Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-05-27 - AGENDA REPORTS - METROLINK SPECIFIC PLAN AMEND MC 24 230O Agenda Item: 4 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARINGS CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Li ' DATE: May 27, 2025 SUBJECT: METROWALK SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (MASTER CASE 24-230) DEPARTMENT: Community Development PRESENTER: Erika Iverson RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council: 1. Conduct a public hearing. 2. Determine that the project is consistent with the Addendum to the Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment, prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, and that the project would not result in any new significant impacts and would not substantially increase the severity of any previously identified impacts. 3. Introduce and pass to second reading, an ordinance entitled: "THE METROWALK SPECIFIC PLAN (MASTER CASE 24-230, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT (24-002)," to allow duplexes and detached condos, eliminate planning areas, reduce the setbacks between units, and adjust the timing for the construction of the senior affordable units. Waive reading of the text and consent to read by title only, as listed on the agenda. BACKGROUND Request The applicant, B1uMax Santa Clarita, LLC, is requesting amendments to the MetroWalk Specific Plan (Specific Plan) to expand the housing types allowed within the Specific Plan area, reduce setbacks between units, eliminate planning areas, adjust timing for the construction of the affordable senior units, and allow the option to pay an in -lieu fee rather than construct the affordable senior apartments required by the Specific Plan. There are no proposed changes to the required amenity space, parking, and maximum number of units within the Specific Plan. Page 1 Packet Pg. 65 O Project Setting The Specific Plan covers approximately 20 acres, located at the southeast corner of Lost Canyon Road and Harriman Drive, right next to the Vista Canyon Specific Plan area and the new Vista Canyon Multi -Modal Center. Originally adopted by the City Council in March 2021, the Specific Plan permitted up to 498 units to be built within four planning areas, including: 1) Planning Area 1 (PA-1) with 279 market -rate apartments; 2) Planning Area 2 (PA-2) with 119 market -rate senior apartments; 3) Planning Area 3 (PA-3) with 49 affordable senior apartments plus one manager unit; and 4) Planning Area 4 (PA-4) with 150 for -sale townhomes and a nearly one -acre park. To date, the entire Specific Plan site has been rough graded, and the main infrastructure has been installed. The for -sale townhome units and the community park within PA-4 are currently under construction. No construction has started on the apartment units within PA-1, PA-2, or PA-3. In late 2023, the applicant submitted a request to build townhomes in Planning Areas 1 and 2, instead of the market -rate apartments and the senior market -rate apartments. This request was presented to the City Council in December of 2023 as an informational item; no action by the Council was required. While townhomes are a permissible use within the Specific Plan, the applicant did not end up moving forward with that request. In November 2024, the applicant applied for a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA), which is outlined in the Project Description below. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is seeking amendments to the Specific Plan that would expand the allowable residential use types within the Specific Plan to accommodate duplex and detached condominiums, reduce setbacks between units, eliminate planning areas, adjust timing for the construction of the affordable senior units, and allow the option to pay an in -lieu fee rather than construct the 49 affordable senior apartments required by the Specific Plan. When the developer requested the original Specific Plan, the only residential use types that they proposed to be allowed were multifamily uses, which are those apartments and townhomes that are three or more units. Due to current market constraints for financing on multifamily construction and fire insurance, the applicant is looking to add single-family detached condominiums and duplex residential use types to the list of allowable uses in the Specific Plan. This amendment would give the applicant greater flexibility in how the Specific Plan is ultimately built out by allowing the developer to choose which residential use type to build based on market conditions. The applicant has made two attempts to secure tax credit financing for the affordable senior Page 2 Packet Pg. 66 O apartments, and both have been unsuccessful. The project was originally approved so that the construction of the affordable senior units must begin before occupancy of the 180th unit within the Specific Plan area. Construction has already begun on the 150 townhomes in PA-4. As such, only 30 more units can be built before the construction of affordable senior apartments must begin. Therefore, the applicant is requesting to delay the construction of the affordable senior units until the occupancy of the 240th unit to allow additional time to secure financing and to continue to build units concurrently. The applicant is also proposing payment of an in -lieu fee of $800,000, to be paid to the City for a future affordable housing project, if tax credit financing is not able to be secured for the project. The City Council has not previously considered or adopted an in -lieu fee program. For reference, City of Santa Clarita (City) staff conducted research on what local benchmark cities were charging for in -lieu fees for affordable housing and found that they typically charge per square foot rather than per unit. From the list of benchmark cities, the prices from Glendale, Thousand Oaks, and Ventura were all compared and found to have a range in fees from $25.70 per square foot up to $55.00 per square foot and an average of $39.83 per square foot. The 49 units are approximately 550 square feet each. The fee range that these three cities would assess as an in - lieu fee for a 49-unit project would range from a total of $692,615 up to $1,482,250, and the average would be $1,073,419. As another example, the City partnered with Related California in 2017 on development of the Three Oaks Apartment complex with 29 low income units. The City provided subsidies amounting to $181,135 per unit toward the development. Notwithstanding this proposal from the applicant, City staff does not support including payment of an in -lieu fee as an option for the following reasons: 1) the City has not conducted a study to determine the appropriate in -lieu fee in the City; 2) payment of the fee in -lieu of construction would not further the City's goal for affordable housing construction as set forth in the City's certified Housing Element; 3) the City does not have a program in place to utilize the in -lieu fees to subsidize construction of affordable housing elsewhere in the City; 4) the City's Housing Element includes a program to explore the feasibility of an inclusionary housing program, which could include an in -lieu fee and any consideration of an in -lieu fee should follow that exercise; and 5) the City does not have information about what other funds the benchmark cities have available to further subsidize affordable housing, which could be reducing their adopted in -lieu fees. Additional Changes There are other minor changes that are also being proposed by the applicant. To allow greater flexibility in how the Specific Plan gets built out, the requested amendments would eliminate the Planning Areas, and development would be governed by the two zones within the Specific Plan area of either Residential (R) or Open Space (OS). Any permissible residential use types would be allowed within the existing R zone. The applicant is also requesting to reduce the minimum building separation distance from ten feet to seven feet. This reduction in building separation is only applicable to duplex or detached Page 3 Packet Pg. 67 O single-family condominium units. The reduction in building distance separation would maximize the number of duplex or single-family detached condominium units that could be built on -site. Lastly, the proposed amendment to the Specific Plan would make a change in how the Specific Plan gets implemented. Due to the amendments that allow flexibility in unit type, and ultimately allow flexibility in build -out scenarios, the proposed changes would require that all new development that comes in would require an Architectural Design Review and a Development Review to ensure it complies with the development regulations. No Changes The majority of the Specific Plan would remain unchanged from the original approval and the amendment would not modify the maximum number of units that can be built on -site. The total number of units would remain a maximum of 498. Thus, because the maximum number of units will remain at 498, approval of the requested amendments would not result in a net loss of units within the meaning of the state housing laws. The other development standards, including parking, amenity space, and building height, would remain the same. GENERAL PLANNING AND ZONING Surrounding Land Uses The General Plan and zoning designation for the subject property is Specific Plan with a portion of the project site located in a Significant Ecological Area Overlay. The surrounding land uses include the Vista Canyon Specific Plan, the Colony Townhomes development, and the Metrolink rail line. Fair Oaks Ranch, is located further south, beyond the Metrolink rail line, and improved with multi- and single-family units. Regional Housing Needs Allocation The 49 deed -restricted affordable senior apartment units are allocated for low income and are currently in the pipeline for projections to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for low-income units. The current RHNA buffer for the low-income category is 142 units. If the City Council approves an in -lieu fee option, and the developer opted to pay the in - lieu fee, the buffer would drop by 49, reducing the buffer to 93 units. The proposed project does not meet the definition of a housing development in accordance with Senate Bill 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, as it is an amendment to an existing Specific Plan. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on April 15, 2025, where City staff presented the item, opened the public hearing, and received comments from the applicant and members of the public. After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to adopt Resolution P25-05, recommending the City Council approve the proposed project to Page 4 Packet Pg. 68 O expand the housing types allowed within the Specific Plan area, reduce setbacks between units, eliminate planning areas, and adjust timing for the construction of the affordable senior units. The Planning Commission action does not include a recommendation to approve the option to pay an in -lieu fee for the affordable senior apartments. ENVIRONMENTAL A Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) was approved for the MetroWalk Specific Plan by the City Council in March 2021. The SCEA was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and contains a disclosure and analysis of potential environmental effects associated with implementation of the approved plan. An Addendum to the SCEA has been prepared for the proposed project, and concludes that the proposed amendment to the MetroWalk Specific Plan would not result in any new significant impacts and would not substantially increase the severity of any previously identified impacts. Furthermore, there is not any new information requiring new analysis or verification, and no new project design features or mitigation measures required for new impacts. As such, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum to the SCEA is the appropriate CEQA document for the SPA. The Addendum is available in the Clerk's Reading File. NOTICING All notices required by law were completed. Property owners and occupants within a 1,000- foot radius of the project site were notified of the public hearing by mail. A public notice was placed in The Signal newspaper on April 22, 2025, and a sign was posted on the project site on April 29, 2025. As of the writing of this staff report, staff has received no correspondence from the community. ALTERNATIVE ACTION Other action as determined by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this recommended action. ATTACHMENTS Public Hearing Notice Ordinance Aerial and Zoning Map Notice of Determination Planning Commission Agenda Item (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) MetroWalk Draft SPA (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Page 5 Packet Pg. 69 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT -�' 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION: Master Case 24-230: Specific Plan Amendment 24-002 PROJECT APPLICANT: B1uMax Santa Clarita, LLC PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast Corner of Lost Canyon Road and Harriman Drive (APNs: 2840- 034-020, -021, -022, -023, -024, and -026) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, B1uMax Santa Clarita, LLC, is requesting to amend the MetroWalk Specific Plan to permit duplexes and single-family condominiums, as the plan currently contemplates only multi -family housing types of three or more units and adjust the timing for the construction of the senior affordable units. The proposed amendment will facilitate greater flexibility to provide a variety of housing options consistent with the design guidelines included in the specific plan. The site is approximately 20 acres and there are no proposed changes to the amenities, open spaces, and maximum number of units within the specific plan. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On April 15, 2025, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve Master Case 24-230, to expand the housing types allowed in the Specific Plan area, reduce setbacks between units, eliminate planning areas, and adjust the timing for the construction of the senior affordable units. Therefore, the City Council will conduct a public hearing on this matter on the following date: DATE: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 TIME: At or after 6:00 p.m. LOCATION: City Hall, Council Chambers 23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor Santa Clarita, CA 91355 The City Council agenda can be found at www.santaclarita.gov/agendas by May 9, 2025. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) for the MetroWalk Specific Plan was approved by the City Council on March 23, 2021. An addendum to the SCEA was prepared for the proposed project and is available for review by appointment in the City Clerk's Office located in the City Hall building at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. In addition, a copy will be available on the Planning Division's website. htips:Hsantaclarita.gov/planning/environmental 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 written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita at, or prior to, the public hearings. If you wish to have written comments included in the materials the City Council receives prior to the public hearing, it must be submitted to the Community Development Department by Friday, May 2, 2025. For further information regarding this proposal, you may contact the project planner, by appointment, at the City of Santa Clarita, Permit Center, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Telephone: (661) 255-4330. Website: www.santaclarita.gov/planning. Send written correspondence via e-mail to eiverson@santaclarita.gov, or by US mail to: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Project Planner: Erika Iverson, Senior Planner. Mary Cusick, MMC City Clerk Published: The Signal, April 22, 2025 Packet Pg. 70 4.a PROJECT SITE Southeast Corner of Lost Canyon Road and Harriman Drive Assessor's Parcel Numbers 2840-034-020, -021, -022, -023, -024, and -026 +r - Harriman drive Packet Pg. 71 4.b ORDINANCE NO. 25- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA APPROVING MASTER CASE 24-230, CONSISTING OF SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 24-002, INCLUDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE METROWALK SPECIFIC PLAN DOCUMENT, AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT A, SUBJECT TO THE ATTACHED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (EXHIBIT B) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT FOR MASTER CASE 24-230. The City Council makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: A. An application for Master Case 24-230 (Project), (Specific Plan Amendment 24-002), was filed by the project applicant, B1uMax Santa Clarita, LLC (applicant), with the City of Santa Clarita (City) on November 4, 2024. The property affected by this application is located at Assessor's Parcel Numbers 2840-034-020, -021, -022, -023, -024, and -026 (Project site); B. The approximately 20.4-acre MetroWalk Specific Plan Project (Project) site is located at the southeast corner of Lost Canyon Road and Harriman Drive, a private street, and is located within the Specific Plan (SP) zone and General Plan land use designation. The easternmost portion of the site is within the Santa Clara River Significant Ecological Area (SEA) designated by Los Angeles County and included in the City's SEA Overlay Zone; C. Surrounding land uses include primarily multifamily residential development. The Colony Townhomes, a multifamily residential community, is directly west of the Project site. The Fair Oaks Ranch Community, which is comprised of multifamily 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 0 Plan area is located north and east of the Project site, with multifamily apartments constructed immediately north of the Project site. The Vista Canyon Multi -Modal Center E with a seven -bay bus transfer station and Metrolink rail station is located just east of the U Project site; a D. The amendment includes amendments to the MetroWalk Specific Plan allowing duplexes and detached condominium (condo) units, reduction to setbacks between duplex and detached condo units, eliminating planning areas, and an adjustment to the timing for construction of the 49 affordable senior units. The Project includes the development of a maximum of 498 residential units and a park; E. On April 15, 2025, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita; Packet Pg. 72 4.b F. During this public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the staff report, the staff presentation, the applicant presentation, and public testimony. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to adopt Resolution P25-05, recommending the City Council approve the proposed Project; G. The Project was placed on the agenda for the regular City Council meeting on May 13, 2025. Prior to opening the public hearing, the City Council voted to continue the item to May 27, 2025; and H. The City Council held a duly noticed hearing on Master Case 24-230 on May 27, 2025. This ordinance, and its findings, are made based upon the evidence presented to the City Council at its May 27, 2025, hearing including, without limitation, the staff report submitted by the Community Development Director. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FINDINGS. The City reviewed the environmental impacts of this Project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. CEQA) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15000, et seq., the CEQA Guidelines). Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find as follows: A. An Addendum to the Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) for this Project was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines; B. The proposed amendment would not result in any new significant impacts and would not substantially increase the severity of any previously identified impacts; C. There is not any new information requiring new analysis or verification, and no new Project design features or mitigation measures required for new impacts; D. The location of the documents and other material which constitutes the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the Planning Commission is the Master Case 24- 230 Project file. This Project file is located within the Community Development Department and is in the custody of the Director of Community Development; and E. Based upon the findings set forth above, that the City Council find the Addendum to the SCEA for this Project has been prepared in compliance with CEQA. SECTION 3. GENERAL FINDINGS FOR MASTER CASE 24-230. Based on the foregoing facts and findings for Master Case 24-230, the City Council determines as follows: A. That the proposal is consistent with the General Plan; Pursuant to Government Code section 65454, the proposed Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan by furthering the goals, objectives and policies of the Packet Pg. 73 4.b General Plan. Specifically, the Housing Element and Land Use Element of the General Plan include the following goals, objectives, and policies that contemplate a development consistent with the proposed amended Specific Plan including: Goal LU 3: Healthy and safe neighborhoods for all residents. Objective LU 3.1: Provide for a diversity of housing types available to provide safe and suitable homes for all economic levels, household sizes, age groups and special needs groups within the community. Policy LU 3.1.1: On the Land Use Map, designate adequate land for residential use at various densities to provide a mix of housing opportunities for all segments of the population, including attached, detached, senior, and mixed -use housing types, which are consistent with community character and meet the region's housing goals. The proposed amendment to the Specific Plan would allow for a variety of housing types including market -rate apartments, senior market -rate apartments, affordable senior apartments, townhomes, and duplexes. This variety of housing types will allow for a mixture of housing types that would meet the needs of the community and support the above -referenced Goals and Objectives of the General Plan. Goal LU 5: Enhanced mobility through alternative transportation choices and land use patterns. Objective LU 5.2: Coordinate land use designations with support services and public transit in order to encourage vehicle trip reduction. Policy LU 5.2.1: Designate higher -density residential uses in areas served by public transit and a full range of support services. L The Project site is adjacent to the Town Center planning area of the Vista Canyon O Specific Plan as well as the Vista Canyon Multi -Modal Center, which includes a seven - bay bus transfer station and a Metrolink rail line station providing residents access to E local and regional public transit opportunities and commercial services that would encourage vehicle trip reduction. Q Goal H.2: Promote the production of housing units, including affordable units, to meet the City's identified housing needs. Polio: Encourage a variety of housing types such as single-family attached (townhouses), multifamily units, planned unit developments, mixed use housing, board and care facilities, and other typologies that make housing more affordable. The proposed amendment includes 49 affordable senior housing units for low income (65 percent area median income) and provides the flexibility to have a variety of housing Packet Pg. 74 4.b types allowed within the Specific Plan including townhomes, single-family condos, duplexes, and multifamily units. The proposed change in the timing requirement for construction of the affordable senior apartment units would allow more timing and flexibility for the applicant to secure financing to build the affordable senior units, therefore contributing to the City's goal of providing the much -needed low-income units for the community. B. The proposal is allowed within the applicable underlying zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of this code; The Project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of SP. Section 17.37.030 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) establishes the SP zoning designation which identifies lands in the planning area that are governed by an adopted specific plan. The MetroWalk Specific Plan guides development of the 20.4-acre site, including "specific allowable uses, maximum intensity standards, and development standards." The proposed amendment would allow for greater flexibility within the plan and would not conflict with the General Plan Use designation or the zoning designation of SP. Final product types and site design will be reviewed as projects as proposed and will be subject to a Development Review and Architectural Design Review to ensure that projects comply with the standards of the Specific Plan. 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 MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment has been evaluated in accordance with the LU 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 as discussed above. The Project has been designed to complement the surrounding c development, specifically the Vista Canyon Specific Plan development immediately north and east of the Project site. Pedestrian connectivity to the adjacent Vista Canyon r development has been incorporated into the Project to promote walkability by providing direct links to public transit and commercial services and reduce vehicle trips. Finally, the Project has been designed to be consistent with all applicable requirements for law a enforcement and emergency services for the Project site. Therefore, the Project will not Q 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; Packet Pg. 75 4.b The original MetroWalk Specific Plan established the allowable uses, density, and development standards for the Project site, and the proposed amendment will not change the development standards in a manner where the conceptual plans would not be suitable for the Project site. The amendment to the Specific Plan area has been designed to be consistent and compatible with the adjacent Vista Canyon Specific Plan, specifically to provide linkages to the Vista Canyon Multi -Modal Center as well as to the existing and planned pedestrian trails through the Vista Canyon Specific Plan area. 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 ofsufcient width and are improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity oftraffic such proposal would generate; A detailed traffic analysis was prepared for the original MetroWalk Specific Plan to evaluate the impacts of the Project, and it identified signalization and other roadway improvements to ensure the public roadways are sufficiently improved to support the additional Project traffic. The main infrastructure, including the proposed streets, is already under construction, and the amendment does not propose to change the streetscape. In addition, the Addendum to the SCEA did not identify any new or significant traffic impacts. Furthermore, the Project Conditions of Approval require the applicable improvements prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 3. Public protection services (e.g., Fire protection, Sheriprotection, etc.) are readily available; and The Project site is located in an established, urban environment that is serviced by LU existing law enforcement and fire protection services. No additional impacts to public protection services such as Fire and Sheriff protection were identified in the addendum to the SCEA. Furthermore, the applicant will pay applicable fees to the law enforcement and fire protection agencies to assist in offsetting any impacts to the services necessary to properly service the Project. 0 r c m 4. The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste collection and E disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc) is � adequate to serve the site. a The Project is in a portion of the City that is surrounded by developed communities with access to the necessary utilities to service the Project site. The original MetroWalk Specific Plan included an infrastructure development plan to identify necessary on -site and off -site infrastructure improvements to connect to existing supply and support the future development. A hydraulic analysis was also completed for the Project determining that adequate water is available to meet the needs of the Project site. Finally, the main infrastructure to make utility connections has already been installed on -site. Packet Pg. 76 4.b SECTION 4: SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR THE NO NET LOSS LAW. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the Addendum to the SCEA, oral and written testimony, and other evidence received at the public hearings, reports, and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, and upon studies and investigations made by the City Council, the City Council find as follows: By providing flexibility of residential unit type, the proposed amendment does not change the maximum number of permissible units. The final unit count would be determined at the time of development based on the proposed housing units at that time. Therefore, the approval of the requested amendments would not result in a net loss of units within the meaning of the State housing laws at this time. SECTION 5: APPROVALS. The City Council takes the following actions: Adopt this ordinance approving Master Case 24-230, Specific Plan Amendment 24-002, approving the amendment to the MetroWalk Specific Plan document (Exhibit A) for the development of the MetroWalk Specific Plan Project, in the City of Santa Clarita, California, subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit B). SECTION 6: RELIANCE ON RECORD. Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this ordinance are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the City Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. SECTION 7: SUMMARIES OF INFORMATION. All summaries of information in the 0 findings, which precede this section, are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular W finding is not based in part on that fact. m c SECTION 8: NOTICE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after its passage and adoption. L O SECTION 9: EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Clerk will certify to the passage of this ordinance and cause it to be published as required by law. E r r PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this day of , 2025. a MAYOR Packet Pg. 77 4.b 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 Ordinance No. 25- was regularly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of 2025. That thereafter, said ordinance was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of 2025, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: m c AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the foregoing is the original of Ordinance No. 25- and was published in The Signal newspaper in accordance with State Law (G.C. 40806). O r c m E t r CITY CLERK a Packet Pg. 78 4.b EXHIBIT A MASTER CASE 24-230 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 24-002 DRAFT 2025 METROWALK SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE DOCUMENT CAN BE FOUND IN THE CITY CLERK'S READING FILE Packet Pg. 79 4.b EXHIBIT B MASTER CASE 24-230 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 24-002 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL In addition to all applicable provisions of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code (SCMC), B1ueMax Santa Clarita, LLC, agrees to comply with the following provisions as conditions for the City of Santa Clarita's (City) approval of Master Case 24-230. All conditions previously applied to the Metro Walk Specific Plan Project (Master Case 20-045) through City Council Resolution No. 21-11 apply to this approval unless modified herein. GENERAL CONDITIONS GC1. The approval of this project expires if the approved use is not commenced within two years from the date of this approval, unless it is extended in accordance with the terms and provisions of the City of Santa Clarita's (City) 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 must 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 two years or more must terminate the approval of this use along with any associated vested rights to such use. The use must not be re-established or resumed after the two-year period. Discontinuation must include cessation of a use regardless of intent to resume. GC3. The Permittee may file for an extension of the conditionally approved project before the date of expiration. If such an extension is requested, it must be filed not later than 60 days before the date of expiration. GC4. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "Permittee" includes the Permittee and any other persons, corporation, or other entity making use of this grant. The Permittee must defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, 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 become aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the City will promptly notify the Permittee. If the City fails to notify the Permittee or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the Permittee is not thereafter 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 occur: 1) the City bears its own attorneys' fees and costs; and 2) the City defends the action in good faith. The Permittee is not required to pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement is approved by the Permittee. Packet Pg. 80 4.b GC5. The Permittee and property owner must comply with all inspections requirements as deemed necessary by the Director. GC6. The project site must be developed and/or used in the manner requested and must be in substantial conformity with the submitted plans date -stamped on file, unless revisions and/or additional conditions are specifically required herein. GC7. This approval runs with the land. All rights and obligations of this approval, including the responsibility to comply with the Conditions of Approval, are binding upon Permittee's successors in interest. The Conditions of Approval may be modified, terminated, or abandoned in accordance with applicable law including, without limitation, the SCMC. GC8. Any proposed deviations from the Exhibit(s), Project Description, or Conditions of Approval must be submitted to the Director for review and approval. Any unapproved deviations from the project approval will constitute a violation of the permit approval. GC9. When exhibits and/or written Conditions of Approval are in conflict, the written Conditions of Approval prevail. GC10. The effectiveness of this project will be suspended for the time period that any Condition of Approval is appealed whether administratively or as part of a legal action filed in a court of competent jurisdiction. If any Condition of Approval is invalidated by a court of law, the project must be reviewed by the City and substitute conditions may be imposed. GC 11. The Permittee is responsible for ascertaining and paying all City fees as required by the 0 Santa Clarita Municipal Code (SCMC) and these Conditions of Approval. This condition serves as notice pursuant to Government Code § 66020(d) that the City of Santa Clarita is w imposing development impact fees (DIFs) upon the Project pursuant to the SCMC and these Conditions of Approval in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code § 66000, et seq.). The Permittee is informed that it may protest DIFs in accordance with Government Code § 66020 and that upon approval of these Conditions of Approval by the City Council the 90-day approval period in which the Permittee may protest has O begun. E GC12. The Permittee must sign these Conditions of Approval, as set forth below, to acknowledge acceptance, within 30 days from the date of approval by the City Council. Q GC13. The City will only issue permits for the development when the construction documents (e.g., building plans) substantially comply with the approved plans. Substantial conformity is determined by the Director. GC14. This decision is not effective until Permittee acknowledges acceptance of all Project Conditions and any appeal period has lapsed, or a waiver of right to appeal is filed or if there is an appeal, until a final decision has been made on the appeal. By use of the entitlements granted by a development application, the Permittee acknowledges agreement with the Conditions of Approval. Packet Pg. 81 4.b GC15. Anything which is not shown on the application/plans, or which is not specifically approved, or which is not in compliance with this section, is not approved. Any application and/or plans which are defective as to, without limitation, omission, dimensions, scale, use, colors, materials, encroachments, easements, etc., will render any entitlements granted by this approval null and void. Construction must cease until all requirements of this approval are complied with. Development entitlements may be withheld until violations of the SCMC are abated. GC16. The City will not issue a final Certificate of Occupancy until the Permittee complies with all Project Conditions. GC17. Permittee must reimburse the City for all attorneys' fees expended by the City that are directly related to the processing of this Project. The City will not issue a Final Certificate of Occupancy or other final occupancy approval until all attorneys' fees are paid by the Permittee. PLANNING DIVISION PL1. The Permittee is approved to construct a maximum of 498 residential units, including multifamily units as well as duplexes and detached condos, reduce the setback between units from ten feet to seven feet, eliminate planning areas, and adjust the timing for the construction of the affordable senior units as outlined in Condition No. PL28. The project must be built and operated in accordance with the amended MetroWalk Specific Plan and project description on file with the City's Planning Division under Master Case 24-230. .• . �.WMMMY .•• PL8. Open space shall be provided for each residential unit at a ratio of 200 square feet for each studio unit, 300 square feet for each one -bedroom unit, 400 square feet for each two- or more -bedroom unit, and 650 square feet for each townhome, duplex, or detached condo. Open space shall be provided in a combination of private and common areas in conformance with the MetroWalk Specific Plan Open Space Plan. Packet Pg. 82 4.b PL28. The permittee must secure a building permit for constructing the income -restricted senior apartments concurrently, or before, the Building Official issues a final certificate of occupancy for the 2401h dwelling unit. The Building Official must issue a final certificate of occupancy for all 50 income restricted units before or concurrently with the final Certificate of Occupancy for the 2701h dwelling unit. Packet Pg. 83 4.c AERIAL AND ZONING MAP Master Case 24-230: Specific Plan Amendment 24-002 Southeast Corner of Lost Canyon Road and Harriman Drive (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 2840-034-020, -021, -022, -023, -024, and -026) Aerial May Packet Pg. 84 4.c Zoning Map s 0 7 Harriman Drive c i ZONING KEY - SP (Specific Plan) - UR5 (Urban Residential 5) - PI (Public Institution) - BP (Business Park) I m H Z W 0 Z W Q Z J a U U W a Co Y J Q 0 i— w 0_ CD c C 0 N m c c� Q r c 0 E U r r Q Packet Pg. 85 4.d NOTICE OF DETERMINATION R [X] County Clerk [ ] State Clearinghouse County of Los Angeles 1400 Tenth Street 12400 E. Imperial Hwy., Rm. 1007 Sacramento, CA 95815� Norwalk, CA 90650 PROJECT Newhall Mixed -Use Project: Master Case 24-230: Specific Plan Amendment 24-002 NAME: PROJECT Southeast corner of Lost Canyon Road and Harriman Drive (Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 2840- LOCATION: 034-020, -021, -022, -023, -024, and -026) PROJECT The applicant, B1uMax Santa Clarita, LLC, is requesting to amend the MetroWalk Specific Plan to DESCRIPTION: expand the housing types allowed within the Specific Plan area, reduce setbacks between units, eliminate planning areas, and adjust the timing for the construction of the senior affordable units. The proposed amendment will facilitate greater flexibility to provide a variety of housing options consistent with the design guidelines included in the specific plan. The site is approximately 20 acres and there are no proposed changes to the amenities, open spaces, and maximum number of units within the specific plan. A Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) for the MetroWalk Specific Plan was approved by the City Council on March 23, 2021. PROJECT B1ueMax Santa Clarita, LLC APPLICANT: This is to advise that the City of Santa Clarita has made the following determinations regarding the project described above: 1) The project was approved by the [] Director of Community Development [ ] Planning Commission [X] Mayor and City Council on the following date: May 27, 2025. 2) [X ] An Addendum to the Final SCEA was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3) The project [ ] WILL [X] WILL NOT have a significant impact on the environment. 4) Mitigation measures [X] WERE [ ] WERE NOT made a condition of project approval. 5) A Statement of Overriding Considerations [ ] WAS [X] WAS NOT adopted for this project. This is to certify that the [ ] NEGATIVE DECLARATION [ ] ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT [X] ADDENDUM with record of project approval is available for public review at: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, California 91355 (661)255-4330 Contact Person/Title: Justin Sauder, Associate Planner Signature: Packet Pg. 86 O Agenda Item: 1 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING MANAGER APPROVAL: DATE: April 15, 2025 SUBJECT: MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment (Master Case 24-230) APPLICANT: B1uMax Santa Clarita, LLC LOCATION: Southeast corner of Lost Canyon Road and Harriman Drive CASE PLANNER: Justin Sauder RECOMMENDED ACTION Planning Commission: 1. Conduct the public hearing; 2. Determine that the project is consistent with the Addendum to the Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment that was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, and that the project would not result in any new significant impacts and would not substantially increase the severity of any previously identified impacts; 3. Adopt Resolution P25-05, recommending that the City Council approve Master Case 24- 230 (Specific Plan Amendment 24-002), to amend the MetroWalk Specific Plan to allow duplexes and detached condos, eliminate planning areas, reduce the setbacks between units, and adjust the timing for the construction of the senior affordable units; and 4. Take additional, related action that may be desirable. REQUEST The applicant, B1uMax Santa Clarita, LLC, is requesting amendments to the MetroWalk Specific Plan (Specific Plan) to expand the housing types allowed within the Specific Plan area, reduce setbacks between units, eliminate planning areas, adjust timing for the construction of the senior affordable units, and allow the option to pay an in -lieu fee rather than construct the senior affordable apartments required by the Specific Plan. There are no proposed changes to the required amenity space, parking, and maximum number of units within the Specific Plan. Page 1 Packet Pg. 11 O BACKGROUND The Specific Plan covers approximately 20 acres, located at the southeast corner of Lost Canyon Road and Harriman Drive, right next to the Vista Canyon Specific Plan area and the new Vista Canyon Multi -Modal Center. Originally adopted by the City Council in March 2021, the Specific Plan permitted up to 498 units to be built within four planning areas including: 1) Planning Area 1 (PA 1) with 279 market -rate apartments; 2) Planning Area 2 (PA 2) with 119 market -rate senior apartments; 3) Planning Area 3 (PA 3) with 49 affordable senior apartments plus one manager unit; and 4) Planning Area 4 (PA 4) with 150 for -sale townhomes. The project included a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to amend the land use designation and zone from Business Park (BP) to Specific Plan (SP), a Tentative Tract Map to allow for the subdivision of the property for residential condominium (condo) ownership purposes, a Development Review (DR) to allow for development of the site in compliance with the requirements of the Unified Development Code (UDC), and an Architectural Design Review (ADR) to ensure the architectural design of the residential buildings are in conformance with the City of Santa Clarita's (City) Community Character Design Guidelines. To date, the entire Specific Plan site has been rough graded and the main infrastructure has been installed. The for -sale townhome units and the community park within PA-4 are under currently under construction. No construction has started on the apartment units within PA-1, PA-2, or PA-3. In late 2023, the applicant submitted a request to build townhomes in PA-1 and PA-2, instead of the market -rate apartments and the senior market -rate apartments. Townhomes are a permissible use within the Specific Plan, but the applicant did not move forward with that request. In November 2024, the applicant applied for a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA), which is outlined in the Project Description below. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is seeking amendments to the Specific Plan that would expand the allowable residential uses allowed within the Specific Plan to accommodate duplex and detached condos, reduce setbacks between units, eliminate planning areas, adjust timing for the construction of the senior affordable units, and allow the option to pay an in -lieu fee rather than construct the 49 senior affordable apartments required by the Specific Plan. When the developer requested the original Specific Plan, the only residential use types that they included were multifamily uses, which are those apartments and townhomes that are three or more units. Due to current market constraints for financing on multifamily construction and insurance, the applicant is looking to add single-family detached condos and duplex residential use types to the list of allowable uses in the Specific Plan. This amendment would give the applicant greater flexibility in how the Specific Plan is ultimately built out by allowing the developer to choose which residential use type to build based on market conditions. Page 2 Packet Pg. 12 O The applicant has made two attempts to secure tax -credit financing for the affordable senior apartments and both have been unsuccessful. The project was originally approved so that the construction of the senior affordable units must begin before occupancy of the 180th unit within the Specific Plan area. Construction has already begun on the 150 townhomes in PA-4. As such, only 30 more units can be built before the construction of affordable senior apartments must start. Therefore, the applicant is requesting to delay the construction of the senior affordable units until the occupancy of the 240th unit to allow additional time to secure financing, and to continue to build units concurrently. The applicant is also proposing payment of an in -lieu fee of $800,000 if tax -credit financing is not able to be secured for the project. The City Council has not previously considered or adopted an in -lieu fee. For reference, City staff conducted research on what our benchmark cities were charging for in -lieu fees for affordable housing and found that they typically charge per square foot rather than per unit. From the list of benchmark cities, the prices from Glendale, Thousand Oaks, and Ventura were all compared and found to have a range in fees from $25.70 per square foot up to $55.00 per square foot and an average of $39.83 per square foot. The 49 units are approximately 550 square -feet each. The fee range that these three cities would assess as an in -lieu fee for a 49-unit project would range from a total of $692,615 up to $1,482,250, and the average would be $1,073,419. This information was provided to the applicant and they have proposed an $800,000 in -lieu fee as an offset for constructing the affordable senior units. Notwithstanding this proposal from the applicant, staff does not support including payment of an in -lieu fee as an option for the following reasons: 1) the Council has not previously allowed or adopted such a fee; 2) Payment of the fee in -lieu of construction would not further the City's goal for affordable housing construction as set forth in the City's certified Housing Element; 3) the City does not have a program in place to utilize the in -lieu fees to subsidize construction of affordable housing elsewhere in the City; 4) the City has not conducted a study to determine the appropriate in -lieu fee in the City; 5) the City's Housing Element includes a program to explore the feasibility of an inclusionary housing program which could include an in -lieu fee and any consideration of an in -lieu fee should follow that exercise; and 6) the City does not have information about what other funds the benchmark cities have available to further subsidize affordable housing, which could be reducing their adopted in -lieu fees. Additional Changes The key changes proposed by the amendment allow flexibility in housing types and the in -lieu fee discussed above. However, there are other minor changes that are also being proposed by the applicant. The four Planning Areas were all distinguished by a different housing type. To allow greater flexibility, the requested amendments to the Specific Plan would eliminate the Planning Areas and development would be governed by the two zones within the Specific Plan area of either Residential (R) or Open Space (OS). Any permissible residential use types would be allowed within the existing R zone while the community park is within the OS zone. The amendment provides two conceptual buildout scenarios for the Specific Plan area. Scenario A, which was approved with the original SP, includes a site plan with the buildout of the four Planning Areas Page 3 Packet Pg. 13 O and a total of 498 total units. Scenario B is a conceptual plan with an alternative build -out scenario that would replace the market -rate apartments (PA 1 and PA 2) with duplexes for a total of 318 units. The proposed amendment is written in a way to allow the developer the flexibility to build out the project site with Scenario A, Scenario B, or a combination of the two scenarios. However, there is no change to the maximum number of units that can be built within the Specific Plan and these revisions do not change the fact that the applicant could always choose to build less than the maximum number of approved units. Thus, because the maximum number of units will remain at 498, approval of the requested amendments would not result in a net loss of units within the meaning of the State housing laws. The applicant is also requesting a change to one development standard in the Specific Plan, to reduce the minimum building separation distance from 10 feet to seven feet. This reduction in building separation is only applicable to duplex or detached single-family condo units. The reduction in building -distance separation would maximize the number of duplex or single-family detached condo units that could be built on -site. Lastly, the proposed amendment to the Specific Plan would make a change in how the Specific Plan gets implemented. Due to the amendments that allow flexibility in unit type and ultimately allow flexibility in build -out scenarios, the proposed changes would require that all new development that comes in would require an ADR and a DR to ensure it complies with the development regulations. No Changes The majority of the Specific Plan would remain unchanged from the original approval. More specifically, the other development standards, including parking, amenity space, and building height, would remain the same. The Specific Plan would still require the same number of parking spaces per unit, including guest parking, and would still require the same amount of required amenity space per unit. Both the parking spaces and amenity space would be calculated based on the number of units that ultimately get built, and would be reviewed through the DR process mentioned above. Finally, the amendment would not modify the maximum number of units that can be built on -site. The total number of units would remain a maximum of 498. GENERAL PLANNING AND ZONING Surrounding Land Uses The General Plan and zoning designation for the subject property is SP with a portion of the project site located in a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) overlay. The surrounding land uses include the Vista Canyon Specific Plan, the Colony Townhomes development, and the Metrolink rail line. Fair Oaks Ranch, is located further south, beyond the Metrolink rail line, and improved with multi- and single-family units. Table 1 below summarizes the General Plan land use designation, zoning, and land uses for the properties surrounding the site: TABLE 1: Surrounding Properties Land Use Designation and Zoning Page 4 Packet Pg. 14 O Project General Zoning Land Use Site Plan North SP SP Vista Canyon Specific Plan - Planning Area-1 (Multifamily apartments) South PI PI Metrolink Rail Line East SP SP Vista Canyon Specific Plan - Planning Area-2 (Metrolink Station and Town Center Planning Area of the Vista Canyon Specific Plan) West UR5 UR5 Multifamily Residential Regional Housing Needs Allocation The 49-deed restricted affordable senior apartment units are allocated for low income and are currently in the pipeline for projections to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for Low Income units. The current RHNA buffer for the low-income category is 142 units. If the amendment is approved, and the developer opted to pay the in -lieu fee, the buffer would drop by 49, reducing the buffer to 93 units as seen in Table 2. TABLE 2: Regional Housing Needs Allocation Buffer RHNA Low -Income Buffer RHNA Buffer 142 MetroWalk Approved Low Income 49 RHNA Buffer if alternative In -Lieu Fee is accepted 93 The proposed project does not meet the definition of a housing development in accordance with Senate Bill 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, as it is an amendment to an existing Specific Plan. ANALYSIS Land Use and Zoning Designation The subject property has a General Plan Land Use designation of SP. Section 17.37.030 of the UDC establishes the SP zoning designation which identifies lands in the planning area that are governed by an adopted specific plan. The Specific Plan guides development of the 20.4-acre site, including "specific allowable uses, maximum intensity standards, and development standards." The proposed amendment would not change the General Plan land use designation or the zoning designation of SP. The Specific Plan established a multifamily development that permits multifamily residential uses at a maximum density of 30 units per acre in proximity to regional transit opportunities provided by the Vista Canyon Multi -Modal Center. The amended Specific Plan would still permit multifamily residential with the option for single-family condos or duplexes as well, and not exceeding the maximum density of 30 units per acre. Page 5 Packet Pg. 15 O General Plan Consistency Pursuant to Government Code section 65454, the proposed Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan by furthering the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan. Specifically, the Housing Element and Land Use Element of the General Plan include the following goals, objectives, and policies that contemplate a development consistent with the proposed amended Specific Plan. Goal LU 3: Healthy and safe neighborhoods for all residents. o Objective LU 3.1: Provide for a diversity of housing types available to provide safe and suitable homes for all economic levels, household sizes, age groups and special needs groups within the community. ■ Policy LU 3.1.1: On the Land Use Map, designate adequate land for residential use at various densities to provide a mix of housing opportunities for all segments of the population, including attached, detached, senior, and mixed -use housing types, which are consistent with community character and meet the region's housing goals. The proposed amendment provides a variety of housing types including market -rate apartment, senior market -rate apartments, affordable senior apartments, townhomes, and duplexes. • Goal LU 5: Enhanced mobility through alternative transportation choices and land use patterns. o Objective LU 5.2: Coordinate land use designations with support services and public transit in order to encourage vehicle trip reduction. ■ Policy LU 5.2.1: Designate higher -density residential uses in areas served by public transit and a full range of support services. The project site is adjacent to the Town Center planning area of the Vista Canyon Specific Plan as well as the Vista Canyon Multi -Modal Center which includes a seven -bay bus transfer station and a Metrolink rail line station providing residents access to local and regional public transit opportunities and commercial services that would encourage vehicle trip reduction. Goal H.2: Promote the production of housing units, including affordable units, to meet the City's identified housing needs. o Polio: Encourage a variety of housing types such as single-family attached (townhouses), multifamily units, planned unit developments, mixed use housing, board and care facilities and other typologies that make housing more affordable. The proposed amendment includes 49 affordable senior housing units for low income (65% area median income) and provides the flexibility to have a variety of housing types allowed within the Specific Plan including townhomes, single-family condos, duplexes, and multifamily units. The proposed change in the timing requirement for construction of the senior affordable apartment units would allow more timing and flexibility for the applicant to secure financing to build the senior affordable units; therefore, contributing to the City's goal of providing the much -needed low-income units for the community. Page 6 Packet Pg. 16 O ENVIRONMENTAL A Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) was approved for the MetroWalk Specific Plan by the City Council in March of 2021. The SCEA was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and contains a disclosure and analysis of potential environmental effects associated with implementation of the approved plan. An Addendum to the SCEA has been prepared for the proposed amendment to determine whether implementation would result in any new significant environmental impacts not identified in the adopted SCEA, or whether any previously identified significant effects would be substantially more severe with the amended SP. The Addendum to the SCEA concludes that the proposed amendment to the MetroWalk Specific Plan would not result in any new significant impacts and would not substantially increase the severity of any previously identified impacts. Furthermore, there is not any new information requiring new analysis or verification, and no new project design features or mitigation measures required for new impacts. As such, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum to the SCEA is the appropriate CEQA document for the SPA. The Addendum is attached for reference. NOTICING All notices required by law were completed which consisted of a one -eighth page legal advertisement in The Signal newspaper on March 25, 2025. As of the writing of this staff report, City staff has received no correspondence from the community. ATTACHMENTS Resolution P25-05 Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval Aerial and Zoning Map MetroWalk Draft SPA Conceptual Scenario A & B SCEA Addendum Notice of Determination Public Hearing Notice Page 7 Packet Pg. 17 1.a RESOLUTION P25-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE MASTER CASE 24-230, CONSISTING OF SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 24-002, INCLUDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE METROWALK SPECIFIC PLAN DOCUMENT IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, SUBJECT TO THE ATTACHED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (EXHIBIT A). THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT FOR MASTER CASE 24-230. The Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings of fact, and recommends that the City Council make the following findings of fact: A. An application for Master Case 24-230 (hereinafter "Project"), (Specific Plan Amendment 24-002), was filed by the project applicant, Blumax Santa Clarita, LLC (the "applicant"), with the City of Santa Clarita (City) on November 4, 2024. The property affected by this application is located at Assessor's Parcel Numbers 2840-034-020, -021, -022, -023, -024, and -026 (hereinafter "subject site"); B. The approximately 20.4-acre MetroWalk Specific Plan Project (Project) site is located at the southeast corner of Lost Canyon Road and Harriman Drive, a private street, and is located within the Specific Plan (SP) zone and General Plan land use designation. The eastern most portion of the site is within the Santa Clara River Significant Ecological Area (SEA) designated by Los Angeles County and included in the City's SEA Overlay Zone; C. Surrounding land uses include primarily multifamily residential development. The Colony Townhomes, a multifamily residential community, is directly west of the project site. The Fair Oaks Ranch Community, which is comprised of multifamily 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 multifamily apartments constructed immediately north of the project site. The Vista Canyon Multi -Modal Center with a seven -bay bus transfer station and Metrolink rail station is located just east of the project site; D. The amendment includes amendments to the MetroWalk Specific Plan allowing duplexes and detached condominium (condo) units, reduction to setbacks between duplex and detached condo units, eliminating planning areas, and an adjustment to the timing for construction of the 49 senior affordable units. The project includes the development of a maximum of 498 residential units and a park; Page 1 of 7 Packet Pg. 18 1.a E. On April 15, 2025, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the City of Santa Clarita (City) Planning Commission at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita; F. At this public hearing, the Planning Commission considered the staff report, staff presentation, applicant's presentation, and public testimony; and G. This resolution and its findings are made based upon the entire administrative record including, without limitation, testimony and evidence presented to the Planning Commission at its April 15, 2025, public hearing including, without limitation, the staff report. