00 0.929 2.00 0.929 2.00 0.929 Roundabout Gap Acceptance Parameters Site Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Cumulative No -Project AM Peak Hour Intersection ID: 16 Roundabout Dest Turn Lane Lane Critical Gap No. Type In -Bunch Prop. Priority FIE for -------------- Follow-up Headway Bunched Sharing Entry Headway Dist Headway sec sec ft sec South: Sand Canyon Environment Factor: 1.20 Entry/Circ. Flow Adjustment: Medium W L2 1 Dominant 2.00 0.900 y 1.02 9.66 109.3 N T1 1 Dominant 2.00 0.900 y 1.02 9.66 109.3 E R2 1 Dominant 2.00 0.900 y 1.02 9.66 109.3 East: Lost Canyon Environment Factor: 1.20 Entry/Circ. Flow Adjustment: Medium S L2 1 Dominant 2.00 0.756 y 1.02 3.96 111.7 W T1 1 Dominant 2.00 0.756 y 1.02 3.96 111.7 N R2 1 Dominant 2.00 0.756 y 1.02 3.96 111.7 North: Sand Canyon Environment Factor: 1.20 Entry/Circ. Flow Adjustment: Medium E L2 1 Dominant 2.00 0.188 y 1.02 9.63 105.8 S T1 1 Dominant 2.00 0.188 y 1.02 9.63 105.8 W R2 1 Dominant 2.00 0.188 y 1.02 9.63 105.8 West: Lost Canyon Environment Factor: 1.20 Entry/Circ. Flow Adjustment: Medium N L2 1 Dominant 2.00 0.929 y 1.02 9.70 158.2 E T1 1 Dominant 2.00 0.929 y 1.02 9.70 158.2 S R2 1 Dominant 2.00 0.929 y 1.02 9.70 158.2 Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard Priority sharing means Follow-up Headway plus Intra -bunch Headway is larger than the Critical Gap. Dist (Distance): Spacing, i.e. distance between the front ends of two successive vehicles across all lanes in the circulating or exiting stream Roundabout Flow Rates Site Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Cumulative No -Project AM Peak Hour Intersection ID: 16 Roundabout CIRCULATING LANE FLOW RATES Lane Circulating Flow Rates No. veh/h pcu/h Percent 2.87 2.87 2.87 2.68 2.68 2.68 2.72 2.72 2.72 2.91 2.91 2.91 Page 2 of 4 about:blank 4/26/2017 Detailed Output Page 3 of 4 South: Sand Canyon 1 911 919 100.0% (veh/h) Total 911 919 Downst Total East: Lost Canyon Canyon Lane Demand 1 1032 1052 100.0% 663 Total 1032 1052 652 663 North: Sand Canyon Canyon (veh/h) Satf. 1 168 172 100.0% 32 Total 168 172 21 32 West: Lost Canyon Canyon 0.856 1 992 951 100.0% 997 Total 992 951 931 997 APPROACH LANE FLOW RATES Lane Approach Flows (veh/h) No. Roundabout Out To Downst Total South: Sand Canyon Lane Demand 1 Deg 11 652 663 Total Flow BHV 11 652 663 East: Lost Canyon (veh/h) Satf. 1 sec 11 21 32 Total 11 21 32 North: Sand Canyon 0.856 1 398 516 931 997 Total 0.856 516 931 997 West: Lost Canyon 1 116 389 505 Total 13.9 116 389 505 Movements Lanes Lane, Approach and Intersection Performance Site Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Cumulative No -Project AM Peak Hour Intersection ID: 16 Roundabout Lane Demand Adj. Deg Aver. Longest Shot No. Flow BHV Basic Sat Delay Queue Lane (veh/h) Satf. a sec ft ft South: Sand Canyon 1 663 2 0.856 15.9 398 900 663 2 0.856 15.9 398 East: Lost Canyon 1 32 2 0.087 13.9 13 700 32 2 0.087 13.9 13 North: Sand Canyon 1 997 2 0.872 8.6 933 1100 997 2 0.872 8.6 933 West: Lost Canyon 1 505 2 0.701 19.6 189 250 about:blank 4/26/2017 Defiled Output ---------------------------------------------------- 505 2 0 701 14 6 189 ALL V111I 2147 2 0 872 12 3 433 Peak flat period - 15 ==as Duane values in those Cable a 95% querand (feel None Basic Saturation Flood are no, animated st roustabouts or sign controlled intersections and apply duty to couniscrodus leave ane. Model Settings Summary Site Sand Canyon &LA Canyon Cumulative No-ProjectAM Peak Hour Inversection IS 16 recreation Basic Paremesters intersection Nee: Drionver on the riga.--ew side of the road plant data specified To UG units Peak ST. Period (for performance) 15 dicauds Unit five (for Bounce) 60 =as SIDded Standard Delay doodel used HCH Proverand local option used Level are ofRent.1e as ® f Service based on- Delay d oro iwm 2010) Dagngates Site Sand Canyon &Lost Canyon Cumulative NoProjectAM Peak Hour Page of Proi Wednesday , om0sr 64:40 Pro Clang®r k) 2000 2013 Ian am Benxi Pry Ltd SIDRA SIDRA IN HE RSECT ION 11 3995 u,pdraddrd,on, corn INTERSECTION 3001339 STANTEC CONSULTING SWS INC PLUS flPC ebowtblenk 4/2&2017 INPUT VOLUMES Vehicles and pedestrians per 60 minutes ® Site: Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Cumulative No -Project PM Peak Hour Volume Display Method: Total and % Volumes are shown for Movement Class(es): All Classes and Heavy Vehicles Total Intersection Volumes (veh) All Movement Classes: 1910 Light Vehicles (LV): 1872 Heavy Vehicles (HV): 38 Sand Canyon 190 ..J M12% r 0 2% O O MOMMMIll,2� v 16 U O 70w 2% 0 r 0 I.. Sand Canyon 750 40 2% 10 *11r- 30 Lo 20 2% 1 r 2% Created'. Wednesday April 202017650'. 14 PM Copyright O 20062013 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd S DRA SIDRA INTERSECTION 60113995 www sidrasolufions com Project V:/2073[actlve/207300893manalysls\sldra/2073008930SandCyn&LostC.ynslay INTERSECTION 6 8001309, SLANTED CONSULTING SVCS INC, PLUS/ 1 PC DELAY (AVERAGE) Average control delay per vehicle, or average pedestrian delay (seconds) ® Site: Sand Canvon & Lost Canvon Cumulative No -Project PM Peak Hour Roundabout All Movement Classes .2 2 2.9 Sand Canyon r oCC M15.8 O T 13.1 MMM� 9.5 j g 0 �10.80 O J J vv Sand Canyon Colour code based on Level of Service LOSA LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F Continuous Level of Service Method: Delay &v/c (HCM 2010) LOS F will result ifv/c> 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection). Roundabout Level of Service Method: Same as Signalised Intersections SIDRAStandard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay. Processed'. Wednesday April 26, 2017641.41 PM Copyright O 20002013 Akcelik and Associates W Ltd SIDRA S DPA INTERSECTION 6.0.113995 www sidrasolutions com Prefect V/2073Vactive/207300893aanalysis\Sidra/207300893aSandWn&Lo4Wnsipy INTERSECTION 6 8001309, STANTEC CONSULTING SVCS INC, PLUS / UPC South East North West Intersection Dela (Average) 11.0 1 135 33 1 14.1 84 LOS I B I B I A I B A .2 2 2.9 Sand Canyon r oCC M15.8 O T 13.1 MMM� 9.5 j g 0 �10.80 O J J vv Sand Canyon Colour code based on Level of Service LOSA LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F Continuous Level of Service Method: Delay &v/c (HCM 2010) LOS F will result ifv/c> 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection). Roundabout Level of Service Method: Same as Signalised Intersections SIDRAStandard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay. Processed'. Wednesday April 26, 2017641.41 PM Copyright O 20002013 Akcelik and Associates W Ltd SIDRA S DPA INTERSECTION 6.0.113995 www sidrasolutions com Prefect V/2073Vactive/207300893aanalysis\Sidra/207300893aSandWn&Lo4Wnsipy INTERSECTION 6 8001309, STANTEC CONSULTING SVCS INC, PLUS / UPC Detailed Output Page 1 of 4 DETAILED OUTPUT ® Site: Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Cumulative No - Project PM Peak Hour Roundabout IOUTPUT TABLE LINKS ® Roundabouts Roundabout Basic Parameters Roundabout Circulating / Exiting Stream Parameters Roundabout Gap Acceptance Parameters Roundabout Flow Rates 7111' Movements Lanes Lane, Approach and Intersection Performance �= Other Model Settings Summary Diagnostics Roundabouts Roundabout Basic Parameters Site Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Cumulative No -Project PM Peak Hour Intersection IB: 16 Roundabout Central Circ Insc Entry Entry Circ Entry Av.Entry Island Width Diam. Radius Angle Lanes Lanes Lane Biam Width ft ft ft ft deg ft South: Sand Canyon 90.0 20.0 130.0 65.0 30.0 1 1 15.00 East: Lost Canyon 90.0 20.0 130.0 65.0 30.0 1 1 15.00 North: Sand Canyon 90.0 20.0 130.0 65.0 30.0 1 1 15.00 West: Lost Canyon 90.0 20.0 130.0 65.0 30.0 1 1 15.00 Roundabout Capacity Model: SIBRA Standard Roundabout Circulating / Exiting Stream Parameters Site Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Cumulative No -Project PM Peak Hour Intersection IB: 16 Roundabout Best Turn Lane Lane No. Type South: Sand Canyon W L2 1 Dominant N T1 1 Dominant E R2 1 Dominant East: Lost Canyon S L2 1 Dominant Opng FIE Ant. %Near %Eait Cap. Flow pcu/ Flow Lane Flow Const. veh/h veh pcu/h Only Incl. Effect 253 1.02 258 0.0 0.0 N 253 1.02 258 0.0 0.0 N 253 1.02 258 0.0 0.0 N 1032 1.02 1052 0.0 0.0 N 0-B Aver In -Bunch Prop. Factor Speed Headway Bunched mph sec 0.954 15.7 2.00 0.269 0.954 15.7 2.00 0.269 0.954 15.7 2.00 0.269 0.675 21.6 2.00 0.756 about:blank 4/26/2017 Detailed Output W T1 1 Dominant 1032 1.02 1052 0.0 0.0 N 0.675 21.6 N R2 1 Dominant 1032 1.02 1052 0.0 0.0 N 0.675 21.6 North: Sand Canyon 2.00 0.269 y 1.02 9.67 108.0 E L2 1 Dominant 79 1.02 75 0.0 0.0 N 0.986 17.5 S T1 1 Dominant 79 1.02 75 0.0 0.0 N 0.986 17.5 W R2 1 Dominant 79 1.02 75 0.0 0.0 N 0.986 17.5 West: Lost Canyon 2.00 0.756 y 1.02 3.96 125.9 N L2 1 Dominant 695 1.02 709 0.0 0.0 N 0.903 23.1 E T1 1 Dominant 695 1.02 709 0.0 0.0 N 0.903 23.1 S R2 1 Dominant 695 1.02 709 0.0 0.0 N 0.903 23.1 Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard 2.00 0.756 2.00 0.756 2.00 0.087 2.00 0.087 2.00 0.087 2.00 0.588 2.00 0.588 2.00 0.588 Roundabout Gap Acceptance Parameters Site Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Cumulative No -Project PM Peak Hour Intersection ID: 16 Roundabout Dest Turn Lane Lane Critical Gap No. Type In -Bunch Prop. Priority FIE for -------------- Follow-up Headway Bunched Sharing Entry Headway Dist Headway sec sec ft sec South: Sand Canyon Environment Factor: 1.20 Entry/Circ. Flow Adjustment: Medium W L2 1 Dominant 2.00 0.269 y 1.02 9.67 108.0 N T1 1 Dominant 2.00 0.269 y 1.02 9.67 108.0 E R2 1 Dominant 2.00 0.269 y 1.02 9.67 108.0 East: Lost Canyon Environment Factor: 1.20 Entry/Circ. Flow Adjustment: Medium S L2 1 Dominant 2.00 0.756 y 1.02 3.96 125.9 W T1 1 Dominant 2.00 0.756 y 1.02 3.96 125.9 N R2 1 Dominant 2.00 0.756 y 1.02 3.96 125.9 North: Sand Canyon Environment Factor: 1.20 Entry/Circ. Flow Adjustment: Medium E L2 1 Dominant 2.00 0.087 y 1.02 9.59 116.3 S T1 1 Dominant 2.00 0.087 y 1.02 9.59 116.3 W R2 1 Dominant 2.00 0.087 y 1.02 9.59 116.3 West: Lost Canyon Environment Factor: 1.20 Entry/Circ. Flow Adjustment: Medium N L2 1 Dominant 2.00 0.588 y 1.02 9.35 197.2 E T1 1 Dominant 2.00 0.588 y 1.02 9.35 197.2 S R2 1 Dominant 2.00 0.588 y 1.02 9.35 197.2 Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard Priority sharing means Follow-up Headway plus Intra -bunch Headway is larger than the Critical Gap. Dist (Distance): Spacing, i.e. distance between the front ends of two successive vehicles across all lanes in the circulating or exiting stream Roundabout Flow Rates Site Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Cumulative No -Project PM Peak Hour Intersection ID: 16 Roundabout CIRCULATING LANE FLOW RATES Lane Circulating Flow Rates No. veh/h pcu/h Percent 2.79 2.79 2.79 2.68 2.68 2.68 2.61 2.61 2.61 2.81 2.81 2.81 Page 2 of 4 about:blank 4/26/2017 Detailed Output Page 3 of 4 South: Sand Canyon 1 253 258 100.0% (veh/h) Total 253 258 Downst Total East: Lost Canyon Canyon Lane Demand 1 1032 1052 100.0% 892 Total 1032 1052 831 892 North: Sand Canyon Canyon (veh/h) Satf. 1 79 75 100.0% 63 Total 79 75 31 63 West: Lost Canyon Canyon 0.867 1 695 709 100.0% 811 Total 695 709 685 811 APPROACH LANE FLOW RATES Lane Approach Flows (veh/h) No. Roundabout Out To Downst Total South: Sand Canyon Lane Demand 1 Deg 11 831 892 Total Flow BHV 11 831 892 East: Lost Canyon (veh/h) Satf. 1 sec 32 31 63 Total 32 31 63 North: Sand Canyon 0.867 1 909 126 685 811 Total 0.867 126 685 811 West: Lost Canyon 1 79 221 295 Total 13.5 79 221 295 Movements Lanes Lane, Approach and Intersection Performance Site Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Cumulative No -Project PM Peak Hour Intersection ID: 16 Roundabout Lane Demand Adj. Deg Aver. Longest Shot No. Flow BHV Basic Sat Delay Queue Lane (veh/h) Satf. a sec ft ft South: Sand Canyon 1 892 2 0.867 11.0 909 900 892 2 0.867 11.0 909 East: Lost Canyon 1 63 2 0.191 13.5 30 700 63 2 0.191 13.5 30 North: Sand Canyon 1 811 2 0.638 3.3 163 1100 811 2 0.638 3.3 163 West: Lost Canyon 1 295 2 0.985 19.1 88 250 about:blank 4/26/2017 Detailed Output ---------------------------------------------------- 295 2 0 485 14 1 88 ALL V111I Fit, US x Delay doem. Peak flat period - 15 ==as Duane values in Close Cable a 95% quoreand (feel None Basic Saturation Flood are no, aPur,ed st storefronts or sign controlled intersections and apply duty to couniscrours leave ane. Model Settings Summary Site Sand Canyon &LOA Canyon Cumulative NoProjectPM Peak Hour Inverrea,pon IS 16 availloccut Basic Paremesters intersection Nee: Drionver on the riga.--ew side of the road plant data specified To TA units Hoddl Defaults US San marovery) Peak Floor Period (for performance) 15 dicauds Unit five (for Bounce) 60 =as SIDAnd Standard Delay doodel used BAN dideard local option used Level are ofRent.1e as ® f Service based on- Delay ®d eve iwm 2010) Disongates Site Sand Canyon &LOA Canyon Cumulative NoProjectPM Peak Hour Page of Proi Wednesday , omysr 64:41 Pro Clang®r k) 2000 2013 Ian am n�oatgLtd SIDRA SIDRA IN HE RSECT ION 11 3995 u,pdraddrd,o',co"' INTERSECTION 3001339 STANTEC CONSULTING SWS INC PLUS flPC ebowtblenk 4/2&2017 INPUT VOLUMES Vehicles and pedestrians per 60 minutes ® Site: Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Cumulative With -Project AM Peak Hour Volume Display Method: Total and % Volumes are shown for Movement Class(es): All Classes and Heavy Vehicles Total Intersection Volumes (veh) All Movement Classes: 2110 Light Vehicles (LV): 2068 Heavy Vehicles (HV): 42 Sand Canyon 370 ..J M12% r 0 2% o 0 T mmmmm*20 m 16110 U M10w 2% 0 Ir 0 I.. Sand Canyon 490 140 2% 10 *11r- Created'. Wednesday April 262017653. 15 PM Copyright 020062013 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd S��RA SIDRA INTERSECTION 60113995 www sidrasolufions com Project V:/2073[actlve/207300893manalysls\sldra/2073008930SandCyn&LostC.ynslay INTERSECTION 6 8001309, SLANTED CONSULTING SVCS INC, PLUS/ 1 PC DELAY (AVERAGE) Average control delay per vehicle, or average pedestrian delay (seconds) ® Site: Sand Canvon & Lost Canvon Cumulative With -Project AM Peak Hour Roundabout All Movement Classes 8 1 9.5 Sand Canyon r 0 17.1 0 O T EMEMII,1o.e m 16 0 �12.1 0 0 1e.ar J J Sand Canyon n.e Colour code based on Level of Service LOSA LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F Continuous Level of Service Method: Delay &v/c (HCM 2010) LOS F will result ifv/c> 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection). Roundabout Level of Service Method: Same as Signalised Intersections SIDRAStandard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay. Processed'. Wednesday April 26, 20176: 41'.42 PM Copyright O 20002013 Akcelik and Associates W Ltd SIDRA S DPA INTERSECTION 6.0.113995 www sidrasolutions com Prefect V/2073Vactive/207300893aanalysis\Sidra/207300893aSandWn&Lo4Wnsipy INTERSECTION 6 8001309, STANTEC CONSULTING SVCS INC, PLUS / UPC South East North West Intersection Dela (Average) 192 1 142 104 1 15.8 144 LOS I B I B I B I B B 8 1 9.5 Sand Canyon r 0 17.1 0 O T EMEMII,1o.e m 16 0 �12.1 0 0 1e.ar J J Sand Canyon n.e Colour code based on Level of Service LOSA LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F Continuous Level of Service Method: Delay &v/c (HCM 2010) LOS F will result ifv/c> 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection). Roundabout Level of Service Method: Same as Signalised Intersections SIDRAStandard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay. Processed'. Wednesday April 26, 20176: 41'.42 PM Copyright O 20002013 Akcelik and Associates W Ltd SIDRA S DPA INTERSECTION 6.0.113995 www sidrasolutions com Prefect V/2073Vactive/207300893aanalysis\Sidra/207300893aSandWn&Lo4Wnsipy INTERSECTION 6 8001309, STANTEC CONSULTING SVCS INC, PLUS / UPC Detailed Output Page 1 of 4 DETAILED OUTPUT ® Site: Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Cumulative With -Project AM Peak Hour Roundabout IOUTPUT TABLE LINKS ® Roundabouts Roundabout Basic Parameters Roundabout Circulating / Exiting Stream Parameters Roundabout Gap Acceptance Parameters Roundabout Flow Rates 7111' Movements Lanes Lane, Approach and Intersection Performance �= Other Model Settings Summary Diagnostics Roundabouts Roundabout Basic Parameters Site Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Cumulative With -Project AM Peak Hour Intersection IB: 16 Roundabout Central Circ Insc Entry Entry Circ Entry Av.Entry Island Width Diam. Radius Angle Lanes Lanes Lane Biam Width ft ft ft ft deg ft South: Sand Canyon 90.0 20.0 130.0 65.0 30.0 1 1 15.00 East: Lost Canyon 90.0 20.0 130.0 65.0 30.0 1 1 15.00 North: Sand Canyon 90.0 20.0 130.0 65.0 30.0 1 1 15.00 West: Lost Canyon 90.0 20.0 130.0 65.0 30.0 1 1 15.00 Roundabout Capacity Model: SIBRA Standard Roundabout Circulating / Exiting Stream Parameters Site Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Cumulative With -Project AM Peak Hour Intersection IB: 16 Roundabout Best Turn Lane Lane No. Type South: Sand Canyon W L2 1 Dominant N T1 1 Dominant E R2 1 Dominant East: Lost Canyon S L2 1 Dominant Opng FIE Ant. %Near %Eait Cap. Flow pcu/ Flow Lane Flow Const. veh/h veh pcu/h Only Incl. Effect 432 1.02 990 0.0 0.0 N 432 1.02 990 0.0 0.0 N 432 1.02 990 0.0 0.0 N 1053 1.02 1074 0.0 0.0 N 0-B Aver In -Bunch Prop. Factor Speed Headway Bunched mph sec 0.900 15.2 2.00 0.416 0.900 15.2 2.00 0.416 0.900 15.2 2.00 0.416 0.740 19.2 2.00 0.765 about:blank 4/26/2017 Detailed Output W T1 1 Dominant 1053 1.02 1079 0.0 0.0 N 0.790 19.2 N R2 1 Dominant 1053 1.02 1079 0.0 0.0 N 0.790 19.2 North: Sand Canyon 2.00 0.916 y 1.02 9.69 103.8 E L2 1 Dominant 168 1.02 172 0.0 0.0 N 0.960 15.6 S T1 1 Dominant 168 1.02 172 0.0 0.0 N 0.960 15.6 W R2 1 Dominant 168 1.02 172 0.0 0.0 N 0.960 15.6 West: Lost Canyon 2.00 0.765 y 1.02 3.99 111.1 N L2 1 Dominant 963 1.02 972 0.0 0.0 N 0.877 22.8 E T1 1 Dominant 963 1.02 972 0.0 0.0 N 0.877 22.8 S R2 1 Dominant 963 1.02 972 0.0 0.0 N 0.877 22.8 Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard 2.00 0.765 2.00 0.765 2.00 0.188 2.00 0.188 2.00 0.188 2.00 0.939 2.00 0.939 2.00 0.939 Roundabout Gap Acceptance Parameters Site Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Cumulative With -Project AM Peak Hour Intersection ID: 16 Roundabout Dest Turn Lane Lane Critical Gap No. Type In -Bunch Prop. Priority FIE for -------------- Follow-up Headway Bunched Sharing Entry Headway Dist Headway sec sec ft sec South: Sand Canyon Environment Factor: 1.20 Entry/Circ. Flow Adjustment: Medium W L2 1 Dominant 2.00 0.916 y 1.02 9.69 103.8 N T1 1 Dominant 2.00 0.916 y 1.02 9.69 103.8 E R2 1 Dominant 2.00 0.916 y 1.02 9.69 103.8 East: Lost Canyon Environment Factor: 1.20 Entry/Circ. Flow Adjustment: Medium S L2 1 Dominant 2.00 0.765 y 1.02 3.99 111.1 W T1 1 Dominant 2.00 0.765 y 1.02 3.99 111.1 N R2 1 Dominant 2.00 0.765 y 1.02 3.99 111.1 North: Sand Canyon Environment Factor: 1.20 Entry/Circ. Flow Adjustment: Medium E L2 1 Dominant 2.00 0.188 y 1.02 9.62 105.9 S T1 1 Dominant 2.00 0.188 y 1.02 9.62 105.9 W R2 1 Dominant 2.00 0.188 y 1.02 9.62 105.9 West: Lost Canyon Environment Factor: 1.20 Entry/Circ. Flow Adjustment: Medium N L2 1 Dominant 2.00 0.939 y 1.02 9.67 156.2 E T1 1 Dominant 2.00 0.939 y 1.02 9.67 156.2 S R2 1 Dominant 2.00 0.939 y 1.02 9.67 156.2 Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard Priority sharing means Follow-up Headway plus Intra -bunch Headway is larger than the Critical Gap. Dist (Distance): Spacing, i.e. distance between the front ends of two successive vehicles across all lanes in the circulating or exiting stream Roundabout Flow Rates Site Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Cumulative With -Project AM Peak Hour Intersection ID: 16 Roundabout CIRCULATING LANE FLOW RATES Lane Circulating Flow Rates No. veh/h pcu/h Percent 2.87 2.87 2.87 2.68 2.68 2.68 2.71 2.71 2.71 2.90 2.90 2.90 Page 2 of 4 about:blank 4/26/2017 Detailed Output Page 3 of 4 South: Sand Canyon 1 432 990 100.0% (veh/h) Total 432 990 Downst Total East: Lost Canyon Canyon Lane Demand 1 1053 1074 100.0% 674 Total 1053 1074 663 674 North: Sand Canyon Canyon (veh/h) Satf. 1 168 172 100.0% 42 Total 168 172 21 42 West: Lost Canyon Canyon 0.893 1 463 472 100.0% 989 Total 463 472 452 989 APPROACH LANE FLOW RATES Lane Approach Flows (veh/h) No. Roundabout Out To Downst Total South: Sand Canyon Lane Demand 1 Deg 11 663 674 Total Flow BHV 11 663 674 East: Lost Canyon (veh/h) Satf. 1 sec 21 21 42 Total 21 21 42 North: Sand Canyon 0.893 1 407 537 452 989 Total 0.893 537 452 989 West: Lost Canyon 1 116 400 516 Total 14.2 116 400 516 Movements Lanes Lane, Approach and Intersection Performance Site Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Cumulative With -Project AM Peak Hour Intersection ID: 16 Roundabout Lane Demand Adj. Deg Aver. Longest Shot No. Flow BHV Basic Sat Delay Queue Lane (veh/h) Satf. a sec ft ft South: Sand Canyon 1 674 2 0.893 19.2 407 900 674 2 0.893 19.2 407 East: Lost Canyon 1 42 2 0.119 14.2 18 700 42 2 0.119 14.2 18 North: Sand Canyon 1 989 2 0.908 10.4 534 1100 989 2 0.908 10.4 534 West: Lost Canyon 1 516 2 0.734 15.8 210 250 about:blank 4/26/2017 Detailed Output ---------------------------------------------------- 516 2 0 734 is 8 210 ALL V111I Fle. AS x Delay dome 2221 2 0 908 14 4 534 Peak flat period - 15 ==as Duane values in thres Cable a 95% querand (feel None Basic Saturation Flood are no, encrusted st roundaboups or sign controlled intersections and apply duty to consistent leave ane. Model Settings Summary Site Sand Canyon &LA Canyon Cumulative With Project AM Peak Hour Inversection IS 16 activation Basic Paremesters intersection Nee:ancridecout Drionver on the riga.--ew side of Core road plant data specified To UG is Hoddl Defaults US HCH marovery) Peak ST. Period (for performance) 15 arri Unit it. (for voludes) 60 =as SIDded Standard Delay doodel used HCH drove local option used Level are of Service based ntile as - Delay ®d eve iwm 2010) Dagnostes Site Sand Canyon &Lost Canyon Cumulative With Project AM Peak Hour Page of Proi Wednesday , omysr am 42 PM Ian am Benxi Pry Ltd SIDRA SIDRA IN HE RSECT ION 11 3995 u,pdraddrd,on, corn INTERSECTION 3001339 STANTEC CONSULTING SWS INC PLUS flPC ebowtblenk 4/2612017 INPUT VOLUMES Vehicles and pedestrians per 60 minutes ® Site: Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Cumulative With -Project PM Peak Hour Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Volume Display Method: Total and % Volumes are shown for Movement Class(es): All Classes and Heavy Vehicles Total Intersection Volumes (veh) All Movement Classes: 2010 Light Vehicles (LV): 1970 Heavy Vehicles (HV): 40 150 40 2% 630 2% 2% Sand Canyon ..J M12 2% o% 0 0 0 T 2% m � 16 U 70w 0 J 2% Sand Canyon 760 40 2% 10 *11r- 40 Lo 20 2% 1 2r21% Created'. Wednesday April 262017654: 41 PM Copyright O 20062013 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd S DRA SIDRA INTERSECTI ON 60113995 www sidrasolufions com Project V:/2073[actlve/207300893manalysls\sldra/2073008930SandCyn&LostC.ynslay INTERSECTION 6 8001309, SLANTED CONSULTING SVCS INC, PLUS/ 1 PC DELAY (AVERAGE) Average control delay per vehicle, or average pedestrian delay (seconds) ® Site: Sand Canvon & Lost Canvon Cumulative With -Project PM Peak Hour Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Roundabout All Movement Classes j 1� 2.9 L— Sand Canyon r 17.4 0 O T0- 14.2 11.1 � 6 0 12.9 12.4 O O 19.2 J J Sand Canyon 16.3 qtr Colour code based on Level of Service LOSA LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F Continuous Level of Service Method: Delay &v/c (HCM 2010) LOS F will result ifv/c> 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection). Roundabout Level of Service Method: Same as Signalised Intersections SIDRAStandard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay. Processed. Wednesday April 26, 20176: 41.43 PM Copyright 9 2000 2013 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd ����� S DPA INTERSECTION 6.0.113995 www sidrasolutions com Prefect V/2073vactive/207300893aanalysisvSidra/207300893asandWn&Lo4Wnsipy INTERSECTION 6 8001309, STANTEC CONSULTING SVCS INC, PLUS / UPC South East North West Intersection Dela (Average) 166 1 145 35 1 159 11.1 LOS I B I B I A I B B j 1� 2.9 L— Sand Canyon r 17.4 0 O T0- 14.2 11.1 � 6 0 12.9 12.4 O O 19.2 J J Sand Canyon 16.3 qtr Colour code based on Level of Service LOSA LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F Continuous Level of Service Method: Delay &v/c (HCM 2010) LOS F will result ifv/c> 1 irrespective of movement delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection). Roundabout Level of Service Method: Same as Signalised Intersections SIDRAStandard Delay Model is used. Control Delay includes Geometric Delay. Processed. Wednesday April 26, 20176: 41.43 PM Copyright 9 2000 2013 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd ����� S DPA INTERSECTION 6.0.113995 www sidrasolutions com Prefect V/2073vactive/207300893aanalysisvSidra/207300893asandWn&Lo4Wnsipy INTERSECTION 6 8001309, STANTEC CONSULTING SVCS INC, PLUS / UPC Detailed Output Page 1 of 4 DETAILED OUTPUT ® Site: Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Cumulative With -Project PM Peak Hour Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Roundabout IOUTPUT TABLE LINKS ® Roundabouts Roundabout Basic Parameters Roundabout Circulating / Exiting Stream Parameters Roundabout Gap Acceptance Parameters Roundabout Flow Rates 7111' Movements Lanes Lane, Approach and Intersection Performance �= Other Model Settings Summary Diagnostics Roundabouts Roundabout Basic Parameters Site Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Cumulative With -Project PM Peak Hour Intersection IB: 16 Roundabout Central Circ Insc Entry Entry Circ Entry Av.Entry Island Width Diam. Radius Angle Lanes Lanes Lane Biam Width ft ft ft ft deg ft South: Sand Canyon 90.0 20.0 130.0 65.0 30.0 1 1 15.00 East: Lost Canyon 90.0 20.0 130.0 65.0 30.0 1 1 15.00 North: Sand Canyon 90.0 20.0 130.0 65.0 30.0 1 1 15.00 West: Lost Canyon 90.0 20.0 130.0 65.0 30.0 1 1 15.00 Roundabout Capacity Model: SIBRA Standard Roundabout Circulating / Exiting Stream Parameters Site Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Cumulative With -Project PM Peak Hour Intersection IB: 16 Roundabout Best Turn Lane Lane No. Type South: Sand Canyon W L2 1 Dominant N T1 1 Dominant E R2 1 Dominant East: Lost Canyon S L2 1 Dominant Opng FIE Ant. %Near %Eait Cap. Flow pcu/ Flow Lane Flow Const. veh/h veh pcu/h Only Incl. Effect 295 1.02 301 0.0 0.0 N 295 1.02 301 0.0 0.0 N 295 1.02 301 0.0 0.0 N 1079 1.02 1095 0.0 0.0 N 0-B Aver In -Bunch Prop. Factor Speed Headway Bunched mph sec 0.995 15.6 2.00 0.306 0.995 15.6 2.00 0.306 0.995 15.6 2.00 0.306 0.670 21.9 2.00 0.779 about:blank 4/26/2017 Detailed Output W T1 1 Dominant 1079 1.02 1095 0.0 0.0 N 0.670 21.9 N R2 1 Dominant 1079 1.02 1095 0.0 0.0 N 0.670 21.9 North: Sand Canyon 2.00 0.306 y 1.02 9.66 106.9 E L2 1 Dominant 79 1.02 75 0.0 0.0 N 0.986 17.5 S T1 1 Dominant 79 1.02 75 0.0 0.0 N 0.986 17.5 W R2 1 Dominant 79 1.02 75 0.0 0.0 N 0.986 17.5 West: Lost Canyon 2.00 0.779 y 1.02 3.92 123.0 N L2 1 Dominant 716 1.02 730 0.0 0.0 N 0.890 22.9 E T1 1 Dominant 716 1.02 730 0.0 0.0 N 0.890 22.9 S R2 1 Dominant 716 1.02 730 0.0 0.0 N 0.890 22.9 Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard 2.00 0.779 2.00 0.779 2.00 0.087 2.00 0.087 2.00 0.087 2.00 0.600 2.00 0.600 2.00 0.600 Roundabout Gap Acceptance Parameters Site Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Cumulative With -Project PM Peak Hour Intersection ID: 16 Roundabout Dest Turn Lane Lane Critical Gap No. Type In -Bunch Prop. Priority FIE for -------------- Follow-up Headway Bunched Sharing Entry Headway Dist Headway sec sec ft sec South: Sand Canyon Environment Factor: 1.20 Entry/Circ. Flow Adjustment: Medium W L2 1 Dominant 2.00 0.306 y 1.02 9.66 106.9 N T1 1 Dominant 2.00 0.306 y 1.02 9.66 106.9 E R2 1 Dominant 2.00 0.306 y 1.02 9.66 106.9 East: Lost Canyon Environment Factor: 1.20 Entry/Circ. Flow Adjustment: Medium S L2 1 Dominant 2.00 0.779 y 1.02 3.92 123.0 W T1 1 Dominant 2.00 0.779 y 1.02 3.92 123.0 N R2 1 Dominant 2.00 0.779 y 1.02 3.92 123.0 North: Sand Canyon Environment Factor: 1.20 Entry/Circ. Flow Adjustment: Medium E L2 1 Dominant 2.00 0.087 y 1.02 9.52 115.8 S T1 1 Dominant 2.00 0.087 y 1.02 9.52 115.8 W R2 1 Dominant 2.00 0.087 y 1.02 9.52 115.8 West: Lost Canyon Environment Factor: 1.20 Entry/Circ. Flow Adjustment: Medium N L2 1 Dominant 2.00 0.600 y 1.02 9.33 195.6 E T1 1 Dominant 2.00 0.600 y 1.02 9.33 195.6 S R2 1 Dominant 2.00 0.600 y 1.02 9.33 195.6 Roundabout Capacity Model: SIDRA Standard Priority sharing means Follow-up Headway plus Intra -bunch Headway is larger than the Critical Gap. Dist (Distance): Spacing, i.e. distance between the front ends of two successive vehicles across all lanes in the circulating or exiting stream Roundabout Flow Rates Site Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Cumulative With -Project PM Peak Hour Intersection ID: 16 Roundabout CIRCULATING LANE FLOW RATES Lane Circulating Flow Rates No. veh/h pcu/h Percent 2.80 2.80 2.80 2.67 2.67 2.67 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.81 2.81 2.81 Page 2 of 4 about:blank 4/26/2017 Detailed Output Page 3 of 4 South: Sand Canyon 1 295 301 100.0% (veh/h) Total 295 301 Downst Total East: Lost Canyon Canyon Lane Demand 1 1079 1095 100.0% 853 Total 1079 1095 892 853 North: Sand Canyon Canyon (veh/h) Satf. 1 79 75 100.0% 79 Total 79 75 32 79 West: Lost Canyon Canyon 0.925 1 716 730 100.0% 863 Total 716 730 705 863 APPROACH LANE FLOW RATES Lane Approach Flows (veh/h) No. Roundabout Out To Downst Total South: Sand Canyon Lane Demand 1 Deg 11 892 853 Total Flow BHV 11 892 853 East: Lost Canyon (veh/h) Satf. 1 sec 92 32 79 Total 92 32 79 North: Sand Canyon 0.925 1 537 158 705 863 Total 0.925 158 705 863 West: Lost Canyon 1 79 252 326 Total 19.5 79 252 326 Movements Lanes Lane, Approach and Intersection Performance Site Sand Canyon & Lost Canyon Cumulative With -Project PM Peak Hour Intersection ID: 16 Roundabout Lane Demand Adj. Deg Aver. Longest Shot No. Flow BHV Basic Sat Delay Queue Lane (veh/h) Satf. a sec ft ft South: Sand Canyon 1 853 2 0.925 16.6 537 900 853 2 0.925 16.6 537 East: Lost Canyon 1 79 2 0.236 19.5 38 700 79 2 0.236 19.5 38 North: Sand Canyon 1 863 2 0.676 3.5 187 1100 863 2 0.676 3.5 187 West: Lost Canyon 1 326 2 0.559 15.9 111 250 about:blank 4/26/2017 Detailed Output ---------------------------------------------------- 326 2 0 554 is 9 ill ALL V111I Fit, US x Delay dome 2116 2 0 925 11 1 537 Peak flat period - 15 ==as Duane values in thres Cable a 95% quoreand (feel None Basic Saturation Flood are no, aPur,ed st renaissance or sign controlled intersections and apply duty to couniscrodurs leave ane. Model Settings Summary Site Sand Canyon &LA Canyon Cumulative With Project PM Peak Hour Inverrea,pon IS 16 andiddicut Basic Paremesters intersection Nee:ancridecout Drionver on the riga.--ew side of Core road plant data specified To TA is Peak Floor Period (for performance) 15 dicauds Unit it. (for voludes) 60 =as SIDAnd Standard Delay doodel used HCH drove local option used Level are of Service based ntile as - Delay ®d eve iwm 2010) Dagnostes Site Sand Canyon &Lost Canyon Cumulative With Project PM Peak Hour Page of Proi Wednesday , omysr 64:43 Pro CoCOUTT @ 2000 2013 Ian am n�oatgLtd SIDRA SIDRA IN HE RSECT ION 11 3995 u,pdraddrd,on, corn INTERSECTION 3001339 STANTEC CONSULTING SWS INC PLUS flPC ebowtblenk 4/2612017 Opening Day (2018) w/Prof Mit AM Peak Hour Synchro 9 Report 4: SR -14 SB Ramps & Soledad Cayon Lane.-,, Volumes, Timings 7 c ! 1 I Lane Group EBT EBR —WBL WBT NBL NB Lane Configurations }} IN R }} FY Traffic Volume(vt 480 440 ffl 410 11(5) 3M 10 Future Volume NDQ 480 440 ffl 410 11(5) 3M 10 Send Flow (prof) SACS 1543 0 17M SACS 3434 0 Fit Permitted 0953 0954 Send Flow (perm) SACS 1543 0 17M SACS 3434 0 Send Flow (RTOR) 240 2 Lane Group Flow NPh) 5SA 463 0 453 1221 400 0 Turn Type NA pm+ov Prot Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 6 4 5 5 2 4 Permitted Phases 6 2 Detector Phase 6 4 5 5 2 4 Switch Phase Mnimum Initial Q) 109 109 59 59 109 109 Mnimum Split 0) 392 229 95 95 242 229 Total Split 0) 392 25.4 454 454 849 25.4 Total Split (a) 356% 23.1% 413% 413% 769% 23.1% Yellow Time (s) 52 39 35 35 52 39 All Red Time 0) 19 19 19 19 19 19 Last Time Adjust 0) 09 09 09 09 09 7 Total Last Time (s) 62 49 45 62 49 LeamLag Lag Lead Lead Leao-Lag optimize? Yes Yes Yes Recall Nbde None CJMa( None None Max CJMa( Act Effct Green 0) 407 6]] 332 784 209 Actuated g/C Ratio 037 062 033 071 0.19 v/cRatio OSA 0.43 OSA 0.48 062 Control Delay 165 49 509 Z] 454 Queue Delay 05 09 09 0.1 03 TotalDelay 171 57 509 79 457 LOS B A D A D Approach Delay 119 104 457 Approach LOS B B D Intersection Summary CyteLength 110 Actuated Cycle Length 110 MMMMMMIll Offset 81 Referenced no phase NBL, Star of Green Control Cycle SO Cycle Control Type Actuated CooNinenetl Maw Rama OSS Intersection signal Delay 204 Intersection Los: C Intersection Capminy, Tiilization,iiiij� ICU Level of Service Analysis Pared (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 4: SO14SB Ramps & Scored Ceyon Jaz � ea a ea.c �s �c asa: ji Stantec Consulting V:07aaclive0]30 93VanalysislymhmVurmdt and solodatlJempsS20l8 with ProjesfAamff18phmit Jnts_25,12-1] calnmre_timing {Drot2isyn Opening Day (2018) w/Prof Mit PM Peak Hour 1 '*' ou Synchro 9 Report 4: SR -14 SB Ramps & Soledad Cayon roc R Fos Lane.-,, Volumes, Timings 1 Lane Group EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL Lane Configurations }} IN R }} FY Traffic Volume(vt 1510 480 210 5M 253 Future Volume NDQ 1510 480 210 5M 253 Turn Type NA pm+ov Prot NA Prot Protected Phases 6 4 5 2 4 Permitted Phases 6 2 Detector Phase 6 4 5 2 4 Switch Phase Mnimum Initial Q) 109 109 59 109 109 Mnimum Split 0) 392 229 95 242 229 Total Split 0) 549 227 233 73 227 Total Split (a) 540% 227% 23.3% 71.3% 227% Yellow Time (s) 52 39 35 52 39 All Red Time 0) 19 19 19 19 19 Last Time Adjust 0) 09 09 09 09 09 Total Last Time (s) 62 49 45 62 49 LeamLag Lead Lag Leao-Lag optimize? Yes Yes Recall Nbde CJMa( None None Max None Act ERct Green 0) 519 721 189 752 149 Actuated g/C Ratio 052 072 0.19 075 0.14 v/cRatio 087 0.42 073 023 063 Control Delay 184 59 524 42 439 Queue Delay 104 19 09 09 09 Total Delay 289 69 524 42 439 LOS C A D A D Approach Delay 235 18.1 439 Approach LOS C B D Cycle Length 100 Actuated Cycle Length 100 Offset P%. Referenced to phase EBT, Stan of Green, Master Intersection Natural Cycle SO Control Type Actuated Coordinated Maximum v/c Rede 097 Intersection Signal Delay Zig Intersection LOS:C Intersection Capacity Utilization 75 ICU Level of Service Analysis Pared (min) 15 Splits and Phases: 4: SO14SB Ramps & Soledad Ceyon Boz 1 '*' ou na: zz. roc R Fos w: zsa: 1 111 Stantec Consulting V:073/eclive0730 93VanelysislymhmVurmdt and soledatlJempsS20l8 with ProjectAPm2118phmit2 ids _25,12-17_celtrans2imingprot-tsyn Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Day (2018) w/Prof Mit AM Peak Hour 05/04/2017 Intersection: 4: SR -14 SB Ramps & Soledad Cayon Storage BIk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Opening Day (2018) w/Prof Mit (Prot LT) AM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Stantec Consulting Page 1 EB EB=WB WB WB NB N Directions Served T T R UL T T L LR Maximum Queue (ft) 193 198 175 420 228 224 306 286 Average Queue (ft) 79 90 60 251 133 133 177 152 95th Queue (ft) 154 156 116 376 204 202 271 250 Link Distance (ft) 209 209 209 846 846 1461 1461 Upstream BIk Time (%) 0 0 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 1 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 550 Storage BIk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Opening Day (2018) w/Prof Mit (Prot LT) AM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Stantec Consulting Page 1 Queuing and Blocking Report Opening Day (2018) w/Prof Mit PM Peak Hour 05/04/2017 Intersection: 4: SR -14 SB Ramps & Soledad Cayon Storage BIk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Opening Day (2018) w/Prof Mit (Prot LT) PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Stantec Consulting Page 1 EB EB=WB WB WB NB N Directions Served T T R UL T T L LR Maximum Queue (ft) 249 245 175 234 237 198 558 518 Average Queue (ft) 223 226 76 130 99 78 319 276 95th Queue (ft) 247 238 143 204 207 173 684 637 Link Distance (ft) 209 209 209 846 846 1461 1461 Upstream BIk Time (%) 13 18 0 Queuing Penalty (veh) 82 113 0 Storage Bay Dist (ft) 550 Storage BIk Time (%) Queuing Penalty (veh) Opening Day (2018) w/Prof Mit (Prot LT) PM Peak Hour SimTraffic Report Stantec Consulting Page 1 Agenda Item: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ,r.` PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT PLANNING MANAGER APPROVAL: DATE: February 21, 2017 SUBJECT: MASTER CASE 14-077 (SAND CANYON PLAZA MIXED USE PROJECT): TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 53074; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-014; HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 14-001; RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 14-001; MINOR USE PERMIT 14-016; OAK TREE PERMIT 14-008; AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH NO. 2015051005 APPLICANT: Sand Canyon Plaza, LLC LOCATION: Northeast comer of Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road CASE PLANNER: Patrick Leclair RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends the Planning Commission receive staff presentation, receive testimony from the applicant and the public, provide direction to staff on the hearing schedule and project issues, and continue the public hearing to March 21, 2017. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit, Hillside Development Review, Ridgeline Alteration Permit, Minor Use Permit, and Oak Tree Permit (the "Project") to allow for the construction of a mixed-use project consisting of up to 580 residential dwelling units, 55,600 square feet of retail commercial (including restaurants), and a 75,000 square -foot (up to 120 -bed) assisted living facility. The Project would also include three private recreation areas, commercial plaza areas, various private streets, driveways, parking and landscaped areas. Roadway improvements are proposed for Sand Canyon Road (including the construction of two roundabouts) as well as Soledad Canyon Road. The Project includes a request to allow for the removal of two non -heritage sized oak trees and alteration of a City identified significant ridgeline. Page 1 PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The intent of this meeting is to open the public hearing, provide the Planning Commission with an introduction and overview of the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project, and establish a tentative meeting schedule for the Project. In addition, copies of the Draft Environmental Impact report (DEIR) will be provided to the Planning Commission for review during the 45 -day public review and comment period. Staff is proposing the following dates for the Project: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 Project Site Tour - DONE Tuesday, February 21, 2017 Project Introduction and Hearing Schedule Tuesday, March 21, 2017 Initial Response to Planning Commission and public issues/concerns, Summary of DEIR, and initial direction from Planning Commission Tuesday, April 18, 2017 Continued response to Planning Commission and public issues/concerns, Final Project Issues and Recommendation to Council May 2017 - June 2017 City Council Public Hearings BACKGROUND SAND CANYON PLAZA APPLICATION On May 28, 2014, Sand Canyon Plaza, LLC, (herein referred to as the "applicant') submitted an application for a Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit, Hillside Review, Ridgeline Alteration Permit, Minor Use Permit, and an Oak Tree Permit to allow for the construction of a mixed-use development consisting of 580 residential units, 55,600 square feet of commercial and restaurant uses, and a 75,000 square -foot assisted living facility with up to 120 beds. PROJECT SETTING The Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project (herein referred to as the "Project) is located in the developed community of Canyon Country immediately north of Soledad Canyon Road and east of Sand Canyon Road. The Project site totals nearly 87 acres and is surrounded by a mixture of residential uses and undeveloped property to the north of the site, residential uses to the east of the site, a mix of commercial uses and transportation corridors to the south of the site, with a mix of commercial and residential uses to the west of the site. State Route 14 (SR14) is located to the south of the site, across Soledad Canyon Road, with the Santa Clara River to the south of SR14. The site consists of eight Assessor Parcels numbered 2839-005-035, 2839-006-052, 2839-006- 058, 2839-06-059, 2839-006-060, 2839-006-063, 2839-006-064, and 2839-006-065. The Project site has been previously disturbed for the construction of a mobile home park and Page 2 associated infrastructure, along with roadway improvements for Soledad Canyon Road. The southwest portion of the Project site is relatively flat sloping up to the north and east. A significant ridgeline identified in the General Plan runs in a north -south direction along the eastern portion of the Project site. Three oak trees are located on the Project site, one of which is designated as a "Heritage" oak tree under the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. Other natural vegetation is dispersed throughout the site. Above -ground utility lines run along the western portion of the site along Sand Canyon Road. A drainage course runs through the western portion of the Project site and would be channelized in a box culvert with the Project. A City community identification sign is located on the southern portion of the site welcoming residents to the City as they exit westbound SR14 and enter the City. The existing 123 -unit mobile home park is in the process of being closed, with the site being cleared and coaches being removed from the site. The property owner received approval from the City's Manufactured Home Rental Adjustment Panel (MHRAP) to close the park on December 17, 2008, and began removing coaches from the Project site. Due to the downturn in the economy, some coaches were returned to the site and rented out on month-to-month leases. The owner has agreements in place for the purchase and relocation of all remaining owner - occupied units on the site and will continue to remove these coaches from the site, in accordance with Resolution No. MHP 08-03 of the MHRAP. PREVIOUS PROJECTAPPROVAL - SAND CANYONJOINT VENTUREPROJECT In June 2002, the City Council approved the Sand Canyon Joint Venture project on the Project site. The project included two development areas including both residential and commercial components. The first project area included the construction of 63 single-family homes on 34 acres on the northern portion of the site. The second project area included the removal of 44 mobile home units from the site to leave a 92 -unit mobile home park, the construction of 24 single-family homes, and the construction of a new 200,000 square -foot commercial/retail center on 55 acres. Total project included 87 single-family residential units, a 92 unit mobile home park, and a 200,000 square -foot commercial center. While the project was approved by the City Council, the developer did not move forward with construction of the project and the approvals expired. PUBLIC OUTREACH Upon formal submittal of the Project, City staff encouraged the applicant to begin meeting with the surrounding neighborhoods and community stakeholders. The applicant to date has had nearly 25 community meetings on the Project. These meetings have included meetings with the Sand Canyon HOA, Canyon Country Advisory Committee, as well as residents of the Pinetree community, and other neighboring residential communities over the last three years in order to solicit input and feedback that can be incorporated into the Project. Some of the issues or concerns identified during these meetings primarily focused on potential traffic and noise impacts. In addition, residents have expressed positive reactions to seeing new investment and redevelopment of the site including new restaurant and retail services, as well as the inclusion of the assisted living facility with the Project. Community concerns identified during these meetings have either been addressed, have been highlighted in the DEIR, or are continuing to be worked on by City staff and the applicant and will ultimately be discussed and addressed through Page 3 the public hearing process. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION, ZONING, SURROUNDING LAND USE The approximately 87 -acre site is located at the northeast corner of Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road. Approximately 84 acres of the Project site are located in the Mixed Use Neighborhood (MXN) zone and General Plan land use designation, and approximately 2.5 acres in the southeast corner of the site are located in the Urban Residential - 3 (UR3) zoning and General Plan land use designation. Approximately 34 acres in the southwest corner of the site are located within the Planned Development (PD) overlay zone. The Project site is bordered by vacant land in unincorporated Los Angeles County to the north and SR -14 to the south, across Soledad Canyon Road. Existing single-family residential uses in the Urban Residential - 2 (UR -2), Urban Residential - 3 (UR -3), and Urban Residential Zone - 5 (LTR -5) zones are located to the east and west, with commercial uses in the Community Commercial (CC) zone to the southwest portions of the Project site at the intersection of Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road. The Project site is in close proximity to Oak Spring Canyon Park, as well as Mitchell Elementary, Pinetree Elementary, and Sulphur Springs Elementary schools and the College of the Canyons East Campus. PROJECT DESCRIPTION PLANNING AREA SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to develop the approximately 87 -acre Sand Canyon Mixed Use Project site with 580 residential units, a 55,600 square -foot retail/commercial center, and a 75,000 square -foot (up to 120 rooms) senior assisted living facility. The Project site has been broken down into five planning areas as follows: Planning Area 1 Planning Area 1 (PAl) is located at the northeast intersection of Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road. This area includes 55,600 square feet of retail/commercial space and a 75,000 square -foot assisted living facility with associated parking and infrastructure on approximately 10 acres. The commercial uses would be oriented around a water feature (which would also be utilized for water quality purposes) at the intersection of Sand Canyon Road/Soledad Canyon Road to the west of PAl creating a "main street' feel, while the assisted living facility will be located in the eastern portion of PAL Access for PAl would be off of the first entrance for the Project on Sand Canyon Road, as well as Soledad Canyon Road. Planning Area 2 Planning Area 2 (PA2) consists of 312 attached apartment units, a community recreation facility, and associated infrastructure on just over 12 acres. PA2 is located just north of PAl along Sand Canyon Road. Access for PA2 would be off of Sand Canyon Road at the first and second entrances for the Project on Sand Canyon Road. The second entrance for this Planning Area would be at the first roundabout on Sand Canyon Road Planning Area 3 Page 4 Planning Area 3 (PA3) consists of 122 attached townhome units, a community recreation facility, and associated infrastructure on just over 10 acres. PA3 is located to the north of PA2 along Sand Canyon Road. Access for PA3 would be off of Sand Canyon Road at the third, and final, entrance to the Project site on Sand Canyon Road, and the second roundabout proposed for the Project. Planning Area 4 Planning Area 4 (PA4) consists of 71 single-family, detached or attached, condominium units on approximately 7.3 acres. PA4 is located in the center of the Project site, just north of PA1, and east and south of PA2 and PA3. The single-family homes would be broken into two clusters of homes, each on their own building pad. Access for PA4 would be through PA2 and PA3 out to Sand Canyon Road. Planning Area 5 Planning Area 5 (PA5) consists of 75 single-family, detached or attached, condominium units on approximately 10 acres. PA5 is located in the northern and eastern portion of the Project site to the east of PA4 and PA3. PA5 is broken into three clusters of homes each on their own building pads. PA5 includes a community recreational facility that would be shared with PA4. Access for PA5 is through PA4 and out to Sand Canyon Road through PA2 and PA3. ENTITLEMENT SUMMARY Tentative Tract May The Project includes a request to subdivide the Project site to create parcels for the commercial center, assisted living facility, residential uses, and open space/slopes on the Project site. Any subdivision in excess of 4 lots requires the approval of a Tentative Tract Map (TTM) in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. In accordance with Section 17.25.110 of the UDC, the Planning Commission is required to review and approve all requests for a TTM. Hillside Development Review In accordance with Section 17.51.020 of the UDC all development on slopes in excess of 10 percent average cross -slope requires the approval of a Hillside Development Review application. Further, all projects with an average cross -slope of 15 percent or more require the approval of the Planning Commission. The project site has been broken into three areas for purposes of calculating the average cross -slope as follows: • Area 1 totals 32.1 acres and is located along Sand Canyon Road, and at the intersection with Soledad Canyon Road. This area includes an average cross -slope of 13 percent; • Area 2 totals 51.4 acres and is located along the significant ridgeline on the project site. This area has an average cross -slope of 48 percent; and • Area 3 totals four acres and generally includes the portion of the significant ridgeline that was previously disturbed for the development of Soledad Canyon Road. This area has an average cross -slope of 73 percent. Based on the average cross -slope for the majority of the site exceeding 15 percent, the Project requires the approval of the Planning Commission. Page 5 Ridgeline Alteration Permit The General Plan identifies significant ridgelines within the City. To protect and/or restrict development on these identified ridgelines, Section 17.38.070 of the UDC established a Ridgeline Preservation (RP) overlay zone which creates a 100 -foot zone either horizontally, or vertically, on either side of an identified ridgeline. Any development within the RP overlay zone requires the approval of a Ridgeline Alteration Permit (RAP) by the City Council. The Project is proposing to develop within the RP overlay zone and therefore will require the approval of the City Council. Conditional Use Permit Approximately 34 acres of the Project site is located within a Planned Development (PD) Overlay Zone. In accordance with Section 17.38.060, any development within the PD overlay zone requires the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) by the Planning Commission. This Project is also proposing the development of a 75,000 square -foot assisted living facility. A CUP is required for the development of an assisted living facility in the MXN zone. Minor Use Permit Section 17.35.020 of the UDC identifies minimum densities for residential and commercial uses within a mixed use development in the MXN zone. The Project complies with the minimum density for residential uses (6 units per acre) with a density of approximately 7 units per acre. The proposed Project is requesting approval for a Minor Use Permit (MUP) to allow for development below the minimum density for commercial (0.2 to 1 Floor Area Ratio (FAR)). The Project is proposing an FAR below the 0.2 FAR at 55,600 (130,600 including the assisted living uses). Oak Tree Permit As previously discussed, the Project site has three oak trees, one of which is considered a heritage oak tree based on its size. The Project is proposing to remove the two, non -heritage oak trees and encroach within the protected zone of the heritage oak tree. As a result of the proposed removals and encroachment, the Project requires the approval of an Oak Tree Permit in accordance with Section 17.51.040 of the UDC. GRADING AND INFRASTRUCTURE Grading The Project proposes to balance all grading on the Project site. The total earth movement will be 2.2 million cubic yards of earth of cut and fill. No import or export of earth will be required as proposed. The Project will require an additional movement of up to 850,000 cubic yards of earth for over excavation of earth for building pad preparation. As proposed, the Project includes grading within the RP overlay zone. The existing ridgeline terminates just north of Soledad Canyon Road and has been previously graded for the construction of Soledad Canyon Road and SR14, creating a near vertical slope that cannot be planted. Grading for this Project would "lay back" the existing slope along Soledad Canyon Road, and regrade a portion of this ridgeline to have a more natural, curvilinear design with a 2:1 slope. This will allow the slope to be planted with drought tolerant landscape in accordance with the UDC and soften views to the public. Further grading on the site would create building pads Page 6 for single-family detached, or attached, condominium units within the RP overlay zone. Grading would comply with Section 17.51.020 for Hillside Development to blend all grading into the surrounding hillsides. Roadway Improvements The Project includes dedication of right-of-way, as well as construction of improvements for Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road. Improvements to Sand Canyon Road would include the construction of two roundabout intersections. The existing South Silver Saddle Circle intersection at Sand Canyon Road is proposed to be converted into a four-way roundabout intersection. A new three-way roundabout intersection is proposed along Sand Canyon Road just south of the existing Silver Saddle Circle intersection. These two roundabout intersections provide access mostly to the residential portion of the Project and would be constructed as single -lane roundabouts, but additional right-of-way would be reserved and graded to allow for future reconstruction to two-lane roundabouts in the future, if needed. In addition, the applicant will provide a Class I trail along Sand Canyon Road frontage. Along Soledad Canyon Road the Project would include dedication of right-of-way and improvements at the intersection with Sand Canyon Road and near the new project driveway east of the SR14 southbound ramps. The existing Class II trail along Soledad Canyon Road would remain in place. A vacation will be required across a portion of the Sand Canyon Road frontage where excess right-of-way exists as a result of roadway realignment for Sand Canyon Road. Undergrounding Utilities Transmission lines run along the western portion of the Project site along Sand Canyon Road. The UDC requires that all transmission lines under 34 kV be placed underground. The lines are below 34kV and will be placed underground in accordance with Section 17.57.040.I of the UDC. Sand Canyon Creek Sand Canyon Creek runs along the western portion of the site. Portions of this waterway have been channelized through the site, as well as off-site. The Project proposes to channelize the waterway and place in a box culvert. The applicant will work with all applicable agencies to ensure the channelization complies with all jurisdictional requirements. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT After Project submittal, staff determined that an EIR would be required for this Project. Subsequently, the City sent out "Request for Proposals" for an environmental consulting firm to prepare an EIR. After interviewing several firms, Tebo Consulting, Inc. was awarded the contract on January 13, 2015. The intent of the EIR is to identify and address all of the environmental impacts of the Project. On April 23, 2015, staff circulated the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project EIR to approximately 80 agencies for written comments. A Scoping Meeting Page 7 was conducted on May 27, 2015. The DEIR public review period began on February XX, 2017, will end on March XX, 2017. A presentation of the DEIR has been tentatively scheduled for the March 21 Planning Commission meeting to allow for public to provide comment. Topics discussed in more detail at this meeting will include, but are not limited to, aesthetics, air quality, biology, cultural resources, noise, and traffic. NOTICING All notices required by law were completed which consisted of a one-eighth page legal advertisement in The Signal newspaper on January 31, 2017. As of the writing of this staff report, staff has received no written correspondence from the community. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission receive the staff presentation, receive testimony from the applicant and the public, provide direction to staff on the hearing schedule and project issues, and continue the public hearing to March 21, 2017. ATTACHMENTS Sand Canyon Plaza Tentative Tract Map Sand Canyon Plaza Illustrative Exhibit Page 8 Agenda Item: 1 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ,r.` PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT UNFINISHED BUSINESS PLANNING MANAGER APPROVAL: DATE: March 21, 2017 SUBJECT: MASTER CASE 14-077 (SAND CANYON PLAZA MIXED USE PROJECT): TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 53074; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-014; HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 14-001; RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 14-001; MINOR USE PERMIT 14-016; OAK TREE PERMIT 14-008; AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH NO. 2015051005 APPLICANT: Sand Canyon Plaza, LLC LOCATION: Northeast comer of Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road CASE PLANNER: Patrick Leclair RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends the Planning Commission receive staff presentation on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), receive testimony from the applicant and the public, provide direction to staff on Project issues, and continue the public hearing to May 16, 2017 REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit, Hillside Development Review, Ridgeline Alteration Permit, Minor Use Permit, and Oak Tree Permit (the "Project") to allow for the construction of a mixed-use project consisting of up to 580 residential dwelling units, 55,600 square feet of retail commercial (including restaurants), and a 75,000 square -foot (up to 120 -bed) assisted living facility. The Project would also include three private recreation areas, commercial plaza areas, various private streets, driveways, parking and landscaped areas. Roadway improvements are proposed for Sand Canyon Road (including the construction of two roundabouts) as well as Soledad Canyon Road. The Project includes a request to allow for the removal of two non -heritage sized oak trees and alteration of a City identified significant ridgeline. Page 1 PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The intent of this meeting is to continue the public hearing from the February 21, 2017, Planning Commission meeting, provide the Planning Commission with an introduction and overview of the DEIR for the Project, and receive direction from the Planning Commission regarding project issues. Steps in the process in italics below have been completed and the date in bold is the current step in the public hearing process: January 18, 2017 Project Site Tour - COMPLETE February 21, 2017 Project Introduction and Hearing Schedule - COMPLETE March 21, 2017 Initial Response to Planning Commission issues/concerns, Summary of DEIR, and initial direction from Planning Commission Future meeting dates are tentatively scheduled as follows: May 16, 2017 Planning Commission decision/action June 27, 2017 City Council hearing FEBRUARY 21, 2017, FOLLOW-UP At the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on February 21, 2017, staff provided a staff report and presentation to introduce the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission heard the staff report, applicant presentation, and testimony from the public. The Planning Commission asked for clarification on a number of topics including the following: • Additional visual simulations/ridgeline impacts • Commercial parking • Reduction in storm water infiltration due to putting remaining portions of Sand Canyon wash in a storm drain • Pedestrian safety and connectivity • Minor Use Permit (MUP) for reduced commercial The following is the progress on these items: Additional Visual Simulations/Ridgeline Impacts Staff met with the applicant to coordinate additional visual simulations of the project site and to discuss reducing ridgeline impacts associated with the Project. The applicant has prepared a concept plan that would eliminate grading and development on the northern portion of the ridgeline on the project site by removing the northern residential portion of Planning Area 5 (29 units). This concept would also provide an opportunity to create a one -acre private park and would include the incorporation of a berm along the eastern edge of the lots in the central portion of Planning Area 5 of the Project, further reducing visual impacts to residents east of the site. Page 2 This concept plan is similar to the Ridgeline Preservation Alternative in the DEIR and will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting. A new simulation has been prepared from the east of the project site (along Ada Street) as directed at the meeting on February 21. In addition, a simulation has been prepared from the backyard of a resident to the west of the project site on Macklin Avenue. This location overlooks the southern portion of the project site. Another simulation has been prepared from Sand Canyon Road looking east across the northern portion of the project site towards the ridgeline. This simulation reflects implementation of the applicant's proposed ridgeline preservation concept. Finally, visual simulation no. 6 in the DEIR has been modified to incorporate the applicant's proposed changes. These simulations will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting. Commercial Parking Concern was expressed for the parking for the commercial uses given the extent of the restauranl uses and the outdoor dining and seating proposed on the project site. The applicant must provide parking for all uses on the project site. While the Mixed Use zones allow for shared parking between the commercial and residential uses for projects that comply with mixed use standards, the applicant is proposing to provide parking for each of the uses independently without any shared parking. This will ensure that code required parking will be provided on the project site. The applicant has also been working with staff on a new concept for the commercial portion of the project site. In short, this concept would extend the "Main Street" easterly towards the assisted living facility. This concept would also add a parking structure which would be wrapped by retail/restaurant uses along the "Main Street" including a slight increase in commercial square footage. Finally, this concept would increase the size of the assisted living facility by approximately 10,000 square feet and would shift the driveway on Soledad Canyon Road easterly, farther away from the SR -14 ramps and Sand Canyon Road. Final plans are being prepared and will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting. Storm Water Infiltration The project site includes a portion of Sand Canyon Wash, which runs north/south through the site. The wash includes segments that are already in a storm drain, within a man-made channel maintained by Los Angeles County Flood Control District (FCD), or in a highly disturbed channel with portions (outlet and inlet structures) maintained by the FCD. Directly north of the project site is an outlet structure which conveys storm water from developed areas west and north of the project site. This outlet structure is maintained by the FCD. From the outlet structure south to the existing developed portion of the project site Sand Canyon wash flows in a highly disturbed soft bottom channel where it then enters a storm drain that crosses underneath the northerly portion of the property currently developed with mobile homes. The inlet area and this storm drain are maintained by the FCD. This storm drain then terminates in the central portion of the site where it becomes a man-made channel again maintained by the FCD. In the southerly portion of the project site this man-made channel ends and flows are directed into a storm drain that crosses under Sand Canyon Road/Soledad Canyon Road and commercial areas to the south, and eventually outlets to the Santa Clara River. The Project proposes to put the portions of the wash presently not in a storm drain within the project site into a storm drain. A concern was raised at the February 21 Planning Commission Page 3 meeting that putting the wash into a storm drain could potentially impact on-site infiltration. The DEIR includes a comprehensive analysis of runoff volumes for various storm events, including the 25 -year, 24-hour storm event. For example, the DEIR indicates that the Project would provide approximately 3.58 acre-feet of storm water runoff storage volume in 12 infiltration BMPs (underground Chambermax units and above ground infiltration basins) located throughout the project site. This storage capacity is sufficient to mitigate increases in this storm event and exceeds the MS4 Permit criterion to infiltrate the water quality design storm volume on-site. In conclusion, the DEIR indicates that there would be no significant impacts associated with on-site infiltration due to the Project. Pedestrian Safety and Connectivity Additional information was requested regarding the pedestrian connections and connectivity to the future Vista Canyon Metrolink Station. With respect to the sidewalk along Soledad Canyon Road, there is an ability to increase the sidewalk and parkway width from 8 feet to 10 feet in width to provide a five-foot sidewalk. The applicant has agreed to this increase and will incorporate this change into the Project. As discussed at the February 21 Planning Commission meeting, additional sidewalk would not be appropriate on Sand Canyon Road given the Class I trail located adjacent to this sidewalk. With respect to pedestrian/commuter connection to the Vista Canyon Metrolink Station, the City's Transit Division will modify services accordingly to provide connectivity to the Vista Canyon Bus Transfer Station, as well as the Vista Canyon Metrolink Station, upon completion of these facilities. MUP for Reduced Commercial The Commission also inquired about the applicant's proposal to develop the Project with less commercial (a 55,600 square -foot retail/restaurant center plus a 75,000 square -foot assisted living facility) than the minimum required in the Mixed Use Neighborhood (MXN) zone (284,210 square feet). One of the alternatives considered in the DEIR was a development with an increase in the commercial uses proposed with the Project. Further discussion regarding this Alternative has been provided in the "Project Alternatives" portion of this report. To further address this issue, the applicant has consulted with a real estate advising firm to look at the feasibility of increasing the commercial floor area on-site. The applicant will provide further detail on this matter at the Commission meeting. SUMMARY OF THE SAND CANYON MIXED USE PROJECT DEIR The Sand Canyon Mixed Use Project requires evaluation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Upon review it was determined that an Environmental Impact Report was required for the Project. As such, a DEIR for the Sand Canyon Mixed Use Project has been completed and has been circulated for review. In accordance with the attached Notice of Availability, the DEIR has been circulated for review beginning on March 3, 2017, and ending at the close of business on April 17, 2017. The DEIR is available for review at any of the City libraries and is further available on the Planning Division webpage at the following web address: <http://www.santa-clarita.com/city-hall/departments/community- development/planning/environmental-impact-reports-under-review>. The Sand Canyon Mixed Use DEIR analyzes the environmental impacts of the Project and identifies issues for which there is a potential for significant environmental impacts. The DEIR Page 4 addresses these issues in Section 4.0 of the DEIR, Environmental Impact Analysis, and analyzes impacts to each area. Each of the environmental topics is listed below and is summarized in the "Environmental Impact Analysis" portion of this report: • Aesthetics • Agricultural and Forestry Resources • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Geology and Soils • Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Climate Change • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use • Minerals and Energy Resources • Noise • Population and Housing • Parks and Recreation • Public Services • Traffic and Circulation • Utilities and Service Systems Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures have been applied to this Project to reduce potential environmental impacts as a result of the Project. However, there will be significant and unavoidable impacts to operation -related air quality impacts, cumulative air quality impacts, as well as for construction - related noise, and cumulative noise impacts. As a result, a statement of overriding conditions will be required to be adopted by the City Council if the Council decides to approve this Project as proposed, or modified through the public hearing process. Project Alternatives The DEIR also contains a discussion of the following four alternatives to the proposed Project: 1. No Project Alternative; 2. Increased Commercial and Office; 3. Ridgeline Preservation; and 4. ACOE-CDFW Avoidance. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS The following sections below are general summaries of the analysis in the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project DEIR. For a full discussion of each of the issues analyzed below and all of the conclusions reached, please refer to the individual discussions in Section 4 of the DEIR. Aesthetics The Aesthetics section (beginning on page 4.1-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Page 5 Project could have on scenic vistas, impacts on scenic resources (ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a scenic highway), visual character of the site and its surroundings, and light or glare that would affect the day or nighttime views. Background The project site will be highly visible given its location on the corner of two major roadways in the City, as well as its proximity to SR14. Six visual simulations demonstrating the existing visual conditions, as well as the potential visual impact associated with the construction of the Project have been provided in Figures 4.1-2 to 4.1-7 of the DEIR and were presented to the Planning Commission at their February 21, 2017, meeting. The Project is not located within any scenic vistas and is further not anticipated to have a significant impact to the visual character of the site. However, the Project could have a potential aesthetic impact based on the grading and development activities on General Plan -designated significant ridgeline, as well as the addition of new lighting sources on the project site. Ridgeline Impacts The Project includes development on a General Plan -designated significant ridgeline. Portions of this ridgeline have been previously disturbed for the construction of Soledad Canyon Road and the existing mobile home park, creating a flat cut -slope along Soledad Canyon Road frontage of the site that cannot be planted due to the steep grade of the slope. Grading associated with the Project will include laying back the ridgeline from Soledad Canyon Road to allow for the slope to be planted with native plants and vegetation. Further, grading would include a curvilinear design to create a more natural appearance. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project (MM Aes-1 to MM Aes-3) to ensure that the final grading plans conform to the City's hillside development guidelines for landform grading and curvilinear design. With the incorporation of these mitigation measures, impacts to the ridgeline are anticipated to be less than significant. Lighting Impacts The Project will create the need for security lighting during construction, additional needs for street lighting, as well as for the residential and commercial uses on the project site. Mitigation measures (MM Aes-4 to MM Aes-6) have been incorporated into the Project to require construction lighting be limited to those lights absolutely necessary for security, ensuring lights are shielded from surrounding uses. In addition, all permanent lighting fixtures must be directed down, screened from neighboring uses, and shall incorporate timers as appropriate for security purposes. With these mitigation measures, lighting impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. Agriculture and Forestry Resources The Agriculture and Forestry Resources section (beginning on page 4.2-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have on farmland or forestry resources. The project site is not located within any prime or unique farmland, nor does it contain any timber or forestry resources. Further, the Project is not located within any zoning designation that would impact these resources. Therefore, impacts to agriculture and forestry resources would be less than significant. Page 6 Air Quality The Air Quality section (beginning on page 4.3-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have on any air quality plan, any increase in any pollution for which the region is under a non -attainment designation, any impact to sensitive receptors, or further create any source of odors. Background The Project includes a mixture of residential and commercial development, associated recreational facilities, trails, and open space and has the potential to have air quality impacts related to construction of the Project, ongoing operations on the project site, as well as cumulative impacts in comparison with projects in the region. As discussed in the DEIR, construction -related activities associated with the Project would result in the emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter (PM 10), and particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5) from heavy-duty construction equipment exhaust, fugitive dust (PM 10 and PM2.5) from earth -moving activities, and VOCs from asphalt paving and architectural coating. Off-site emissions during construction normally consist of exhaust emissions and entrained paved road dust (PM10 and PM2.5) from construction equipment delivery, material delivery, and construction worker commute trips. However, the Project would be consistent with all applicable rules and regulations governing construction equipment and processes. As such, the Project would not have a significant air quality impact relating to construction activities. Operational emissions would be generated by stationary and mobile sources as a result of normal day-to-day activity of the commercial and residential uses on the project site. Stationary emissions would be generated by the consumption of natural gas for space -heating and water - heating devices, the operation of landscape maintenance equipment, and from the use of consumer products. Mobile emissions would be generated by motor vehicles (e.g., passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, motorcycles) traveling to and from the project site. On-site operation emissions would be generated from the periodic operation of standby generators and natural gas combustion for building and water heating. The Project will have significant and unavoidable impacts to air quality regarding operational impacts associated with the development, as well as cumulative air quality impacts as discussed below: Related Operational Air Quality Impacts As discussed in the DEIR, the net increase in regional operational emissions generated by the Project would exceed the regional thresholds of significance set by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for ROG and NOx during the summertime and the wintertime. These emissions are primarily due to motor vehicles and area source emissions associated with the operation of the proposed residential uses. These emissions are typical for a mixed-use commercial and residential project of this size, and there is no feasible mitigation to reduce these emissions to a less -than -significant level. As such, regional operational air quality impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable. Page 7 Cumulative Air Qualitv Impacts Due to the non -attainment status of 03, PMio, and PM2.5 (Ozone and fine particulate matter), the generation of daily operational emissions associated with cumulative development would result in a cumulative significant impact associated with the cumulative net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is in non -attainment. With respect to operational emissions, the SCAQMD has indicated that if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants (CO, ROG, NOx, SOx, PM,o, and PM2.5) that exceed the SCAQMD-recommended daily thresholds for project -specific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants for which the Project region is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. As discussed in the DEIR, the operational emissions associated with the Project would exceed the established SCAQMD thresholds for ROG and NOx during the operation of the Project. Because ROG and NOx are considered 03 precursors, and given the region's non -attainment status of 03, the cumulative impact of the Project's operational emissions would be significant. Significant and avoidable impacts would occur for regional operational emissions and cumulative operational emissions. All other impacts related to air quality would be less than significant. Biological Resources The Biological Resources section (beginning on page 4.4-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have on habitat, special status species, wildlife movement, or impact any local, regional, or state plan. Plant Impacts Focused surveys were prepared for the Project in April, May, and June of 2014 and 2015. No special status plant species were identified on the project site, however, the slender mariposa lily (a special status plant) has a moderate potential to occur on the project site. Birds Nesting habitat exists on the project site for various bird species. In addition, various species were observed on site, or soaring over the project site. The endangered California gnatcatcher was not found to be on the project site. However, given the fact that nesting habitat exists on the project site for various bird species, nesting surveys would need to be completed (MM Bio -1) if the Project begins construction during the nesting season. With this mitigation measure, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant to bird species on the project site. Amphibian and Reptiles The project site is not expected to have any special status amphibians as no habitat exists on the site. During surveys, one special -status reptile (San Diego tiger [coastal] whiptail) was seen on the project site. In addition, the coast horned lizard has the potential to occur on the project site. Mitigation measure MM Bio -2 has been incorporated into the Project to require relocation of any of these reptiles prior to any construction activity on the project site. With the incorporation of the proposed mitigation, impacts would be less than significant to these animals. Page 8 Mammals No special status mammal species (including bats) were observed during the field surveys, however potential habitat was found to exist on the project site. Mitigation measures MM Bio -3 and MM Bio -4 require that pre -construction surveys be completed including the use of bat boxes. With these mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant to mammals on the project site. Habitat and Wetlands The project site contains the following areas to be impacted with the proposed development: • 1.66 acres of holly leaf cherry alliance vegetation; • 0.090 acres of federal wetlands; • 1.471 acres of non -wetland federal waters; • 0.09 acres of state wetlands; and • 2.87 acres of non -wetland state waters. Consequently, the Project will be required to comply with the applicable state and federal permits for the taking of these areas for the Project. Mitigation measures MM Bio -6 and MM Bio -7 have been incorporated into the Project to address these impacts. With these mitigation measures, the Project would have a less than significant impact to habitat and jurisdictional areas. Oak Trees The project site contains three oak trees. Two non -heritage oaks (trees #1 and #3) will be removed for the proposed development and one heritage oak (tree #2) will remain on the project site. Tree #2 will remain in place and will be encroached for the development of the proposed Project. The tree is currently located in a low point on the project site and would be encroached for grading on the project site. Mitigation measure MM Bio -8 has been incorporated into the Project to minimize impact to tree #2 and ensure its survival. Cultural Resources The Cultural Resources section (beginning on page 4.5-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have on historical, archeological, unique paleontological resources, or impact any potential to disturb any human remains. A Phase 1 archeological survey was undertaken in 2015. The survey concludes that there is a low potential for any cultural resources to occur on the project site. However, the Applicant has entered into a consultation agreement with the Femandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (Tataviam) for the Project. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) recognizes the Tataviam as an organized Native American tribe, and includes the Tataviam on its Tribal Consultation list compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65352.3. Though not anticipated, inadvertent direct and/or indirect disturbance during construction of the Project to any on-site sensitive cultural resource would be considered a significant impact. Accordingly, mitigation measures (MM CR -1 and MM CR -2) are proposed that would reduce the magnitude of potential impacts to cultural resources to less -than -significant levels. Geoloev and Soils Page 9 The Geology and Soils section (beginning on page 4.6-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have regarding earthquakes, landslides, liquefaction, and grading impacts to hillsides on the project site. The Project requires the grading of 2.2 million cubic yards of earth balanced on the project site. Further, grading includes over excavation of 850,000 cubic yards of soil. A geotechnical report was prepared for RTF&A on July 1, 2015 to address these activities. The report finds that due to the potential for liquefiable soils, the project site could be susceptible to liquefaction. This could result in significant impacts as a result of strong seismic ground shaking, liquefaction and its effects, soil expansion, and soil corrosiveness. The project site contains a landslide that must be addressed prior to construction of structures on the project site. However, the geotechnical report from RTF&A incorporates measures that would prevent impacts with the implementation of grading and construction techniques to minimize effects to soils on the project site. These techniques have been incorporated as mitigation measures (MM Geo -1 to MM Geo -33) for the Project. With these mitigation measures, impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels. Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Climate Chance The Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Climate Change section (beginning on page 4.7-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have, directly or indirectly, on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in accordance with any plan, policy or regulation adopted for GHG emissions. The proposed Project is a mixed use project providing a mix of residential and commercial uses. Given this mix of uses, the Project would provide a unique walkable community that, in accordance with the City's adopted Climate Action Plan (CAP), the CALGreen Code, and the following GHG reduction measures, the Project would be consistent with SB375 and AB32 to reduce GHGs to 1990 levels by 2020: • Land Use Transportation: The Project would be consistent with primary land use goals of the CAP including, but not limited to, mixed-use design and the promotion of active transportation (i.e., non -motorized transportation such as walking and bicycling). Specifically, the Project's traffic analysis indicates the Project's mixed- use nature reduces motor vehicle trips by approximately 9% due to internal capture. This design feature would result in a reduction of approximately 2,378,560 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) compared to a project without similar design features. • Pedestrian Network Improvements: The Project would create and enhance opportunities for non -vehicular travel and encourage pedestrian mobility by providing an internal pedestrian circulation system that links residential neighborhoods to on- site recreation areas, regional trail systems, and neighborhood retail/commercial areas. Low -Flow Water Fixtures: The Project would include low -flow and/or high efficiency water fixtures such as low -flow toilets, urinals, showerheads, faucets, and high efficiency clothes -washers and dishwashers in residential and commercial buildings. Vegetation and Landscape Irrigation Systems: The Project would include drought tolerant landscaping and would implement efficient landscape irrigation techniques, such as "smart" irrigation technology, to reduce water use and its associated GHG Page 10 emissions. "Smart" irrigation systems rely on weather, climate and soil moisture information to adjust watering frequency, hence maintaining the vegetation is adequately moist while conserving water. Energy Reduction: The Project would include energy efficient appliances, high efficiency lighting, and solar panels. The Project would be built to meet and exceed California's 2013 Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). Alternative Fuel Vehicles: The Project would provide on-site electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, supporting and promoting the use of electric vehicles. No mitigation measures are required for GHG emission and Climate Change and all impacts would be less than significant. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Hazards and Hazardous Materials section (beginning on page 4.8-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have regarding exposing the public to hazardous materials, developing near an airport or private airstrip, and/or exposing the public to any flooding or wildland fire hazards. Construction Impacts Buildings on the project site were built prior to 1981. As such, a mitigation measure (MM Haz-1) has been incorporated into the Project to require the owner to comply with the applicable noticing requirements, as well as demolition requirements for addressing possible asbestos contamination. In addition, during construction activities for the Project, there could be impacts to neighboring roadways that could endanger existing residents in the event of an emergency. Mitigation measure (MM Haz-2) has been incorporated into the Project to ensure that the applicant obtains a traffic control plan to minimize any potential impacts to emergency access during construction. With the incorporation of the mitigation measures above, there would be no impact associated with the potential construction -related impacts related to the Project. Fire Impacts The project site is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone under the Los Angeles County Fire Department. As such, the Project would need to comply with the applicable construction -related improvements to ensure that the associated risk is mitigated to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures (MM PS -4 through MM PS -6) have been incorporated into the Project ensuring that the Project will comply with these standards, reducing the potential impacts to a less than significant level. Hydrology and Water Quality The Hydrology and Water Quality section (beginning on page 4.9-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have with respect to water quality, water infiltration, altering drainage patterns, as well as any impacts to flooding, tsunami, seiche, or mudflow. The Project includes grading that would slightly change the drainage patterns on the project site. Page 11 The site is divided into two drainage areas identified as Drainage Basin A (west of the ridgeline) and Drainage Basin B (east of the ridgeline) as shown in Figure 4.9-2. As a result of the grading proposed for the Project, the tributary area for Drainage Basin A would increase, while the tributary area for Drainage Basin B would decrease. The surface runoff drainage pattern in Drainage Basin B would remain similar to the existing condition while surface runoff in Drainage Basin A would be conveyed overland to a system of catch basins that discharge to an underground storm drain system. The storm drain system would convey flows to a system of above -ground infiltration basins and underground infiltration units, via a system of grated inlets, low flow pipes, and splitter boxes. The infiltration basins and the underground units would be off-line from the main storm drain system to avoid damage from very large erosive flows. Overflow devices (aboveground basins) and bypass systems (underground units) would be installed to convey high flow events. Despite an increase in impervious surfaces, the Project would result in overall net reduction in peak flowrates for the 5-, 10-, 25-, and 50 -year 24-hour storms. This is due to generally longer flow paths, flatter slopes, and longer times of concentration in Drainage Basin A for the post - development (Project) condition and a smaller drainage area in Drainage Basin B for the Project condition. Runoff that discharges from the Project area above the 25 -year storm event would be discharged to the storm water drainage system that ultimately discharges to the Santa Clara River (SCR). Direct discharges to the Santa Clara River are exempt from the hydromodification requirements in the MS4 Permit. Even though hydromodification controls are not required to be implemented, the Project exceeds the hydromodification performance standard in the MS4 Permit to infiltrate runoff from at least the 2 -year 24-hour event. All BMP design work would be done in compliance with Los Angeles County drainage requirements and the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit requirements. Consequently, no significant unavoidable Project or cumulative Project impacts to hydrology or water quality would occur and no mitigation measures are required. Land Use The Land Use section (beginning on page 4.10-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have with respect to established communities, conflicts with land use policies, or any conflicts with habitat conservation plans. The Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project is situated on an approximately 87 -acre parcel located immediately north of Soledad Canyon Road, east of Sand Canyon Road, north of State Route 14 (SR -14), and west of the Pinetree residential community in the City of Santa Clarita. The Project is located in the Mixed Use Neighborhood (MXN) and Urban Residential 3 (UR3) zoning and General Plan land use designations and proposes to develop the site with up to 580 residential units, 55,600 square feet of commercial/retail/restaurants, and a 75,000 -square -foot (up to 120 -bed) assisted living facility. As proposed, the Project will require the approval of the following entitlements: • Tentative Tract Map - to allow for the subdivision of the project site; • Ridgeline Alteration Permit - to allow for development on a General Plan designated significant ridgeline; • Hillside Review - to develop on slopes in excess of 10 percent average cross -slope; • Conditional Use Permit - to implement the Planned Development Overlay Zone as well Page 12 as allow for the proposed assisted living facility; • Minor Use Permit - to allow for commercial development below the minimum of the MXN zone; and • Oak Tree Permit. Development proposed for the Project is consistent with the types of development anticipated for MXN and UR3 categories and, with the approval of the entitlements associated with Master Case 14-077, would be consistent with the City's Unified Development Code (UDC). The General Plan targets a ratio of two jobs for each residential unit going forward. The proposed project is requesting approval to build less commercial space than the minimum required in the MXN zone. The UDC allows projects to build below the minimum threshold of commercial space with the approval of a Minor Use Permit. As proposed, the Project is anticipated to create approximately 190 jobs and would have the equivalent of approximately 694 residential units when you consider the residential units within the assisted living facility in conjunction with the market rate units proposed on the project site. The jobs housing balance would be approximately 0. 