HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-03-23 - RESOLUTIONS - CERTIFYING FINAL SUSTAINABLE CMTY ENVIRON ASMT MC (2)RESOLUTION NO.21-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SCH NO.2020120433) FOR MASTER CASE20-045
(GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 20-001; ZONE CHANGE 20-001; TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP 83087; DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 20-005; AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
REVIEW 20-007), INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT AND ADOPTION OF
THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTINGPROGRAM
THE CITY OF COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA; DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT. The City Council does hereby make the following
findings of fact:
A. An application for Master Case 20-045, the MetroWalk Specific Plan Project was filed by
the project applicant, Blumax Santa Clarita, LLC (applicant),_ with the City ofSanta Clarita
(City) on April 3, 2020, and deemed complete on August 12,.2020. The property for which
this application was filed (hereinafter "Project site") is located at the southeast corner of
Lost Canyon Road and Harriman Drive, in the community of Canyon Country; Assessor's
Parcel Number: 2840-004-009. The entitlement requests (collectively, "Entitlements")
i include:
i. General Plan Amendment 20-001 to amend the General Plan Land Use Map in
order to designate the MetroWalk Specific Plan Project site as Specific Plan (SP).
ii. Zone Change 20-001 to amend the zoning map in order to designate the MetroWalk
Specific Plan Project site as SP.
iii. Tentative Tract Map 83087 to subdivide the 20.47acre MetroWalk Specific Plan
Project site into six lots. In addition, lots designated for multi -family housing may be
further subdivided for condominium purposes.
iv. Development Review 20-005 to allow for the construction of a multi- family
residential development in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Unified
Development Code (UDC), the General Plan, the MetroWalk Specific Plan, and other
applicable requirements.
v. Architectural Design Review 20-007 for the review of the proposed architecture to
ensure compliance with the applicable provisions of the UDC, the General Plan,
MetroWalk Specific Plan, and other applicable requirements.
B. The approximately 20.4-acre Project site is located at the southeast corner of Lost Canyon
Road and Harriman Drive, a private street, and is located within the Business Park (BP)
zone and General Plan land use designation. The easternmost portion of the site is withinthe
i
Page 1 of 6
Santa Clara River Significant Ecological Area (SEA) designated by Los Angeles County
and included in the City's SEA Overlay Zone. 7
C. On June 14, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11-61, adopting the General
Plan of the City, and Resolution No. 11-62 certifying the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR). The City's General Plan presently designates the project site BP. Approximately
5.3 acres on the eastern portion of the Project site are located within the SEA Overlay Zone.
D. The current BP land use and zoning designation does not permit the development of multi-
family residential units. Therefore, the applicant is seeking a General Plan Amendment and
Zone Change to allow for the establishment of the MetroWalk Specific Plan (Project).
E. Surrounding land uses include primarily multi -family residential development. The Colony
Townhomes, a multi -family residential community, is directly west of the Project site. The
Fair Oaks Ranch Community, which is comprised of multi -family and single-family
residential uses, is located to the south and west of the Project site. The existing Metrolink
rail line is immediately south of the Project site. The Vista Canyon Specific Plan area is
located north and east of the Project site, with multi -family apartments under construction
immediately north of the site. The future Vista Canyon Multi -Modal Center, with a seven -
bay bus transfer station and the future Vista Canyon Metrolink Station, is located just east
of the Project site.
F. The Project site is an approximately 20.4-acre site located at the southeast corner of the
intersection of Lost Canyon Road and Harriman Drive (a private street). The Project
includes the development of 498 residential units within fourplanning areas as follows:
i. Planning Area 1 (PA-1) is located on the western portion of the Project site. This
area consists of two apartment buildings, each four stories in height, with 179
market -rate apartments and associated residential amenities and parking.
I Planning Area 2 (PA-2) is located centrally on the Project site and consists of one four-
story apartment building, with 119 market -rate, senior (age 55 and older) apartments,
and associated residential amenities andparking.
iii. Planning Area 3 (PA-3) is located along the southerly portion of the Project site and
consists of one four-story apartment building, including49 deed -restricted, affordable
apartments for low-income (65 percent area median income) seniors, and associated
residential amenities and parking.
iv. Planning Area 4 (PA-4) is located on the eastern portion of the Projectsite. This area
consists of 150 for -sale townhomes, associated residential amenities, parking, and a
0.93-acre community park that is accessible to the public.
G. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA;" Public Resources
Code, §21000 et seq.), the City is the lead agency and the City's Planning Commission is
a recommending body for the Project. The City Council is the decision- making body for
the Project.
Page 2 of 6
H. Pursuant to CEQA and Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21155.2(b)(5), a Sustainable
Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) may be approved by the lead agency after
conducting a public hearing, reviewing the comments received, and finding that: (a) all
potentially significant or significant effects required to be identified in the Initial Study have
been identified and analyzed; and (b) with respect to each significant effect on the
environment required to be identified in the Initial Study, either: (i) changes or alterations
have been required in or incorporated into the Project that avoid or mitigate the significant
effects to a level of insignificance; or (ii) those changes or alterations are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency, and have been, or can and should be,
adopted by that other agency.
I. The City, the CEQA lead agency, finds and declares that the MetroWalk Specific Plan
Project SCEA has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
The City Council finds and certifies that the SCEA was reviewed and information
contained in the SCEA, along with all comments received on the Draft SCEA, were
considered prior to approving the Project.
J. Based upon its review of the SCEA, the City Council finds that the SCEA is an adequate
assessment of the environmental impacts of the Project and represents the independent
judgment of the City.
SECTION 2. TRANSIT PRIORITY PROJECT FINDINGS. Based on the above findings of
fact and recitals and the ' 7entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Project SCEA, oral 1, and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports and other
transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission and to the City Council, and upon
studies and investigations made by the Planning Commission and the City Council, the City
Council find, as follows:
A. Pursuant to CEQA and PRC Sections 21155 and 21155.2, a project is eligible for evaluation
under a SCEA if it:
i. Is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and
applicable policies specified for the Project area in the Sustainable Communities
Strategy (see PRC Section21155(a)).
ii. Meets the definition of a "transit priority project" (TPP) described inPRC Section
21155(b).
iii. Incorporates all feasible mitigation measures, performance standards, or criteria set
forth in the prior applicable environmental impact reports (see PRC Section
21155.2(a)).
The Project meets all three criteria for SCEA eligibility. This finding is based on the information
contained within the Project's SCEA, particularly Section 3.0, Sustainable Communities
Environmental Assessment Eligibility, and Appendix A: Mitigation Measure Feasibility/
711 Applicability Analysis. The following paragraphs summarize the justification for finding that the
Project meets the three criteria for SCEA eligibility.