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) FINDINGS. The City reviewed the environmental impacts of this project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. "CEQA") and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines"). Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find as follows: A. An Addendum to the Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) for this project was prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines; B. The proposed amendment would not result in any new significant impacts and would not substantially increase the severity of any previously identified impacts; C. There is not any new information requiring new analysis or verification, and no new project design features or mitigation measures required for new impacts; D. The location of the documents and other material which constitutes the record of proceedings upon which the decision of the Planning Commission is the Master Case 24- 230 project file. This project file is located within the Community Development Department and is in the custody of the Director of Community Development; and E. Based upon the findings set forth above, that the City Council find the Addendum to the SCEA for this Project has been prepared in compliance with CEQA. SECTION 3. GENERAL FINDINGS FOR MASTER CASE 24-230. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the entire Addendum to the SCEA, 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; Pursuant to Government Code section 65454, the proposed Specific Plan must be Page 2 of 7 Packet Pg. 19 1.a consistent with the General Plan by furthering the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. Specifically, the Housing Element and Land Use Element of the General Plan include the following goals, objectives, and policies that contemplate a development consistent with the proposed amended Specific Plan including: Goal LU 3: Healthy and safe neighborhoods for all residents. Objective LU 3.1: Provide for a diversity of housing types available to provide safe and suitable homes for all economic levels, household sizes, age groups and special needs groups within the community. Policy LU 3.1.1: On the Land Use Map, designate adequate land for residential use at various densities to provide a mix of housing opportunities for all segments of the population, including attached, detached, senior, and mixed -use housing types, which are consistent with community character and meet the region's housing goals. The proposed amendment to the Specific Plan would allow for a variety of housing types including market -rate apartments, senior market -rate apartments, affordable senior apartments, townhomes, and duplexes. This variety of housing types will allow for a mixture of housing types that would meet the need of the community and support the above -referenced Goals and Objectives of the General Plan. Goal LU 5: Enhanced mobility through alternative transportation choices and land use patterns. Objective LU 5.2: Coordinate land use designations with support services and public transit in order to encourage vehicle trip reduction. Policy LU 5.2.1: Designate higher -density residential uses in areas served by public transit and a full range of support services. The project site is adjacent to the Town Center planning area of the Vista Canyon Specific Plan as well as the Vista Canyon Multi -Modal Center which includes a seven - bay bus transfer station and a Metrolink rail line station providing residents access to local and regional public transit opportunities and commercial services that would encourage vehicle trip reduction. Goal H.2: Promote the production of housing units, including affordable units, to meet the City's identified housing needs. Polio: Encourage a variety of housing types such as single-family attached (townhouses), multifamily units, planned unit developments, mixed use housing, board and care facilities and other typologies that make housing more affordable. The proposed amendment includes 49 affordable senior housing units for low income Page 3 of 7 Packet Pg. 20 1.a (65% area median income) and provides the flexibility to have a variety of housing types allowed within the Specific Plan including townhomes, single-family condos, duplexes, and multifamily units. The proposed change in the timing requirement for construction of the senior affordable apartment units would allow more timing and flexibility for the applicant to secure financing to build the senior affordable units, therefore contributing to the City's goal of providing the much -needed low-income units for the community. B. The proposal is allowed within the applicable underlying zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of this code; The subject property has a General Plan Land Use designation of SP. Section 17.37.030 of the Unified Development Code (UDC) establishes the SP zoning designation which identifies lands in the planning area that are governed by an adopted specific plan. The MetroWalk Specific Plan guides development of the 20.4-acre site, including "specific allowable uses, maximum intensity standards, and development standards." The proposed amendment would allow for greater flexibility within the plan and would not conflict with the General Plan Use designation or the zoning designation of SP. Final product types and site design will be reviewed as projects as proposed and will be subject to a Development Review and Architectural Design Review to ensure that projects comply with the standards of the Specific Plan. 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 MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment has been evaluated in accordance with the 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 as discussed above. The project has been designed to complement the surrounding development, specifically the Vista Canyon Specific Plan development immediately north and east of the project site. Pedestrian connectivity to the adjacent Vista Canyon development has been incorporated into the project to promote walkability by providing direct links to public transit and commercial services and reduce vehicle trips. 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; Page 4 of 7 Packet Pg. 21 1.a The original MetroWalk Specific Plan established the allowable uses, density, and development standards for the project site, and the proposed amendment will not change the development standards in a manner where the conceptual plans would not be suitable for the subject site. The amendment to the Specific Plan area has been designed to be consistent and compatible with the adjacent Vista Canyon Specific Plan, specifically to provide linkages to the Vista Canyon Multi -Modal Center as well as to the existing and planned pedestrian trails through the Vista Canyon Specific Plan area. 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 ofsufficient width and are improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity oftraffic such proposal would generate; A detailed traffic analysis was prepared for the original MetroWalk Specific Plan to evaluate the impacts of the project, and it identified signalization and other roadway improvements to ensure the public roadways are sufficiently improved to support the additional project traffic. The main infrastructure, including the proposed streets, are already under construction, and the amendment does not propose to change the streetscape. In addition, the Addendum to the SCEA did not identify any new or significant traffic impacts. Furthermore, the project Conditions of Approval require the applicable improvements prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 3. Public protection services (e.g., Fire protection, Sheriprotection, etc.) are readily available; and The project site is located in an established, urban environment that is serviced by existing law enforcement and fire protection services. No additional impacts to public protection services such as Fire and Sheriff protection were identified in the addendum to the SCEA. Furthermore, the applicant will pay applicable fees to the law enforcement and fire protection agencies 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 surrounded by developed communities with access to the necessary utilities to service the project site. The original MetroWalk Specific Plan included an infrastructure development plan to identify necessary on -site and off -site infrastructure improvements to connect to existing supply and support the future development. A hydraulic analysis was also completed for the project determining that adequate water is available to meet the needs of the project site. Finally, the main infrastructure to make utility connections has already been installed on -site. Page 5 of 7 Packet Pg. 22 1.a SECTION 4. SPECIFIC FINDINGS FOR THE NO NET LOSS LAW. Based on the above findings of fact and recitals and the entire record, including, without limitation, the Addendum to the SCEA, 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. By providing flexibility of residential unit type, the proposed amendment does not change the maximum number of permissible units. The final unit count would be determined at the time of development based on the proposed housing units at that time. Therefore, the approval of the requested amendments would not result in a net loss of units within the meaning of the State housing laws at this time. SECTION 5. APPROVALS. The Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council approve Master Case 24-230; Specific Plan Amendment 24-002, approving the amendment to the MetroWalk Specific Plan document for the development of the MetroWalk Specific Plan Project, in the City of Santa Clarita, California, subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). SECTION 6. 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. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 15th day of April, 2025. CHAIRPERSON PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: RACHEL CLARK, SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Rachel Clark, 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 15th of April, 2025, by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Page 6 of 7 Packet Pg. 23 1.a NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY 0 M N N U r E r- d) E Q r- cv a u m co 0 L C� G ui O w N a 0 r 0 0 N d r d E t u m r r Q Page 7 of 7 Packet Pg. 24 1.b EXHIBIT A MASTER CASE 24-230 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 24-002 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL In addition to all applicable provisions of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code (SCMC), B1ueMax Santa Clarita, LLC, agrees to comply with the following provisions as conditions for the City of Santa Clarita's (City) approval of Master Case 24-230. All conditions previously applied to the Metro Walk Specific Plan Project (Master Case 20-045) through City Council Resolution No. 21-11 apply to this approval unless modified herein. GENERAL CONDITIONS GC1. The approval of this project expires if the approved use is not commenced within two years from the date of this approval, unless it is extended in accordance with the terms and provisions of the City of Santa Clarita's (City) 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 must 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 two years or more must terminate the approval of this use along with any associated vested rights to such use. The use must not be re-established or resumed after the two-year period. Discontinuation must include cessation of a use regardless of intent to resume. GC3. The Permittee may file for an extension of the conditionally approved project before the date of expiration. If such an extension is requested, it must be filed not later than 60 days before the date of expiration. GC4. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "Permittee" includes the Permittee and any other persons, corporation, or other entity making use of this grant. The Permittee must defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, 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 become aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the City will promptly notify the Permittee. If the City fails to notify the Permittee or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the Permittee is not thereafter 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 occur: 1) the City bears its own attorneys' fees and costs; and 2) the City defends the action in good faith. The Permittee is not required to pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement is approved by the Permittee. Page 1 of 4 Packet Pg. 25 1.b GC5. The Permittee and property owner must comply with all inspections requirements as deemed necessary by the Director. GC6. The project site must be developed and/or used in the manner requested and must be in substantial conformity with the submitted plans date -stamped on file, unless revisions and/or additional conditions are specifically required herein. GC7. This approval runs with the land. All rights and obligations of this approval, including the responsibility to comply with the Conditions of Approval, are binding upon Permittee's successors in interest. The Conditions of Approval may be modified, terminated, or abandoned in accordance with applicable law including, without limitation, the SCMC. GC8. Any proposed deviations from the Exhibit(s), Project Description, or Conditions of Approval must be submitted to the Director for review and approval. Any unapproved deviations from the project approval will constitute a violation of the permit approval. GC9. When exhibits and/or written Conditions of Approval are in conflict, the written Conditions of Approval prevail. GC 10. The effectiveness of this project will be suspended for the time period that any Condition of Approval is appealed whether administratively or as part of a legal action filed in a court of competent jurisdiction. If any Condition of Approval is invalidated by a court of law, the project must be reviewed by the City and substitute conditions may be imposed. GC11. The Permittee is responsible for ascertaining and paying all City fees as required by the Santa Clarita Municipal Code (SCMC) and these Conditions of Approval. This condition serves as notice pursuant to Government Code § 66020(d) that the City of Santa Clarita is imposing development impact fees ("DIFs") upon the Project pursuant to the SCMC and these Conditions of Approval in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code § 66000, et seq.). The Permittee is informed that it may protest DIFs in accordance with Government Code § 66020 and that upon approval of these Conditions of Approval by the City Council the 90-day approval period in which the Permittee may protest has begun." GC12. The Permittee must sign these Conditions of Approval, as set forth below, to acknowledge acceptance, within 30 days from the date of approval by the City Council. GC 13. The City will only issue permits for the development when the construction documents (e.g., building plans) substantially comply with the approved plans. Substantial conformity is determined by the Director. GC14. This decision is not effective until Permittee acknowledges acceptance of all Project Conditions and any appeal period has lapsed, or a waiver of right to appeal is filed or if there is an appeal, until a final decision has been made on the appeal. By use of the Page 2 of 4 Packet Pg. 26 1.b entitlements granted by a development application, the Permittee acknowledges agreement with the Conditions of Approval. GC15. Anything which is not shown on the application/plans, or which is not specifically approved, or which is not in compliance with this section, is not approved. Any application and/or plans which are defective as to, without limitation, omission, dimensions, scale, use, colors, materials, encroachments, easements, etc., will render any entitlements granted by this approval null and void. Construction must cease until all requirements of this approval are complied with. Development entitlements may be withheld until violations of the SCMC are abated. GC16. The City will not issue a final Certificate of Occupancy until the Permittee complies with all Project Conditions. GC 17. Permittee must reimburse the City for all attorneys' fees expended by the City that are directly related to the processing of this Project. The City will not issue a Final Certificate of Occupancy or other final occupancy approval until all attorneys' fees are paid by the Permittee. PLANNING DIVISION PL1. The Permittee is approved to construct a maximum of 498 residential units, including multifamily units as well as duplexes and detached condos, reduce the setback between units from ten feet to seven feet, eliminate planning areas, and adjust the timing for the construction of the senior affordable units as outlined in Condition No. PL28. The project must be built and operated in accordance with the amended MetroWalk Specific Plan and project description on file with the City's Planning Division under Master Case 24-230. �. PL8. Open space shall be provided for each residential unit at a ratio of 200 square feet for each studio unit, 300 square feet for each one -bedroom unit, 400 square feet for Page 3 of 4 Packet Pg. 27 1.b each two- or more -bedroom unit, and 650 square feet for each townhome, duplex, or detached condo. Open space shall be provided in a combination of private and common areas in conformance with the MetroWalk Specific Plan Open Space Plan. PL28. The permittee must secure a building permit for constructing the income -restricted senior apartments concurrently, or before, the Building Official issues a final certificate of occupancy for the 240th dwelling unit. The Building Official must issue a final certificate of occupancy for all 50 income restricted units before or concurrently with the final Certificate of Occupancy for the 270th dwelling unit. Page 4 of 4 Packet Pg. 28 1.c AERIAL AND ZONING MAP Master Case 24-230: Specific Plan Amendment 24-002 Southeast Corner of Lost Canyon Road and Harriman Drive (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 2840-034-020, -021, -022, -023, -024, and -026) Aerial Map Packet Pg. 29 Zoning Map ■ Am EEI, Harriman Drive ZONING KEY - SP (Specific Plan) - UR5 (Urban Residential 5) - PI (Public Institution) - BP (Business Park) m I Packet Pg. 30 1 1.d MetroWalk Specific Plan Prepared for: Blumax Santa Clarita, LLC 2001 Wilshire Boulevard, Ste. 401 Santa Monica, California 90403 Contact: Adam Browning Prepared by: DUDEK --- -�AWAWW - Packet Pg. 31 1.d 0 Cl) N 4 N tU r E E Q ca a u m CL CO Y_ fC O L C� G Q a CO c� L Y 2� 7 O L C� G i E t u m Q Printed on 30% post -consumer recycled material. Packet Pg. 32 1.d Section TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Intent and Purpose of Specific Plan................................................................1-1 1.2 Organization of the Specific Plan...................................................................1-2 1.3 Project Location.................................................................................................1-3 1.3.1 Location..................................................................................................1-3 1.3.2 Surrounding Uses.................................................................................1-3 1.3.3 Site Characteristics................................................................................1-4 1.4 Authority............................................................................................................1-4 1.5 The Specific Plan's Relationship to the General Plan and Santa Clarita MunicipalCode.................................................................................................1-4 1.5.1 Relationship to the General Plan........................................................1-4 1.5.2 Relationship to the Santa Clarita Municipal Code ...........................1-5 1.6 Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act ...........................1-5 1.6.1 Senate Bill 226 CEQA Streamlining....................................................1-5 1.6.2 Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013)..........................................................1-6 1.7 Compliance with Other Laws and Regulations............................................1-6 1.7.1 Global Warming Solutions Act...........................................................1-6 1.7.2 The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act ...........1-6 1.7.3 Southern California Association of Governments ...........................1-7 2.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN............................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Introduction....................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Specific Plan Objectives....................................................................................2-1 2.3 Land Use Plan.................................................................................................... 2-2 2.3.1 Land Use Designation Zones.............................................................. 2-5 2.3.2 Conceptual Development Scenarios (Residential Zones)plaffffiffg Areas.......................................................................................................2-5 2.4 Mobility Plan...................................................................................................2-11 2.4.1 Introduction......................................................................................... 2-11 2.4.2 Existing Regional Circulation and Access.......................................2-11 2.4.3 Local Roadway Circulation and Access..........................................2-12 2.4.4 Parking Plan.........................................................................................2-13 2.5 Landscape Plan................................................................................................2-25 2.6 Open Space, Parks and Recreation Plan ...................................................... 2-25 2.7 Sustainability Plan..........................................................................................2-26 2.7.1 Introduction......................................................................................... 2-26 2.7.2 Application of Project Design Features...........................................2-26 MetroWalk Specific Plan 1 February 2025 Packet Pg. 33 1.d 3.0 INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ...................................................... 3-1 3.1 Purpose and Intent............................................................................................3-1 3.2 Grading Plan......................................................................................................3-1 3.2.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................. 3-1 3.2.2 Proposed Conditions............................................................................ 3-1 3.3 Drainage/Water Quality................................................................................... 3-2 3.3.1 Existing Conditions............................................................................... 3-2 3.3.2 Proposed Conditions............................................................................ 3-2 3.4 Water Service/Recycled Water........................................................................3-4 3.4.1 Existing Conditions..............................................................................3-4 3.4.2 Proposed Conditions............................................................................ 3-4 3.5 Wastewater Service...........................................................................................3-5 3.5.1 Existing Conditions...............................................................................3-5 3.5.2 Proposed Conditions............................................................................ 3-6 3.6 Dry Utilities........................................................................................................ 3-6 3.6.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................. 3-6 3.6.2 Proposed Conditions............................................................................ 3-6 4.0 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.......................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Purpose and Intent............................................................................................4-1 4.2 Consistency with Adopted Plans....................................................................4-1 4.3 Relationship to City's Unified Development Code......................................4-1 4.4 Existing Uses and Severability........................................................................4-1 4.5 Administration.................................................................................................. 4-2 4.6 Land Use Designations....................................................................................4-2 4.6.1 Land Use Plan and Zones.................................................................... 4-2 4.7 Allowed Land Uses/Permit Requirements....................................................4-2 4.7.1 Introduction........................................................................................... 4-2 4.7.2 Residential (R) Use Types.................................................................... 4-3 4.7.3 Open Space (OS) Use Types................................................................ 4-4 4.8 Site Development Standards...........................................................................4-5 4.8.1 Purpose and Intent................................................................................4-5 4.8.2 Development Standards.......................................................................4-5 4.9 T+aff4e*Develo12ment Adjustment Regulations...........................................4-7 ...................................................................... 7 4.9.2 Pla -,iRg n,.e BeeRdafy, Aefeage,and Adjes#i-aef+ts 4 8 4.10 Signage Regulations......................................................................................... 4-9 4.10.1 Purpose and Intent................................................................................ 4-9 4.10.2 Applicability and Conformance....................................................... 4-10 4.11 Parking Regulations........................................................................................ 4-10 MetroWalk Specific Plan ii February 2025 Packet Pg. 34 1.d 4.11.1 Purpose and Intent.............................................................................. 4-10 4.11.2 Parking Regulations............................................................................ 4-10 5.0 DESIGN GUIDELINES.............................................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Purpose and Intent............................................................................................5-1 5.2 General Guidelines........................................................................................... 5-1 5.2.1 Design Themes...................................................................................... 5-1 5.2.2 Site Planning.......................................................................................... 5-1 5.2.3 Architecture........................................................................................... 5-2 5.2.4 Fencing....................................................................................................5-2 5.3 Other Applicable Architectural Guidelines..................................................5-2 5.3.1 Application Process Guidelines.......................................................... 5-3 6.0 SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Purpose and Intent............................................................................................ 6-1 6.2 Implementation Procedures............................................................................ 6-1 6.3 Phasing............................................................................................................... 6-1 6.4 R l .,tief 4ip 44 T-4e City, T 4ii fi ,a Pe-,,'e!et3f+ r4 CedeSpecific Plan Administration, Review, and Amendments ................................................. 6-1 6.4.1 Substantial Conformance for Minor Deviations ............................... 6-2 6.4.2 Substantial Conformance Procedure; Adjustments, Variances, and Minor Use Permit for Parking Reductions Procedure ..................... 6-3 6.4.3 Specific Plan Amendments and Major Modifications ..................... 6-4 FIGURES Figure 1.0-1 Regional Location................................................................................................ 1-8 Figure1.0-2 Site Vicinity......................................................................................................... 1-9 Figure 1.0-3 Plan Area Aerial................................................................................................. 1-10 Figure 1.0-4 Development Surrounding Specific Plan........................................................... 1-11 Figure 1.0-5 Project Site Photos............................................................................................. 1-12 Figure2.0-1 Land Use Plan...................................................................................................... 2-8 Figure 2.0-2a Conceptual Site Plan — Scenario A 2-9 Figure 2.0-2b Conceptual Site Plan Alternative — Scenario B 2-10 Figure 2.0--23 Mobility Plan..................................................................................................... 2-16 Figure 2.0-44 Pedestrian Pathways........................................................................................... 2-17 Figure 2.0-45 Lost Canyon Road.............................................................................................. 2-18 Figure 2.0---';6 Harriman Drive.................................................................................................. 2-19 Figure 2.0-67 Cooper Street Section........................................................................................ 2-20 Figure 2.0--78 Drive Aisle Entry ............................................................................................... 2-21 Figure 2.0-99 Private Drive Section Carport ............................................................................ 2-22 Figure 2.0-110Private Drive Parallel Parking........................................................................... 2-23 0 M N N U r a� E a� E a a U W Y 0 m a a c� 0 Y 0 L m r m U M a MetroWalk Specific Plan iii February 2025 Packet Pg. 35 1.d Figure 2.0-118Private Drive Section No Parking...................................................................... 2-24 Figure 2.0-4412 Conceptual Landscape Plan................................................................... 2-29 Figure 2.0-13-2Conceptual Landscape Plan............................................................................... 2-30 Figure 2.0-143Conceptual Open Space Plan.............................................................................2-31 Figure 2.0-154Conceptual Park and Recreation Enlargements ................................................. 2-32 Figure 2.0-16-5Conceptual Parks and Recreation Enlargements ............................................... 2-33 Figure 2.0-176Conceptual Parks and Recreation Enlargements ............................................... 2-34 Figure 2.0-18-7Conceptual Park Illustrative Plan....................................................................... 2-35 Figure 2.0-19.gMulti-Use Trail Plan.......................................................................................... 2-36 Figure 3.0-1 Conceptual Grading Plan..................................................................................... 3-8 Figure3.0-2 Drainage Plan....................................................................................................... 3-9 Figure 3.0-3 Conceptual On -Site Potable and Non -Potable Water Systems .......................... 3-10 Figure 3.0-4 Conceptual Wastewater Systems....................................................................... 3-11 Figure 3.0-5 Conceptual Dry Utilities.................................................................................... 3-12 TABLES 2.0-1 Specific Plan Land Use Summary............................................................................... 2-3 2.0-3 Parking Summary....................................................................................................... 2-14 4.0-1 Site Development Standards Matrix (P ^ 1, n n 2, nE ^ 3 a+ d PA 4 4-7 4.0-2 Parking Requirements Matrixl, 2,3 ............................................................................. 4-10 APPENDICES 1.0-1 Legal Description 1.0-2 General Plan Consistency Analysis 1.0-3 Tentative Tract Map No. 83087 4.0-1 Conceptual Landscape Plan 5.0-1 Plan Renderings 0 M N N U c a� E c a� E Q c M a. U W a Y 0 W Q a. L Y_ f; 0 a> c a� E U Q MetroWalk Specific Plan iv February 2025 Packet Pg. 36 1.d 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTENT AND PURPOSE OF SPECIFIC PLAN The MetroWalk Specific Plan (Specific Plan) contains the development plans, infrastructure development plans, development regulations, design guidelines, and implementation program necessary to achieve the orderly and compatible development of MetroWalk, a new transit - oriented residential community directly south of the Vista Canyon Specific Plan that was approved by the City of Santa Clarita (City) in 2011. The Specific Plan facilitates additional high - quality, attainably priced, multifamily residential apartments and townhomes, and single-family homes and duplexes in proximity to the new City/Metrolink Station, Bus Transfer Station and Vista Canyon Town Center amenities and services. While separate and standalone, this Specific Plan serves as a natural extension of the Vista Canyon Specific Plan and is consistent and compatible with the provisions contained in the Vista Canyon Specific Plan, as well as the goals and policies of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan (General Plan). The MetroWalk Specific Plan was prepared in conjunction with a zone change request to change the zoning of the site from Business Park (BP) to Specific Plan (SP). The City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code (SCMC), Section 17.37.030 (Specific Plan (SP) Zone), establishes the Specific Plan zoning designation, and indicates that specific allowable uses, maximum intensity standards, and development standards shall be determined by the adopted specific plan. Therefore, this Specific Plan will achieve the purposes of the City's SP Zone, and will serve as the zoning code for the Specific Plan site (described more fully in Section 2.0, Development Plan). In April 2020, the applicant filed a development application (Master Case No. 20-045) with the City. As required by the City, the applicant is requested the following discretionary land use entitlement approvals to facilitate adoption of the Specific Plan in Februar3� 2021: a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change (GPA/ZC). The property is C-dr-r-e-4-1-was previously zoned and designated Business Park (BP) in both the City's Zoning Code and General Plan. To accommodate the project, the City approved a Zone Change and General Plan Land Use Element Amendment to revise the land use zone/designation for the property from Business Park (BP) to Specific Plan (SP). A new SP land use zone/designation for the property will ensure that the development of the site is consistent and compatible with the Vista Canyon Specific Plan to the north. (b) Metro Walk Specific Plan. This Specific Plan, r,,4;& woo establishes the zoning, development plans, regulations, guidelines, and implementation provisions governing development within the Specific Plan site. The Specific Plan serves as a guide to implementation of the City's General Plan goals, policies, and objectives. Key components of the proposed Specific Plan include the land use plan, permitted use chart, development standards, circulation plan, conceptual landscape plan, pedestrian plan, trails plan, and sustainability plan. MetroWalk Specific Plan 1-1 February 2025 Packet Pg. 37 1.d (c) Tentative Tract Map No. 83087. The TTM organizes the property into five lot , and subdivides the property to facilitate construction of up to 498 residential units (fig ' . Other components of the Specific Plan include parking, courtyards, community rooms, parks and playground, landscape/open space, club houses, trails, paths and private drives. ULDevelopment Review and Architectural Design Review. The applicant is proposing development plans for a new, residential development that allows for single-family dwelling, duplex, apartment and townhome development. As such, a development review and architectural design review a+e-were proposed by the applicant in accordance with the provisions of SCMC Chapter 17.23, Sections 17.23.110 and 17.23.120, in order to safeguard and enhance the appearance and quality of development in the City. Procedures and requirements for subsequent development a112lications and discretionary approvals are provided in Section 6.0, Specific Plan Implementation. 1.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN The Specific Plan is divided into six sections. The content of each section is described below Section 1.0, Introduction, describes the intent, purpose, structure, and organization of the Specific Plan. The section also describes the Specific Plan location, surrounding land uses, and site characteristics, including existing and planned land use designations. In addition, the section describes the site's characteristics and existing conditions, and discusses the Specific Plan authorization. The section also addresses the relationship between the Specific Plan and the Santa Clarita General Plan, SCMC, and other laws and regulations. Section 2.0, Development Plan, identifies the Specific Plan objectives and development plans, including the land use plan, conceptual development scenari , mobility plan, sustainability plan, landscape plan, parks and recreation plan, and parking plan. Each plan is described in detail in this section. Section 3.0, Infrastructure Development Plan, describes the infrastructure and utilities needed to serve the Specific Plan site. Specifically, the section describes the backbone infrastructure systems (sewer, water, recycled water, water quality, and storm drainage), and utilities (e.g., gas, electricity), needed to support the Specific Plan site. Sections 4.0, Development Regulations, sets forth the Specific Plans land use designation zones, site development standards, allowed land uses and permit requirements, permitted accessory uses, parking, and signage restrictions, and other regulations. MetroWalk Specific Plan 1-2 February 2025 Packet Pg. 38 1.d Section 5.0, Design Guidelines, address design themes, site planning, and architectural themes for each of the major land use designation zones within the Specific Plan. Section 6.0, Specific Plan Implementation, describes the Specific Plan implementation procedures. The Specific Plan, Volume II, includes appendices supporting the Specific Plan, including a legal description of the property (Appendix 1.0-1); General Plan Consistency Analysis (Appendix 1.0- 2); Tentative Tract Map No. 83087 (Appendix 1.0-3); and Renderings of the development contemplated by the Specific Plan (Appendix 5.0-1). 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION 1.3.1 Location The Specific Plan site consists of approximately 20.4 gross acres located in the northeastern portion of the Santa Clarita Valley within the City of Santa Clarita. The City, located in the center of the Santa Clarita Valley, is approximately 35 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles. The City generally is bound by Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route 14 (SR-14) to the east, west, and south, and is about 1 mile from the Angeles National Forest boundary to the north and east. The Santa Clarita Valley planning area encompasses several distinct communities both within the City limits and in the surrounding unincorporated areas. The existing communities within the City include most of Newhall, Valencia, Saugus, and Canyon Country, with sub -communities of Sand Canyon and Placerita Canyon. The communities within the unincorporated areas are Stevenson Ranch, Castaic Junction, Val Verde, Hasley Canyon, and Castaic. The Specific Plan site is located within the Canyon Country community of the Santa Clarita Valley planning area. Figure 1.0-1, Regional Location, depicts the Specific Plan site in relation to the region. Figure 1.0- 2, Vicinity Map, illustrates the Specific Plan vicinity. Figure 1.0-3, Plan Area Aerial, illustrates the physical characteristics of the Specific Plan site and vicinity. 1.3.2 Surrounding Uses The Specific Plan site is located immediately south of the Vista Canyon Specific Plan area, which is approved for residential and mixed -use transit -oriented development and is currently under construction. Colony Townhomes, a multifamily residential community, is directly west of the Specific Plan site. To the south is the existing Metrolink rail line and the Fair Oaks Ranch/West Sand Canyon Annexation area, which consists of single-family and multifamily residential units, an elementary school, community park, and vacant land. A commercial horse breeding facility with accessory residential and barn structures are located to the east of the Specific Plan site. Additionally, the eastern half of the Specific Plan site is within the Significant Ecological Area Overlay Zone (SEA). Figure 1.0-4, Development Surrounding Specific Plan, depicts the surrounding development in relation to the Specific Plan site. MetroWalk Specific Plan 1-3 February 2025 Packet Pg. 39 1.d 1.3.3 Site Characteristics The Specific Plan site is a 20.4-acre vacant infill site directly accessible by one existing roadway, Lost Canyon Road, which borders the site to the west. Regional access to and from the MetroWalk Specific Plan site will also be made possible through the Vista Canyon Specific Plan area to the north. Vista Canyon Road Bridge, currently under construction in the Vista Canyon Specific Plan site as of the date of this Specific Plan, will connect the Vista Canyon Plan Area with Soledad Canyon Road and Antelope Valley Highway. The Specific Plan site is bordered by the Metrolink rail to the south, which is held by the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) for Los Angeles County. This rail corridor includes the Metrolink Santa Clarita/Antelope Valley commuter line and freight service. Figure 1.0-5, Site Photographs, illustrates the existing conditions within the Specific Plan site. The site is irregularly shaped and generally flat. From the rail corridor the site drains northwest toward the Santa Clara River. With the exception of various utility easements on site, there are no other natural or historic conditions of significance. Existing site elevations range from a high of 1,505 elevation in the central southeast portion of the Specific Plan site to a low of 1,481 elevation in the northwest portion of the site. 1.4 AUTHORITY The Specific Plan has been prepared pursuant to the provisions of the California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450 through 65457. The California Government Code authorizes jurisdictions to adopt specific plans by resolution as policy documents or by ordinance as regulatory documents. The law allows preparation of specific plans, as may be required for the systematic execution of the General Plan and further allows for their adoption and amendment. The Specific Plan is regulatory in nature and will serve as the zoning code for the Specific Plan site. The Specific Plan is prepared in accordance with SCMC, Section 17.37.030 (Specific Plan (SP) Zone), which establishes the specific plan zoning designation and indicates that specific allowable uses, maximum intensity standards, and development standards shall be determined by the adopted specific plan. Development plans, tract maps, parcel maps and other entitlement requests processed in conjunction with the Specific Plan must be consistent with both the Specific Plan and the City's General Plan. 1.5 THE SPECIFIC PLAN'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND SANTA CLARITA MUNICIPAL CODE 1.5.1 Relationship to the General Plan The Specific Plan implements the goals and policies of the City's General Plan. Appendix 1.0-2, General Plan Consistency Analysis, contains an analysis of the Specific Plan's consistency with the City's General Plan. MetroWalk Specific Plan 1-4 February 2025 Packet Pg. 40 1.d 1.5.2 Relationship to the Santa Clarita Municipal Code The Specific Plan will be incorporated into the SCMC and provide the allowable land uses, development regulations, design guidelines, and implementation procedures for the property within the boundary of the Specific Plan. The regulations contained within the Specific Plan are in addition to those set forth in the planning, zoning, and subdivision provisions of the SCMC, and do not convey any rights not otherwise granted under the provisions and procedures contained in the SCMC or other ordinances, except as specifically provided for herein. Whenever the Specific Plan contains provisions that establish regulations, including, but not limited to, uses, densities, intensities, heights, parking, signage, open space, and landscaping requirements, which are different from, or more restrictive or permissive than would be allowed pursuant to the provisions of the SCMC, the Specific Plan shall prevail and supersede the applicable provisions of the SCMC. 1.6 COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The MetroWalk Specific Plan project qualifies as a Transit Priority Project per Senate Bill (SB) 375's CEQA reform provisions and is consistent with Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and its associated climate goals. As such, the MetroWalk Specific Plan project will use a streamlined review and analysis of the project consistent with the SCS. As part of this modified environmental review and analysis, an expedited Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment for Transit Priority Projects, consistent with the SCS, will be prepared. Under SB 375's streamlined review and analysis, the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/SCS Environmental Impact Report serves as a first -tier environmental document under CEQA. 1.6.1 Senate Bill 226 CEQA Streamlining In 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed into legislation SB 226, which became effective in 2013. SB 226 streamlined the environmental review process for eligible infill projects by limiting the topics subject to review at the project level where the effects of infill development have been addressed in a planning level decision or by uniformly applicable development policies. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.3, a project may be eligible for streamlining if it does the following: Is located in an urban area on a previously developed site or surrounded by urban uses (75% of perimeter); • Satisfies performance standards in CEQA Guidelines Appendix M; and • Is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies in SCAG's SCS. MetroWalk Specific Plan 1-5 February 2025 Packet Pg. 41 1.d 1.6.2 Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013) SB 743 made several changes to CEQA for projects located in areas served by transit. SB 743 proposes to eliminate auto delay, level of services, and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts. It also creates a new exemption for certain projects that are consistent with a Specific Plan, and eliminates the need to evaluate aesthetic and parking impacts of a project in some circumstances. 1.7 COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS 1.7.1 Global Warming Solutions Act The Global Warming Solutions Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 32) of 2006 established a comprehensive program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change. AB 32 requires the California Air Resources Board to develop regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. As of January 1, 2012, the greenhouse gas rules and market mechanisms adopted by the California Air Resources Board took effect and are legally enforceable. The reduction goal for 2020 is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% of the current rate to meet the 1990 level, and a reduction of 80% of current rates by 2050. The AB 32 Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California will use to reduce greenhouse gases. The Scoping Plan has a range of greenhouse gas reduction actions that include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and nonmonetary incentives, voluntary actions, market -based mechanisms such as a cap -and -trade system, and an AB 32 program implementation regulation to fund the program. 1.7.2 The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375) of 2008 provides incentives for cities and developers to bring housing and jobs closer together and improve public transit. The goal behind SB 375 is to reduce automobile commuting trips and thus help meet the statewide targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions set by AB 32. This mandate requires the California Air Resources Board to determine per capita GHG emission -reduction targets for each metropolitan planning organization (MPO) in the state at two points in the future-2020 and 2035. In turn, each MPO must prepare an SCS that demonstrates how the region will meet its GHG reduction target through integrated land use, housing, and transportation planning. MetroWalk Specific Plan 1-6 February 2025 Packet Pg. 42 1.d 1.7.3 Southern California Association of Governments The Southern California Association of Governments' Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal, the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Connect SoCal is a long- range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. Connect SoCal charts a course for closely integrating land use and transportation so that the region can grow smartly and sustainably. What is at the heart of Connect SoCal are over 4,000 transportation projects —ranging from highway improvements, railroad grade separations, bicycle lanes, new transit hubs and replacement bridges. In addition, Connect SoCal is supported by a combination of transportation and land use strategies that help the region achieve state greenhouse gas emission reduction goals and federal Clean Air Act requirements, preserve open space areas, improve public health and roadway safety, support our vital goods movement industry and use resources more efficiently. The Specific Plan is consistent with the Connect SoCal in that it also embodies the vision of integrating land use with planned mobility improvements by creating a transit -oriented residential community that connects residents to the new City/Metrolink transit center and new Bus Transfer Station. The Specific Plan also provides open space and recreational resources and accessibility to employment and day-to-day services that support a healthy and balanced quality of life. MetroWalk Specific Plan 1-7 February 2025 Packet Pg. 43 i i i KERN CO. LOS ANGELES CO. j LANCASTER I •� I 2` I � U I 138 ` 14 1 SANTA I '� C'I.ARITA 126 1 118 j 405) 10 5 2 —••-� PASADENA 1 O 10 % Santa Monica 101 2 Mountains / i 10 LOS ANGELES 60 .nnnnnnnnllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 1101 605 10 LOS ANGELES CO.! 105 � j ORANGE CO. � 405 91 ��-•J 57 LONG BEACH © NOT TO SCALE 5 0 M N N U c ry E C ry E Q c cu FL U a) Q co Y CE O d Q a co L � Y cu O d C tv v Q P® ject ISite Existing Vista Canyon Specific Plan Area MetroWalk Specific Plan A 0 1 © MILES I 1.d I 0 N N N N U „ c v E c v E a a c+ LMum 7� 9 Ar It 71 41 �r i1 rM f+� \`���i �� ✓ A , � e r t o Soled y - n Road �r s ad Can o M'etrolink Rail Lme' v Existing Vista Canyon r r fTj n p GaryOSpecific Plan Area MetroWalk SpecificPlan Are a r^ » r 1 :11 1600 a t t s C t r e FEET SOURCE: FIGURE 1.0-3 New Urban West Plan Area / S i �-oad �o Soledad ; ,• , .