19 to 1 as proposed. In order to achieve the 2:1 balance in the General Plan, the Project would need to incorporate a 515,000 square -foot mix of office and retail space in conjunction with the residential uses proposed on the project site. With the approval of the Minor Use Permit, as well as the remaining entitlements associated with the development, the Project would be consistent with the land use designation for the project site. Further, the Project is consistent with the 2012-2035 RTP/SCS Goals and growth forecasts. All land use impacts were concluded to be less than significant. Health Risk Assessment As discussed in the Air Quality section of the DEIR a portion of the project site is located within 500 feet of the SR -14 Freeway, including the proposed construction of an assisted living facility. General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Policy CO 7.2.1 states: Ensure adequate spacing of sensitive land uses from the following sources of air pollution: high traffic freeways and roads; distribution centers; truck stops; chrome plating facilities; dry cleaners using perchloroethylene; and large gas stations, as recommended by CARE. As such, a Freeway Adjacent Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was prepared by Pomeroy Environmental Services in January 2016 in compliance with Unified Development Code, §17.53.020.L and §17.57.020.I, and was incorporated in the appendices for the DEIR. With the Project design features on page 4.10-21 incorporated into the Project, a less than significant impact would be anticipated to the assisted living facility adjacent to the SR14. Minerals and Eneray Resources The Mineral and Energy Resources section (beginning on page 4.11-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have with respect to mineral resources. The project site is not within a mineral area identified on Exhibit CO 2, Mineral Resources, of the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, and the site is not otherwise known to contain mineral resources. The project site is not located within an MRZ-2 designated area of the City. Therefore, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource and would have no significant impacts. Noise Page 13 The Noise section (beginning on page 4.12-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have with respect to noise levels, ground -borne vibration or noise, or expose people to excessive airport noise. Construction The Project would require site preparation, grading, and construction of roadways, infrastructure, and buildings. This would require the use of heavy equipment, which could generate significant temporary noise and ground -borne vibration impacts as a result. These impacts would be significant and unavoidable for the development of the Project. However, the on-site construction activities would be conducted in accordance with the City's Municipal Code regarding construction hours (Section 11.44.080). A mitigation measure (MM N-1) has been incorporated into the Project to ensure compliance with this Code section. Additional mitigation measures (MM N-2 to MM N-8) have been incorporated into the Project to minimize potential construction noise impacts. With these mitigation measures, the construction -related activities would continue to be significant and unavoidable. Ambient Noise Noise generated by the Project would increase ambient noise levels by 1.3 dBA CNEL on Sand Canyon Road between Soledad Canyon Road and the Project driveway for "A" Street. Other roadways would not exceed an increase in ambient noise levels by 1.1 dBA CNEL These increases would be less than those typically perceivable to the human ear. These increases would not exceed any thresholds of significance for ambient noise levels. Exterior spaces fronting Sand Canyon and Soledad Canyon Roads with a direct line -of -sight to these roadways may experience exterior noise levels above the City's exterior noise standard of 65 dBA CNEL, this impact would be potentially significant, while interior uses would be less than significant. The Project would implement a buyer and renter notification program, as well as other mitigation measures (MM N-9 to MM N-13), for residences where appropriate, to educate and inform potential buyers and renters of the sources of noise in the area and/or new sources of noise that may occur in the future. Therefore, with these mitigation measures noise impacts with respect to mixed-use components of the Project would be less than significant. Cumulative Noise Impacts Cumulative impacts regarding construction noise and vibration would be less than significant. However, the noise generated as a result of mobile sources (vehicle traffic) for the Project in conjunction with ambient growth and cumulative development within the study area would have a significant impact. The Project is anticipated to contribute a maximum increase of 0.8 dBA CNEL for future 2030 noise levels for the following roadway segments along Sand Canyon: between North Silver Saddle Circle and Sand Canyon "C" Project Driveway, between Sand Canyon "C" Project Driveway and South Silver Saddle Circle, between South Silver Saddle Circle and Sand Canyon "A" Project Driveway, and between Sand Canyon "A" Project Driveway and Soledad Canyon Road. As no feasible mitigation is available to reduce this impact, cumulative traffic noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Population and Housing Page 14 The Population and Housing section (beginning on page 4.13-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have with respect to population growth or displacement of people. A portion of the project site is developed with 123 mobile homes. This portion of the project site was once aformal mobile home park (Canyon Breeze Village Mobile Home Park). In 2008 the City of Santa Clarita issued a closure permit for the Canyon Breeze Village Mobile Home Park. The Project is proposing a mix of 580 residential units from apartments for rent, to single-family homes for sale. The 580 units are anticipated to increase population by just shy of 1,800 persons in keeping with the SCAG and General Plan policies. No impacts to population and housing are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Parks and Recreation The Parks and Recreation section (beginning on page 4.14-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have with respect to the use or need of park space in the City. The Project would not include an on-site public park. Future residents of the Project would be served by three parks that are near the project site (Oak Spring Canyon Park, Canyon Country Park, and the future Vista Canyon Park). In addition, the Project would be served by the future Canyon Country Community Center being planned for the northeast corner of Sierra Highway and Soledad Canyon Road. Additionally, the Project would include three private recreation areas and an extensive on-site trail system. The on-site trails would connect to the City's Regional Trail System. The applicant will be required to pay parkland mitigation fees to cover the cost of park facilities required for the construction of the Project. No impact to parks is anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Public Services Fire Protection The Fire Protection section (beginning on page 4.15-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have with respect to fire services in the City. The project site is located in the Fire Zone 4, or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and is further within the jurisdictional engine company of Fire Station 132. The Project would be required to comply with applicable building codes for development within a Fire Zone 4. Further, the Project would be required to comply with the applicable fire code requirements for access, water mains, fire hydrants, fire flows, and applicable brush clearance and fuel modification requirements. Further, the applicant would be required to pay the applicant fire facility fees to help fund new facilities and purchase additional equipment. Mitigation measures MM PS -1 to MM PS -6 have been incorporated into the Project to address these requirements. With these measures, impacts to fire services would be less than significant. Police Protection The Police Protection section (beginning on pace 4.16-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have with respect to police services in the City. Page 15 Law enforcement in the City of Santa Clarita is primarily provided by the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department on a contract basis. In addition, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) provides services in the unincorporated portions of the Santa Clarita Valley. The Project would create a small increase in security concerns during the construction phase of the Project. Additionally, the Project would create an increase in traffic -related services on the project site and in the vicinity of the Project, and could contribute to further needs for sheriff services. To offset the increased services, the applicant would pay the applicable law enforcement fee at the time of building permit issuance for the Project. In addition, sales taxes collected on the project site would be placed in the general fund for the City and could be allocated to additional law enforcement services as needed. Mitigation measures MM PS -7 to MM PS -10 have been incorporated into the Project to address the potential impacts to police services. With these mitigation measures, all impacts to police services would be reduced to less than significant levels. Schools The Schools section (beginning on page 4.17-1) of the DEER discusses the potential impacts the Project could have with respect to schools. The project site is currently within the Sulphur Springs School District for elementary education, as well as the William S. Hart Union High School District for junior and senior high school education. The Project is anticipated to generate the need for up to 214 elementary school, 27 junior high, and 72 high school students. The applicant is negotiating agreements with the respective school districts for the mitigation of the impacts to school facilities with the proposed Project. Implementation of these agreements (Mitigation measures MM PS -11 and MM PS -12) would mitigate potential impacts to less than significant levels for both Project and cumulative impacts to schools. Library Services The Libraries section (beginning on page 4.18-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have with respect to library facilities. The residential component of the Project would increase the demand placed on the City of Santa Clarita's library facilities. Based on the City's library service level guideline of 0.50 square foot of library facilities per capita, the Project would require a total of 899 square feet of library facilities. Additionally, based on the City's library service level guidelines of 2.75 items per capita, it is anticipated that 4,945 library items would be required to serve the Project population. Property tax revenues would be used to offset the need for additional services on the project site. Further funding for libraries consist of state assistance, and revenue from fines, fees, and other miscellaneous revenue. The tax revenues collected would not adequately cover all the costs of serving the Project population, and a significant impact on the library system would result. In order to further address the impact on libraries in the City, the applicant would be required to pay the library facilities mitigation fee. Based on the City's current library facilities fee of $800 per residential unit, the estimated fees that would be collected from the Project to pay for new library construction and item purchases would be $464,000. Mitigation Measure MM PS -13 would address the payment of the library impact fee and would mitigate the impact to libraries to less than significant levels. Page 16 Traffic and Circulation The Traffic and Circulation section (beginning on page 4.19-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have with respect to any plans impacting the traffic network, impacts to the congestion management program (CMP), and further impact any traffic patterns. Project -related Traffic As previously discussed, the Project includes the removal of 123 mobile homes from the site and would include the construction of a 55,600 square foot commercial center, a 75,000 square foot assisted living facility, as well as a mixture of 580 residential units (312 apartment units, 122 townhome units, and 146 single-family condominium units). Under the City's General Plan, the City is broken into Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) to anticipate the existing and future traffic impacts. The project site is located within a TAZ that includes a minimal number of adjacent existing land uses. The TAZ anticipated approximately 14,000 average daily trips (ADT) would be expected at buildout of the TAZ. With the buildout of the Project, approximately 7,986 ADT is anticipated with the proposed mix of uses. As such, the impacts anticipated to the City's roadway network are less than previously contemplated. However, based on the results of the level of service (LOS) analyses and the criteria set forth by the City of Santa Clarita, the intersection of Sand Canyon Road at Soledad Canyon Road would be significantly impacted by the Project (i.e., impacted based on the "Existing Plus Project" condition). Mitigation measures identified for this scenario (MM T-1 to MM T-2) include traffic signal timing modifications to coordinate Kenroy Avenue, Sand Canyon Avenue, and SR -14 southbound ramp intersections along Soledad Canyon Road, and a change to traffic signal phasing at the SR -14 southbound ramp intersection to provide a protective permissive westbound left -turn onto the ramp instead of the current permissive left -turn. Under the Los Angeles County CMP methodology, the Project does not result in a direct impact on the freeway ramps or mainline for Project specific impacts. However, the applicant has been required to comply with MM T-3 to enter into a mitigation agreement with CalTrans to offset their fair share of vehicle trips added to SR -14 with the Project. With the mitigation measures, impacts to Project related trips on the existing City and CalTrans roadways would be less than significant. Cumulative Traffic Impacts Under cumulative conditions, the intersection of Sand Canyon Road at Soledad Canyon Road would be significantly impacted by the Project. Because this impact is under cumulative conditions, the Project would contribute its pro rata share of the improvement cost for restriping one northbound vehicle lane from a right -turn lane to a through traffic lane. This improvement would be implemented when determined necessary by City staff. The analysis of the freeway ramps and the mainline under cumulative conditions indicates that the Project would not result in a significant impact on those facilities. However, the Project would contribute its pro rata share to the anticipated costs for design and implementation of future improvements on SR -14 as required by Caltrans. The supplemental freeway and ramp facilities analysis for Project opening day conditions shows Page 17 that the Project would not result in a significant impact on those facilities. However, Synchro/ SimTraffic simulations show that the queue length at the SR -14 northbound off -ramp left -turn lane would exceed turn storage length due to downstream traffic blockage at the Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road intersection. Mitigation identified for this scenario is identical to that identified in the "Existing Plus Project" scenario. With the mitigation measures (MM T4 to MM T-7), impacts to cumulative trips on the existing City and CalTrans roadways would be less than significant. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VNIT) Analysis At this time, VMT analysis is not required under CEQA. However, the Project's traffic engineer prepared an analysis of the VMT with the Project. The average trip length generated with the Project was projected to 7.0 miles while the existing trip length in the surrounding community is approximately 12.5 miles. The average trip length in the community would be reduced to 11.9 miles with the Project, or a five percent reduction based on the location of additional commercial services in close proximity to existing residential uses surrounding the project site. As discussed in the GHG Section, the reduction in VMT would reduce GHG and further would reduce impacts to the City's roadway network. Utilities and Service Systems Solid Waste The Solid Waste section (beginning on page 4.20-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have with respect to landfills and solid waste disposal. Upon buildout of the Project, and assuming that no solid waste would be recycled (worst-case scenario), the proposed Project is anticipated to generate atotal of 6,931.5 pounds of solid waste per day, or approximately 1,265 tons of solid waste per year. It can be assumed that the Project would meet the current recycling goals of the City and therefore, generate approximately 632.5 tons of solid waste per year while diverting 632.5 tons to recycling in compliance with state requirements to divert 50 percent of potential waste. As discussed in Section 20, there is sufficient capacity at landfills that would serve the site to accommodate the Project's solid waste. However, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project (MM Util-1 to MM Util-4) to ensure that the Project will divert construction debris and will encourage recycling. With these measures, impacts would be less than significant. Wastewater The Wastewater section (beginning on page 4.21-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have with respect to wastewater and wastewater treatment facilities. The Project, at buildout, would generate a worst-case average total of 138,942 gallons per day of wastewater that would be treated by the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District (the Saugus and Valencia Water Reclamation Plants). These facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the Project's wastewater generation. For this reason, and based on supporting analysis provided in the DEIR, wastewater disposal impacts would not be significant. The applicant will be required (MM Util-5) to connect to the Los Angeles County Sanitation District, including payment of the applicable connection fee. With this mitigation, impacts to wastewater would be less than significant. Page 18 Water Supply The Water Supply section (beginning on page 4.22-1) of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the Project could have with respect to water availability for the Project. The Castaic Lake Water Agency (CLWA) has evaluated this Project and has determined that adequate water is available to service the Project as proposed. Further, an SB 610 Water Supply Assessment to confirm the availability of water for the Project. Therefore, no impact to water is anticipated with the Project and no mitigation measures are required. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES In preparing an FIR, alternative projects must be analyzed in accordance with CEQA to determine if a revision to the Project could result in an environmentally superior project that meets the project objectives. The DEIR for the Sand Canyon Mixed Use Project analyzed four alternatives: Alternative I: No Project Alternative All FIR documents are required to evaluate the "No Project' alternative to evaluate the potential impact on the environment if the Project is not developed as compared with the proposed Project. Under this alternative, no development would occur beyond the existing mobile home park and all impacts would remain at current levels. Development would not be precluded with this alternative, and any future development would likely require additional analysis under CEQA. This Alternative would be environmentally superior as compared to the Project, however it would not achieve the Project objectives as summarized in Section 5.9 of the DEIR. Alternative 2: Increased Commercial and Office Alternative Under this alternative, commercial development would be increased by 29,400 square feet and 30,000 square feet of office uses would be added to the Project. In addition, 60 residential units would be eliminated to accommodate the additional commercial and office uses. In addition, the alternative assumes that the assisted living component would be removed from the Project as well. Under this alternative, similar impacts would be anticipated to all environmental categories with the exception of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG), Land Use, and Transportation/Traffic. Minor changes to vehicle trips would be anticipated under this alternative, impacting air quality, GHG, and traffic. However these impacts would not be significantly different than analyzed under the proposed Project. The increase in commercial space in this alternative would add approximately 60,000 square feet of commercial/office uses, however would not be drastically different from the proposed Project. As a result, impacts under Alternative 2 would be similar to the Project impacts. This alternative has substantially the same environmental impacts as the Project, however it would not achieve the alternatives summarized under Section 5.9 of the DEIR. Alternative 3: Ridgeline Preservation Alternative Under this alternative, approximately 1,200 linear feet of the City identified ridgeline to the north of the project site would be preserved, due to the elimination of the northern portion of Planning Area 5. 29 residential units would be removed from the Project and landscape areas Page 19 and open space would be increased. The elimination of development from the significant ridgeline would reduce impacts to the ridgeline and would further reduce grading impacts with the Project. Fewer impacts to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, would be anticipated with this alternative due to the reduction in grading and the developed area associated with the Project. This alternative is generally environmentally superior to the Project and would fully achieve all of the Project objectives summarized in the Section 5.9 of the DEIR. Alternative 4: A COE-CDFWA voidance Alternative Under this alternative, development would be pulled out of the jurisdictional areas associated with the Sand Canyon wash. This alternative would eliminate roughly 7,800 square feet of commercial space, 44 residential units in Planning Area 2, 42 units from Planning Area 4, and 42 units from Planning Area 5 would be removed from the Project. In addition, Planning Area 3 would be converted to open space eliminating an additional 122 units from the Project. As a result of these modifications, 22.4 acres of open space would be added to the Project. In total 250 residential units would be eliminated from the Project. This alternative would have fewer or similar impacts as compared to the proposed Project to the majority of the environmental categories. However, greater impacts to Land Use and Population and Housing would be anticipated with the reduction in residential units from the Project. This Alternative would be environmentally superior as compared to the Project, however it would not achieve the Project objectives as summarized in Section 5.9 of the DEIR. APPLICANT PROPOSED REVISIONS Hearing the Planning Commission concerns at the February 21, 2017, meeting, the applicant is preparing revisions to the site plan to address concerns for the commercial component of the Project, as well as to address potential impacts to the ridgeline. The commercial revisions will provide an extension to the "main street" further east to wrap a proposed parking structure. This revision is anticipated to create a small increase in the total commercial development for the Project. However, the plan is being finalized and will be presented at the Planning Commission meeting. The ridgeline revisions would eliminate development within the northern portion of Planning Area 5, similar to the Ridgeline Preservation Alternative for the Project. In addition, a small private park would be introduced in its place to provide additional on-site park space. This park would not be large enough to be a City facility, but would be an added amenity for residents of the development. The revised site plan was not ready for distribution with this Planning Commission packet. A copy of this plan will be distributed at the Planning Commission meeting. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission receive the staff presentation on the DEIR, receive Page 20 testimony from the applicant and the public, provide direction to staff on Project issues, and continue the public hearing to May 16, 2017. ATTACHMENTS Notice of Availability Page 21 Agenda Item: 2 UNFINISHED BUSINESS CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT PLANNING MANAGER APPROVAL DATE: May 16, 2017 SUBJECT: MASTER CASE NO. 14-077 (SAND CANYON PLAZA MIXED USE PROJECT): TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 53074, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-014, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 14-001, RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 14-001, MINOR USE PERMIT 14-016, OAK TREE PERMIT 14-008, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH NO. 2015051005 APPLICANT: Sand Canyon Plaza, LLC LOCATION: Northeast corner of Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road CASE PLANNER: Patrick Leclair RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the revisions to the site plan prepared by the applicant and provide final direction to staff regarding the project. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit, Hillside Development Review, Ridgeline Alteration Permit, Minor Use Permit, and Oak Tree Permit (the "Project") to allow for the construction of a mixed-use project. The project includes the construction of up to 580 residential dwelling units, and based upon direction received from the Planning Commission at their meeting on March 21, 2017, the commercial components of the project have been revised to include 60,000 square feet of retail commercial (including restaurants), and a 85,000 square -foot (up to 140 -bed) assisted living facility. The Project would also include three private recreation areas, commercial plaza areas, various private streets, driveways, parking and landscaped areas. One of the recreation areas has been revised to total two acres including outdoor recreation space in addition to the pool and community facility previously proposed in Planning Area 5. Roadway improvements are proposed for Sand Canyon Road (including the construction of two roundabouts) as well as for Soledad Canyon Road. The Project includes a request to allow for the removal of two non -heritage sized oak trees and Page 1 alteration of a City identified significant ridgeline. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The intent of this meeting is to continue the public hearing from the March 21, 2017, Planning Commission meeting and obtain final guidance on the site plan based on the revisions addressing Planning Commission comments at the previous meeting. Steps in the process in italics below have been completed and the date in bold is the current step in the public hearing process: January 18, 2017 Project Site Tour - COMPLETE February 21, 2017 Project Introduction and Hearing Schedule - COMPLETE March 21, 2017 Initial Response to Planning Commission issues/concerns, Summary ofDEIR, and initial direction from Planning Commission - COMPLETE May 16, 2017 Planning Commission Finalize Site Plan Future meeting dates are tentatively scheduled as follows: June 6, 2017 Final Planning Commission Action and Recommendation to the City Council After Summer Break City Council hearing SITE PLAN REVISIONS At the Planning Commission meeting on March 21, 2017, the applicant proposed revisions to the site plan to address concerns of the Planning Commission, including reducing the impacts to the ridgeline on the project site as well as increasing the amount of commercial uses proposed with the project. Ridgeline To reduce impacts to the undisturbed portions of the ridgeline on the project site, the applicant proposed to transfer 29 of the northern -most units from Planning Area 5 to Planning Area 3. This transfer would reduce impacts to the ridgeline and would shrink the development footprint of Planning Area 5. Some grading would still be necessary to blend the proposed grading into the hillsides on the project site. The applicant proposed to take advantage of this grading to create a two -acre private park in Planning Area 5. This park area would include a pool and recreation facility as well as a one -acre, usable outdoor recreational space. A concept of this change was shown to the Planning Commission at the March 21, 2017, meeting. However, the applicant has incorporated this reduction in the residential development footprint into the site plan as shown on the revised site plan (attached). Page 2 Commercial Space To address the Planning Commission's concern regarding the commercial space provided with the proposed project, the applicant provided a letter from Rober Charles Lesser and Company (RCLCO) to the Planning Commission evaluating the commercial development in the vicinity of the project site. Based on the letter from RCLCO, it was determined that the site could accommodate an additional 10,000 square feet (up to 20 additional beds) for the assisted living facility. This would bring the total assisted living facility in the project to 85,000 square feet and up to 140 beds. In addition, it was determined that the project site was properly sized for the commercial and restaurant space proposed. However, a modest addition of commercial space, while speculative, would likely be absorbed into the market. The applicant proposed a revision to the commercial space to add 4,400 square feet for a total of up to 60,000 square feet. A concept of this change was shown to the Planning Commission at the March 21, 2017, meeting. However, the applicant has incorporated the increase in commercial square footage into the site plan as shown on the revised site plan (attached). Planning Commission Feedback In addition to the site plan revisions, the Planning Commission had questions about the following items: Pedestrian Connectivity The applicant prepared an exhibit to demonstrate connectivity of the project site to the approved Vista Canyon Metrolink Station and the Vista Canyon Bus Transfer Facility. The exhibits have been attached to this staff report. SR -14 On-ramp Operations The traffic consultant has prepared a model that demonstrates the operation of the SR -14 southbound on-ramp with the installation of the protective -permissive improvement. The video model shows the intersection operation before and after the improvement and will be presented to the Planning Commission as a part of the staff report. Landscape Buffer on Sand Canyon Road A condition of approval is being drafted to require that the applicant provide a mixture of 24 - inch, 36 -inch, and 48 -inch box trees along Sand Canyon Road to provide a landscape buffer to residences to the west of the project site. Updated Traffic Analysis The traffic consultant is updating the traffic analysis based on the project revisions, as well as addressing comments received during the public review period for the Environmental Impact Report. The updated analysis will be provided at the June 6, 2017, Planning Commission meeting as a part of the response to comments. In addition, the Planning Commission requested information on the operation of the Sand Canyon Road/Lost Canyon Road roundabout. Further clarification is being prepared and will be provided as a part of the updated traffic analysis. Page 3 ATTACHMENTS Revised Site Plan and Tentative Map Pedestrian Exhibit - Soledad Intersection Pedestrian Exhibit - Vista Canyon Metrolink Page 4 Agenda Item: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ,r.` PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT PLANNING MANAGER APPROVAL: DATE: June 6, 2017 SUBJECT: MASTER CASE NO. 14-077 (SAND CANYON PLAZA MIXED USE PROJECT): TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 53074, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-014, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 14-001, RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 14-001, MINOR USE PERMIT 14-016, OAK TREE PERMIT 14-008, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH NO. 2015051005 APPLICANT: Sand Canyon Plaza, LLC LOCATION: Northeast comer of Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road CASE PLANNER: Patrick Leclair RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends the Planning Commission close the public hearing approve Resolution P17-11 recommending the City Council certify the Draft Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2015051005) prepared for the project, and approve Resolution P17-12 recommending the City Council approve the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project under Master Case 14-077, including Tentative Tract Map 53074, Conditional Use Permit 14-014, Hillside Development Review 14- 001, Ridgeline Alteration Permit 14-001, Minor Use Permit 14-016, and Oak Tree Permit 14-008 subject to the conditions of approval for the project. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit, Hillside Development Review, Ridgeline Alteration Permit, Minor Use Permit, and Oak Tree Permit (the "Project") to allow for the construction of a mixed-use project consisting of up to 580 residential dwelling units, 60,000 square feet of retail commercial (including restaurants), and an 85,000 square -foot (up to 140 -bed) assisted living facility. The Project would also include two private recreation areas, commercial plaza areas, various private streets, driveways, parking, and landscaped areas. Roadway improvements are proposed for Sand Canyon Road (including the construction of two roundabouts) as well as Soledad Canyon Road. The Project includes a Page 1 request to allow for the removal of two non -heritage sized oak trees and alteration of a City identified significant ridgeline. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The intent of this meeting is to continue the public hearing from the May 16, 2017, Planning Commission meeting, provide the Planning Commission with a response to comments received during the DEIR public comment period and make a recommendation to the City Council for approval of Master Case 14-077 for the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project. Steps in the process in italics below have been completed and the date in bold is the current step in the public hearing process: January 18, 2017 Project Site Tour - COMPLETE February 21, 2017 Project Introduction and Hearing Schedule - COMPLETE March 21, 2017 Initial Response to Planning Commission issues/concerns, Summary ofDEIR, and initial direction from Planning Commission - COMPLETE May 16, 2017 Review applicant revisions to the project site plan based on public and Planning Commission feedback - COMPLETE June 6, 2017 Planning Commission decision and recommendation on the project to the City Council Future meeting dates are tentatively scheduled as follows: After Summer Break City Council hearing MAY 16, 2017, FOLLOW-UP At the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on May 16, 2017, staff provided a staff report and presentation to introduce the applicant revisions to the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project site plan based on the comments received from the Planning Commission and the public. The Planning Commission heard the staff report, applicant presentation, and testimony from the public. The Planning Commission asked for clarification on a number of topics including the following: • Operations of the commercial parking • Pedestrian safety and connectivity The following is the progress on these items: Commercial Parking As discussed at the May 16, 2017, Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has revised the Page 2 project to include a three level parking structure with one level partially subterranean. The final design for this structure has not been completed. However, as proposed, the structure is screened from public view on three sides with the proposed commercial components of the project. Commercial buildings line the parking structure on the west and south elevations and will screen direct views of the structure. Views to the eastern portion of the structure will be obscured from Soledad Canyon Road with the assisted living facility and views to the northern portion of the parking structure will be limited to the residential uses on the project site. A condition of approval has been incorporated into the project requiring that each planning area, including the parking structure, will be subject to the approval of a Development Review application by the Director of Community Development. As a part of that review, the applicant will need to provide elevations for the east and north elevations of the structure consistent with the architecture of the buildings on the project site as well as the Community Character and Design Guidelines. Operationally, the structure will serve the commercial uses and the assisted living facility. As previously discussed at the March 21, 2017, Planning Commission meeting, the applicant is proposing to have the residential and commercial components of the project meet their code required parking within each of their project areas and is not proposing any shared parking between the commercial and residential uses at this time. Pedestrian Safety and Connectivity Additional information was requested regarding the pedestrian connections and connectivity to the future Vista Canyon Metrolink Station. With respect to the sidewalk along Soledad Canyon Road, there is an ability to increase the sidewalk and parkway width from eight feet to 10 feet in width to provide a five-foot sidewalk The applicant has agreed to this increase and will incorporate this change into the Project. As discussed at the February 21 Planning Commission meeting, additional sidewalk would not be appropriate on Sand Canyon Road given the Class I trail located adjacent to this sidewalk With respect to pedestrian/commuter connection to the Vista Canyon Metrolink Station, the City's Transit Division will modify services accordingly to provide connectivity to the Vista Canyon Bus Transfer Station, as well as the Vista Canyon Metrolink Station, upon completion of these facilities. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO DEIR COMMENTS During the public review period from March 6, 2017, to April 17, 2017, staff received comment letters from 16 State and County agencies, Santa Clarita residents, and community groups. A copy of the draft response to comments was sent to each of the commenters in advance of the Planning Commission meeting. As the Planning Commission is a recommending body to the City Council, if the project and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are recommended for approval to the City Council, the final responses to all comments will be sent out to all commenters a minimum of 10 days in advance of the City Council hearing to certify the Final FIR and take action on the project. The following is a summary of the draft response to comments, however the complete response to the comments is attached to Resolution P17-11 as the Draft Final FIR (FEIR): Page 3 State Agencies Comments were received from the following State agencies: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) The DFW letter addresses a number of comments and/or concerns to be addressed in the Draft FIR (DEIR). Where appropriate clarification was provided or available, the appropriate changes have been incorporated into the DEIR. The DFW expressed concern for the timing associated with the Biological Studies prepared for the project being nearly two years old. As the DFW generally accepts reports that are less than two years old, and given the age of the studies prepared for the project, DFW has requested additional studies be prepared for the project. Given that the studies are being conducted after a wet winter season, this will address concerns of the DFW regarding the original studies being completed in a drought year. The State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) The OPR received the DEIR for the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project and distributed the document to the affected State agencies for review. The letter provided by OPR provided a copy of the letter submitted by the DFW for the project. The response to the DFW was provided separately and therefore no response to OPR is required. California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) The letter provided by CalTrans addresses operations of the SR -14 on and off -ramps east of Soledad Canyon Road and has asked that the applicant complete additional study of the ramps to determine if additional improvement is necessary to these ramps. A condition of approval has been incorporated into the project to require this study to be completed prior to the 100th certificate of occupancy for the project. County Agencies Comments were received from the following County and regional agencies: SoCalGas The letter provided by SoCalGas was informational in nature and did not require any further evaluation or mitigation. Los Angeles County Fire Department (Fire Department) The letter provided by the Fire Department updated information provided in the DEIR. Information provided in the DEIR was based on 2009 information and was updated to reflect 2017 information including the number of fire stations that are operational in the City as well as the personnel and services provided by the Fire Department. In addition, staff has incorporated the Fire Department's Land Development Unit conditions of approval into the project. Los Angeles Countv Department of Regional Planning (DRP) The letter provided by DRP provided comment regarding the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project DEIR noting the project is consistent with the One Valley One Vision General Plan. DRP further provides comments regarding the City's application of the City's General Plan and Page 4 zoning ordinances, as well as the Biological Resources section of the DEIR. These comments regarding the City's General Plan and zoning ordinance are advisory in nature as the City, and specifically the City Council, is responsible with enforcing the City's requirements. Regarding the Biological Resources section, DRP comments were similar to the DFW comments, and as discussed previously, additional biological surveys are being conducted. Los Angeles County Department of Public Health - Branch of Toxicologv & Environmental Assessment (DPH -TE) The letter provided by the DPH -TE addresses two topic areas including air quality and noise impacts. Regarding air quality, concerns were generally expressed regarding two items: the potential for Valley Fever and the Health Risk Assessment (HRA) prepared for the project. The project has been required to incorporate Mitigation Measures to reduce fugitive dust and airborne particulates to reduce the potential impact of Valley Fever. Further, the project site is located in an urbanized area of the City where Valley Fever is less likely to occur. The HRA is required by Sections 17.53.020.L and 17.57.020.I of the City's Unified Development Code (UDC) and the California Air Resources Board to locate the assisted living facility in proximity to SR -14. The recommendations of the HRA have been incorporated into the Mitigation Measures for the project. Regarding noise, the FIR Mitigation Measures and the design features of the project will address noise impacts to a less than significant level. South Coast Air Qualitv Management District (AQMD) The letter provided by AQMD addresses a number of topics and incorporates a number of Mitigation Measures into the project. A detailed response to each request is incorporated in the Draft FEIR in comments and responses 7-1 to 7-20. An additional Mitigation Measure has been incorporated into the project to require that the maintenance of the landscape within the commercial portions of the project use electric lawn mowers and leaf blowers to the extent feasible. Los Angeles Countv Department of Animal Control (DAC) The letter provided by DAC is informative in nature providing information to the City regarding the fee structure used by DAC. Based on the residential total of 580 units, the DAC estimates an additional cost of $1,620 for animal services. Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (DPH -EH) The letter provided by DPH -EH is focused on two topics including potable water supply and recycled water. Regarding water supply, Castaic Lake Water Agency has completed a Water Supply Assessment and has determined that they have adequate water supply to provide water to the project if approved. Regarding recycled water, if available, the applicant will work with the appropriate water agency to connect to a recycled water system. Los Angeles Countv Sanitation District (CSD) The letter provided by the CSD requested a number of edits to Section 4.21 of the DEIR to update the DEIR with the current CSD operations. The requested edits have been made in the Draft FEIR. Page 5 Los Angeles County Public Library The letter provided by the Los Angeles County Public Library notes the City has withdrawn from the County Library system and therefore, the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project will not be impacted by the Library Mitigation Fee administered by the Los Angeles County Public Library. Los Angeles County Sheriff Department - Facilities Planning Bureau The letter provided by the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department Facilities Planning Bureau references a letter provided by the Captain of the Santa Clarita Station. To date, a copy of this letter has not been submitted. Should a copy be submitted in advance of any action of the City Council, a formal response will be incorporated into the FEIR. Public Comments Sherilvn Koss The letter provided by Sherilyn Koss addressed concerns about the site design of the residential units and the potential noise and light impacts to residents to the west of the site. Ms. Koss discussed her concerns with the applicant and the applicant agreed to address her concerns in the final site design of the apartment product with the project. In addition, a condition of approval has been incorporated into the project to require the applicant to address the site planning of Planning Area 2 upon final design. Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance (GSEJA) The letter provided by GSEJA includes comments regarding the DEIR including the Project Description, the Air Quality section, the Land Use section, the Noise section, the Traffic and Circulation section, and the Alternatives section. A detailed response to the GSEJA letter can be found in the Draft FEIR in comments and responses 14-1 to 14-27. Castaic Lvons Club The letter provided by the Castaic Lyons Club is a letter of support for the project and no further response is required. SUMMARY OF PROJECT REVISIONS Through the Planning Commission review, modifications have been made to the project. As introduced at the Planning Commission meeting on March 21, 2017, and finalized at the Planning Commission meeting on May 16, 2017, the following revisions have been incorporated into the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project: 1) Elimination of grading on the northern portion of the significant ridgeline through the transfer of 27 units from Planning Area 5 to Planning Area 3. This Project revision incorporates aspects of Draft FIR Alternative 3 (Ridgeline Preservation); 2) Creation of a two -acre private park in Planning Area 5 to further enhance recreational opportunities on the Project site; Page 6 3) Increase to the assisted living facility by 10,000 square feet (75,000 square feet to 85,000 square feet) to accommodate up to 140 beds and an increase to the commercial component of the project site by 4,400 square feet (55,600 square feet to 60,000 square feet). This Project revision incorporates aspects of Draft FIR Alternative 2 (Increased Commercial and Office); 4) Addition of a three-level, 264 space parking structure to Planning Area 1; and 5) Require, as a condition of approval, the project applicant to re -design the building layout in PA -2 (locating buildings along the Sand Canyon Road frontage) to further reduce noise impacts to adjacent properties. In addition, a condition of approval has been added to require enhanced landscaping along Sand Canyon Road. These amendments have been incorporated into the site plan as well as the Draft Final FIR prepared for the project. ATTACHMENTS Resolution P17-11: CEQA Resolution Exhibit A: CEQA Facts and Findings Exhibit B: Draft Final FIR with Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Resolution P17-12: Project Approval Resolution Exhibit A: Draft Conditions of Approval Exhibit B: Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Site Plan Page 7 RESOLUTION NO. P17-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH 42015051005) FOR MASTER CASE NO. 14-077 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 53074, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 14-014, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 14-001, RIDGELIKE ALTERATION PERMIT NO. 14-001, MINOR USE PERMIT NO. 14-016, OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 14-008), INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT, AND ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings of fact, and recommends that the City Council make the following findings of fact: a. The approximately 87 -acre Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project (the Project) site is located at the northeast corner of Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road. Approximately 84 acres of the Project site are located in the Mixed Use Neighborhood (MXN) zone and General Plan land use designation, and approximately 2.5 acres in the southeast corner of the site are located in the Urban Residential 3 (UR3) zoning and General Plan land use designation. Approximately 34 acres in the southwest corner of the site are located within the Planned Development (PD) overlay zone. No development is proposed in the UR3 zone. The MXN zone is intended for mixed-use development, which is encouraged to integrate residential uses with complimentary commercial uses. The MXN zone allows for maximum density of 18 dwelling units per acre. Approximately 77 acres of the Project site are dedicated to residential land uses and accompanying open space. Under this designation and not taking into account hillside ordinance requirements, the Project site could support up to 1,386 residential units. Under the MXN and UR3 designations the Project site could accommodate up to 217,800 square feet of commercial uses. b. The Project site has been previously disturbed for the construction of a mobile home park and associated infrastructure, along with roadway improvements for Soledad Canyon Road and drainage infrastructure along Sand Canyon Road. The existing 123 -unit mobile home park is in the process of being closed, with the site being cleared and coaches being removed from the site. The property owner received approval from the City's Manufactured Home Rental Adjustment Panel (MHRAP) to close the park on December 17, 2008, and began removing coaches from the Project site. Due to the downturn in the economy, some coaches were returned to the site and rented out on month-to-month leases. The owner has agreements in place for the purchase and relocation of all remaining owner -occupied units on the site and will continue to remove these coaches from the site, in accordance with Resolution No. MHP 08-03 of the MHRAP. Master Case 14-077 Resolution P17-11 June 6, 2017 Page 2 of 14 Surrounding land uses include a mixture of residential uses and undeveloped property to the north of the site, residential uses to the east of the site, a mix of commercial uses and transportation corridors to the south of the site, with a mix of commercial and residential uses to the west of the site. State Route 14 (SRI 4) is located to the south of the site, across Soledad Canyon Road, with the Santa Clara River to the south of SR14. d. An application for Master Case 14-077, the Sand Canyon Mixed Use Project, was filed by the project applicant, Sand Canyon Plaza, LLC (the "applicant"), with the City of Santa Clarita on May 28, 2014. The entitlement requests (collectively, "Entitlements") include: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 53074 to subdivide the property to allow for the construction of 580 residential units (146 detached/attached condominium units, 122 attached/townhome units, and 312 apartments), up to 55,600 square feet of commercial uses (retail and restaurants), a 75,000 square foot assisted living facility (up to 120 beds), other lots for landscape/open space, private streets and recreation areas. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 14-014 to allow for development within a Planned Development (PD) Overlay Zone and to permit the assisted living facility in the MXN zone. 3. Hillside Development Review No. 14-001 to allow for development on slopes over 10%. 4. Ridgeline Alteration Permit No. 14-001 to allow for development in a Ridgeline Preservation (RP) Overlay Zone, more specifically to allow for development within 100 feet vertically and horizontally of a significant ridgeline. 5. Minor Use Permit 14-016 to allow for the commercial floor area ratio (FAR) to be less than the minimum required by the MXN zone. Under the MXN zone requirements, the minimum floor area ratio of commercial uses on the site would be 0.2:1 or 87,120 square feet. The applicant's original proposal was to develop the site with up to 55,600 square feet of commercial uses, which is a floor area ratio of 0.13. 6. Oak Tree Permit No. 14-008 to allow for the removal of two non -heritage oak trees and to permit grading to encroach within the protected zone of one heritage oak tree. e. The Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project was revised through the Planning Commission public hearing process to include included the development of up to 580 residential units, up to 60,000 square feet of commercial uses (retail and restaurants), and an 85,000 square -foot assisted living facility (up to 140 beds). The final residential product mix includes 312 apartment units, 149 attached townhome units, and 119 single family condominium units consisting of two planning areas totaling 71 units and 48 units. Additional components of the project include three private recreation areas, private and public street improvements, private and public trail improvements and other areas dedicated to required infrastructure Master Case 14-077 Resolution P17-11 June 6, 2017 Page 3 of 14 and open space. Approximately one -acre of the existing Sand Canyon Road right-of-way would be vacated by the City and included in Planning Area 2 of the project, as it will no longer be necessary for roadway purposes. f. Environmental conditions on the project site have been altered substantially by existing and historical uses of the property, including the mobile home park, grading, utility construction and maintenance, and off-road vehicle use. g. The Project concentrates development on the flatter and disturbed portions of the site. The majority of residential units (75%) and commercial land uses are mostly in areas with less than 25% grade. Approximately 461 of the 580 residential units would be located in a portion of the site with an average cross slope of 13% or less. The Project design includes the preservation of the only heritage oak tree located on-site. h. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA;" Pub. Resources Code, §21000 et seq.), the City of Santa Clarita is the lead agency and the City Council is the decision-making body for the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project. The City's Planning Commission is a recommending body for the Project. The City of Santa Clarita determined an EIR must be prepared for the Project. The City determined that the following areas must be addressed in the EIR for the Project: aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas/climate change, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, mineral and energy resources, noise, population and housing, parks and recreation, fire protection, police protection, schools, library services, traffic and circulation, solid waste, wastewater and water supply. j. An initial Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the Project was circulated to affected agencies, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15000 et seq.), for thirty days, beginning on April 30, 2015 and May 29, 2015. Agencies that received the NOP include, but are not limited to, the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, South Coast Air Quality Management District, law enforcement agencies, school districts, waste haulers, water agencies, and transportation agencies serving the Santa Clarita Valley in accordance with CEQA's consultation requirements. Comments from public agencies and organizations were received in response to the NOP. k. A scoping meeting was held at the City of Santa Clarita Activities Center, Canyon Room on May 27, 2015, to obtain information from the public as to issues that should be addressed in the EIR. Notice of the scoping meeting was published in The Signal newspaper on April 30, 2015, and was mailed to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the project site, in addition to approximately 55 agencies. Three people attended the scoping meeting. 1. On January 18, 2017, at 3:00 p.m., the Planning Commission conducted a site tour of the Project site. Master Case 14-077 Resolution P 17-11 June 6, 2017 Page 4 of 14 in. The City of Santa Clarita prepared a Draft EIR for the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project that addressed all comments received on the NOP. The Draft EIR was circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, in compliance with CEQA. Specifically, the Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion for the Draft EIR was filed, posted and advertised on March 3, 2017, and the 45 -day public review period ended on April 17, 2017, 5:00 p.m. in accordance with CEQA. Late written comments received prior to May 10, 2017, were responded to in the Draft Final EIR Responses to Comments. Oral and written comments received on the Draft EIR have been fully responded to and those comments received after the Planning Commission's review of the Project will be fully responded to prior to certification and approval of the project by the City Council, if granted. ' n. The Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project was duly noticed in accordance with the noticing requirements for each of the Project entitlements. The project was advertised in The Signal, through on-site posting 14 days prior to the hearing, and by direct first-class mailing to property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project site. In _addition, the date and time of each public hearing was posted on two signs at the project site. o. The Planning Commission held duly -noticed public hearings on the Project on February 21, March 21, May 16, and June 6, 2017. These hearings were held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at 6:00 p.m. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing on June 6, 2017. i. On February 21, 2017, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing for the project; received a presentation from staff on the project setting, a detailed description of the requested entitlements, and a detailed description of the project proposed under Master Case 14-077. In addition, the Planning Commission received a presentation from the applicant, and received public testimony regarding the project. ii. On March 21, 2017, City staff responded to questions posed by the Planning Co=nission at the Planning Cominission meeting on February 21, 2017. In addition, staff made a detailed presentation on the Draft EIR Sections (Aesthetics, Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Climate Change, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use, Mineral and Energy Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Parks and Recreation, Fire Protection, Police Protection, Schools, Library Services, Traffic and Circulation, Solid Waste, Wastewater, Water Supply, and Project Alternatives). The Planning Commission also received a presentation from the applicant regarding modifications proposed to the project to address comments received at the February 21, 2017, Planning Commission meeting to increase the commercial component of the project and reduce the development proposed in the Ridgeline Preservation Overlay Zone. In addition, the Planning Commission received public testimony regarding the project. Master Case 14-077 Resolution P17-11 June 6, 2017 Page 5 of 14 iii. On May 16, 2017, City staff responded to questions raised by the Planning Commission and presented a revised site plan that incorporated the changes presented by the applicant at the March 21, 2017, meeting. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission directed staff to incorporate the project modifications into the revised site plan and/or conditions of approval for the project: 1) Elimination of grading on the northern portion of the significant ridgeline through the transfer of 27 units from Planning Area 5 to Planning Area 3. This Project revision incorporates aspects of Draft EIR Alternative 3 (Ridgeline Preservation); 2) Creation of a two -acre private park in Planning Area 5 to further enhance recreational opportunities on the Project site; 3) Increase to the assisted living facility by 10,000 square feet (75,000 square feet to 85,000 square feet) to accommodate up to 140 beds and an increase to the commercial component of the project site by 4,400 square feet (55,600 square feet to 60,000 square feet). This Project revision incorporates aspects of Draft EIR Alternative 2 (Increased Commercial and Office); 4) Addition of a three-level, 264 space parkng structure to Planning Area 1; and 5) Require, as a condition of approval, the project applicant to re -design the building layout in Planning Area 2 (locating buildings along the Sand Canyon Road frontage) to further reduce noise impacts to adjacent properties. In addition, a condition of approval has been added to require enhanced landscaping along Sand Canyon Road. p. On June 6, 2017, the modified site plan, draft Final EIR, resolutions and conditions of approval were presented to the Planning Commission. The Commission also received public testimony regarding the project. As a result of the project modifications made during the proceedings before the Planning Commission, the revised site plan recommended by the Planning Commission proposes a total of 580 residential units, 60,000 square feet of commercial floor area, an 85,000 square foot assisted living facility, and a two -acre private park along with other recreational amenities: q. As a result of comments received from the Planning Commission and its staff, governmental agencies and the public, the project was modified by the Planning Commission as explained above in Paragraph "o." The Draft Final EIR, incorporated herein by reference, includes the Draft EIR, comments on the Draft EIR, and the following: responses to written comments on the Draft EIR and modifications to the Draft EIR text and mitigation measures. The Draft Final EIR also explains that the project, as modified by the revisions enumerated in Paragraph "o," reduces the original project's potential environmental impacts due to a reduction in the Project's grading footprint and does not increase the level of any previously identified impacts, and creates no new significant impacts. s. The Draft EIR was presented to the Planning Commission on March 21, 2017, and the remaining Draft Final EIR documents were prepared and provided to the Planning Master Case 14-077 Resolution P17-11 June 6, 2017 Page 6 of 14 Commission at its June 6, 2017, meeting. On June 1, 2017, a copy of the responses to comments from the Draft Final EIR was sent to each agency and individual who submitted comments on the Draft EIR. t. The Planning Commission has considered the Draft Final EIR prepared for the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project, as well as information provided in staff reports, presented to the Planning Commission from experts, and presented in public testimony, including letters submitted to the Planning Commission following the close of the Draft EIR public comment period. u. At its hearings on the Project, listed above, the Planning Commission also considered staff and consultant presentations, staff reports, applicant presentations, and information presented to the Commission to assist its understanding of the Project, the EIR, and public comments and testimony on the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project and EIR. v. Based upon the staff and consultant presentations, staff reports, applicant presentations, and public comments and testimony, the Planning Commission finds that the Sand Canyon Mixed Use Project, as modified, will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the area; nor will the Project be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property in the vicinity of the project site; nor will the Project jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, or general welfare since the project conforms with the zoning ordinance and is compatible with surrounding land uses. The Project proposes the extension of all utilities and services to the project site. Currently, all required utilities and services are available at locations adjacent to the project site. w. The location of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the Planning Commission is based for the Master Case 14-077 project file is with the Community Development Department; the record specifically is in the custody of the Director of Community Development. SECTION 2. CEQA REQUIREMENTS. The Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita does hereby recommend that the City Council make the following findings of fact: a. The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA;" Pub. Resources Code, §21000 et seq.) provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002, emphasis added.) The procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects." (Ibid.); b. CEQA also provides that "in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects Master Case 14-077 Resolution P17-11 June 6, 2017 Page 7 of 14 may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects" (Pub. Resources Code, §21002.). CEQA provides that a public agency has an obligation to balance a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental, and social factors, and in particular the goal of providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian. (Pub. Resources Code, §21081; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15021(d).) CEQA requires decision -makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, and, if the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts may be considered "acceptable" by adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15093.) The Statement of Overriding Considerations must set forth the project benefits or reasons why the lead agency is in favor of approving the project and must weigh these benefits against the project's adverse environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR that cannot be mitigated to a less - than -significant level; c. CEQA's mandates and principles are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions: (1) "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR," (2) [s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency," or (3) [s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15091.) CEQA defines "feasible" to mean capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal and technological factors. (Pub. Resources Code, §21061.1; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15364.); d. The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. "Feasibility" under CEQA, then, encompasses "desirability" to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors; e. CEQA requires that the lead agency exercise its independent judgment in reviewing the adequacy of an EIR and that the decision of a lead agency in certifying a Final EIR and approving a project not be predetermined. The Planning Commission has conducted its own Master Case 14-077 Resolution P17-11 June 6, 2017 Page 8 of 14 review and analysis, and is exercising its independent judgment when acting as herein provided; f. CEQA requires decision -makers to adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program ("MMRP") for those mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR that would mitigate or avoid each significant impact identified in the EIR and to incorporate the mitigation monitoring and reporting program, including all mitigation measures, as a condition of project approval; g. CEQA requires that the responses to comments in the Final EIR demonstrate good faith and a well -reasoned analysis, and not be overly conclusory. In response to several of the comments received, portions of the Draft EIR have been revised. Although new material has been added to the Draft EIR through preparation of the Final EIR, this new material provides clarification to points and information already included in the Draft EIR and is not considered to be significant new information or a substantial change to the Draft EIR or to the project that would necessitate recirculation; and h. State CEQA Guidelines section 15003(c) and (i) note that state courts have held that the purpose of an EIR is to inform other governmental agencies and the public generally of the environmental impacts of a proposed project. CEQA does not require technical perfection or exhaustive treatment of issues in an EIR, but rather adequacy, completeness, and a good - faith effort at full disclosure. SECTION 3. 'CEQA FINDINGS. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council find that the Draft Final EIR for Master Case 14-077 (Tentative Tract Map 53074, Conditional Use Permit 14-014, Hillside Development Review 14-001, Ridgeline Alteration Permit 14-001, Minor Use Permit 14-016, and Oak Tree Permit 14-008) identifies and discloses project -specific impacts and cumulative project impacts. Environmental impacts identified in the Draft Final EIR, findings, and facts in support of findings are herein incorporated as "Findings Required by CEQA," referred to as Exhibit "A," and identified as follows: a. The Draft Final EIR identifies significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the project, as set forth in Section 7.0 of Exhibit "A." Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that will avoid or lessen certain of the project impacts, but that will not avoid or reduce all of the potential impacts to a less -than -significant level. These remaining significant impacts are balanced against project benefits and are found to be overridden by the project benefits, as stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Section 6, below. b, The Draft Final EIR also identifies significant but mitigated impacts, as set forth in Section 5.3 of Exhibit "A." Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that will avoid or reduce these potential impacts to a less -than -significant level. Master Case 14-077 Resolution P17-11 June 6, 2017 Page 9 of 14 c. The Draft Final EIR also identifies less -than -significant impacts, as set forth in Section 5.2 of Exhibit "A." d. As issues that are noted in Section 3(c), above, have no significant environmental impacts and require no mitigation, those issues also will have no contribution to cumulative impacts. The MMRP, attached as Exhibit `B" and incorporated herein by this reference, is required to mitigate project impacts. SECTION 4. CONSIDERATION OF A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project Draft Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Project and the Draft Final EIR and otherwise, upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission further finds and recommends that the City Council find that the Draft Final EIR analyzes a reasonable range of project alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project and would lessen any of the significant impacts of the project, and adequately evaluates the comparative merits of each alternative. a. The objectives of the Project are specified in the Draft Final EIR and Section 2.2 of Exhibit "A." These objectives are used as the basis for comparing the project alternatives and determining the extent that the objectives would be achieved relative to the proposed project. Only those impacts found significant and unavoidable are relevant in making the final determination of whether an alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed project. The Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts in two environmental issue areas: Air Quality — Regional Operational Emissions and Cumulative Operational Emissions. 2. Noise — Construction Noise, Construction Vibration Levels (Human Annoyance), and Cumulative Traffic Noise. b. Alternative 1 — No Project Alternative. This alternative is required by the State CEQA Guidelines and compares the impacts that might occur if the site is left in its present condition with those that would be generated by the proposed project. Under this alternative, no development or redevelopment would occur beyond what exists today. The No Project Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR and most other identified significant impacts, and, therefore, is considered environmentally superior to the Project. This alternative would not attain any of the objectives of the project. Therefore, this alternative is infeasible and also would not provide any of the project benefits. Master Case 14-077 Resolution P17-11 June 6, 2017 Page 10 of 14 c. Alternative 2 — Increased Commercial and Office. This alternative would increase the commercial building area by 29,400 square feet and the office building area by 30,000 square feet. Alternative 2 would also remove 60 units from Planning Area 2 and would eliminate the assisted living facility in Planning Area 1. In comparison to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts relative to aesthetics; agriculture and forestry resources; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; greenhouse gas emissions; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; mineral and energy resources; noise; population and housing; parks and recreation; public services; transportation/traffic; solid waste; wastewater, and water supply. None of the significant unavoidable impacts related to air quality and noise impacts would be reduced or eliminated with Alternative 2. Alternative 2 fully meets 14 objectives and partially meets the remaining six objectives, as shown in Section 5.5 of Exhibit "A". Therefore, this alternative is infeasible because it would not fully satisfy these six project objectives, and would not provide all of the project benefits. d. Alternative 3 — Ridgeline Preservation. Approximately 1,200 lineal feet of the City - identified significant ridgeline would be preserved under this Alternative due to the elimination of the northerly portion of Planning Area 5. To a lesser extent, the Ridgeline Preservation Alternative would remove 29 dwelling units from Planning Area 5. This alternative would also increase open space/landscape areas within the project area. None of the other site plan specifics would be changed. In comparison to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would result in fewer impacts relative to aesthetics; air quality; and geology and soils. Impacts for the remaining 19 topical areas would be similar under Alternative 3 as those anticipated for the proposed project. Significant unavoidable impacts related to air quality and noise would be reduced, but not eliminated under Alternative 3. The development anticipated under the Alternative 3 includes the same mix of land uses anticipated for the proposed Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project. Alternative 3 fully meets all 20 project objectives. Alternative 3 is the environmentally superior alternative. Modifications made to the Project during the Planning Commission review have resulted in a revised Project that is substantially consistent with this Alternative. Development on the northern portion of the ridgeline has been eliminated consistent with this Alternative. The primary difference is the revised Project would create a two -acre park on a small portion of the ridgeline that was going to be preserved under this Alternative. This park is considered to be beneficial and an enhancement as compared to Alternative 3. Master Case 14-077 Resolution P17-11 June 6, 2017 Page 11 of 14 Though this Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative it would not provide all of the benefits associated with the Project as revised by the Planning Commission, more specifically the inclusion of a private park. Therefore this Alternative is infeasible. e. Alternative 4 — ACOE-CDFW Avoidance. Alternative 4 would avoid jurisdictional areas associated with Sand Canyon Wash. Specifically, 7,800 square feet of commercial building area would be eliminated in Planning Area 1, 44 units would be eliminated in Planning Area 2, Planning Area 3, consisting of 10.1 acres, would be converted from residential use to open space (removing 122 units), Planning Area 4 would be reduced by 42 units, and Planning Area 5 would be reduced by 42 dwelling units. The above modifications would result in an increase of 22.4 acres of open space. In total, Alternative 4 would remove 250 units when compared to the project. In comparison to the proposed project, Alternative 4 would result in greater impacts for land use and planning and population and housing. Alternative 4 results in fewer impacts for aesthetics; air quality; biological resources; cultural resources; geology and soils; greenhouse gas emissions; hydrology and water quality; noise; public services; transportation/traffic; solid waste; wastewater, and water supply. Alternative 4 results in similar impacts for agriculture and forestry resources and hazards and hazardous materials. Significant unavoidable impacts related to air quality and noise would be reduced, but not eliminated under Alternative 4. The development anticipated under the Alternative 4 includes the same mix of land uses anticipated for the proposed Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed -Use Project, although with much less residential units and non-residential square footage. Alternative 4 partially meets 10 project objectives and fully meets the remaining 10 project objectives, as shown in Section 5.5 of Exhibit "A". Therefore, this alternative is infeasible because it would not fully satisfy all of the project objectives. f. Modification of Project Description Based on Alternatives Discussion. As discussed in Section 1, above, during the Planning Commission consideration of this project, there were discussions regarding the preservation of the northern portion of the ridgeline. As a result, the project was modified as detailed above in Section 1 and in a manner consistent with certain aspects of Alternative 3. SECTION 5. FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Draft Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Project and the Draft Final EIR, upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission further recommends the City Council find: Master Case 14-077 Resolution P17-11 June 6, 2017 Page 12 of 14 a. That the Draft Final EIR for the Project is adequate, complete, has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, and should be certified on that basis. b. That the Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the Draft Final EIR in reaching its conclusions. c. That the Draft Final EIR was presented and reviewed prior to taking final action to recommend certification of the Final EIR and approval of the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project. d. That, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and 15093, the Draft Final EIR includes a description of each potentially significant impact and rationale for finding that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as detailed in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. The analyses included in the Draft Final EIR to support each conclusion and recommendation therein is hereby incorporated into these findings. e. That, in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21081, modifications have occurred to the project to reduce significant effects. f. That, in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21081 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15091, changes and alterations have been required and incorporated into the Project that avioid or substantially lessen its significant environmental effects because feasible mitigation measures, including those in the MMRP, are made conditions of approval for the proj ect. g. The Statement of Overriding Considerations identifies and weighs the revised project's significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level below significant against the community benefits from this revised project, and concludes based on substantial evidence in the record that the revised project's benefits outweigh its unavoidable significant impacts. h. That the Draft Final EIR reflects the decision -maker's independent judgment and analysis. i. That a MMRP has been prepared and is recommended for adoption to enforce the mitigation measures required by the Draft Final EIR and project approvals. j. The documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings on which this decision is based are under the custody of the Director of Community Development and are located at the City of Santa Clarita, Community Development Department, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, California 91355. SECTION 6. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including the Draft Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Project and the Draft Final EIR and otherwise, upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission, and upon Master Case 14-077 Resolution P17-11 June 6, 2017 Page 13 of 14 reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission further recommends the City Council find that there is substantial evidence that supports the conclusion that the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project will result in community benefits, including specific ecological, economic, legal, social, technical and other benefits, that outweigh the significant effects of the Project on the environment that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant. a. Significant unavoidable impacts include the following, as further described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference: 1. Air Quality — Regional Operational Emissions and Cumulative Operational Emissions. 2 Noise — Construction Noise, Construction Vibration Levels (Human Annoyance), and Cumulative Traffic Noise. b. The benefits of the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project outweigh its significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level below significant. These benefits are listed in Section 7.3 of Exhibit "A". SECTION 7. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council review and consider the Draft Final EIR (SCH No. 2015051005), and hereby determines that it is adequate and in compliance with CEQA. In compliance with Public Resources Code section 12081 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council consider the project benefits as balanced against its unavoidable adverse environmental effects, and hereby determines that the benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects; therefore, the Planning Commission recommends the City Council determine that the unavoidable adverse environmental effects are considered acceptable. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council hereby certify the Draft Final EIR and associated documents, and adopt the MMRP and Statement of Overriding Considerations. SECTION 8. By the adoption of this Resolution, the Planning Commission has not granted any approval or entitlement on this project. SECTION 9. The Planning Commission Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and certify this record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken. Master Case 14-077 Resolution P17-11 June 6, 2017 Page 14 of 14 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 6th day of June, 2017, TIMIBURKHART, CHAIRPERSON PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: JASON' RARD, SECRETARY P G IS SION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Jason Crawford, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 6th day of June, 2017, by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BERLIN, BURKHART, HEFFERNAN, OSTROM NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: EICHMAN ;TARY EXHIBIT A MASTER CASE 14-077: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 50374, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-014, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 14-001, RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 14-001, MINOR USE PERMIT 14-016, OAK TREE PERMIT 14-008, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH NO. 2015051005 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENFI7AL CONDITIONS GC1. The approval of this project shall expire if the approved use is not commenced within two (2) years from the date of this approval, unless it is extended in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Santa Clarita Unified Development Code (UDC). GC2. To the extent the use approved with this project is a different use than previously approved for the property, the prior approval shall be terminated along with any associated vested rights to such use, unless such prior approved use is still in operation, or is still within the initial pre -commencement approval period. Once commenced, any discontinuation of the use approved with this project for a continuous period of one hundred eighty (180) calendar days or more shall terminate the approval of this use along with any associated vested rights to such use. The use shall not be re-established or resumed after the one hundred eighty (180) day period. Discontinuation shall include cessation of a use regardless of intent to resume. GC3. The applicant may file for an extension of the conditionally approved project prior to the date of expiration. If such an extension is requested, it must be filed no later than sixty (60) days prior to expiration. GC4. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying the Director of Community Development in writing of any change in ownership, designation of a new engineer, or change in the status of the developer within thirty (30) days of said change. GC5. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "applicant" shall include the applicant and any other persons, corporation, or other entity making use of this grant. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santa Clarita, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this project by the City, including any related environmental approvals. In the event the City becomes aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the City shall promptly notify the applicant. If the City fails to notify the applicant or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. Nothing contained in this condition prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, if both of the following Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 2 of 25 June 6, 2017 occur: 1) the City bears its own attorneys' fees and costs; and 2) the City defends the action in good faith. The applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement is approved by the applicant. GC6. The property shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approvals granted by the City. Any modifications shall be subject to further review by the City. GC7. The applicant and property owner shall comply with all inspections requirements as deemed necessary by the City of Santa Clarita. GCB. The owner, at the time of issuance of permits or other grants of approval, agrees to develop the property in accordance with City codes and other appropriate ordinances including, but not limited to, the California Building Code (Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, Green Building, and Energy Codes), Fire Code, Unified Development Code (Grading Code and Undergrounding of the Utilities Ordinance), Utilities Code (Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance), and Highway Permit Ordinance. GC9. This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant has filed their affidavit (Acceptance Form) with the Director of Community Development stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all of the conditions of this grant. GC 10. Details shown on the site plan are not necessarily approved. Any details which are inconsistent with the requirements of state or local ordinances, general Conditions of Approval, or City policies, and not modified by this permit, must be specifically approved. GC 11. It is hereby declared and made a condition of this permit that if any condition hereof is violated, or if any law, statute, or ordinance is violated, the City may commence proceedings to revoke this approval. PLANNING DIVISION PL1. The applicant is approved for the following entitlements for the Sand Canyon Mixed Use Project associated with Master Case 14-077: a. Tentative Tract Map 53074; b. Conditional Use Permit 14-014; c. Ridgeline Alteration Permit 14-001; d. Hillside Review 14-001; e. Minor Use Permit 14-016; and f. Oak Tree Permit 14-008. PL2. The project shall include a maximum of 580 residential units, 60,000 square feet of restaurant and commercial space, and an 85,000 square -foot assisted living facility with up to 140 beds. Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 3 of 25 June 6, 2017 PL3. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) prepared for the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) prepared for the project (SCH 2015051005). PL4. The applicant shall construct the commercial portion of the mixed use project prior to occupancy of the 2901h residential unit unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development. PL5. The parking structure and water feature in Planning Area 1 shall be substantially consistent with the approved site plan. Removing these features will be subject to the Planning Commission approval of a Development Review application. PL6. The applicant shall have approval to construct the 580 residential units within the Planning Areas with the following breakdown: a. Planning Area 2: 312 apartment units b. Planning Area 3: 149 townhome units c. Planning Area 4: 75 single-family units d. Planning Area 5: 48 single-family units Subject to the approval of a Development Review by the Director of Community Development, the applicant may shift up to 20 percent of the units between Planning Area 2 and Planning Area 3. At no time shall the total number of units exceed 580 units. PL7. Development of each of the five planning areas (including the parking structure) shall be subject to the approval of a Development Review, subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. PL7. The applicant shall install berming along the eastern portions of Planning Area 5 to provide a visual buffer to existing residences to the east of the project site. PL8. The applicant shall orient the apartment buildings within Planning Area 2 to reduce noise impacts to the existing residences to the west of the project site. This may include positioning buildings parallel to the Sand Canyon frontage to provide a buffer between the parking areas and the residences. In addition, the applicant shall include a mixture of 24 -inch, 36 -inch, and 48 -inch box trees along the western property line of the project site to further buffer noise and views to residences to the west. PL9. All lighting shall be directed down and shielded from neighboring uses. The applicant shall prepare a photometric study for review and approval with each Development Review application for each planning area that demonstrates that no light will spill over property lines. PL 10. Pedestrian connections shall be provided throughout the development. A final pedestrian plan shall be submitted for each planning area to ensure connections to the adjacent planning areas, recreational facilities, the on-site private park, the commercial portion of the project, as well as the assisted living portion of the project. The applicant shall further Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 4 of 25 June 6, 2017 connect all pedestrian paths to the trail system along the project frontage, transit stops along the project frontage, as well as the City's sidewalk system along the project frontage. PL11. The architecture of the proposed facility shall be consistent with the Community Character and Design Guidelines (CCDG) for the Valencia community. The applicant shall provide elevations that incorporate 360 -degree architecture that complies with the CCDG. A copy of the CCDG can be found at http://www.santa-clarita.com/planning. PL12. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened from public view. PL13. The proposed project shall comply with all applicable sections of the Unified Development Code (UDC) PL14. All drive aisles shall be a minimum of 26 feet in width unless required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department PL 15. The applicant shall provide shaded employee break areas within the commercial portions of the project. PL16. All ground -mounted mechanical equipment shall be identified on the site plan and screened from view. PL I T All utility connections shall be designed to coordinate with the architectural elements of the building. Power lines and over -head cables less than (34) KV shall be installed underground. PL 18. The applicant shall landscape a minimum of 10 percent of the project site, with 5 percent of the parking lot being landscaped. PL19. No signage is included within this approval and is subject to a separate permit. The applicant shall provide a sign program prior to the installation of signs on the project site. PL20. The project, and all construction related activity associated with the project, shall comply with UDC Section 11.44.040, the City of Santa Clarita Noise Ordinance. Landscape Conditions LR1. Prior to issuance of grading permit(s) the applicant shall provide final landscape, lighting and irrigation plans (Landscape Document Package) for Planning Division review and approval. The plan must be prepared by a California -registered landscape architect and shall be designed with the plant palette suitable for Santa Clarita (Sunset Western Garden Book Zone 18, minimum winter night temperatures typically 20° to 30° F; maximum summer high temperatures typically 105° F to 110° F). The landscape design plan shall meet the design criteria of the State Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance as well as all other current Municipal Code / Unified Development Code requirements. Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 5 of 25 June 6, 2017 LR2. The applicant shall be aware that additional fees will be required to be paid by the applicant for the review of required landscape and irrigation plans by the City's landscape consultant based on an hourly rate. An invoice will be provided to the applicant at the completion of the review of the plans. The applicant will be required to pay all associated fees to the City of Santa Clarita prior to the release of the approved landscape and irrigation plans for the project. LR3. Required Landscape Plan Elements. Final landscape plans shall contain all elements as listed in the checklist for preliminary landscape plans (Attachment `A'), and shall conform to the Landscaping and Irrigation Standards (§17.51.030) in the Unified Development Code. The following elements need to be addressed on the preliminary and/or final landscape plans: (a) Landscape plans shall show plant material to screen at maturity all trash enclosures, transformer boxes, vault boxes, backflow devices, and other exterior mechanical equipment. Screening material may include trees, shrubs (15 gallon minimum size), clinging vines, etc. Masonry block (concrete masonry unit) trash enclosures shall be screened with both shrubs and clinging vines; (b) Landscape plans shall show all lighting fixtures, base dimensions, and typical finish elevations; (c) The applicant shall place water -conserving mulching material on all exposed soil in planting areas not covered by turfgrass. Mulching material may include, and is not limited to, shredded bark, river rock, crushed rock, pea gravel, etc., and must be at least two (2) inches deep; (d) Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall install all proposed irrigation and landscape, including irrigation controllers, staking, mulching, etc., to the satisfaction of. the Director of Community Development. The Director may impose inspection fees for more than one landscape installation inspection; and (e) Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall submit to the Director of Community Development a letter from the project landscape architect certifying that all landscape materials and irrigation have been installed and function according to the approved landscape plans. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION General Comments BSL Construction drawings for this project shall be prepared and submitted to the Building and Safety Division for plan review and building permit issuance. Supporting documents; such as structural and energy calculations, and geotechnical reports shall be included in the plan submittal package. BS2, Construction drawings submitted for plan review shall show full compliance with all applicable local, county, state and federal requirements and codes. Plan review will be based on the following current state building codes: The 2016 California Building (CBC), Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 6 of 25 June 6, 2017 Mechanical (CMC), Plumbing (CPC), and Electrical (CEC) Codes, the 2017 County of Los Angeles Fire Code, 2016 California Energy Code, and the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code. BS3. Construction drawings submitted to Building and Safety for plan review shall be complete. Submitted plans shall show all Architectural work (including accessibility requirements), along with all Structural, Mechanical, Plumbing, and Electrical work that will be part of this project. Civil, landscape and other plans not related to the building code are not reviewed by the Building and Safety Division. BS4. Construction drawings shall be prepared by qualified licensed design professionals (California licensed architects and engineers). Incomplete plans or plans prepared by unqualified individuals will delay the plan review and permit process. BS5. The City of Santa Clarita has amended some portions of the California Building Codes. A copy of these amendments is available at the Building and Safety public counter and on our website at: htt-p://www.santa-clarita.goMMome/ShowDoctimeiit?id=13248. BS6. Plans may be submitted electronically using our ePLANS system. For more information about ePLANS, please visit: hgp://www.santa-clarita.com/city-hall/departmggts,/ ublic- works/building-safetv/e 1p ans. BS7. The submitted plans to building and safety shall have a Building Code Analysis and floor area justification for each building containing the following minimum information: types of construction, occupancy groups, occupant loads, any area increases from frontage and/or fire sprinklers, height of building, number of stories, summary of any fire rated walls, occupancy and all other related data. BS8. The submitted site plan shall show all lot lines, easements, fire separation distances, restricted use areas, etc. Any construction proposed in an easement shall obtain the easement holder's written permission. BS9. Clean Air, Van Pool, and Electric Vehicle parking spaces (including future EV Charging Stations) shall be provided within the parking areas for new commercial buildings per the California Green Building Standards Code. In proposed parking areas, 8% of the total provided parking spaces, shall be designated as clean air vehicle parking spaces. BS10. Electric Vehicle Charging Spaces (future EV Charging Stations) shall be provided within parking facilities for new commercial buildings per the California Green Building Standards Code. The submitted plans shall show the size, location and infrastructure of the future EV charging stations. Some EV Charging Stations shall be sized to be accessible and located on as accessible route to the building entrance per CBC sections 1113-228.3 and 1113-812. For multi -building projects, such EV Charging Stations shall be dispersed based on the parking spaces provided for each building/facility. EV charging spaces for the residential portions of the project shall comply with section 4.106.4 of the California Green Building Standards Code. Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 7 of 25 June 6, 2017 BSI I. Bicycle parking (both short-term and long-term) shall be provided for the commercial portions of the project, based on 5% of the total vehicle parking spaces per the California Green Building Standards Code. BS 12. For an estimate of the building permit fees and the estimated time for plan review, please contact the Building and Safety Division directly at 661-255-4935. BS 13. Prior to submitting plans to Building and Safety for plan review, please contact Deanna Hamrick or Racheal Allen, at (661) 255-4935, for project addressing. Clearances BS14. Prior to issuance of building permits, clearances from the following agencies will be required: • Santa Clarita Planning Division, • Santa Clarita Engineering Services, • Santa Clarita Environmental Services (Construction & Demolition Plan deposit), • Los Angeles County Fire Prevention Bureau, • Los Angeles County Environmental Services (Health Dept. for food service & sales), • Los Angeles County Environmental Programs (Industrial Waste), • Los Angeles County Sanitation District, • Castaic Lake Water Agency, • William S. Hart School District and appropriate elementary school district, • Santa Clarita Urban Forestry Division (for construction near Oak Trees) • An agency referral list with contact information is available at the Building and Safety public counter. Please contact the agencies above to determine if there are any plan review requirements and/or fees to be paid. Clearances from additional agencies may be required and will be determined during the plan review process. BS15. Accessibility (disabled access) requirements for the commercial portions of the project shall comply with Chapter 11 B of the California Building Code, shall be shown and detailed on the plans. General requirements include but not limited to the following: 1. The plans shall clearly show all areas that are usable by the public and employees to be fully accessible. 2. An accessible route shall be provided between all building entrances, the accessible parking spaces (including an EV charging space) and the public sidewalk. 3. All disable access requirements, including site accessibility information and details, shall be shown on the architectural plans (vs the civil plans). BS16. Accessibility (disabled access) requirements for the residential portions of the project shall comply with Chapter 11A of the California Building Code, shall be shown and detailed on the plans. General requirements include but not limited to the following: Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 8 of 25 June 6, 2017 1. All multi -family residential buildings (ground -floor dwelling units and all dwelling units in buildings with elevators) shall be accessible and comply with the Housing Accessibility requirements per CBC Chapter 11A. 2. All common use areas in multi -family residential buildings such as lobbies, laundry facilities, community rooms, clubhouse, swimming pools, fitness rooms, elevator, interior and exterior routes of travel, etc. shall be fully accessible for the disabled per CBC Chapter 11A. 3. Accessible parking spaces shall be provided for each type of parking facility; including garages, carports, assigned and unassigned parking, and guest/visitor parking. BS17. Covered Multifamily residential projects shall also follow all accessibility regulations including federal requirements that may be more restrictive. Please refer to the following: 1. Fair Housing Act (FHA) Design Manual (over 300 pages). 2. Joint Statement of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued April 30, 2013 ()Yww.hud.gov). FHA, HUD and DOJ regulations are not enforced by the local building and safety jurisdictions but are the responsibility of the designer, architect, owner and developer of the project. Soils Reports and Grading BS18. A complete soils and geology investigation report will be required for this project. The report shall be formally submitted to the Engineering Services Division for review and approval. The recommendations of the report shall be followed and incorporated into the plans for the project. A copy of the report shall be submitted to Building & Safety at time of plan submittal. When the soils/geology report recommends grading and/or recompaction, the following shall be completed prior to issuance of building permits: 1. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Division and all rough grading and/or re -compaction shall be completed. 