Page 3 of 6
The Project is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and
applicable policies specified for the Project area in the Southern California Association of
Governments' (SCAG) 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy (RTP/SCS). The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS explicitly lays ,out ten goals related to
housing, transportation technologies, equity, and resilience. One goal specifically
encourages development of diverse housing types in areas that are supported by, multiple
transportation options (Goal 9). The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS identified Priority Growth Areas
(PGAs), which primarily include Job Centers, Transit Priority Areas (TPAs), High Quality
Transit Areas (HQTAs), Neighborhood Mobility Areas (NMAs), Livable Corridors, and
Spheres of Influence (SOIs). TPAs and HQTAs are where transit -oriented development
(TOD) can be realized — where people can live, work, and play in high density, compact
communities, with ready access to a multitude of safe and convenient transportation
alternatives. While the scale of Exhibits 3.4, 3.7, and 3.8 in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS do
not show the precise boundaries of PGAs, the Project site appears to be within a PGA,
specifically within an HQTA and a TPA, and is consistent with SCAG's intention for PGAs
given its location adjacent to the planned Vista Canyon Multi -Modal Center and the Vista
Canyon Specific Plan.
As set forth in the Draft SCEA, the Project is a TPP in that it: (1) contains at least 50 percent
residential use, based on total building square footage; (2) provides a minimum net density
of at least 20 units per acre; and (3) is within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high -
quality transit corridor included in a regional transportation plan.
In addition, the City complied with PRC Section 21155.2 by reviewing all of the mitigation
measures in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR)
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), the City of Santa Clarita One
Valley One Vision PEIR Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP), and the Vista Canyon
Specific Plan EIR MMRP for imposition on the Project. Although mitigation measures from
these documents have been considered by the City, only a few of them are applicable to the
Project. The Project -specific mitigation measures identified for those Project impacts that
have been determined as potentially significant consider the mitigation measures from the
prior applicable EIRs and incorporate the relevant requirements from those measures.
Notably, the Project -specific mitigation measures themselves are adequate to reduce the
Project's potentially significant impacts to a less -than -significant level. Appendix A of the
Draft SCEA explained the applicability of each mitigation measure from the prior applicable
EIRs and generally identified which component(s) of the mitigation measure was
comparable to the Project -specific mitigation measures and/or to codes and regulations.
SECTION 3. CEOA FINDINGS. The City Council does hereby find that the Final SCEA,
which consists of the Draft SCEA (December 2020) and Planning Commission Final SCEA
(February 2021), for Master Case 20-045 (General Plan Amendment 20-001, Zone Change
20-001, Tentative Tract Map 83078, Development Review 20-005, and Architectural Design
Review 20-007) identifies and discloses all Project -specific impacts. Environmental impacts
identified in the Final SCEA, findings, and facts in support of findings are herein incorporated
as "Findings Required by CEQA," referred to as Exhibit "A," and identified as follows:
Page 4 of 6
A. The Final SCEA identifies significant but mitigated impacts, as set forth in Section 5.c of
711, Exhibit "A" of this Resolution. Changes or alterations have been required in, orincorporated
into, the Project that will avoid or reduce these potential impacts to a less -than -significant
level.
B. The Final SCEA also finds that the Project would have a less -than -significant impact
without mitigation on a number of environmental topics. Environmental topics, forwhich
impacts were determined to be less than significant without mitigation measures, are
identified in Section 5.b of Exhibit "A."
C. The Final SCEA also found that the Project would have no impact on a numberof
environmental topic areas listed in Section 5.a of Exhibit"A."
D. The MMRP, attached as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference, isrequired to
mitigate Project impacts.
SECTION 4. FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL SCEA. Based upon the
above recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the MetroWalk Final SCEA,
oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Project
and the Draft Final SCEA, upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission and
the City Council, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning
Commission and the City Council, the City Council finds:
A. It has reviewed and considered the Draft and Final SCEAs prior to approving theProject.
B. The Draft and Final SCEAs are an accurate and objective statement that fully complieswith
CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's local environmental guidelines.
C. The Draft and Final SCEAs reflect the independent judgment of the lead agency. The City
Council approves the Final SCEA based on the findings and conclusions herein.
D. That the additional information provided in the Final SCEA, in the evidence presented in the
administrative record, does not alter the analysis or conclusions of the Draft SCEA and does
not involve any new significant impacts, does not involve a substantial increase in the severity
of any environmental impacts, does not require substantial revisions to the SCEA, and does
not add significant new information. None of the information presented to the City after
circulation of the Draft SCEA has deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment
on a substantial environmental impact of the Project or a feasible mitigation measure that the
City has declined to implement.
SECTION 5. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Final SCEA (SCH No.
2020120433), and hereby determines that it is adequate and in compliance with CEQA. The City
Council hereby certifies the Final SCEA and associated documents, and adopts the MMRP.
7�SECTION 6. 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.
Page 5 of 6
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 23`d day of March, 2021.
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. 21-12 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a
regular meeting thereof, held on the 23`d day of March, 2021, by the following vote of the City
Council:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Smyth, McLean, Weste, Gibbs, Miranda
None
None
CITY CLERK
Page 6 of 6
7
7
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS REQUIRED BY CEQA
(as adopted by Resolution No. 21-12 )
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Public Resources Code (PRC)
Section 21155.2(b)(5), a Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) may be
approved by the lead agency after conducting a public hearing, reviewing the comments received,
and finding that (a) all potentially significant or significant effects required to be identified in the
Initial Study have been identified and analyzed; and '(b) with respect to each significant effect on
the environment required to be identified in the Initial Study, either (i) changes or alterations have
been required in or incorporated into the project that avoid or mitigate the significant effects to a
level of insignificance; or (ii) those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other
agency.
The City of Santa Clarita (City), the CEQA Lead Agency, finds and declares that the MetroWalk
Specific Plan Project SCEA has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines. The City of Santa Clarita City Council finds and certifies that the SCEA was reviewed
and information contained in the SCEA, along with all comments received on the Draft SCEA,
were considered prior to approving the MetroWalk Specific Plan Project, herein referred to as the
"Project."
Based upon its review of the SCEA, the City of Santa Clarita City Council (City Council) finds that
the SCEA is an adequate assessment of the environmental impacts of the Project and represents
the independent judgment of the City.
II. PROJECT SUMMARY
The Project would include development of up to 498 residential units in four planning areas, on
an approximately 20.4-acre site in the City in northern Los Angeles County. The Project Site is
generally located north and west of the Metrolink train tracks and east of Lost Canyon Road in
the Canyon Country community of the City. The proposed residential units would comprise a mix
of housing types, including market -rate apartments and townhomes, age -qualified apartments,
and affordable senior apartments. A multi -use path would link the Project Site with the future
Metrolink Vista Canyon Station to the east and the Vista Canyon Specific Plan Project to the north
while connecting various private amenities throughout the Project Site, including park nodes, open
space, a central clubhouse, and a playground. The multi -use path would terminate at a public
plaza at the far eastern area of the Project Site, which would provide a publicly accessible outdoor
amenity adjacent to the future Metrolink station and a connection to commercial uses, trails, and
other amenities within the Vista Canyon Specific Plan area.
The average density of the Project Site would be 24.6 units per acre, while the maximum allowable
density permitted within the Specific Plan area would be-30 dwelling units per acre. The floor area
7111- ratio for the Project would be 0.76.