•_-"�� Gardenhomes ji a Residential u ti Canyon Country `� r ... 9 ` . (Residential) (Commercial) : °.. o ,> �O " �Soledad Canyon Road ' Tres Robles ..- f Metrolink Rail Line 'A (Residential) Commercial Horse Facility Colony Townhomes / a . _' lid. . River Ranch,'' r Sand Canyon (Residential) " �,. ;•' r. ., Townhomes v ' (Residential) w . 1 Existing Vista Canyon��o Fair OaRan ks ch # +• Specific Plan AreatCar (Residential) tip' r x#� ,• MetroWalk Specific { A FEET SOURCE: FIGURE 1.0-4 New Urban West Development Surrounding Specific Plan Area i a� View: Site, looking South. Metrolink train passing by. rT � MetroWalk SP Boundary 7_ MetrolinkiiRail Line � Y 'I a. l , • I d 1.d INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 0 CO) N 4 N U r E r_ d) E Q r_ ca a u m om Co Y 0 L C� G Q a Co c� L Y 2� 7 L C� G i E t u m Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 1-13 February 2025 Packet Pg. 49 1.d 2.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2.1 INTRODUCTION The Specific Plan is designed to deliver a premier transit -oriented residential community that serves as a functional and visual extension of the new mixed -use Vista Canyon Specific Plan directly north. The MetroWalk Specific Plan is designed to achieve a unified vision with a cohesive architectural theme and an integrated vehicular and pedestrian mobility system connected to the new Vista Canyon Metrolink transit station and Bus Transfer Station. Both Specific Plans are guided by a shared goal of creating a unique community where residents enjoy accessibility to transit, recreation, nearby employment, shopping, and services. The 20.4-acre site of the MetroWalk Specific Plan provides the opportunity to develop up to 498 residential units, with a diversity of attainably priced residential typologies, including market -rate apartments, age -qualified apartments, affordable senior apartments, and market -rate single-family dwellings, duplexes, and townhomes. The site design concept is intended to maximize walkability and encourage day-to-day interaction within the community. A unifying multi -use path is centrally located and links the Specific Plan with the Metrolink station and Vista Canyon to the north while connecting various private amenities throughout the community, including parks nodes, open space, a central club house and a playground. In addition, the multi -use path terminates at a public plaza at the far eastern area of the Specific Plan, which provides an outdoor publicly accessible amenity adjacent to the Metrolink transit station as well as shopping, trails, and other amenities to the north. 2.2 SPECIFIC PLAN OBJECTIVES The Specific Plan's design is based on the following objectives: 1. Create a new transit -oriented community that provides a diversity of attainably -priced residential uses in close proximity to transit, retail/commercial, office, hotel, and recreational uses. 2. Enhance the housing market and support the City of Santa Clarita's Regional Housing Needs Assessment by providing a variety of housing types and densities to meet the varying needs of future residents. 3. Provide development and a land use pattern that serves as an integrated extension of the Vista Canyon Specific Plan to the north, with coordinated and attractive streetscapes and a high -quality architectural design theme. 4. Arrange land uses to support safe and convenient access to nearby transit and amenities to reduce vehicle miles traveled and energy consumption, and to encourage walking and the use of transit. 5. Design the community to achieve an integrated neighborhood feel and unique sense of place. MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-1 February 2025 Packet Pg. 50 1.d 6. Provide a rich set of shared outdoor spaces, including parks, courtyards, pathways and a public plaza. 7. 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. 8. Create and enhance opportunities for non -vehicular travel and encourage pedestrian mobility by providing an internal pedestrian circulation system that links the residential community to the nearby Metrolink station, Bus Transfer Station, schools, parks, trail systems, shopping and employment opportunities. 9. Provide a landscape design that emphasizes a pleasant neighborhood character and inviting streetscapes and gives MetroWalk its own unique outdoor aesthetic. 10. Adopt development regulations that provide a measure of flexibility to respond and adjust to changing economic and market conditions. 2.3 LAND USE PLAN The Specific Plans objectives, above, guide the overall Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan (Figure 2.0-1) and the Specific Plan Land Use Summary (Table 2.0-1) provide the framework for development of the Specific Plan site. This section establishes the Specific Plan's land use designation zones (zones) (Residential (R) and Open Space ,OSD by Planning Afea and uses/acreage. Table 2.0-1 further identifies the land use types in each zone established by the Specific Plan. Table 2.-2band 1=;se Plan Statistical o ; a a t show the Land MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-2 February 2025 Packet Pg. 51 1.d Table 2.0-1 Specific Plan Land Use Summary Specific Plan Use Type Other Land Uses Acres (gross) Dwelling Zone Units Residential, R Single -Family Detached Dwellings, Private Drives, Private Recreation Areas, 19.49 498' Play Area and Gathering Space_, Paths, Duplexes, Multifamily Dwellings) Landscape Areas, Parking Open Space, OS Public Plaza Public Plaza, Playground, Paths, 0.93 NIA Landscape Areas, Water Easement Parkine Total 20.42 4982 Sources: Appendix 1.0-3; Tentative Tract Map (TIM) No. 83087. 1. Multifamily dwelling types include age -restricted apartments, deed -restricted affordable senior apartments, and market -rate townhomes and apartments. 2. In no case shall the Specific Plan site exceed a total of 498 residential units. The number of restricted affordable senior units within the Specific Plan site shall not be less than50 units, inclusive of one manager unit. MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-3 February 2025 Packet Pg. 52 u 1.d lla;pr- if ..,..i T T.;..V A er-e ,... /g*ess 12!aF�nin 4-7� Ur -.+., Pfiws, Ur -.+., 1 eer-.,atio -. Areas, U-.+L,s 44-19 Ur -.+., Pr- 14 -.+., Areas, Tnr;,,,+„ Tlr;,,,, , nr;,,,+„ 1?ee featior, Areas, U 44s 4-.( , Reer-eat r Areas, n„t,l; Areas, Water- gase+nei4t 498 20.42 Planning Area No. T ,,,ic�zd v.,;c 4e&igagiow U3se� Affe6 9Ss} Pivelling IIniis 12!aq,,444--pea - ---44 -9 n#Ac--L,.,.-1 444,ii-4 -.+., 411 Ages -R n++-,,,1,,,t- -4 Rate Age- �; 4-4-9-o n„ + nr A-4A- j;-j,.] >~ r c,1„ r t.,r 1 44a4 4-;4 n, , t 444; 44 20.42 498 O M N N tU E O Q ca a u m CL Y O L C� G Q a c� L Y O L r O u m r Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-4 February 2025 Packet Pg. 53 1.d 2.3.1 Land Use Designation Zones The following two land use designation zones are established by this Specific Plan, and are applied to property within the Specific Plan site, as shown on the Specific Plan Land Use Plan (Figure 2.0-1): Residential (R). The R land use Elesignat4an zone is applied to areas appropriate for a variety of attached and detached, attainably -priced residential units, including market - rate apartments, age -qualified apartments, affordable senior apartments, and single- family dwellings, duplexes, and townhomes,_e.F sa4eai es, and other similar residential product types, with private drives, parking garages, carports, and surface parking. The R designation includes for rent and for sale units and both market -rate and affordable units. The designation also allows recreational uses, including club houses and a community room, parks, playgrounds and pathways, as well as landscaped areas and courtyards. 2. Open Space (OS). The OS zone is applied to the public plaza area at the far eastern end of the Specific Plan site, which connects to the new Metrolink station. 2.3.2 Conceptual Residential Development Scenarios The Specific Plan allows for up to 498 residential units on approximately 19.5 acres of the Specific Plan site, including a mix of residential dwelling tykes, such as single-family detached dwellings, duplexes, and multifamily dwellings, including age -qualified apartments, deed -restricted affordable senior apartments, market -rate apartments and townhomes. The Specific Plan includes two potential conceptual site plan scenarios based on the regulations and guidelines defined by the Specific Plan. It should be noted that while the conceptual development plans presented in this Section depict illustrative examples of potential site plan scenarios, -9building footprints, building locations, and residential product types shown are provided for illustrative purposes only and can be modified consistent with the requirements of the Specific Plan. The first conceptual site plan scenario, Scenario A, shown on Figure 2.0-2a, Conceptual Site Plan - Scenario A and shown as the site plan on all the development plan figures included in this Section 2.0 of the Specific Plan (with the exception of Figure 2.0-2b, which illustrates Scenario B) includes up to 498 dwelling units. This conceptual scenario includes a mix of multifamily dwelling use types, including 50 attached, deed -restricted affordable senior apartments' for lease, 150 attached, for -sale townhomes, 179 attached, market -rate all -ages apartments for lease, and 119 attached, market -rate age -qualified apartments for lease. i Except as permitted in Section 4.9, Development Adjustment Regulations. MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-5 February 2025 Packet Pg. 54 Alternatively, the second concel2tual site 121an scenario, Scenario B, as shown on Figure 2.0-2, Conceptual Site Plan Alternative - Scenario B, includes a1212roximately 325 dwelling units, including a mix of single-family dwelling, dul2lex, and multifamily dwelling use tomes. This alternative scenario includes 50 affordable senior al2artments', and 150 townhomes as described above for Scenario A, as well as, u12 to 125 single-family detached dwellings and/or dul2lexes ranging in size from a1212roximately 1,500 to 2,500 gross square feet. Additionally, both concel2tual site 121an scenarios also include 12rivate 12ool/recreation areas, such as community rooms, clubhouses,12ark nodes, and 12laygrounds, as well as courtyards, multi -use pathways, landscal2ed areas,12rivate drives, and 12arking areas and garages. • -_--------- - - - - - - - ---- - -- - --- -- --- ------ - - - ----- --- ---- -------- -- - -_ -- - - -- • 1 m` w- -, ♦ • M M. �_ •11 1011imol • 0 M N N U c a> E c a> E Q c ca FL u a> a Cn Y_ O L c� C Q a Cn 0 Y_ O L c� C E u Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-6 February 2025 Packet Pg. 55 1.d MPter. rWITMEF . rl� - - mmoll -� - - 0 M N N U c a> E c a> E Q c m a u u a> a Cn Y_ t4 O L c� C Q a Cn L Y_ t4 O L c� C C E u Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-7 February 2025 Packet Pg. 56 VISTA CANYON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA — --- ----- -- — — — - -_-- -------- ---- --- ----=- --- -- -- �. � 4 s 1'F--LLoql/. / Metro Link Station LAND USE DESIGNATION / ZONES Residential (R) --- `-- --------- ----- Open Space (OS) 0' 60' 120' FEET II C - m M.. Q , o �oa R �'� � I B 1 � i •� i v IA fir i T — / o I � o i G1 A: Market -Rate All -Ages Apartments o B: Market -Rate Age -Qualified ApartmentE C: Affordable Senior Apartments v D: Townhomes E L © 0' 60' 120' Y FEET a SOURCE: New Urban West FIGURE 2.0-2b Conceptual Site Plan Alternative - Scenario B 1.d 2.4 MOBILITY PLAN 2.4.1 Introduction The Specific Plan's Mobility Plan provides for a transportation/circulation system using private vehicular and non -vehicular modes of transportation in a system of private roadways and pedestrian pathways. The Mobility Plan seeks to implement street sections that slow traffic, create a pleasant walking environment and reduce the urban "heat island" effect.20-2 The Specific Plan s circulation network described below is conceptually shown on Figure 2.0-23 Mobility Plan. Pedestrian pathways are shown on Figure 2.0-34 Pedestrian Pathways. The exhibits included in this Section are provided for illustrative purposes only and may be modified consistent with the requirements of the Specific Plan, as detailed in Section 4.9 and the implementation procedures in Section 6.0. The Specific Plan is guided by its proximity and access to the new Metrolink transit center and the new Bus Transfer Station, which provide residents of the Specific Plan an option of riding the train or using transit to travel to and from work and other destinations. Proximity to transit reduces automobile trips and the associated greenhouse gas emissions, thus contributing to local and regional emissions reduction goals. The Mobility Plan connects the community to nearby transit amenities through a central multi -use path that terminates at Metro Plaza, a public plaza, at the far eastern area of the site near the Metrolink transit station. The multi -use path and public plaza are key features of the Specific Plan. The multi -use path connects various recreational amenities across the site, thus creating and enhancing further opportunities for non -vehicular travel and pedestrian mobility. The public plaza features outdoor amenities including outdoor seating, shaded areas, a play area, and pathways to bring residents and the community together in an attractive, lively atmosphere. The Specific Plan is designed as a pedestrian -oriented community that is easily accessible to nearby services and amenities, including Vista Canyon to the north which features a mix of office, commercial, retail, and residential uses surrounded by a Main Street thoroughfare (Vista Square). Proximity to Vista Canyon offers residents accessibility to pedestrian -oriented shops, restaurants, and services all within walking distance. The Specific Plan is linked to Vista Canyon through Cooper Street and a second private street to the west, which intersect with Harriman Drive, the main east -west private entrance into the Specific Plan from Lost Canyon Road. 2.4.2 Existing Regional Circulation and Access The City 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 I-5, located 202 The term "heat island" describes built environment areas that are hotter than nearby rural or open areas. Heat islands can affect communities by increasing summertime peak energy demand, air conditioning costs, greenhouse gas emissions, heat -related illness and mortality, and water quality (see http://www.epa.gov/heatisland/index.htrn, last updated January 23, 2020). MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-11 February 2025 Packet Pg. 60 1.d south and west of the Specific Plan site. SR-14, located north of the Specific Plan site, also provides a regional link between the Los Angeles basin and the high desert communities of Palmdale and Lancaster. SR-14 connects to I-5 southwest of the Specific Plan site. Soledad Canyon Road provides secondary regional access, paralleling SR-14 along the northern boundary of the Specific Plan site and extending north to Palmdale and Lancaster. Sierra Highway, which intersects Soledad Canyon Road east of the Specific Plan area, also provides secondary regional access north to Palmdale and Lancaster. 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 City also presently is served by a 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. The Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) also provides commuter service with stops in the Santa Clarita Valley. 2.4.3 Local Roadway Circulation and Access The Specific Plan Mobility Plan roadway network is designed as an orderly extension of the existing regional circulation pattern in the Santa Clarita Valley and the new local roadway system of the Vista Canyon Specific Plan to the north. The proposed development pattern within the Specific Plan site, integrated with existing roadway alignments, form the basis for this network. The Mobility Plan is designed to integrate modes of travel, accommodate anticipated traffic demands generated by the Specific Plan, and provide important private roadway improvements that ultimately will connect the Specific Plan to the Vista Canyon Specific Plan and out to Lost Canyon Road, which provides access to the rest of the Santa Clarita Valley. Primary vehicular access to and from the Specific Plan site will be from Harriman Drive, a new east -west private road that forms the northern boundary of the Specific Plan site. Harriman Drive extends from the approved westerly extension of Lost Canyon Road. As part of the approved Vista Canyon Specific Plan, Lost Canyon Road south of Jakes Way was extended (approximately 800 feet) north from its previous terminus at the northerly abutment of the bridge over the Metrolink rail tracks within Fair Oaks Ranch, past the Specific Plan site to the south and west of the Vista Canyon Specific Plan site. This segment, a public street, has a maximum 90-foot-wide right-of-way and provides two vehicular lanes in each direction with a raised median, and curbs and gutters, parkways, and sidewalks on both sides. Cross sections for each street servicing the Specific Plan site are shown in Figures 2.0-4 through 2.0-10 and described below. 2.4.3.1 Lost Canyon Road Lost Canyon Road from Via Princessa to Jakes Way is designated as a "Major Highway' in the Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element and the Los Angeles County Master Plan of Highways. Per the Vista Canyon Specific Plan, Lost Canyon Road was extended north (approximately 800 feet), from its previous terminus at the northerly abutment of the bridge over the Metrolink rail tracks within Fair MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-12 February 2025 Packet Pg. 61 1.d Oaks Ranch. This segment, a public street, has a maximum 90-foot-wide right-of-way and provides two vehicular lanes in each direction with a raised median, and curbs and gutters, parkways, and sidewalks on both sides. This road is depicted in cross-section and plan view in Figure 2.045 below. 2.4.3.2 Harriman Drive Harriman Drive is a two-lane, private street providing primary vehicular access to and from the Specific Plan site and internal circulation for the residential land uses. It has a maximum 54-foot- wide right-of-way, with curbs and gutters, as well as a sidewalk and parkway on one side. Harriman Drive is depicted in cross-section and plan view in Figure 2.046 below. 2.4.3.3 Cooper Street Cooper Street is a two-lane, private street, and provides internal circulation for the residential and open space land uses-k+-P-A-4. The street has a maximum 44-foot-wide right-of-way with parking, sidewalks, curbs and gutters on both sides. Cooper Street is depicted in cross-section and plan view in Figure 2.0-67 below. 2.4.3.4 Other Internal Private Drives Internal private drives will be two-lane private streets providing internal circulation for the residential land uses. There are four typical types of internal drives: one that is 28 feet wide with one 14-foot lane in each direction and a 5-foot-wide sidewalk and 4-foot wide parkway on both sides providing access between residential buildings; one that is 26 feet wide, with one 13-foot lane in each direction providing access to residential carports; one that is 38 feet wide with a 14- foot lane in each direction, 10-foot wide parallel parking on one side, and a 4-foot sidewalk on one side and a 6-foot meandering sidewalk on the other; and one that is 28 feet wide inclusive of a 14-foot lane in each direction, and a 4-foot sidewalk on one side. Each private drive contains curbs and gutters on both sides. Private drives are depicted in cross-section and plan view in Figures 2.0-7 through 2.0-10, below. 2.4.4 Parking Plan The Specific Plan parking plan consists of private residential and guest parking. Under the Specific Plans parking plan, the required residential parking supply for the conceptual site plan in Scenario A is 902 parking spaces and 675 parking spaces in Scenario B, including guest parking. This supply is based on a parking demand study provided as part of this project and parking regulations provided in Section 4.0 of this Specific P1an.SCT. C i a.Fkirg sta+tE1a.FE1s (see SCMC, CB ; ptef ,; Pi-,; sie 5 r T All parking will be reserved for residents and their guests. A percentage of total parking will include electric vehicle charging stations. MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-13 February 2025 Packet Pg. 62 Table 2.0-3, Parking Summary, provides the required parking supply for each conceptual site plan scenario by residential product type, based on the parking regulations outlined in Section 4.0, Development Regulations. The Specific Plan allows for modifications to the residential product types and parking plan consistent with the provisions of this Specific Plan, including all corresponding development regulations and parking regulations set forth in Section 4.0. Table 2.0-3 Parking Summary Potential Conceptual Site Plan - Scenario A Residential Product Type I Units Per Unit Guest Required PA-4-Market Rate All -Ages Apartments S1: Studio/1 Bath 26 1.5 0.5 52 A-1: 1 Bedroom/1 Bath 108 1.5 0.5 216 A-2: 2 Bedroom/2 Bath 45 1.5 0.5 90 Subtotal 179 358 PA-4-Market Rate Age -Qualified Apartments A-1: 1 Bedroom/1 Bath 86 0.5 0.5 86 A-2: 2 Bedroom/2 Bath 33 0.5 0.5 33 Subtotal 119 119 P 4-3-Deed-Restricted Affordable Senior Apartments A-1: 1 Bedroom/1 Bath 49 0.5 0.5 49 A-2: 2 Bedroom/2 Bath 1 0.5 0.5 1 Subtotal 50 50 PA-4-For-Sale Townhomes TH-1-A: 2 Bedroom/2.5 Bath 28 2.0 0.5 70 TH-1-B: 3 Bedroom/2.5 Bath 31 2.0 0.5 77.5 TH-2: 3 Bedroom/2 full, 2 half Bath 6 2.0 0.5 15 TH-3: 3 Bedroom/2 full, 2 half Bath 32 2.0 0.5 80 TH-4: 3 Bedroom/2 full, 2 half bath 47 2.0 0.5 117.5 TH-5: 3 Bedroom/2.5 Bath 6 2.0 0.5 15 Subtotal 150 375 Total Required Parking Stalls 498 902 Potential Conceptual Site Plan - Scenario B Residential Product jTe I Units Per Unit Guest Required Single -Family Detached Dwellings and/or Duplexes Single -Family Dwellings/ Duplexes Up to 125 2 0_5 Up to 312.5 Subtotal 125 Up to 312.5 Deed -Restricted Affordable Senior Apartments A-1: 1 Bedroom/1 Bath 49 0.5 0.5 49 MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-14 February 2025 Packet Pg. 63 A-2: 2 Bedroom/2 Bath 1 0.5 0.5 1 Subtotal 50 50 For -Sale Townhomes TH-1-A: 2 Bedroom/2.5 Bath 28 2.0 0.5 70 TH-1-B: 3 Bedroom/2.5 Bath 31 2.0 0.5 77.5 TH-2: 3 Bedroom/2 full, 2 half Bath 6 2.0 0.5 15 TH-3: 3 Bedroom/2 full, 2 half Bath 32 2.0 0.5 80 TH-4: 3 Bedroom/2 full, 2 half bath 47 2.0 0.5 117.5 TH-5: 3 Bedroom/2.5 Bath 6 2.0 0.5 15 Subtotal 150 375 Total Required Parking Stalls 325 738 0 M N N U c a� E c a� E Q c �a a u a> a U) Y_ O L c� C Q a Cn L Y_ O L c� C C E u Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-15 February 2025 Packet Pg. 64 1.d Ug 0W--Ai flNAIE pNE Pnr - one • • / — - - — Tract Boundary 0' 60' 120' © I� 1 INCH=120 FEET 'pA) V4 I 1.d I 0 v ,/- a u a / y a o - — — — — 4' Pedestrian Walk f6 - _ 5' Pedestrian Walk o — — — — — — — 6' Pedestrian Walk v — — — — 8' Pedestrian Walk 7' Pedestrian Walk -- 8'D.G.Trail E s © 0' 60' 1 20' m 1 INCH-120 FEET Q M ETROWALK ROAD CROSS SECTION (LOST CANYON ROAD) WEST R/W 43.5' 2' 10' 27' MIN. 5' 5' 2'1 `L1 5' SIDEWALK (TYP) CURB & GUTTER (TYP) LOST CAI C/L 90' 1 46.5' 1327' MEDIAN IYON ROAD (PUBL VOT TO SCALE I I I U m Oor I I I I I I � PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE R 13' 2' 6' 7' MIN. 21 0 2� 2 m N N 7' SIDEWALK (TYP) -CURB & GUTTER (TYP) c a� E E Q c m a u 4— a cn Y_ O El a cn L Y_ f; O 2 u a METROWALK ROAD SECTION (HARRIMAN DRIVE) SOUTH CAL NORTH R W 54' I RAW 1 32' 1 22' 1 2' 10' 8' 14' 14' 8' MIN. 5' PARALLEL LANE LANE PARALLEL PKWY N 1 2 2% I 2% 2. V 5' SIDEWALK 5' SIDEWALK (TYP) (TYP) c GUTS R (TYP) GUTTBER (TYP) E c a� E Q HARRIMAN DRIVE (PRIVATE) cu NOT TO SCALE d v u a) Q Y_ O d — a. _ Q HARRIMAN DRIVE (PRIVATE) cn t L � Q IC O L cW C C E V Q PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE I 1.d I METROWALK ROAD SECTION (COOPER STREET) WEST R/W CA (LOT LINE) 5' I 44' EAST R/W (LOT LINE) 5' 22' 22' 8' 14' 14' 8' PARALLEL LANE LANE PARALLEL PARKING PARKING 2% I 1 % 1% MIN. I 7 [T 5' SIDEWALK- (TYP) CURB (TY1 BBON GUTTER (TYP) COOPER STREET (PRIVATE) NOT TO SCALE I I I I I� � � W [L }� O �I PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE \-5' SIDEWALK (TYP) B (TYP) M ETROWALK ON -SITE ROAD SECTION TYPICAL DRIVE AISLE (ENTRY) C/L 28' 4' 1 14' I 14' 1 4' PKWYl IPKWY 5' SIDEWALK (TYP)� �5' SIDEWALK (TYP) CURB & GUTTER (TYP) CURB &GUTTER (TYP) TYPICAL DRIVE (PRIVATE) NOT TO SCALE HARRIMAN DRIVE XI IF ti �l � 7 I PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE METROWALK ON -SITE ROAD SECTION TYPICAL DRIVE AISLE (CARPORT) R (TYP) TYPICAL DRIVE (PRIVATE) NOT TO SCALE w Q W PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE mi c s M N N U c a> E c a> E a c m a u u a> a cn Y_ O a a cn L Y_ O C a) E t v a METROWALK ON -SITE ROAD SECTION TYPICAL DRIVE AISLE (PARALLEL PARKING) TYPICAL DRIVE (PRIVATE) NOT TO SCALE IW ry 0 W Q PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE METROWALK 4' ON -SITE ROAD SECTION TYPICAL DRIVE AISLE (NO STREET PARKING) TYPICAL DRIVE (PRIVATE) NOT TO SCALE W ry n W Q ry n PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE UTTER (TYP) 1.d 2.5 LANDSCAPE PLAN The MetroWalk Conceptual Landscape Plan is shown on Figure 2.0-14-12 and Figure 2.042 3 Conceptual Landscape Plan. The Conceptual Landscape Plan focuses primarily on the use of native and drought -tolerant tree and plant species to create a natural and vibrant environment. The landscape will be varied in texture and scale to soften surrounding architecture and create comfortable, inviting outdoor spaces. All plant species listed, both native and non-native, have been chosen due to their ability to thrive in the Santa Clarita climate. Drought -tolerant species will be used in a creative way throughout the Specific Plan area to limit water usage. Plants listed that are non- native or not drought tolerant will be used sparingly and only in areas that require their unique properties. Turf will be primarily used at the Metro Plaza and limited to locations where it will serve for passive or active recreation, and to small pockets intended for pet use along the pedestrian pathways and/or trail. The irrigation systems will be designed, installed, operated, and maintained in conformance with the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The main objective for the irrigation design is to minimize water use, maximize efficiency, and explore the feasible uses of recycled water. These objectives will be met through the use of Smart ET Based controllers, hydro - zoning, moisture sensors, rain -shut-off devices, cisterns, and drip irrigation. Although much of the native planting areas may receive temporary irrigation, a permanent irrigation system is important for a majority of the landscape planting to comply with the Los Angeles County Fire Department Fuel Modification Guidelines. 2.6 OPEN SPACE, PARKS AND RECREATION PLAN The Specific Plan includes extensive open space, recreation opportunities, and public/private parks featuring 147,854 square feet of common open space, including a gym, pool, parkways, and trails, and approximately 63,986 square feet of private open space dedicated to rear yards and private patio decks/balconies. The Specific Plan provides open space per unit in accordance with the development regulations provided in Section 4.0, Development Regulations Figure 2.0-4314, Open Space Plan, illustrates the conceptual locations of private and common open space areas within the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan's parks and recreation component provides active and passive recreational opportunities for its residents. Figure 2.04-415, Conceptual Parks and Recreation Plan, Figures 2.0-4-5-16 through 2.0-4617, Conceptual Park and Recreation Enlargements, and Figure 2.0-4-718, Conceptual Park Illustrative Plan illustrate the locations of private parks, playgrounds and recreation facilities in relation to other designated open space within the Specific Plan area, and provide close-up visuals of the major amenities. The major Specific Plan recreational amenities include an approximately 1,125-foot-long meandering and centrally located multi -use path, €ems swimming pools serving each residential product type, and a 0.93-acre Metro Plaza. Figure 2.0- MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-25 February 2025 Packet Pg. 74 1.d 4819, Multi -Use Trail, shows how the multi -use path connects with Metro Plaza, Metrolink Station, Vista Canyon, and the City Master Trail System. 2.7 SUSTAINABILITY PLAN 2.7.1 Introduction The Specific Plan's location and design enhance the project's sustainability and help realize regional GHG reduction targets as well as local conservation goals as reflected in the City's General Plan. The Specific Plan is located adjacent to the planned Metrolink station and bus transfer station. The concentration of attainably priced, multifamily residential apartments and townhomes, including affordable senior apartments, in proximity to public transit facilities, as well as near employment opportunities, commercial uses, and other transit -oriented mixed -uses associated with the Vista Canyon Specific Plan, supports pedestrian activity and contributes to a land use pattern that reduces vehicle trips and air pollution. The Specific Plan is designed to be pedestrian and bicycle oriented, both within the Plan area and to adjacent areas including paths to Vista Canyon, and the City's master trail system. Energy - saving features and sustainable design are incorporated throughout the Plan area and proposed development. The project applicant will require that each building be designed to meet the requirements of the California Building Code, which incorporates the Cal Green and Title 24 Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). In doing so, the Specific Plan will be developed to achieve energy efficiency, water efficiency, material conservation, and resource efficiency in compliance with the CALGreen Code. 2.7.2 Application of Project Design Features The design features that contribute most to reductions in GHGs are the Plans walkability and accessibility to the planned Metrolink station and bus transfer station, as well as to employment, the trail system and day-to-day amenities as described above. The walkability of the site and accessibility to day-to-day services by foot, bike, or by transit, reduces the need to drive and thereby supports a low carbon, sustainable community. Additionally, the Specific Plan will incorporate various components of a sustainable community in the development of the site and individual buildings, including the following: Water Conservation • High efficiency irrigation. • Use of native/drought-resistant landscaping. • Use of recycled water for non -potable water from the Vista Canyon Water Reclamation Plan. • Low -flow -rate faucets. MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-26 February 2025 Packet Pg. 75 1.d • Low flow -rate toilets • High -efficiency clothes washers and dishwashers. Energy Conservation and Efficiency • Use of roof overhangs, low -energy outdoor lighting, and passive solar systems to enhance energy conservation. • High -efficiency heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. • Light -emitting diode (LED) lighting. • Lighting controls, including occupancy sensors, daylighting controls. • Energy Star -labeled equipment (e.g., clothes washers, refrigerators, dishwashers, dryers, ceiling fans). Transportation • On -site electric vehicle charging stations in accordance with the California Green Buildin Standards Code. par -king spaces Nvill be EN' 44ar-ging spac-es capable of suppor-ting future EN' st+ • On -site bicycle storage for residents and guests. • Accessibility to multiple public transportation options. Air Quality • Provision of filtered outside air meeting ASHRAE 62.1 (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air -Conditioning Engineers) requirements for all residential systems. • Prohibited use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). • Use of adhesives, sealants, paints, finishes, and other materials that emit low quantities of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Water Quality • Installation of Low Impact Development (LID) on -site water treatment for treating stormwater runoff wherever feasible. • Installation of sustainable drainage/water quality technologies, such as retention and detention systems, biofiltration areas, vegetated swales, and hydromodification. MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-27 February 2025 Packet Pg. 76 1.d • Implementation of best management practices (BMPs) and project design features to minimize pollutant runoff during construction and operation. • Use of permeable paving materials (where applicable), reduction in land coverage of buildings by constructing multi -story structures, and incorporation of biofiltration to reduce impervious surfaces. • Directing runoff from impervious areas to vegetated areas (e.g., landscaped areas, vegetated swales). • Use of appropriate building materials (e.g., roof gutters and downspouts without copper or zinc) to reduce the generation and discharge of pollutants of concern in runoff and, therefore, act as a source control BMP. Solid Waste • Trash collection that will facilitate separation of organic, recyclable, and non -recyclable trash streams. MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-28 February 2025 Packet Pg. 77 PROPERTY LINE To -�KI---------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PROPEA2TY LINE SITE PLANT PALETTE Lxou, A=uEmLowi RN EEos mENrIHEo wPnRENrxEslsw=xlcx,M=McoENSTE TREES PERIMEIERSIREETIREES 14"BOXI h �E , OAKS TREES [24"BOX AND LARGER] R AIT KgIM OVERIUHUFER FORK 0. IM IU 0 PROMENADE STREET TREE VEARROIUMN1D INIERES BOGI UCASPEARRY MANNOLA OR TO CA e01IHEREMAG OF A1M1 OLEAEURORA VMeRF CAL RE ILA VLMUREAPEA LOLA TRUE FREES'-EVEREFEEEEI ELMR /ram SGULPNRALAGGENT TREE ID4"BOX AND LARGER] P'LL, Ih✓] RCMIs�aNe�e rwE Po Rllule PREMONixMPRRMFILE oiio0000jnq VRFEU POP VLVFTNFHOFARPA- 111KFOTTOW00011A ® VIMVS PARVEFOLA ERVE2F4BOXEN aLARN ER IL. ILI OLEAEVROPA-COMMON OVVE IU O S MALL SCALE GANOPV TREE Eo4 BOX FVURDFE LE EOFVO IMI iLE(M)AEa ARRINEMARINA MARINAMaemMEiM uRVNK)Im ® LARGE-S CALE SIT RUBS WI IH TREE -LIKE HABIT [24"BOX] PER LUNFUNEDO ET RAZERR'T FEE IU O ILI W OH TOPER v , T ILL o IU FAYIEMON EOTEA TREE ILI PRVNVFILIKOOLIA HOLLIEAEFHERRYNU IA RGE SCREEN SHRUBS Its GALLON AND IARGERI ODOXARPUR MACRO ws IMI DEFOA FELLOW DODONEA oAIA'o A OVPREFFVFFPRw . ILI ® PARKaGANOPVMNFETE124'F'BOX AND IARGEW SSOLU TRIfJI FORD o ARM cH LEAN MEFa nElu TOO NU, OIPETALA GO FORNA AFH ILI EXISTING PARKWAY TREES AT LOST CANYON ROAD GROUNDPLANE PLANTING GENERAL PLANTING AREAS (SHRUBS. GROUNDCOVER&VINES) -SEE SHEET LP-103 TO SEE LIST OF PLANTING PALETTE LURESPECIESTBD A L]D' 40' cC p, PLANT PALETTE WPa�P�a- NOTE - r -,WNPo,PPaNTWATERNEEPPPENTEEPNPPRENTHEPPI�HNn�MOPERATE PNON Pia PNRaRP�a arLO �a�Ra --_ PROPERTY LINE TREES • r - 4 -- — �— PERIMETER STREET TREES [24"BOX] ...,! P =7 C .,P \STACA CH NENss cH NESEPSTACHE tM) uu uu uu uu uu uu uu �� I /. oAKSTREEs 124 BOXANO LARNR] LL ct� uNRAAREo QVERCV9 _ _ • I — / auERcue - CA Al a Race O PROMENADE STREET TREE ROU NO INTEREST AN BOX] <Rl ,F P(PARN � NR) ) GO ERM AMORE uLMuPPAPLATANUE EENEVE. PENELM SCULPTURAL AccENT TREE I24CH BoxANO LARGER 1ILL°ai`�osEIREMONTE �o PiLovEeoE a1 n T7cT cTn cTn nn nn nn nn WE y v v v v v v V v v v v v v v v v POPULU POPowe cARPA PucxcoTTONwo QEVERGREEN TREE ]24"BOX AND LARGER] VudVe PARVIwLANTRVE GREER e E E Pox Mr)Eus OLEA OPA COMMON OLIVE IT SMAOPECLL SoALE SANOPV TREE EoeVRBOX N -PURPLE AFREDPUD MA IAGERsiCROEM AX NAORE ZT PCARNAP SE(MVLnLTRVNN)(M) UJ i i � . 'P� I6 PNbad; une ARPUTUP MA .X MARINAARPV LEFF-SCALE SHRUBS WITH TREE-LIKEHABIT [24"BOX] V ' hARUTU' QAIAIALILULYKIHILA LIBIGIBIAM, UNEDOEITER LREo� LOW PRUNUs waFouA HouvWA�cHE A0 EATREE(I TPURUEPERMUM PETERPO AI -L MONK TE DT LIG ARGE SO REENRCHRuae6 GALLON AND LARGER] CUPREPPOP P N P)Hru ,N CO (A(LL) PARK CANOPVTREE [24"BOXAND LARGER] 'NA'AA NO cIANMA) EMA ORCLEIe CHILLEAN MEPaNITE(I IT IRAUNUEDIPETAA XCIIORNIAASHIT EXISTINGPARKWAYTREES AT LOSTCANVONROAD /Q� % GROUNDPLANE PLANTING GENERAL PLANTING AREAS (SHRUBS, GROUNDKOVER RVINE.) SEE SHEET LP-1 03 TO SEE LIST OF PLANTING PALETTE TURF-SPEKIE.TBD --- ________— T T T T T T T T 1 III( �I C rim Common Open Space Area Private Open Space Area OCommon Open Space Area includes courtyards,areas, and commun ty rooms, pool landscaped walkways (147854 SF ® Private Open Space Area Includes town home rear yards and pr vate patio decks on all levels (63,986 SF) (See Unit Plans) ® Total Provided Open Space Area = 211,840 SF t 5 6 ) 2 { 3 3 �I �-9 1 I I � ' / Y�PR6HZ0 L.—.----- �• aaoaEHrcuNE __- -ENE _ -- O� / / O Metro Plaza Park ® Interior Tra l" Through Project Core Q® Resident Recreaton/Pool Area P� ® Pass ve Play Area &Gathering Space / O Shade Cover Over Park ng Stalls /•/ ® Enhanced Veh cular Entry /• O Circulaton Node with Small Shade Structure / O Enhanced Pedestrian Experence at Han -man Drive / ® Connect on to Adjacent (Vista Canyon) Trail System ® Project Identification Monument ® Future Metrolink Station ® Irrigation Point of Connection (Reclaimed Water) A o3a GO' ,za F ❑ Y f fix' C OInteror Tra'I" Through Project Core ® Resident Recreation/Pool Area © ® Enhanced Vehicular Entry ® Leasmg Entry/PaVo ® Bike Racks �V IIIIFF ® t T 'I Th r ugh Pt Coe \ Resident R - t ntPool Area ® Passive Play Area & Gathering Space ® Enhanced Vehicular Entry Circulation Node with Small Shade Structure ® Ile Racks oo� 0 00010 Y _ �T y '\ VISTA CANYON APARTMENTS (NAP) _ pRUB'1611i . i�r 40 METRO WALK 1-mile long Landscaped Trail �- - -� connecting to Park, Metro Link Station, proposed Retail Plaza, public sidewalk, and Vista Canyon Apartments A a 6a 129 1.d INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-37 Febnmry 2025 Packet Pg. 86 1.d 3.0 INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT This section addresses the Specific Plans infrastructure development plans for grading, drainage, water quality, water service/recycled water, wastewater service, and dry utilities. The Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment accompanying the Specific Plan also addresses this infrastructure and includes additional requirements to help ensure that the infrastructure can support the community envisioned by the Specific Plan. The plans presented in this section are preliminary and are subject to change as detailed engineering designs are prepared, reviewed, and approved by the City of Santa Clarita as part of the final construction or grading plans. With that said, the plans presented in this section do describe the extent of the proposed infrastructure and associated improvements, and the designs intended to establish the standards by which the final infrastructure/improvement plans must conform. 3.2 GRADING PLAN 3.2.1 Existing Conditions The 20.4-acre Specific Plan site is shaped irregularly, and the topography is relatively flat. The Specific Plan site includes a small, elevated terrace on the central northeastern portion of the site. This terrace drains toward the Santa Clara River. Elevations on the Specific Plan site range from a high of 1,505 feet above sea level at the central southeast portion of the site, to a low of 1,481 feet above sea level in the northwest portion of the site. The Specific Plan site is comprised of undeveloped land. Within the Specific Plan boundary, topography along the western and northern boundaries has recently been altered. Lost Canyon Road was extended north of the bridge along the western boundary, creating a 2:1 slope to the road elevations of approximately 1,525 feet above sea level to 1,490 feet above sea level. Along the northern boundary, Harriman Drive (approximately 870 linear feet of road beginning at the western boundary) was built with road elevations of approximately 1,490 feet above sea level. Conditions on the Specific Plan site have been altered by historic uses of the property, including agricultural cultivation and raising of livestock. On site there is little remaining natural vegetation, with the exception of some California big sage scrub and introduced grasses. 3.2.2 Proposed Conditions Just south of Harriman Drive, a drainage ditch flowing from the northeastern edge of the site (1,494 feet above sea level) to the northwestern corner (1,476 feet above sea level; where Lost Canyon Road meets Harriman Drive) will be created. MetroWalk Specific Plan 3-1 February 2025 Packet Pg. 87 1.d Within the Specific Plan boundary, the earthwork will consist of approximately 60,000 cubic yards of cut, up to 60,000 cubic yards of fill, and approximately 300,000 cubic yards of over - excavation. The Specific Plan site's cut and fill areas are shown on Figure 3.0-1, Conceptual Grading Plan. No dirt will be hauled on or off the site. 3.3 DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY The MetroWalk Drainage and Water Quality Plan incorporates methodologies to meet or exceed the ongoing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit requirements. The Drainage and Water Quality Plan includes a comprehensive series of drainage and water quality improvements designed to allow for a system to both protect development and preserve the Santa Clara River. 3.3.1 Existing Conditions The Specific Plan site consists of minor contributing sheet flow that independently drains to the Santa Clara River located northerly of the Specific Plan site. 3.3.2 Proposed Conditions The Specific Plan will require construction of new drainage and water quality features to allow for a system that protects development from erosion and potential flooding and preserves the Santa Clara River. In addition to construction of conventional drainage improvements like storm drains and retention/detention systems, the Specific Plan envisions using sustainable drainage and water quality technologies, such as biofiltration areas, vegetated swales, and filter strips. The primary objectives of the Specific Plans drainage concept and stormwater management program are as follows: (a) Incorporate low -impact development (LID) practices wherever feasible; (b) Effectively manage wet and dry weather runoff water quality by limiting increases in runoff pollutants and flows at the source through Project Design Features (PDFs) and best management practices (BMPs); (c) Avoid or minimize impacts to water quality through site design and use of sustainable drainage/water quality technologies; (d) Comply fully with the local and regional NPDES permit requirements Figure 3.0-2, Drainage Plan, illustrates the Specific Plan's drainage related improvements. The plan incorporates methodologies to meet or exceed NPDES permit and LID requirements. It also includes a comprehensive series of drainage and water quality facilities designed to allow for a system to protect development and preserve the Santa Clara River. MetroWalk Specific Plan 3-2 February 2025 Packet Pg. 88 1.d The Specific Plans drainage concept is designed to provide drainage and maintain stormwater flows from the Specific Plan during and after buildout. As proposed, on- site surface runoff will be conveyed to a network of treatment structures, including detention and retention systems, biofiltration areas, vegetated swales, and water quality basins. h4 the , Parking lot and roof runoff will be directed through landscaped parkways and grassy swales, or through sections of permeable pavement, to provide initial treatment prior to discharge into the drainage system. The Specific Plan will incorporate PDFs to address water quality and hydrologic impacts, including site design, source control, treatment control, and hydromodification control BMPs. As currently planned, stormwater runoff from all developed areas within the Specific Plan site will be routed to sustainable drainage improvements, such as retention and detention systems and biofiltration areas. The Specific Plan will incorporate numerous source -control BMPs to address pollutants of concern. These practices are designed to minimize introduction of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, and will include education programs, animal waste bag stations, street sweeping, and catch basin cleaning. In addition, the Specific Plan will use LID practices and treatment control BMPs as part of the final drainage/water quality design for the project area. The primary goals of LID practices are to maintain a landscape functionally equivalent to pre -development hydrologic conditions, and to minimize the generation of pollutants of concern. LID principles include the following: (a) Minimize Impervious Area/Maximize Permeability. Principles include reducing impervious surfaces (through reduced road width, for example), using permeable paving materials (where applicable), reducing land coverage of buildings by constructing multi -story structures, and incorporating biofiltration into the Specific Plan's landscape design. (b) Minimize Directly Connected Impervious Areas. Minimizing directly connected impervious areas can be achieved by directing runoff from impervious areas to vegetated areas (e.g., landscaped areas, vegetated swales). (c) Select Appropriate Building Materials. Use of appropriate building materials (e.g., roof gutters and downspouts without copper or zinc) reduces the generation and discharge of pollutants of concern in runoff; and, therefore, acts as a source controlBMP. Further, the Specific Plan will incorporate numerous treatment control BMPs that are designed to remove pollutants once mobilized by rainfall and runoff. These treatment control BMPs include the following: (a) Biofiltration. Biofiltration areas are vegetated (i.e., landscaped) shallow depressions that provide storage, infiltration, and evapotranspiration. Bioretention areas also remove pollutants by filtering stormwater through plants adapted to the local climate and soil MetroWalk Specific Plan 3-3 February 2025 Packet Pg. 89 1.d moisture conditions and an engineered soil mix. Biofiltration will be considered for use, wherever feasible, as part of the Specific Plans landscaping plan. (b) Vegetated Swales. Vegetated swales treat stormwater runoff through both vegetative treatment and infiltration. Swales treat the water quality design flow as the runoff sheet - flows through grassy vegetation on the swale surface, removing pollutants by filtering stormwater through plants adapted to the local climate and soil moisture conditions. Incidental infiltration occurs into native soil when water is present. Plants use soil moisture and promote the drying of the soil through transpiration, thereby promoting volume reduction. (c) Hydromodification Control Measures. Hydromodification control measures will be accomplished through connection to an existing downstream drainage and discharge system, previously designed to accept conveyance from the Specific Plan area to prevent and control hydromodification impacts to the Santa Clara River. 3.4 WATER SERVICE/RECYCLED WATER 3.4.1 Existing Conditions The Specific Plan site currently is undeveloped; as such, most of the site is not served by water or recycled water facilities. There is an existing 48-inch-Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency (SCVWA) potable water pipeline that crosses the project site from the southeast to the intersection of Harriman Drive and Cooper Street. Surrounding the project site there is an existing 12-inch-diameter SCVWA potable water pipeline in Harriman Drive that turns north on Cooper Street. This 12-inch-diameter pipeline is also connected to an existing 16-inch-diameter SCVWA potable water pipeline on the west side of Lost Canyon Road. Surrounding the project site, SCVWA has existing 6-inch-diameter recycled water in Lost Canyon Road, Harriman Drive, and Cooper Street. 3.4.2 Proposed Conditions The proposed water system in the Specific Plan site will be designed to meet the estimated total water demand associated with the proposed development. Potable water demand will be met by the SCVWA through a combination of State Water Project water and local groundwater from wells located primarily in the Alluvial aquifer. The Alluvial aquifer and the Saugus Formation comprise the two -aquifer system known as the Santa Clara River Valley Groundwater Basin, East Subbasin (Basin), located in the Santa Clarita Valley. The amount delivered from each source varies year-to-year due to hydrologic and other conditions. Non -potable water demand will be met through use of recycled water from the Vista Canyon Water Reclamation Plant MetroWalk Specific Plan 3-4 February 2025 Packet Pg. 90 1.d (WRP) located adjacent to the western boundary of the Vista Canyon Specific Plan site, directly north of Humphreys Parkway. Figure 3.0-3, Conceptual On -Site Potable and Non -Potable Water Systems, depicts the on -site potable and non -potable water system and associated infrastructure to serve the Specific Plan. As shown on Figure 3.0-3, the potable water delivery system consists of a network of varying sized water mainlines that generally follow major roadways. Project potable water pipelines will pull off of the existing 12-inch-diameter SCVWA potable water pipeline in Harriman Drive at the following two locations: 1. Approximately 440 linear feet east of the intersection of Harriman Drive and Lost Canyon Road 2. The intersection of Harriman Drive and Cooper Street A network of smaller lines would be located within the planned roadway network and would distribute the water for connection to laterals located on individual buildings. Potable water storage will come from the existing SCVWA infrastructure system. The Vista Canyon Specific Plan's WRP will be sized to treat approximately 400,000 gallons per day, and is owned and operated by the City of Santa Clarita. As such, it is considered a "municipal wastewater treatment plant" or publicly owned treatment work. The Vista Canyon Specific Plan site is currently within the boundary of the SCVWA. The WRP was constructed in conjunction with the Vista Canyon Specific Plan, and provide a turnkey facility to the City. The City will likely contract for operation of the WRP, and all costs associated with the ongoing maintenance of the plant will be paid for by future residents and property owners within the property through the formation of an assessment district. 3.5 WASTEWATER SERVICE 3.5.1 Existing Conditions The Specific Plan site is mostly undeveloped, and will require wastewater infrastructure to serve the site. Because the Specific Plan site is surrounded by existing development, the provision of wastewater services to the site will not require considerable extension of distribution infrastructure. Existing south -to -north flowing 10-inch-diameter sewer pipelines are located just north of the Specific Plan site at the following two locations: 1. Approximately 440 linear feet east of the intersection of Harriman Drive and Lost Canyon Road 2. The intersection of Harriman Drive and Cooper Street MetroWalk Specific Plan 3-5 February 2025 Packet Pg. 91 1.d 3.5.2 Proposed Conditions The Vista Canyon WRP will treat the wastewater generated by the project. All solids from the WRP will be sent to the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District's existing Valencia WRP for processing and disposal. Recycled water from the WRP will be delivered to the SCVWA as the wholesale water agency for the Santa Clarita Valley to offset existing water demands. This water will be distributed by SCVWA through its reclaimed water distribution system both within and outside of the project boundary. Initially, some of the water may be directed to the percolation pond, or infiltration basin, adjacent to the WRP until the SCVWA recycled system is operational. Figure 3.0-4, Conceptual Wastewater Systems, depicts the on -site wastewater system and associated infrastructure to serve the Specific Plan. The proposed wastewater system on the Specific Plan site consists of a network of varying sized sewer pipeline that generally follow proposed project roadways. Project sewer pipelines will deposit collected project site sewage to the two existing 10-inch-diameter sewer pipelines north of the Specific Plan site. 3.6 DRY UTILITIES 3.6.1 Existing Conditions The Specific Plan site currently is mostly undeveloped, and will require electric, natural gas, and telecommunication infrastructure to serve the project. Because the Specific Plan site is surrounded by existing development, the provision of electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication services to the site will not require considerable extension of distribution infrastructure. 3.6.2 Proposed Conditions As discussed in further detail below, electric, natural gas, and telecommunication infrastructure will be installed to serve the Specific Plan. These "dry' utilities will be located within underground conduits in the public or private street corridors/rights-of-way in general conformance with the phasing of the Specific Plan. Consultation with all appropriate utilities to determine the extent of the "dry" utilities needed to serve the site will be required prior to and during the final infrastructure/improvement plan stages. With respect to electricity, the Specific Plan site is located within the Southern California Edison service area. Primary service will come from the intersection of Harriman Drive and Cooper Street. This existing line will be extended to serve the Specific Plan's initial development phases. Phone service will be provided by AT&T. Primary service will come from the intersection of Harriman Drive and Cooper Street. Telephone lines will be constructed underground throughout the site within phases as development commences. Existing service lines are also located within Lost Canyon Road. These localized lines may also be extended to the site and used for the early phases of the project. MetroWalk Specific Plan 3-6 February 2025 Packet Pg. 92 1.d The Specific Plan site is within the Charter cable service area. Existing service lines are located at the intersection of Harriman Drive and Cooper Street. Existing service lines are also located within Lost Canyon Road. These localized lines may be used for the early phases of the project. As to natural gas, the Specific Plan site is within the Southern California Gas Company service area. Existing service lines are located at the intersection of Harriman Drive and Cooper Street. Gas service to the site will be extended from one of these existing sources. MetroWalk Specific Plan 3-7 February 2025 Packet Pg. 93 II p _I w i 4 J maxa ° a — i III I I . x� r tea. s pw I „a [l — v.95J o °' r � I MetroWalk SP Boundary 3� a°. ..m.� — _ is e iboo Propos d Lot l' n •vv= ,,,^o„�','� "�„y, �L� Ez' ling Contour Metro Walk SP Boundary - - Water Reclaimed Water Storm Drain -s Sew r JI�E�IIIr111 -� �MIN--- ---- mill ■_-r ---- MetroWalk SP Boundary Water -RW- Reclaimed Water -so- Storm Drain -s Sewer ---- MetroWalk SP Boundary —w— Water —RW— Reclaimed Water —so— Storm Drain —s— Sewer 1.d 4.0 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 4.