2. A final compaction report and a Pad Certification shall be submitted to and approved by the Engineering Services Division.. BS19. The footings for all new buildings, additions and other structures, including retaining walls and fences, shall be setback from any adjacent ascending or descending slopes. See section 1808.7 CBC and/or the Slope Setback handout. Hazard Zones BS20. The project is located within the City's Fire Hazard Zone. New buildings shall comply with the California Building Code Chapter 7A: MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS FOR EXTERIOR WILDFIRE EXPOSURE. A summary of these requirements are available at the Building and Safety's public counter or visit: Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 9 of 25 June 6, 2017 http://www.santa-clarita.co.m/hoTne/showdocument?id=10685. The submitted plans to Building & Safety shall show all Fire Zone requirements. BS21. The site for this project is NOT located within the FEMA Flood Zone. Assisted Living Facilities BS22. Residential assisted living facilities with personal care services, shall comply with all requirements for a Group R-2.1 Occupancy, including the additional detailed requirements of CBC Section 420. Licensed 24 -Hour Care Facilities in a Group R-2.1 Occupancy shall comply with the Special Provisions of CBC Section 435. Additional Information BS23. Each separate detached structure, such as trash enclosures, fences, retaining walls, shade structures require separate applications and building permits. These other structures need not be on separate plans, but may be part of the same plans for the main project. BS24. Additional comments and more detailed building code requirements will be listed during the plan review process. ENGINEERING DIVISION General Requirements EN1. Prior to Grading Plan approval, the applicant shall submit a storm drain exhibit that clearly shows and labels the maintenance responsibility of all storm drain reaches. In addition, all necessary storm drain easements shall be shown and labeled on the exhibit. EN2. Prior to Grading Plan approval, the applicant shall obtain approval of a drainage concept study for the proposed public storm drain system from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Land Development Division. EN3. Prior to Grading Plan approval, the applicant shall submit a sewer area study for review and approval. Any downstream sewer upgrades required by the study shall be shown on the Plan. EN4. Prior to Grading Plan approval, the applicant shall provide an exhibit that clearly shows and labels the maintenance responsibility of all slopes, basins, and open space areas. EN5. Prior to issuance of first building permit, the applicant shall establish a Property/Home Owners' Association (POA/HOA), or similar entity, to ensure the continued maintenance of all shared/common lots and drainage devices not transferable to the County Flood Control District. Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 10 of 25 June 6, 2017 EN6. Prior to Tract Map approval, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer and the City Attorney for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for this development. The applicant shall reimburse the City for the City Attorney's review and approval fee. The CC&Rs shall: A. Include a disclosure to comply with the Geologist's recommendations in the Geology Report concerning restrictions on watering, irrigation, and recommend plant types. B. Grant the City the authority to review and approve/disapprove amendments (including dissolution) of the CC&Rs or the association. C. Grant the City the right (though not the obligation) to enforce the CC&Rs (at a minimum those provisions related to City -required items). EN7. Prior to first building permit, the applicant shall record the approved CC&Rs with the Los Angeles County Recorder's office. EN8. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall establish a Property/Home Owners' Association (POA/HOA), or similar entity, to ensure the continued maintenance of all shared/common lots and drainage devices not transferable to the County Flood Control District. EN9. Prior to first certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall transfer ownership of open space lots to the HOA. The grant deed shall be submitted to Engineering Services for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to Final Map Approval. Grading, Drainage & Geology Requirements EN10. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall submit a grading plan consistent with the approved Plan, oak tree report, and conditions of approval. The grading plan shall be based on a detailed engineering geotechnical report specifically approved by the geologist and/or soils engineer that addresses all submitted recommendations. EN11. Prior to grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a notarized Letter of Permission for grading outside of the property lines/tract boundary from the adjacent property owner(s). EN12. Prior to issuance of grading permits within their respective jurisdiction, the applicant shall acquire applicable permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game, and the Regional Water Control Board. A copy of the permits, or a response letter from each agency indicating a permit is not required, shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of grading permits. EN13. Prior to the issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall obtain approval and connection permit from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Land Development Division to connect the on-site storm drain system to a public storm drain system. EN14. Prior to the City's release of any bond monies posted for the construction of storm drain infrastructure, the applicant or subsequent property owners shall_ be responsible for Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 11 of 25 June 6, 2017 providing all required materials and documentation to complete the storm drain transfer process from the City of Santa Clarita to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. The applicant or subsequent property owners shall also be responsible for providing regularly scheduled maintenance of the storm drain infrastructure, as directed by the City Engineer, until such time that full maintenance is assumed by the Flood Control District. EN15. Prior to recordation of the Tract Map, the applicant shall form an assessment district to finance the future ongoing maintenance and capital replacement of SUSMP devices/systems identified on the latest approved Drainage Concept/Storm drain plan/Plan. The applicant shall cooperate fully with the City in the formation of the assessment district, including, without limitation, the preparation of the operation, maintenance, and capital replacement plan for the SUSMP devices/systems and the prompt submittal of this information to City for review and approval. The applicant shall pay for all costs associated with the formation of the assessment district. SUSMP devices/systems shall include but are not limited to catch basin inserts, debris excluders, biotreatment basins, vortex separation type systems, and other devices/systems for stormwater quality. The applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance of all SUSMP devices/systems until the district has been established EN16. This project is a development planning priority project under the City's NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit as a development with 10 or more dwelling units. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall have approved by the City Engineer, an Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (USMP) that incorporates appropriate post construction Best Management Practices (BMPs), maximizes pervious surfaces, and includes infiltration into the design of the project. Refer to the County of Los Angeles Low Impact Development Manual, and the City's LID Ordinance for details. EN17. This project will disturb one acre or more of land. Therefore the applicant must obtain coverage under a statewide General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit (General Permit). In accordance with the General Permit, the applicant shall file with the State a Notice of Intent (NOI) for the proposed project. Prior to issuance of grading permit by the City, the applicant shall have approved by the City Engineer a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP shall include a copy of the NOI and shall reference the corresponding Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number issued by the State upon receipt of the NOI. Street Improvement Requirements EN18. Prior to any construction (including, but not limited to, drive approaches, sidewalks, curb and gutter, etc.), trenching or grading within public or private street right-of-way, the applicant shall submit a street improvement plan consistent with the approved Plan, oak tree report, and conditions of approval; and obtain encroachment permits from the Engineering Division. Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 12 of 25 June 6, 2017 EN19. Prior to building final, all new and existing power lines and overhead cables less than 34 KV within or fronting the project site (including alleys) shall be installed underground. EN20. The property boundaries of the site abut the State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans) jurisdiction. Encroachments into Caltrans jurisdiction shall be permitted by Caltrans prior to issuance of any building permits by the City. EN21. Prior to street plan approval, the applicant shall submit a street tree location plan to the City's Urban Forestry Division for review and approval. The location of the street trees shall not conflict with sewer or storm drain infrastructure. The plan shall include proposed sewer lateral locations and storm drain infrastructure for reference. EN22. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall construct street pavement per either of the following options. Prior to street plan approval, the selected option shall be indicated on the plan. A. The applicant shall construct the full pavement section including the final lift of asphalt to finish grade in conformance with the design TI. Prior to building final, the applicant shall refurbish the pavement to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. B. The applicant shall construct a pavement section that is a minimum of 1 %" lower than finish grade, in conformance with the design TI. Prior to building final, the applicant shall refurbish the pavement, and complete the final lift of asphalt to meet finish grade to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN23. Prior to first building final, the applicant shall construct the following street improvements along the frontage of the project site, as directed by the City Engineer: Street Name Inverted Curb & Base & Street Street Sidewalk Landscaped A Street Shoulder Gutter Paving Lights Trees (5'min) Median Soledad Canyon Road X X X X X X Sand Canyon Road X X X X X X EN24. Prior to building final for each phase, the applicant shall construct full street improvements within the project site, as directed by the City Engineer: Street Name Inverted Shoulder Curb & Gutter Base & Paving Street Lights Street Trees Sidewalk �(5'niin) Landscaped Median A Street X X X X X B Street X X X X X C Street X X X X X D Street X X X X X E Street X X X X IX Sewer Improvement Requirements EN25. The on-site sewer shall be a publicly maintained sewer. Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 13 of 25 June 6, 2017 EN26. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall annex the property into the County Sanitation District. The applicant shall provide the City's Building & Safety Division with written confirmation from the Sanitation District that the property has been annexed. EN27. Prior to issuance of building permits, the proposed building(s) shall be connected to the existing sewer main in Sand Canyon Road (PC 10434). EN28. Prior to sewer plan approval, the applicant shall provide a sewer area study in accordance with City policies for review and approval by the City Engineer. EN29. Prior to building final, the applicant shall construct all sewer upgrades per the approved sewer area study, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION TE 1. Adequate sight visibility is required at all intersections (street -street intersections or driveway -street intersections) and shall follow the latest Caltrans manual for applicable requirements. Adequate sight visibility (including corner sight visibility) shall be demonstrated on the final map and grading plan. All necessary easements for this purpose shall be recorded with the final map. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TE2. All private driveways and streets shall intersect at 90 degrees or as close to 90 degrees as topography permits (no less than 80 degrees). This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TE3. The location, width and depth of all project driveways and drive aisles shall conform to the approved site plan. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. No additional driveways shall be permitted. TE4. No access will be permitted within curb return. This shall be included as a note on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TES. Minimum width of all interior driveways shall be 26 feet and shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TE6. Any dead-end drive aisles serving more than one unit shall extend a minimum of 5' beyond the edge of the last driveway or have turn -around area to facilitate vehicular movements. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. Parking stalls are not permitted at the end of any dead-end drive aisles. TET Prior to street plan approval, the applicant shall show on the street plan drive approaches using a modified commercial driveway design (APWA 110-2, Type C or equivalent) that Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 14 of 25 June 6, 2017 will provide a street/drive approach transition with a maximum algebraic grade difference of 10%. Construction details shall be shown on the street plan providing a transition no greater than this maximum. TE8. Prior to issuance of the first building occupancy permit, the applicant shall post "No Parking—Fire Lane" signs along all private streets and driveways with a curb -to -curb width of less than 34 feet and serving more than one unit. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TE9. Prior to issuance of the first building occupancy permit, the applicant shall obtain approval from the L.A. County Fire Department for any private street and driveway sections. TE10. Prior to issuance of first building permit, the applicant shall acquire and dedicate to the City the right-of-way required for all street improvements as identified in the Traffic Study and all subsequent revisions / additions / addenda, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. TE 11. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall dedicate additional street right- of-way along Sand Canyon Road for a total of 92 feet within the project site, as directed by the City Engineer. TE12. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall dedicate additional street right- of-way along Soledad Canyon Road for a total of 116 feet within the project site, as directed by the City Engineer. TE13. Prior to issuance of first building occupancy permit, Sand Canyon Road, along the project frontage, shall be improved to include a Class II bicycle lane and one vehicular travel lane in each direction, and a meandering 12 -foot paseo within a 24 - foot landscaped parkway along the east side (project side). TE14. Per the Caltrans comment letter (April 17, 2017) on the Draft EIR, prior to completion of the Caltrans Mitigation Agreement, the applicant shall complete a traffic study for the operation of the off- and on-ramp for SR -14, east of Soledad Canyon Road, especially for the movement and queue analysis of the westbound left - turn phasing from Soledad Canyon Road onto the SR -14 on-ramp. This traffic study shall also include the adjacent intersection of Soledad Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road. If any improvements to either intersection are required as a result of this study, these improvements shall be completed prior to the 100"' certificate of occupancy for the residential component or equivalent trip generation. TE 15. Prior to issuance of the first building occupancy permit, the applicant shall pay a traffic - signal timing fee for the update of the traffic -signal timing at up to ten intersections in the surrounding area. The cost is $4,000 per intersection ($40,000 total). This fee shall be used to improve traffic flow and minimize traffic congestion along the corridors impacted Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 15 of 25 June 6, 2017 by project -related traffic, through traffic signal retiming and related infrastructure improvements. TE16. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay the applicable Bridge and Thoroughfare (B&T) District Fee to implement the Circulation Element of the General Plan as a means of mitigating the traffic impact of this project. This project is located in the Eastside B&T District. The current rate for this District is $18,910. The B&T rate is subject to change and is based on the rate at the time of payment. Standard B&T Fee Calculation: Commercial = the gross acres (9.6) x the district rate ($18,910) x 5.0 = $907,680 until June 30, 2017 Townhouse = the number of units (580) x the district rate ($18,910) x 0.8 = $8,774,240 until June 30, 2017 Mobile Home = the number of units (123) x the district rate ($18,910) x 0.5 = $1,162,965 (credit) until June 30, 2017 Total B&T = $907,680 + $8,774,240 - $1,162,965 = $8,518,955 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION ES 1. For the commercial portion of the project: Provide sufficient trash enclosures to house at least six 3 -yard bins. Three of the bins should be reserved for recyclable materials only. This requirement is subject to change once more information on the project is provided. In addition, space should be added for organics/food waste recycling bins per A131826. More information is needed to determine what is necessary to meet these requirements. Please contact Environmental Services to discuss. ES2. For the assisted living portion of the project: Please provide sufficient trash enclosures to house at least eighteen 3 -yard bins. Nine of the bins should be reserved for recyclable materials only. This requirement is subject to change once more information on the project is provided. In addition, space should be added for organics/food waste recycling bins per A131826. More information is needed to determine what is necessary to meet these requirements. Please contact Environmental Services to discuss. ES3. The enclosure(s) should be shown on the site plan with dimensions, consistent with the surrounding architecture and shall be constructed with a solid roof. The enclosure(s) shall be located to provide convenient pedestrian and collection vehicle access. (You may place the containers in the underground parking structure if a minimum of 20 feet overhead clearance is provided to allow collection vehicles the ability to enter the parking area and service the container(s).) Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 16 of 25 June 6, 2017 ES4. For the residential portion of the project: All single family residential dwellings shall be designed with space provided (out of public view) for three 90 -gallon trash carts, one each for trash, recycling, and greenwaste. ESS. All demolition projects regardless of valuation, all renovation or improvement projects valuated greater than $100,000, and all new construction projects valuated greater than $500,000 must comply with the City's Construction and Demolition Materials (C&D) Recycling Ordinance. ES6. C&D Materials Recycling Ordinance: • A Construction and Demolition Materials Management Plan (C&DMMP) must be prepared and approved by the Environmental Services Division prior to obtaining any grading or building permits. • A minimum of 50% of the entire project's inert (dirt, rock, bricks, etc.) waste and 50% of the remaining C&D waste must be recycled or reused rather than disposing in a landfill. • A deposit of 3% of the estimated total project cost or $25,000, whichever is less, is required. The full deposit will be returned to the applicant upon proving that 50% of the inert and remaining C&D waste was recycled or reused. EST Per the California Green Building Standards Code, 100 percent of trees, stumps, rocks and associated vegetation and soils resulting primarily from land clearing shall be reused or recycled. For a phased project, such material may be stockpiled on site until the storage site is developed. ESB. All projects within the City that are not self -hauling their waste materials must use one of the City's franchised haulers for temporary and roll -off bin collection services. Please contact Environmental Services staff at 661-286-4098 for a complete list of franchised haulers in the City. SPECIAL DISTRICTS DIVISION Landscape Maintenance District SDI. This parcel is located within Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) Zone 2008-1, which was established to fund the construction and maintenance of landscaped medians on major thoroughfares throughout the City of Santa Clarita. Applicant is required to financially contribute to Zone 2008-1 in a manner reflective of this LMD zone's assessment methodology. SD2. No on-site private property landscaping shall be maintained by the Landscape Maintenance District (LMD). SD3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall form a local Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) under the 1972 Act for the ongoing funding of required Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 17 of 25 June 6, 2017 maintenance and improvement of landscaping, street trees, irrigation, and monument signage on the perimeter of the project, abutting Sand Canyon and Soledad Canyon Roads. SD4. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall, at their sole expense, relocate or remove and re- install the existing monument sign in a prominent location in the vicinity of the existing easement that has been granted to the City of Santa Clarita. The monument sign and surrounding landscaping shall be approved by the LMD prior to issuance of a grading permit. The applicant shall grant an easement for landscape maintenance purposes to the City of Santa Clarita for any areas to be maintained by the LMD that are not within the public right of way. Urban Forestry SDS. Upon formal submittal, the applicant shall be required to install street trees within the public right of way. Tree species shall be approved by the City Urban Forestry. SD6. The applicant shall be required to install and maintain irrigation to all trees planted within the public right of way. Irrigation to trees shall be bubbler type irrigation only. SD7. All trees shall be planted according to the City of Santa Clarita tree planting and staking detail sheet and/or the American Public Works Association (APWA) standard plans for Public Works construction (Section 5,520-3) SD8. Parkway trees shall be a minimum 24" inch box. SD9. All trees shall be placed a minimum of 5' feet from any underground utilities. Streetlight Maintenance District SD10. Five of the parcels in this project have been annexed into the City's Streetlight Maintenance District (SMD). The applicant will work with the Special Districts Office to determine how many contiguous parcels they own that remain to be annexed. SDI 1. The applicant shall annex the remaining parcels into the SMD to fund the operations and maintenance of street lights and traffic signals. • Following the completed annexation, the annual SMD assessment will be included on the property tax bill. The current assessment, for FY 16/17, is $77.34 per Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU). • EBU's are based on land use (table attached). Vacant/unimproved parcels are not assessed. A minimum of 120 days is required to process the annexation, which must be completed prior to final map approval, grading or building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. Oak Trees Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 18 of 25 June 6, 2017 OT1, The project site has a total of three (3) protected oak trees, one (1) of which is Heritage size, Oak Tree Number 2. The other two (2) oaks are of non -heritage size and are proposed for removal due to grading and development requirements of the project. The proposed oak removals include Oak Tree Number 1, and Oak Tree Number 3. OT2. The applicant is approved to remove two (2) Coast Live Oaks as documented in the submitted oak tree reports dated February 9, 2016 and the addendum dated January 5, 2017, by Kerry Norman of Arbor Essence. a. The approved oak tree removals include Oak Tree Number 1 and Oak Tree Number 3. b. Collectively these two (2) oaks have an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) appraised tree values of $43,400. c. The project/applicant is required to mitigate with approved replacement oak trees within the project site equal to the ISA appraised monetary value of $43,400 for the two (2) oak tree removals. Approved Oak Tree Removals: OT3. The applicant is required to bond for the entire ISA Dollar Value of all oak trees proposed for removal and/or relocation prior to issuance of grading permit. The bond will remain in place for the entire mitigation period. Upon successful completion of the three (3) year mitigation, the applicant may request bond exoneration OT4. The applicant is approved to remove: a. Oak Tree Number 1 which has an ISA value of $33,200. i. Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) ii. Four trunks measuring 22", 15", 13" and 5" in diameter. b. Oak Tree Number 3 with an ISA value of $10,200. iii. Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) iv. Four trunks measuring 5", 8", 11" and 11" in diameter. c. Collectively these approved oak removals equal $43,400. Oak Tree Preservation and Protection: OTS. Oak Tree Number 2 — SHALL NOT BE REMOVED OR ENCROACHED UPON. This Heritage oak has an ISA value of $53,300 and shall be protected at all times throughout development. Oak tree encroachments are permitted into the protected zone as shown on the approved site plan, and in accordance with the Oak Tree Specialist. a. Additionally this oak shall be protected with temporary chain link fencing five feet tall installed at the oak tree protected"zone, five feet beyond the drip line, prior to any construction activities, including but not limited to, demolition, grading, excavation, or construction. Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 19 of 25 June 6, 2017 b. This oak shall be monitored by the project arborist every 60-90 days depending on construction activities and condition of tree. c. Oak Tree Monitoring shall continue for an additional three years after the last certificate of occupancy for the project. d. Supplemental oak tree monitoring reports shall be submitted electronically to the City Oak Tree Specialist at rsartaingsanta-clarita.com. e. The applicant may be required to provide additional preservation measures to ensure the preservation of the oak tree and may include mulching, watering, and pest control. Oak Tree Mitigation Plan: OT6. The applicant is required to submit an Oak Tree Mitigation Plan for the replacement oaks trees to be planted within the project site. The Oak Tree Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to the City Planning Division and the City Oak Tree Specialist prior to Grading Permit Approval. a. The oak tree mitigation and replacement plan shall equal the removed ISA tree value of $43,400. b. The oak tree mitigation plan shall include the location of all the proposed oak tree replacements, including the quantity, size, cost, placement and species, of boxed trees. c. The oak tree mitigation site plan shall have a summary table/legend with the quantity, type, value/cost and size of the replacement oaks. d. The Oak Tree Mitigation Plan shall be an independent and separate plan from the Landscape Plan. (The Mitigation Oaks shall also be shown on the Landscape Plan). e. All replacement mitigation oaks shall be native Coast Live Oaks, unless otherwise approved by the City. f. The project is encouraged to locate the replacement mitigation oaks in highly visible prominent locations such as round -a -bouts, large parkways, parks, open space and landscape areas. g. All mitigation oaks shall have some form of permanent irrigation approved by the City. However spray or rain -bird type irrigation will not be accepted. OT7. All mitigation oaks are required to be monitored by the project arborist on behalf of the developer for a minimum of three (3) years or until sufficiently established. Monitoring shall consist of intervals of 3 -month, six-month or annual depending on health and condition of mitigation oaks. Monitoring reports shall be submitted electronically to the City Oak Tree Specialist. OT8. All mitigation oaks that do not live or become sufficiently established shall be replaced and the monitoring continued until adequate establishment. OT9. Applicant shall comply with the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Ordinance and Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines at all times throughout the completion of the proj ect. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 20 of 25 June 6, 2017 FDI. The proposed development may necessitate multiple ingress/egress access for the circulation of traffic an emergency response issues. FD2. The development of this project must comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants. FD3. Specific fire and life safety requirements for the construction phase will be addressed at the building fire plan check. There may be additional fire and life safety requirements during this time. FD4. Every building constructed shall be accessible to Fire Department apparatus by way of access roadways with an all-weather surface of not less than the prescribed width. The roadway shall be extended to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls when measured by an unobstructed route around the exterior of the building. FD5. When involved with subdivision in a city contracting fire protection with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Fire Department requirements for access, fire flows, and hydrants are addressed during the subdivision map stage. FD6. Fire Department requirements for access, fire flows, and hydrants are addressed during the building permit stage. FD7. Fire sprinkler systems are required in some residential and most commercial occupancies. For those occupancies not requiring fire sprinkler systems it is strongly suggested that fire sprinkler systems be installed. This will reduce potential fire and life losses. Systems are now technically and economically feasible for residential use. FD8. The development may require fire flows up to 8,000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for up to a four hour duration as outlined in the 2016 County of Los Angeles Code Appendix B. Final fire flows will be based on the size of buildings, its relationship to other structures, property lines, and types of construction used. FD9. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet and shall meet the following requirements: a. No portion of lot frontage shall be more than 200 feet via vehicular access form a public fire hydrant. b. No portion of a building shall exceed 400 feet via vehicular access from a properly spaced public fire hydrant. c. Additional hydrants will be required if hydrant spacing exceeds specified distances. d. When cul-de-sac depth exceeds 200 feet on a commercial street, hydrants shall be required at the corner and mid -block. e. A cul-de-sac shall not be more than 500 feet in length when serving land zoned for commercial use. FD10. Turning radii shall not be less than 32 feet. This measurement shall be determined at Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 21 of 25 June 6, 2017 the centerline of the road. A Fire Department approved turning area shall be provided for all driveways exceeding 150 feet in -length and at the end of all cul-de-sacs. FD 11. All on-site driveways/roadways shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet clear -to -sky. The on-site driveway is to be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building. The centerline of the access driveway shall be located parallel to and within 30 feet of an exterior wall on one side of the proposed structure. FD12. Driveway width for non-residential developments shall be increased when any of the following conditions will exist: a. Provide 34 feet in -width when parallel parking is allowed on one side of the access roadway/driveway. Preference is that such parking is not adjacent to the structure. b. Provide 42 feet in -width when parallel parking is allowed on each side of the access roadway/driveway. c. Any access way less than 34 feet in -width shall be labeled "Fire Lane" on the final recording map and final buildingplans. d. For streets or driveways with parking restrictions: The entrance to the street/driveway and intermittent spacing distances of 150 feet shall be posted with Fire Department approved signs stating, "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE" in three- inch high letters. Driveway labeling is necessary to ensure access for Fire Department use. FD 13. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet and shall meet the following requirements: a. No portion of lot frontage shall be more than 200 feet via vehicular access from a public fire hydrant. b. No portion of a building shall exceed 400 feet via vehicular access from a properly spaced fire hydrant. c. When cul-de-sac depth exceeds 200 feet hydrants will be required at the corner and mid -block. d. Additional hydrants will be required if the hydrant spacing exceeds specified distances. FD14. Turning radii shall not be less than 32 feet. This measurement shall be determined at the centerline of the road. A Fire Department approved turning area shall be provided for all driveways exceeding 150 feet in -length and at the end of all cul-de-sacs. FD 15. All on-site driveways shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet clear -to - sky. The 28 foot width does not allow for parking and shall be designated as a "Fire Lane" and have appropriate signage. The centerline of the on-site driveway shall be located parallel to and within 30 feet of an exterior wall on one side of the proposed structure. The on-site driveway is to be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building. FD16. The 28 feet in -width shall be increasedto: Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 22 of 25 June 6, 2017 a. 34 feet in -width when parallel parking is allowed on one side of the access way. b. 36 feet in -width when parallel parking is allowed on both sides of the access way. c. Any access way less than 34 feet in -width shall be labeled "Fire Lane" on the final recording map and final buildingplans. d. For streets or driveways with parking restrictions: The entrance to the street/driveway and intermittent spacing distances of 150 feet shall be posted with Fire Department approved signs stating, "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE" in three- inch high letters. Driveway labeling is necessary to ensure access for Fire Departmentuse. FD 17. When serving land zoned for residential uses having a density of more than four units per net acre: a. A cul-de-sac shall be a minimum of 34 feet in -width and shall not be more than 700 feet in -length. b. The length of the cul-de-sac may be increased to 1000 feet if a minimum of 36 feet in -width is provided. c. A Fire Department approved turning area shall be provided at the end of a cul-de- sac. FD 18. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 600 feet and shall meet the following requirements: a. No portion of lot frontage shall be more than 450 feet via vehicular access from a public fire hydrant. b. No portion of a structure should be placed on a lot where it exceeds 750 feet via vehicular access from a properly spaced public fire hydrant. c. When cul-de-sac depth exceeds 450 feet on aresidential street, hydrants shall be required at the corner andmid-block. d. Additional hydrants will be required if hydrant spacing exceeds specified distances. FD 19. A Fire Department approved turning area shall be provided for all driveways exceeding 150 feet in -length and at the end of all cul-de-sacs. FD20. Fire Department access shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet clear - to -sky and be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any single unit. If exceeding 150 feet provide 20 feet minimum paved width "Private Driveway/Fire Lane" clear -to -sky to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the unit. Fire Lanes serving three or more units shall be increased to 26 feet. FD21. Streets or driveways within the development shall be provided with the following: a. Provide 36 feet in -width on all streets where parking is allowed on both sides. b. Provide 34 feet in -width on cul-de-sacs up to 700 feet in -length. This allows parking on both sides of the street. c. Provide 36 feet in -width on cul-de-sacs from 701 to 1000 feet in -length. This allows parking on both sides of the street. d. For streets or driveways with parking restrictions: The entrance to the street/driveway and intermittent spacing distances of 150 feet shall be posted with Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 23 of 25 June 6, 2017 Fire Department approved signs stating "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE" in three- inch high letters. Driveway labeling is necessary to ensure access for Fire Department use. Turning radii shall not be less than 32 feet. This measurement shall be determined at the centerline of the road. FD22. All access devices and gates shall comply with California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Articles 3.05 and 3.16. FD23. All access devices and gates shall meet the following requirements: a. Any single -gated opening used for ingress and egress shall be a minimum of 26 feet in-widthclear-to-sky. b. Any divided gate opening (when each gate is used for a single direction of travel i.e., ingress or egress) shall be a minimum width of 20 feet clear -to -sky. c. Gates and/or control devices shall be positioned a minimum of 50 feet from a public right-of-way and shall be provided with a turnaround having a minimum of 32 feet of turning radius. If an intercom system is used the 50 feet shall be measured from the right-of-way to the intercom control device. d. All limited access devices shall be of a type approved by the Fire Department. e. Gate plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department prior to installation. These plans shall show all locations, widths, and details of the proposed gates. FD24. All proposals for traffic calming measures (speed humps/bumps/cushions, traffic circles, roundabouts, etc.) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review prior to implementation. FD25. Disruptions to water service shall be coordinated with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department and alternate water sources shall be provided for fire protection during such disruptions. TRANSIT DIVISION T1. There is fixed route bus service between the hours of 4 am and 11 pm on Soledad Canyon daily. T2. At this time the Transit Impact Fee does not apply to commercial/industrial developments. This fee is currently under revision. Applicant shall pay the fee in place at the time of building permit issuance. T3. Applicant shall provide a bus stop/s at the location of: NW corner of Soledad Canyon and "A" Street. T4. Applicant shall construct a pedestrian path from the bus stop/s to the development. T5. Bus stop/s may require additional right of way (ROW) as approved by the City Engineer. Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 24 of 25 June 6, 2017 T6. At the location of the bus stop/s, the applicant shall provide a permanent stylized shelter structure. The bus stop/s shall consist of. a 10' x 25' concrete pad placed behind the sidewalk, a bench, a trash receptacle, and lighting. Proposed shelter structure and all bus stop amenities shall be approved by City Transit staff prior to installation. All specifications and appropriate paperwork shall be supplied to the Transit Division prior to installation. T7. Applicant shall provide a site plan showing amenities within a 100 foot radius of the bus stop/s. This plan shall show the locations of all utility meters, utility structures, landscaping, buildings, pedestrian walkways, and parking spaces. This plan shall also show all other items not listed above located within the 100 foot radius of the bus stop/s. T8. Shelter design, structure and amenities shall be approved by appropriate city staff including Transit, Planning, Building and Safety, and Engineering. All specifications and appropriate paperwork for the bus stop shall be supplied to the Transit Division prior to installation. T9. A color elevations and materials board for the proposed bus shelter shall be supplied to Planning with project submittal. T10. The bus stop/s location shall be a minimum of 100' from the curb return or as specified by city staff. T11. At the location of the bus stop/s, the sidewalk shall meet the street for no less than 25'. T12. The bus stop/s shall comply with all ADA regulations as specified in the most recent version of the California Disabled Accessibility Guidebook (Ca1Dag). Proposed disabled access shall be drawn on all plans. T13. Bus stop/s shall be shown and labeled on the site plan. T14. Prior to occupancy of the first building, the bus stop/s shall be installed to the satisfaction of city staff. PARKS RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION PRI. Prior to the recordation of an applicable final tract/parcel map, the applicant shall set the required Park Dedication Fee equal to the value of the amount of land established per the City's General Plan, "Parks and Recreation Element". Private Park credit shall be measured after the Multi -family requirement from UDC 17.57.030 Multifamily Residential Standards, Section G Recreation Facilities has been calculated by the City's Planning Department. The final park dedication fee calculation is attached. There is a variance to the code requiring fees to be paid at Final Map currently in place by City Council authority that allows fees to be paid at Building Permit for each phase. Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 25 of 25 June 6, 2017 PR2. The developer shall construct a Class I pedestrian/bike path, on Sand Canyon Road from Soledad Canyon Road north to the extent of the project boundary. The Class I Trail shall be built to City standards. PR3. The developer shall construct a Class II Bike Lane on Soledad Canyon Road. PR4. All interior trails and paseos shall be HOA owned and maintained. PR5. All open space parcels shall be owned and maintained by an HOA or POA. "I Project Description: Sand Canyon Plaza Tract[MCW: 53074 14-077 Housing Units Density 1 Dwelling 5 Acres "FMV per 1000 Sub Total 20% Off Site Improvements In Lied Fee sm 2.wo a_005 1 saeo,000 I 1;.Isaaso 31,500.570 $9.003,456 Total Density 1.705 Total Acres due 8.53600 Private Paris Credit Up to 30°,0 255790 With Park Credit 5.90820 55.252.010 x1.050,403 se,sa2.41a TOTAL FEES DUE WITH PRIVATE PARK iCREDrr= $6.302,419 TOTAL FEES DUE WITHOUT CREDIT= 59,003,456 Potential privale Park -Ental Total Max. Credit Estimate Reviewed by: Gretrit SQ. FT. Aires 30% $2J01,037 111.41& ?5,ao 2C15ze40 Date: Jeff Morrison 511612017 "The applicant will be required to provide a certified MAI real estate appraisal to establish the Fair Market Value (FMV) of an acre I landwtthinthis project. etlwd alcalc"Qn per six Cad a1 5arda Ciwta General Ran- parka and Reamon Eletr - DU X Papulation X 5 acmks per X —FW = subtotal % 12 = In 1.ie-.. Fee DU 1000 a SuHdabW acro- S:\CD\!PLANNING DIVISION\CURRENT\!2014\14-077 Sand Cyn Plaza\Planning CommissionVune 6\14-077 Draft Conditions.doe RESOLUTION NO. P17-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE MASTER CASE 14-077 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 53074, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-014, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 14-001, RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 14-001, MINOR USE PERMIT 14-016, AND OAK TREE PERMIT 14-008) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SAND CANYON PLAZA MIXED USE PROJECT IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings of fact, and recommends that the City Council make the following findings of fact: a. The approximately 87 -acre Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project (the Project) site is located at the northeast corner of Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road. Approximately 84 acres of the Project site are located in the Mixed Use Neighborhood (MXN) zone and General Plan land use designation, and approximately 2.5 acres in the southeast corner of the site are located in the Urban Residential - 3 (UR3) zoning and General Plan land use designation. Approximately 34 acres in the southwest corner of the site are located within the Planned Development (PD) overlay zone. No development is proposed in the UR3 zone. The MXN zone is intended for mixed-use development, which is encouraged to integrate residential uses with complimentary commercial uses. The MXN zone allows for maximum density of 18 dwelling units per acre. Approximately 77 acres of the Project site are dedicated to residential land uses and accompanying open space. Under this designation and not taking into account hillside ordinance requirements, the Project site could support up to 1,386 residential units. Under the MXN and UR3 designations the Project site could accommodate up to 217,800 square feet of commercial uses. b. The Project site has been previously disturbed for the construction of a mobile home park and associated infrastructure, along with roadway improvements for Soledad Canyon Road and drainage infrastructure along Sand Canyon Road. The existing 123 -unit mobile home park is in the process of being closed, with the site being cleared and coaches being removed from the site. The property owner received approval from the City's Manufactured Home Rental Adjustment Panel (MHRAP) to close the park on December 17, 2008, and began removing coaches from the Project site. Due to the downturn in the economy, some coaches were returned to the site and rented out on month-to-month leases. The owner has agreements in place for the purchase and relocation of all remaining owner -occupied units on the site and will continue to remove these coaches from the site, in accordance with Resolution No. MHP 08-03 of the MHRAP. Master Case 14-077 Resolution P17-12 June 6, 2017 Page 2 of 20 c. Surrounding land uses include a mixture of residential uses and undeveloped property to the north of the site, residential uses to the east of the site, a mix of commercial uses and transportation corridors to the south of the site, with a mix of commercial and residential uses to the west of the site. State Route 14 (SR14) is located to the south of the site, across Soledad Canyon Road, with the Santa Clara River to the south of SR14. d. In June 2002, the City Council approved the Sand Canyon Joint Venture project on the Project site. The project included two development areas including both residential and commercial components. The first project area included the construction of 63 single-family homes on 34 acres on the northern portion of the site. The second project area included the removal of 44 mobile home units from the site to leave a 92 -unit mobile home park, the construction of 24 single-family homes, and the construction of a new 200,000 square -foot commercial/retail center on 55 acres. The total project included 87 single-family residential units, a 92 unit mobile home park, and a 200,000 square -foot commercial center. While the project was approved by the City Council, the developer did not move forward with construction of the project and the approvals expired. e. On June 14, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-61, adopting the General Plan of the City of Santa Clarita, and Resolution No. 11-62 certifying the Environmental Impact Report. The City's General Plan presently designates approximately 84 acres of the project site Mixed Use Neighborhood (MXN) with approximately 2.5 acres of the southeast portion of the site with the Urban Residential - 3 (UR3). Development of the project will be located predominantly in the MXN portion of the site with the only development activity occurring in the UR3 portion of the site to be grading and landscape activities. Approximately 34 acres on the southwest portion of the project site are located within the Planned Development (PD) Overlay Zone. Under the MXN designation, a mix of residential units at a minimum of six (6) to a maximum of eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre, and maximum floor area ratio for the non-residential portion of the development shall be .5 to 1. f. The southwest portion of the Project site is relatively flat sloping up to the north and east. A significant ridgeline identified in the General Plan runs in a north -south direction along the eastern portion of the Project site. Three oak trees are located on the Project site, one of which is designated as a "Heritage" oak tree under the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. Other natural vegetation is dispersed throughout the site. Above -ground utility lines run along the western portion of the site along Sand Canyon Road. A drainage course runs through the western portion of the Project site and would be channelized in a box culvert with the Project. A City community identification sign is located on the southern portion of the site welcoming residents to the City as they exit westbound SR14 and enter the City that would be replaced with the construction of the project. g. An application for Master Case 14-077, the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use project, was filed by the project applicant, Sand Canyon Plaza, LLC (the "applicant"), with the City of Santa Clarita on May 28, 2014. The entitlement requests (collectively, "Entitlements") include: Master Case 14-077 Resolution P17-12 June 6, 2017 Page 3 of 20 1. Tentative Tract Map 53074 to subdivide the 87 -acre project site into 38 lots. In addition, the residential lots within the subdivision would have the ability to create condominium units with a maximum of 580 residential units. 