Master Case 20-045 Metro Walk Specific Plan
March 23, 2021 CEQA Findings
The Project would require the following discretionary actions from the City: (1) a General Plan
Amendment to change the General Plan land use designation from Business Park to Specific
Plan; (2) a Zone Change to change the zoning designation from Business Park to Specific Plan;
(3) approval of the MetroWalk Specific Plan to establish specific development standards in
support of a development of up to 498 total residential units; (4) Tentative Tract Map 83087 to
subdivide the property for the development of up to 498 total residential units; (5) a Development
Review Permit for all new development and construction projects; and (6) an Architectural Design
Review. The Project would also require the annexation of the Project Site into the Los Angeles
County Sanitation Districts' Jurisdictional Boundary for which approvals from the City, as well as
the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts and the Local Agency Formation Commissions, are
needed.
III. FINDINGS REGARDING TRANSIT PRIORITYPROJECT
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and .Public Resources Code (PRC)
Sections 21155 and 21155.2, a project is eligible for evaluation under a Sustainable Communities
Environmental Assessment (SCEA) if it:
• Is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable
policies specified for the Project area in the Sustainable Communities Strategy (see PRC
Section 21155(a)).
• Meets the definition of a "transit priority project" (TPP) described in PRC Section 21155(b).
• Incorporates all feasible mitigation measures, performance standards, or criteria set forth
in the prior applicable environmental impact reports (see PRC Section 21155.2(a)).
The City Council finds that the Project meets all three criteria for SCEA eligibility. This finding is
based on the information contained within the Project's SCEA, particularly Section 3.0,
Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment Eligibility,. and Appendix A: Mitigation
Measure Feasibility/Applicability Analysis. The following paragraphs summarize the justification
for finding that the Project meets the three criteria for SCEA eligibility.
The Project is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and
applicable policies specified for the Project area in the Southern California Association of
Governments' (SCAG) 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy (RTP/SCS). The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS explicitly lays out 10 goals related to housing,
transportation technologies, equity, and resilience. One goal specifically encourages
development of diverse housing types in areas that are supported by multiple transportation
options (Goal 9). The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS identified Priority Growth Areas (PGAs), which
primarily include Job Centers, Transit Priority Areas (TPAs), High Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs),
Neighborhood Mobility Areas (NMAs), Livable Corridors, and Spheres of Influence (SOls). TPAs
and HQTAs are where transit -oriented development (TOD) can be realized — where people can
live, work, and play in high density, compact communities with ready access to a multitude of safe
and convenient transportation alternatives. While the scale of Exhibits 3.4, 3.7, and 3.8 in the
2020-2045 RTP/SCS do not show the .precise boundaries of PGAs, the Project Site appears to
be within a PGA, specifically within an HQTA and a TPA, and is consistent with SCAG's intention
for PGAs given its location adjacent to the planned Vista Canyon Multi -Modal Center and the
Vista Canyon Specific Plan.
Master Case 20-045 Metro Walk Specific Plan
March 23, 2021 CEQA Findings
As set forth in the Draft SCEA, the Project is a TPP in that it (1) contains at least 50 .percent
711 residential use, based on total building square footage; (2) provides a minimum net density of at
least 20 units per acre; and (3) is within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high -quality transit
corridor included in a regional transportation plan.
In addition, the City complied with PRC Section 21155.2 by reviewing all of the mitigation
measures in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), the City of Santa Clarita One Valley One Vision PEIR
Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP), and the Vista. Canyon Specific Plan EIR MMRP for
imposition on the Project. Although mitigation measures from these documents have been
considered by the City, only a few of them are applicable to the Project. The Project -specific
mitigation measures identified for those Project impacts that have been determined as potentially
significant consider the mitigation measures from the prior applicable EIRs and incorporate the
relevant requirements from those measures. Notably, the Project -specific mitigation measures
themselves are adequate to reduce the Project's potentially significant impacts to a less -than -
significant level. Appendix A of the Draft SCEA explained the applicability of each mitigation
measure from the prior applicable EIRs and generally identified which component(s) of the
mitigation measure was comparable to the Project -specific mitigation measures and/or to codes
and regulations.
IV. RESOLUTION REGARDING APPROVAL OF THE SCEA
The City Council certifies that (1) it has reviewed and considered the Draft and Final SCEAs prior
to approving the Project, (2) the Draft and Final SCEAs are an accurate and objective statement
that fully complies with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City's local environmental
guidelines, and (3) the Draft and Final SCEAs reflect the independent judgment of the lead
agency. The City Council approves the Final SCEA based on the findings and conclusions herein.
The City Council finds that the additional information provided in the Final SCEA, in the evidence
presented in the administrative record, does not alter the analysis or conclusions of the Draft
SCEA and does not involve any new significant impacts, does not involve a substantial increase
in the severity of any environmental impacts, does not require substantial revisions to the SCEA,
and does not add significant new information. None of the information presented to the City
Council after circulation of the Draft SCEA has deprived the public of a meaningful opportunityto
comment on a substantial environmental impact of the Project or a feasible mitigation measure
that the City, has declined to implement.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS
a. Resolution Regarding Environmental Topics Determined to Have No Impact
in the SCEA
The MetroWalk Specific Plan Project Draft SCEA found that the Project would have no impact on
a number of environmental topic areas listed below. A detailed analysis of the topic areas is
provided in the Draft SCEA.
Master Case 20-045 Metro Walk Specific Plan
March 23, 2021 CEQA Findings
3
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
environmental topics identified below.
Aesthetics
a) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenicvista?
b) Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
primary/secondary ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c) In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
d) Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
a) 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?
b) Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c) 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))?
d) Would the Project result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non -forest
use?
e) 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?
Air Quality
a) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Biological Resources
c) 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
Master Case 20-045
March 23, 2021
MetroWalk Specific Plan
CEQA Findings
7
4
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
f) 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?
g) Would the Project affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or Significant Natural Area
(SNA) as identified on the City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map?
Cultural Resources
a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in Section 15064.5?
Geology and Soils
a) 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.
iv) Landslides?
e) Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
i) Would the Project result in the destruction, covering, or modification of any unique
geologic or physical feature?
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
c) 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?
d) Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or theenvironment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in
71 a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Projectarea?
For project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety
fl p j Y p� p� 1 Y
hazard for people residing or working in the Projectarea?
Master Case 20-045 MetroWalk Specific Plan
March 23, 2021 CEQA Findings
5
Hydrology and Water Quality
g) 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?
h) Would the Project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
i) 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?
j) Would the Project result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, ormudflow?
1) Would the Project result in other modification of a wash, channel creek, or river?
Land Use and Planning
a) Would the Project disrupt or physically divide an established community (including a low-
income or minority community)?
c) Would the Project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan, natural community
conservation plan, and/or policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
Mineral and Energy Resources
a) 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 thestate?
b) 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
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose
people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people
residing or working in the Project area to excessive noiselevels?