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT This section provides regulations for the development and land uses within the Specific Plan and describes how these development regulations will be used as part of the City's development review process. Proposed development, subdivisions, and new land uses within the Specific Plan area must comply with all applicable requirements of this Specific Plan. 4.2 CONSISTENCY WITH ADOPTED PLANS As required by Government Code Sections 65454 and 65455, upon adoption, the Specific Plan would be consistent with the City's adopted General Plan. Appendix 1.0-2, General Plan Consistency Analysis, of this Specific Plan discusses this consistency in detail. All subsequent land use entitlements and permits (e.g., tentative Tract Maps, Parcel Map, General Plan Amendment, or Zone Change), implementing the Specific Plan must also be consistent with the Specific Plan. 4.3 RELATIONSHIP TO CITY'S UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE The Specific Plan, including the development regulations, are intended to provide a comprehensive set of regulations governing the use and development of the land within the Specific Plan area. These Development Regulations replace the requirements of the City's Unified Development Code, Titles 16 and 17 of the SCMC. Any matter or issue not specifically and directly covered by this Specific Plan shall be subject to the nonconflicting regulations and procedures of the SCMC. If a conflict arises between the Specific Plan and the City's Unified Development Code, the provisions of this Specific Plan shall control. 4.4 EXISTING USES AND SEVERABILITY Existing uses within the Specific Plan area as of the effective date of this Specific Plan are addressed as follows: (a) Any development or land uses that were lawfully established and existing as of the effective date of this Specific Plan may continue, and may be altered or replaced, only in compliance with this Specific Plan; and (b) Existing land uses that may continue within the Specific Plan area include water supply well operations and maintenance, and maintenance and operation of all existing easements and pipelines. MetroWalk Specific Plan 4-1 February 2025 Packet Pg. 99 1.d If any term or provision of this Specific Plan, or the application of any provision of this Specific Plan to a particular situation, shall for any reason be found to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such term or provision will remain in force and effect to the extent allowed by such ruling, and all other terms and other provisions of this Specific Plan or its application shall remain in full force and effect. 4.5 ADMINISTRATION The regulations, standards, and other requirements of this Specific Plan shall be administered and enforced by the City's Community Development Department, Planning Commission, and City Council in the same manner as the provisions of the City's Unified Development Code. 4.6 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS 4.6.1 Land Use Plan and Zones The following two land use designation zones zones are established by this Specific Plan, and are applied to the property within the Specific Plan area as shown on the Land Use Plan (Figure 2.0-1): 1. Residential (R). The R land ose designat4on zone is applied to areas appropriate for a variety of attached and detached residential units, including market -rate apartments, age - qualified apartments, affordable senior apartments, and single-family dwellings, duplexes, and townhomes, and other similar residential product types, with parking garages, carports, and surface parking. The R designation includes for rent and for sale units and both market -rate and affordable units. The designation also allows recreational uses, including club houses, parks, playgrounds, and pathways, as well as landscaped areas and courtyards. 2. Open Space (OS). The OS zone is applied to the public plaza area at the far eastern end of the Specific Plan site, which connects to the new Metrolink station. 4.7 ALLOWED LAND USES/PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 4.7.1 Introduction This section sets forth the permitted land uses within the R and OS land use designat4an zones. Each Land Use Type identified in this section is defined in Unified Development Code, Chapter 17, Division 5 (Use Classifications and Required Parking). These definitions shall be applied within the Specific Plan area. Any one or more land uses identified in this section as allowed land uses within a specific zone may be established on any parcel within that zone, subject only to the planning permit requirements. MetroWalk Specific Plan 4-2 February 2025 Packet Pg. 100 1.d The City's Director of the Community Development Department (Director) may determine that a proposed land use type not listed in this section is an allowed land use in accordance with Section 6.4.1, Substantial Conformance for Minor Deviations. Temporary uses are allowed within the Specific Plan area in compliance with the Temporary Use Permit requirements of the SCMC. 4.7.2 Residential (R) Use Types The following uses shall be permitted by right in the Residential (R) zone within the Specific Plan site. 4.7.2.1 Primary Uses A primary use is the main principal use of land or structures on the site. The following uses are permitted by right as Primary Uses in the R zone: 1. Dwelling = Single -Family, Duplex, Multifamily 2. Model Homes, Rental, Sales Offices4.0-3 4.7.2.2 Secondary Uses Where a primary use is established on a development site, secondary uses may also be permitted. A secondary use is a use that is not the primary use and not the main use of land or structures on the development site. A secondary use is incidental to or in support of the primary use(s) on the same development site or another development site within the R zone of this Specific Plan. The following categories of uses that are allowed in the R zone are permitted by right as secondary uses. 1. Clubrooms and Community Rooms, private 2. Courtyards and Plazas, public and private 3. Food Trucks4.0-4 4. Health/Fitness Facilities, private 5. Home Occupation4.0-5 a. Telecommuting/Business and Professional Offices4.0-6 4.0-3 Model homes shall be developed in accordance with Section 17.67.030(C) (Temporary Uses) 4.0-4 Food Truck Vendors shall be in accordance with the provisions of SCMC Section 11.37.080 (Peddlers of Prepared Food Products from Motor Vehicles Permitted). 4.0-5 Home occupation businesses shall be in accordance with Chapter 17.65 (Home Occupations). 4.0-6 Home occupation businesses shall be in accordance with Chapter 17.65 (Home Occupations). MetroWalk Specific Plan 4-3 February 2025 Packet Pg. 101 1.d 6. Parking Lots, accessory to principal use 7. Parks, public and private 8. Residential Recreational Facilities 9. Swimming Facility, private 10. Trails, Biking 11. Trails, Equestrian 12. Trails, Pedestrian 4.7.3 Open Space (OS) Use Types The following uses shall be permitted by right in the Open Space (OS) land ose designation zone within the Specific Plan site. 4.7.3.1 Primary Uses A primary use is the main principal use of land or structures on the site. The primary uses permitted by right as Primary Uses in the Open Space (OS) land use designation zone shall be those permitted in the Open Space (OS) Zone of SCMC Chapter 17.36 of the Zoning Regulations. 4.7.3.2 Secondary Uses Where a primary use is established on a development site, secondary uses may also be permitted. A secondary use is a use that is not the primary use and not the main use of land or structures on the development site. A secondary use is incidental to or in support of the primary use(s) on the same development site or another development site within the OS zone of this Specific Plan. The following categories of uses that are allowed in the OS zone are permitted by right as secondary uses. 1. Bicycle Rentals 2. Community Garden 3. Farmer's Market 4. Food Truck4.0-7 4.0-7 Food Truck Vendors shall be in accordance with the provisions of SCMC Section 11.37.080 (Peddlers of Prepared Food Products from Motor Vehicles Permitted). MetroWalk Specific Plan 4-4 February 2025 Packet Pg. 102 1.d 5. Outdoor events4.0-8 4.8 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 4.8.1 Purpose and Intent This section sets forth the Development Standards governing the R land use designation zone shown on the Land Use Plan (Figure 2.0-1), and described in Section 4.6, above. The Specific Plan's Development Standards are set forth in the Site Development Standards Matrix (Table 4.0-1). 4.8.2 Development Standards The Site Development Standards Matrix (Table 4.0-1) below provides the standards for maximum building heights, minimum distance between buildings and open space requirements, as appropriate to each land use designation zone. In addition to these development standards, the overall maximum density of the Specific Plan area is 30 dwelling units per acre; however, in no event shall the project be permitted to exceed a maximum of 498 residential units. 4.8.2.1 Setback Requirements In order to create development regulations that are sensitive to adjacent uses, the Specific Plan contains setbacks for development along the entire site perimeter. As indicated in the City's Zoning Code, a setback is defined as the distance from a defined point or line governing the placement of buildings, structures, parking or uses on a lot. No habitable structures or buildings are allowed within setback areas. The following minimum setback requirements, are as follows: 1. Front Setback4.0-9 (along Lost Canyon Road) shall be 20 feet, landscaped and maintained 2. Reverse Corner4.0-10 Lot Setback (along Harriman Drive) shall be 10 feet with a minimum five-foot landscaped planter to be maintained. 3. Rear4.0-11 Setback (RR easement) shall be 15 feet, inclusive of a seven -foot -wide maintained landscaped planter, including six-inch curbs, which is sufficient in size for mature trees. 4.8.2.2 Landscaping Requirements Landscaping requirements within the Specific Plan area shall be addressed as follows: 4.0-8 Outdoor events includes temporary, predominantly spectator uses conducted in the open or partially enclosed or screened facilities, such as outdoor movie screenings, "live' theaters or concerts with limited spectator capacity, as determined by the Director. 4.0-9 As defined in the SCMC, the front yard setback shall be measured from the ultimate street right-of-way or the line established by the General Plan, whichever is greater, and be removed therefrom by the perpendicular distance prescribed for the front yard setback 4.0-10 As defined in the SCMC, the rear or side yard setback shall be measured from the property line, removed therefrom by the perpendicular distance prescribed for the yard setback. MetroWalk Specific Plan 4-5 February 2025 Packet Pg. 103 1.d 1. On -site trees and landscaping shall be completed in accordance with the Conceptual Landscape Plan, provided in Appendix 4.0-1. 2. Additional landscape requirements are listed for parking areas in Section 4.11.2, Parking Regulations. 3. On -site and parking lot landscaping shall be completed in accordance with the Conceptual Landscape Plan, provided in Appendix 4.0-1. 4.8.2.3 Storage Space Requirements If a fully enclosed garage is not provided, a minimum of two hundred fifty (250) cubic feet per unit of lockable, enclosed storage space shall be provided. Storage areas may be located in -unit or elsewhere within a residential building. Multiple storage areas may be provided. 4.8.2.4 Open Space Requirements Open space for active recreation and passive leisure space shall be provided for each residential unit within the Specific Plan and shall be provided through a combination of common and private space in accordance with the approved architectural and conceptual open space plans. Modifications to the approved conceptual open space plans may approved by the Director in accordance with Section 6.4.1, Substantial Conformance for Minor Deviations. Open Space shall be provided for each residential unit as follows: 1. Studio units - two hundred (200) square feet; 2. One -bedroom units - three hundred (300) square feet; 3. Two or more -bedroom units - four hundred (400) square feet; 4. Single -Family Detached, Duplexes, and Townhome units - six hundred fifty (650) square feet. Common open spaces may include, but are not limited to, outdoor areas such as plazas, outdoor dining areas, rooftop gardens, and landscaped areas designed for active or passive use. Land required for setbacks or occupied by buildings, streets, driveways or parking spaces may not be counted in satisfying the open space requirement; however, land occupied by any recreational structures may be counted as required open space. Private open space may include, but is not limited to, outdoor patios, balconies, or decks, but in no case shall an area dedicated for private open space be less than 60 square feet. MetroWalk Specific Plan 4-6 February 2025 Packet Pg. 104 1.d Table 4.0-1 Site Development Standards Matrix (R A _, R A _2,12A _3 and R A _n � Site Development Standards Land Use Typer_'^�-a-� ^}-^„ Minimum Distance between Building (in feet) Maximum Building Heights (in feet)1,2 r1 Resia^nti^' (R'Single-Family or Duplex Dwelling Single-Famil�L/ Duplex AHB} 447 5040 124 2 R^,4a^4ia"n4Multifamily Dwelling Apartments — Market -Rate/ Age -Qualified/ Affordable Senior Apartments AP ^i 10 50 r� Resi 7e4-;fia 14R1 40 -50 Rest 7e4-;fia 14R1 �Townhomes} 10 40 Roof Projections: In all zones, building's architectural elements such as hips, gables, and spires, may not project more than 10 feet above the permitted standard height limit, without approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Buildings and structures exceeding the maximum building heights may be permitted subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit and shall conform to the requirements of the SCMC (Chapter 17.25, Section 17.25.100 - Conditional Use Permit). 4.9 TRANSFER ATCFE DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENT REGULATIONS .� -� -� •. r 0 M N N tU r m E m E Q ca a U m CL co Y_ fC O L C� G Q a co r L Y O L r m E U M a MetroWalk Specific Plan 4-7 February 2025 Packet Pg. 105 1.d The City and the applicant (or its designee) will retain certain flexibility with respect to the details of the Specific Plan provided that no new environmental impacts occur and, therefore, agree that the following Administrative Modifications (see Section 6.0, Specific Plan Implementation) for the Specific Plan site each Planning Area shall, unless otherwise provided in the Specific Plan, be approved by the Director: (a) In order to accommodate the needs of third party purchasers, the size and configuration of lots or parcels and dimensions and/or locations of improvements may be modified at the discretion of the applicant, and the City shall fully cooperate therewith, subject to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, and provided that the aggregate total density and intensity of the Specific Plan is not increased, the permitted uses are not modified from those approved, and the parcels and lots and improvements thereon are consistent with the applicable rules and project approvals, including all development standards contained within this Specific Plan. (b) The design and configuration of lots and related improvements within the Specific Plan site may be reconfigured and redesigned by the applicant provided the maximum number of approved residential units is not increased and the number of restricted affordable senior units is not less than 50 units, inclusive of one manager unit. Such reconfiguration and redesign may include making one or more Planning Areas less dense making changes to the unit distribution proposed under either potential conceptual site plan detailed in Section 2.3.2 and modifying the design of streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, drainage and affected utilities to be consistent with such recoR4g+t+ation and redesign so long as each reconfi with the design and configuration standards and requirements in the Specific Plan and Conditions of Approval. MetroWalk Specific Plan 4-8 February 2025 Packet Pg. 106 1.d (c) Any subsequent revision to the tentative tract map that is submitted for review and approval shall be approved by the City provided the residential design and configuration complies with the Specific Plan and Conditions of Approval. (d) Upon adoption of the Specific Plan, the applicant shall have the vested right to develop the Specific Plan site that is consistent with the project approvals and the Specific Plan. The City agrees to process and administratively approve any modifications to the tentative tract map, including modifications in the size, design and configuration of the lots and improvements as provided in the Specific Plan and Conditions of Approval, required for the applicant to develop the Specific Plan site consistent with the Specific Plan and project approvals, and such administrative approvals are deemed to constitute ministerial acts implementing the Specific Plan and the project approvals. 4.10 SIGNAGE REGULATIONS 4.10.1 Purpose and Intent The signage regulations in this section shall govern the design and maintenance of all signage within the Specific Plan area. The regulations are intended to result in functional, attractive signage that incorporates a uniformly high level of design, graphics, continuity, consistency, and maintenance throughout the Specific Plan area. All signage is intended to be consistent with the architectural and landscape character of the specific parcel development and with the design intent of the Specific Plan as a whole. Consistency shall be determined in terms of materials, scale, size, and placement on buildings or in landscaping; integration with the buildings' architectural design, texture, color, relation to other signage in the immediate vicinity and in the public spaces; and type of illumination, if any. The scale and proportion of graphics used in signage shall be consonance with the design of buildings, individual stores, landscape, and site design. Bold or inharmonious colors or color combinations shall not be used. The purposes of the signage regulations are to: (a) Avoid traffic safety hazards to motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians caused by visual distractions and obstructions; (b) Promote the aesthetic values of the Specific Plan community by providing for signs that do not impair its attractiveness; (c) Provide for signs as an effective channel of communication while ensuring that signs are aesthetically proportioned in relation to adjacent buildings/structures and the buildings/structures to which they are attached; and (d) Safeguard and protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. MetroWalk Specific Plan February 2025 Packet Pg. 107 1.d 4.10.2 Applicability and Conformance Consistent with the intent and purpose provisions set forth above, all signage within the Specific Plan area shall conform to the requirements of the SCMC provisions regulating signage on private property (Chapter 17.51, Section 17.51.080). No person shall erect, construct, enlarge, alter, move, improve, remove, convert, or equip any sign or sign structure, or cause or permit the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of the provisions of this Specific Plan and Chapter 17.15, Section 17.51.080 of the SCMC (Sign Regulations (Private Property)). Conformance shall be strictly enforced. All non -conforming or unapproved signs shall be brought into conformance at the expense of the person(s) responsible for installation of the sign or sign structures. 4.11 PARKING REGULATIONS 4.11.1 Purpose and Intent Parking regulations within the Specific Plan are intended to provide the requisite number of parking spaces for all uses, while reinforcing the pedestrian -oriented character and accessibility to transit, amenities and daily services intended to minimize vehicle trips and parking demand. The overall purpose, therefore, of the Specific Plan's Parking Regulations is to create a well - planned community that provides for the sufficient parking needs of each resident, while in turn promoting the community as a place with all of the advantages within walking distance to live, work, play, and shop and enjoy a high quality of life. 4.11.2 Parking Regulations The Specific Plan establishes a parking ratio of 1.5 spaces per unit for all Market -Rate, All -Ages Apartments, consistent with Vista Canyon Specific Plan's residential use parking requirements of 1.5 spaces per unit. Guest parking for Market -Rate, All -Ages Apartments and parking for all other uses are consistent with SCMC parking standards (see SCMC, Chapter 17, Division 5, Use Classifications and Required Parking). The Specific Plan's Parking Regulations governing the site are provided in Table 4.0-2. Table 4.0-2 Parking Requirements Matrix',z,3,4 Unit Type Parking Requirements Single-Familyor r Duplex Dwelling Single -Family/ Duplex 2 enclosed parking spaces per unit Multifamily Dwelling Market Rate All -Ages Apartments 1.5 enclosed parking space or carport parking per unit Market -Rate Age -Qualified AfforSenior Apartments dable 0.5 enclosed parking space or carport parking per unit MetroWalk Specific Plan 4-10 February 2025 Packet Pg. 108 1.d Table 4.0-2 Parking Requirements Matrix', z, 3, 4 Unit Type Parking Requirements Townhomes 2 enclosed parking spaces per unit All Dwelling Unit Types Guest parking — 0.5 parking space per unit i Accessible parking stalls shall be required in accordance with the Building Code. 2 Additional parking for secondary uses shall not be required. 3 Parking for temporary uses shall be as determined by the Director. 4 Parking must be provided in accordance with the parking regulations set forth in this table, unless a parking reduction is permitted subject to the approval of a minor use permit as outlined in Section 6.4.2, Adjustments, Variances, and Minor Use Permits for Parking Reductions, and a new parking demand study is provided if there is a proposed deviation from the parking ratios provided in this Chapter. (a) Parking Space Specifications. Unless otherwise noted in the Specific Plan, all required parking spaces shall be designed in accordance with the specifications set forth in the SCMC Chapter 17.51, Section 17.51.060(E) - Specifications for Development of Parking Facilities. Carports shall be provided in accordance with the approved architectural plans. (b) Parking Landscaping Standards. 1. Assigned parking spaces shall be shaded by a carport. 2. Guest parking spaces shall be shaded by trees and/or screening hedges with a landscaped island at least 5 feet wide; each tree shall provide a minimum of 40 SF of cumulative root planting area. 3. Shrub and ground coverage shall be installed in and near carport areas to provide additional visual relief from concrete hardscape in parking areas. 4.11.2.1 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (a) Multifamily Dwellings. In accordance with Section 4.106.4.2 of the California Green Building Standards Code, for new multifamily dwellings where residential parking is available, ten (10) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be electric vehicle (EV) charging spaces capable of supporting future EV supply equipment. Calculations for the required number of EV spaces shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. (b) Single -Family Dwellings, Duplexes, and Townhouses with Attached Private Garages. In accordance with Section 4.106.4.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code, each new single-family dwelling, duplex, or townhome with attached private garage must provide capability for EV charging by installing a listed raceway to accommodate a dedicated 208/240-volt branch circuit. MetroWalk Specific Plan 4-11 February 2025 Packet Pg. 109 1.d 4.11.2.2 Bike Parking (a) Number of Bicycle Spaces Required. _n-site bicycle parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with SCMC Chapter 17.51, Section 17.51.060(I) On -Site Bicycle Parking Requirement. (b) Bicycle Parking Facilities. Parking facilities shall be conveniently located throughout the Specific Plan area and may include the following: 1. Covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored racks for bicycles; 2. Lockable bicycle rooms with permanently anchored racks; and 3. Lockable, permanently anchored bicycle lockers. MetroWalk Specific Plan 4-12 February 2025 Packet Pg. 110 1.d INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 0 CO) N 4 N tU r E r_ d) E Q r_ ca a u m om Co Y_ fC 0 L C� G Q a Co c� L Y 2� 7 L C� G i E t u m Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 4-13 February 2025 Packet Pg. 111 1.d 5.0 DESIGN GUIDELINES 5.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT The purpose of the Specific Plan's Design Guidelines is to describe the visual character that is desired for the residential development within MetroWalk, and the manner in which developed areas should relate to other elements of the MetroWalk community. As this Specific Plan site is an extension of the Vista Canyon Specific Plan, the intent of these guidelines are to be consistent with the Vista Canyon Design Guidelines for residential development, to achieve a common aesthetic and high -quality design in both the public and private realm. The Design Guidelines address issues that are primarily aesthetic in nature and subject to a variety of solutions. Due to varying interpretations of aesthetic design, flexibility should be permitted to encourage design innovations and changes in design standards that occur over time. For these reasons, rigid adherence to the Specific Plans Design Guidelines is not intended. Instead, it is intended that developments within MetroWalk be evaluated for their substantial conformance to the general intent associated with the applicable "General Guidelines" and the other applicable guidelines set forth below. 5.2 GENERAL GUIDELINES The following General Guidelines are intended to allow flexibility and innovation throughout the Specific Plan site. 5.2.1 Design Themes (a) Consistent with the Vista Canyon Specific Plan adopted by the City of Santa Clarita in April 2011, MetroWalk will retain and encourage architectural variety and promote quality development. The overarching design objectives are to create a sense of timelessness, ownership, place and identity, and community. (b) Neighborhood design concepts will encourage sustainable planning and design practices, including the smart growth, new urbanism, and sustainability principles described in Chapter 2 of the 2009 Santa Clarita Community Character and Design Guidelines. (c) Siting and design of structures should consider views relative to the Specific Plan area 5.2.2 Site Planning (a) Residential streets should be designed so that traffic to the highway system flows as directly as possible. Circuitous street patterns and very long residential streets should be avoided. (b) Creative siting, design, and landscaping solutions should be used to blend structures into the site, to the extent possible. MetroWalk Specific Plan 5-1 February 2025 Packet Pg. 112 1.d (c) Pedestrian and vehicular circulation should be designed to create a consistent community image. (d) Entries to residential buildings should be visibly reinforced through techniques such as landscape treatments, monument signage, and/or pavement details. 5.2.3 Architecture A diversity of architectural styles is encouraged to enhance the character of the community. (a) Use of roof overhangs, low -energy outdoor lighting, and passive solar systems to enhance energy conservation is encouraged. (b) Roof equipment should be screened from view where feasible. (c) Utility and service areas should be treated (i.e., color, landscaping, screening) to minimize visual effects. (d) Variations in height within and among buildings is encouraged to create visual interest and avoid a monotonous street scene. (e) Siting variations in building facades, articulation, height, mass, and scale is encouraged to create and enhance architectural interest. (f) Elements such as stairways should be architecturally compatible and integrated into buildings. 5.2.4 Fencing (a) Fencing should be compatible with the architectural theme and character of the neighborhood. (b) Fencing should be consistent in style and color. (c) Wall or fencing sections should be horizontally offset at regular intervals to provide visual relief and landscape opportunities. (d) Fencing and landscaping should be designed as an integral part of the overall site design. 5.3 OTHER APPLICABLE ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES The MetroWalk Specific Plan also incorporates by reference the Vista Canyon Specific Plan, adopted by the City of Santa Clarita in 2011. The architectural style will be consistent with the Vista Canyon Specific Plan Design Guidelines, which incorporate numerous elements, including wall articulation, roof elements, attached elements, openings, accents, exterior building materials, and colors, all of which are described in Chapter 3 of the 2009 Community Character and Design Guidelines. MetroWalk Specific Plan 5-2 February 2025 Packet Pg. 113 1.d 5.3.1 Application Process Guidelines This Specific Plan will utilize the "Application Process" set forth in the 2009 Community Character and Design Guidelines, including the Development Review Committee process. For all projects/developments within the Specific Plan, design review determinations shall be made by the City's Director of Community Development, and those determinations shall be considered the final decision, consistent with SCMC Chapter 17.23, Section 17.23.110 - Architectural Design Review. MetroWalk Specific Plan 5-3 February 2025 Packet Pg. 114 1.d INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 0 CO) N 4 N tU r E r_ d) E Q r_ ca a u m om Co Y_ fC 0 L C� G Q a Co c� L Y 2� 7 L C� G i E t u m Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 5-4 February 2025 Packet Pg. 115 1.d 6.0 SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 6.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT This section sets forth the Specific Plan's implementation procedures. The section contains procedures to implement the regulatory provisions of the Specific Plan, which are set forth in Section 4.0, Development Regulations. Included are provisions unique to the Specific Plan for the implementation of the rDevelopment Adjustment Regulations in Section 4.0. The section also contains criteria under which the City's Director of Community Development (Director) may make a determination of whether a proposal is in substantial conformance with the Specific Plan; or whether, an amendment to the Specific Plan is required. In addition, the section provides a discussion of the California Government Code provisions governing the amendment of specific plans. 6.2 IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES The Specific Plan may be implemented primarily through the process of subdivision maps. All land subdivision maps of any type (e.g., tentative or final, vesting or non -vesting, tract or parcel) shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved in accordance with the SCMC and Subdivision Map Act. Where the provisions or procedures of the SCMC conflict with the provisions of this Specific Plan, the Specific Plan shall apply. 6.3 PHASING Subject to market and economic changes and conditions, the rate of growth in the immediate vicinity and region, and changes in infrastructure/public facilities requirements, conditions and needs, initial construction is estimated to begin in 2022. Subject to market conditions, buildout of the project is estimated to occur over approximately 5 years ending in 2027. It is anticipated that buildout would occur in three phases: (1) grading, (2) infrastructure improvements, and (3) building and remaining construction. The grading phase and infrastructure improvements phase would each occur over the entire specific plan area, with the grading phase first, and the infrastructure improvements phase following. The building and remaining construction phase would follow. . 6.4 RE AT-IO S141P WIT-17 T-14E CITY'S TTNIFIEP T1L'VE llDML'N COPESPECIFIC PLAN ADMINISTRATION, REVIEW, AND AMENDEMENTS While the Specific Plan includes land use diagrams, additional details regarding subsequent development are required with subsequent application submittals. The Specific Plan includes development and design standards and guidelines but cannot foresee every potential condition MetroWalk Specific Plan 6-1 February 2025 Packet Pg. 116 1.d requiring decisions within the Use Permit process. Prior to the issuance of any building12ermit, a Class II application (Section 17.23 (,Class II A2121ications—Discretionary) of the SCMC)for a Development Review and Architectural Design Review shall be required for either conceptual site plan presented in this Specific Plan. Review and approval of such applications shall occur at staff level and shall be reviewed against the applicable development standards and guidelines contained in this Specific Plan. Any subsequent discretionary approval or amendment to the Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan, as amended and/or updated. Future development applications will be processed that are in substantial conformance with the Specific Plan or that may require an amendment to the Specific Plan as determined by the Director. 6.4.1 Substantial Conformance for Minor Deviations The following items may deviate, within specified limitations, from the adopted Specific Plan but shall be considered in substantial conformance with the Specific Plan. Review of such proposed modifications shall occur at staff level, through the Development Review, ^ di:ni ist-..,,-;:, Architectural Design Review, or over the counter review process if so determined by the Director. The Director, however, shall have the discretion to refer any such request for modification to the City Council and/or Planning Commission as a Major Modification to the Specific Plan. (a) Modification to the Approved Building Types, Unit Mix, Unit Size. Modification to the approved building types, unit mix, and unit size may vary provided the use is permitted under this Specific Plan with no new significant environmental impacts and the overall 498-unit count is not exceeded. In all cases, the number of restricted affordable senior units within the Specific Plan area shall not be less than 50 units, inclusive of one manager unit, except as permitted in Section 4.9, Development Adjustment Regulations. " '% - =71-0. acreage of eac-4 or- a-Ry Planning Area, as shown an dw Land Use 12!a-R Statistic -a! sufnmar-�, MetroWalk Specific Plan 6-2 February 2025 Packet Pg. 117 1.d (c) Landscaping Plan Modifications. Modifications to the approved Conceptual Landscaping Plan, or requirements set forth in Subsections 4.8.2.2, Landscaping Requirements, and 4.11.2.b, Parking Landscaping Standards, may be permitted, so long as they do not exceed a 10% deviation from total tree and plant species. (d) Open Space Plan or Parks and Recreational Amenities Modifications. Modifications to the approved Conceptual Open Space Plans design and layout, as well as proposed parks and recreational amenities, may be permitted, so long as the amount of open space provided, and the number of recreational amenities remain consistent with the required open space and Conceptual Parks and Recreation Plan approved under the Specific Plan. (e) Alignment, Location and Design of Vehicular and Pedestrian Pathways and/or Parking Spaces. Modifications to the approved alignment, location, and design of vehicular and pedestrian pathways, and/or layout of the parking, including the modifications set forth in Subsection 4.9.b, may be permitted, provided that such adjustments do not change the requirement of providing adequate infrastructure and/or public facilities within the Specific Plan. (f) Changes in the Exterior Building Color or Material. Changes to the approved exterior building color or material, may be permitted, so long as the changes in building material or colors are similar to and have the same general appearance comparable to or of a higher quality as the material approved. (g) Interpretation for Unlisted Uses. The Director may determine that a use that is not listed in Section 4.7, Allowed Land Uses/Permit Requirements, substantially complies with the land use designation in which the use is requested; and, therefore, is permitted within that land use designation. (h) Other administrative items determined to be appropriate by the Director within the scope of authority of the MetroWalk Specific Plan and SCMC. 6.4.2 Substantial Conformance Procedure; Adjustments, Variances, and Minor Use Permit for Parking Reductions Procedure (a) Substantial Conformance Determination. The Director shall review a request for a determination of Substantial Conformance through the Development Review, Administrative Permit, or over the counter review process. The Director, however, shall have the discretion to refer any such request for modification to the City Council and/or Planning Commission as a Major Modification to the Specific Plan. (b) Adjustments and Variances. Requests for Adjustments or Variances may be granted pursuant to the procedures and requirements of the SCMC provisions set forth in Chapter 17.24, Section 17.24.100 - Adjustments, and Chapter 17.25, Section 17.25.120 - Variances. MetroWalk Specific Plan 6-3 February 2025 Packet Pg. 118 1.d Adjustments and Variances are considered a form of relief from the development standards identified in Section 4.0 of this Specific Plan and the applicable development standards in the Unified Development Code. (c) Minor Use Permit for Parking Reductions. Pursuant to the procedures and requirements of the SCMC provisions set forth in Chapter 17, Section 17.51.060(N)(2) - Reduction of Parking. A reduction in the number of parking spaces required by this Specific Plan may be permitted by up to 20% with approval of a minor use permit. Parking reductions greater than 20% may be permitted subject to the approval of a minor use permit by the Planning Commission. 6.4.3 Specific Plan Amendments and Major Modifications Amendments may be requested at any time pursuant to Chapter 17, Section 17.28.110(H) - Adoptions and Amendments, of the SCMC. Any proposed modification to the Specific Plan that is deemed major by the Director will be processed as an Amendment to the Specific Plan. Depending upon the nature of the proposed amendment to the Specific Plan, additional environmental analysis may be required, pursuant to Section 15162 of CEQA. (a) Amendment Procedures. The California Government Code (Sections 65453-65454) sets forth the manner in which Specific Plans are to be prepared, adopted, and amended. Amendment(s) to the Specific Plan shall not require a concurrent General Plan amendment unless it is determined by the Director that the proposed Specific Plan amendment is inconsistent with the General Plan. (b) Major Modifications. Requests for a Major Modification may be granted pursuant to the procedures and requirements of the SCMC provisions for Class VII application set forth in Chapter 17, Section 17.28.030 - Review Authority and Related Procedures. Major Modifications to the Specific Plan shall reflect the same comprehensive analysis which was undertaken in the adoption of the Specific Plan and the application shall demonstrate that the proposed modification meets the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan and General Plan, and ensure that any significant impacts from the amendment can be satisfactorily mitigated. MetroWalk Specific Plan 6-4 February 2025 Packet Pg. 119 I 1.d I APPENDIX I .0=1 Legal Description 0 M N N U r E E Q ca a u CL CO Y fC 0 Q a CO c� L Y 2� 7 L C� G i E t u m Q Packet Pg. 120 1 1.d PRELIMINARY REPORT Chicago Title Company YOUR REFERENCE: ORDER NO.: 00108576-021-JH5-KD EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED SANTA CLARITA, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 15 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF SAID LAND FILED IN THE DISTRICT LAND OFFICE MARCH 29, 1877, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF, DISTANT THEREON SOUTH 89 DEGREES 57 MINUTES 20 SECONDS EAST 124.57 FEET FROM THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 57 MINUTES 20 SECONDS EAST TO A POINT DISTANT THEREON NORTH 89 DEGREES 57 MINUTES 20 SECONDS WEST 150.99 FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF SAID NORTHERLY LINE WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE 100 FOOT WIDE STRIP OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED DATED APRIL 22, 1890 FROM JOHN T. HUMPHREY'S TO SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY; RECORDED APRIL 26, 1890, IN BOOK 650, PAGE 125 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 53 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 05 SECONDS WEST 421.92 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 53 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 43 SECONDS WEST 157.20 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2764.82 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 9 DEGREES 44 MINUTES 35 SECONDS (TANGENT TO SAID CURVE AT THE LAST MENTIONED POINT) BEARS SOUTH 56 DEGREES 04 MINUTES 05 SECONDS WEST AND NORTH OF SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 59 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 22 SECONDS WEST 469.59 FEET) AN ARC DISTANCE OF 470.15 FEET; THENCE NORTH 25 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 20 SECONDS WEST 50.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG A COMPOUND CURVE TO THE RIGHT (TANGENT TO SAID CURVE AT THE LAST MENTIONED POINT BEARS SOUTH 64 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 40 SECONDS WEST) HAVING THE FOLLOWING RADII, CENTRAL ANGLES AND ARC LENGTHS; 2714.82 FEET, 10 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 36 SECONDS (CENTRAL ANGLES), 500.36 (ARC), 1759.91 FEET, 8 DEGREES 01 MINUTES 14 SECONDS (CENTRAL ANGLES), 246.36 (ARC), TO A POINT IN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LAND DESCRIBED FIRST IN DEED DATED APRIL 26, 1890, FROM JOHN T. HUMPHREY'S TO SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY RECORDED APRIL 26, 1890, IN BOOK 642, PAGE 277, OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED NORTHERLY LINE TO A LINE HAVING A BEARING OF NORTH 2 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST THAT PASSES THROUGH THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE NORTH 2 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. APN: 2840-004-009 CLTA Preliminary Report Form — Modified (11/17/06) Page 3 Packet Pg. 121 I 1.d I APPENDIX 1.0=2 General Plan Consistency Analysis 0 CO N N U r E r— d) E Q r— m a u CL CO Y fC 0 Q a CO c� L Y 2� 7 L C� G i E t ci Q Packet Pg. 122 1 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Table 1. Project's Consistency with City of Santa Clarita's General Plan Goal and Policies General Plan Goals and Policy Consistency of Proposed Project Land Use Element Urban Form Goal LU 1: Interconnected Valley of Villages providing Consistent: This Goal is a responsibility of and directed to diverse lifestyles, surrounded by a greenbelt of natural the City of Santa Clarita. However, the project does assist open space. with the implementation of this Goal as it creates a village in the eastern Santa Clarita Valley that would provide for diverse housing types and open space. Policy LU 1.1.1: Where appropriate, protect mountains Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and and foothills surrounding the Valley floor from urban directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Moreover, the project development by designating these areas as Open Space site is not located immediately adjacent to any mountains or Non -Urban uses on the Land Use Map. or foothills. Policy LU 1.1.2: On the Land Use Map, concentrate urban Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to development within flatter portions of the Santa Clarita the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the project site is Valley floor in areas with limited environmental mostly flat and surrounded by existing development and constraints and served with infrastructure. development under construction. Further, the site is served with some existing infrastructure and the project would be developed on disturbed portions of the project site with limited environmental constraints. Policy LU 1.1.3: Discourage urban sprawl into rural areas Consistent: The proposed project would be located by limiting non-contiguous, "leap -frog" development adjacent to existing residential and commercial outside of areas designated for urban use. developments. Policy LU 1.1.4: Preserve community character by Consistent: Under the proposed project, the Santa Clara maintaining natural features that act as natural River corridor would be preserved as open space and boundaries between developed areas, including dedicated to the City of Santa Clarita. Additionally, the significant ridgelines, canyons, rivers and drainage project would be developed on an infill site that lacks courses, riparian areas, topographical features, habitat natural features; thus, preserving community character. preserves, or other similar features, where appropriate. Policy LU 1.1.5: Promote infill development and re -use of Consistent: The project site, which is adjacent to existing underutilized sites within and adjacent to developed residential and commercial areas, is currently designated urban areas to achieve maximum benefit from existing for business park uses. The project site is currently infrastructure and minimize loss of open space, through vacant, and thus, would promote infill development and redesignation of vacant sites for higher density or mixed re -use of underutilized sites. The project would is located uses, where appropriate. in proximity to existing infrastructure and would not minimize availability of open space, but rather would develop higher density housing and associated open space. Policy LU 1.1.6: Preserve the rural lifestyle in canyons and Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and low -density, outlying areas of the Santa Clarita Valley, directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Moreover, the project through designating these areas as Non -Urban on the site is not located in a canyon or low -density, Land Use Map, where appropriate. outlying area of the Santa Clarita Valley. Policy LU 1.1.7: Preserve and protect important Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and agricultural resources, including farmland and grazing directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Further, the project land, through designating these areas as Open Space and site does not contain important Farmland.' Non- Urban on the Land Use Map, where appropriate. Policy LU 1.2.1: In Newhall, provide opportunities for new Not Applicable: The project site is not located in Newhall. i California Department of Conservation. 2016. "California Important Farmland Finder." Updated 2016. Accessed December 1, 2020. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 1 Packet Pg. 123 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis business and housing by implementingthe Downtown Newhall Specific Plan, provide incentives to promote infill development and re -use of underutilized sites, and continue to plan for future development of North Newhall. Policy LU 1.2.2: In Valencia, promote business NotADDlicable: The projectsite is not located in Valencia. development, job creation, and expansion of regional commercial, civic, cultural, and entertainment uses, to create a vibrant Town Center serving as a community focal point for the entire Santa Clarita Valley. Policy LU 1.2.3: In Saugus, promote revitalization of older Not Applicable: The project site is not located in Saugus. commercial areas; relieve traffic congestion; look for opportunities to minimize cut -through traffic; and enhance streetscapes with landscaping, lighting, benches and other fixtu res. Policy LU 1.2.4: In Canyon Country, promote revitalization Not Applicable: While the projectsite is located in the along Sierra Highway from Soledad Canyon Road to Canyon Country area of the Santa Clarita Valley, the Vasquez Canyon Road by encouraging retail and service project site is not located along Sierra Highway, nor is it uses, and enhance on and off ramps along the Antelope adjacent to on and off ramps along SR-14. Valley Freeway with landscape amenities and appropriate uses. Policy LU 1.2.5: In Sand Canyon, ensure compatibility of Not Applicable: The project site is not located in Sand development with existing rural, equestrian lots and the Canyon as it is not included in the Sand Canyon Special adjacent National Forest land; provide additional Standards Area. That said, portions of the project site are recreational trail links; minimize impacts to the Santa located adjacentto northern portion of Sand Canyon. Clara River; and maintain community character consistent Consistent with this Policy, the project includes extensive with applicable special standards. open space, recreational opportunities, and parks. Further, the project design has minimized traffic impacts through implementation of street sections that slow traffic and create a pleasant walking environment. The portion of the project closestto Sand Canyon would be townhomes, at lower density than other uses within the project site. Policy LU 1.2.6: In Placerita Canyon, ensure compatibility Not Applicable: The project site is not located in Placerita of development with existing rural, equestrian lots and the Canyon. adjacent National Forest land; maintain community character consistent with applicable special standards; provide an orderly transition between existing rural and low -density residential uses and proposed new development; and encourage provision of needed infrastructure. Policy LU 1.2.7: On the Whittaker-Bermite site, continue to Not Applicable: The project site is not located on the work with the property owner to facilitate master planning, Whittaker-Bermite site. remediation, and the economic re -use of the property to include roadway infrastructure and transit -oriented development around the Metrolink station. Policy LU 1.2.8: In Castaic, promote expansion of Not Applicable: The project site is not located in Castaic. neighborhood commercial uses to serve local residents; address traffic congestion; and ensure compatibility between highway -oriented commercial uses and nearby residential uses. Policy LU 1.2.9: In Val Verde, protect the existing rural NotADDlicable: The projectsite is not located in Val Verde. lifestyle and small town community character while providing residents with additional access to needed services; and ensure compatibility between existing 0 M N N tU r m m E Q ca a U m CL U) Y_ fC 0 m Q a L Y 0 L m r m E M U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 2 Packet Pg. 124 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis residential areas and the nearby landfill. Policy LU 1.2.10: In Agua Dulce, recognize the scenic and Not Applicable: The project site is not located in Agua environmental qualities of Vasquez Rocks in future Dulce. planning; protect the existing rural lifestyle while providing opportunities to enhance the village center; and provide additional services to residents. Policy LU 1.2.11: In Pico Canyon, recognize the historic Not Applicable: The project site is not located in Pico significance of Mentryville in future planning; preserve the Canyon. existing rural development pattern; and ensure compatibility of new development with the adjacent Significant Ecological Area and habitat. Policy LU 1.2.12: In the Fair Oaks community, facilitate Not Applicable: The project site is not located in the Fair location of commercial and community services in Oaks community. However, the project site is located proximity to residences to serve local needs. adjacent to Fair Oaks. The construction of housing near the Fair Oaks community would not preventthe Cityfrom locating commercial and community services in proximity to the area because the residential land use would also be compatible with such uses. Policy LU 1.2.13: Encourage use of the specific plan Consistent: The project applicant is proposing a Specific process to plan for cohesive, vibrant, pedestrian -oriented Plan (SP) designation for the project site. The MetroWalk communities with mixed uses, access to public transit, Specific Plan implements this Policy as it is designed to and opportunities for living and working within the same provide a transit -oriented neighborhood for the eastern community. Santa Clarita Valley. Policy LU 1.3.1: Encourage subdivision design techniques Consistent: The proposed project would not substantially that reflect underlying physical topography or other unique alter the underlying physical topography of the site, which physical features of the natural terrain. is generally flat. Policy LU 1.3.2: Substantially retain the integrity and Not Applicable: The proposed project would not alter natural grade elevations of significant natural ridgelines natural ridgelines or Iandforms thatform the Valley's and prominent Iandforms thatform the Valley's skyline skyline as it would be developed along a terrace of the backdrop. Santa Clara River in a flatter area of the Valley. Policy LU 1.3.3: Development on ridgelines and land Not Applicable: The project site is not located on ridgelines containing 50% slopes shall be discouraged and or land containing 50 percent slopes. maintained as natural open space. Policy LU 1.3.4: Encourage density transfers where Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to appropriate to facilitate development in more suitable the City of Santa Clarita. However, the project would assist locations while retaining significant natural slopes and in the implementation of this Policy through the provision areas of environmental sensitivity. of residential density and jobs with transit in an infill area with adjacent infrastructure. Policy LU 1.3.5: Encourage flexible citing and design Not Applicable: The project site is not located within a techniques within hillside areas designated as Non -Urban hillside area designated as Non -Urban. in orderto preserve steep slopes or other unique physical features, including clustering of residential units provided all of residential lots are maintained with a usable two - acre minimum lot size. Policy LU 1.3.6: Encourage retention of natural drainage Consistent: The project site would not cross the Santa patterns and the preservation of significant riparian areas, Clara River, thus, would not alter existing drainage both of which are commonly located in hillside areas. patterns. Additionally, the project site is generally flat and not located in a hillside area. The Specific Plan would require construction of new drainage and water quality features to allow for a system that protects development from erosion and potential flooding and preserves the Santa Clara River. 0 M N N tU r m E m E Q ca a U m CL Y_ fC 0 m Q a L 0 Y 0 m m E M U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 3 Packet Pg. 125 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis A4b(ed Lend Uses Goal LU 2: A mix of land uses to accommodate growth, Consistent: The proposed project would include a mix of supported by adequate resources and maintaining residential land uses, including multi -family residential community assets. and townhomes, and would provide open space opportunities to support the residential uses. Policy LU 2.1.1: On the Land Use Map, designate a NotADDlicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and balance of land uses in appropriate amounts to meet directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the future community needs, while ensuring that no use proposed project would assist in the implementation of designation is over -represented in a manner that is not this Policy through its inclusion of a mix of residential land economically viable. uses in close proximity to transit. Policy LU 2.1.2: On the Land Use Map, integrate land use Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and designations in a manner that promotes healthy, walkable directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the project communities, by providing an appropriate mix of does assist with the implementation of this Policy through residential and service uses in proximity to one another. construction of new residential land uses in proximity to a mixed -use development and the Metro line extension. Policy LU 2.1.3: Provide a range of land use types and Consistent: The project would introduce a mix of densities to reflect the special characteristics, lifestyles, residential land use types in an area surrounded by single - and opportunities that differentiate various communities family residences. The range of multi -family apartment - and villages in the Santa Clarita Valley, including types and for -sale town homes would differentiate the urban, suburban, and rural living environments. community from the more suburban and rural areas. Policy LU 2.1.4: Adopt a compatible set of land use Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and designations between the City of Santa Clarita and the directed to the City of Santa Clarita and County of Los County of Los Angeles for land in the Santa Clarita Valley, Angeles. That said, the proposed project would assist in to be implemented through standards and zones applied the implementation of this Policy through its development by each agency to ensure compatibility with the character of land uses in a manner that is compatible with the of each area and with the goals of the City's General Plan character of surrounding areas. and the County's Area Plan. Policy LU 2.1.5: Identify areas with hazardous conditions Consistent: Prior to construction of the project, hazardous and ensure that uses in or adjacent to these areas pose conditions would be identified and compliance with minimal risk to public health or safety. federal, state, and local regulations would ensure that these uses pose minimal risk to public health or safety. . Policy LU 2.2.1: Identify areas of scenic or aesthetic value Consistent: Section 4.16, Visual Resources, of the Vista to the community, and minimize designating uses in these Canyon Draft EIR concludes that, with mitigation, the areas that would diminish the aesthetic quality of these project would not result in any significant visual impacts. areas. Policy LU 2.2.2: Identify sites and areas with historical or Consistent: There are no historic conditions of significance cultural value to the community, and ensure that uses in on the site. or adjacentto these areas will not impact their historical integrity. Policy LU 2.2.3: Consistent with adopted plans, ensure Consistent: The Specific Plan includes extensive open that adequate open space is set aside and protected from space, recreation opportunities, and public/private development throughout the planning area in order to parks. The project site would not extend into existing provide the benefits of watershed management, habitat waters, or areas of habitat preservation. preservation and connectivity, and recreational opportunities. Policy LU 2.3.1: In a mixed -use development, residential NotADDlicable: The proposed projectwould not include a densities at the higher end of the allowed range shall be mixed -use development. allowed only if the development incorporates a robust mix of non-residential uses. Policy LU 2.3.2: Either vertical or horizontal integration of Not Applicable: The proposed project would not include a uses shall be allowed in a mixed -use development, with mixed -use development. However, the project would an emphasis on tyingtogether the uses with appropriate incorporate pedestrian linkages. 