2. Conditional Use Permit 14-014 to allow for the construction of an assisted living facility in the Mixed Use Neighborhood (MXN) zone, as well as to allow for new construction in the Planned Development (PD) Overlay Zone. 3. Hillside Development Review 14-001 to allow for development on property with an average cross -slope in excess of 10%. 4. Rid eline Alteration Permit 14-001 to allow for the development within the Ridgeline Preservation (RP) Overlay Zone. 5. Minor Use Permit 14-016 to allow for the development of a mixed use project that does not meet the minimum commercial floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.2 of the allowable commercial space for the project. 6. Oak Tree Permit 14-008 to allow for the removal of two non -heritage oak trees and the encroachment into the protected zone of one heritage oak tree. h. The Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project site is an approximately 87 -acre site located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road in the MXN and UR3 zone. The original project submittal included the development of 580 residential units, a retail/commercial center, and a senior assisted living facility broken down into five planning areas as follows: Planning Area 1 Planning Area 1 (PAI) is located at the northeast intersection of Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road. This area includes 116,000 square feet of retail/commercial space and a 60,000 square -foot (up to 120 beds) assisted living facility with associated parking and infrastructure on approximately 10 acres. The commercial uses would be oriented around a water feature (which would also be utilized for water quality purposes) at the intersection of Sand Canyon Road/Soledad Canyon Road to the west of PA1, while the assisted living facility will be located in the eastern portion of PAL Access for PAI would be off of the first entrance for the Project on Sand Canyon Road, as well as Soledad Canyon Road. Planning Area 2 Planning Area 2 (PA2) consists of 312 attached apartment units, a community recreation facility, and associated infrastructure on approximately 11 acres. PA2 is located just north of PAI along Sand Canyon Road. Access for PA2 would be at the first and second entrances for the Project on Sand Canyon Road. The second entrance for this Planning Area would be at the first roundabout on Sand Canyon Road. Master Case 14-077 Resolution P17-12 June 6, 2017 Page 4 of 20 Planning Area -3Y Planning Area 3 (PA3) consists of 120 attached townhome units, a community recreation facility, and associated infrastructure on approximately 11 acres. PA3 is located to the north of PA2 along Sand Canyon Road. Access for PA3 would be off of Sand Canyon Road at the third, and final, entrance to the Project site, and the second roundabout proposed for the Project. PlanningArea rea 4 Planning Area 4 (PA4) consists of 71 single-family, detached or attached, condominium units on approximately 10 acres. PA4 is located in the center of the Project site, just north of PAI, and east and south of PA2 and PA3. The single-family homes would be broken into two clusters of homes, each on their own building pad. Access for PA4 would be through PA2 and PA3 out to Sand Canyon Road. Planning Area 5 Planning Area 5 (PA5) consists of 77 single-family, detached or attached, condominium units on approximately 13 acres. PA5 is located in the northern and eastern portion of the Project site to the east of PA4. PA5 is broken into three clusters of homes each on their own building pads. Access for PA5 is through PA4 and out to Sand Canyon Road through PA2 and PA3. i. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA;" Pub. Resources Code, §21000 et seq.), the City of Santa Clarita is the lead agency and the City Council is the decision-making body for the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project. The City's Planning Commission is a recommending body for the project. j. The City determined that an EIR must be prepared for the Project. The City determined that the following areas must be addressed in the EIR for the Project: aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas/climate change, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use, mineral and energy resources, noise, population and housing, parks and recreation, fire protection, police protection, schools, library services, traffic and circulation, solid waste, wastewater and water supply. k. An initial Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the Entitlements was circulated to affected agencies, pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15000 et seq.), for thirty days, beginning on April 30, 2015. Agencies that received the NOP include, but are not limited to, the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, South Coast Air Quality Management District, law enforcement agencies, school districts, waste haulers, water agencies, and transportation agencies serving the Santa Clarita Valley in accordance with CEQA's consultation requirements. Comments from public agencies, organizations, and members of the public were received in response to the NOP for the project. Master Case 14-077 Resolution P17-12 June 6, 2017 Page 5 of 20 1. A scoping meeting was held at the City of Santa Clarita Activities Center, Canyon Room on May 27, 2015, to obtain information from the public as to issues that should be addressed in the EIR. Notice of the scoping meeting was published in The Signal newspaper on April 30, 2015, and was mailed to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the project site, in addition to approximately 55 agencies. Three people attended the scoping meeting. in. Based on comments from staff through the Development Review Committee (DRC) revisions were made to the project as follows: Planning Area 1 PAI was revised to include 55,600 square feet of retail/commercial space and a 75,000 square -foot (up to 120 bed) assisted living facility with associated parking and infrastructure on approximately 9.89 acres. Planning Area 2 PA2 remained at 312 attached apartment units, with a community recreation facility and associated infrastructure, however was adjusted to 12.24 acres. Planning Area 3 PA3 was revised to include 122 attached townhome units, a community recreation facility, and associated infrastructure on approximately 10.21 acres. Planning Area 4 PA4 remained at 71 single-family, detached or attached, condominium units, but was adjusted in area to 7.33 acres. Planning Area 5 PA5 was revised to include 75 single-family, detached or attached, condominium units and was adjusted in area to 9.97 acres. n. On January 18, 2017, at 3:00 p.m., the Planning Commission conducted a site tour of the project site. o. The City of Santa Clarita prepared a Draft EIR for the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project that addressed all issues raised in comments received on the NOPs. The Draft EIR was circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, in compliance with CEQA. Specifically, the Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion for the Draft EIR was filed, posted and advertised on March 3, 2017, and the 45 -day public review period ended on April 17, 2017, 5:00 p.m. in accordance with CEQA. Late written comments received prior to May 10, 2017, were responded to in the Draft Final EIR Responses to Comments. Oral and written comments received on the Draft EIR have been fully responded to and those comments received after the Planning Commission's review of the Project will be fully responded to prior to certification and approval of the project by the City Council, if granted. Master Case 14-077 Resolution P17-12 June 6, 2017 Page 6 of 20 p. The Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project was duly noticed in accordance with the noticing requirements for each of the Entitlements. The project was advertised in The Signal, through on-site posting 14 days prior to the hearing, and by direct first-class mailing to property owners within 1,000 feet of the Project site. In addition, the date and time of each public hearing was posted on the two signs posted at the project site. q. The Planning Commission held duly -noticed public hearings on the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project on February 21, March 21, May 16, and June 6, 2017. These hearings were held at City Hall, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita, at or after 6:00 p.m. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing on June 6, 2017. i. On February 21, 2017, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing for the project; received a presentation from staff on the project setting, a detailed description of the requested entitlements, and a detailed description of the project proposed under Master Case 14-077. In addition, the Planning Commission received a presentation from the applicant, and received public testimony regarding the project. ii. On March 21, 2017, City staff responded to questions posed by the Planning Commission at the Planning Commission meeting on February 21, 2017. In addition, staff made a detailed presentation on the Draft EIR Sections (Aesthetics, Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Climate Change, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use, Mineral and Energy Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Parks and Recreation, Fire Protection, Police Protection, Schools, Library Services, Traffic and Circulation, Solid Waste, Wastewater, Water Supply, and Project Alternatives). The Planning Commission also received a presentation from the applicant regarding modifications proposed to the project to address comments received at the February 21, 2017, Planning Commission meeting to increase the commercial component of the project and reduce the development proposed in the Ridgeline Preservation Overlay Zone. In addition, the Planning Commission received public testimony regarding the project. iii. On May 16, 2017, City staff responded to questions raised by the Planning Commission and presented a revised site plan that incorporated the changes presented by the applicant at the March 21, 2017 meeting. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission directed staff to incorporate the project modifications into the revised site plan and/or conditions of approval for the project: 1) Elimination of grading on the northern portion of the significant ridgeline through the transfer of 27 units from PA5 to PA3. This Project revision incorporates aspects of Draft EIR Alternative 3 (Ridgeline Preservation); Master Case 14-077 Resolution P17-12 June 6, 2017 Page 7 of 20 2) Creation of a two -acre private park in PA5 to further enhance recreational opportunities on the Project site; 3) Increase to the assisted living facility by 10,000 square feet (75,000 square feet to 85,000 square feet) to accommodate up to 140 beds and an increase to the commercial component of the project site by 4,400 square feet (55,600 square feet to 60,000 square feet). This Project revision incorporates aspects of Draft EIR Alternative 2 (Increased Commercial and Office); 4) Addition of a three-level, 264 space parking structure to PA1; and 5) Require, as a condition of approval, the project applicant to re -design the building layout in PA2 (locating buildings along the Sand Canyon Road frontage) to further reduce noise impacts to adjacent properties. In addition, a condition of approval has been added to require enhanced landscaping along Sand Canyon Road. r. On June 6, 2017, the modified site plan, Draft Final EIR, resolutions and conditions of approval were presented to the Planning Commission. The Commission also received public testimony regarding the project. As a result of the project modifications made during the proceedings before the Planning Commission, the revised site plan recommended by the Planning Commission includes 580 units and 145,000 square feet of commercial space as follows: PlanningArea rea 1 PAI includes 60,000 square feet of retail/commercial space, an 85,000 square -foot (up to 140 beds) assisted living facility, and a three story (one level partially below grade) parking structure on approximately 9.6 acres. Planning Area 2 PA2 includes 312 attached apartment units, with a community recreation facility and associated infrastructure, however was increased to 12.24 acres. Planning Area 3 PA3 includes 149 attached townhome units, a community recreation facility, and associated infrastructure on approximately 10.3 acres. Planning Area 4 PA4 includes 71 single-family, detached or attached, condominium units, but was adjusted in area to 7.33 acres. PlanningArea rea 5 PA5 includes 48 single-family, detached or attached, condominium units on 6.3 acres. In addition, a 2 -acre park was included in the project just north of PA4 and PA5. s. As a result of comments received from the Planning Commission and its staff, governmental agencies and the public, the project was modified by the Planning Commission as explained above in Paragraph "r." Master Case 14-077 Resolution P17-12 June 6, 2017 Page 8 of 20 t. The Final EIR, incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "A," includes the Draft EIR, comments on the Draft EIR, and the following: responses to written comments on the Draft EIR, responses to public testimony regarding Draft EIR issues raised at the February 21, March 21, May 16, and June 6, 2017, public hearings, and modifications to the Draft EIR text and mitigation measures. The Draft EIR was presented to the Planning Commission on March 21, 2017. On June 1, 2017, a copy of the responses to comments from the Draft Final EIR was sent to each agency and individual who submitted timely comments on the Draft EIR. The Planning Commission has considered the Draft Final EIR prepared for the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project, as well as information provided in staff reports, presented to the Planning Commission from experts, and presented in public testimony, including letters submitted to the Planning Commission following the close of the Draft EIR public comment period up to May 10, 2017, prior to recommending approval of the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project. u. The Draft Final EIR, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the project recommended by the Planning Commission, set forth in Resolution P17-11, have been prepared and circulated in compliance with CEQA. v. The Planning Commission has recommended the City Council adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts of the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels, and has recommended certification of the Draft Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ("MMRP"), by Resolution No. P17-11, adopted on June 6, 2017. w. At its hearings on the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project, listed above, the Planning Commission considered staff and consultant presentations, staff reports, applicant presentations, and information presented to the Commission to assist its understanding of the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project, the Draft EIR, and public comments and testimony on the project and Draft Final EIR. x. Based upon the staff and consultant presentations, staff reports, applicant presentations, and public comments and testimony, the Planning Commission finds that the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project, as modified, will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing in the area; nor will the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property in the vicinity of the project site; nor will the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety, or general welfare since the project conforms with the zoning ordinance and is compatible with surrounding land uses. The Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project proposes the extension of all utilities and services to the project site. Currently, all required utilities and services are available at locations adjacent to the project site. y. The location of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the Planning Commission is based for the Master Case 14-077 Master Case 14-077 Resolution P17-12 June 6, 2017 Page 9 of 20 project file is with the Community Development Department; the record specifically is in the custody of the Director of Community Development. SECTION 2. GENERAL FINDINGS FOR MASTER CASE 14-077. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find, as follows: a. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan; The Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project has is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the General Plan of the City of Santa Clarita. More specifically, the project is consistent with the following portions of the General Plan: T Minn Fnrm Goal LU1: An interconnected Valley of Villages providing diverse lifestyles, surrounded by a greenbelt of natural open space. The Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project is consistent with Goal LU1 as a project that proposes to develop a mixed use project in the urban portion of the City. The City's General Plan identified properties in the City that were either underutilized, or appropriately situated for mixed use development to concentrate orderly development in an urban environment, while preserving natural open spaces. The project site is located on the northeast corner of Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road (two major roadways in the City's Circulation Element) designated as Mixed Use Neighborhood (MXN) in the City's General Plan, and surrounded by existing developed land. The site is currently developed with a mobile home park that was approved for closure in 2008. Redevelopment of the site will allow for the creation of a mixed use project consistent with the MXN zone as prescribed in the General Plan, providing a balanced mix of commercial and residential uses. Further, redeveloping the previously developed and disturbed site will further preserve rural portions of the City and Santa Clarita Valley, concentrating uses in the urban center. Mixed Land Uses Goal LU2: A mix of land uses to accommodate growth, supported by adequate resources and maintaining community assets. As discussed, the project site is located in the MXN zone and General Plan land use designation of the City. The Project includes a mix of 580 residential units and 145,000 square feet of commercial uses. The residential components of the project provide a range of housing types including for rent apartment units, single family townhomes for sale, as well as single-family condominium units for sale to provide a variety of living options for existing and future residents of the City. In addition, the -project provides a much needed assisted living facility to further serve the senior citizen community in the City. The commercial uses proposed with the project will provide a variety of retail and restaurant Master Case 14-077 Resolution P17-12 June 6, 2017 Page 10 of 20 uses for existing residents in the Canyon Country community, as well as future residents of the project site. The commercial uses will be located within walking distance of existing developed areas in the City, as well as for future residents of the project site. The pedestrian connectivity will reduce vehicle trips to other portions of the City and will enhance the community providing improved quality of retail and restaurant options in the Canyon Country community. Healthy Neighborhoods Goal LU3: Healthy and Safe Neighborhoods for all residents. Goal LU4: A diverse healthy economy. As previously discussed, the Project will provide a mix of residential and commercial uses that will serve the existing community of Canyon Country providing a variety of shopping and dining options. The commercial space will be in vicinity of existing and future residential uses that will be walkable in nature. The project will include the construction of a new transit stop along Soledad Canyon Road that will further provide alternative transportation options _on City Transit, as well as future connections_ to the Vista Canyon Metrolink Station once completed. Creating a walkable and safe pedestrian environment, with a variety of transportation options, encourages healthy lifestyle habits consistent with the General Plan. Economic Vitalitv Goal LU4: A diverse and healthy economy. The project proposes a mix of retail/commercial uses along with a balance of residential uses. The addition of walkable commercial uses in proximity of the existing residents will provide additional commercial options that are not available in the Canyon Country Community. While the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use project proposes to build below the minimum commercial floor area prescribed in the MXN zone, an economic study prepared for the project indicates that the Vista Canyon project will absorb a majority of the large/anchor tenants that would be candidates for the project site. However, the mix of commercial uses included in the project, along with the residential uses, are anticipated to be appropriate for the Canyon Country community and would provide additional options to residents. Community Appearance Goal LU6: A scenic and beautiful urban environment that builds on the community's history and natural setting. The Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project site has been previously disturbed for the construction of a mobile home park, as well as the development neighboring roadways and infrastructure. A General Plan designated ridgeline runs from the northeast portion of the project site to the south along the eastern portion of the site. A steep slope was cut in this ridgeline to allow for the construction of Soledad Canyon Road that cannot be planted to soften views. The project will grade portions of this ridgeline that will lay back this slope to Master Case 14-077 Resolution P17-12 June 6, 2017 Page 11 of 20 create the ability to soften views, creating a slope that is more natural in appearance that can be planted to further soften views. The project will build berm portions of PA4 to soften views to residents east of the site. b. The proposal is allowed within the applicable underlying zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of this code; The Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project requires the approval of entitlements consisting of a Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit, Hillside Review, Ridgeline Alteration Permit, Minor Use Permit, and an Oak Tree Permit in accordance with the City's Unified Development Code. c. The proposal will not endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, or be materially detrimental or injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located; and The Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project has been evaluated in accordance with the Unified Development Code (UDC), as well as the City's General Plan. The project has been designed to be in keeping with the provisions of the UDC as well as the goals and policies of the City's General Plan. The project will blend the development into the hillsides on the project site by laying back previously graded slopes, and using land form grading techniques to blend them into the topography on the project site. Further, berms will be installed in appropriate locations to further screen views to the public and reduce any potential impacts to views of the community. Lights will be directed down and will be screened as appropriate, to further reduce and impact to nighttime views. Buildings will be situated on the project site to minimize impacts to surrounding uses to ensure that noise is properly screened and minimized. Finally, the project has been designed to be consistent with all applicable requirements for law enforcement and emergency services for the project site. Therefore, the project will not impact the public health, interest, safety, or general welfare, or be materially detrimental or injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity of the project site. d. The proposal is physically suitable for the site. The factors related to the proposal's physical suitability for the site shall include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. The design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics are suitable for the proposed use; The project site has been designed consistent with the City's UDC including the required provisions for hillside development, development of a mixed use development, as well as the applicable commercial and residential code requirements. The project site is in an MXN zone and was identified as an MXN site in the City's General Plan. The project has been built to use the topography of the project site to concentrate uses on the flat, previously disturbed portions of the site, while less intense, single-family residential uses will be built on the previously undisturbed portions of the project site. Master Case 14-077 Resolution P17-12 June 6, 2017 Page 12 of 20 With the Conditions of Approval, the project will be suitable for the site and the uses entitled with the project. 2. The highways or streets that provide access to the site are of sufficient width and are improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such proposal would generate; The project completed a detailed traffic analysis to evaluate the improvements required for the project. The General Plan identifies Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road as major roadways under the General Plan. The applicant will be installing improvements on both roadways to ensure the project will have the necessary traffic infrastructure to service the site and uses in the vicinity of the project site. 3. Public protection services (e.g., Fire protection, Sheriff protection, etc) are readily available; and The project site is located in an established, urban environment that is serviced by existing sheriff and fire protection services. The applicant will pay applicable fees to the sheriff and fire departments to assist in offsetting any impacts to the services necessary to properly service the project. 4. The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc.) is adequate to serve the site. The project is in a portion of the City that is developed with access to the necessary utilities to service the project site. Further, these utilities provide services to the existing uses on the project site. A Water Supply Assessment was completed for the project determining that adequate water is available to meet the needs of the project site. SECTION 3. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 53074. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project EIR, oral and written testimoliy and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find, as follows: a. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The subdivision proposed as a part of the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project is located in an existing developed portion of the City. The project will not obstruct any public access as a result of the proposed subdivision. Further, the project will provide improved public access in the form of additional right-of-way necessary lir the future Master Case 14-077 Resolution P17-12 June 6, 2017 Page 13 of 20 buildout of Sand Canyon Road. The project will grade Sand Canyon Road to its ultimate width, while paving the roadway to one lane in each direction. This improvement will provide the City with the necessary right-of-way to buildout Sand Canyon Road to its General Plan width at the time that the improvement is necessary. No additional right-of-way is required for Soledad Canyon Road, however a new bus stop will be constructed for the City to integrate the site with the City's existing transit system. No public access exists on the project site, and no public lands are identified on, or adjacent to the project site that would require access through the project site. The onsite roadways necessary for the project will be installed and accessible for the future residents, as well as the commercial/retail customers, and any police and emergency services. Therefore, the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project will not obstruct any public access with the subdivision of the site. SECTION 4. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 14-001. As documented in the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project and based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find, as follows: a. That the natural topographic features and appearances are conserved by means of landform grading to blend any manufactured slopes or required drainage benches into the natural topography; b. That natural, topographic prominent features are retained to the maximum extent possible; The southwest portions of the project site are relatively flat, developed with an existing mobile home park. The eastern and northern portions of the site have hillsides in excess of 10 percent average cross -slope requiring the approval of a Hillside Development Review in accordance with the UDC. A graded slope exists along Soledad Canyon Road constructed with the extension of Soledad Canyon Road. The slope is nearly 1:1 and is not able to be planted. The project will lay back the slope and will further grade existing portions of a General Plan designated ridgeline. The grading will blend into the neighboring hillsides and will use appropriate grading techniques to soften the impacts associated with the grading. The project was revised by the Planning Commission to reduce grading on the northern portion of the ridgeline to further minimize grading associated with the project and minimize impacts to the ridgeline on the project site. c. That clustered sites and buildings are utilized where such techniques can be demonstrated to substantially reduce grading alterations of the terrain and to contribute to the preservation of trees, other natural vegetation and prominent landmarkfeatures and are compatible with existing neighborhood; Master Case 14-077 Resolution P17-12 June 6, 2017 Page 14 of 20 No clustered application is associated with this project, however the more intense commercial and residential uses are located in the flat, previously disturbed portions of the project site. d. That building setbacks, building heights and compatible structures and building forms that would serve to blend buildings and structures with the terrain are utilized; The project complies with the applicable setback requirements of the UDC. To ensure construction of each planning area is compliant with the provisions of the UDC, a condition of approval (attached as Exhibit A) has been incorporated into the project requiring the approval of a Development Review application by the Director of Community Development. e. That plant materials are conserved and introduced so as to protect slopes from slippage and soil erosion and to minimize visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas, including the consideration of the preservation of prominent trees and, to the extent possible, while meeting the standards of the Fire Department; Portions of the project site have been previously disturbed for the construction of Soledad Canyon Road along the southern portion of the project site. The previously graded slopes are nearly 1:1 straight cut slopes and are not able to be planted due to the steep grade. These previously graded slopes do not use any landform grading techniques to blend grading work into the natural topography on the project site. The Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project will grade the project site to accommodate the development of a mix of commercial and residential uses. The previously graded slopes will be graded by laying back the hillside to allow for planting of the new graded slopes. In addition, the new slopes will use landform and contour grading techiniques to further blend into the existing slopes on the project site. Planting of the graded slopes will be consistent with the City's landcape ordinance along with the requirements of the Los Angeles County Fuel Modifiaction Unit for development within a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Planting will generally consist of the use of native vegetation, ails plant material that is compatible with the climate of the Santa Clarita `Dalley. The project will be removing two, non -heritage oak trees for the purposes of grading of the project site. The aplicant will mitigate these removals by replanting oak trees on the project site in accordance with the City's Oak Tree Ordinance. One heritage oak tree will be preserved on the projcet site with appropriate measures to allow for the encroachment into the protected zone for grading purposes. Therefore, planting the graded slopes will be conducted in a manner consistent with the City's landscape and hillside ordinances, as well as the requirements of the Los Angeles County Fire Department. f. That street design and improvements that serve to minimize grading alterations and emulate the natural contours and character of the hillsides are utilized; Master Case 14-077 Resolution P17-12 June 6, 2017 Page 15 of 20 Roadways proposed on the hillside portions of the project will be integrated into the hillside grading to take advantage of the natural grades to the extent possible. The roadway creates a loop road up to Planning Areas 4 and 5 and, while visible, will be integrated into the topography on the site to the extent practicable. g. That grading designs that serve to avoid disruption to adjacent properties are utilized; and h. That site design and grading that provide the minimum disruption of view corridors and scenic vistas from and around any proposed development are utilized. Grading proposed with the Sand Canyon Mixed Use Project does not impact any identified scenic vistas or view corridors. Views from the west and south of the site will remain, with the Project site being most visible from the existing residents to the west of the site. Residents west of the site will have new views through the site to the mountains east of the site. These views, while far off, are generally views of open space in the Angeles National Forest. To soften views to these residents west of the site, the applicant has agreed, and has further been conditioned, to provide enhanced landscape along the western portion of the project site to soften views and obscure sound generated with the project. Views to the site from the north and east will continue to be predominantly obscured. The applicant has designed the project to include berms along the eastern portions of the developed areas to assist in obscuring the views of the development from residents to the east of the site. Further, the applicant has revised the project to remove development from the northern portions of the ridgeline on the project site to reduce impacts to previously undisturbed portions of the site, as well to further screen the project from view to the property to the north of the site. The most intense portions of the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project include the commercial center, assisted living facility, and the apartment units. These project components are located in the southwest portion of the project site at, or near, the intersection of Sand Canyon Road and Soledad Canyon Road. These portions of the site have been previously developed or disturbed for the creation of a mobile home park and improvements to Soledad Canyon Road. As discussed, the project will lay back the previously graded slopes on the project site to allow for these slopes to be planted improving the views of these steep, un -vegetated slopes. The applicant is further proposing to install a water feature at the southwestern portion of the site, that in addition to serving as a part of the stormwater treatment train, will provide an aesthetic amenity for the site. Therefore, the project will not impact any scenic vistas and will further not have a significant impact to neighboring view corridors. SECTION 5. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 14- 001. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Sand Canyon Plaza EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find, as follows: Master Case 14-077 Resolution P17-12 June 6, 2017 Page 16 of 20 a. The use or development will not be materially detrimental to the visual character of the neighborhood or community, nor will it endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare; The Project would not be materially detrimental to the visual character of the site as the proposed uses would be proper in relation to adjacent uses and the development of the community as is evidenced by nearby existing residential and commercial developments. Further, the Project's proposed uses and development would not be materially detrimental to the visual character of the neighborhood or community because the contour grading would limit visual impacts to hillside areas by helping them blend with the existing topography. The applicant revised the project to reduce development on the northern portion of the ridgeline by transferring 27 units from PA5 to PA3. Finally, the Project grading would "lay back" the existing manufactured slope along Soledad Canyon Road, which allows for this slope to be landscaped, further softening its appearance from SR -14, Soledad Canyon Road, and areas to the south. Mitigation measures recommended in this EIR ensure that the Project would not endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare. b. The appearance of the use or development will not be substantially different than the appearance of adjoining ridgeline areas so as to cause depreciation of the ridgeline appearance in the vicinity; Portions of the Project site have been previously disturbed for development of existing mobile home units on the western portion of the Project site, as well as for the construction of adjacent roadways and utility infrastructure. Nearly all of the commercial development, and over one-half of the residential development proposed with the Project has been concentrated within the disturbed portions of the site. The Project would also incorporate site design and grading techniques that would avoid disruption of view corridors and scenic vistas and blend the Project into the surrounding community. In addition, the applicant revised the project to reduce development on the northern portion of the ridgeline by transferring 27 units from PA5 to PA3. This will allow for the northern portion of the ridgeline to be preserved as open space, further preserving previously undisturbed portions of the ridgeline. c. The establishment of the proposed use or development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties, nor encourage inappropriate encroachments to the ridgeline area; Implementation of the Project would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property nor encourage inappropriate future encroachments into the ridgeline areas. Overall, the Project would not violate the visual integrity of the ridgeline as the ridgeline on the Project site is indistinguishable from other hills in the surrounding area and the Project would not restrict views of more prominent ridgelines located off the project site. Development would be concentrated in Master Case 14-077 Resolution P17-12 June 6, 2017 Page 17 of 20 the previously disturbed areas and would "lay back" the previously disturbed portions of the ridgeline to reduce visual impacts associated to areas south of the Project site. d. The proposed use or development demonstrates creative site design resulting in a project that will complement the community character and provide a direct benefit to current and future community residents of not only the proposed use or development, but the residents of the City as a whole; As discussed above, the majority of residential units (79%) and commercial land uses are within portions of the site previously disturbed and mostly in areas with less than 25% grade. Approximately 461 of the 580 residential units would be located in an area of the site with an average cross slope of 13% or less. In areas of the site that are in excess of 25% grade, there are a total of 119 units proposed, or 25% of the total residential units. Development in this area would conform to the City's requirements for cluster developments. Clustering within disturbed, flatter portions of the Project site, would contribute to the preservation of natural areas onsite. Finally, the Project, including grading, would be compatible with surrounding existing development. e. The use or development minimizes the effects of grading to the extent practicable to ensure that the natural character of the ridgeline is preserved; The Project would conserve natural topographic features and appearances by means of landform grading so as to blend any manufactures slopes or required drainage benches into the natural topography. Further, the applicant revised the project to reduce the development on the previously undisturbed portions of the ridgeline by transferring 27 units from PA5 to PA3. This allowed for the northern portion of the ridgeline to be preserved, further minimizing the impacts to the ridgeline and preserve additional portions of the site as open space. f. The proposed use or development is designed to mimic the existing topography to the greatest extent possible through the use of landform contour grading; and The Project would conserve natural topographic features and appearances by means of landform grading so as to blend any manufactures slopes or required drainage benches into the natural topography. The project would layback the previously disturbed portions of the ridgeline along Soledad Canyon Road and would use landform contour grading techniques to blend the slopes into the topography on the site. g. The proposed use or development does not alter natural landmarks and prominent natural features of the ridgelines. The Project site does not include any prominent natural features or landmarks. Furthermore, the Project would utilize a number of methods for reducing grading impacts, and, ultimately, create a development that would, to the greatest extent possible, blend in with the natural contours of the site. For example, the Project places Master Case 14-077 Resolution P17-12 June 6, 2017 Page 18 of 20 most of the residential and commercial development in previously disturbed areas to avoid disruption of view corridors and scenic vistas. The Project would also incorporate curvilinear street design and improvements that would serve to minimize grading alterations and simulate the natural contours and character of the hillside. SECTION 6. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR OAK TREE PERMIT 14-008. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, and upon studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find, as follows: a. The approving authority shall make one (1) or more of the following findings before granting an oak tree permit: i. The condition or location of the oak tree(s) requires cutting to maintain or aid its health, balance, or structure; ii. The condition of the trees) with respect to disease, danger of falling, proximity to existing lots, pedestrian walkways or interference with utility services cannot be controlled or remedied through reasonable preservation and/or preventative procedures and practices; iii. It is necessary to remove, relocate, prune, cut or encroach into the protected zone of an oak tree to enable reasonable use of the subject property which is otherwise prevented by the presence of the tree and no reasonable alternative can be accommodated due to the unique physical development constraints of the property; or iv. The approval of the request will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of the code. The project site contains three oak trees; one heritage oak tree, and two non -heritage oak trees. In order to develop the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project, the two non - heritage oak trees would need to be removed. The oak trees are located in portions of the site where grading will need to take place, and no alternatives are available to preserve these oak trees. However, the heritage oak tree is located in a portion of the site where it can be preserved. Encroachment into the protected zone (identified as five feet outside the dripline of the oak tree) of . this tree will be required for grading purposes. The oak tree report prepared for the trees on the project site include mitigation measures to ensure the health of this tree. In addition, the report establishes valuations of the two non -heritage trees to be removed, as well as mitigation for the removals. Compliance with the recommendations of the applicant's arborist, in coordination with the City's Oak Tree Specialist will ensure the preservation of the heritage tree, as well as proper mitigation for the removal of the two non -heritage trees. b. No heritage oak tree shall be removed unless one(]) or more of the above findings are made and the review authority also finds? that the heritage oak tree's continued existence would prevent any reasonable /levelnrimp"t n�f the property' and that no Master Case 14-077 Resolution P17-12 June 6, 2017 Page 19 of 20 reasonable alternative can be accommodated due to the unique physical constraints of the property. It shall further be found that the removal of such heritage oak tree will not be unreasonably detrimental to the community and surrounding area. No heritage oak trees will be removed with the project. SECTION 7. The Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council approve Master Case 14-077; Tentative Tract Map 53074, Conditional Use Permit 14-014, Hillside Development Review 14-001, Ridgeline Alteration Permit 14-001, Minor Use Permit 14-016, and Oak Tree Permit 14-008 for the development of the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project, in the City of Santa Clarita, subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit B). SECTION 8. The Planning Commission Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and certify this record to be a full, complete, and correct copy of the action taken. Master Case 14-077 Resolution P 17-12 June 6, 2017 Page 20 of 20 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 6th day of June, 2017. a� TIM, URKHART, CHAIRPERSON PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: JASON GRA=IL, SECRETARY PLANNING O SSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Jason Crawford, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 61` of June, 2017, by the following vote of the Planning Commission: - AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BERLIN, BURKHART, HEFFERNAN, OSTROM NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: EICHMAN PLANNING 00M MION SECRETARY JC:PL:kl SAMUPLANNING DIVISIMCURRENTU2014\14-077 Sand Cyn Plaza\Planning CommissionVune 6\14-077 Project Reso.docx EXHIBIT A MASTER CASE 14-077: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 50374, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-014, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 14-001, RIDGELIKE ALTERATION PERMIT 14-001, MINOR USE PERMIT 14-016, OAK TREE PERMIT 14-008, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH NO. 2015051005 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL CONDITIONS GCI. The approval of this project shall expire if the approved use is not commenced within two (2) years from the date of this approval, unless it is extended in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Santa Clarita Unified Development Code (UDC). GC2. To the extent the use approved with this project is a different use than previously approved for the property, the prior approval shall be terminated along with any associated vested rights to such use, unless such prior approved use is still in operation, or is still within the initial pre -commencement approval period. Once commenced, any discontinuation of the use approved with this project for a continuous period of one hundred eighty (180) calendar days or more shall terminate the approval of this use along with any associated vested rights to such use. The use shall not be re-established or resumed after the one hundred eighty (180) day period. Discontinuation shall include cessation of a use regardless of intent to resume. GC3. The applicant may file for an extension of the conditionally approved project prior to the date of expiration. If such an extension is requested, it must be filed no later than sixty (60) days prior to expiration. GC4. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying the Director of Community Development in writing of any change in ownership, designation of a new engineer, or change in the status of the developer within thirty (30) days of said change. GCS. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "applicant" shall include the applicant and any other persons, corporation, or other entity making use of this grant. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santa Clarita, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this project by the City, including any related environmental approvals. In the event the City becomes aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the City shall promptly notify the applicant. If the City fails to notify the applicant or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. Nothing contained in this condition prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, if both of the following Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 2 of 25 June 6, 2017 occur: 1) the City bears its own attorneys' fees and costs; and 2) the City defends the action in good faith. The applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement is approved by the applicant. GC6. The property shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approvals granted by the City. Any modifications shall be subject to further review by the City. GC7. The applicant and property owner shall comply with all inspections requirements as deemed necessary by the City of Santa Clarita. GCB. The owner, at the time of issuance of permits or other grants of approval, agrees to develop the property in accordance with City codes and other appropriate ordinances including, but not limited to, the California Building Code (Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, Green Building, and Energy Codes), Fire Code, Unified Development Code (Grading Code and Undergrounding of the Utilities Ordinance), Utilities Code (Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance), and Highway Permit Ordinance. GC9. This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant has filed their affidavit (Acceptance Form) with the Director of Community Development stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all of the conditions of this grant. GC 10. Details shown on the site plan are not necessarily approved. Any details which are inconsistent with the requirements of state or local ordinances, general Conditions of Approval, or City policies, and not modified by this permit, must be specifically approved. GC 11. It is hereby declared and made a condition of this permit that if any condition hereof is violated, or if any law, statute, or ordinance is violated, the City may commence proceedings to revoke this approval. PLANNING DIVISION PLI. The applicant is approved for the following entitlements for the Sand Canyon Mixed Use Project associated with Master Case 14-077: a. Tentative Tract Map 53074; b. Conditional Use Permit 14-014; c. Ridgeline Alteration Permit 14-001; d. Hillside Review 14-001; e. Minor Use Permit 14-016; and f. Oak Tree Permit 14-008. PL2. The project shall include a maximum of 580 residential units, 60,000 square feet of restaurant and commercial space, and an 85,000 square -foot assisted living facility with up to 140 beds. Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 3 of 25 June 6, 2017 PL3. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) prepared for the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) prepared for the project (SCH 2015051005). PL4. The applicant shall construct the commercial portion of the mixed use project prior to occupancy of the 2901h residential unit unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development. PL5. The parking structure and water feature in Planning Area 1 shall be substantially consistent with the approved site plan. Removing these features will be subject to the Planning Commission approval of a Development Review application. PL6. The applicant shall have approval to construct the 580 residential units within the Planning Areas with the following breakdown: a. Planning Area 2: 312 apartment units b. Planning Area 3: 149 townhome units c. Planning Area 4: 75 single-family units d. Planning Area 5: 48 single-family units Subject to the approval of a Development Review by the Director of Community Development, the applicant may shift up to 20 percent of the units between Planning Area 2 and Planning Area 3. At no time shall the total number of units exceed 580 units. PL7. Development of each of the five planning areas (including the parking structure) shall be subject to the approval of a Development Review, subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. PL7. The applicant shall install berming along the eastern portions of Planning Area 5 to provide a visual buffer to existing residences to the east of the project site. PL8. The applicant shall orient the apartment buildings within Planning Area 2 to reduce noise impacts to the existing residences to the west of the project site. This may include positioning buildings parallel to the Sand Canyon frontage to provide a buffer between the parking areas and the residences. In addition, the applicant shall include a mixture of 24 -inch, 36 -inch, and 48 -inch box trees along the western property line of the project site to further buffer noise and views to residences to the west. PL9. All lighting shall be directed down and shielded from neighboring uses. The applicant shall prepare a photometric study for review and approval with each Development Review application for each planning area that demonstrates that no light will spill over property lines. PL10. Pedestrian connections shall be provided throughout the development. A final pedestrian plan shall be submitted for each planning area to ensure connections to the adjacent planning areas, recreational facilities, the on-site private park, the commercial portion of the project, as well as the assisted living portion of the project. The applicant shall further Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 4 of 25 June 6, 2017 connect all pedestrian paths to the trail system along the project frontage, transit stops along the project frontage, as well as the City's sidewalk system along the project frontage. PL11. The architecture of the proposed facility shall be consistent with the Community Character and Design Guidelines (CCDG) for the Valencia community. The applicant shall provide elevations that incorporate 360 -degree architecture that complies with the CCDG. A copy of the CCDG can be found at http://www.santa-clarita.com/planning. PL12. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened from public view. PL13. The proposed project shall comply with all applicable sections of the Unified Development Code (UDC) PL14. All drive aisles shall be a minimum of 26 feet in width unless required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department PL15. The applicant shall provide shaded employee break areas within the commercial portions of the project. PL16. All ground -mounted mechanical equipment shall be identified on the site plan and screened from view. PL 17. All utility connections shall be designed to coordinate with the architectural elements of the building. Power lines and over -head cables less than (34) KV shall be installed underground. PL 18. The applicant shall landscape a minimum of 10 percent of the project site, with 5 percent of the parking lot being landscaped. PL19. No signage is included within this approval and is subject to a separate permit. The applicant shall provide a sign program prior to the installation of signs on the project site. PL20. The project, and all construction related activity associated with the project, shall comply with UDC Section 11.44.040, the City of Santa Clarita Noise Ordinance. Landscape Conditions LR1. Prior to issuance of grading permit(s) the applicant shall provide final landscape, lighting and irrigation plans (Landscape Document Package) for Planning Division review and approval. The plan must be prepared by a California -registered landscape architect and shall be designed with the plant palette suitable for Santa Clarita (Sunset Western Garden Book Zone 18, minimum winter night temperatures typically 20° to 30° F; maximum summer high temperatures typically 105° F to 110° F). The landscape design plan shall meet the design criteria of the State Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance as well as all other current Municipal Code / Unified Development Code requirements. Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 5 of 25 June 6, 2017 LR2. The applicant shall be aware that additional fees will be required to be paid by the applicant for the review of required landscape and irrigation plans by the City's landscape consultant based on an hourly rate. An invoice will be provided to the applicant at the completion of the review of the plans. The applicant will be required to pay all associated fees to the City of Santa Clarita prior to the release of the approved landscape and irrigation plans for the project. LR3. Required Landscape Plan Elements. Final landscape plans shall contain all elements as listed in the checklist for preliminary landscape plans (Attachment `A'), and shall conform to the Landscaping and Irrigation Standards (§17.51.030) in the Unified Development Code. The following elements need to be addressed on the preliminary and/or final landscape plans: (a) Landscape plans shall show plant material to screen at maturity all trash enclosures, transformer boxes, vault boxes, backflow devices, and other exterior mechanical equipment. Screening material may include trees, shrubs (15 gallon minimum size), clinging vines, etc. Masonry block (concrete masonry unit) trash enclosures shall be screened with both shrubs and clinging vines; (b) Landscape plans shall show all lighting fixtures, base dimensions, and typical finish elevations; (c) The applicant shall place water -conserving mulching material on all exposed soil in planting areas not covered by turfgrass. Mulching material may include, and is not limited to, shredded bark, river rock, crushed rock, pea gravel, etc., and must be at least two (2) inches deep; (d) Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall install all proposed irrigation and landscape, including irrigation controllers, staking, mulching, etc., to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. The Director may impose inspection fees for more than one landscape installation inspection; and (e) Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall submit to the Director of Community Development a letter from the project landscape architect certifying that all landscape materials and irrigation have been installed and function according to the approved landscape plans. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION General Comments BS1. Construction drawings for this project shall be prepared and submitted to the Building and Safety Division for plan review and building permit issuance. Supporting documents; such as structural and energy calculations, and geotechnical reports shall be included in the plan submittal package. BS2. Construction drawings submitted for plan review shall show full compliance with all applicable local, county, state and federal requirements and codes. Plan review will be based on the following current state building codes: The 2016 California Building (CBC), Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 6 of 25 June 6, 2017 Mechanical (CMC), Plumbing (CPC), and Electrical (CEC) Codes, the 2017 County of Los Angeles Fire Code, 2016 California Energy Code, and the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code. BS3. Construction drawings submitted to Building and Safety for plan review shall be complete. Submitted plans shall show all Architectural work (including accessibility requirements), along with all Structural, Mechanical, Plumbing, and Electrical work that will be part of this project. Civil, landscape and other plans not related to the building code are not reviewed by the Building and Safety Division. BS4. Construction drawings shall be prepared by qualified licensed design professionals (California licensed architects and engineers). Incomplete plans or plans prepared by unqualified individuals will delay the plan review and permit process. BS5. The City of Santa Clarita has amended some portions of the California Building Codes. A copy of these amendments is available at the Building and Safety public counter and on our website at: hLp://www.santa-clarita.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=l 3248. BS6. Plans may be submitted electronically using our ePLANS system. For more information about ePLANS, please visit: htt://www.santa-clarita.com/cit -hall/de artments/ ublic- works/building-safet�/eplans. BST The submitted plans to building and safety shall have a Building Code Analysis and floor area justification for each building containing the following minimum information: types of construction, occupancy groups, occupant loads, any area increases from frontage and/or fire sprinklers, height of building, number of stories, summary of any fire rated walls, occupancy and all other related data. BS8. The submitted site plan shall show all lot lines, easements, fire separation distances, restricted use areas, etc. Any construction proposed in an easement shall obtain the easement holder's written permission. BS9. Clean Air, Van Pool, and Electric Vehicle parking spaces (including future EV Charging Stations) shall be provided within the parking areas for new commercial buildings per the California Green Building Standards Code. In proposed parking areas, 8% of the total provided parking spaces, shall be designated as clean air vehicle parking spaces. BS10. Electric Vehicle Charging Spaces (future EV Charging Stations) shall be provided within parking facilities for new commercial buildings per the California Green Building Standards Code. The submitted plans shall show the size, location and infrastructure of the future EV charging stations. Some EV Charging Stations shall be sized to be accessible and located on as accessible route to the building entrance per CBC sections 1113-228.3 and 1113-812. For multi -building projects, such EV Charging Stations shall be dispersed based on the parking spaces provided for each building/facility. EV charging spaces for the residential portions of the project shall comply with section 4.106.4 of the California Green Building Standards Code. Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 7 of 25 June 6, 2017 BSI I. Bicycle parking (both short-term and long-term) shall be provided for the commercial portions of the project, based on 5% of the total vehicle parking spaces per the California Green Building Standards Code. BS12. For an estimate of the building permit fees and the estimated time for plan review, please contact the Building and Safety Division directly at 661-255-4935. BS13. Prior to submitting plans to Building and Safety for plan review, please contact Deanna Hamrick or Racheal Allen, at (661) 255-4935, for project addressing. Clearances BS14. Prior to issuance of building permits, clearances from the following agencies will be required: • Santa Clarita Planning Division, • Santa Clarita Engineering Services, • Santa Clarita Environmental Services (Construction & Demolition Plan deposit), • Los Angeles County Fire Prevention Bureau, • Los Angeles County Environmental Services (Health Dept. for food service & sales), • Los Angeles County Environmental Programs (Industrial Waste), • Los Angeles County Sanitation District, • Castaic Lake Water Agency, • William S. Hart School District and appropriate elementary school district, • Santa Clarita Urban Forestry Division (for construction near Oak Trees) • An agency referral list with contact information is available at the Building and Safety public counter. Please contact the agencies above to determine if there are any plan review requirements and/or fees to be paid. Clearances from additional agencies may be required and will be determined during the plan review process. BS15. Accessibility (disabled access) requirements for the commercial portions of the project shall comply with Chapter 11 B of the California Building Code, shall be shown and detailed on the plans. General requirements include but not limited to the following: 1. The plans shall clearly show all areas that are usable by the public and employees to be fully accessible. 2. An accessible route shall be provided between all building entrances, the accessible parking spaces (including an EV charging space) and the public sidewalk. 3. All disable access requirements, including site accessibility information and details, shall be shown on the architectural plans (vs the civil plans). BS16. Accessibility (disabled access) requirements for the residential portions of the project shall comply with Chapter IIA of the California Building Code, shall be shown and detailed on the plans. General requirements include but not limited to the following: Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 8 of 25 June 6, 2017 1. All multi -family residential buildings (ground -floor dwelling units and all dwelling units in buildings with elevators) shall be accessible and comply with the Housing Accessibility requirements per CBC Chapter I IA. 2. All common use areas in multi -family residential buildings such as lobbies, laundry facilities, community rooms, clubhouse, swimming pools, fitness rooms, elevator, interior and exterior routes of travel, etc. shall be fully accessible for the disabled per CBC Chapter I IA. 3. Accessible parking spaces shall be provided for each type of parking facility; including garages, carports, assigned and unassigned parking, and guest/visitor parking. BS17. Covered Multifamily residential projects shall also follow all accessibility regulations including federal requirements that may be more restrictive. Please refer to the following: 1. Fair Housing Act (FHA) Design Manual (over 300 pages). 2. Joint Statement of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued April 30, 2013 (www.hud.gov). FHA, HUD and DOJ regulations are not enforced by the local building and safety jurisdictions but are the responsibility of the designer, architect, owner and developer of the project. Soils Reports and Grading BS18. A complete soils and geology investigation report will be required for this project. The report shall be formally submitted to the Engineering Services Division for review and approval. The recommendations of the report shall be followed and incorporated into the plans for the project. A copy of the report shall be submitted to Building & Safety at time of plan submittal. When the soils/geology report recommends grading and/or recompaction, the following shall be completed prior to issuance of building permits: 1. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Services Division and all rough grading and/or re -compaction shall be completed. 2. A final compaction report and a Pad Certification shall be submitted to and approved by the Engineering Services Division.. BS19. The footings for all new buildings, additions and other structures, including retaining walls and fences, shall be setback from any adjacent ascending or descending slopes. See section 1808.7 CBC and/or the Slope Setback handout. Hazard Zones BS20. The project is located within the City's Fire Hazard Zone. New buildings shall comply with the California Building Code Chapter 7A: MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS FOR EXTERIOR WILDFIRE EXPOSURE. A summary of these requirements are available at the Building and Safety's public counter or visit: Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 9 of 25 June 6, 2017 http://www.santa-clarita.com/home/showdocument?id=10685. The submitted plans to Building & Safety shall show all Fire Zone requirements. BS21. The site for this project is NOT located within the FEMA Flood Zone. Assisted Living Facilities BS22. Residential assisted living facilities with personal care services, shall comply with all requirements for a Group R-2.1 Occupancy, including the additional detailed requirements of CBC Section 420. Licensed 24 -Hour Care Facilities in a Group R-2.1 Occupancy shall comply with the Special Provisions of CBC Section 435. Additional Information BS23. Each separate detached structure, such as trash enclosures, fences, retaining walls, shade structures require separate applications and building permits. These other structures need not be on separate plans, but may be part of the same plans for the main project. BS24. Additional comments and more detailed building code requirements will be listed during the plan review process. ENGINEERING DIVISION General Requirements EN1. Prior to Grading Plan approval, the applicant shall submit a storm drain exhibit that clearly shows and labels the maintenance responsibility of all storm drain reaches. In addition, all necessary storm drain easements shall be shown and labeled on the exhibit. EN2. Prior to Grading Plan approval, the applicant shall obtain approval of a drainage concept study for the proposed public storm drain system from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Land Development Division. EN3. Prior to Grading Plan approval, the applicant shall submit a sewer area study for review and approval. Any downstream sewer upgrades required by the study shall be shown on the Plan. EN4. Prior to Grading Plan approval, the applicant shall provide an exhibit that clearly shows and labels the maintenance responsibility of all slopes, basins, and open space areas. ENS. Prior to issuance of first building permit, the applicant shall establish a Property/Home Owners' Association (POA/HOA), or similar entity, to ensure the continued maintenance of all shared/common lots and drainage devices not transferable to the County Flood Control District. Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 10 of 25 June 6, 2017 EN6. Prior to Tract Map approval, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Engineer and the City Attorney for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for this development. The applicant shall reimburse the City for the City Attorney's review and approval fee. The CC&Rs shall: A. Include a disclosure to comply with the Geologist's recommendations in the Geology Report concerning restrictions on watering, irrigation, and recommend plant types. B. Grant the City the authority to review and approve/disapprove amendments (including dissolution) of the CC&Rs or the association. C. Grant the City the right (though not the obligation) to enforce the CC&Rs (at a minimum those provisions related to City -required items). EN7. Prior to first building permit, the applicant shall record the approved CC&Rs with the Los Angeles County Recorder's office. EN8. Prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall establish a Property/Home Owners' Association (POA/HOA), or similar entity, to ensure the continued maintenance of all shared/common lots and drainage devices not transferable to the County Flood Control District. EN9. Prior to first certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall transfer ownership of open space lots to the HOA. The grant deed shall be submitted to Engineering Services for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to Final Map Approval. Grading, Drainage & Geology Requirements EN10. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall submit a grading plan consistent with the approved Plan, oak tree report, and conditions of approval. The grading plan shall be based on a detailed engineering geotechnical report specifically approved by the geologist and/or soils engineer that addresses all submitted recommendations. EN11. Prior to grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a notarized Letter of Permission for grading outside of the property lines/tract boundary from the adjacent property owner(s). EN12. Prior to issuance of grading permits within their respective jurisdiction, the applicant shall acquire applicable permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game, and the Regional Water Control Board. A copy of the permits, or a response letter from each agency indicating a permit is not required, shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of grading permits. EN13. Prior to the issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall obtain approval and connection permit from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Land Development Division to connect the on-site storm drain system to a public storm drain system. EN14. Prior to the City's release of any bond monies posted for the construction of storm drain infrastructure, the applicant or subsequent property owners shall be responsible for Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page I1 of 25 June 6, 2017 providing all required materials and documentation to complete the storm drain transfer process from the City of Santa Clarita to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. The applicant or subsequent property owners shall also be responsible for providing regularly scheduled maintenance of the storm drain infrastructure, as directed by the City Engineer, until such time that full maintenance is assumed by the Flood Control District. EN15. Prior to recordation of the Tract Map, the applicant shall form an assessment district to finance the future ongoing maintenance and capital replacement of SUSMP devices/systems identified on the latest approved Drainage Concept/Storm drain plan/Plan. The applicant shall cooperate fully with the City in the formation of the assessment district, including, without limitation, the preparation of the operation, maintenance, and capital replacement plan for the SUSMP devices/systems and the prompt submittal of this information to City for review and approval. The applicant shall pay for all costs associated with the formation of the assessment district. SUSMP devices/systems shall include but are not limited to catch basin inserts, debris excluders, biotreatment basins, vortex separation type systems, and other devices/systems for stormwater quality. The applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance of all SUSMP devices/systems until the district has been established EN16. This project is a development planning priority project under the City's NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit as a development with 10 or more dwelling units. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the applicant shall have approved by the City Engineer, an Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (USMP) that incorporates appropriate post construction Best Management Practices (BMPs), maximizes pervious surfaces, and includes infiltration into the design of the project. Refer to the County of Los Angeles Low Impact Development Manual, and the City's LID Ordinance for details. EN17. This project will disturb one acre or more of land. Therefore the applicant must obtain coverage under a statewide General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit (General Permit). In accordance with the General Permit, the applicant shall file with the State a Notice of Intent (NOI) for the proposed project. Prior to issuance of grading permit by the City, the applicant shall have approved by the City Engineer a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP shall include a copy of the NOI and shall reference the corresponding Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number issued by the State upon receipt of the NOI. Street Improvement Requirements EN18. Prior to any construction (including, but not limited to, drive approaches, sidewalks, curb and gutter, etc.), trenching or grading within public or private street right-of-way, the applicant shall submit a street improvement plan consistent with the approved Plan, oak tree report, and conditions of approval; and obtain encroachment permits from the Engineering Division. Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 12 of 25 June 6, 2017 EN19. Prior to building final, all new and existing power lines and overhead cables less than 34 KV within or fronting the project site (including alleys) shall be installed underground. EN20. The property boundaries of the site abut the State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans) jurisdiction. Encroachments into Caltrans jurisdiction shall be permitted by Caltrans prior to issuance of any building permits by the City. EN21. Prior to street plan approval, the applicant shall submit a street tree location plan to the City's Urban Forestry Division for review and approval. The location of the street trees shall not conflict with sewer or storm drain infrastructure. The plan shall include proposed sewer lateral locations and storm drain infrastructure for reference. EN22. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall construct street pavement per either of the following options. Prior to street plan approval, the selected option shall be indicated on the plan. A. The applicant shall construct the full pavement section including the final lift of asphalt to finish grade in conformance with the design TI. Prior to building final, the applicant shall refurbish the pavement to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. B. The applicant shall construct a pavement section that is a minimum of 11/2" lower than finish grade, in conformance with the design TI. Prior to building final, the applicant shall refurbish the pavement, and complete the final lift of asphalt to meet finish grade to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN23. Prior to first building final, the applicant shall construct the following street imvrovements along the frontage of the nroiect site- as directed by the City F.ncrineer- Street Name Inverted Curb & Base & Street Street Sidewalk Landscaped A Street Shoulder Gutter Paving Lights Trees (5'min) Median Soledad Canyon Road X X X X X X Sand Canyon Road X X X X X X EN24. Prior to building final for each phase, the applicant shall construct full street immovernertts within the nroiect site. as directed by the Citv Engineer - Street Name Inverted Shoulder Curb & Gutter Base & Paving Street Li hts Street Trees Sidewalk (5'min Landscaped Median A Street X X X X X B Street X X X X X C Street X X X X X D Street X X X X X E Street X X X X X Sewer Improvement Requirements EN25. The on-site sewer shall be a publicly maintained sewer, Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 13 of 25 June 6, 2017 EN26. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall annex the property into the County Sanitation District. The applicant shall provide the City's Building & Safety Division with written confirmation from the Sanitation District that the property has been annexed. EN27. Prior to issuance of building permits, the proposed building(s) shall be connected to the existing sewer main in Sand Canyon Road (PC 10434). EN28. Prior to sewer plan approval, the applicant shall provide a sewer area study in accordance with City policies for review and approval by the City Engineer. EN29. Prior to building final, the applicant shall construct all sewer upgrades per the approved sewer area study, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DIVISION TE 1. Adequate sight visibility is required at all intersections (street -street intersections or driveway -street intersections) and shall follow the latest Caltrans manual for applicable requirements. Adequate sight visibility (including corner sight visibility) shall be demonstrated on the final map and grading plan. All necessary easements for this purpose shall be recorded with the final map. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TE2. All private driveways and streets shall intersect at 90 degrees or as close to 90 degrees as topography permits (no less than 80 degrees). This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TE3. The location, width and depth of all project driveways and drive aisles shall conform to the approved site plan. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. No additional driveways shall be permitted. TE4. No access will be permitted within curb return. This shall be included as a note on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TES. Minimum width of all interior driveways shall be 26 feet and shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TE6. Any dead-end drive aisles serving more than one unit shall extend a minimum of 5' beyond the edge of the last driveway or have turn -around area to facilitate vehicular movements. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. Parking stalls are not permitted at the end of any dead-end drive aisles. TE7. Prior to street plan approval, the applicant shall show on the street plan drive approaches using a modified commercial driveway design (APWA 110-2, Type C or equivalent) that Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 14 of 25 June 6, 2017 will provide a street/drive approach transition with a maximum algebraic grade difference of 10%. Construction details shall be shown on the street plan providing a transition no greater than this maximum. TE8. Prior to issuance of the first building occupancy permit, the applicant shall post "No Parking—Fire Lane" signs along all private streets and driveways with a curb -to -curb width of less than 34 feet and serving more than one unit. This shall be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TE9. Prior to issuance of the first building occupancy permit, the applicant shall obtain approval from the L.A. County Fire Department for any private street and driveway sections. TE 10. Prior to issuance of first building permit, the applicant shall acquire and dedicate to the City the right-of-way required for all street improvements as identified in the Traffic Study and all subsequent revisions / additions / addenda, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. TE 11. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall dedicate additional street right- of-way along Sand Canyon Road for a total of 92 feet within the project site, as directed by the City Engineer. TE 12. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall dedicate additional street right- of-way along Soledad Canyon Road for a total of 116 feet within the project site, as directed by the City Engineer. TE13. Prior to issuance of first building occupancy permit, Sand Canyon Road, along the project frontage, shall be improved to include a Class II bicycle lane and one vehicular travel lane in each direction, and a meandering 12 -foot paseo within a 24 - foot landscaped parkway along the east side (project side). TE14. Per the Caltrans comment letter (April 17, 2017) on the Draft EIR, prior to completion of the Caltrans Mitigation Agreement, the applicant shall complete a traffic study for the operation of the off- and on-ramp for SR -14, east of Soledad Canyon Road, especially for the movement and queue analysis of the westbound left - turn phasing from Soledad Canyon Road onto the SR -14 on-ramp. This traffic study shall also include the adjacent intersection of Soledad Canyon Road and Sand Canyon Road. If any improvements to either intersection are required as a result of this study, these improvements shall be completed prior to the 100th certificate of occupancy for the residential component or equivalent trip generation. TE 15. Prior to issuance of the first building occupancy permit, the applicant shall pay a traffic - signal timing fee for the update of the traffic -signal timing at up to ten intersections in the surrounding area. The cost is $4,000 per intersection ($40,000 total). This fee shall be used to improve traffic flow and minimize traffic congestion along the corridors impacted Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 15 of 25 June 6, 2017 by project -related traffic, through traffic signal retiming and related infrastructure improvements. TE 16. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay the applicable Bridge and Thoroughfare (B&T) District Fee to implement the Circulation Element of the General Plan as a means of mitigating the traffic impact of this project. This project is located in the Eastside B&T District. The current rate for this District is $18,910. The B&T rate is subject to change and is based on the rate at the time of payment. Standard B&T Fee Calculation: Commercial = the gross acres (9.6) x the district rate ($18,910) x 5.0 _ $907,680 until June 30, 2017 Townhouse = the number of units (580) x the district rate ($18,910) x 0.8 _ $8,774,240 until June 30, 2017 Mobile Home = the number of units (123) x the district rate ($18,910) x 0.5 _ $1,162,965 (credit) until June 30, 2017 Total B&T = $907,680 + $8,774,240 - $1,162,965 = $8,518,955 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION ES 1. For the commercial portion of the project: Provide sufficient trash enclosures to house at least six 3 -yard bins. Three of the bins should be reserved for recyclable materials only. This requirement is subject to change once more information on the project is provided. In addition, space should be added for organics/food waste recycling bins per A131826. More information is needed to determine what is necessary to meet these requirements. Please contact Environmental Services to discuss. ES2. For the assisted living portion of the project: Please provide sufficient trash enclosures to house at least eighteen 3 -yard bins. Nine of the bins should be reserved for recyclable materials only. This requirement is subject to change once more information on the project is provided. In addition, space should be added for organics/food waste recycling bins per A131826. More information is needed to determine what is necessary to meet these requirements. Please contact Environmental Services to discuss. ES3. The enclosure(s) should be shown on the site plan with dimensions, consistent with the surrounding architecture and shall be constructed with a solid roof. The enclosure(s) shall be located to provide convenient pedestrian and collection vehicle access. (You may place the containers in the underground parking structure if a minimum of 20 feet overhead clearance is provided to allow collection vehicles the ability to enter the parking area and service the container(s).) Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 16 of 25 June 6, 2017 ES4. For the residential portion of the project: All single family residential dwellings shall be designed with space provided (out of public view) for three 90 -gallon trash carts, one each for trash, recycling, and greenwaste. ESS. All demolition projects regardless of valuation, all renovation or improvement projects valuated greater than $100,000, and all new construction projects valuated greater than $500,000 must comply with the City's Construction and Demolition Materials (C&D) Recycling Ordinance. ES6. C&D Materials Recycling Ordinance: • A Construction and Demolition Materials Management Plan (C&DMMP) must be prepared and approved by the Environmental Services Division prior to obtaining any grading or building permits. • A minimum of 50% of the entire project's inert (dirt, rock, bricks, etc.) waste and 50% of the remaining C&D waste must be recycled or reused rather than disposing in a landfill. • A deposit of 3% of the estimated total project cost or $25,000, whichever is less, is required. The full deposit will be returned to the applicant upon proving that 50% of the inert and remaining C&D waste was recycled or reused. ES7. Per the California Green Building Standards Code, 100 percent of trees, stumps, rocks and associated vegetation and soils resulting primarily from land clearing shall be reused or recycled. For a phased project, such material may be stockpiled on site until the storage site is developed. ESB. All projects within the City that are not self -hauling their waste materials must use one of the City's franchised haulers for temporary and roll -off bin collection services. Please contact Environmental Services staff at 661-286-4098 for a complete list of franchised haulers in the City. SPECIAL DISTRICTS DIVISION Landscape Maintenance District SD 1. This parcel is located within Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) Zone 2008-1, which was established to fund the construction and maintenance of landscaped medians on major thoroughfares throughout the City of Santa Clarita. Applicant is required to financially contribute to Zone 2008-1 in a manner reflective of this LMD zone's assessment methodology. SD2. No on-site private property landscaping shall be maintained by the Landscape Maintenance District (LMD). SD3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall form a local Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) under the 1972 Act for the ongoing funding of required Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 17 of 25 June 6, 2017 maintenance and improvement of landscaping, street trees, irrigation, and monument signage on the perimeter of the project, abutting Sand Canyon and Soledad Canyon Roads. SD4. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall, at their sole expense, relocate or remove and re- install the existing monument sign in a prominent location in the vicinity of the existing easement that has been granted to the City of Santa Clarita. The monument sign and surrounding landscaping shall be approved by the LMD prior to issuance of a grading permit. The applicant shall grant an easement for landscape maintenance purposes to the City of Santa Clarita for any areas to be maintained by the LMD that are not within the public right of way. Urban Forestry SDS. Upon formal submittal, the applicant shall be required to install street trees within the public right of way. Tree species shall be approved by the City Urban Forestry. SD6. The applicant shall be required to install and maintain irrigation to all trees planted within the public right of way. Irrigation to trees shall be bubbler type irrigation only. SD7. All trees shall be planted according to the City of Santa Clarita tree planting and staking detail sheet and/or the American Public Works Association (APWA) standard plans for Public Works construction (Section 5,520-3) SD8. Parkway trees shall be a minimum 24" inch box. SD9. All trees shall be placed a minimum of 5' feet from any underground utilities. Streetlight Maintenance District SD10. Five of the parcels in this project have been annexed into the City's Streetlight Maintenance District (SMD). The applicant will work with the Special Districts Office to determine how many contiguous parcels they own that remain to be annexed. SDI 1. The applicant shall annex the remaining parcels into the SMD to fund the operations and maintenance of street lights and traffic signals. • Following the completed annexation, the annual SMD assessment will be included on the property tax bill. The current assessment, for FY 16/17, is $77.34 per Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU). • EBU's are based on land use (table attached). Vacant/unimproved parcels are not assessed. • A minimum of 120 days is required to process the annexation, which must be completed prior to final map approval, grading or building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. Oak Trees Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 18 of 25 June 6, 2017 OT1. The project site has a total of three (3) protected oak trees, one (1) of which is Heritage size, Oak Tree Number 2. The other two (2) oaks are of non -heritage size and are proposed for removal due to grading and development requirements of the project. The proposed oak removals include Oak Tree Number 1, and Oak Tree Number 3. OT2. The applicant is approved to remove two (2) Coast Live Oaks as documented in the submitted oak tree reports dated February 9, 2016 and the addendum dated January 5, 2017, by Kerry Norman of Arbor Essence. a. The approved oak tree removals include Oak Tree Number 1 and Oak Tree Number 3. b. Collectively these two (2) oaks have an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) appraised tree values of $43,400. c. The project/applicant is required to mitigate with approved replacement oak trees within the project site equal to the ISA appraised monetary value of $43,400 for the two (2) oak tree removals. Approved Oak Tree Removals: OT3. The applicant is required to bond for the entire ISA Dollar Value of all oak trees proposed for removal and/or relocation prior to issuance of grading permit. The bond will remain in place for the entire mitigation period. Upon successful completion of the three (3) year mitigation, the applicant may request bond exoneration OT4. The applicant is approved to remove: a. Oak Tree Number 1 which has an ISA value of $33,200. i. Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) ii. Four trunks measuring 22", 15", 13" and 5" in diameter. b. Oak Tree Number 3 with an ISA value of $10,200. iii. Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) iv. Four trunks measuring 5", 8", 11" and 11" in diameter. c. Collectively these approved oak removals equal $43,400. Oak Tree Preservation and Protection: OTS. Oak Tree Number 2 — SHALL NOT BE REMOVED OR ENCROACHED UPON. This Heritage oak has an ISA value of $53,300 and shall be protected at all times throughout development. Oak tree encroachments are permitted into the protected zone as shown on the approved site plan, and in accordance with the Oak Tree Specialist. a. Additionally this oak shall be protected with temporary chain link fencing five feet tall installed at the oak tree protected zone, five feet beyond the drip line, prior to any construction activities, including but not limited to, demolition, grading, excavation, or construction. Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 19 of 25 June 6, 2017 b. This oak shall be monitored by the project arborist every 60-90 days depending on construction activities and condition of tree. c. Oak Tree Monitoring shall continue for an additional three years after the last certificate of occupancy for the project. d. Supplemental oak tree monitoring reports shall be submitted electronically to the City Oak Tree Specialist at rsartaingsanta-clarita.com. e. The applicant may be required to provide additional preservation measures to ensure the preservation of the oak tree and may include mulching, watering, and pest control. Oak Tree Mitigation Plan: OT6. The applicant is required to submit an Oak Tree Mitigation Plan for the replacement oaks trees to be planted within the project site. The Oak Tree Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to the City Planning Division and the City Oak Tree Specialist prior to Grading Permit Approval. a. The oak tree mitigation and replacement plan shall equal the removed ISA tree value of $43,400. b. The oak tree mitigation plan shall include the location of all the proposed oak tree replacements, including the quantity, size, cost, placement and species, of boxed trees. c. The oak tree mitigation site plan shall have a summary table/legend with the quantity, type, value/cost and size of the replacement oaks. d. The Oak Tree Mitigation Plan shall be an independent and separate plan from the Landscape Plan. (The Mitigation Oaks shall also be shown on the Landscape Plan). e. All replacement mitigation oaks shall be native Coast Live Oaks, unless otherwise approved by the City. f. The project is encouraged to locate the replacement mitigation oaks in highly visible prominent locations such as round -a -bouts, large parkways, parks, open space and landscape areas. g. All mitigation oaks shall have some form of permanent irrigation approved by the City. However spray or rain -bird type irrigation will not be accepted. OT7. All mitigation oaks are required to be monitored by the project arborist on behalf of the developer for a minimum of three (3) years or until sufficiently established. Monitoring shall consist of intervals of 3 -month, six-month or annual depending on health and condition of mitigation oaks. Monitoring reports shall be submitted electronically to the City Oak Tree Specialist. OT8. All mitigation oaks that do not live or become sufficiently established shall be replaced and the monitoring continued until adequate establishment. OT9. Applicant shall comply with the City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Ordinance and Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines at all times throughout the completion of the project. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 20 of 25 June 6, 2017 FD 1. The proposed development may necessitate multiple ingress/egress access for the circulation of traffic an emergency response issues. FD2. The development of this project must comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants. FD3. Specific fire and life safety requirements for the construction phase will be addressed at the building fire plan check. There may be additional fire and life safety requirements during this time. FD4. Every building constructed shall be accessible to Fire Department apparatus by way of access roadways with an all-weather surface of not less than the prescribed width. The roadway shall be extended to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls when measured by an unobstructed route around the exterior of the building. FD5. When involved with subdivision in a city contracting fire protection with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Fire Department requirements for access, fire flows, and hydrants are addressed during the subdivision map stage. FD6, Fire Department requirements for access, fire flows, and hydrants are addressed during the building permit stage. FD7. Fire sprinkler systems are required in some residential and most commercial occupancies. For those occupancies not requiring fire sprinkler systems it is strongly suggested that fire sprinkler systems be installed. This will reduce potential fire and life losses. Systems are now technically and economically feasible for residential use. FD8. The development may require fire flows up to 8,000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for up to a four hour duration as outlined in the 2016 County of Los Angeles Code Appendix B. Final fire flows will be based on the size of buildings, its relationship to other structures, property lines, and types of construction used. FD9. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet and shall meet the following requirements: a. No portion of lot frontage shall be more than 200 feet via vehicular access form a public fire hydrant. b. No portion of a building shall exceed 400 feet via vehicular access from a properly spaced public fire hydrant. c. Additional hydrants will be required if hydrant spacing exceeds specified distances. d. When cul-de-sac depth exceeds 200 feet on a commercial street, hydrants shall be required at the corner and mid -block. e. A cul-de-sac shall not be more than 500 feet in length when serving land zoned for commercial use. FD10. Turning radii shall not be less than 12 feet, This measurement shall be determined at Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 21 of 25 June 6, 2017 the centerline of the road. A Fire Department approved turning area shall be provided for all driveways exceeding 150 feet in -length and at the end of all cul-de-sacs. FD 11. All on-site driveways/roadways shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet clear -to -sky. The on-site driveway is to be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building. The centerline of the access driveway shall be located parallel to and within 30 feet of an exterior wall on one side of the proposed structure. FD 12. Driveway width for non-residential developments shall be increased when any of the following conditions will exist: a. Provide 34 feet in -width when parallel parking is allowed on one side of the access roadway/driveway. Preference is that such parking is not adjacent to the structure. b. Provide 42 feet in -width when parallel parking is allowed on each side of the access roadway/driveway. c. Any access way less than 34 feet in -width shall be labeled "Fire Lane" on the final recording map and final buildingplans. d. For streets or driveways with parking restrictions: The entrance to the street/driveway and intermittent spacing distances of 150 feet shall be posted with Fire Department approved signs stating, "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE" in three- inch high letters. Driveway labeling is necessary to ensure access for Fire Departmentuse. FD 13. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet and shall meet the following requirements: a. No portion of lot frontage shall be more than 200 feet via vehicular access from a public fire hydrant. b. No portion of a building shall exceed 400 feet via vehicular access from a properly spaced fire hydrant. c. When cul-de-sac depth exceeds 200 feet hydrants will be required at the corner and mid -block. d. Additional hydrants will be required if the hydrant spacing exceeds specified distances. FD14. Turning radii shall not be less than 32 feet. This measurement shall be determined at the centerline of the road. A Fire Department approved turning area shall be provided for all driveways exceeding 150 feet in -length and at the end of all cul-de-sacs. FD15. All on-site driveways shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet clear -to - sky. The 28 foot width does not allow for parking and shall be designated as a "Fire Lane" and have appropriate signage. The centerline of the on-site driveway shall be located parallel to and within 30 feet of an exterior wall on one side of the proposed structure. The on-site driveway is to be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building. FD 16. The 28 feet in -width shall be increasedto: Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 22 of 25 June 6, 2017 a. 34 feet in -width when parallel parking is allowed on one side of the access way. b. 36 feet in -width when parallel parking is allowed on both sides of the access way. c. Any access way less than 34 feet in -width shall be labeled "Fire Lane" on the final recording map and final buildingplans. d. For streets or driveways with parking restrictions: The entrance to the street/driveway and intermittent spacing distances of 150 feet shall be posted with Fire Department approved signs stating, "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE" in three- inch high letters. Driveway labeling is necessary to ensure access for Fire Department use. FD 17. When serving land zoned for residential uses having a density of more than four units per net acre: a. A cul-de-sac shall be a minimum of 34 feet in -width and shall not be more than 700 feet in -length. b. The length of the cul-de-sac may be increased to 1000 feet if a minimum of 36 feet in -width is provided. c. A Fire Department approved turning area shall be provided at the endof a cul-de- sac. FD 18. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 600 feet and shall meet the following requirements: a. No portion of lot frontage shall be more than 450 feet via vehicular access from a public fire hydrant. b. No portion of a structure should be placed on a lot where it exceeds 750 feet via vehicular access from a properly spaced public fire hydrant. c. When cul-de-sac depth exceeds 450 feet on aresidential street, hydrants shall be required at the corner andmid-block. d. Additional hydrants will be required if hydrant spacing exceeds specified distances. FD19. A Fire Department approved turning area shall be provided for all driveways exceeding 150 feet in -length and at the end of all cul-de-sacs. FD20. Fire Department access shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet clear - to -sky and be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any single unit. If exceeding 150 feet provide 20 feet minimum paved width "Private Driveway/Fire Lane" clear -to -sky to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the unit. Fire Lanes serving three or more units shall be increased to 26 feet. FD21. Streets or driveways within the development shall be provided with the following: a. Provide 36 feet in -width on all streets where parking is allowed on both sides. b. Provide 34 feet in -width on cul-de-sacs up to 700 feet in -length. This allows parking on both sides of the street. c. Provide 36 feet in -width on cul-de-sacs from 701 to 1000 feet in -length. This allows parking on both sides of the street. d. For streets or driveways with parking restrictions: The entrance to the street/driveway and intermittent spacing distances of 150 feet shall be posted with Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 23 of 25 June 6, 2017 Fire Department approved signs stating "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE" in three- inch high letters. Driveway labeling is necessary to ensure access for Fire Department use. Turning radii shall not be less than 32 feet. This measurement shall be determined at the centerline of the road. FD22. All access devices and gates shall comply with California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Articles 3.05 and 3.16. FD23. All access devices and gates shall meet the following requirements: a. Any single -gated opening used for ingress and egress shall be a minimum of 26 feet in-widthclear-to-sky. b. Any divided gate opening (when each gate is used for a single direction of travel i.e., ingress or egress) shall be a minimum width of 20 feet clear -to -sky. c. Gates and/or control devices shall be positioned a minimum of 50 feet from a public right-of-way and shall be provided with a turnaround having a minimum of 32 feet of turning radius. If an intercom system is used the 50 feet shall be measured from the right-of-way to the intercom control device. d. All limited access devices shall be of a type approved by the Fire Department. e. Gate plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department prior to installation. These plans shall show all locations, widths, and details of the proposed gates. FD24. All proposals for traffic calming measures (speed humps/bumps/cushions, traffic circles, roundabouts, etc.) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review prior to implementation. FD25. Disruptions to water service shall be coordinated with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department and alternate water sources shall be provided for fire protection during such disruptions. TRANSIT DIVISION T1. There is fixed route bus service between the hours of 4 am and 11 pm on Soledad Canyon daily. T2. At this time the Transit Impact Fee does not apply to commercial/industrial developments. This fee is currently under revision. Applicant shall pay the fee in place at the time of building permit issuance. T3. Applicant shall provide a bus stop/s at the location of: NW corner of Soledad Canyon and "A" Street. T4. Applicant shall construct a pedestrian path from the bus stop/s to the development. T5. Bus stop/s may require additional right of way (ROW) as approved by the City Engineer. Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 24 of 25 June 6, 2017 T6. At the location of the bus stop/s, the applicant shall provide a permanent stylized shelter structure. The bus stop/s shall consist of. a 10'x 25' concrete pad placed behind the sidewalk, a bench, a trash receptacle, and lighting. Proposed shelter structure and all bus stop amenities shall be approved by City Transit staff prior to installation. All specifications and appropriate paperwork shall be supplied to the Transit Division prior to installation. T7. Applicant shall provide a site plan showing amenities within a 100 foot radius of the bus stop/s. This plan shall show the locations of all utility meters, utility structures, landscaping, buildings, pedestrian walkways, and parking spaces. This plan shall also show all other items not listed above located within the 100 foot radius of the bus stop/s. T8. Shelter design, structure and amenities shall be approved by appropriate city staff including Transit, Planning, Building and Safety, and Engineering. All specifications and appropriate paperwork for the bus stop shall be supplied to the Transit Division prior to installation. T9. A color elevations and materials board for the proposed bus shelter shall be supplied to Planning with project submittal. T10. The bus stop/s location shall be a minimum of 100' from the curb return or as specified by city staff. T11. At the location of the bus stop/s, the sidewalk shall meet the street for no less than 25'. T12. The bus stop/s shall comply with all ADA regulations as specified in the most recent version of the California Disabled Accessibility Guidebook (Ca1Dag). Proposed disabled access shall be drawn on all plans. T13. Bus stop/s shall be shown and labeled on the site plan. T14. Prior to occupancy of the first building, the bus stop/s shall be installed to the satisfaction of city staff. PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION PRI. Prior to the recordation of an applicable final tract/parcel map, the applicant shall set the required Park Dedication Fee equal to the value of the amount of land established per the City's General Plan, "Parks and Recreation Element". Private Park credit shall be measured after the Multi -family requirement from UDC 17.57.030 Multifamily Residential Standards, Section G Recreation Facilities has been calculated by the City's Planning Department. The final park dedication fee calculation is attached. There is a variance to the code requiring fees to be paid at Final Map currently in place by City Council authority that allows fees to be paid at Building Permit for each phase. Master Case 14-077 Draft Conditions of Approval Page 25 of 25 June 6, 2017 PR2. The developer shall construct a Class I pedestrian/bike path, on Sand Canyon Road from Soledad Canyon Road north to the extent of the project boundary. The Class I Trail shall be built to City standards. PR3. The developer shall construct a Class II Bike Lane on Soledad Canyon Road. PR4. All interior trails and paseos shall be HOA owned and maintained. PR5. All open space parcels shall be owned and maintained by an HOA or POA. Project Description: Sand Canyon Plaza J J Tractl=#: 53074 14-077 r HDusinp Units Density1 Dwelling 5 Acres "FMV Per 10110 Sub Total 20% Off Site Improvements In Lieu Fee 580 2.940 0.605 $880,000 $7,502,880 $1.500,575 39,003,458 Total Density 1,705 Total Acres due s.52600 Private Park Credit Up to 30% 255780 With Park Credit 5M620 $5,252,0116 $1.050,403 38,302,4113 TOTAL FEES DUE WITH PRIVATE PARK CREDIT= 513,302A W TOTAL FEES DUE WITHOUT CREDIT= $9.003.450 potential Private Park Total Total Max. Crean Estimate Reviewed by: Credit SO. FT. Acres 309: S2.701,037 1 111.419 2LM700 2557eD Date: Jeff Morrison 5/160-017 "The applicant will be required to provide a certified AAAI real estate appraisal to establish the Fair Market Value (FMV)l of an acre A land within this project. te&od of calculation per the City or Santa Claris General Plan - Par►s and Rmeabm Elsr , DU X Population X 5 acres per X "FMV = Subtotal X 1.2 - In Lieu Fee Per DU TODD people Buidable aw_ S:\CD\!PLANNING DIVISION \CURRENT\!2014\14-077 Sand Cyn Plaza\Planning CommissionUune 6\14-077 Draft Conditions.doc CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Planning Commission Study Session Minutes Wednesday, January 18, 2017 3:30 PM Century Room CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m. by Chair Ostrom. W ROLL CALL Z 5 Chair Ostrom, Commissioner Heffernan, and Commissioner Berlin were present. Vice -Chair Burkhart and Commissioner Eichman were absent. O 0 FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Heffernan led the flag salute. a APPROVAL OF AGENDA a A motion was made by Commissioner Berlin and seconded by Commissioner Heffernan, to c approve the agenda. Said motion was approved by a vote of 3-0. �,; ITEM 1 Site Tour for the Sand Canyon Plaza Project (Master Case 14-077) The Commission, staff, and one member of the public toured the proposed Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:59 p.m. ATTEST: PLAN IG OMNIISSION SECRETARY A/'Vy' PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR Packet Pg.5 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA QD PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 21, 2017 6:00 PM City Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chair Ostrom called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair Ostrom, Vice -Chair Burkhart, Commissioner Berlin, Commissioner Eichman, and Commissioner Heffernan were all present. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Heffernan led the flag salute. ELECTION OF OFFICERS A motion was made by Commissioner Eichman and seconded by Commissioner Heffernan to elect Vice -Chair Burkhart as Chairperson. The motion carried by a 5-0 vote. A motion was made by Commissioner Berlin and seconded by Commissioner Ostrom to elect Commissioner Eichman as Vice -Chairperson. The motion carried by a 5-0 vote. COMMISSION SECRETARY ANNOUNCEMENT Kimberly Luepke read the secretary announcement. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A motion was made by Commissioner Berlin and seconded by Commissioner Ostrom to approve the agenda. The motion carried by a 5-0 vote. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Ostrom and seconded by Vice -Chair Eichman to approve the minutes of the January 18, 2017, Study Session. The motion carried by a 5-0 vote. A motion was made by Commissioner Berlin and seconded by Commissioner Heffernan to approve the minutes of the January 18, 2017, Special Meeting. The motion carried by a 5- 0 vote. MINUTE ACTION ITEM 1 MASTER CASE NO. 16-241, COPPER HILL ESTATES TIME EXTENSION The applicant is requesting the approval of Master Case No. 16-241, Time Extension No. 16-010, to extend the life of VTTM 52829 by three years until March 19, 2020. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve by minute action, Master Case No. 16-241, Time Extension No. 16-010, to extend Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) 52829 by three years until March 19, 2020. Assistant Planner II, Vinny Tam, gave the staff report and computer presentation. Commissioner Berlin asked where in the process the applicant was with gaining access from DWP. Simon Dunston, the applicant's representative, responded that they have a tentative approval of the map, but do not have final grading plans yet. A motion was made by Commissioner Ostrom and seconded by Commissioner Eichman to approve by minute action, Master Case No. 16-241, Time Extension No. 16-010, to extend Vesting Tentative Tract Map 52829 by three years until March 19, 2020. A roll call vote was taken and said motion carried by a vote of 5-0. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Dennis Ostrom, Chairperson SECONDER: Lisa Eichman, Commissioner AYES: Heffernan, Eichman, Ostrom, Burkhart, Berlin PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM 2 MASTER CASE NO. 16-214: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-010 & DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 16-024 The applicant, AT&T Mobility, is requesting approval of a CUP and DR to allow for the installation and operation of a wireless communications facility to be located on existing stadium lighting, at the College of the Canyons Cougar Stadium, located at 26455 Rockwell Canyon Road (Assessor Parcel No. 2861-004-902). The proposal also includes a ground level base station that will house ancillary facility equipment. The subject property is located on the College of the Canyons campus, south of Valencia Boulevard, between the I-5 Freeway and Rockwell Canyon Road, and is within the Public/Institutional (PI) zone. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution P17-02, approving Master Case No. 16-214, including Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 16-010 and Development Review (DR) 16-024, to allow for the installation and operation of a wireless Page 2 communications facility (WCF) to be located at 26455 Rockwell Canyon Road (Assessor Parcel No. 2861-004-902), subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). Planning Technician, Mikaela Manion, gave the staff report and computer presentation. Staff answered Commissioner Heffernan's questions about the size of panels and paint colors used on the enclosure. The public hearing was opened at 6:20 p.m. Vance Pomeroy (applicant) spoke in support of the project. There were no written comments. The public hearing was closed at 6:21 p.m. A motion was made by Commisisoner Heffernan and seconded by Commissioner Ostrom to adopt Resolution P 17-02, approving Master Case No. 16-214, including Conditional Use Permit 16-010 and Development Review 16-024, to allow for the installation and operation of a wireless communications facility to be located at 26455 Rockwell Canyon Road, subject to the attached conditions of approval. A roll call vote was taken and said motion carried by, vote of 5-0. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Charles Heffernan, Commissioner SECONDER: Dennis Ostrom, Chairperson AYES: Heffernan, Eichman, Ostrom, Burkhart, Berlin ITEM 3 MASTER CASE 14-077 (SAND CANYON PLAZA MIXED USE PROJECT): TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 53074; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-014; HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 14-001; RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 14-001; MINOR USE PERMIT 14-016; OAK TREE PERMIT 14-008; AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH NO. 2015051005 The applicant is requesting approval of a Tentative Tract Map, Conditional Use Permit, Hillside Development Review, Ridgeline Alteration Permit, Minor Use Permit, and Oak Tree Permit (the "Project") to allow for the construction of a mixed-use project. The Project consists of up to 580 residential dwelling units, 55,600 square feet of retail commercial (including restaurants), and a 75,000 square -foot (up to 120 -bed) assisted living facility. This is the first public hearing for the Project to provide the Planning Commission with a summary of the proposed Project. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission receive staff presentation, receive testimony from the applicant and the public, provide direction to staff on the hearing schedule and project issues, and continue the public hearing to March 21, 2017. Senior Planner, Patrick Leclair, gave the staff report and computer presentation. Page 3 Tom Clark, the applicant, addressed the Commission. Russell Myers, James Robinson, Alan Ferdman, Ashley Guardino, and Allen Cameron spoke in support. Brian Springer spoke in a neutral position. Four written comment cards were received in support and three written comments were neutral. Commissioner Ostrom asked for more visual simulations and had comments about parking. Commissioner Heffernan made comments about the engineering onsite. -Vice-Chair Eichman asked the -applicant about the relocation of the remaining residents. Mr. Clark responded that the residents have been month-to-month and he has worked with them to find places of relocation. Commissioner Berlin asked that pedestrian safety and sidewalk widths are looked at for this project as well as ways for vehicle miles traveled to be reduced. Chair Burkhart would like greater explanation of the Ridgeline Alteration Permit and the Minor Use Permit for the FAR. The Commission made closing comments. A motion was made by Commissioner Berlin and seconded by Commissioner Ostrom to continue to public hearing to March 21, 2017. A roll call vote was taken and said motion carried by a vote of 5-0. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Renee Berlin, Commissioner SECONDER: Dennis Ostrom, Chairperson AYES: Heffernan, Eichman, Ostrom, Burkhart, Berlin PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Jason Crawford, Planning and Economic Development Manager, gave the report. Mr. Crawford informed the Commission of the next meeting on March 21, 2017, followed by the second meeting in April. Mr. Crawford also congratulated Patrick Leclair on his promotion to Senior Planner. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT There were no reports. Page 4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Brett Gaumond spoke representing Greenleaf Processors. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Heffernan and seconded by Commissioner Ostrom to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 7:27 p.m. ATTEST: PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY Page 5 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes Tuesday, March 21, 2017 6:00 PM City Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Vice -Chair Eichman called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Vice -Chair Eichman, Commissioner Berlin, Commissioner Heffernan, and Commissioner Ostrom were present. Chair Burkhart was absent. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Ostrom led the flag salute. COMMISSION SECRETARY ANNOUNCEMENT Kimberly Luepke gave the secretary announcement. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A motion was made by Commissioner Ostrom and seconded by Commissioner Berlin to approve the agenda. The motion carried 4-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Berlin and seconded by Commissioner Ostrom to approve the minutes of the February 21, 2017, regular meeting. The motion carried 4-0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM 1 MASTER CASE 14-077 (SAND CANYON PLAZA MIXED USE PROJECT): TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 53074; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-014; HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 14-001; RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 14-001; MINOR USE PERMIT 14-016; OAK TREE PERMIT 14-008; AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH NO. 2015051005 The applicant is requesting approval of a tentative tract map, conditional use permit, hillside development review, ridgeline alteration permit, minor use permit, and oak tree permit (the "project") to allow for the construction of a mixed-use project consisting of up to 580 residential dwelling units, 55,600 square feet of retail commercial (including restaurants), and a 75,000 square -foot (up to 120 -bed) assisted living facility. The project would also include three private recreation areas, commercial plaza areas, various private streets, driveways, parking and landscaped areas. Roadway improvements are proposed for Sand Canyon Road (including the construction of two roundabouts) as well as Soledad Canyon Road. The project includes a request to allow for the removal of two non -heritage sized oak trees and alteration of a city identified significant ridgeline. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission receive staff presentation on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), receive testimony from the applicant and the public, provide direction to staff on Project issues, and continue the public hearing to May 16, 2017. Patrick Leclair, Senior Planner, gave the staff report and computer presentation. The public hearing was reopened at 6:59 p.m. Tom Clark, the applicant, made a brief presentation to the Commission. Alan Ferdman, Allen Cameron, and Russell Myers spoke in support of the project. There were no written comment cards. Commissioner Ostrom had questions on assigned parking. The applicant responded that the residential portion has assigned parking for residents and reserved guest parking spaces. Commissioner Heffernan asked about the housing number reduction. The applicant informed him it was to preserve a portion of the ridgeline. Ian Pari, Senior Traffic Engineer, responded to Commissioner Heffernan's question about roundabouts. Vice -Chair Eichman questioned if there is a plan for the dirt roads along Sand Canyon Road. Mr. Leclair answered that they are graded as a shoulder and the City could install lanes when necessary. Commissioner Berlin had questions about the traffic analysis being up-to-date with project revisions, the possibility of using landscaping to reduce noise impacts, and pedestrian safety improvements at Sand Canyon Road. She was also pleased to see the inclusion of a small park. The Commission made closing comments. A motion was made by Commissioner Berlin and seconded by Commissioner Ostrom to continue the project to the regular meeting on May 16, 2017, with the revisions based on comments to the Environmental Impact Report. Said motion carried by a vote of 4-0. Page 2 RESULT: CONTINUED TO NEXT MEETING ON 5/16/2017 6:00 PM [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Renee Berlin, Commissioner SECONDER: Dennis Ostrom, Commissioner AYES: Charles Heffernan, Lisa Eichman, Dennis Ostrom, Renee Berlin ABSENT: Timothy Burkhart PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT James Chow, Senior Planner, gave the Planning Manager's report. Mr. Chow informed the Commission that the next regular meeting will be on April 18, 2017. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT There were no reports from the Commission. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION There were no public comments. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Ostrom and seconded by Commissioner Heffernan to adjourn the meeting at 7:35 p.m. Said motion was approved by a vote of 4-0. ATTEST: PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR PLANNIN40LISSION SECRETARY Page 3 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA R PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes Tuesday, May 16, 2017 6:00 PM City Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chair Burkhart. ROLL CALL Chair Burkhart, Vice -Chair Eichman, Commissioner Berlin, Commissioner Heffernan, and Commissioner Ostrom were all present. FLAG SALUTE Vice -Chair Eichman led the flag salute. COMMISSION SECRETARY ANNOUNCEMENT Carol French gave the secretary announcement. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A motion was made by Commissioner Ostrom and seconded by Commissioner Heffernan to approve the agenda. Said motion carried by a voice vote of 5-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Berlin and seconded by Vice -Chair Eichman to approve the minutes of the April 18, 2017, regular meeting. Said motion carried by a voice vote of 5-0. UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM 1 MASTER CASE: 15-135 HOMEWOOD INN AND SUITES / HAMPTON INN CONTINUANCE The applicant is requesting the construction of a five -story, 185 -room, 69-6" tall, 124,000 square -foot hotel structure on Newhall Ranch Road between Rye Canyon Road and Vanderbilt Way (APN 2866-035-007). The facility would provide two separate hotel brands within a single hotel structure including a 78 -room Hampton Inn, which would provide standard -stay services for guests, and a 107 -room Homewood Inn and Suites that would provide extended -stay hotel services for guests. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue the item to their regularly scheduled. meeting on June 6, 2017. Chair Burkhart informed the Commission staff is recommending continuing the item to the next regular meeting of June 6, 2017, to allow the applicant more time to complete the revisions requested by the Commission. A motion was made by Commissioner Ostrom and seconded by Commissioner Heffernan to approve staff s recommendation to continue the item to the next regular meeting on June 6, 2017. k roll call vote was taken and said motion carried by a vote of -U. RESULT: CONTINUED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 6/6/2017 6:00 PM MOVER: Dennis Ostrom, Commissioner SECONDER: Charles Heffernan, Commissioner AYES: Heffernan, Eichman, Ostrom, Burkhart, Berlin ITEM 2 MASTER CASE NO. 14-077 (SAND CANYON PLAZA MIXED USE PROJECT): TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 53074, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-014, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 14-001, RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 14-001, MINOR USE PERMIT 14-016, OAK TREE PERMIT 14-008, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH NO. 2015051005 The applicant is requesting approval for the construction of a mixed-use project consisting of up to 580 residential dwelling units, 60,000 square feet of retail commercial (including restaurants), and a 85,000 square -foot (up to 140 -bed) assisted living facility. The Project would also include two private recreation areas, commercial plaza areas, various private streets, driveways, parking and landscaped areas. Roadway improvements are proposed for Sand Canyon Road (including the construction of two roundabouts) as well as Soledad Canyon Road. The Project includes a request to allow for the removal of two non -heritage sized oak trees and alteration of a City identified significant ridgeline. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission consider the revisions to the site plan prepared by the applicant and provide final direction to staff regarding the project. Patrick Leclair, Senior Planner, gave the staff report and computer presentation. The traffic engineer for the project, Daryl Zerfass from Stantec, provided follow up on the concern of left hand turns onto the freeway from Soledad Canyon Road. He showed with a visual simulation how adding a left turn arrow will help with the current amount of traffic stacking up. Ian Pari, Senior Traffic Engineer, address Commissioner Berlin's question about in -road lights at crosswalks. Mr. Pari let her know the City does not have a formal policy and that they are generally discouraged due to lack of efficiency and maintenance issues. Page 2 Mr. Zerfass addressed the Commissions questions about the roundabouts. The public hearing was opened at 6:26 p.m. Tom Clark, the applicant, answered Commissioner Berlin's question, confirming the park on the project site is for all residents, and let the Commission know he was available for any further questions. Jack Ahmadian and Brian Springer spoke in support of the project. The public hearing was closed at 6:36 p.m. A motion was made by Commissioner Berlin and seconded by Commissioner Heffernan to continue the item to the next regular meeting on June 6, 2017. A roll call vote was taken and said notion carried by a vote of J -U. RESULT: CONTINUED [UNANIMOUS] Next: 6/6/2017 6:00 PM MOVER: Renee Berlin, Commissioner SECONDER: Charles Heffernan, Commissioner AYES: Heffernan, Eichman, Ostrom, Burkhart, Berlin PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM 3 2017 SIGN ORDINANCE UPDATE Proposed text amendments to Title 17 Zoning of the City of Santa Clarita Unified Development Code in order to implement updates to Chapter 17.51 Property Development Standards -All Zones, Section 17.51.080 Sign Regulations (Private Property) only. The text amendments generally consist of new or modified development standards related to various wall signs, special event banner signs, and community signs. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution P17-08, recommending the City of Santa Clarita City Council approve Master Case No. 17-054, consisting of Unified Development Code No. 17-002, amending the Unified Development Code (UDC) as shown in "Exhibit A." Vinny Tam, Assistant Planner II, and Denise Covert, Economic Development Associate, gave the staff presentation. During the presentation, Mr. Tam recommended a minor amendment to clarify the CEQA findings were exempt under CEQA. Page 3 Commissioner Berlin asked for clarification on the terms "advertising" and "special events." Mr. Tam informed Commissioner Berlin that there are specific definitions in the code for applicants to abide by. Ms. Berlin also asked how sign proliferation will be prevented. Mr. Tam responded that while the update is less restrictive, it is providing more flexibility to businesses and staff will still review all applications. Commissioner Eichman asked who will be monitoring the 30 -day time frame for temporary banners and Mr. Tam responded that it will be Community Preservation. Ms. Eichman also asked why the business park signage had a 50 -acre minimum. Jason Crawford, Planning and Economic Development Manager, responded that the update was intended for larger parks because there is already a section in the code for monument signs. Mr. Crawford also clarified for Commissioner Heffernan what information will now be allowed on temporary signs. The public hearing was opened at 7:12 p.m. There were no public speakers nor written comment cards. The public hearing was closed at 7:12 p.m. Chair Burkhart commended staff for their responsiveness to the business community. Commissioner Berlin suggested moving the matrix to the beginning of the ordinance with a summary of sections and references. A motion was made by Commissioner Ostrom and seconded by Vice -Chair Eichman to adopt Resolution P17-08 as amended by staff, recommending the City Council approve Master Case No. 17-054, consisting of Unified Development Code 17-002, amending the Unified Development Code as shown in Exhibit A. A roll call vote was taken and said motion carried by a vote of 5-0. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Dennis Ostrom, Commissioner SECONDER: Lisa Eichman, Vice -Chair AYES: Heffernan, Eichman, Ostrom, Burkhart, Berlin PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Mr. Crawford introduced Christina Burrows, the new Assistant City Attorney, and informed the Commission of the agenda for the next meeting on June 6. Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT There were no reports. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION There were no speakers for public participation. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Ostrom and seconded by Commissioner Berlin to adjourn the meeting at 7:15 p.m. Said motion was approved by a vote of 5-0. ATTEST: Planning Commission CHAIR Page 5 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 6, 2017 6:00 PM City Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chair Burkhart called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Commissioner Berlin, Commissioner Heffernan, Commissioner Ostrom, and Chair Burkhart were present. Vice -Chair Eichman was absent from the meeting. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Ostrom led the flag salute. COMMISSION SECRETARY ANNOUNCEMENT Kimberly Luepke gave the secretary announcement. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A motion was made by Commissioner Heffernan and seconded by Commissioner Ostrom to approve the agenda. Said motion carried by a voice vote of 4-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Berlin and seconded by Commissioner Ostrom to approve the minutes of the May 16, 2017, meeting with corrections requested by Commissioner Berlin. Said motion carried by a voice vote of 4-0. MINUTE ACTION ITEM 1 DRAFT FISCAL YEAR 2017-2018 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the 2017-2018 Capital Improvement Program to ensure consistency with the City's General Plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission make a finding, by minute action, that the Draft Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Capital Improvement Program is consistent with the City's General Plan. The Commission waved the staff presentation. There were no public speakers nor written comment cards. A motion was made by Commissioner Ostrom and seconded by Commissioner Heffernan to make a finding, by minute action, that the Draft Fiscal Year 2017-2018 Capital Improvement Program Budget is consistent with the General Plan. A roll call vote was taken and was carried by a vote of 4-0. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Dennis Ostrom, Commissioner SECONDER: Charles Heffernan, Commissioner AYES: Charles Heffernan, Dennis Ostrom, Timothy Burkhart, Renee Berlin ABSENT: Lisa Eichman UNFINISHED BUSINESS ITEM 2 HOMEWOOD INN AND SUITES / HAMPTON INN ARCHITECTURAL REVISION The applicant is requesting the construction of a five -story, 185 -room, 74'-11" tall, 124,000 square -foot hotel structure on Newhall Ranch Road between Rye Canyon Road and Vanderbilt Way (APN 2866-035-007). The facility would provide two separate hotel brands within a single hotel structure including a 78 -room Hampton Inn, which would provide standard -stay services for guests, and a 107 -room Homewood Inn and Suites that would provide extended -stay hotel services for guests. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution P 17-06, adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving Master Case No. 15-135, including Conditional Use Permit 15-007, Development Review 15-011, and Initial Study 15-005, to allow for the construction of a five -story, 185 -room 74'-11" tall, 124,000 square -foot hotel structure, located on Newhall Ranch Road between Rye Canyon Road and Vanderbilt Way (APN 2866-035-007), subject to the attached conditions of approval (Exhibit A). Dave Peterson, Associate Planner, gave the staff report and computer presentation. The public hearing was opened at 6:15 p.m. The applicant, Joey Blagg, informed the Commission he was available for any questions. The public hearing was closed at 6:17 p.m. The Commission thanked staff and the applicant for working together to create a great project. A motion was made by Commissioner Heffernan and seconded by Commissioner Ostrom to adopt Resolution -P17-06, adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving Master Case No. 15-135, including Conditional Use Permit 15-007, Development Review 15-011, and Initial Study 15-005 to allow for the construction of a five -story, 185 -room 74'-11" tall, 124,000 square -foot hotel structure, located on Newhall Ranch Road between Rye Canyon Road and Page 2 Vanderbilt Way (APN 2866-035-007), subject to the attached conditions of approval. (Exhibit A). A roll call vote was taken and said motion carried by a vote of 4-0. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Charles Heffernan, Commissioner SECONDER: Dennis Ostrom, Commissioner AYES: Charles Heffernan, Dennis Ostrom, Timothy Burkhart, Renee Berlin ABSENT: Lisa Eichman ITEM 3 MASTER CASE NO. 14-077 (SAND CANYON PLAZA MIXED USE PROJECT): TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 53074, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 14-014, HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 14-001, RIDGELINE ALTERATION PERMIT 14-001, MINOR USE PERMIT 14-016, OAK TREE PERMIT 14-008, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SCH NO. 2015051005 The applicant is requesting approval for the construction of a mixed-use project consisting of up to 580 residential dwelling units, 60,000 square feet of retail commercial (including restaurants), and a 85,000 square -foot (up to 140 -bed) assisted living facility. The Project would also include two private recreation areas, commercial plaza areas, various private streets, driveways, parking and landscaped areas. Roadway improvements are proposed for Sand Canyon Road (including the construction of two roundabouts) as well as Soledad Canyon Road. The Project includes a request to allow for the removal of two non -heritage sized oak trees and alteration of a City identified significant ridgeline. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission close the public hearing; approve Resolution P17- 11 recommending the City Council certify the Draft Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2015051005) prepared for the project; and approve Resolution P17-12 recommending the City Council approve the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project under Master Case 14-077, including Tentative Tract Map 53074, Conditional Use Permit 14-014, Hillside Development Review 14-001, Ridgeline Alteration Permit 14-001, Minor Use Permit 14-016, and Oak Tree Permit 14-008 subject to the conditions of approval for the project. Patrick Leclair, Senior Planner, gave the staff report and computer presentation. Commissioner Berlin had a question on a chart in the resolution regarding sidewalk widths. Mr. Leclair informed her that that chart will be updated before the City Council meeting. Commissioner Berlin also requested vehicle charging stations at opening date of the project. The public hearing was opened at 6:37 p.m. The applicant, Tom Clark, agreed to having functional charging stations by the beginning of the project. Sean Weber and Josh Bourgeois spoke in opposition. Page 3 No written comment cards were received. The public hearing was closed at 6:42 p.m. Commissioner Heffernan complimented staff on the EIR and how well the process went for the project. Commissioner Ostrom commended staff and the applicant for one of the smoothest processes he has seen for such a large project. Commissioner Berlin stated this is her first big project with the Planning Commission and that the bar has been set high. Ms. Berlin thanked staff for walking her through the project and thanked the applicant for his patience and diligence. A motion was made by Commissioner Ostrom and seconded by Commissioner Berlin to approve Resolution P17-11 recommending the City Council certify the Draft Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2015051005) prepared for the project; and approve Resolution P17-12 recommending the City Council approve the Sand Canyon Plaza Mixed Use Project under Master Case 14-077, including Tentative Tract Map 53074, Conditional Use Permit 14-014, Hillside Development Review 14-001, Ridgeline Alteration Permit 14-001, Minor Use Permit 14-016, and Oak Tree Permit 14-008 subject to the conditions of approval for the project. A roll call vote was taken and said motion was carried by a vote of 4-0. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Dennis Ostrom, Commissioner SECONDER: Renee Berlin, Commissioner AYES: Charles Heffernan, Dennis Ostrom, Timothy Burkhart, Renee Berlin ABSENT: Lisa Eichman PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM 4 THE DUDES' BREWING COMPANY, RESOLUTION NO. P17-10, MASTER CASE NO. 17-044, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 17-002 The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to permit a 4,576 square -foot alcohol drinking establishment, with accessory food service and entertainment uses, for The Dudes' Brewing Company, located on the southeast corner of Town Center Drive and Circle Drive at 24250 Town Center Drive, Suite 190. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution P17-10, approving Master Case No. 17-044, Conditional Use Permit 17-002, to permit a 4,576 square -foot alcohol drinking establishment at 24250 Town Center Drive, Suite 190, within the Regional Commercial (CR) zone in the City of Santa Clarita, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit "A"), Page 4 Andy Olson, Assistant Planner I, gave the staff report and computer presentation. Chair Burkhart asked for detail on the change to condition PL 10. Christina Burrows, Assistant City Attorney, responded that the definition was too vague as proposed and the change tightens up the language for loitering. The public hearing was opened at 6:56 p.m. The applicants, Toby Humes and William Robertson, informed 'the Commission they were available if the Commission had any questions. The public hearing was closed at 6:57 p.m. A motion was made by Commissioner Berlin and seconded by Commissioner Ostrom to adopt Resolution P17-10, approving Master Case No. 17-044, Conditional Use Permit 17-002, to permit a 4,576 square -foot alcohol drinking establishment at 24250 Town Center Drive, Suite 190, within the Regional Commercial (CR) zone in the City of Santa Clarita, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit "A") with the edit to condition PL 10. A roll call vote was taken and said motion carried by a vote of 4-0. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Renee Berlin, Commissioner SECONDER: Dennis Ostrom, Commissioner AYES: Charles Heffernan, Dennis Ostrom, Timothy Burkhart, Renee Berlin ABSENT: Lisa Eichman ITEM 5 MASTER CASE NO. 17-038; CUP 17-001 (ROUND MOUNTAIN WCF) The applicant, T -Mobile West, LLC, is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the installation and operation of a wireless communications facility to be co -located on an existing, 35 -foot tall monopole, at 25239 Anza Drive (Assessor's Parcel No. 2866-007-910), on City -owned property. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution P17-09, approving Master Case No. 17-038, including Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 17-001, to allow for the installation and operation of a wireless communications facility (WCF) to be co -located on an existing City - owned monopole at 25239 Anza Drive (Assessor's Parcel No. 2866-007-910), subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). Mikaela Manion, Assistant Planner I, gave the staff report and computer presentation. The public hearing was opened at 7:09 p.m. Page 5 The applicant, Aaron Whiting, informed the Commission he was available if they had any questions. Supito Ali, the engineer for the project, explained to the Commission why the applicant chose the location and the reasoning for co -location. The Commission made comments on design alternatives. James Chow, Senior Planner, commented that faux trees and new monopoles are discouraged in the City's wireless communications ordinance, and co -location is the preference. Mr. Chow also added that the existing pole was intended for co -location. Jason Crawford, Planning Manager, addressed the Commission and informed them that the City's Open Space division negotiated the lease agreement with the applicant and did not request additional landscaping. The Commission continued to make comments on ways to minimize the visual impact of the height of the pole. A motion was made by Commissioner Heffernan and seconded by Commissioner Ostrom to have staff work with the applicant on landscaping options and bring the project back at a date uncertain. A roll call vote was taken and said motion carried by a vote of 4-0. RESULT: ITEM DISCUSSED ITEM 6 ONSP PARKING AMENDMENTS The project proposes to amend the Old Town Newhall Specific Plan to establish minimum parking standards in the Urban Center zone (Main Street area). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution P 17-07, recommending the City of Santa Clarita City Council adopt the Negative Declaration prepared for the project and approve Master Case 17-027, consisting of Specific Plan Amendment 17-001 (Zoning Amendment), amending the Old Town Newhall Specific Plan as shown in "Exhibit A." Ben Jarvis, Associate Planner, and Denise Covert, Economic Development Associate, gave the staff presentation and computer presentation. Commissioner Berlin asked if other ratios were considered for the parking plan. Mr. Jarvis responded that a professional study was done and the 1:350 fits the City's needs. Commissioner Ostrom asked if staff spoke with any other cities about what they have done in similar situations. Mr. Jarvis responded that the City has had discussions with other cites, however, the City of Santa Clarita does not have a parking assessment district like a larger city, such as Pasadena. Page 6 Commissioner Ostrom also asked about the impacts on small businesses. Ms. Covert responded that the City hired a professional consultant to assess what the fees could be and that staff would recommend to the City Council a phased approach to the fee. Commissioner Heffernan asked for further explanation on incentives in Old Town Newhall. Mr. Crawford added that he is aware it is a substantial change for Newhall and that it will be an incremental shift. The public hearing was opened at 8:30 p.m. Jim Coffey spoke in a neutral position. Carl Goldman spoke in opposition. There were no written comment cards. Mr. Crawford addressed the Commission's comments regarding fees, stating that the all financial decisions will be made by the City Council and that the Commission is establishing parking requirements first. The public hearing was closed at 8:58 p.m. A motion was made by Commissioner Heffernan and seconded by Commissioner Berlin to adopt Resolution P 17-07, recommending the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration prepared for the project and approve Master Case No. 17-027, consisting of Specific Plan Amendment 17- )01, amending the Old Town Newhall 5pecihe Flan as shown in hxnibit A. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Charles Heffernan, Commissioner SECONDER: Renee Berlin, Commissioner AYES: Charles Heffernan, Dennis Ostrom, Timothy Burkhart, Renee Berlin ABSENT: Lisa Eichman PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Jason Crawford, Planning and Economic Development Manager, gave the report. Mr. Crawford informed the Commission the first meeting after summer hiatus is anticipated to be held on August 15. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT Commissioner Heffernan asked for an update on Whittaker Bermite. Chair Burkhart suggested a Study Session. Page 7 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION There were no speakers for public participation. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Ostrom and seconded by Commissioner Heffernan to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Said motion was approved by a vote of 4-0. 4W ATTEST: PLANLING COMMISSION CHAIR PLANNING OM ISSION SECRETARY Page 8