Population and Housing
b) Would the Project displace substantial. numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)?
c) Would the Project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
Master Case 20-045 Metro Walk Specific Plan
March 23, 2021 CEQA Findings
6
Recreation
I
7 b) 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?
Transportation/Traffic
b) Would the Project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including,
but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
c) 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 safetyrisks?
d) 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)?
b. Resolution Regarding Environmental Impacts Determined to be Less Than
Significant without Mitigation
The City Council finds that the Project would have a less -than -significant impact without mitigation
on a number of environmental topics. For some of these topics, compliance with applicable
regulatory requirements is assumed to ensure that impacts remain less than significant, as
discussed in the SCEA. Environmental topics, for which impacts were determined to be less than
significant without mitigation measures, are identified below. A detailed analysis of the topic areas
is provided in the Draft SCEA.
Air Quality
b) Would the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing
or projected air quality violation?
c) Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
e) Would the Project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Biological Resources
b) 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?
d) 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 nurserysites?
Master Case 20-045 MetroWalk Specific Plan
March 23, 2021 CEQA Findings
7
e) Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, including oaktrees?
Cultural Resources 7
d) Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Energy
a) Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction
or operation?
b) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency? .
Geology and Soils
a) 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?
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
b) Would the Project result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the loss of topsoil,
either on- or off -site?
c) 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- or off -site landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, orcollapse?
d) Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life orproperty?
f) Would the Project result in a change in topography or ground surface relief features?
g) Would the Project result in earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more?
h) Would the Project involve development and/or grading on a slope greater than 10%
natural grade?
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a) Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emission, either directly or indirectly, that
may have a significant impact on theenvironment?
Master Case 20-045 Metro Walk Specific Plan
March 23, 2021 CEQA Findings
8
b) Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
i purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
i
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
a) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving explosion or the release
of hazardous materials into the environment (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides,
chemicals, fuels, orradiation)?
g) Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) 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 withwildlands?
i) Would the Project expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards (e.g.,
electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)?
Hydrology and Water Quality
a) Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) 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 nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
c) 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- oroff-site?
d) 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?
e) 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?
7f) Would the Project otherwise substantially degrade waterquality?
Master Case 20-045 MetroWalk Specific Plan
March 23, 2021 CEQA Findings
k) Would the Project result in changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and
direction of surface water and/or groundwater?
m) Would the Project impact stormwater management in any of the following ways:
i) Would the Project result in potential impact of project construction and project post -
construction activity on stormwater runoff?
ii) Would the Project result in potential discharges from areas for materials storage,
vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing),
waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading
docks, or other outdoor work areas?
iii) Would the Project result in significant environmentally harmful increase in the flow
velocity or volume of stormwater runoff?
iv) Would the Project result in significant and environmentally harmful increases in
erosion of the Project Site or surrounding areas?
v) Would the Project result in stormwater discharges that would significantly impair or
contribute to the impairment of the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that
provide water quality benefits (e.g., riparian corridors, wetlands, etc.)?
vi) Would the Project cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage systems,
watersheds, and/or water bodies? i
vii) Does the Proposed Project include provisions for the separation, recycling, and reuse
of materials both during construction and after project occupancy?
Land Use and Planning
b) 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?
Mineral and Energy Resources
c) Would the Project use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner?
Noise
a) 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?
b) Would the Project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Master Case 20-045 Metro Walk Specific Plan
March 23, 2021 CEQA Findings
10
c) Would the Project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) Would the Project result in s substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Population and Housing
a) 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)?
Public Services
a) 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 any of the publicservices:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
Recreation
a) 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?
Transportation/Traffic
a) 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 masstransit?
e) Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Would the Project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public
1 transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety
of such facilities?
Master Case 20-045 Metro Walk Specific Plan
March 23, 2021 CEQA Findings
11
Utilities and Service Systems
a) Would the Project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional 17
Water Quality Control Board?
b) 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?
c) Would the Project require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities
or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d) Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
f) Would the Project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations relatedto
solid waste?
Wildfire
a) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the Project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of awildfire?
c) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the.Project require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment?
d) If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the Project expose people or structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
Master Case 20-045 MetroWalk Specific Plan
March 23, 2021 CEQA Findings
12
7,
Mandatory Findings of Significance
b) Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
C. Resolution Regarding Environmental Impacts Determined to be Less Than
Significant with Mitigation
The City Council having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Draft and Final
SCEAs and the administrative record, finds pursuant to PRC Section 21155.2(b)(5) that changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, that avoid or mitigate the
significant effects identified in the SCEA to a level of insignificance. The City Council finds that
the potentially significant adverse impacts identified below can be mitigated to a level that is
considered less than significant after implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Draft
and Final SCEAs.
AIR QUALITY
The Project's potential air quality impact that can be mitigated is discussed in the response to the
Initial Study Checklist Question Ill.d starting on page 4-42 in Section 4.0, Initial Study Checklist,
of the Draft SCEA. The identified potentially significant impact relates to the exposure of sensitive
receptors to substantial toxic air contaminant (TAC) concentrations during Project construction.
d) Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or
mitigate the significant effects to a level of insignificance.
Facts in Support of Findings
Project construction would potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC
concentrations, and construction -related impacts would be potentially significant prior to
mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would be required to reduce the impact
to a less -than -significant level. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would require all diesel -fueled
equipment used during construction to be equipped with Tier 4 Final engines or their equivalent.
As shown in the Draft SCEA, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the cancer and
non -cancer health risk at both the off -site and on -site Most Exposed Individual Resident (MEIR)
would not exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) health risk
criteria. Additional actions required pursuant to Mitigation Measure AQ-1, such as staging and
haul route restrictions, would further reduce health risks at sensitive receptors. With
implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors
to substantial pollutant concentrations related to CO hotspots or TACs, and impacts would be less
than significant.
Master Case 20-045 MetroWalk Specific Plan
March 23, 2021 CEQA Findings
13
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: The project applicant or ,,contractor shall select equipment during
construction to minimize emissions. The Project applicant shall submit a construction
management plan to the City of Santa Clarita for review and approval, prior to issuance of any
grading and building permits. The construction management plan shall demonstrate that the off -
road equipment used on site to construct the project would include the following:
All, diesel -fueled equipment used during project construction shall be equipped with Tier 4
Final engines. In the event that Tier 4 Final engines are not commercially available, use of
alternatively fueled (i.e., non -diesel) equipment or other control technology (i.e., diesel -
particulate filters) may suffice, as long as an overall average fleet ,exhaust PM2.5 emissions
reduction of 89 percent below emission levels estimated for the standard fleet mix in the
California Emissions Estimator Model can bedemonstrated.
• Construction equipment staging shall be situated as far from existing residential receptors as
possible.
Construction haul routes shall be limited to paved roads and minimize travel adjacent to
existing residences.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The Project's potential impact to biological resources that can be mitigated is discussed in the
response to the Initial Study Checklist Question IV.a starting on page 4-47 in Section 4.0, Initial
Study Checklist, of the Draft SCEA. The identified potentially significant impact relates to the
removal of existing habitat and direct effects of construction on three sensitive species,
specifically the San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit, the coastal whiptail, the coast horned lizard,
and the California horned lark.
a) 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 that avoid or
mitigate the significant effects to a level of insignificance.
Facts in Support of Findings
During construction, the Project would remove all existing habitat, including on -site shrubs that
provide nesting habitat, from the 20.4-acre Project Site. The San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit is
a mobile species, and most individuals would be expected to avoid construction equipment.
However, in the event that jackrabbits are not able to escape, injury or mortality to individual
jackrabbits could occur due to being struck or crushed by vehicles. This impact would be
especially acute if mother jackrabbits were injured or killed while tending their young. Similarly,
Master Case 20-045 MetroWalk Specific Plan
March 23, 2021 CEQA Findings
14
since coastal whiptails and coast horned lizards are low -mobility species, it is unlikely they would
be able to escape injury or mortality during site grading. Without mitigation, the Project's impacts
7!1
on the San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit, coastal whiptails, and coast horned lizards would be
potentially significant. These impacts would be reduced to a less -than -significant level by the
relocation efforts required by Mitigation Measure BIO-1, during which qualified biologists would
survey the Project Site for these species and usher them off -site if encountered. Because the
habitat to be removed is largely in a degraded condition, and because habitats for the black -tailed
jackrabbit, coastal whiptails, and coast horned lizards .are abundant regionally, loss of habitat
would not significantly impact these special -status species.
If site preparation occurs outside the bird breeding season (typically February 1 through August
31), California horned lark and other protected native bird individuals present would be able to fly
and avoid contact with construction equipment. However, if vegetation removal or site preparation
occurs during the breeding season, birds may be committed to tending nests with eggs or
nestlings and unable to avoid contact with equipment. In these cases, the Project could lead to
mortality of adults, eggs, and nestlings. Additionally, effects, such as noise, dust, and human
presence during construction, could agitate birds and cause nest abandonment even if nests are
not directly destroyed. These impacts would be significant without mitigation. Mitigation Measure
BIO-2 would require preconstruction nesting bird surveys to be conducted during the breeding
season, along with avoidance of any` active nests that are detected and an appropriate buffer.
This mitigation measure would reduce impacts to the California horned lark and other protected
native birds to a less -than -significant level and would also serve to ensure compliance with federal
and State laws protecting birds' nests. Because the habitat to be removed is largely in a degraded
condition, and because habitats for the California horned lark and protected native birds are
abundant regionally, loss of habitat would not significantly impact these species.
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) submitted comments on the Draft SCEA.
CDFW recommended that the City, in consultation with a qualified biologist, prepare a worker
environmental awareness training as an effective additional means of minimizing impacts on
biological resources. Accordingly, Mitigation Measure 13I0-3 has been added in response to
Initial Study Checklist Question IV.a on page 4-50 of the Draft SCEA as presented in Section 3.0,
Errata and Clarifications, of the Final SCEA.
With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through 1310-3, the Project would not have a
substantial 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,
and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Sixty days prior to grading activities, a qualified biologist shall contact
and consult with City staff regarding the timing of preconstruction surveys. In any event, within 30
days prior to grading activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey within appropriate
habitat areas to relocate individual coastal whiptail, coast horned lizard, and San Diego black -
tailed jackrabbit in order to avoid or minimize take of these sensitive species. Relocation will occur
through live capture and release, or in the case of black -tailed jackrabbits, by encouraging the
animals to leave the site. Individuals shall be relocated to nearby undisturbed areas with suitable
habitat, as identified by the qualified biologist in consultation with City staff. Results of the surveys
Master Case 20-045 MetroWalk Specific Plan
March 23, 2021 CEQA Findings
15
and relocation efforts shall be provided to the City. Collection and relocation of animals shall only
occur with the proper handling permits, as applicable.
Mitigation Measure 13I0-2: Beginning 30 or more days prior to the removal of any suitable
nesting habitat that will occur during the bird breeding and nesting season of February 1 through
August 31, the applicant shall arrange for weekly bird surveys to detect the California horned lark
or any other nesting bird species protected by the California Fish and Game Code or Migratory
Bird Treaty Act, in the habitats to be removed and any other suitable nesting habitat within 300
feet of the construction work areas. The surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist using
industry -accepted survey protocols. The surveys shall continue on a weekly basis, with the last
survey being conducted no more than 7 days prior to the initiation of any construction work
involving vegetation removal and/or within 300 feet of off -site nesting habitat.
If an active nest is found, clearing and construction within 300 feet of the nest shall be postponed
until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged, and when there is no evidence of a second
attempt at nesting. Limits of construction to avoid a nest site shall be established in the field with
flagging and stakes or construction fencing. Construction personnel shall be instructed on the
ecological sensitivity of the area. Incursion into the protective buffer shall only occur at the
discretion of a qualified biologist, and only if monitoring and other protective measures are
implemented to ensure that work activities are not affecting the nest. Results of the surveys,
including surveys to locate nests, shall be provided to the City. The results shall include a
description of any nests located and measures to be implemented to avoid nest sites.
Mitigation Measure 13I0-3: Worker Environmental Awareness Program: Prior to initiation of all
construction activities (including staging and mobilization), all personnel associated with project
construction shall attend a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training,
conducted by a qualified biologist, to aid workers in recognizing special status biological resources
potentially occurring in the Project area. This training will include information about San Diego
black -tailed jackrabbit, coastal whiptail, coast horned lizard, California horned lark, loggerhead
shrike, as well as other special -status species with potential to occur in the Project area. The
specifics of this program shall include identification of special -status species and habitats, a
description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of special -status
resources, review of the limits of construction and measures required to avoid and minimize
impacts to biological resources within the work area, and all reporting requirements. A fact sheet
conveying this information shall also be prepared for distribution to all contractors, their
employees, and other personnel involved with construction of the project. All employees shall sign
a form provided by the trainer documenting they have attended the WEAP and understand the
information presented to them. The crew foreman shall be responsible for ensuring crew members
adhere to the guidelines and restrictions designed to avoid impacts to special -status species.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The Project's potential impacts to cultural resources that can be mitigated are discussed in the
responses to the Initial Study Checklist Questions IV.b and IV.c starting on page 4-70 and page
4-74, respectively, in Section 4.0, Ihitial Study Checklist, of the Draft SCEA. The identified
potentially significant impacts relate specifically to archaeological and paleontological resources.
Master Case 20-045 MetroWalk Specific Plan
March 23, 2021 CEQA Findings
16
b) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to Section15064.5?
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or
mitigate the significant effects to a level of insignificance.
Facts in Support of Findings
The Project Site is a vacant infill site that has been previously disturbed. The Project would require
a maximum excavation depth of approximately 12 feet. A records search conducted at theSouth
Central Coastal Information Center indicated no known archaeological resources on the Project
Site. However, construction activities could have the potential to encounter previously
undiscovered archaeological resources. The Project would implement Mitigation Measure CUL-1,
which requires a qualified archaeologist to provide archaeological awareness training at the
construction kickoff meeting to ensure proper identification and treatment of inadvertent
discoveries. In the event of discovery, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find
shall immediately stop until a qualified specialist can evaluate the significance of the find and
determine whether additional study is warranted. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1
would ensure that the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance
of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5, and impacts to archaeological
resources would be less than significant in the unlikely event that archaeological resources are
encountered during Project construction.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Prior to the commencement of any construction activities on -site,
the applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to provide archaeological awareness training
at the construction kickoff meeting to ensure proper identification and treatment of inadvertent
discoveries. In the event that archaeological resources (e.g., sites, features, artifacts; or fossilized
material) are exposed during construction activities for the Project, all construction work occurring
within 100 feet of the find shall. immediately stop until a qualified specialist, meeting the Secretary
of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards, can evaluate the significance of the find and
determine whether additional study is warranted. Depending upon the significance of the find, the
archaeologist may simply record the find and allow work to continue. If the discovery proves
significant under CEQA, additional work, such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan,
testing, or data recovery, may bewarranted.
c) Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or
mitigate the significant effects to a level of insignificance.
1
Master Case 20-045 Metro Walk Specific Plan
March 23, 2021 CEQA Findings
17
Facts in Support of Findings
Although the Project Site has been previously disturbed and no paleontological resources were
identified on -site, given the proximity of past fossil discoveries in the surrounding area and the
Mint Canyon Formation, the Project Site was determined to be highly sensitive for paleontological
resources. The Project would implement Mitigation Measure CUL-2, which requires a qualified
paleontologist to prepare a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) and
provide a worker environmental awareness training at the construction kick-off meeting to ensure
proper identification and treatment of inadvertent discoveries. In the event of discovery, all
construction work occurring within 50 feet of the find shall immediately stop and be roped off.
Once documentation and collection of the find is completed, the monitor will remove the rope and
allow grading to recommence in the area of the find. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2
would ensure that impacts are reduced to a less -than -significant level in the event that
paleontological resources are discovered on the Project Site during construction. With the
incorporation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2, the Project would not directly or indirectly destroy or
impact a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature, and impacts to
paleontological resources would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Prior to the commencement of any grading activity on -site, the
applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist per the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP)
2010 ,guidelines. The paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation
Program (PRIMP) for the Project. The PRIMP shall be consistent with the SVP guidelines and
shall outline requirements for preconstruction meeting attendance and worker environmental
awareness training; where monitoring is required within the Project area based on construction
plans and/or geotechnical reports; procedures for adequate paleontological monitoring and
discoveries treatment; and paleontological methods, reporting, and collections management. The
qualified paleontologist shall attend the preconstruction meeting and a paleontological monitor
shall be on -site during all rough grading and other significant ground -disturbing activities in
previously undisturbed Mint Canyon Formation materials. In the event that paleontological
resources (e.g., fossils) are unearthed during grading, the paleontological monitor will temporarily
halt and/or divert grading activity to allow ,recovery of paleontological resources. The area of
discovery will be roped off with a 50-foot radius buffer. Once documentation and collection of the
find is completed, the monitor will remove the rope and allow grading to recommence in the area
of the find.
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
The Project's potential impact to tribal cultural resources that can be mitigated is discussed in the
responses to the Initial Study Checklist Question XVlll.a starting on page 4-192 in Section 4.0,
Initial Study Checklist, of the Draft SCEA. The identified potentially significant impact relates
specifically to construction impacts during ground disturbance to tribal cultural resources that may
exist on the Project Site.
a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size
Master Case 20-045 Metro Walk Specific Plan
March 23, 2021 CEQA Findings
18
and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources,
or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k), or
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) .of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1,
the lead agency shall consider the significance.of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or
mitigate the significant effects to a level of insignificance.
Facts in Support of Findings
During tribal consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52, the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of
Mission Indians (Tataviam) expressed concerns about the Project Site's location in a culturally -
sensitive area and its potential to contain tribal cultural resources. This consultation initiated by
the City resulted in the identification of potential tribal cultural resources on -site. To address any
inadvertent discovery of tribal cultural resources during Project construction, Mitigation
Measures TCR-1 through TCR-3 have been identified to reduce impacts to tribal cultural
resources to a less -than -significant level by having a professional Native American monitor
observe all ground disturbing activities and by implementing Archaeological Treatment Plan if
cultural resources are discovered. With implementation of mitigation measures, the Project would
not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource with cultural
value to a California Native American tribe, and impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure TCR-1: The Project shall retain a professional Native American monitor
procured by the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians to observe all ground -disturbing
activities, including, but not limited to, excavating, digging, trenching, plowing, drilling, tunneling,
quarrying, grading, leveling, clearing, driving posts, auguring, backfilling, blasting, stripping topsoil
or a similar activity, and any archaeological work conducted during Project construction. If cultural
resources are encountered, the Native American monitor shall have the authority to request
ground -disturbing activities to cease within 60 feet of discovery to assess and document the
potential finds in real time.
Mitigation Measure TCR-2: If significant pre -contact and/or post -contact cultural resources, as
defined by CEQA, are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall
develop an Archaeological Treatment Plan (ATP), the drafts of which shall be provided to the
Master Case 20-045 MetroWalk Specific Plan
March 23, 2021 CEQA Findings
19
Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians for review and comments. The ATP shall provide
details regarding the process for in -field treatment of inadvertent discoveries and the disposition
of inadvertently discovered non -funerary resources.
Mitigation Measure TCR-3: ' The City and applicant shall, in good faith, consult with the
Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians on the disposition and treatment of any tribal
cultural resource encountered during all ground -disturbing activities.
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Project's impacts identified in the mandatory findings of significance that can be mitigated
are discussed in the responses to the Initial Study Checklist Questions XVlll.a and XVlll.c starting
on page 4-212 and page 4-213, respectively in Section 4.0, Initial Study Checklist, of the Draft
SCEA. The identified potentially significant impacts relate specifically to impacts to biological
resources addressed in Initial Study Checklist Section IV, cultural resources addressed in Initial
Study Checklist Section V, Cultural Resources, and tribal cultural resources addressed in Initial
Study Checklist Section XVI I I of the Draft SCEA.
a) Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or
mitigate the significant effects to a level of insignificance.
Facts in Support of Findings
With the incorporation of Project -specific Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3, the Project
would not have substantial impacts to special -status species or protected native birds. Further, the
Project would not affect the local, regional, or national populations or ranges of any plant or animal
species and would not threaten any plant communities. Similarly, with incorporation of Project -specific
Mitigation Measures CULA, CUL-2, and TCRA through TCR-3, any potential impacts to
archaeological/paleontological resources and tribal cultural resources, respectively, would be
reduced to a less -than -significant level in the event of inadvertent discovery. Thus, the Project
would not eliminate any important examples of California history or prehistory. Therefore, with the
incorporation of mitigation measures, the Project would not have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history orprehistory.
Master Case 20-045 Metro Walk Specific Plan
March 23, 2021 CEQA Findings
20
D
Mitigation Measures
Please refer to Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through 13I0-3, CUL-1 and CUL-2, and TCR-1
through TCR-3 above.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly orindirectly?
Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that avoid or
mitigate the significant effects to a level of insignificance.
Facts in Support of Findings
Construction activities associated with the Project would produce criteria pollutant concentrations and
toxic air contaminants (TACs) in proximity to the residents of the Vista Canyon Specific Plan Project,
which are considered sensitive receptors. However, it was determined that with implementation of
Mitigation Measure AQ-1 (specifically for construction), the amount of criteria pollutant
concentrations and TACs generated during construction of the Project would not be considered
significant given the nature of vehicle use associated with the land uses included in the Project and
because emissions of other criteria pollutants would be below SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore,
development of the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to significant construction and
operational criteria pollutant and TAC emissions, and, as such, the Project would not have
environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly.
Mitigation Measures
Please refer to Mitigation Measure AQ-1 above.
Master Case 20-045 Metro Walk Specific Plan
March 23, 2021 CEQA Findings
21
EXHIBIT B
'MITIGATION MONITORING and REPORTING PROGRAM
(as adopted by Resolution No. 21- )
The following environmental mitigation measures identified in Table 4-1, Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program, were incorporated into the approval for this Project in order to mitigate
potentially significant environmental impacts. A completed and signed checklist for each
mitigation measure indicates that the mitigation measure has been complied with and
implemented and fulfills the City of Santa Clarita's monitoring requirements with respect to PRC
Section 21081.6. The mitigation measures are numbered as presented in the Draft SCEA.
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
��$���Issue� f �
_"�r�f �1(Art►y a'bciri iMe sure { �'� ,��
Method }f
� Y�srficatan"�.
^t� z.s4r.
``,� enc �
;=�:�iTr�i"�.`,,.
��°�"test f i �'
AIRQu�unr `
Mitigation
The project applicant or contractor
Issuance of
City of Santa
Pre -
Measure AQ-1
shall select equipment during
applicable
Clarita Public
construction
construction to minimize
building permit
Works
and
emissions. The Project applicant
and field
Department/
construction
shall submit a construction
inspection sign-
Development
phases
management plan to the City of
off
Services
Santa Clarita for review and
Division
approval, prior to issuance of any
grading and building permits. The
construction management plan
shall demonstrate that the off -road
equipment used on site to
construct the project would include
the following:
• All diesel -fueled equipment
used during project
construction shall be.equipped
With Tier 4 Final engines. In
the event that Tier 4 Final
engines are not commercially
available, use of alternatively
fueled (i.e., non -diesel)
equipment or other control
technology (i.e., diesel -
particulate filters) may suffice,
as long as an overall average
fleet exhaust PM2.5
emissions reduction of 89
percent below emission levels
estimated for the standard
Master Case 20-045 Metro Walk Specific Plan
March 23, 2021 MMRP
17
I
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
ssirq< xC
Mttt anon Measure a,
9
/drtficatio ��
A en,kfk
g
T�min�
Implementation.
Fo`.. '4'A✓,x,-a&
i.. q,.t
�y
.%.'., ..D ry..3"'Jv „..'L'
d &
�%x
fleet mix in the California
Emissions Estimator Model
can be demonstrated.
• Construction equipment
staging shall be situated as far
from existing residential
receptors as possible.
• Construction haul routes shall
be limited to paved roads and
minimize travel adjacent to
existing residences.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
,-
V'
Mitigation
Sixty days prior to grading
Qualified
City of Santa
60 days
Measure BIO-1
activities, a qualified biologist
biologist to
Clarita
prior to .
shall contact and consult with
consult with the
Community
grading
City staff regarding the timing of
City regarding
Development
activities; no
preconstruction surveys. In any
timing of pre-
Department/
later than 30
event, within 30 days prior to
construction
Planning
days prior to
grading activities, a qualified
surveys;
Division
grading
biologist shall conduct a survey
qualified biologist
activities
within appropriate habitat areas
to conduct
to relocate individual coastal
surveys
whiptail, coast horned lizard, and
San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit
in order to avoid or minimize
take of these sensitive species.
Relocation will occur through live
capture and release, or in the
case of black -tailed jackrabbits,
by encouraging the animals to
leave the site. Individuals shall
be relocated to nearby
undisturbed areas with suitable
habitat, as identified by the
qualified biologist in consultation
with City staff. Results of the
surveys and relocation efforts
shall be provided to the City.
Collection and relocation of
animals shall only occur with the
proper handling permits, as
applicable.
Mitigation
Beginning 30 or more days prior
Qualified
City of Santa
No later
Measure BIO-2
to the removal of any suitable
biologist to
Clarita
than 30
nesting habitat that will occur
consult with the
Community
days prior to
during the bird breeding and
City regarding
Development
grading
nesting season of February 1
timing of pre-
Department/
activities
Master Case 20-045
March 23, 2021
MetroWalk Specific Plan
MMRP
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
�� {�y(!Y 9 �`#5�is
7ssite E V �
.....:';. t.ti a.iF:•=aS ra
h 'Y �. �F'S 4 { t , �l4 � ! @rw
44
r � t�-M�#�g�t�orl4��Uleasuire �L � �$
-. ca t;,A, •r-r.u„kt ,>',.:;, 'it(ak,,:a.. .` ..,.Ni
Y t5' L: %? yM {�,� �
�;�/ �
eni�icationk
t, .�E:ti`aR,..a*�'„c, i<5 ux.+4,rxG,s.'`..r
q.'' y ", .���N
e c '
�� Ag rt �►
a.,, �",i V,;�^5
...f'F� S^J 1�Y '•
k � w
,ut�ipgr�,
:. .;. .?.,. 4k.Y.9
KZ, r*',� F...� �3I
�
s Imp�lementa�ioh
<..: ,.s.,<zNr �. r'Ni'
through August 31, the applicant
construction
Planning
shall arrange for weekly bird
surveys; qualified
Division
surveys to detect the California
biologist to
horned lark or any other nesting
conduct surveys
bird species protected by the
California Fish and Game Code
or Migratory Bird Treaty Act, in
the habitats to be removed and
any other suitable nesting habitat
within 300 feet of the
construction work areas. The
surveys shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist using industry -
accepted survey protocols. The
surveys shall continue on a
weekly basis, with the last
survey being conducted no more
than 7 days prior to the initiation
of any construction work
involving vegetation removal
and/or within 300 feet of off -site
nesting habitat.
If an active nest is found,
clearing and construction within
300 feet of the nest shall be
postponed until the nest is
vacated and juveniles have
fledged, and when there is no
evidence of a second attempt at
nesting. Limits of construction to
avoid a nest site shall be
established in the field with
flagging and stakes or
construction fencing.
Construction personnel shall be
instructed on the ecological
sensitivity of the area. Incursion
into the protective buffer shall
only occur at the discretion of a
qualified biologist, and only if
monitoring and other protective
measures are implemented to
ensure that work activities are
not affecting the nest. Results of
the surveys, including surveys to
locate nests, shall be provided to
the City. The results shall include
a description of any nests
located and measures to be
implemented to avoid nest sites.
Master Case 20-045 Metro Walk Specific Plan
March 23, 2021 MMRP
.7
I
r
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
�Issueti ��
i ,{,
Mitigation Measure ,
N�ethod
Y
Yerlfication
;x >Agency
T�mmg
Implementation;
Mitigation
Prior to initiation of all
Qualified
City of Santa
Pre -
Measure BIO-3
construction activities (including
biologist to
Clarita
construction
staging and mobilization), all
conduct training
Community
personnel associated with
Development
project construction shall attend
Department/
a Worker Environmental
Planning
Awareness Program (WEAP)
Division
training, conducted by a qualified
biologist, to aid workers in
recognizing special status
biological resources potentially
occurring in the Project area.
This training will include
information about San Diego
black -tailed jackrabbit, coastal
whiptail, coast horned lizard,
California horned lark,
loggerhead shrike, as well as
other special -status species with
potential to occur in the Project
area. The specifics of this
program shall include
identification of special -status
species and habitats, a
description of the regulatory
status and general ecological
characteristics of special -status
resources, review of the limits of
construction and measures
required to avoid and minimize
impacts to biological resources
within the work area, and all
reporting requirements. A fact
sheet conveying this information
shall also be prepared for
distribution to all contractors,
their employees, and other
personnel involved with
construction of the project. All
employees shall sign a form
provided by the trainer
documenting they have attended
the WEAP and understand the
information presented to them.
The crew foreman shall be
responsible for ensuring crew
members adhere to the
guidelines and restrictions
designed to avoid impacts to
special -status species.
Master Case 20-045
March 23, 2021
MetroWalk Specific Plan
MMRP
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
evr w � w
1R#
� � z,tip,�,;�
� v �Mitigattorr Measure s Verification ,� A encyipTimmg T� Implementation`
I - _
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation
Prior to the commencement of
Qualified
City of Santa
Pre -
Measure CULA
any construction activities on-
archaeologist to
Clarita
construction
site, the applicant shall retain a
conduct training
Community
qualified archaeologist to provide
Development
archaeological awareness
Department/
training at the construction
Planning
kickoff meeting to ensure proper
Division
identification and treatment of
inadvertent discoveries. In the
event that archaeological
resources (e.g., sites, features,
artifacts, or fossilized material)
are exposed during construction
activities for the Project, all
construction work occurring
within 100 feet of the find shall
immediately stop until a qualified
specialist, meeting the Secretary
of the Interior's Professional
Qualification Standards, can
evaluate the significance of the
find and determine whether
additional study is warranted.
Depending upon the significance
of the find, the archaeologist
may simply record the find and
allow work to continue. If the
discovery proves significant
under CEQA, additional work,
such as preparation of an
archaeological treatment plan,
testing, or data recovery, may be
warranted.
Mitigation
Prior to the commencement of
Qualified
City of Santa
Pre -
Measure CUL-2
any grading activity on -site, the
paleontologist to
Clarita
construction
applicant shall retain a qualified
conduct training
Community
paleontologist per the Society of
Development
Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP)
Department/
2010 guidelines. The
Planning
paleontologist shall prepare a
Division
Paleontological Resources
Impact Mitigation Program
(PRIMP) for the Project. The
PRIMP shall be consistent with
the SVP guidelines and shall
outline requirements for
preconstruction meeting
attendance and worker
Master Case 20-045 Metro Walk Specific Plan
March 23, 2021 MMRP
7
7i
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
p"ar.i u. Ih �1t k J. "C S`Y^
4 i F* 4� 7 d 5➢i" S
;P
t'FS (i t #{
Y
7 kYdf t a7
J`xkv}{
$Vq
Responsible
F _
Status of,
Issue �
, r f Mitigation Measure'. { �
<Venfication�
fi sAgenc�i �`
Timing
Impjementatlon-
,�
�
environmental awareness
training; where monitoring is
required within the Project area
based on construction plans
and/or geotechnical reports;
procedures for adequate
paleontological monitoring and
discoveries treatment; and
paleontological methods,
reporting, and collections
management. The qualified
paleontologist shall attend the
preconstruction meeting and a
paleontological monitor shall be
on -site during all rough grading
and other significant ground -
disturbing activities in previously
undisturbed Mint Canyon
Formation materials, In the event
that paleontological resources
(e.g., fossils) are unearthed
during grading, the
paleontological monitor will
temporarily halt and/or divert
grading activity to allow recovery
of paleontological resources.
The area of discovery will be
roped off with a 50-foot radius
buffer. Once documentation and
collection of the find is
completed, the monitor will
remove the rope and allow
grading to recommence in the
area of the find.
TRIBAL CWLTURALRESOURCES
!"
Mitigation
The Project shall retain a
Professional
City of Santa
During the
Measure TCRA
professional Native American
native American
Clarita
excavation
monitor procured by the
to observe all
Community
and grading
Fernandeho Tataviam Band of
ground-
Development
phases of
Mission Indians to observe all
disturbing
Department/
construction
ground -disturbing activities,
activities
Planning
including, but not limited to,
Division
excavating, digging, trenching,
plowing, drilling, tunneling,
quarrying, grading, leveling,
clearing, driving posts, auguring,
backfilling, blasting, stripping
topsoil or a similar activity, and
any archaeological work
Master Case 20-045
March 23, 2021
MetroWalk Specific Plan
MMRP
Table 4-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
r 5i
�'y Issue w
� � , Illjliti�at�on �
��
'�r�
*+
Implementation"
�,F �{ ,�
, ,Measure N !_
,i vVbrificatiori
�Ag�ticyY�{ �
i �,T�mi �g
conducted during Project
construction. If cultural resources
are encountered, the Native
American monitor shall have the
authority to request ground -
disturbing activities to cease
within 60 feet of discovery to
assess and document the
potential finds in real time.
Mitigation
If significant pre -contact and/or
Qualified
City of Santa
Upon
Measure TCR-2
post -contact cultural resources,
archaeologist to
Clarita
discovery of
as defined by CEQA, are
prepare ATP
Community
resources
discovered and avoidance
Development
cannot be ensured, the
Department/
archaeologist shall develop an
Planning
Archaeological Treatment Plan
Division
(ATP), the drafts of which shall
be provided to the Fernandeno
Tataviam Band of Mission
Indians for review and
comments. The ATP shall
provide details regarding the
process for in -field treatment of
inadvertent discoveries and the
disposition of inadvertently
discovered non -funerary
resources.
Mitigation
The City and applicant shall, in
Qualified
City of Santa
Upon
Measure TCR-3
good faith, consult with the
archaeologist to
Clarita
discovery of
Fernandeno Tataviam Band of
assist in
Community
resources
Mission Indians on the
coordination with
Development
disposition and treatment of any
the tribe on the
Department/
tribal cultural resource
disposition and
Planning
encountered during all ground-
treatment of
Division
disturbing activities.
resources
Master Case 20-045 Metro Walk Specific Plan
March 23, 2021 MMRP