0 M N v N tU m E m E Q ca a U m CL U) Y 0 L m Q a c� Y 0 L m r m E U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 4 Packet Pg. 126 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis lin Policy LU 2.3.3: Manufacturing, processing of goods and materials, and warehousing shall not be allowable uses in a mixed -use development. Some light manufacturing and warehousing may be appropriate in second story units. Policy LU 2.3.4: Adequate public spaces and amenities shall be provided in a mixed -use development to support both commercial and residential uses, including but not limited to plazas, landscaped walkways, village greens, and greenbelts. Policy LU 2.3.5: Mixed -use developments shall be designed to create a pedestrian -scale environment through appropriate street and sidewalk widths, block lengths, relationship of buildings to streets, and use of public spaces. Policy LU 2.3.6: Encourage provision of parking alternatives in mixed -use developments, including subterranean parking and structured parking to limit the amount of surface area devoted to vehicle storage. Healthy Neighborhoods Goal LU 3: Healthy and safe neighborhoods for all residents. Policy LU 3.1.1: On the Land Use Map, designate adequate land for residential use atvarious densities to provide a mix of housing opportunities for all segments of the population, including attached, detached, senior, and mixed -use housing types, which are consistent with community character and meet the region's housing ,,oa Is. NotADDlicable: The proposed projectwould not include a mixed -use development. Manufacturing uses are not proposed by the project. NotADDlicable: The proposed projectwould not include a mixed -use development. NotADDlicable: The proposed project would not include a mixed -use development. Nonetheless, the project would include a pedestrian -scale environment through appropriate street and sidewalk widths, block lengths, relationship of buildings to streets, and use of public spaces. Not Applicable: The proposed project would not include a mixed -use development. Consistent: This Goal is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. However, the proposed project design would provide for a healthy and safe neighborhood for future residents. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would assist in the implementation of this Policy through its provision of a mix of housing types, all of which would be consistent with community character and assist in meeting the region's housing goals. Policy LU 3.1.2: Promote a mix of housing types within Consistent: The proposed project would provide a mix of neighborhoods that accommodate households with varied housing types that would accommodate income levels. households with varied income levels. Policy LU 3.1.3: Promote opportunities for live -work units to accommodate residents with home -based businesses. Policy LU 3.1.4: Promote development of workforce housing to meet the needs of those employed in the Santa Clarita Valley. Policy LU 3.1.5: Promote development of housing affordable to residents, including households with incomes in the very low, low, and moderate income classifications, through provision of adequate sites on the Land Use Map, allowance for density bonuses and other development incentives, and other means as appropriate. Policy LU 3.1.6: Promote development of housing suitable to residents with special needs, including but not limited to senior citizens and persons with disabilities. NotADDlicable: The proposed project would not include live -work units. Consistent: The proposed project would include various housingtypesthatwould accommodate households with various income levels. It is envisioned that all of these housing types could provide housing opportunities for persons employed in the Santa Clarita Valley. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would assist in the implementation of this Policythrough its inclusion of various housingtypes that would accommodate households with varied income levels. Consistent: The proposed project would assist in the implementation of this Policy through its inclusion of various housing types that would accommodate households with varied income levels and age -restricted MetroWalk Specific Plan December 2020 12546 5 Packet Pg. 127 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis units for senior citizens. Further, nothing in the site design would preclude individuals with special needs from residing at the project. Policy LU 3.1.7: Promote development of housing for Consistent: It is anticipated that students attending local students attending local colleges, in consideration of colleges may reside in the project. access to campuses to the extent practicable. Policy LU 3.2.1: Require provision of adequate walkways Consistent: The proposed project's Mobility Plan provides in urban residential neighborhoods that provide safe and for a comprehensive pedestrian circulation system accessible connections to destinations such as schools, throughoutthe project's planning areas. parks, and neighborhood commercial centers. Policy LU 3.2.2: In planning residential neighborhoods, Consistent: The proposed project's Mobility Plan provides include pedestrian linkages, landscaped parkways with for a comprehensive pedestrian circulation system sidewalks, and separated trails for pedestrians and throughoutthe project's four planning areas, Iinkingthese bicycles, where appropriate and feasible. areas to each other and the proposed open space areas. The proposed project would include pedestrian linkages and landscaped parkways. Policy LU 3.3.1: Identify areas subject to hazards from Consistent: Prior to construction of the project, the areas seismic activity, unstable soils, excessive noise, subject to hazards would be identified and mitigated, as unhealthful air quality, orflooding, and avoid designating appropriate. residential uses in these areas unless adequately mitigated. Policy LU 3.3.2: In areas subjectto wildland fire danger, Consistent: The construction of the proposed project ensure that land uses have adequate setbacks, fuel would eliminate fire hazards associated with the natural modification areas, and emergency access routes. vegetative cover found on the project site due to replacement with urban landscape vegetation. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with the Los Angeles County Fire Department Fuel Modification Guidelines. Further, the project would provide emergency access through the vehicular access roads within the project site. Policy LU 3.3.3: Identify neighborhoods in which uses that Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and pose a potential hazard to human health and safety may directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Further, the land uses be over -concentrated, and address public safety through contemplated by the proposed project (e.g., residential) use of buffer areas, policies on siting decisions for such are not traditionally perceived to constitute a hazard to uses, changing land use designations, or other means as human health. deemed appropriate. Policy LU 3.3.4: Evaluate service levels for law Consistent: Projected law enforcement and fire protection enforcement and fire protection as needed to ensure that service levels are evaluated and would be mitigated, as adequate response times are maintained as new appropriate. residential development is occupied. Policy LU 3.3.5: Through the development review process, Consistent: The proposed project would be reviewed by ensure that all new residential development is provided the City's Development Review Committee to ensure with adequate emergency access and that subdivision compliance with emergency access requirements. and site designs permit ready access by public safety personnel. Policy LU 3.3.6: Ensure adequate street -lighting in all Consistent: The proposed project would include urban residential neighborhoods, as appropriate, for each appropriate street lighting per City of Santa Clarita community. requirements. Policy LU 3.3.7: Ensure adequate addressing in all Consistent: The proposed projectwould include adequate residential neighborhoods for emergency response addressing in its residential neighborhoods per City of personnel. Santa Clarita requirements. Policy LU 3.3.8: Within multiple family residential projects Consistent: The proposed project design reflects the comprised of multiple buildings, ensure that project inclusion of the various safety features described in this 0 M N N U r m E m Q a U m CL Y 0 L m Q a L 0 Y 0 m r m E U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 6 Packet Pg. 128 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis designs include crime prevention measures such as Policy. delineating public and private open space, designs for defensible space, easy surveillance by residents of all outdoor and indoor common areas, lack of dead end aisles or paths, and similar measures. Policy LU 3.4.1: Promote the inclusion of green spaces, Consistent: The open space plan for the proposed project neighborhood parks, and other gathering places that incorporates a gym, pool, parkways, and trails, all of allow neighbors to meet one another and encourage which provide for passive and active recreation "eyes on the street" for safety purposes. opportunities and would encourage "eyes on the street" for safety and security purposes. Policy LU 3.4.2: Ensure provision of streettrees in urban Consistent: The proposed project's Landscape Plan residential areas where appropriate, to provide shade, ensures the provision of streettrees in urban residential comfort, and aesthetic enhancement. areas to provide shade, comfort, and aesthetic enhancement. Policy LU 3.4.3: Provide appropriate levels of code Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and enforcement to ensure maintenance of neighborhoods in directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the a clean, healthy, and safe condition. covenants, conditions & restrictions (CC&Rs) developed for the proposed project would ensure the overall maintenance of the neighborhood. Policy LU 3.4.4: Within higher density housing Consistent: The parks and open space plan for the project developments, ensure provision of adequate recreational incorporates a gym, pool, parkways, and trails, along and open space amenities to ensure a high quality living with 63,554 square feet of private open space. These environment. recreational components would provide for passive and active recreation opportunities for future residents and would ensure a high quality living environment.. Policy LU 3.4.5: Ensure compatibility between single Consistent: The proposed project's design and family and multiple family residential developments architectural standards would ensure compatibility through consideration of building height and massing, between single-family and multi -family residential units. architectural treatment, connectivity, privacy, and other Elements such as massing, building height, architectural design considerations. treatment connectivity and other design considerations would be addressed by the proposed Specific Plan. Policy LU 3.4.6: Promote mixed -density residential Consistent: The project site is surrounded by the Fair Oaks neighborhoods that are consistent with community Ranch community to the south, the existing Colony character, and avoid over -development of high density Apartments to the west and the northern portion of the multiple family units in any particular location. Sand Canyon community to the east. Fair Oaks Ranch is a residential community consisting of single- and multi- family dwelling units. The Colony Apartments consists of higher density, attached dwelling units. The portion of Sand Canyon closestto the projectsite includes single- family detached residential units and two schools. The proposed project would locate higher density residential units in the western portion of the project site, adjacent to the Colony Apartments. The easterly portion of the project site would be developed with less dense town -home residential units. In summary, the proposed project would develop higher density housing near the existing Colony Townhomes and proposed Vista Canyon Specific Plan area, and develop less dense residential units in the easterly portion of the project site. Policy LU 3.4.7: Minimize the prominence of areas Consistent: Parking within the project site would be largely devoted to automobile parking and access in the design shielded from the street and other residential of residential neighborhoods. neighborhoods. 0 M N v N tU r m m E Q ca (L U m CL U) Y_ fC 0 m Q a L 0 Y 0 L m r m E U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 7 Packet Pg. 129 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Policy LU 3.4.8: Require architectural design treatment Consistent: The proposed project would include four - along all sides of new housingto promote continuity of sided architecture consistent with this Policy. architectural scale and rhythm and avoid the appearance of blank walls (360 degree enhancement). Policy LU 3.4.9: Street cross -sections that locate Consistent: Roadways within the proposed project would landscaped parkways between the curb and the sidewalk provide a landscaped parkway between the curb and are encouraged to create a visually pleasing streetscape sidewalk in order to provide a buffer for and provide pedestrian protection. pedestrians. Economic VitaW Goal LU 4: A diverse and healthy economy. Consistent: This Goal is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. However, the proposed project would assist in the implementation of this Goal through the provision of residents to contribute to the tax base of the City. Policy LU 4.1.1: Promote expansion and enhancement of Not Applicable: The project site is not located in Valencia. the Valencia Town Center to provide a focal pointfor cultural, civic, educational, and shopping activities serving the entire Santa Clarita Valley. Policy LU 4.1.2: Promote creation of village commercial Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and centers throughout the Santa Clarita Valley to meet the directed to the City of Santa Clarita. However, the local and convenience needs of residents. proposed project would not prevent the City from promoting village commercial centers. Policy LU 4.1.3: Encourage business creation and Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to expansion for larger companies within and adjacent to the City of Santa Clarita. However, the proposed project existing and planned business centers and major would assist in implementing this Policy as the project site transportation corridors. is located adjacent to a Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station along with its business center. Policy LU 4.1.4: Promote economic opportunity for all Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to segments of the community, including small businesses the City of Santa Clarita. However, the proposed project and new businesses. would assist in implementing this Policy through its provision of residential uses, whom would patronize small businesses and new businesses Policy LU 4.1.5: Provide a clear and consistent planning Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to and permitting process to encourage new development the City of Santa Clarita. However, as determined by this that conforms to the General Plan. consistency analysis, the proposed project would be consistent with the One Valley One Vision Goals and Policies. Policy LU 4.2.1: Pursue business attraction and expansion Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and programs for clean industries that provide job directed to the City of Santa Clarita. opportunities for local residents, particularly in the areas of film/entertainment, biotechnology, aerospace, and technology. Policy LU 4.2.2: Achieve a balanced ratio of jobs to Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to housing through business expansion and economic the City of Santa Clarita. However, the proposed project development programs, with a goal of at least 1.5 jobs would expand housing opportunities in proximity to the per household. Metrolink Station and future employment opportunities within the City. Policy LU 4.2.3: Encourage businesses to locate in all Not Applicable The proposed project would not provide appropriate areas of the community to encourage job businesses. creation in closer proximity to workforce housing. Policy LU 4.2.4: Coordinate with local colleges to promote Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and 0 M N v N tU r m E m E Q ca a U m CL U) Y_ fC 0 L m Q a c� 0 Y 0 L m r m E M U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 8 Packet Pg. 130 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis job training programs for Santa Clarita Valley residents. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy LU 4.2.5: Through the Santa Clarita Enterprise Zone Not Applicable This Policy is a responsibility of and and other business assistance programs as appropriate, directed to the City of Santa Clarita. The proposed project promote development of uses that create job would not provide businesses. opportunities for residents. Policy LU 4.3.1: Promote redevelopment in Old Town Not Applicable: The project site is not located in Old Town Newhall through construction of public improvements Newhall. pursuant to the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan and future area planning efforts. Policy LU 4.3.2: Promote business development in Castaic Not Applicable: The project site is not located in Castaic or and Val Verde to provide a greater range of goods and Val Verde. services to area residents. Policy LU 4.3.3: Promote revitalization of commercial uses Not Applicable: The project site is not located along Sierra along Sierra Highway between Soledad Canyon Road and Highway. Vasquez Canyon Road, to encourage businesses serving the Canyon Country neighborhoods and support services for the College of the Canyons east campus. Policy LU 4.3.4: Promote business development that NotADDlicable: The project site is not located in the upgrades and revitalizes older commercial corridors, immediate vicinity of these commercial corridors. including Lyons Avenue, Railroad Avenue/Newhall Avenue, Main Street and Soledad Canyon Road, in a manner that reflects each area's character, architecture, and history. Policy LU 4.3.5: Coordinate with property owners and Not Applicable: The project site is a part of the Whittaker environmental agencies, and provide assistance as Bermite property. appropriate, to promote clean up and redevelopment of the Whittaker Bermite property as a business and employment center. Policy LU 4.3.6: Coordinate with property owners and Not Applicable: The project site is not located in the oil environmental agencies, and provide assistance as fields west of SR-14. appropriate, to promote clean up and remediation of oil fields west of State Route 14. Policy LU 4.3.7: Promote revitalization and reuse of the Not ADDlicable: The project site is not located in the older industrial areas east of the railroad, adjacent to the Springbrook or Honby areas. intersection of Springbrook and Drayton Avenues and in the Honby area adjacent to the Santa Clara River. Policy LU 4.4.1: Promote extension of state-of-the-art Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to communication facilities to serve commercial and the City of Santa Clarita. industrial areas, includingfiber optic cable, telecommunication facilities, and other technology as deemed appropriate. Policy LU 4.4.2: Improve flood control facilities along Not Applicable: The project site is not located in the Sierra Highway north of Soledad Canyon Road to allow Sierra Highway corridor north of Soledad Canyon Road. increased use of this corridor for business and employment uses. Policy LU 4.4.3: Evaluate the feasibility of connecting Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to business activity centers throughout the Santa Clarita the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project Valley with light rail, to provide increased mobility and would have direct access to the Metrolink system and the access for customers and employees between the City's transit system though the inclusion of a Metrolink Valencia Town Center, Whittaker Bermite property, Station and Bus Transfer Station. Newhall, Valencia Industrial Center, Magic Mountain and Entrada, Newhall Ranch, and other areas as deemed appropriate. 0 Cl) N 4 N tU r m E r_ m E Q r_ ca a U m CL Y 0 m Q a L Y 0 m m E U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 9 Packet Pg. 131 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Policy LU 4.4.4: Protect and enhance public utility facilities as necessary to maintain the safety, reliability, integrity, and security of essential public service systems for all Valley residents. Policy LU 4.5.1: Promote inclusion of employee amenities in the workplace, including but not limited to outdoor seating and break areas, child care services, wellness facilities, and facilities for bicycle commuters, including bike lockers and showers where appropriate. Policy LU 4.5.2: Encourage the provision of usable open space that is accessible to employees and visitors, and discourage the provision of large areas of water - consuming landscaping that are not usable or accessible. Policy LU 4.5.3: Promote the inclusion of state-of-the-art technology within business complexes for telecommunications, heating and cooling, water and energy conservation, and other similar design features. Policy LU 4.5.4: Encourage the provision of support services for employees within business park areas, such as dining and personal services where appropriate, to reduce vehicle trips and promote pedestrian -friendly work environments. mob!W Goal LU 5: Enhanced mobility through alternative transportation choices and land use patterns. Policy LU 5.1.1: Require safe, secure, clearly -delineated, adequately -illuminated walkways and bicycle facilities in all commercial and business centers. Policy LU 5.1.2: Require connectivity between walkways and bikeways serving neighborhoods and nearby commercial areas, schools, parks, and other supporting services and facilities. Policy LU 5.1.3: Ensure that adequate bus turnouts, served by walkways and comfortable, safe, and convenient waiting facilities, are provided for transit users within residential, shopping, and business developments. Policy LU 5.2.1: Designate higher -density residential uses in areas served by public transit and a full range of support services. Policy LU 5.2.2: Provide for location of neighborhood commercial uses in proximity to the neighborhoods they serve, to encourage cycling and walking to local stores. Policy LU 5.2.3: Promote location of non-polluting businesses providing employment opportunities in proximity to neighborhoods, to encourage walking towork. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would connect to and install public utility facilities. Not Applicable: The proposed project would not include employees. Consistent: The parks and open space plan for the proposed project would be accessible to residents and visitors. Additionally, the project would include native/drought resistant landscaping to promote water conservation. Not Applicable: The project would not include business complexes. NotADDlicable: The project would not include business parks. Consistent: The proposed project has been designed to provide a transit -oriented neighborhood for the eastern Santa Clarita Valley. The proposed project would develop higher density housing near the Metrolink Station, Bus Transfer Station, with trails connecting users to residential areas. Consistent: The proposed project includes an extensive pedestrian mobility system consisting of trails, sidewalks and bicycle facilities consistent with this Policy. Consistent: The proposed project's Mobility Plan provides for an extensive mobility system throughout the project's four planning areas, linking these areas to each other and trails and walkways. Consistent: The proposed project would provide transit - oriented neighborhood for the eastern Santa Clarita Valley. The proposed project would develop higher density housing near the Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station, with trails and walkways connecting the residential areas to transit. Consistent: The proposed projectwould locate residential uses near the Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station. Not Applicable: The project would not include commercial uses. NotADDlicable: The project would not provide employment opportunities. MetroWalk Specific Plan December 2020 12546 10 Packet Pg. 132 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Policy LU 5.2.4: Encourage transit -oriented development (TOD) through designation of land uses that allow compact, mixed -use development in proximity to rail stations and multi -modal transit facilities, in conformance with applicable policies. Policy LU 5.2.5: Encourage the mix of compatible uses in areas where, though not served by rail or transit, mixed uses will achieve more walkable neighborhoods and trip reduction, in conformance with applicable policies. Consistent: The proposed project is a transit -oriented development as it consists of residential uses in proximity to the Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station. Consistent: The proposed project would be served by rail and transit. Though this Policy is not directly applicable to the proposed project due to its transit accessibility, the project has been designed to be walkable. Community Appearance Goal LU C: A scenic and beautiful urban environmentthat Consistent: This Goal is a responsibility of and directed to builds on the community's history and natural setting. the City of Santa Clarita. Policy LU 6.1.1: Designate ridgelines throughout the planning area, and preserve these ridgelines from development by encouraging a minimum distance for grading and development from these ridgelines of 50 feet, or more, if determined preferable by the reviewing authority based on site conditions. Policy LU 6.1.2: On the Land Use Map, designate the Santa Clara River corridor, alongwith its major tributaries, as Open Space. Policy LU 6.1.3: Ensure that new development in hillside areas is designed to protectthe scenic backdrop of foothills and canyons enjoyed by Santa Clarita Valley communities, through requiring compatible hillside management techniques that may include but are not limited to clustering of development; contouring and landform grading; revegetation with native plants; limited site disturbance; avoidance of tall retaining and build-up walls; use of stepped pads; and other techniques as deemed appropriate. Policy LU 6.2.1: Promote the inclusion of plazas, courtyards, seating areas, public art, and similar features within commercial centers, business parks, and civic facilities visited by the general public. Policy LU 6.2.2: Provide and enhance trail heads where appropriate with landscaping, seating, trash receptacles and information kiosks. Policy LU 6.3.1: Promote planting of street trees throughout urban areas in the Santa Clarita Valley. Policy LU 6.3.2: Develop compatible landscape plans for major arterials traversing the Santa Clarita Valley, including landscaped medians and parkways, and implement these plans in both City and County areas, where feasible and appropriate based on right of way and other conditions. Policy LU 6.3.3: Enhance major entrance points to the community, including on and off ramps from Interstate 5 and State Route 14; entrances along State Route 126; and at the northern and southern entrance points on Not ADDlicable: The project side does not include any identified ridgelines. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Not Applicable: The project site is not located in a hillside area. NotADDlicable: The proposed projectwould not include commercial centers, business parks, and civic facilities. Consistent: The project would improve any existing trailhead located on the project site. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would plant trees throughout the site consistent with City requirements. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, portion of the project near Lost Canyon Road would be appropriately landscaped. Not Applicable: The project site is not adjacent to or located along any of the referenced roadways. MetroWalk Specific Plan December 2020 12546 11 Packet Pg. 133 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Sierra Highway, where feasible and appropriate. Policy LU 6.3.4: Require undergrounding of utility lines for Consistent: Dry utilities will be located within underground new development where feasible, and plan for conduits, including telephone lines which will be undergrounding of existing utility lines in conjunction with constructed underground throughout the site within street improvement projects where economically feasible. phases. Policy LU 6.3.5: Restrict the establishment of billboards Not Applicable: The proposed project would not include within the planning area. any billboards. Policy LU 6.4.1: Maintain the historic buildings in Newhall, Not Applicable: The project site is not located in Newhall. includingthe William Hart Regional Park buildings, the Tom Mix cottages at Heritage Junction, the American Theater, the Melody Ranch, and various other commercial and residential structures designated as local historic resources, through implementation of preservation measures in the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan. Policy LU 6.4.2: Enhance the area around historic Lang Not Applicable: The project site is not located in the Lang Station by requiring a Specific Plan for redevelopment of Station area. this area. Policy LU 6.4.3: Maintain cultural resources from pre- Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to historical Native American habitation and historical the City of Santa Clarita. That said, all artifacts collected at settlement in the areas around Vasquez Rocks, Elsmere this site, would be conveyed to the Fernandeno Tataviam Canyon, and along the Santa Clara River, through Band of Mission Indians, consistent with State designation of these areas as Open Space on the Land requirements. Use Map. Policy LU 6.4.4: Maintain the historic site of Mentryville by Not Applicable: The project site is not located in the designatingthe site as Open Space on the Land Use Map. Metryville area. Policy LU 6.4.5: Maintain the historic area of the Rancho Not Applicable: The project site is not located in the San Francisco Estancia through implementation of historic area of the Rancho San Francisco Estancia. preservation measures in the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Policy LU 6.4.6: Through the environmental review and Consistent: The proposed project would evaluate impacts development review and environmental review processes, on historic and cultural sites duringthe environmental evaluate impacts on historic and cultural sites from review and development review process. proposed development and require appropriate mitigation. Policy LU 6.5.1: Require use of high quality, durable, and Consistent: The proposed project's Design Guidelines natural -appearing building materials. would require the use of high quality, durable and natural - appearing building materials. Policy LU 6.5.2: Encourage the use of designs and Consistent: The proposed project's Design Guidelines architectural styles that incorporate classic and timeless would require the use of designs and architectural styles architectural features. that incorporate classic and timeless architectural features. Policy LU 6.5.3: Require architectural enhancement and Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to articulation on all sides of buildings (360 degree the City of Santa Clarita. However, the proposed project architecture), with special consideration at building would comply with this Policy through implementation of entrances and corners, and alongfacades adjacentto the project's Design Guidelines. major arterial streets. Policy LU 6.5.4: Evaluate new development in Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to consideration of its context, to ensure that buildings the City of Santa Clarita. However, the proposed project create a coherent living environment, a cohesive urban would comply with this Policy through implementation of fabric, and contribute to a sense of place consistent with the project's Design Guidelines. the surrounding neighborhoods. 0 CO) N N U r m E m E Q ca a U U m CL co Y 0 m Q a co L Y 0 m m E U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 12 Packet Pg. 134 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis EnvironmentaW Responsible Development Goal LU 7: Environmentally responsible development Consistent: The proposed project is a compact, transit - through site planning, building design, waste reduction, oriented development with a mix of residential land uses. and responsible stewardship of resources. The proposed project design encourages walkability through its location of residential uses to existing transit. The proposed project also would incorporate energy efficiency measures and water recycling into the project design. Policy LU 7.1.1: Require shade trees within parking lots Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to and adjacent to buildings to reduce the heat island effect, the City of Santa Clarita. However, the proposed project in consideration of Fire Departmentfuel modification would incorporate shade trees adjacentto buildings restrictions. consistent with City requirements. Policy LU 7.1.2: Promote the use of solar panels and other Consistent: The proposed project would include roof renewable energy sources in all projects. overhangs, low -energy outdoor lighting, and passive solar systems to enhance energy conservation. Policy LU 7.1.3: Encourage development of energy- Consistent: The proposed project's would include energy efficient buildings, and discourage construction of new conservation features such as those mentioned under buildings for which energy efficiency cannot be Policy LU7.1.1, high -efficiency heating, ventilation, and air demonstrated. conditioning (HVAC) equipment, light -emitting diode (LED) lighting, lighting controls, and Energy Star labeled equipment. Policy LU 7.1.4: Supportthe establishment of energy- Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to efficient industries in the Santa Clarita Valley. the City of Santa Clarita. However, as indicated above, the proposed project would be consistent with this Policy. Policy LU 7.2.1: Monitor growth, and coordinate with water Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to districts as needed to ensure that long-range needs for the City of Santa Clarita. However, the proposed project potable and reclaimed water will be met. would monitor growth, and coordinate with water districts as needed to ensure that long-range needs for potable and reclaimed water will be met. Policy LU 7.2.2: If water supplies are reduced from Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to projected levels due to drought, emergency, or other the City of Santa Clarita. However, as indicated above, the unanticipated events, take appropriate steps to limit, proposed project would be consistent with Policy.. reduce, or otherwise modify growth permitted by the General Plan in consultation with water districts to ensure adequate long-term supply for existing businesses and residents. Policy LU 7.3.1: Promote the use of permeable paving Consistent: The proposed project would be designed to materials to allow infiltration of surface water into the include water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs), water table. such as bioretention areas, rain gardens, planter boxes, vegetated swales and permeable pavement to promote infiltration and mitigate any potential water quality impacts. Policy LU 7.3.2: Maintain stormwater runoff onsite by Consistent: The proposed project would be designed to directing drainage into rain gardens, natural landscaped include water quality BMPs, such as bioretention areas, swales, rain barrels, permeable areas, and use of rain gardens, planter boxes, vegetated swales drainage areas as design elements, where feasible and and permeable pavementto promote infiltration and reasonable. mitigate any potential water quality impacts. Policy LU 7.3.3: Seek methods to decrease impermeable Consistent: The proposed project incorporate sustainable site area where reasonable and feasible, in order to drainage and water quality technologies, such as reduce stormwater runoff and increase groundwater biofiltration areas, vegetated swales, and filter strips to infiltration, including use of shared parking and other reduce stormwater runoff and increase groundwater means as appropriate. infiltration. 0 CO N v N tU m E r_ m E Q r_ ca a U m CL CO Y_ fC 0 L m Q a CO c� 0 0 L m r m E U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 13 Packet Pg. 135 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Policy LU 7.3.4: Implement best management practices Consistent: BMPs would be implemented consistent with for erosion control throughoutthe construction and City requirements and this Policy. development process. Policy LU 7.3.5: Limit development within flood -prone Consistent: All site development would meet City of Santa areas to minimize down -stream impacts. Clarita, County of Los Angeles and FEMA requirements. Policy LU 7.4.1: Require the use of drought tolerant Consistent: The proposed project's landscape plan would landscaping, native California plant materials, and minimize high water areas and emphasize the use of evapotranspiration (smart) irrigation systems. native and drought tolerant plant species. Smart irrigation systems and recycled water would be utilized for all irrigated areas. Policy LU 7.4.2: Require the use of low -flow fixtures in all Consistent: The project would comply with City non-residential development and residential development requirements per this Policy. Additionally, the project with five or more dwelling units, which may include but are would include a water reclamation plant, which would not limited to water conserving shower heads, toilets, provide a recycled water supply equal to the project's total waterless urinals and motion -sensor faucets, and demand. encourage use of such fixtures in building retrofits as appropriate. Policy LU 7.5.1: Ensure that all new development provides Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to adequate space for recycling receptacles and bins on site. the City of Santa Clarita. However, the proposed project would provide recycling receptacles consistent with City requirements. Policy LU 7.5.2: Promote the use of recycled building Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to materials. the City of Santa Clarita. However, the proposed project would comply with City requirements related to the use of recycled building materials. Policy LU 7.6.1: Limit outdoor lighting levels to the Consistent: The proposed project would comply with City minimum needed for safety and security, and lighting standards and requirements. Lower level encourage lighting would be utilized in most on -site areas. lower lighting levels when businesses are closed. Policy LU 7.6.2: Preserve habitat connectivity in site Consistent: The proposed project would preserve the planning where feasible, and discourage the creation of surrounding Significant Ecological Area by developing on open space islands surrounded by paving. an infill site in proximity to other residential uses and the Metrolink Station. Policy LU 7.6.3: Protect wildlife corridors through site Consistent: The reach of the Santa Clara River corridor design and appropriate land use designations, including located to the north of the project site would be preserved mapped corridors and other corridors that may be as open space. The proposed project would preserve the identified through biological surveys. surrounding Significant Ecological Area (SEA) by developing on an infill site in proximity to other residential uses and the Metrolink Station. Policy LU 7.6.4: Encourage site designs that protect oak Consistent: There are no City -identified hillsides on the trees, hillsides, and biological resources through creative project site and the site is generally flat. The proposed solutions. project would preserve protected trees and biological resources to the extent feasible. The project would incorporate measures, as appropriate, to reduce impacts to these resources. Policy LU 7.7.1: Maintain a suitable distance and/or Not Applicable: The project site would not be located in provide buffering to separate aggregate mining and proximityto aggregate mining and processing activities. processing activities from nearby residential uses and other uses with sensitive receptors to noise and airborne emissions. Policy LU 7.7.2: Avoid designating land uses in areas with Not Applicable: There are no significant mineral resources significant mineral resources or utility facilities that would or utility facilities located on the projectsite. 0 CO N 4 N U r m E r_ m E Q r_ ca a U m rL Y 0 m Q a L Y 0 m m E U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 14 Packet Pg. 136 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis preclude the future extraction and use of those resources and facilities. Policy LU 7.8.1: Adopt and implement consistent policies for protection of oak woodlands and oak trees throughout the planning area. Policy LU 7.8.2: Protect all designated Significant Ecological Areas (SEA's) from incompatible development. Environmental Justice Goal LU 8: Equitable and convenient access to social, cultural, educational, civic, medical, and recreational facilities and opportunities for all residents. Policy LU 8.1.1: Coordinate plans for new residential development with affected school districts to ensure adequate mitigation of impacts on school facilities; provision of facilities and programs to promote academic excellence for Santa Clarita Valley students; coordination on joint use of facilities and transportation; and long- range planning. Policy LU 8.1.2: Implement a master plan for trails throughout the Santa Clarita Valley to serve all residents. Policy LU 8.1.3: Implement a master plan for parks, with special focus on provision of additional playfields for youth sports in locations accessible to underserved neighborhoods. Policy LU 8.1.4: Ensure that an adequate and diverse supply of child care facilities and services is available to parents who live and/or work in the Santa Clarita Valley, by promoting child care facilities in commercial and residential areas. Policy LU 8.1.5: Coordinate with the Los Angeles County Library System to assist in expanding library services as needed to meet the needs of the community. Policy LU 8.1.6: Coordinate with the Arts Alliance and other similar entities to promote access to cultural events and facilities for all residents. Policy LU 8.1.7: Work with medical service providers to facilitate preservation and enhancement of health Consistent: The proposed project would preserve protected trees and biological resources to the extent feasible. The project would incorporate measures, as appropriate, to reduce impacts to these resources. Consistent: Portions of the project site currently are located within a designated SEA boundary (i.e., SEA 23). However, the project proposes a General Plan amendment and a Specific Plan designation that would change the SEA boundaries to be consistent with identified sensitive biological resources. Consistent: This Goal is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita, and is not directly applicable to the proposed project. Consistent: The project would coordinate plans with affected school districts as part of the development review process. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. However, the proposed project would provide a multi -use path that terminates at a public plaza at the far eastern area of the Specific Plan, which provides an outdoor publicly accessible amenity adjacent to the Metrolink transit station as well as shopping, trails, and other amenities to the north. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would further implementation of this Policy through its provision of walkways connecting residential units, adjacent commercial uses, and the Metrolink Station. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, consistent with City requirements and this Policy, the project would mitigate impacts to library services through the payment of a library impact fee. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. MetroWalk Specific Plan December 2020 12546 15 Packet Pg. 137 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis services, including the Santa Clarita Valley's trauma center, provided applications are in conformance with applicable General Plan policies and environmental requirements. Policy LU 8.1.8: Work with social service agencies providing assistance to homeless persons to develop and maintain a suitable shelter in the Santa Clarita Valley. Policy LU 8.1.9: Assist persons and households with temporary housing needs by promoting transitional housing facilities for victims of domestic violence in multiple -family residential land use designations, subject to applicable zoning requirements. Policy LU 8.1.10: Coordinate with agencies that provide services to seniors and the elderly to expand senior facilities, which may include a new senior center. Policy LU 8.2.1: In making locational decisions for siting new community facilities, consider ease of access for all users (vehicular, pedestrian, and transit). Policy LU 8.2.2: Identify neighborhoods that are underserved by public facilities and community services, and plan for equitable distribution of these facilities. Policy LU 8.3.1: Require fair and equitable treatment in considering, adopting, implementing, and enforcing development regulations and policies, including but not limited to providing equal opportunityfor public input and considering impacts from development approvals on all segments of the Doaulation. Public Facilities Goal LU 9: Adequate public facilities and services, provided in a timely manner and in appropriate locations to serve existing and future residents and businesses. Policy LU 9.1.1: Ensure construction of adequate infrastructure to meet the needs of new development prior to occu oa ncv. Policy LU 9.1.2: Coordinate review of development projects with other agencies and special districts providing utilities and other services. Policy LU 9.1.3: Protect major utility transmission corridors, pumping stations, reservoirs, booster stations, and other similar facilities from encroachment by incompatible uses, while allowing non -intrusive uses such as plant nurseries, greenbelts and recreational trails. Policy LU 9.1.4: Develop and apply compatible standards within City and County areas for design and maintenance of utility infrastructure, in consideration of the character of NotADDlicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. However, the proposed project would further implementation of this Policy through its location near the adjacent Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station, which would provide transit accessibility for the project and surrounding areas. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. However, the proposed project would provide affordable housing opportunities within the City and be located near the Metrolink Station. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent: This Goal is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project's phasing plan is consistent with this Policy as it would bring adequate public facilities and services on-line with residential uses. Consistent: The proposed project's phasing plan would bring adequate infrastructure on-line to meetthe needs of each phase of development prior to occupancy. Consistent: The City's development review process conducted for the proposed project includes consultation with affected agencies and utilities. NotADDlicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Further, the project site is not located on or adjacent to any major utility transmission corridors, pumping stations, reservoirs, booster stations, or other similar facilities. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the project's utility infrastructure design would consider the character of the community. MetroWalk Specific Plan December 2020 12546 16 Packet Pg. 138 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis each commu Policy LU 9.1.5: Work with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department to expand law enforcement facilities to meet the needs of the Valley's growing 000ulation. Policy LU 9.1.6: Coordinate with appropriate agencies and organizations to ensure that landfill expansion needs are met while minimizing adverse impacts to Valley residents. Policy LU 9.1.7: Provide for location of additional waste transfer stations and other facilities to promote recycling and reuse of materials within Industrial designations on the Land Use Map, subject to applicable zoning reo u i rements. Circulation Element Consistent: The proposed project would pay the required sheriff facilities impact fee. NotADDlicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. I Multl-fLlodal Circulation Network I Goal C 1: An inter -connected network of circulation facilities that integrates all travel modes, provides viable alternatives to automobile use, and conforms with regional plans. Policy C 1.1.1: Reduce dependence on the automobile, particularly single -occupancy vehicle use, by providing safe and convenient access to transit, bikeways, and wa I kways. Policy C 1.1.2: Promote expansion of alternative transportation options to increase accessibility to all demographic and economic groups throughout the community, including mobility -impaired persons, senior citizens, low-income persons, and youth. Policy C 1.1.3: Work with local and regional agencies and employers to promote an integrated, seamless transportation system that meets access needs, including local and regional bus service, dial -a -ride, taxis, rail, van pools, car pools, bus pools, bicycling, walking, and automobiles. Policy C 1.1.4: Promote public health through provision of safe, pleasant, and accessible walkways, bikeways, and multi -purpose trail systems for residents. Policy C 1.1.5: Plan for efficient links between circulation systems at appropriate locations, including but not limited to bus -rail connections and pedestrian -bus connections. Policy C 1.1.6: Encourage multi -modal travel through provision of adequate facilities, including but not limited to bicycle parking and storage, expansion of park -and -ride lots, and provision of adequate station and transfer facilities in appropriate locations. Policy C 1.1.7: Consider the safety and convenience of the traveling public, including pedestrians and cyclists, in design and development of all transportation systems. Consistent: The proposed project would be located adjacent to the proposed multi -modal transitfacility (Metrolink Station, Bus Transfer Station, multi -purpose trails, and sidewalks) to serve the project's residential uses. Consistent: The proposed project would be located adjacent to the proposed multi -modal transitfacility (Metrolink Station, Bus Transfer Station, multi -purpose trails, and sidewalks) to serve the project's residential uses. Consistent: The proposed project would be located adjacent to the proposed multi -modal transitfacility (Metrolink Station, Bus Transfer Station, multi -purpose trails, and sidewalks) to serve the project's residential uses. Consistent: The proposed project would be located adjacent to the proposed multi -modal transitfacility (Metrolink Station, Bus Transfer Station, multi -purpose trails, and sidewalks) to serve the project's residential uses. Consistent: The proposed project's Mobility Plan includes safe and pleasant multi -purpose trails, sidewalks, and bike lanes. Consistent: The proposed project would be located adjacentto the proposed multi -modal transitfacility (Metrolink Station, Bus Transfer Station, multi -purpose trails, and sidewalks) to serve the project's residential uses. Consistent: The proposed project is a transit -oriented development and would be located adjacentto the proposed Metrolink Station, Bus Transfer Station, sidewalks, and multi -purpose trails. Bicycle storage would be provided for residents and guests. Consistent: The proposed project's Mobility Plan would provide a safe, convenient, and comprehensive pedestrian/bicycle mobility system throughout the project MetroWalk Specific Plan December 2020 12546 17 Packet Pg. 139 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis site Policy C 1.1.8: Acquire and/or reserve adequate right -of- Consistent: The proposed project is a transit -oriented way in transportation corridors to accommodate multiple development, and would be located adjacent to the travel modes, including bus turnouts, bus rapid transit Metrolink Station, Bus Transfer Station, sidewalks, and (BRT), bikeways, walkways, and linkages to trail systems. multi -purpose trails. Policy C 1.1.9: Incorporate funding for all modes of Not ADDlicable This Policy is a responsibility of and transportation in the capital improvement program, and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. seek funding from all available sources for multi -modal system development. Policy C 1.1.10: Provide for flexibility in the transportation Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and system to accommodate new technology as it becomes directed to the City of Santa Clarita. available, in order to reduce trips by vehicles using fossil fuels where feasible and appropriate. Policy C 1.1.11: Promote use of multi -modal facilities by Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and providing adequate and attractive way -finding programs directed to the City of Santa Clarita. directing users to transit stations, park -and -ride lots, bicycle storage, and other facilities. Policy C 1.1.12: Implement recommendations of the City's Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to Non -Motorized Transportation Plan to expand the City of Santa Clarita. However, the proposed project opportunities for alternative travel modes. would assist in the implementation of the City's Non - Motorized Transportation Plan. Policy C 1.1.13: Activity centers should be designed or Not Applicable: The proposed project would not include improved to prioritize walking, bicycling and circulator activity centers, such as employment or commercial uses. transitfor internal circulation of person -travel. Policy C 1.2.1: Develop coordinated plans for land use, Consistent: The proposed project would assist in the circulation, and transit to promote transit -oriented implementation of this Policy. The proposed project is a development that concentrates higher density housing, transit -oriented development and locates higher density employment, and commercial areas in proximity to transit housing in close proximityto a Metrolink Station and Bus corridors. Transfer Station. Policy C 1.2.2: Create walkable communities, with paseos Consistent: The proposed project's Mobility Plan would and walkways connecting residential neighborhoods to include an extensive bicycle/pedestrian system multi -modal transportation services such as bus stops throughout the project site, linking residential land uses to and rail stations. the Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station. Policy C 1.2.3: Require that new commercial and Not Applicable: The proposed project would not include industrial development provide walkway connections to commercial or industrial development. public sidewalks and transit stops, where available. Policy C 1.2.4: Consider location, availability, and Consistent: The proposed project is a transit -oriented accessibility of transit in evaluating new development development and locates higher density housing in close plans. proximity to a Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station. Policy C 1.2.5: Encourage compact development and Consistent: The proposed project is a compact, transit - mixed uses to locate housing, workplaces, and services oriented developmentthat would place residential uses within walking or bicycling distance of each other. within walking distance of the Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station Policy C 1.2.6: Provide flexible standards for parking and Consistent: The proposed project would include flexible roadway design in transit -oriented development areas to parking and roadway design standards to promote transit promote transit use, where appropriate. use. Policy C 1.2.7: In pedestrian -oriented areas, provide a Consistent: The project design would encourage highly connected circulation grid with relatively small pedestrian mobility through its highly connected blocks to encourage walking. circulation grid and small blocks. Policy C 1.2.8: Provide safe pedestrian connections Consistent: The proposed project's Mobility Plan provides across barriers, which may include but are not limited to for safe pedestrian connections. major traffic corridors, drainage and flood control 0 CO N N tU r m E r_ m E Q r_ ca a U m rL Y 0 m Q a L Y 0 L m m E U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 18 Packet Pg. 140 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis facilities, utility easements, grade separations, and walls. Policy C 1.2.9: Emphasize providing right-of-way for non - vehicular transportation modes so that walking and bicycling are the easiest, most convenient modes of transportation available for short trips. Policy C 1.2.10: Protect communities by discouraging the construction of facilities that sever residential neighborhoods. Policy C 1.2.11: Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through the use of smart growth concepts. Policy C 1.2.12: Balance the anticipated volume of people and goods movement with the need to maintain a walkable and bicycle friendly environment. Policy C 1.3.1: Continue coordinating with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA or Metro) to implement the County's Congestion Management Pro,ram (CMP) for designated CMP roadways. Policy C 1.3.2: Through trip reduction strategies and emphasis on multi -modal transportation options, contribute to achievingthe air quality goals of the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan. Policy C 1.3.3: Coordinate circulation planning with the Regional Transportation Plan prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), to ensure consistency of planned improvements with regional needs. Policy C 1.3.4: Continue coordination with Caltrans on circulation and land use decisions that may affect Interstate 5, State Route 14, and State Route 126, and support programs to increase capacity and improve operations on these highways. Policy C 1.3.5: Ensure consistency with the County's adopted Airport Land Use Plan as it pertains to the Agua Dulce Airport, in order to mitigate aviation -related hazards and protect airport operations from encroachment by incompatible uses. Street and Highway System Goal C 2: A unified and well -maintained network of streets and highways which provides safe and efficient movement of people and goods between neighborhoods, districts, and regional centers, while maintaining community character. Policy C 2.1.1: Protect mobility on arterial highways by limiting excessive cross traffic, access points, and turning movements; traffic signals on arterial highways should be spaced at least 1/2-mile apart, and the minimum allowable Consistent: The proposed project's Mobility Plan encourages and promotes walking and bicycling through its extensive system of trails, bike paths, and sidewalks. Consistent: The proposed project would not sever existing residential neighborhoods; rather, through its pedestrian mobility system, mix of land uses and multi -modal transit facility, the proposed project would connect surrounding communities to the each other and the project. Consistent: The proposed project would assist in the implementation of this Policy. The proposed project utilizes various smart growth policies (e.g., compact development, transit accessibility, etc.) in its design. Consistent: The proposed project's Mobility Plan would provide a comprehensive network of bicycle and pedestrian trails throughout the project site, linking the various uses together and connectingto the City's trail system. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent: The proposed projectwould include a multi - modal transit facility that would contribute to achieving the air quality goals of the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plant. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, coordination with Caltrans may be required as part of the environmental review process. Not Applicable: The project site is not located in the vicinity of Agua Dulce Airport. Consistent: The proposed project would further implementation of this Goal through designing an orderly extension from the local roadway system to the internal circulation system of the project site. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. MetroWalk Specific Plan December 2020 12546 19 Packet Pg. 141 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis separation should be at least 1/4-mile. Policy C 2.1.2: Enhance connectivity of the roadway Consistent: The proposed project would extend access network to the extentfeasible given the constraints of from Lost Canyon Road through a new east -west private topography, existing development patterns, and road - Harriman Drive. environmental resources, by constructing grade separations and bridges; connecting discontinuous streets; extending secondary access into areas where needed; prohibiting gates on public streets; and other improvements as deemed appropriate based on traffic analysis. Policy C 2.1.3: Protect and enhance the capacity of the Consistent: The proposed project would implement roadway system by upgrading intersections to meet level measures, as necessary to ensure compliance with this of service standards, widening and/or restriping for Policy. additional lanes, synchronizing traffic signals, and other means as appropriate. Policy C 2.1.4: Ensure that future dedication and Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and acquisition of right-of-way is based on the adopted directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Circulation Plan, proposed land uses, and projected demand. Policy C 2.1.5: Periodically monitor levels of service, traffic Not AmNicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and accident patterns, and physical conditions of the existing directed to the City of Santa Clarita. street system, and upgrade roadways as needed through the Capital Improvement Program. Policy C 2.2.1: Designate roadways within the planning Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and area based on their functional classification as shown on directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Exhibit C-2. Policy C 2.2.2: Adopt consistent standard street cross Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and sections for City and County roadways in the planning directed to the City of Santa Clarita. area, as shown on Exhibit C-3. Policy C 2.2.3: Coordinate circulation plans of new Consistent: The proposed project's circulation network development projects with each other and the would be coordinated with the surrounding street surrounding street network, within both City and County network. areas. Policy C 2.2.4: Strive to maintain a Level of Service (LOS) Consistent: The proposed project would implement D or better on most roadway segments and intersections measures, as necessary to ensure compliance with this to the extent practical; in some locations, a LOS E may be Policy. acceptable, or LOS F may be necessary, for limited durations during peak traffic periods. Policy C 2.2.5: Adopt common standards for pavement Consistent: The proposed project would be consistent with width in consideration of capacity needs to serve this Policy. Street widths within the project site projected travel demand, provided that a reduction in accommodate projected travel demand while enhancing pavement width may be allowed in order to reduce traffic pedestrian and bicycle mobility. speeds, protect resources, enhance pedestrian mobility, or as otherwise deemed appropriate by the reviewing agency. Policy C 2.2.6: Within residential neighborhoods, promote Consistent: The proposed project's circulation system the design of "healthy streets" which may include reduced would promote a "healthy street" design through the use pavement width, shorter block length, provision of on- of reduced street widths, on -street parking, traffic street parking, traffic -calming devices, bike routes and calming, bike routes, landscaped parkways and pedestrian connectivity, landscaped parkways, and pedestrian connectivity. canopy street trees. Policy C 2.2.7: Where practical, encourage the use of grid Consistent: The project would increase connectivity and 0 c') N v N U r m r_ m E Q r_ ca a U 4- m CL co Y 0 m Q a co L 0 Y 0 m m E M U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 20 Packet Pg. 142 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis or modified grid street systems to increase connectivity walkability through the internal street sections that slow and walkability; where cul-de-sacs are provided, promote traffic and facilitate pedestrian access. the use of walkways connecting cul-de-sac bulbs to adjacent streets and/or facilities to facilitate pedestrian access; where street connectivity is limited and pedestrian routes are spaced over 500 feet apart, promote the use of intermediate pedestrian connections through or between blocks. Policy C 2.2.8: Local street patterns should be designed to Consistent: The proposed project's internal circulation create logical and understandable travel paths for users system would be designed as local street sections that and should provide access between neighborhoods for provide for vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle connections local residents while discouraging cut -through traffic; cul- from the four planning areas to open space areas and the de -sac length should not exceed 600 feet, and "dog -leg" Metrolink Station. cul-de-sacs with one or more turns between the bulb and the outlet should be avoided where possible. Policy C 2.2.9: Medians constructed in arterial streets Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to should be provided with paved crossover points for the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project emergency vehicles, where deemed necessary by the Fire would comply with this Policy as required by the City. . Department. Policy C 2.2.10: The street system design, including block Consistent: The proposed project's street system design length, width, horizontal and vertical alignments, curves, would function safely and effectively without the and other design characteristics, should function safely subsequent need for excessive traffic control devices. The and effectively withoutthe subsequent need for excessive proposed project's circulation system would include multi - traffic control devices to slow or deflect traffic. use path on internal, private streets. Policy C 2.2.11: For intersections of collector or larger Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to streets, four-way intersections are preferred over offset the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project intersections. would comply with this Policy as required by the City. Policy C 2.2.12: Private streets, other than driveways and Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to alleyways typically associated with multi -family the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project development, should be constructed to standards for would comply with this Policy as required by the City. public rights -of -way, except as otherwise approved by the reviewing agency. Policy C 2.2.13: Protect the community character of rural Not Applicable: The project site is not located in a rural areas by requiring use of rural street standards, which area. may include reduced pavement width, reduced street lightingto protect nightskies, rolled curbs, or no curbs and no sidewalks. Policy C 2.2.14: Streets should be designed in context Consistent: The proposed project would also include an with the terrain and the natural and built features of the extensive and efficient pedestrian/bicycle mobility system. area, but excessively circuitous streets should be avoided to minimize unnecessary vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian mileage. Policy C 2.2.15: Adopt consistent standards for Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to implementation of Americans with Disabilities Act the City of Santa Clarita. However, the project would requirements such as curb ramp design and accessible comply with this Policy as required by the City. pedestrian signals. Policy C 2.3.1: Enhance community appearance through Consistent: The proposed project would include landscaping, street lighting, street furniture, bus shelters landscaping that would be visible to those within the and benches, and other aspects of streetscape design public right-of-way, near the project site. within the right-of-way, where appropriate. Policy C 2.3.2: Encourage unified treatment of arterial Consistent: The proposed project's internal roadways streets within both City and County areas, while permitting would preserve and enhance the village character. 0 CO N v N tU r m E r_ m E Q r_ ca a U m CL CO Y_ fC 0 m Q a CO L 0 0 L m r m E U M a MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 21 Packet Pg. 143 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis flexibility of streetscape design between neighborhoods and districts to preserve village character. Policy C 2.3.3: When evaluating road widening projects, Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to consider the impacts of additional traffic, noise, and the City of Santa Clarita. Impacts related to additional fumes on adjacent land uses and use context -sensitive traffic, noise, and fumes would be evaluated duringthe design techniques where appropriate. environmental review process. Policy C 2.3.4: Protect residential neighborhoods from cut- Consistent: The proposed project's internal roadways through traffic using local streets to avoid congested would not provide connections to other uses; thereby arterials, through use of street design and traffic control reducing the ability for cut -through in the residential devices. neighborhood. Policy C 2.4.1: Require design of pavement sections on Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and major and secondary highways to account for truck traffic, directed to the City of Santa Clarita. to prevent excessive pavement deterioration from truck use. Policy C 2.4.2: Establish adequate setbacks from major Consistent: The project's residential uses are setback and secondary highways for sensitive receptors and from major and secondary highways. sensitive uses, so as to minimize impacts on these individuals and uses from noise and air pollution caused by truck traffic. Policy C 2.4.3: Prohibit through truck traffic on designated Not Applicable: There are no designated scenic routes scenic routes. located on the project site. Policy C 2.4.4: Adopt regulations for truck parking on Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and public streets, to avoid impacts to residential directed to the City of Santa Clarita. neighborhoods. Policy C 2.5.1: Maintain a current evacuation plan as part Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and of emergency response planning. directed to the City of Santa Clarita Policy C 2.5.2: Ensure that new development is provided Consistent: The proposed project would be served by with adequate emergency and/or secondary access for adequate emergency and secondary access. The access purposes of evacuation and emergency response; require within the project site would be reviewed bythe City as two points of ingress and egress for every subdivision or part of the development review process. phase thereof, except as otherwise approved for small subdivisions where physical constraints preclude a second access point. Policy C 2.5.3: Require provision of visible street name Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to signs and addresses on all development to aid in the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project emergency response. would provide visible street name signs and addresses consistent with this Policy per City requirements. Policy C 2.5.4: Provide directional signage to Interstate 5 Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to and State Route 14 at key intersections in the Valley, to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project assist emergency evacuation operations. would provide directional signage per City requirements. Policy C 2.6.1: Require that new development construct or Consistent: The project applicant either would construct or provide its fair share of the cost of transportation pay fair -share fees for transportation improvements. improvements, and that required improvements or in -lieu contributions are in place to support the development prior to occu pa ncy. Policy C 2.6.2: Evaluate the feasibility of establishing a Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and joint City/County Intelligent Transportation Management directed to the City of Santa Clarita. System (ITMS) impact fee for new developmentthat is unable to otherwise mitigate its impacts to the roadway system through implementation of the adopted Highway Plan. Policy C 2.6.3: Support local, regional, state and federal Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and agencies in identifying and implementing funding directed to the City of Santa Clarita. 0 CO N N tU r m E r_ m E Q r_ ca a U m CL CO Y 0 m Q a CO L Y 0 m m E Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 22 Packet Pg. 144 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis alternatives for the Valley's transportation systems. Policy C 2.6.4: Coordinate road construction with Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and improvements to other utility systems in the right-of-way. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy 8.6: Encourage Green Building principles for new Consistent The project applicant would require that each building and renovation projects. building be designed to meet the requirements of the California Building Code, which incorporates the Cal Green and Title 24 Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). In doing so, the Specific Plan wouldbe developed to achieve energy efficiency, water efficiency, material conservation, and resource efficiency in compliance with the CALGreen Code. Vehicle Trip Reduction Goal C 3: Reduction of vehicle trips and emissions Consistent: The proposed project is a transit -oriented through effective management of travel demand, development, such that it would create fewer vehicle trips transportation systems, and parking. than atypical, suburban residential development with the same number of residential units. The project would locate residential uses adjacent to the Metrolink Station, Bus Transfer Station, trails, sidewalks and bike routes. Policy C 3.1.1: In evaluating new development projects, Consistent: The project would locate residential uses require trip reduction measures as feasible to relieve adjacent to the Metrolink Station, Bus Transfer Station, congestion and reduce air pollution from vehicle trails, sidewalks and bike routes. The transit -oriented emissions. development would promote use of alternative transportation to reduce air pollution from vehicle emissions. Policy C 3.1.2: Promote home -based businesses and live- Consistent: The proposed project would permit home work units as a means of reducing home -to -work trips. occupation businesses; however, it would not include live - work units. Policy C 3.1.3: Promote the use of flexible work schedules Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and and telecommutingto reduce home to work trips. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy C 3.1.4: Promote the use of employee incentives to Consistent: The proposed project would encourage the encourage alternative travel modes to work. use of alternative travel modes through its proximity to the Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station. Policy C 3.1.5: Promote the use of van pools, car pools, Not Applicable: The proposed project would not include and shuttles to encourage trip reduction. such uses that would utilize van pools, car pools, or shuttles (i.e. employment centers). Policy C 3.1.6: Promote the provision of showers and Not Applicable: The proposed project would not include lockers within businesses and employment centers, in business and employment centers. order to encourage opportunities for employees to bicycle to work. Policy C 3.2.1: Adopt clean vehicle purchase policies for Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and City and County fleets. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy C 3.2.2: Continue to enhance signal timing and Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and synchronization to allow for free traffic flow, minimizing directed to the City of Santa Clarita. idling and vehicle emissions. Policy C 3.2.3: When available and feasible, provide Not Applicable: The proposed projectwould not include opportunities and infrastructure to support use of infrastructure, such as a parking structure, that would alternative fuel vehicles and travel devices. support the use of alternative fuel vehicles. Policy C 3.3.1: Evaluate parking standards and reduce Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and requirements where appropriate, based on data showing directed to the City of Santa Clarita. that requirements are in excess of demand. Policy C 3.3.2: In pedestrian -oriented, high density mixed Not Applicable: The proposed project would not include a use districts, provide for common parking facilities to mixed -use development. 0 CO N N tU m E r_ m E Q r_ ca a U m CL CO Y 0 L m Q a CO c� 0 0 L m r m E M U ca Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 23 Packet Pg. 145 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis serve the district, where appropriate. Policy C 3.3.3: Promote shared use of parking facilities Not Applicable: The proposed project would not include between businesses with complementary uses and hours, businesses. where feasible. Policy C 3.3A Within transit -oriented development Not Applicable: The proposed project would not include projects, consider providing incentives such as higher commercial uses. floor area ratio and/or lower parking requirements for commercial development that provides transit and ride - share programs. Policy C 3.3.5: Encourage convenient short-term parking Not Applicable: The proposed projectwould not include a in high -activity areas, and all day parking at the periphery high -activity area. of the development areas. Policy C 3.3.6: Site plans should prioritize direct Consistent: The proposed project would include pedestrian access between building entrances, sidewalks pedestrian access between buildings, sidewalks and and transit stops, by placing parking behind buildings transit stops. where possible, to the sides of buildings when necessary, and always away from street intersections. Rail Service Goal C 4: Rail service to meet regional and inter -regional Consistent: The proposed project would place a number of needs for convenient, cost-effective travel alternatives, residential uses in proximity to the Metrolink Station. which are fully integrated into the Valley's circulation systems and land use patterns. Policy C 4.1.1: Develop permanent Metrolink facilities with Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and an expanded bus transfer station and additional park -and- directed to the City of Santa Clarita. ride spaces at the Via Princessa station, or other alternative location as deemed appropriate to meet the travel needs of residents on the Valley's east side. Policy C 4.1.2: Coordinate with other agencies to facilitate Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and extension of a passenger rail line from the Santa Clarita directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Station to Ventura County, which may be used for Metrolink service. Policy C 4.1.3: Continue to expand and improve commuter Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to services, including park -and -ride lots, bicycle parking and the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project storage, and waiting facilities, at all Metrolink stations. would place residential uses in proximity to the Metrolink Station with parking, bicycle parking and storage, and waiting facilities. Policy C 4.1A Encourage the preservation of abandoned Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and railroad right-of-way for future transportation facilities, directed to the City of Santa Clarita. where appropriate. Policy C 4.1.5: Work with other agencies to increase rail Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and efficiency and public safety through street and track directed to the City of Santa Clarita. improvements, and grade separations where needs are identified. Policy C 4.1.6: Provide incentives to promote transit- Consistent: The proposed project would be a transit oriented development near rail stations. oriented development, and would place residential uses in proximity to the Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station. Policy C 4.1.7: Facilitate coordination of planning for any Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and future high speed regional rail systems in the Valley with directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Metrolink services. Policy C 4.1.8: Minimize impacts to passenger rail service Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and and the community from any proposed increase to freight directed to the City of Santa Clarita. 0 CO N 4 N tU r m E r_ m E Q r_ W a U m CL CO Y_ fC 0 L m Q a CO 0 0 L m r m E U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 24 Packet Pg. 146 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis rail service through the Valley. Policy C 4.2.1: Continue to work with the Orange Line Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and Development Authority (OLDA) to plan for development of directed to the City of Santa Clarita. an environmentally sensitive, high speed transportation system with a route through the Santa Clarita Valley, including a regional station hub with associated infrastructure that would provide connections to the Los Angeles Basin, Palmdale Regional Airport, and other destinations. Policy C 4.2.2: Coordinate with other agencies as needed Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and to facilitate planning for other high-speed rail alternatives directed to the City of Santa Clarita. in the Santa Clarita Valley. Policy C 4.2.3: Promote and encourage the expansion of Not ADDlicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and Amtrak Rail Service to the Santa Clarita Valley. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Bus Transit Goal C 5: Bus transit service as a viable choice for all Consistent: The project proposes residential uses in residents, easily accessible and serving destinations proximity to a Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station. throughout the Valley. Both transit facilities would make these alternative modes of transportation more accessible to residents in the eastern Santa Clarita Valley. Policy C 5.1.1: Require that new subdivisions provide for Consistent: The proposed project would have two means two means of access into and out of the development, in of access off Harriman Drive, as well as a connection to order to provide for transit access, where feasible. the new Metrolink Station. Policy C 5.1.2: For private gated communities, require the Not Applicable: The proposed project would not be a developer to accommodate bus access through the entry private, gated community. gate, or provide bus waiting facilities at the project entry with pedestrian connections to residential streets, where appropriate. Policy C 5.1.3: Consider the operational characteristics of Consistent: The proposed project would be adjacent to a buses when determining acceptable street designs, Bus Transfer Station. The proposed street designs near including grades and turning radii. bus routes would be reviewed and approved as part of the City's development review process. Policy C 5.1.4: Provide for location of bus stops within 1/4- Consistent: The Bus Transfer Station is within mile of residential neighborhoods, and include paved bus walking/biking distance of the project's residential units. waiting areas in street improvement plans wherever appropriate and feasible. Policy C 5.1.5: Location and design of bus turnouts should NotApplicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and not obstruct traffic and should provide sufficient merging directed to the City of Santa Clarita. length for the bus to re-enter the traffic flow. Policy C 5.1.6: Evaluate the feasibility of giving buses Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and priority at signalized intersections to maintain transit directed to the City of Santa Clarita. service level standards, where appropriate. Policy C 5.2.1: Require paved waiting areas, accessible by Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and paved walkways and reasonably direct pedestrian routes, directed to the City of Santa Clarita. for bus stops in new development; and provide for retrofitting of existing bus stops, where feasible and practicable. Policy C 5.2.2: Adopt and implement consistent design Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and standards for use in both City and County areas for bus directed to the City of Santa Clarita. shelters, bus benches, trash receptacles, lighting, and other improvements for transit stops that are aesthetically 0 c') N N tU r m E r_ m E Q r_ ca a U m CL co Y_ fC 0 L m Q a co 0 0 L m r m E M U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 25 Packet Pg. 147 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis pleasing and consistent with community character. Policy C 5.2.3: Adopt and implement common design standards for bus turnouts and merging lanes along arterial streets, in convenient, accessible locations. Policy C 5.2.4: Enhance way -finding signage along walkways and paseos to direct pedestrians to transit stops. Policy C 5.2.5: Com pl e me nta ry tra nspo rtati on modes should be interconnected at intermodal transit centers, including provisions for bicycles on buses, bicycle parking at transit centers, and park -and -ride at transit stops. Policy C 5.3.1: Continue to provide fixed route service to significant activity areas and neighborhoods with moderate to high density, and serve low -density and rural areas with dial -a -ride, flexible fixed routes, or other transit services as deemed appropriate. Policy C 5.3.2: Promote concentrated development patterns in coordination with transit planning to maximize service efficiency and ridership. Policy C 5.3.3: Evaluate the feasibility of providing "fly- away" bus transit service to airports located at Burbank, Palmdale, and Los Angeles, and implement this program when warranted by demand. Policy C 5.3.4: Evaluate the feasibility of providing bus rapid transit (BRT) for key transit corridors when light -rail is not feasible or cost effective. Policy C 5.4.1: Establish transit impact fee rates that are based on the actual impacts of new development on the transit system, and regularly monitor and adjustthese fees as needed to ensure adequate mitigation. Policy C 5.4.2: Evaluate the feasibility of establishing a joint City/County transit impactfee to equitably distribute the capital costs of transit system expansion to meet the needs of new development in both County and City areas of the Valley. Policy C 5.4.3: Seek fundingfor transit system expansion and improvementfrom all available sources, including local, state, and federal programs and grants. Bikeways Goal C 6: A unified and well -maintained bikeway system with safe and convenient routes for commuting, recreational use and utilitarian travel, connecting communities and the region. Policy C 6.1.1: For recreational riders, continue to develop Class I bike paths, separated from the right-of-way, linking neighborhoods to open space and activity areas. C 6.1.2: For long-distance riders and those who NotAaalicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent: The project applicant would work with the City of Santa Clarita to ensure that appropriate transit station way -finding signage is included on project walkways and trails. Consistent: The proposed project would connect to the Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer station by walking or biking. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent: The proposed project is a transit -oriented development. The project would consist of residential uses in close proximity to transit and other uses. The design of the proposed project would assist in maximizing transit service efficiency and ridership. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the project applicant would construct improvements or pay transit impact fees consistent with City requirements. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the project applicant would construct improvements or pay transit impact fees consistent with City requirements. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent: The proposed project's Mobility Plan would provide a comprehensive network of bicycle and pedestrian trails, paths and sidewalks throughoutthe project site. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. However, the project would ensure connectivity of bicycle facilities within the project site to the surrounding areas. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to MetroWalk Specific Plan December 2020 12546 26 Packet Pg. 148 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis bicycle to work or services, provide striped Class II bike lanes within the right-of-way, with adequate delineation and signage, where feasible and appropriate. Policy C 6.1.3: Continue to acquire or reserve right-of-way and/or easements needed to complete the bicycle circulation system as development occurs. Policy C 6.1A Where inadequate right-of-way exists for Class I or II bikeways, provide signage for Class 111 bike routes or designate alternative routes as appropriate. Policy C 6.1.5: Plan for continuous bikeways to serve major destinations, including but not limited to regional shopping areas, college campuses, public buildings, parks, and employment centers. Policy C 6.2.1: Bicycle parking, which can include bicycle lockers and sheltered areas, should be required at commercial sites and multi -family housing complexes for use by employees and residents, as well as customers and visitors. Policy C 6.2.2: Bicycle racks on transit vehicles should be provided to give bike -and -ride commuters the ability to transport their bicycles. Policy C 6.2.3: Promote the inclusion of services for bicycle commuters, such as showers and changing rooms, as part of the development review process for new development or substantial alterations of existing commercial or industrial uses. where aaaroariate. Pedestrian Circulation Goal C 7: Walkable communities, in which interconnected walkways provide a safe, comfortable and viable alternative to driving for local destinations. Policy C 7.1.1: In reviewing new development proposals, consider pedestrian connections within and between developments as an integral component of the site design, which may include seating, shading, lighting, directional signage, accessibility, and convenience. Policy C 7.1.2: For existing walled subdivisions, promote the extension of pedestrian access to connect these neighborhoods to transit and services through public education and by facilitating retrofitted improvements where feasible. Policy C 7.1.3: Where feasible and practical, consider grade separated facilities to provide pedestrian connections across arterial streets, flood control channels, utility easements, and other barriers. Policy C 7.1A Identify and develop an improvement program to connect existing walkways and paseos to transit and services, where needed and appropriate. Policy C 7.1.5: In new commercial development, provide for direct, clearly delineated, and preferably landscaped the City of Santa Clarita. However, the project would ensure connectivity of bicycle facilities within the project site to the surrounding areas. Consistent: The proposed project would provide the required bike paths required by the City of Santa Clarita consistent with this Policy. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. However, the project would ensure connectivity of bicycle facilities within the project site to the surrounding areas. Consistent: The proposed project would incorporate bicycle parking/lockers for residents and guests. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Not Applicable: The proposed project would not include commercial uses or other employment opportunities that would require services for bicycle commuters. Consistent: The proposed project would assist in the implementation of this Goal as it would create a safe, walkable community, thereby providing a viable alternative to driving to local destinations. Consistent: The proposed project would include pedestrian connections within and between the project site. Seating areas, shading, lighting, directional signage, accessibility and convenience would be incorporated into the project design. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Not Applicable: The project site does not include barriers that would require grade -separated facilities. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. However, the proposed project would further implementation of this Policy through its inclusion of an extensive pedestrian/bicycle system that would provide direct access to transit and services. Not Applicable: The project does not include commercial development. MetroWalk Specific Plan December 2020 12546 27 Packet Pg. 149 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis pedestrian walkways from transit stops and parking areas to building entries, and avoid placement of uses (such as drive -through facilities) in locations that would obstruct Policy C 7.1.6: Encourage placement of building entries in locations accessible to public sidewalks and transit. Policy C 7.1.7: Promote use of pedestrian -oriented scale and design features in areas intended for pedestrian use. Policy C 7.1.8: Upgrade streets that are not pedestrian - friendly due to lack of sidewalk connections, safe street crossing points, vehicle sight distance, or other design deficiencies. Policy C 7.1.9: Promote pedestrian -oriented street design through traffic -calming measures where appropriate, which may include but are not limited to bulb -outs or chokers at intersections, raised crosswalks, refuge islands, striping, and landscaping. Policy C 7.1.10: Continue to expand and improve the Valley's multi -use trail system to provide additional routes for pedestrian travel. Noise Element Noise Environment Goal N 1: A healthy and safe noise environment for Santa Clarita Valley residents, employees, and visitors. Policy N 1.1.1: Use the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines contained on Exhibit N-8, which are consistent with State guidelines, as a policy basis for decisions on land use and development proposals related to noise. Policy N 1.1.2: Continue to implement the adopted Noise Ordinance and other applicable code provisions, consistent with state and federal standards, which establish noise impact thresholds for noise abatement and attenuation, in order to reduce potential health hazards associated with high noise levels. Policy N 1.1.3: Include consideration of potential noise impacts in land use planning and development review decisions. Policy N 1.1A Control noise sources adjacent to residential, recreational, and community facilities, and those land uses classified as noise sensitive. Policy N 1.1.5: Monitor and update data and information regarding current and projected noise levels in the planning area. Policy N 1.1.6: Provide development review comments on projects proposed by other agencies and special districts that may generate noise impacts affecting land uses within the Santa Clarita Valley, including any freeway and high-speed rail projects. Consistent: The project would include design features that allow for easy access to public sidewalks and transit. Consistent: The proposed project would incorporate pedestrian -oriented scale and design features in pedestrian areas. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent: The proposed project would incorporate pedestrian -oriented street design. Consistent: The proposed project would incorporate trails to connect to surrounding uses. Consistent: This Goal is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would comply with City requirements regulating construction -related noise. Consistent: During the environmental review process, the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines would be used to assess the potential noise impacts of the project. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would comply with the Noise Ordinance requirements during project construction and operation. Consistent: The development review and environmental review process would consider potential noise impacts. Consistent: The environmental review process would ensure the proposed project controls noise sources generated during construction and operations. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. MetroWalk Specific Plan December 2020 12546 28 Packet Pg. 150 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Reduction of Noise from Traffic I Goal N 2: Protect residents and sensitive receptors from traffic -generated noise. Policy N 2.1.1: Encourage owners of existing noise - sensitive uses, and require owners of proposed noise sensitive land uses, to construct sound barriers to protect users from significant noise levels, where feasible and appropriate. Policy N 2.1.2: Encourage the use of noise absorbing barriers, where appropriate. Policy N 2.1.3: Where appropriate, coordinate with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to ensure that sound walls or other noise barriers are constructed along Interstate 5 and State Route 14 in the immediate vicinity of residential and other noise sensitive developments, where setbacks and other sound alleviation devices do not exist. Policy N 2.1A Reduce significant noise levels related to through -traffic in residential areas by promoting subdivision circulation designs to contain a hierarchy of streets, which efficiently direct traffic to highways. Policy N 2.1.5: Encourage employers to develop van pool and other travel demand management programs to reduce vehicle trip -generated noise in the planning area. Policy N 2.1.6: Work with the City of Santa Clarita Transit to improve and expand current public transit services and routes to reduce vehicle trips and resulting noise levels. Policy N 2.1.7: Require vehicle owners to properly maintain their equipment to avoid generating excessive noise levels. Residential Neighborhoods Goal N 3: Protect residential neighborhoods from excessive noise. Policy N 3.1.1: Require that developers of new single- family and multi -family residential neighborhoods in areas where the ambient noise levels exceed 60 CNEL provide mitigation measures for the new residences to reduce interior noise levels to 45 CNEL, based on future traffic and railroad noise levels. Policy N 3.1.2: Require that developers of new single- family and multi -family residential neighborhoods in areas where the projected noise levels exceed 65 CNEL provide mitigation measures (which may include noise barriers, setbacks, and site design) for new residences to reduce outdoor noise levels to 65 CNEL, based on future traffic conditions. This requirement would apply to rear yard areas for single-family developments, and to private open Consistent: This Goal is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project has been designed in a manner to minimize noise impacts from roadways on sensitive receptors. Consistent: The environmental review process would ensure noise sensitive land uses are protected from significant noise levels. . Consistent: The environmental review process would include such measures listed in this Policy, if appropriate. Consistent: Proposed residential uses within the project site are separated from SR-14 bythe Santa Clara River; given the distance between these areas and SR-14, no noise absorbing barriers would be required. That said, the project applicant would coordinate with Caltrans on the identification of a fair- share mitigation fee for off -site sound walls or other noise barriers, if necessary. Consistent: Internal roads within the proposed project would be arranged in a hierarchy, organized byfunction, to facilitate access within and around the project site. Not Molicable. The proposed project would not generate employees. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. The proposed project would, however, locate residential uses in close proximity to transit options. These transit opportunities provided by the proposed project would reduce vehicle trips and subsequently resulting noise levels. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent: The proposed project is designed to minimize excessive noise levels in residential neighborhoods. Consistent: The increase in ambient noise levels would be evaluated as part of the environmental review process. The proposed project would comply with this Policy. Consistent: The increase in noise levels would be evaluated as part of the environmental review process. The proposed project would comply with this Policy. MetroWalk Specific Plan December 2020 12546 29 Packet Pg. 151 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis space and common recreational and open space areas for multi- family developments. Policy N 3.1.3: Through enforcement of the applicable Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and Noise Ordinance, protect residential neighborhoods from directed to the City of Santa Clarita. noise generated by machinery or activities that produce significant discernable noise exceeding recommended levels for residential uses. Policy N 3.1A Require that those responsible for Consistent: The proposed project would adhere to the construction activities develop techniques to mitigate or City's Noise Ordinance, which regulates the days and minimize the noise impacts on residences, and adopt times of construction activity. standards that regulate noise from construction activities that occur in or near residential neighborhoods. Policy N 3.1.5: Require that developers of private schools, Consistent: The increase in ambient noise levels would be childcare centers, senior housing, and other noise evaluated as part of the environmental review process. sensitive uses in areas where the ambient noise level The proposed project would comply with this Policy. exceeds 65 dBA (day), provide mitigation measures for these uses to reduce interior noise to acceptable levels. Policy N 3.1.6: Ensure that new residential buildings shall Consistent: The project site is not located within 150 feet not be located within 150 feet of the centerline for of the centerline for Interstate 5. Interstate 5. Policy N 3.1.7: Ensure that design of parks, recreational Consistent: The proposed project design would ensure facilities, and schools minimize noise impacts to that the design of parks and recreational facilities residential neighborhoods. minimizes noise impacts to residential neighborhoods. Policy N 3.1.8: As a condition of issuing permits for special Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and events, require event promoters to mitigate noise impacts directed to the City of Santa Clarita. to adjacent sensitive uses through limiting hours of operation and other means as appropriate, which may include notification to affected residents. Policy N 3.1.9: Implement a buyer and renter notification Consistent: The proposed project's disclosure documents program for new residential developments where would make potential buyers and renters aware of the appropriate, to educate and inform potential buyers and railroad tracks, Metrolink Station, Bus Transfer Station renters of the sources of noise in the area and/or new and commercial uses. sources of noise that may occur in the future. As determined by the reviewing authority, notification may be appropriate in the following areas: a. Within one mile of Six Flags Magic Mountain theme park, potential buyers and renters should receive notice that noise may occasionally be generated from this facility and that the frequency and loudness of noise events may change overtime. b. Within 1,000 feet of the railroad, potential buyers and renters should receive notice that noise may occasionally be generated from this facility and thatthe frequency and loudness of noise events may change overtime. c. 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, thatthe commercial uses may change overtime, and the associated noise 0 c') N 4 N tU r m E r_ m E Q r_ W a m CL co Y 0 L Q a co L 0 Y 0 m r m E U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 30 Packet Pg. 152 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis levels and frequency of noise events may change along with the use. d. Within 1,000 feet of the Saugus Speedway, in the event speedway operations are resumed in the future. I Commercial and Industrial Noise I Goal N 4: Protection of sensitive uses from commercial and industrial noise generators. Policy N 4.1.1: Implement and enforce the appropriate noise ordinance adopted by the City and the County to control noise from 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/industrial uses and residential neighborhoods and other sensitive uses. Policy N 4.1.3: Adopt and enforce standards forthe control of noise from commercial and entertainment establishments when adjacent to residential neighborhoods and other sensitive uses. Conservation and Open Space Goals and Policies Responsible Management of Environmental Systems Goal COA- A balance between the social and economic needs of Santa Clarita Valley residents and protection of the natural environment, so that these needs can be met in the present and in the future. Policy CO 1.1.1: In making land use decisions, consider the complex, dynamic, and interrelated ways that natural and human systems interact, such as the interactions between energy demand, water demand, air and water quality, and waste management. Policy CO 1.1.2: In making land use decisions, consider the impacts of human activity within watersheds and ecosystems, to maintain the functional viability of these systems. Policy CO 1.1.3: In making land use decisions, encourage development proposals that preserve natural ecosystem functions and enhance the health of the surrounding community. Policy CO 1.3.2: Promote reducing, reusing, and recycling in all Land Use designations and cycles of development. Policy CO 1.2.1: Improve the communities' understanding of renewable resource systems that occur naturally in the Santa Clarita Valley, including systems related to hydrology, energy, ecosystems, and habitats, and the interrelationships between these systems, through the following measures: a. Through the environmental and development Not Applicable. The proposed project would not include commercial and industrial noise. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would not include commercial and industrial noise generators. Consistent: The project would be appropriately buffered from commercial uses to the north and the Metrolink Station to the west. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would not include commercial and industrial noise generators. Consistent: The projectwould balance the social and economic needs of Santa Clarita Valley residents while protecting the environment through developing within an area surrounded by development; thereby reducing urban sprawl. Consistent: This Policy is the responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would include energy efficiency measures, a water reclamation plant and use of recycled water, water quality improvements, and waste management measures. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project will consider impacts within the watershed and ecosystem. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would preserve the environment through developing within an area surrounded by development; thereby reducing urban sprawl. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would comply with City requirements related to recycling. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the environmental review process would address impacts of the proposed development on traffic, noise, air quality, and water quality. MetroWalk Specific Plan December 2020 12546 31 Packet Pg. 153 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis review processes, consider development proposals within the context of renewable resource systems and evaluate potential impacts on a system -wide basis (rather than a project - specific basis), to the extent feasible; b. In planningfor new regional infrastructure projects, consider impacts on renewable resources within the context of interrelationships between these systems; c. Provide information to decision -makers about the interrelationship between traffic and air quality, ecosystems and water quality, land use patterns and public health, and other similar interrelationships between renewable resource systems in order to ensure that decisions are based on an understanding of these concepts. Policy CO 1.2.2: Working with other agencies as Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and appropriate, develop and apply models and other tools for directed to the City of Santa Clarita. decision-makingto supportthe sustainability of renewable systems. Policy CO 1.3.1: Explore, evaluate, and implement Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to methods to shift from using non-renewable resources to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project use of renewable resources in all aspects of land use would include energy conservation and efficiency planning and development. features. Policy CO 1.3.2: Promote reducing, reusing, and recycling Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to in all Land Use designations and cycles of development. the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would comply with City requirements related to recycling. Policy CO 1.3.3: Provide informational material to the Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and public about programs to conserve non-renewable directed to the City of Santa Clarita. resources and recover materials from the waste stream. Policy CO 1.4.1: In cooperation with other appropriate Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and agencies, identify pollution sources and adopt strategies directed to the City of Santa Clarita. to reduce emissions into air and water bodies. Policy CO 1.4.2: In cooperation with other appropriate Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and agencies, abate or remediate known areas of directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Moreover, the project contamination, and Iimitthe effects of any such areas on site is not known to be contaminated. public health. Policy CO 1.4.3: Encourage use of non -hazardous building Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and materials, and non-polluting materials and industrial directed to the City of Santa Clarita. processes, to the extent feasible. Policy CO 1.4A In cooperation with other appropriate Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and agencies, continue to develop and implement effective directed to the City of Santa Clarita. methods of handling and disposing of hazardous materials and waste. Policy CO 1.5.1: Promote the use of environmentally- Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to responsible building design and efficiency standards in the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the project applicant new development, and provide examples of these will require that each building be designed to meet the standards in public facilities. requirements of the California Building Code, which incorporates the Cal Green and Title 24 Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). In doing so, the Specific Plan will be developed to achieve energy 0 CO N v N tU r m E r_ m E Q r_ ca a U m rL Y_ fC 0 L m Q a 0 Y 0 L m r m U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 32 Packet Pg. 154 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis efficiency, water efficiency, material conservation, and resource efficiency in compliance with the CALGreen Code. Policy CO 1.5.2: Design and manage public urban Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and infrastructure systems to reduce impacts to natural directed to the City of Santa Clarita. systems. Policy CO 1.5.3: Consider life -cycles for buildings, Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to development patterns, and uses, and their long-term the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project effects on natural systems, through the following would incorporate energy efficiency measures, use measures: recycled water for irrigation purposes, and incorporate a. Through the environmental review and electric vehicle charging, all of which would reduce development review processes, consider the environmental impacts associated with the entire "life - impacts of new development on renewable cycle" of the project. systems through various phases including construction, use and operation, potential reuse, cessation of use, demolition, and reuse or restoration of the development site. b. Ensure that mitigation measures and conditions of approval intended to protect natural systems are adequately funded and monitored for the required timeframe. Policy CO 1.5.4: Seek ways to discourage human behavior Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and that may be detrimental to natural systems and to directed to the City of Santa Clarita. encourage environmental responsibility, through education, incentives, removing barriers, enforcement, and other means as practicable and feasible. Policy CO 1.5.5: Promote concentration of urban uses Consistent: The proposed project is an infill development, within the center of the Santa Clarita Valley, through and is surrounded on all sides by existing development. incentives for infill development and rebuilding, in order to limit impacts to open space, habitats, watersheds, hillsides, and other components of the Valley's natural ecosystems. Policy CO 1.5.6: Through the development review Consistent: The proposed project would comply with this process, consider the impacts of development on the Policy entire watershed of the Santa Clara River and its tributaries, including hydromodification. Policy CO 1.5.7: Consider the principles of environmental Consistent: The proposed project is adjacent to a multi- sustainability, trip reduction, walkability, stormwater modal transit center (Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer management, and energy conservation at the site, Station) and trail system to reduce vehicle trips and neighborhood, district, city, and regional level, in land use improve walkability. Additionally, the project would decisions. incorporate BMPs to reduce water quality impacts; and, energy efficiency and conservation measures. Policy CO 1.5.8: Consider environmental responsibility in Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and all procurement decisions, including purchasing policies directed to the City of Santa Clarita. and capital projects. Policy CO 1.6.1: Identify environmental conditions that Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and represent a healthy, sustainable community. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy CO 1.6.2: Use Geographic Information Systems, Consistent: Geographic Information Systems modeling will modeling, and other tools to indicate the locations of be used as appropriate during the environmental review natural systems such as floodplain and floodway areas, process. oak tree woodlands, significant ecological areas, and plant and animal species habitat Policy CO 1.6.3: Provide information on the condition of Consistent: The environmental review process will provide 0 CO N N tU r m E r_ m E Q r_ M a U m rL Y_ fC 0 m Q a L 0 Y 0 m r m E M U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 33 Packet Pg. 155 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis natural systems to decision makers as part of the an analysis of existing natural conditions compared to decision -making process regarding land use and built conditions to inform decision makers. development. Geological Resources Goal CO 2: Conserve the Santa Clarita Valley's hillsides, Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to canyons, ridgelines, soils, and minerals, which provide the the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project is physical setting for the natural and built environments. an infill development and would result in the preservation of the Santa Clarita Valley's hillsides. Policy CO 2.1.1: Review soil erosion and sedimentation Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to control plans for development -related grading activities, the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project where appropriate, to ensure mitigation of potential would comply with City and State requirements related to erosion by water and air. erosion control. Policy CO 2.1.2: Promote conservation of topsoil on Consistent: Stockpiled native topsoil would be utilized development sites by stockpiling for later reuse, where over the bank stabilization for planting of native species. feasible. Policy CO 2.1.3: Promote soil enhancement and waste Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and reduction through composting, where appropriate. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy CO 2.2.1: Locate development and designate land Consistent: The proposed project site is generally flat. uses to minimize the impact on the Santa Clarita Valley's When graded, the project site would mimic natural topography, minimizing grading and emphasizing the use topography, to the extentfeasible. of development pads that mimic the natural topography in lieu of repetitive flat pads, to the extent feasible. Policy CO 2.2.2: Ensure that graded slopes in hillside Not Applicable: The project site is not located in a hillside areas are revegetated with native droughttolerant plants area. or other approved vegetation to blend manufactured slopes with adjacent natural hillsides, in consideration of firesafety requirements. Policy CO 2.2.3: Preserve designated natural ridgelines Not Applicable: The project site does not include a from development by ensuring a minimum distance for designated ridgeline. grading and development from these ridgelines of 50 feet or more if determined preferable by the reviewing authority based on site conditions, to maintain the Santa Clarita Valley's distinctive community character and preserve the scenic setting. Policy CO 2.2A Identify and preserve significant Consistent: There are no significant geological or geological and topographic features through designating topographic features on -site, however the proposed these areas as open space or by other means as project would preserve open space areas on the western appropriate. portion of the site. Policy CO 2.2.5: Promote the use of adequate erosion Not Applicable: The project site is not located in a hillside control measures for all development in hillside areas, area. including single family homes and infrastructure improvements, both during and after construction. Policy CO 2.2.6: Encourage building designs that conform Consistent: The proposed project would utilize building to the natural grade, avoiding the use of large retaining designs that conform to the natural grade. The proposed walls and build-up walls that are visible from offsite, to the project would not include retaining walls visible to off -site extent feasible and practicable. properties. Policy CO 2.3.1: Identify areas with significant mineral Not Applicable: There are no significant mineral resource resources that are available for extraction through areas on or adjacentto the projectsite. appropriate zoning or overlay designations. Policy CO 2.3.2: Consider appropriate buffers near Not Applicable: There are no significant mineral resource mineral resource areas that are planned for extraction, to areas on or adjacentto the projectsite. provide for land use compatibility and prevent the 0 CO N v N tU m E r_ m E Q r_ ca a 4- m CL CO Y_ fC 0 L m Q a CO 0 0 L m r m E M U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 34 Packet Pg. 156 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis encroachment of incompatible land uses. Policy CO 2.3.3: Through the review process for any mining or mineral extraction proposal, ensure mitigation of impacts from mining and processing of materials on adjacent uses or on the community, including but not limited to air and water pollution, traffic and circulation, noise, and land use incompatibility. Policy CO 2.3.4: Ensure that mineral extraction sites are maintained in a safe and secure manner after cessation of extraction activities, which may include the regulated decommissioning of wells, clean-up of any contaminated soils or materials, closing of mine openings, or other measures as deemed appropriate by the agencies having jurisdiction. Policy CO 2.3.5: Promote remediation and restoration of mined land to a condition that supports beneficial uses, which may include but are not limited to recreational open space, habitat enhancement, groundwater recharge, or urban development. Biological Resources Goal CO 3: Conservation of biological resources and ecosystems, including sensitive habitats and species. Policy CO 3.1.1: On the land use map and through the development review process, concentrate development into previously developed or urban areas to promote infill development and prevent sprawl and habitat loss, to the exte nt f easi bl e. Policy CO 3.1.2: Avoid designating or approving new development that will adversely impact wetlands, floodplains, threatened or endangered species and habitat, and water bodies supportingfish or recreational uses, and establish a buffer area as deemed appropriate through site specific review. Policy CO 3.1.3: On previously undeveloped sites ("greenfields"), identify biological resources and incorporate habitat preservation measures into the site plan, where appropriate. (This policy will generally not apply to urban infill sites, except as otherwise determined by the reviewing agency). Policy CO 3.1.4: For new development on sites with degraded habitat, include habitat restoration measures as part of the project development plan, where appropriate. Policy CO 3.1.5: Promote the use of site -appropriate native or adapted plant materials, and prohibit use of invasive or noxious plant species in landscape designs. Policy CO 3.1.6: On development project sites, preserve and enhance natural site elements including existing water bodies, soil conditions, ecosystems, trees, vegetation and habitat. to the extentfeasible. CO 3.1.7: Limit the use of turf -grass on NotAaalicable: Mining is not proposed on the project site. Not Applicable: The proposed project would not involve any mining operations. Not Applicable: The proposed projectwould not involve any mining operations, and the project site was not previously used for mining operations. Consistent: The proposed project is an infill development and would result in the preservation of biological resources and ecosystems. Consistent: The proposed project is an infill development, as the project site is surrounded on all sides by existing and proposed development. Consistent: The proposed project would not adversely impact the referenced environmental resources and would provide an adequate buffer between the project site and the Santa Clara River corridor. Consistent: The proposed project is infill. That said, the environmental review process identifies biological resources and includes mitigation measures, as necessary, that would require habitat preservation and creation. Consistent: The proposed project would enhance the open space areas within the site. Consistent: The proposed project's Landscape Plan would promote the use of native and drought tolerant species, and would prohibit the use of invasive or noxious plant species on the project site. Consistent: The proposed project would preserve and enhance natural site elements. Consistent: The proposed project's Landscape Plan would MetroWalk Specific Plan December 2020 12546 35 Packet Pg. 157 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis development and promote use of native or adapted limit the use of turf and promote the use of native and plantings to promote biodiversity and natural habitat. drought -tolerant plants. Policy CO 3.1.8: On development sites, encourage tree Consistent: The proposed project would plant trees on the planting to provide habitat and shade to reduce the heat project site. island effect caused by pavement and buildings. Policy CO 3.1.9: During construction, ensure preservation Consistent: The environmental review process would of habitat and trees designated to be protected through ensure the proposed project would comply with this Policy. use of fencing and other means as appropriate, so as to prevent damage by grading, soil compaction, pollution, erosion or other adverse construction impacts. Policy CO 3.1.10: To the extent feasible, encourage the Consistent: The project would encourage open space use of open space to promote biodiversity. areas on the western portion of the project site. Policy CO 3.1.11: Promote use of pervious materials or Consistent: Pervious materials would be utilized on porous concrete on sidewalks to allow for planted area various walkways/trails within the proposed project. infiltration, allow oxygen to reach tree roots (preventing sidewalk lift -up from roots seeking oxygen), and mitigate tree -sidewalk conflicts, in order to maintain a healthy mature urban forest. Policy CO 3.2.1: Protect wetlands from development Consistent. The proposed project would not place the impacts, with the goal of achieving no net loss (or development on wetlands. functional reduction) of jurisdictional wetlands within the planning area. Policy CO 3.2.2: Ensure that development is located and Consistent: The proposed project would preserve a designed to protect oak, sycamore, and other significant protected oak, sycamore, and other significant indigenous indigenous woodlands. woodlands. Policy CO 3.2.3: Ensure protection of any endangered or Consistent: The environmental review process would threatened species or habitat, in conformance with State ensure compliance with this Policy. If necessary, and federal laws. measures would be implemented to ensure protection of any endangered or threatened species or habitat. Policy CO 3.2.4: Protect biological resources in the Consistent: Portions of the project site currently are designated Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) through the located within a designated SEA boundary (i.e., SEA 23). citing and design of development which is highly However, the project proposes a General Plan compatible with the SEA resources. Specific development amendment and a Specific Plan designation that would standards shall be identified to control the types of land change the SEA boundaries to be consistent with use, density, building location and size, roadways and identified sensitive biological resources. other infrastructure, landscape, drainage, and other elements to assure the protection of the critical and important plant and animal habitats of each SEA. In general, the principle shall be to minimize the intrusion and impacts of development in these areas with sufficient controls to adequately protect the resources. Policy CO 3.3.1: Protect the banks and adjacent riparian Consistent: The proposed project would provide adequate habitat along the Santa Clara River and its tributaries, to buffer between the project site and Santa Clara River. provide wildlife corridors. Policy CO 3.3.2: Cooperate with other responsible Not Applicable: The project site is not located in the area agencies to protect, enhance, and extend the Rim of the referenced by the Policy. Valley trail system through Elsmere and Whitney Canyons, and other areas as appropriate, to provide both recreational trails and wildlife corridors linking the Santa Susana and San Gabriel Mountains. Policy CO 3.3.3: Identify and protect one or more Not Applicable: The project site is not located in the area designated wildlife corridors linking the Los Padres and referenced by the Policy. Angeles National Forests through the Valley (the San 0 c') N 4 N U r m E r_ m E Q r_ ca a U m rL Y 0 m Q a L Y 0 m m E M U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 36 Packet Pg. 158 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Gabriel-Castaic connection). Policy CO 3.3.4: Supportthe maintenance of Santa Clarita NotAaalicable: The project site is not located in the area Woodlands Park, a critical component of a cross- referenced by the Policy. mountain range wildlife habitat corridor linkingthe Santa Monica Mountains to the Angeles and Los Padres National Forests. Policy CO 3.3.5: Encourage connection of natural open Consistent: The proposed project would maintain open space areas in site design, to allow for wildlife movement. space as part of the site design. Policy CO 3.4.1: Coordinate with the United States Forest Not Applicable: The project is not located within nor would Service on discretionary development projects that may it impact a U.S. National Forest. have impacts on the National Forest. Policy CO 3.4.2: Consider principles of forest management Not Applicable: The project site is not adjacent to a U.S. in land use decisions for projects adjacent to the National National Forest. Forest, including limiting the use of invasive species, discouraging off -road vehicle use, maintaining fuel modification zones and fire access roads, and other measures as appropriate, in accordance with the goals set forth in the Angeles National Forest Land Management Plan. Policy CO 3.4.3: On the Land Use Map, maintain low Not Applicable: The project site is not adjacent to forest density rural residential and open space uses adjacentto land. forest land, and protect the urban -forest interface area from overdevelopment. Policy CO 3.4.4: Participate as a stakeholder in planning Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and efforts by the United States Forest Service for land uses directed to the City of Santa Clarita. within the National Forest, providing input as appropriate. Policy CO 3.5.1: Continue to plant and maintain trees on Consistent: The proposed project would plant trees on the public lands and within the public right-of-way to provide project site. shade and walkable streets, incorporating measures to ensure that roots have access to oxygen at tree maturity, such as use of porous concrete. Policy CO 3.5.2: Where appropriate, promote planting of Consistent: The proposed project's Landscape Plan would trees that are native or climactically appropriate to the promote the use of climactically appropriate trees, such surrounding environment, emphasizing oaks, sycamores, as oaks, sycamores, and other native species, while maple, walnut, and other native species in order to limiting the use of introduced species. enhance habitat, and discouragingthe use of introduced species such as eucalyptus, pepper trees, and palms except as ornamental landscape features. Policy CO 3.5.3: Protect heritage oak trees pursuantto the Consistent: The proposed projectwould result in the zoning ordinance that, due to their size and condition, are preservation of a majority of heritage oak trees on the deemed to have exceptional value to the community. project site. Policy CO 3.6.1: Minimize light trespass, sky -glow, glare, Consistent: The proposed project conditions would ensure and other adverse impacts on the nocturnal ecosystem by thatfuture lighting would not contribute to nighttime limiting exterior lighting to the level needed for safety and visual pollution and light and glare. comfort; reduce unnecessary lighting for landscaping and architectural purposes, and encourage reduction of lighting levels during non -business nighttime hours. Policy CO 3.6.2: Reduce impervious surfaces and provide Consistent: The proposed project would consider all of the more natural vegetation to enhance microclimates and design concepts listed in this Policy. provide habitat. In implementing this policy, considerthe following design concepts: a. Consideration of reduced parking requirements, 0 c') N 4 N tU r m E r- m E Q r- ca a U U m rL Y 0 m Q a L 0 Y 0 m r m E U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 37 Packet Pg. 159 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis where supported by a parking study and/or through shared use of parking areas; b. Increased use of vegetated areas around parking lot perimeters; such areas should be designed as bioswales or as otherwise determined appropriate to allow surface water infiltration; c. Use of connected open space areas as drainage infiltration areas in lieu of curbed landscape islands, minimizingthe separation of natural and landscaped areas into isolated "islands"; d. Breaking up large expanses of paving with natural landscaped areas planted with shade trees to reduce the heat island effect, along with shrubs and groundcover to provide diverse vegetation for habitat. Policy CO 3.6.3: Restrict use of unauthorized off -road Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to vehicles within sensitive habitat areas through signage, the City of Santa Clarita. fencing, or other means as appropriate. Policy CO 3.6.4: Provide public information and support Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and with demonstration sites at City facilities on gardening directed to the City of Santa Clarita. and landscaping techniques to reduce spread of invasive species and pollution from pesticides and fertilizers that threaten natural ecosystems. Policy CO 3.6.5: Ensure revegetation of graded areas and Consistent: The proposed project would revegetate slopes adjacentto natural open space areas with native graded areas and slopes adjacentto natural areas with plants (consistent with fire prevention requirements). native plants. Policy CO 3.7.1: Supportthe public education programs Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and offered atthe Placerita Canyon Natural Area and Ed Davis directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Park (Sonia Thompson Nature Center). Policy CO 3.7.2: Seek opportunities for partnerships with Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and schools, non-profit organizations, and volunteers, to directed to the City of Santa Clarita. increase public access to and information about natural areas. Water Resources Goal CO 4: An adequate supply of clean water to meet the Consistent: The environmental review process would needs of present and future residents and businesses, ensure consistency with this Policy. balanced with the needs of natural ecosystems. Policy CO 4.1.1: In coordination with applicable water Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to suppliers, adopt and implement a water conservation the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project strategy for public and private development. would incorporate water conservation strategies into the project design, including high efficiency irrigation, use of native/drought-resistant landscaping, use of recycled water for non -potable water from the Vista Canyon Water Reclamation Plan, low -flow -rate faucets, low flow -rate toilets. Policy CO 4.1.2: Provide examples of water conservation Consistent: The proposed project would utilize low water in landscaping through use of low water use landscaping use landscaping in public spaces. Additionally, these in public spaces such as parks, landscaped medians and areas would be served by recycled water. parkways, plazas, and around public buildings. Policy CO 4.1.3: Promote low water use landscaping Consistent: The proposed project would utilize low water design into new residential subdivisions and other private use landscaping and would minimize turf -grass areas. development projects, including a reduction in the allowable amount of turf -grass. 0 CO N v N tU r m E r_ m E Q r_ ca a U m rL Y_ fC 0 m Q a L 0 Y 0 L m r m E M U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 38 Packet Pg. 160 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Policy CO 4.1.4: Provide informational materials to Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to applicants and contractors on the Castaic Lake Water the City of Santa Clarita. That said, as indicated above, Agency's Landscape Education Program, and/or other the proposed project would utilize recycled water for information on xeriscape, native California plants, and irrigation areas and utilize low water use landscaping. water -conserving irrigation techniques as materials become available. Policy CO 4.1.5: Promote the use of low -flow and Consistent: The proposed project would utilize low- flow waterless plumbing fixtures and appliances in all new fixtures and appliances in all residential areas. residential and non-residential development and residential development of five or more dwelling units. Policy CO 4.1.6: Support amendments to the building Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and code that would promote upgrades to water and energy directed to the City of Santa Clarita. efficiency when issuing permits for renovations or additions on existing buildings. Policy CO 4.1.7: Apply water conservation policies to all Consistent: As indicated above, the proposed project pending development projects, including approved would utilize water conservation measures in construction tentative subdivision maps to the extent permitted by law; and landscape design. where precluded from adding requirements by vested entitlements, encourage water conservation in construction and landscape design. Policy CO 4.1.8: Upon the availability of non -potable water Consistent: The proposed project would utilize recycled services, discourage and/or consider restrictions on the water for irrigation purposes. use of potable water for washing outdoor surfaces. Policy CO 4.2.1: In cooperation with the Sanitation District Consistent: As indicated above, recycled water would be and other affected agencies, seek to expand opportunities utilized by the proposed projectfor irrigation purposes. for use of recycled water for the purposes of landscape maintenance, construction, water recharge, and other uses as appropriate. Policy CO 4.2.2: Require new development to provide the Consistent: As indicated above, the proposed project infrastructure needed for delivery of recycled water to the would use non -potable water from the Vista Canyon Water property for use in irrigation, even if the recycled water Reclamation Plant. The project would construct main delivery lines have not yet reached the site, where appropriate infrastructure for the delivery of such water. deemed appropriate by the reviewing authority. Policy CO 4.2.3: Promote the installation of rainwater Consistent: The proposed project would implement capture and gray water systems in new buildings for sustainable drainage/water quality technologies, such as irrigation, where feasible and practicable. retention and detention systems, biofiltration areas, vegetated swales, and hydromodification. Policy CO 4.2.4: Identify and protect areas with Consistent: The proposed project would include various substantial potential for groundwater recharge, and water quality measures, such as permeable pavement, promote recharge of groundwater basins throughout the vegetated swales, and bioretention areas, which would watershed (excluding the river bed). promote groundwater recharge. Policy CO 4.2.5: Participate and cooperate with other Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and agencies to complete, adopt, and implement an directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Integrated Regional Water Management Plan to build a diversified portfolio of water supply, water quality, and resource stewardship priorities for the Santa Clarita Valley. Policy CO 4.3.1: On undeveloped sites proposed for Consistent: The proposed project would promote on -site development, promote onsite stormwater infiltration stormwater infiltration through the use of various BMPs. through design techniques such as pervious paving, draining runoff into bioswales or properly designed landscaped areas, preservation of natural soils and vegetation, and limiting impervious surfaces. 0 c') N N tU r m E r_ m E Q r_ ca a U m rL Y 0 m Q a L 0 Y 0 m m E U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 39 Packet Pg. 161 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Policy CO 4.3.2: On previously developed sites proposed Not Applicable: The project site is currently vacant and for major alteration, provide stormwater management undeveloped. improvements to restore natural infiltration, as required by the reviewing authority. Policy CO 4.3.3: Provide flexibility for design standards for Consistent: The proposed project would include smaller street width, sidewalk width, parking, and other street sections, and the use of pervious materials. The impervious surfaces when it can be shown that such project's use of these flexible design standards would reductions will not have negative impacts and will provide benefit stormwater retention, groundwater infiltration, and the benefits of stormwater retention, groundwater other environmental areas while not creating negative infiltration, reduction of heat islands, enhancement of impacts. habitat and biodiversity, saving of significant trees or planting of new trees, or other environmental benefit. Policy CO 4.3.4: Encourage and promote the use of new Consistent: The proposed project would incorporate materials and technology for improved stormwater stormwater management into the project design through management, such as pervious paving, green roofs, the use of sustainable drainage/water quality raingardens, and vegetated swales. technologies, such as retention and detention systems, biofiltration areas, vegetated swales, and hyd romod ification. Policy CO 4.3.5: Where detention and retention basins or Consistent: The proposed projectwould integrate ponds are required, seek methods to integrate these detention basins into the project design. areas into the landscaping design of the site as amenity areas, such as a network of small ephemeral swales treated with attractive planting. Policy CO 4.3.6: Discourage the use of mounded turf and Consistent: The proposed project would minimize turf and lawn areas which drain onto adjacent sidewalks and lawn areas and primarily utilize native and drought parking lots, replacing these areas with landscape tolerant plant materials in a design that would retain designs that retain runoff and allow infiltration. runoff and permit infiltration. Policy CO 4.3.7: Reduce the amount of pollutants entering Consistent: The proposed projectwould include an the Santa Clara River and its tributaries by capturing and extensive water quality plan that would capture and treat treating stormwater runoff at the source, to the extent stormwater runoff at the lot and project levels. possible. Policy CO 4.4.1: Cooperate with the Los Angeles County Not Applicable: The Policy is a responsibility of and Sanitation District and Regional Water Quality Control directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Board as appropriate to achieve Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) standards for chlorides in the Santa Clara River. Policy CO 4.4.2: Support the cooperative efforts of Not Applicable: The project site is not located within or property owners and appropriate agencies to eliminate adjacent to the Whittaker-Bermite site. perchlorate contamination on the Whittaker-Bermite property and eliminate the use of any industrial chemicals or wastes in a manner that threatens groundwater quality. Policy CO 4.4.3: Discourage the use of chemical fertilizers, Consistent: The proposed project would utilize BMPs to herbicides and pesticides in landscaping to reduce water limit or eliminate the use of herbicides and pesticides on pollution by substances hazardous to human health and the project site. natural ecosystems. Policy CO 4.4.4: Promote the extension of sanitary sewers Consistent: The project would still connect to the sanitary for all urban uses and densities, to protect groundwater sewer system and dispose of all solids into the system. quality, where feasible. The project would not include the use of any septic systems. Cultural and Historical Resources Goal CO 5: Protection of historical and culturally Consistent: The project site does not include other natural significant resources that contribute to community identity or historic conditions of significance 0 c') N N tU r m E m E Q ca a 4- U m CL co Y_ fC 0 m Q a co L 0 0 m r m E U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 40 Packet Pg. 162 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis and a sense of history. Policy CO 5.1.1: For sites identified on the Historical Not Applicable: The project site does not contain any sites Resources Map, review appropriate documentation prior identified on the referenced Historical Resources Map. to issuance of any permits for grading, demolition, alteration, and/or new development, to avoid significant adverse impacts. Such documentation may include cultural resource reports, environmental impact reports, or other information as determined to be adequate by the reviewing authority. Policy CO 5.1.2: Review any proposed alterations to Not Applicable: The project site does not contain any sites cultural and historic sites identified in the Historical listed in the referenced Santa Clarita Valley Planning Area Resources in the Santa Clarita Valley Planning Area Table Table. or other sites which are so designated, based on the guidelines contained in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Properties (Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 1, Part 68, also known as 36 CFR 68), or other adopted City guidelines. Policy CO 5.1.3: As new information about other Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and potentially significant historic and cultural sites becomes directed to the City of Santa Clarita. available, update the Cultural and Historical Resources Inventory and apply appropriate measures to all identified sites to protecttheir historical and cultural integrity. Policy CO 5.2.1: In keeping with the Downtown Newhall Not Applicable: The project site is not located in Newhall. Specific Plan policies, ensure that the scale and character of new development is compatible with and does not detract from the context of historic buildings and block patterns. Policy CO 5.2.2: Support expansion and enhancement of Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and a city historical park adjacent to the Pioneer Oil Refinery directed to the City of Santa Clarita. to illustrate historic oil operations in the Valley. Policy CO 5.2.3: Ensure that all aspects of community Not Applicable: The project site is not located in Newhall. design in Newhall, including street furniture, lighting, trash collection and storage areas, seating, and other accessory structures, are of a design and scale appropriate for the historic character of the district, while maintaining a sense of authenticity. Policy CO 5.2.4: Continue to support "Heritage Junction" Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and and the historical museum within William S. Hart Park as directed to the City of Santa Clarita. historical resources that illustrate the various phases of settlement within the Santa Clarita Valley. Policy CO 5.3.1: For any proposed general plan Consistent: As required by this Policy, the project applicant amendment, specific plan, or specific plan amendment, will consult with any California Native American tribes on notify and consult with any California Native American the contact list maintained by the Native American tribes on the contact list maintained by the California Heritage Commission that have traditional lands located Native American Heritage Commission that have within the City's jurisdiction, and consider the input traditional lands located within the City's jurisdiction, received in the development decision. regarding any potential impacts to Native American resources from the proposed action, pursuant to State guidelines. Policy CO 5.3.2: For any proposed development project Consistent: As required by this Policy, the City will consult that may have a potential impact on Native American with any California Native American tribe on the contact cultural resources, provide notification to California Native list maintained by the Native American Heritage 0 c') N N tU r m E r- m E Q r- W a U m CL co Y_ fC 0 m Q a co L 0 Y 0 L m r m E U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 41 Packet Pg. 163 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis American tribes on the contact list maintained by the Commission that have traditional lands located within the Native American Heritage Commission that have City's jurisdiction, and consider the input received in the traditional lands located within the City's jurisdiction, and development decision. consider the input received in the development decision. Policy CO 5.3.3: Review and consider a cultural resources Consistent: The environmental review process with review study for any new grading or development in areas and consider a cultural resources study. identified as having a high potential for Native American resources, and incorporate recommendations into the project approval as appropriate to mitigate impacts to cultural resources. Scenic Resources Goal CO 6: Preservation of scenic features that keep the Consistent: The dominant topographic feature near the Santa Clarita Valley beautiful and enhance quality of life, project site is the Santa Clara River, which would not be community identity, and property values. altered bythe proposed project. Policy CO 6.1.1: Protect scenic canyons, as described in Not Applicable: The project site is not located in a scenic Part I of this element, from overdevelopment and canyon. environmental degradation. Policy CO 6.1.2: Preserve significant ridgelines, as shown Not Applicable: The project site is not located along or on the Scenic Resources Map, as a scenic backdrop adjacent to an identified significant ridgeline. throughout the community by maintaining natural grades and vegetation. Policy CO 6.1.3: Protectthe scenic quality of unique Not Applicable: There are no unique geologic features geologic features throughoutthe planning area, such as located on the project site. Vasquez Rocks, by includingthese features within park and open space land, where possible. Policy CO 6.3.1: Supportthe efforts of Los Angeles County Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and to protect the shores of Castaic Lake to preserve its scenic directed to the County of Los Angeles. Further, the project qualityfrom development. site is not located adjacent to Castaic Lake. Policy CO 6.3.2: Protect the banks of the Santa Clara River Consistent: The Santa Clara River would not be altered by and its major tributaries through open space designations the proposed project.. and property acquisitions, where feasible, to protect and enhance the scenic character of the river valley. Policy CO 6.4.1: Preserve scenic habitat areas within Consistent: The proposed project would provide open designated open space or parkland, wherever possible. space and recreational resources within the project site. Policy CO 6.4.2: Through the development review process, Consistent: The proposed project would provide open ensure that new development preserves scenic habitat space and recreational resource within the project site. areas to the extent feasible. Policy CO 6.5.1: In approving new development projects, Not Applicable: The project site is not located near or consider scenic views at major entry points to the Santa adjacent to an entry pointto the Santa Clarita Valley. Clarita Valley, including gateways located at Newhall Pass and along Lake Hughes Road, Route 126, Bouquet Canyon Road, Sierra Highway, State Route 14, and other locations as deemed appropriate by the reviewing authority. Policy CO 6.5.2: Establish scenic routes in appropriate Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and locations as determined by the reviewing agency, and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Further, the project adopt guidelines for these routes to maintain their site is not located along a scenic route. scenic character. Policy CO 6.6.1: Enhance views of the night sky by Consistent: The proposed project would minimize or reducing light pollution through use of light screens, reduce light pollution consistent with the requirements of downward directed lights, minimized reflective paving this Policy. surfaces, and reduced lighting levels, as deemed 0 CO N v N tU r m E r- m E Q r- W a U m CL CO Y_ fC 0 L m Q a CO 0 0 L m r m E U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 42 Packet Pg. 164 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis rooriate by the reviewing a Policy CO 6.6.2: Improve views of the Va I ley through various policies to minimize air pollution and smog, as contained throughoutthe General Plan. Policy CO 6.6.3: Restrict establishment of billboards throughout the planning area, and continue abatement efforts to remove existing billboards that impact scenic views. Policy CO 6.6.4: Where appropriate, require new development to be sensitive to scenic viewpoints and/or viewsheds through building design, site layout and building heights. Policy CO 6.6.5: Encourage undergrounding of all new utility lines, and promote undergrounding of existing lines where feasible and practicable. Air Quality Goal CO 7: Clean air to protect human health and support healthy ecosystems. Policy CO 7.1.1: Through the mixed land use patterns and multi -modal circulation policies set forth in the Land Use and Circulation Element, limit air pollution from transportation sources. Policy CO 7.1.2: Support the use of alternative fuel vehicles. Policy CO 7.1.3: Support alternative travel modes and new technologies, including infrastructure to support alternative fuel vehicles, as they become commercially available. 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. Policy CO 7.3.1: Coordinate with local, regional, state, and federal agencies to develop and implement regional air aualitv Dolicies and Droaframs. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goal CO 8: Development designed to improve energy efficiency, reduce energy and natural resource consumption, and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Consistent: The project is a transit -oriented development that seeks to minimize emissions by developing residential uses in proximity to transit opportunities. Not Applicable: The project site would not include any billboards. Consistent: The proposed project is designed in a manner that is sensitive to scenic viewpoints and/or viewsheds through building design, site layout and building heights. Consistent: Dry utilities will be located within underground conduits, including telephone lines which will be constructed underground throughout the site within phases. Consistent: This Goal is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. In addition, the project is a transit -oriented development that seeks to minimize emissions by developing residential uses in proximity to transit opportunities. Consistent: The proposed project would be a transit oriented development. The proposed project design promotes walkability through locating service and transit uses within walking distance of all residential uses on -site, thereby reducing air pollution from transportation sources. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would include electric vehicle charging stations. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would include electric vehicle charging stations. Consistent: The proposed project would not place any sensitive uses adjacent to high traffic freeways and roads, distribution centers, truck stops; chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners and large gasstations. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent: The project applicant will require that each building be designed to meet the requirements of the California Building Code, which incorporates the Cal Green and Title 24 Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). In doing so, the Specific Plan will be developed to achieve energy efficiency, water efficiency, material conservation, and resource efficiency in compliance with the CALGreen Code. As discussed previously, the project design MetroWalk Specific Plan December 2020 12546 43 Packet Pg. 165 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis incorporates various water conservation measures and transit services that would reduce natural resource consumption. Policy CO 8.1.1: Create and adopt a Climate Action Plan Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and that meets State requirements and includes the following directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the components: proposed Specific Plan includes a Sustainability Plan that a. Plans and programs to reduce GHG emissions to identifies the project's sustainable development State- mandated targets, including enforceable attributes. reduction measures; b. Mechanisms to ensure regular review of progress towards the emission reduction targets established by the Climate Action Plan; c. Procedures for reporting on progress to officials and the public; d. Procedures for revisingthe plan as needed to meet GHG emissions reduction targets; e. Allocation of funding and staffing for plan implementation. Policy CO 8.1.2: Participate in the preparation of a Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and regional Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) Plan to directed to the City of Santa Clarita. meet regional targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions, per SB 375. Policy CO 8.1.3: Revise codes and ordinances as needed Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to to address energy conservation, including but not limited the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the project applicant to the following: will require that each building be designed to meet the a. Strengthen building codes for new construction requirements of the California Building Code, which and renovation to achieve a higher level of energy incorporates the Cal Green and Title 24 Building efficiency, with a goal of exceeding energy Standards Code (CALGreen Code). In doing so, the efficiency beyond that required by Title 24; Specific Plan will be developed to achieve energy b. Adopt a Green Building Program to encourage efficiency, water efficiency, material conservation, and green building practices and materials, along with resource efficiency in compliance with the CALGreen appropriate ordinances and incentives; Code. c. Promote orientation of buildings to maximize passive solar heating during cool seasons, avoid solar heat gain during hot periods, enhance natural ventilation, promote effective use of daylight, and optimize opportunities for on- site solar generation; d. Encourage mitigation of the "heat island" effect through use of cool roofs, light-colored paving, and shadingto reduce energy consumption for air conditioning. Policy CO 8.1.4: Provide information and education to the Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and public about energy conservation and local strategies to directed to the City of Santa Clarita. address climate change. Policy CO 8.1.5: Coordinate various activities within the Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and community and agency related to GHG emissions directed to the City of Santa Clarita. reduction activities. Policy CO 8.2.1: Ensure that all new City buildings, and all Not Applicable: The proposed project does not include any major renovations and additions, meet adopted green new, renovated or remodeled City buildings. building standards, with a goal of achieving the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Silver rating or above, where appropriate. 0 CO N v N U r m E r- m E Q r- W a U m CL CO Y_ fC 0 m Q a CO 0 0 L m r m E U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 44 Packet Pg. 166 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Policy CO 8.2.2: Ensure energy efficiency of existing public Not Applicable: The project site does not include any buildings through energy audits and repairs, and retrofit existing public buildings. buildings with energy efficient heating and air conditioning systems and lighting fixtures, with a goal of completing energy repairs in City facilities by 2012. Policy CO 8.2.3: Support purchase of renewable energy Not Applicable: The proposed project does not include any for public buildings, which may include installing solar public buildings. photovoltaic systems to generate electricity for city buildings and operations and other methods as deemed appropriate and feasible, in concert with significant energy conservation efforts. Policy CO 8.2.4: Establish maximum lighting levels for Consistent: The project applicant would include provisions public facilities, and encourage reduction of lighting levels within the project covenant, codes and restrictions to the level needed for security purposes after business (CC&Rs) that would restrict outdoor lighting during hours, in addition to use of downward -directed lighting overnight hours to security lighting only. and use of low -reflective paving surfaces. Policy CO 8.2.5: Support installation of photovoltaic and Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to other renewable energy equipment on public facilities, in the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the project would concert with significant energy conservation efforts. include EV charging spaces for the multifamily residential u nits. Policy CO 8.2.6: Promote use of solar lighting in parks and Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to along paseos and trails, where practicable. the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would promote the use of solar lighting in open space areas, where appropriate. Policy CO 8.2.7: Support the use of sustainable alternative Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and fuel vehicles for machinery and fleets, where practicable, directed to the City of Santa Clarita. by evaluating fuel sources, manufacturing processes, maintenance costs and vehicle lifetime use. Policy CO 8.2.8: Promote the purchase of energy -efficient Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and and recycled products, and vendors and contractors who directed to the City of Santa Clarita. use energy -efficient vehicles and products, consistent with adopted purchasing policies. Policy CO 8.2.9: Reduce heat islands through installation Consistent: The proposed project would include the of trees to shade parking lots and hardscapes, and use of planting trees in accordance with the Landscape Plan, light-colored reflective paving and roofing surfaces. which would provide shade for parking areas and hardscapes. Additionally, the proposed project would utilize light- colored reflective paving and roofing surfaces, where appropriate. Policy CO 8.2.10: Support installation of energy -efficient Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to traffic control devices, street lights, and parking lot lights. the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the project applicant is committed to working with the City of Santa Clarita and Southern California Edison to evaluate the feasibility of an energy efficiency municipal lighting program. Policy CO 8.2.11: Implement recycling in all public Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to buildings, parks, and public facilities, includingfor special the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project events. would comply with all City recycling requirements. Policy CO 8.2.12: Provide ongoingtrainingto appropriate Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and City employees on sustainable planning, building, and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. engineering practices. Policy CO 8.2.13: Support trip reduction strategies for Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and employees as described in the Circulation Element. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy CO 8.3.1: Evaluate site plans proposed for new Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to 0 CO N N tU r m E r_ m E Q r_ ca a 4- m CL CO Y 0 m Q a CO L 0 0 m r m E M U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 45 Packet Pg. 167 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis development based on energy efficiency pursuant to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) would be located in an infill site that is surrounded by standards for New Construction and Neighborhood existing and proposed multi -family and single-family uses, Development, including the following: commercial, and transit. Thus, the proposed project is in a) location efficiency; an efficient location, away from habitat that would b) environmental preservation; contribute to urban sprawl. c) compact, complete, and connected neighborhoods; and d) resource efficiency, including use of recycled materials and water. Policy CO 8.3.2: Promote construction of energy efficient Consistent: The proposed project incorporates energy buildings through requirements for LEED certification or efficiency measures into the design. Additionally, the through comparable alternative requirements as adopted applicant is committed to use "Energy Star" equipment. by local ordinance. Policy CO 8.3.4: Encourage new residential development Consistent: The proposed project would incorporate to include on -site solar photovoltaic systems, or prewiring, designated spaces on the roof plans to allow for future in at least 50% of the residential units, in concert with roof panels, in concert with the energy efficiency other significant energy conservation efforts. measures summarized above (e.g., Title 24 exceedance; use of Energy Star appliances; recycled water use). Policy CO 8.3.5: Encourage on -site solar generation of Not Applicable: The proposed project would not include electricity in new retail and office commercial buildings retail and office commercial buildings. and associated parking lots, carports, and garages, in concert with other significant energy conservation efforts. Policy CO 8.3.6: Encourage new development to use Consistent: The proposed project would be designed in a passive solar heating and cooling techniques in building manner to encourage passive solar heating and cooling design and construction, which may include but are not techniques. be limited to building orientation, clerestory windows, skylights, placement and type of windows, overhangs to shade doors and windows, and use of light colored roofs and paving materials. Policy CO 8.3.7: Encourage the use of trees and Consistent: The proposed project would include the landscaping to reduce heating and cooling energy loads, planting of trees in accordance with the Landscape Plan, through shading of buildings and parking lots. which would reduce heating and cooling energy loads. Policy CO 8.3.8: Encourage energy -conserving heating and Consistent: The project applicant will require that each cooling systems and appliances, and energy -efficiency in building be designed to meet the requirements of the windows and insulation, in all new construction. California Building Code, which incorporates the Cal Green and Title 24 Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). In doing so, the Specific Plan will be developed to achieve energy efficiency, water efficiency, material conservation, and resource efficiency in compliance with the CALGreen Code. In addition, Energy Star major appliances would be utilized, where available. Policy CO 8.3.9: Limit excessive lighting levels, and Consistent: The proposed project would minimize lighting encourage a reduction of lighting when businesses are levels, consistent with this Policy and as required by the closed to a level required for security. City. Policy CO 8.3.10: Provide incentives and technical NotADDlicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and assistance for installation of energy -efficient directed to the City of Santa Clarita. improvements in existing and new buildings. Policy CO 8.3.11: Consider allowing carbon off -sets for Not ADDlicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and large development projects, if appropriate, which may directed to the City of Santa Clarita. include funding off -site projects or purchase of credits for 0 CO N v N U r m E r_ m E Q r_ ca a U m CL CO Y_ fC 0 m Q a CO 0 Y 0 L m r m E M U ca Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 46 Packet Pg. 168 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis other forms of mitigation, provided that any such mitigation shall be measurable and enforceable. Policy CO 8.4.1: Encourage and promote the location of Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and enclosed materials recovery facilities (MRF) within the directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Santa Clarita Valley. Policy CO 8.4.2: Adopt mandatory residential recycling Consistent: Recycling areas would be provided for future programs for all residential units, including single-family residents within the proposed project. and multi -family dwellings. Policy CO 8.4.3: Allow and encourage composting of Consistent: The proposed project would provide open greenwaste, where appropriate. space for active and passive recreation. Composting of greenwaste could occur within the project site, if appropriate. Policy CO 8.4.4: Promote commercial and industrial Not Applicable: The proposed project does not include recycling, including recycling of construction and commercial and industrial uses. demolition debris. Policy CO 8.4.5: Develop and implement standards for Consistent: The proposed project would provide recycling refuse and recycling receptacles and enclosures to areas as required by the City. accommodate recycling in all development. Policy CO 8.4.6: Introduce and assist with the placement Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and of receptacles for recyclable products in public places, directed to the City of Santa Clarita. including at special events. Policy CO 8.4.7: Provide information to the public on Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and recycling opportunities and facilities, and support various directed to the City of Santa Clarita. locations and events to promote public participation in recycling. Policy CO 8.4.8: Take an active role in promoting, Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and incubating, and encouraging businesses that would directed to the City of Santa Clarita. qualify under the Recycling Market Development Zone program or equivalent, including those that manufacture products made from recycled products, salvage, and resource recovery business parks. Park Recreation, and Trail Facilities Goal CO 9: Equitable distribution of park, recreational, and Consistent: The proposed project includes extensive open trail facilities to serve all areas and demographic needs of space, recreation opportunities, and public/private parks existing and future residents. featuring 147,854 square feet of common open space, including a gym, pool, parkways, and trails, and 63,554 square feet of private open space dedicated to rear yards and private patio decks/balconies. Policy CO 9.1.1: Common park standards shall be Consistent: The proposed project would comply with the developed and applied throughout the Santa Clarita City's policy of requiring five acres of parkland per 1,000 Valley, consistent with community character objectives, residents. with a goal of five acres of parkland per 1000 population. Policy CO 9.1.2: A range of parkland types, sizes, and uses Consistent: The proposed project includes extensive open shall be provided to accommodate recreational and space, recreation opportunities, and public/private parks leisure activities. featuring 147,854 square feet of common open space, including a gym, pool, parkways, and trails, and 63,554 square feet of private open space dedicated to rear yards and private patio decks/balconies. Policy CO 9.1.3: Provide local and community parks within Consistent: The proposed project's open space would be a reasonable distance of residential neighborhoods. within walking distance from the proposed residential u n its. Policy CO 9.1.4: Explore and implement opportunities to Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and 0 CO N 4 N tU r m E r- m E Q r- W a U U m CL CO Y 0 m Q a CO c� L 0 Y 0 L m r m E U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 47 Packet Pg. 169 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis share facilities with school districts, utility easements, directed to the City of Santa Clarita. flood control facilities, and other land uses, where feasible. Policy CO 9.1.5: Promote development of more playfields Consistent: The proposed project's open space includes for youth and adultsports activities, in conjunction with play areas for youth and adult activities. tournament facilities, where needed. Policy CO 9.1.6: Continue to upgrade and expand existing Not Applicable: The project site does not include any facilities to enhance service to residents, including existing park and recreation facilities. extension of hours through lighted facilities, where appropriate. Policy CO 9.1.7: Establish appropriate segments of the Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and Santa Clara River as a recreational focal point, directed to the City of Santa Clarita. encouraging a beneficial mix of passive and active recreational uses with natural ecosystems by providing buffers for sensitive habitat. Policy CO 9.1.8: Make available easily accessible park Consistent: The proposed project would provide passive and recreation facilities throughout the community. and active recreation. These areas would be readily accessible from the residential uses. Policy CO 9.1.9: Ensure that new development projects Consistent: The proposed project would comply with the provide a fair share towards park and recreational City's policy of requiring five acres of parkland per 1,000 facilities, phased to meet needs of residents as dwelling residents. units become occupied, pursuant to the Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477) and local ordinances as applicable. Policy CO 9.1.10: Where appropriate, use flexible planning Consistent: The proposed project would comply with the and zoning tools to obtain adequate park and open space City's policy of requiring five acres of parkland per 1,000 land, including but not limited to specific plans, residents. development agreements, clustering, and transfer of development rights. Policy CO 9.1.11: Locate and design parks to address Consistent: The open space would act as buffer between potential adverse impacts on adjacent development from the proposed project and the proposed Metrolink Station. noise, lights, flying balls, traffic, special events, and other The proposed project's other recreational areas would be operational activities and uses. integrated in the project and would provide active and passive recreational opportunities for future residents. Policy CO 9.1.12: Establish minimum design standards for Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and both public and private parks to provide for public safety directed to the City of Santa Clarita. and welfare through lighting, access, crime prevention through design, equipment, visibility, and other aspects of design. Policy CO 9.1.13: Provide passive areas for natural Consistent: The project's proposed open space would habitat, meditation, bird -watching, and similar activities in include passive areas for natural habitat, meditation, bird - parks, where feasible and appropriate, including watching and similar activities. meditation gardens, wildflower and butterfly gardens, botanicgardens, and similar features. Policy CO 9.1.14: Ensure adequate park maintenance, Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and and encourage programs for volunteers to assist in directed to the City of Santa Clarita. maintaining local parks, where feasible and appropriate. Policy CO 9.1.15: Provide a wide variety of recreational Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and programs geared to all ages and abilities, including directed to the City of Santa Clarita. passive, active, educational, and cultural programs. Policy CO 9.2.1: Plan for a continuous and unified multi- Consistent: The proposed project would include use trail network for a variety of users, to be developed approximately 1,125-foot-long meandering and centrally with common standards, in order to unify Santa Clarita located multi -use path to connect with Metro Plaza, 0 CO N N tU r m E r_ m Q r_ ca a U U m CL CO Y 0 m Q a CO L 0 Y 0 m r m E U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 48 Packet Pg. 170 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Valley communities and connect with regional and state Metrolink Station, Vista Canyon, and the City Master Trail trails such as the Pacific Crest Trail. System. Policy CO 9.2.2: Provide trail connections between Consistent: The proposed project would include paseos, bike routes, schools, parks, community services, approximately 1,125-foot-long meandering and centrally streets and neighborhoods. located multi -use path to connect with Metro Plaza, Metrolink Station, Vista Canyon, and the City Master Trail System. Policy CO 9.2.3: Use the Santa Clara River as a major Not Applicable: The Santa Clara River is not within the recreational focal point for development of an integrated project site. system of bikeways and trails, while protecting sensitive ecological areas. Policy CO 9.2.4: Ensure that new development projects Consistent: The proposed project would include provide trail connections to local and regional trail approximately 1,125-foot-long meandering and centrally systems, where appropriate. located multi -use path to connect with Metro Plaza, Metrolink Station, Vista Canyon, and the City Master Trail System. Policy CO 9.2.5: Promote the expansion of multi -use trails Consistent: The proposed project trails would be multi -use within rural areas of the Santa Clarita Valley. (bike, pedestrian, equestrian). Policy CO 9.2.6: Provide trails to scenic vistas and Consistent: The proposed project would include connect viewpoints. to existingtrails, providing users with views from Mitchell Hill across the Santa Clara River. Policy CO 9.2.7: Explore joint use opportunities to Consistent: The project would include multi -use trails, combine trail systems with utility easements, flood control which could be utilized forflood control purposes, and facilities, open spaces, or other uses, where feasible. various utility easements. Policy CO 9.2.8: Ensure that trails are designed to protect Consistent: The multi -use trails would protect habitat, habitat, ecosystems, and water quality. ecosystems, and water quality. Policy CO 9.2.9: Pursue fundingfor trail maintenance and Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and encourage volunteer participation in trail maintenance directed to the City of Santa Clarita. programs, where appropriate. Open Space Goal CO 10: Preservation of open space to meet the Consistent: The proposed project includes extensive open community's multiple objectives for resource space, recreation opportunities, and public/private parks. preservation. Policy CO 10.1.1: Provide and protect a natural greenbelt Not Applicable: The project site is not located in areas buffer area surrounding the entire Santa Clarita Valley, referenced by this Policy. which includes the Angeles National Forest, Santa Susana, San Gabriel, and Sierra Pelona Mountains, as a regional recreational, ecological, and aesthetic resource. Policy CO 10.1.2: The Santa Clara River corridor and its Not Applicable: The project site is not located on the Santa major tributaries shall be preserved as open space to Clara River corridor. accommodate storm water flows and protect critical plant and animal species, as follows: a. Uses and improvements within the corridor shall be limited to those that benefit the community's use of the river in its natural state. b. Development on properties adjacent to, but outside of the defined primary river corridor shall be: i. Located and designed to protect the river's water quality, plants, and animal habitats, by controllingthe type and density of uses, drainage runoff (water 0 CO N N t) r m E r_ m E Q r_ ca a U m rL Y 0 m Q a L 0 Y 0 m r m E U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 49 Packet Pg. 171 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis treatment) and other relevant elements; and ii. Designed to maximize the full range of river amenities, including views and recreational access, while minimizing adverse impacts to the river. Policy CO 10.1.3: Through dedications and acquisitions, Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and obtain open space needed to preserve and protect wildlife directed to the City of Santa Clarita. corridors and habitat, which may include land within SEA's, wetlands, woodlands, water bodies, and areas with threatened or endangered flora and fauna. Policy CO 10.1.4: Maintain and acquire, where Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and appropriate, open space to preserve cultural and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. The project site does historical resources. not contain historical resources. Policy CO 10.1.5: Maintain open space corridors along Not Applicable: The project site is generally flat and does canyons and ridgelines as a way of delineating and not include canyons or ridgelines. defining communities and neighborhoods, providing residents with access to natural areas, and preserving scenic beauty. Policy CO 10.1.6: Delineate open space uses within Consistent: The project site is adequately buffered from hazardous areas to protect public health and safety, seismic ruptures, flooding wildfires, and unsafe levels of which may include areas subject to seismic rupture, noise or air pollution. flooding, wildfires, or unsafe levels of noise or air pollution. Policy CO 10.1.7: Acquire adequate open space for Consistent: The proposed project includes extensive open recreational uses, coordinating location and type of open space, recreation opportunities, and public/private parks. space with master plans for trails and parks. Policy CO 10.1.8: Encourage the use of vacant lots as Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and community gardens, where appropriate. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy CO 10.1.9: Preserve forested areas, agricultural Consistent: The proposed projectwould include lands, wildlife habitat and corridors, wetlands, approximately 147,854 square feet of common open watersheds, groundwater recharge areas, and other open space space that provides natural carbon sequestration benefits. Policy CO 10.1.10: Ensure that the open space acquisition Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and plan developed pursuant to the 2007 Open Space District directed to the City of Santa Clarita. formation conforms to General Plan goals and objectives. Policy CO 10.1.11: Partner with conservation agencies Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and and other entities to acquire and maintain open space, directed to the City of Santa Clarita. combining funding and other resources forjoint-use projects, where appropriate. Policy CO 10.1.12: Identify, pursue, and ensure adequate NotADDlicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and funding sources to maintain open space areas. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy CO 10.1.13: Provide reasonable accommodation to Consistent: The proposed project would include ensure that residents throughout the Santa Clarita Valley connections to Citywide trails, which would provide equal have equal access to open space areas, in consideration access to open space areas and health benefits to of the health benefits to residents from access to nature. residents from access to nature. Policy CO 10.1.14: Protect open space from human Consistent: The proposed project would develop on an activity that may harm or degrade natural areas, including infill site, thereby reducing human activity in open space but not limited to off road motorized vehicles, vandalism, areas. campfires, overuse, pets, noise, excessive lighting, dumping, or other similar activities. Policy CO 10.1.15: In conformance with State law, ensure Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and 0 c') N 4 N tU r m E r- m E Q r- ca a U U m rL Y_ fC 0 m Q a L 0 Y 0 m m E U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 50 Packet Pg. 172 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis that any action by which open space land is acquired or disposed of, restricted, or regulated, be consistent with the open space plan contained in this element. Policy CO 10.1.16: In conformance with State law, ensure that all development is consistent with the open space plan contained in this element. Policy CO 10.1.17: Allow alternative energy projects in areas designated for open space, where consistent with other uses and values. Policy CO1O.2.1: Encourage provision of vegetated open space of a development project's gross site area, which may include shallow wetlands and ponds, drought resistant landscaping, and pedestrian hardscape that includes a vegetated area. Policy CO1O.2.2: Encourage that open space provided within development projects be usable and accessible, rather than configured in unusable strips and left -over remnants, and that open space areas are designed to connect to each other and to adjacent open spaces, to the extent reasonable and practicable. Policy CO1O.2.3: Where feasible, integrate open space areas with neighboring uses and parcels, to create shared amenities and green spaces. Policy CO1O.2.4: Seek opportunities to incorporate site features into the open space of a project design, which may include significant trees, vegetation, terrain, or water features, to provide thermal, acoustic, and aesthetic benefits. Policy CO 10.2.5: Where appropriate, allow density transfers and clusteringto encourage retention of open Safety Element Geological Hazards Goal S 1: Protection of public safety and property from hazardous geological conditions, including seismic rupture and ground shaking, soil instability, and related hazards. Policy S 1.1.1: Maintain maps of potentially active faults and fault zones, based on information available from the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone maps, United States Geological Survey, State Board of Geologists, State Mining and Geology Board, and other appropriate sources. Policy S 1.1.2: Maintain maps of areas subject to liquefaction and landslides, based on data provided by the State and other appropriate sources. Policy S 1.1.3: In the event of significant incidents of soil subsidence, compile data and prepare maps showing areas with potential for this hazard. Policy S 1.1.4: Maintain maps showing potential inundation areas from dam failure. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, it should be noted that the proposed project would include an on -site EV charging stations. Consistent: The proposed project would incorporate vegetated open space. Drought resistant landscaping and water quality features, such as shallow wetlands and vegetated swales, would be incorporated into these open space areas. Consistent: The proposed projectwould include an extensive system that would connect various useable and accessible open space areas. Consistent: Open space and recreational areas would be integrated with neighboring uses. Consistent: The proposed project would include the incorporation of site features into open space areas NotADDlicable. The project would not include clustering. Consistent: The environmental review process would address potential geotechnical impacts and mitigation measures, as required. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the project site does not include any potentially active faults. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would mitigate any potential liquefaction impacts. NotADDlicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Moreover, there is no dam upstream of the projectsite. MetroWalk Specific Plan December 2020 12546 51 Packet Pg. 173 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Policy S 1.2.1: Implement requirements of the Alquist- Not Applicable: The project site is not located in an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Priolo Earthquake fault area. Policy S 1.2.2: Restrict the land use type and intensity of Consistent: The environmental review process would development in areas subjectto fault rupture, landslides, address potential geotechnical impacts and mitigation or liquefaction, in order to limit exposure of people to measures, as required. seismic hazards. Policy S 1.2.3: Require soils and geotechnical reports for Consistent: A geotechnical report will be prepared for the new construction in areas with potential hazards from proposed project. faulting, landslides, liquefaction, or subsidence, and incorporate recommendations from these studies into the site design as appropriate. Policy S 1.2.4: Enforce seismic design and building Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and techniques in local building codes. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy S 1.2.5: Consider the potential for inundation from Not Applicable: The project site would not be affected by a failure of the Castaic or Bouquet Canyon Reservoir dams failure of the Castaic or Bouquet Canyon Reservoir dams. when reviewing development proposals within potential inundation areas. Policy S 1.3.1: Identify any remaining unreinforced NotADDlicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and masonry buildings or other unstable structures, and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. require remediation or seismic retrofitting as needed to meet seismic safety requirements. Policy S 1.3.2: Increase earthquake safety in all public Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and facilities through bracing of shelves, cabinets, equipment directed to the City of Santa Clarita. and other measures as deemed appropriate. Policy S 1.3.3: Provide informational materials to the Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and public on how to make their homes and businesses directed to the City of Santa Clarita. earthquake safe. Policy S 1.3.4: Cooperate with other agencies as needed Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and to ensure regular inspections of public infrastructure such directed to the City of Santa Clarita. as bridges, dams, and other critical facilities, and require repairs to these structures as needed to preventfailure in the event of seismic activity. Flood Hazards Goal S 2: Protection of public safety and property from Consistent: The environmental review process would unreasonable risks due to flooding. ensure risks to public safety and property related to flooding, and appropriate mitigation measures, are included. Policy S 2.1.1: On the Land Use Map, designate Consistent: The environmental review process would appropriate areas within the floodplain as open space for ensure risks to public safety and property related to multi -use purposes, includingflood control, habitat flooding, and appropriate mitigation measures, are preservation, and recreational open space. Development included. in the floodplain will require necessary mitigation. Policy 2.1.2: Promote Low Impact Development Consistent: The proposed project would include project standards on development sites, including but not limited design features that satisfy the Los Angeles County Low to minimizing impervious surface area and promoting Impact Development requirements for new development. infiltration, in order to reduce the flow and velocity of stormwater runoff throughout the watershed. Policy S 2.1.3: Promote the use of vegetated drainage Consistent: The proposed project would utilize vegetated courses and soft -bottom channels for flood control swales for flood control and water quality purposes. facilities to the extentfeasible, in order to achieve water quality and habitat objectives in addition to flood control. 0 c') N 4 N tU r m E r_ m E Q r_ ca a U m rL Y 0 m Q a c� 0 Y 0 L m r m U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 52 Packet Pg. 174 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Policy S 2.1.4: Cooperate with other agencies as Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and appropriate regardingthe related issues of flood control, directed to the City of Santa Clarita. watershed management, water quality, and habitat protection. Policy S 2.1.5: Promote the joint use of flood control Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and facilities with other beneficial uses where feasible, such directed to the City of Santa Clarita. as by incorporating detention basins into parks and extending trails through floodplains. Policy S 2.2.1: Prepare and maintain maps of floodways Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and and floodplains based on information from the Federal directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other appropriate sources, in order to qualify for FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program. Policy S 2.2.2: Identify areas subject to localized short- Consistent: The environmental review process would term flooding due to drainage deficiencies. identify areas within the project site subject to flooding, and incorporate mitigation measures, if applicable. Policy 2.3.1: Implement drainage master plans Consistent: The proposed project'sflood protection designed to handle storm flows from the 100-year storm. infrastructure would be designed to accommodate the FEMA 100-year flood and the more conservative County Capital Flood. PolicyS 2.3.2: Include funding for drainage and flood Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and control improvements in the annual City budget. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy S 2.4.1: Require that new development comply with Consistent: The proposed project would adhere to the FEMAfloodplain management requirements. FEMAfloodplain management requirements. Policy S 2.4.2: On the Land Use and Zoning Maps, restrict Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and the type and intensity of land use in flood -prone areas, or directed to the City of Santa Clarita. require flood -proof construction, as deemed appropriate. Policy S 2.5.1: Address drainage problems that cause Not ADDlicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and flooding on prominent transportation corridors by working directed to the City of Santa Clarita. with multi jurisdictional agencies and stakeholders to construct needed drainage improvements. Policy S 2.5.2: Provide for the maintenance of drainage Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and structures and flood control facilities to avoid system directed to the City of Santa Clarita. malfunctions and overflows. Fire Hazard Goal S 3: Protection of public safety and property from Consistent: The proposed project would protect public fires. safety and property from fire by complying with all City and County Fire Department regulations. Policy S 3.1.1: Coordinate on planningfor new fire Consistent: The environmental and development review stations to meet current and projected needs. process would ensure coordinate for new fire stations and appropriate mitigation measures. Policy S 3.1.2: Program adequate fundingfor capital fire Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and protection costs, and explore all feasible funding options directed to the City of Santa Clarita. to meetfacility needs. Policy S 3.1.3: Require adequate fire flow as a condition Consistent: The proposed project will meet all Fire of approval for all new development, which may include Department regulations. installation of additional reservoir capacity and/or distribution facilities. Policy S 3.2.1: Identify areas of the Santa Clarita Valley Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and that are prone to wildland fire hazards, and address these directed to the City of Santa Clarita. areas in fire safety plans. 0 c') N v N tU r m E r_ m E Q r_ ca a U m rL Y_ fC 0 L m Q a 0 Y 0 m m E U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 53 Packet Pg. 175 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Policy S 3.2.2: Enforce standards for maintaining defensible space around structures through clearing of dry brush and vegetation. Policy S 3.2.3: Establish landscape guidelines for fire - prone areas with recommended plant materials, and provide this information to builders and members of the public. Policy S 3.2A Require sprinkler systems, fire resistant building materials, and other construction measures deemed necessary to prevent loss of life and property from wildland fires. Policy S 3.2.5: Ensure adequate secondary and emergency access for fire apparatus, which includes minimum requirements for road width, surface material, and staafinaf areas. Policy S 3.2.6: For areas adjacent to the National Forest, cooperate with the United States Forest Service regarding land use and development issues. Policy S 3.2.7: Continue to provide information and trainingto the public on fire safety in wildland interface areas. Policy S 3.3.1: Plan for fire response times of five minutes in urban areas, eight minutes in suburban areas, and 12 minutes in rural areas. Policy S 3.3.2: Require the installation and maintenance of street name signs on all new development. Policy S 3.3.3: Require the posting of address numbers on all homes and businesses that are clearly visible from ad iacent streets. Hazardous Materials Goal S 4: Protection of public safety and property from hazardous materials. Policy S 4.1.1: Continue to support clean-up efforts and re- use plans for the Whittaker-Bermite property. Policy S 4.1.2: Coordinate with other agencies to address contamination of soil and groundwater from hazardous materials on various sites, and require that contamination be cleaned up to the satisfaction of the City and other responsible agencies prior to issuance of any permits for new development. Policy S 4.2.1: On the Land Use Map, restrict the areas in which activities that use or generate large amounts of hazardous materials may locate, to minimize impacts to residents and other sensitive receptors in the event of a hazardous materials incident. Consistent: The proposed project would include a Fuel Modification Plan, landscape plan, and irrigation plan consistent with Fire Department regulationsfor the project site. Consistent: The proposed project would include a Fuel Modification Plan, landscape plan, and irrigation plan consistent with Fire Department regulationsfor the project site. Consistent: The proposed project would meet all Fire Department regulations. Consistent: The proposed project would meet all Fire Department regulations. Not Applicable: The project site is not adjacent to a National Forest. NotADDlicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent: The proposed project would meet all Fire Department regulations. Consistent: The proposed project would meet all Fire Department regulations. Consistent: Potential impacts to public safety and property related to hazardous materials, and appropriate mitigation measures would be discussed as part of the environmental review process. Not Applicable: The project site is not located on the Whittaker-Bermite site. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Moreover, the project does not propose to generate large amounts of hazardous materials. Policy S 4.2.2: Through the development review process, Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and ensure that any new development proposed in the vicinity directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Moreover, the project of a use that stores or generates large amounts of site is not located adjacent to a use that stores or MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 54 Packet Pg. 176 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis hazardous materials provides adequate design features, generates large amounts of hazardous materials. setbacks, and buffers to mitigate impacts to sensitive receptors in the event of a hazardous materials incident. Law Enforcement Goal S 5: Protection of public safety through the provision Consistent: Projected needs for law enforcement services of law enforcement services and crime prevention would be evaluated as part of the environmental review strategies. process. Policy S 5.1.1: Participate in a multi jurisdictional task Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and force to evaluate alternatives for combining public safety directed to the City of Santa Clarita. services with administrative services within a centralized government complex serving the entire Santa Clarita Valley. Policy S 5.1.2: Provide staff assistance to assess future Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and law enforcement needs, and work together with the directed to the City of Santa Clarita. County, Sheriff's Department, and other partners to develop and implement plans for meeting these needs. Policy S 5.1.3: Cooperate on implementation of funding Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to mechanisms for law enforcement services. the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would pay the adopted sheriff facility fee in accordance with City requirements. Policy S 5.2.1: Promote and participate in the Business Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and Watch program to assist business owners in developing directed to the City of Santa Clarita. and implementing crime prevention strategies. Policy 5.2.2: Promote and support Neighborhood Watch Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and programs to assist residents in establishing neighborhood directed to the City of Santa Clarita. crime prevention techniques. Policy S 5.2.3: Provide code enforcement services to Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and maintain minimum health and safety standards and as a directed to the City of Santa Clarita. deterrent to crime. Accidents Goal S 6: Reduced risk to public safety and property Consistent: This Goal is a responsibility of and directed to damage from accidental occurrences. the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would be designed in a manner to reduce risk to public safety and property damage. Policy S 6.1.1: Continue tree trimming and maintenance Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and programs for trees in the right-of-way and on public directed to the City of Santa Clarita. property, to limit damage from falling limbs. Policy S 6.1.2: Promote the planting of tree types Consistent: The proposed project would plant trees that appropriate to the local climate, to avoid breakage by are appropriate to the local climate. brittle, non-native trees. Policy S 6.2.1: In designing or reviewing development Consistent: The proposed project would include lighting plans, ensure that lighting levels are adequate to provide levels that are adequate to provide safe and secure use of safe and secure nighttime use of each site, while limiting each site, while limiting excessive or unnecessary light excessive or unnecessary light and glare. and glare. Policy S 6.2.2: Consider CPTED Principles (Crime Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and Prevention Through Environmental Design) in reviewing directed to the City of Santa Clarita. development proposals, to increase public safety through establishing defensible space, clearly delineated public and private areas, and effective surveillance of common areas. Policy S 6.2.3: In designing or reviewing development Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and 0 CO N v N tU m E r- m E Q r- ca a U m CL Y_ fC 0 m Q a L Y 0 m m E M U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 55 Packet Pg. 177 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis plans, ensure that pedestrian pathways, stairs, steps and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. ramps are designed to provide clear and unimpeded passage in order to avoid trip hazards and conflicts with vehicles. Policy S 6.2.4: Continue to monitor traffic accident data in Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and order to evaluate and address any traffic control needs to directed to the City of Santa Clarita. enhance public safety. Policy S 6.2.5: Use traffic calming devices and reduced Consistent: The proposed project would incorporate traffic street widths to slow traffic speeds and reduce accidents, calming devices and reduced street widths throughout the where deemed appropriate. project site. Policy S 6.3.1: In cooperation with other agencies, ensure Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and adequate shelter for homeless persons to limit their directed to the City of Santa Clarita. exposure to accidental injury and illness. Policy S 6.3.2: Implement the provisions of the Americans Consistent: The proposed project would comply with the with Disabilities Actto ensure safe travel paths and requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. accommodations for persons with disabilities. Emergency Planning Goal S 7: Protection of the public through planning for Not Applicable: This Goal is a responsibility of and directed disaster response and recovery, in order to minimize to the City of Santa Clarita. damage from emergency incidents or terrorist activities. Policy S 7.1.1: Regularly update emergency preparedness NotADDlicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and and response plans that are consistent with State plans. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy S 7.1.2: Continue to provide regular trainingto Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and public officials and the public on emergency procedures. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy S 7.1.3: Ensure that evacuation routes are clearly Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and posted throughout the City. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy S 7.1.4: Strengthen communication and Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and cooperation between agencies, citizens and non-profit directed to the City of Santa Clarita. groups to plan for disaster response. Policy S 7.2.1: In cooperation with other agencies, plan for Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and temporary shelters for residents displaced by disasters directed to the City of Santa Clarita. and emergency incidents. Policy S 7.2.2: Plan for expedited plan check, permitting, NotADDlicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and and inspection programs to aid recovery efforts involving directed to the City of Santa Clarita. the rebuilding of damaged structures. Policy S 7.2.3: Ensure that proper record -keeping Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and procedures are in place for purposes of obtaining directed to the City of Santa Clarita. reimbursement from State and Federal agencies. Policy 7.2.4: Purchase disaster and recovery supplies NotADDlicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and locally to assist local businesses in their recovery efforts. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Housing Element Adequate Sites Goal H 1: Provide adequate sites to accommodate 8,322 Consistent. The proposed project provides the opportunity new housing units between 2013 and 2021. to develop up to 498 residential units, with a diversity of attainably priced residential typologies, including market rate apartments, age -qualified apartments, affordable senior apartments, and market rate townhomes. Objective: Provide adequate sites at a range of densities Consistent. The proposed project provides the opportunity to accommodate future housing needs. to develop up to 498 residential units, with a diversity of attainably priced residential typologies, including market rate apartments, age -qualified apartments, affordable 0 c') N N tU r m E r_ m E Q r_ ca a U m rL Y_ fC 0 m Q a L 0 Y 0 m r m E M U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 56 Packet Pg. 178 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis senior apartments, and market rate townhomes. Policy H1.1.1: Encourage a variety of housing types such Consistent. The proposed project provides the opportunity as single-family attached (townhouses), multi -family units, to develop up to 498 residential units, with a diversity of planned unit developments mixed use housing and other attainably priced residential typologies, including market housing types that make housing more affordable. rate apartments, age -qualified apartments, affordable senior apartments, and market rate townhomes. Policy H1.1.2: Encourage the development of new Consistent. The proposed projectwould include affordable affordable units through the provision of incentives. senior apartments and affordable units within the residential areas. Policy H1.1.3: Replace housing units demolished by the Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and redevelopment agency for redevelopment projects. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy H1.1.4: Establish minimum densities for residential Consistent. The proposed project requests a zone change land use districts in the Land Use Element of the General from Business Park to the proposed Specific Plan. The Plan. Specific Plan establishes minimum densities for the project site. Assist In the Development of Affordable Housing Goal H.2: Assist in the development of adequate housing Consistent. The proposed projectwould include affordable to meet the needs of extremely low, very low, low and senior apartments and affordable units within the moderate income households (Government Code Section residential areas. 65583(c)(2)). Objective H 2.1: Assist in the development of new and Consistent. The proposed projectwould include affordable rehabilitated housing to provide at least 273 units for senior apartments and affordable units within the households with very low and low incomes. residential areas. Policy H 2.1.1: Target one third of housing subsidies to Consistent: This Goal is a responsibility of and directed to extremely low income households in new affordable the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project development. would be designed in a manner to reduce risk to public safety and property damage. Policy H 2.1.2: Require that all units developed under any Consistent. Any units developed under the City's of the City affordable housing programs remain affordable affordable housing program will remain affordable for at for the longest possible time or at least 55 years. least 55 years. Policy H 2.1.3: Encourage the development of housing Consistent. The proposed project would place affordable affordable to lower income groups in areas well served by units in walking distance to open space, multi -use trails., public transportation, schools, retail, and other services. and the Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer. Policy H 2.1.4: Encourage the transition of the homeless Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and population to stable housing. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Conserve and Improve the Existing Housing Stock Goal H.3: Conserve and improve the existing housing Consistent. The proposed projectwould introduce 498 stock through Community Preservation, rehabilitation residential units to the current housing stock on a loans, and a handy worker program. currently vacant parcel. Objective H 3.1: Bring existing housing units up to an Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and established standard of habitability. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy H 3.1.1: Enforce existing standards of habitability. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy H 3.1.2: Provide rehabilitation assistance to Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and income -eligible homeowners for repairs related to safety, directed to the City of Santa Clarita. habitability and accessibility standards. Policy H 3.1.3: Provide grants and loans to income -eligible Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and owner -occupants of single family homes for emergency directed to the City of Santa Clarita. and minor safety, habitability and accessibility repairs. 0 c') N N tU r m E r_ m E Q r_ M FL U m CL co Y_ fC 0 m Q a co L 0 Y 0 m r m E M U M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 57 Packet Pg. 179 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Preserve Units at Risk of Conversion to Market Rate Rents Goal H 4: Preserve affordability of existing homes that are at risk of converting to market -rate rents during the planning period. Objective H 4.1.1: Preserve 232 units at risk of losing their subsidies and convertingto market rents between 2013 and 2021. Policy H 4.1.2: Monitor the status of at -risk units throughout the planning period to identify units which are at planned for imminent conversion to market rate units. Consistent. The proposed projectwould include affordable senior apartments and affordable units within the residential areas. Consistent. This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That being said, the proposed project would include affordable senior apartments and affordable units. NotAaalicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy H 4.2: Work with non-profit housing organizations to NotAaalicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and preserve at -risk units. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Address and Remove or Mitigate Constraints Goal H-5: Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove government constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for all income levels. Objective H 5.1: Where possible, reduce or remove government restraints on housing as necessary and feasible. Policy H 5.1.1: Expedite application review, permitting, and inspection procedures for affordable housing Policy H 5.1.2: Consider fee reductions and/or deferrals for affordable housing projects when deemed appropria. Equal Housing Opportunities Goal 1­16: Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status or disability. (Government Code Section 65583(c)(5). Objective H 6.1: Promote fair housing practices and prohibit discrimination. Policy H 6.1.1: Ensure compliance with fair housing laws by adopting development guidelines that encourage the development of mixed -income housing in every zone district and in every area of the community. Policy H 6.1.2: Provide fair housing services that include public information, counseling and investigation Policy H 6.1.3: Prohibit discrimination in housing. Consistent. This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That being said, the proposed project would include affordable senior apartments and affordable units. Consistent. This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That being said, the proposed project would include affordable senior apartments and affordable units. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent. The proposed project provides the opportunity to develop up to 498 residential units, with a diversity of attainably priced residential typologies, including market rate apartments, age -qualified apartments, affordable senior apartments, and market rate townhomes. Consistent. The proposed project provides the opportunity to develop up to 498 residential units, with a diversity of attainably priced residential typologies, including market rate apartments, age -qualified apartments, affordable senior apartments, and market rate townhomes. The proposed project would promote fair housing practices and prohibit discrimination. Consistent. The proposed project would be in compliance with fair housing laws. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent. The proposed project prohibit discrimination in housing. I Persons With Disabilities Including Persons with Developmental Disabilities I I Goal H 7: The housing needs of persons with disabilities, I Consistent: The proposed project would assist in the I MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 58 Packet Pg. 180 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis including persons with developmental disabilities are typically not addressed by Title 24 Regulations. The housing needs of persons with disabilities, in addition to basic affordability, range from slightly modifying existing units to requiring a varying range of supportive housing facilities. implementation of this Policy through its inclusion of various housing types that would accommodate households with varied income levels and age -restricted units for senior citizens. Further, nothing in the site design would preclude individuals with special needs from residing at the project. MetroWalk Specific Plan December 2020 12546 59 Packet Pg. 181 1.d City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 0 Co N le N tU r E E Q ca a u m CL Co Y_ fC O L C� G Q a Co c� L 2� 7 O L C� G i E t u M Q MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 60 Packet Pg. 182 I 1.d I APPENDIX 1.0=3 Tentative Tract Map No. 83087 0 Co N le N U r E E Q ca a u CL Co Y fC 0 Q a Co c� L Y 2� 7 L C� G i E t u m Q Packet Pg. 183 1 a, I I erE a E ,ab , a �I l mm I � / � ABeREvwnoNs a GRAPHIC SCALE Y o� =- --- - PROJECT SUMMARY: PU3LN; UIILRIE3 E43EMENR LEGEND EAFRi K3UMM Y E48EMENR3 GENERAL NOTES EXB NG LOST CANYON ROAD ftBUCI LEGALLEBCRPTK)k TCYOCAAPHYo� .,.,. ..n.. =.�.e.,...�. .,,.,. °" BENCHMARK :,.., a�x,. "aa�. a ux ".��"'Paw�q"�o:sAo°.��.�.,:��°"a""'x""°tea ia""4.a BA9130F ARINGS BE"„<a EXF3TING HAAFaAAN UR (FANATEI ° AWEF.4CA PARCEL NUMBER �r •:«"`"`"°•","•,"`"%""'""`° COIJUOMINMM NOTE: �•.•••:• TRown TEI x x=nx x.wa�s,xp,,..<,>,Ll.," xx FOR Packet PgA184 I 1.d I APPENDIX 4.0=1 Conceptual Landscape Plan Q Packet Pg. 185 1 o e tJ/ IVIITCHELL M11 - (�, i r---------- -- ------ '—---------- _---------- —------------- — I — —F— — — — 1-- --- — — i FFF - �t %�LegQend ace aia�a aa.k i - ' Q p i Q A 'e a o zm h i L. z — — — aov T;:NE--.---------'-----'—'�, a —moo. OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN URBAN o V �� W WM WITHEE MALCOLM uen A R C H m T E C T S WEST N C Doti No ®oao 2.zo O Legend: Q�ceao, c,a.i m,ow� o,oie�c �o,e © as.aa�c �a«aano� i pom a�aa © �na��aa .amaia� a�cn Qa=m�a a�cn i Deno © eixe ,aa: o —�2 LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT ueenrwi �� o �� W WM WITHEE MALCOLM A R C H I T E C T S WEST sa F �e9 ^�. wra„asoaoa ,� �m��m�m N C HARRIMAN DRIVE W E S T sa F �� ^�. wra^asoaoa I N C O Legend: aaa, c,a.i m,aw� o,oi aac 0a,a © aa.aa�c �a«aano�i000i a�a © aaa,.a pier a�aa a aama a�a soma Q�na�aaa .amaiaa a�c,� © .�aiam� �aaa am „eau anaaa ac�aaca�a Qixa ,aaa LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT WM WITHEE MALCOLM A R C H m T E C T S z��r so�nr Doti No ®oao �=.,�z_zozo® O ADIACEM MIXED -USE -a Nx zsl Pl­,.-a A—612) � Q f - _PROPERTYZ11:1 r �' � �� � ` � � � � `yam \ � • (f U F r'••y p Mil^� �i� \ .,�,. r• METROUNK STATION , �e ,/ r o �o zo ao Noy, / PARK ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN mErno vuu ueenrwi �� o �� W WM WITHEE MALCOLM A R C R m T E C T S WEST sa F �e9 ^�. wra„asoaoa ,� �m��m�m O SECTION A SECTION B W EST sa F �� ^�. wra^asoaoa I N C I.aung �� PARKSECTION WM WITHEE MALCOLM A R C H m T E C T S z��r so�nr Doti No ®oao �. mzzmzo® O UNtf- � V�(=,-, 74o ✓ 6S f ;1-71 '�' iPAIL 3:/ MA7� I %rISLE- SECTION C `s V 1� Fr-- �2 PLAN VIEW NE W URBAN W EST sa F �� ^�. wra^asoaoa I N C O MAIN TRAIL WM WITHEE MALCOLM A R C H'IT E C T S z� rso�nr Doti No ®oao I ,�,_.—.o O - o K'DHre MSW W. G.4. W(MA41WProitib 'LYlDr�IpE 5�ryAf4 srnW PAr(oBmw}eF�Nn �emmJ SECTION D PLAN VIEW NE W URBAN W EST sa F �� ^�. wra^asoaoa I N C HARRIMAN DRIVE WM WITHEE MALCOLM A R C H'IT E C T S z��r so�nr Doti No ®oao �=.,�z_�zo® O SECTION E =�� SECNON E ors PROJECT ENTRY STUDY ueenrwi �� o �� W WM WITHEE MALCOLM A R C H I T E C T S WEST sa F �e9 ^�. wra„asoaoa ,� �m��m�m N C Doti No ®oao=.,�z_�zo . S b � oA rFFN ii a, ,x �\Y +!y 1�7 �.. '.'e� YID,.,,,., ��"; "'-°s•'',�r __ —_ _ _ 1 � Y^ r!: a tia i N E W URBAN cn eo�ca W E S T P. a� o. sss. spa F. ago. sss. sam 1CB B 1 OT1B I N C LANDSCAPESITE PLAN WM WITHEE MALCOLM zzs �sismn mw�i pry wa_H azI T E C T 5 roe w_aao<o oMe.o�_o o O HARRIMAN D PAVING MATERIAL LEGEND STANDARD SITE PEDESTRIAN PAVEMENT PoRC u. eia�r"i 01'1 LNocano"e eLc"Ae LLiLLi"a EwRiEeI ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN PAVEMENT AT TPAIOLENLIMLERALI L RE T C LE ENHANCED ENTRY INLEcDLALR EULAR�PAVEMENT LEcoaArluETecoPROJECT LE �RRN LE PEDESTRIAN PAVEMENT E M Eo ""AH PARK LN'LN' TOENHANCED LLALR . "A.LaA�so"E NFOPMLE LOT ENT" 'TER w w Lawwi.E _ ENHANCED PLAY PAVEMENT AT PARK • RER LENT e .11"a w z U k H Q . HTL�R ff l uildill — lTtTtl-1 f n [III 1 / ILL:: :: _ — ; — — — PROPERTY LINE I �' "oR." LANDSCAPE PAVING AND CIRCULATION PLAN N E W URBAN cn eo�ca W E S T P. aE o. sss. spa E. aEo. sss. sam 1CB B 1 OT1B I N C WM WITHEE MALCOLM p �sismn mw�ip R �G H 21 T� E C T S Roe w_aao<o oMe.o�_oio — - —7 PAVING MATERIAL LEGEND N E W URBAN cn eo�ca W E S T P. as o. sss. era F. aso. see. eam 1CB B 1 OT1B I N C O STANDARD SITE PEDESTRIAN PAVEMENT — — 11 1. Ica EErac�IAGrcasw.a �•caEORONea N sa __ \ eiawEicaNr soca1— vcaAssvisoiNa ENraiEeFEEaENT ✓`s^" AVAwETVIT coNoinoNe ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN PAVEMENTAT TRAL aAVEas "ETCAEO EiNisA NATvaATsroNE ENHANCED VEHICULAR PAVEMENT ATPROJECT ENTRY T ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN PAVEMENTAT PARK T PATHS PTENT -TEA' / ENHANCED PLAY PAVEMENT AT PARK . aEMIENT --Na LANDSCAPE PAVING AND CIRCULATION PLAN WM WITHEE MALCOLM zs �sisom / R �G H 1 T" E C T S Aae w_asoao ="'. _o_o O PROPERTY LINE 10 1-e lug, I a �� �I IL Ti_, . I I LM ems u. M IUT- I O Z T L� hT V I AI 0utndahallb naN� A� OI m A �I m I 1 PLANT PALETTE NOTE L=Lou. vL=uEmLowjEnN EEOC GER1 BEO IN PIREGUIPEC IH=wOH, utMTOENDS, PER MEFER STREET TREES 244 BOX] h PCTACACH NENC CHINESE PISTAITE 11 OAKSIlEl US TREES BARB 4 COXALIVE OAK HL) ND LARGER a ERCUsN MCORKOAK(UAWsa O PROMENADE STREET TREE AR ROUNENCESESPEYD INTT ERES 36"BOX LEI" OL VIMVE PARABOLA REED NERCBEEN ELM ju0 SCULPTURAL ACCENT TREE 24 BOX ADD LARGERI CEMBSRLNEnR - 11 CERCO VMDEEE -ESE BY MUSEUMLO RIE IL1 POPULUE HYS iPCHOa -BLACK 000IM11 ®L0PHOSTEM FOLEVERGREEN �E R4 BOX AND LWARGER LOPHos RASOL EEOELM ILI OLEAmnoPA-COMMON CLUB Iu OSNIALLSCALECAROPYTREE I24 BOX] cERCE caNaOEN IE RE0 RV0 IS) BRAPax NATCHEI CRAPE TLIIL�ARUTUMRETHUSMULTRUNN IIA LARGE SCALE SHRUBS WITH TREELIKE HABIT I24 BOX] CE eOCa OEM - E SO STRAW EMRRYT BEE BV IL1 CH LOPE ELNEAR - lu LAURUENOELE- lu PRUNUS iCIFOLa TER nY NL1E TEAT BEE I Q LARGESCREEN SHRUBS HS GALLONAND LARGER U M� ON OAIIBI CUPBEEEUE EBUYS FP. IQ ® PARK CANOPVTREE 24"BOXAIJD A,LAMMRGER N WLFO �FFORNA CA ORE I" PRO P S CH LENS S THORNLESS CUTFBASIINUSIIPETALA CAPHO"BNNCASHw EXISTING PARKWATREESAT LOST CANNON ROAD PROTECT IN PLACE GROUNDPLACHE PLANTING GENERALPLANTINGARAS RCHRUBS,GROUNDCOVERavINEI -SEE SHEET LET 03 TO SEE LIST OF PLANTING PALETTE TURF-SPECIESTBD LANDSCAPE G PLAN N E w WM WITHEE MALCOLM URBAN W IF swca / R �Gs„ H I E G T S W E S T P �o -Z' era E a,o see �m aoma zss „ten, �,�u o w N C .,ae rb. asoaa oMe,o so_D�® l /I /I I /I Enbad: Lne /I /I /I /I /I /I 4 O PLANT PALETTE L-LOu,KL-MERYL`oW1ERN EEHR IHENA REH IN PKREN<RERIR M=UNT ML.IENDLE, (}T^REEEE}S `✓ PERIMETERSTR OAKSTREES 14"1111NDLARGERI NU NU�ACLIHCLIA LOU EX HOLLY OM QUKI oAK 1U ERCUR EVEER CORKOANIU PROMENADE STREET TREE (YEA -ROUND INTEREST? 36"BOX] MARI NAUHUEI PLAN,TRUNK) IMI LACERSHROE.AX�NAYCUEI CURIEKRUT LE IKI NNOYA 1`0 OLEAEUROCA COMMON oUVEiA l RE IMI UIMUE PARVILOT A TRUE CREED PERCREEN ELMjL)) SCULPTURAL ACCENT TREE 124" BOX AND LARGER `i.�10.1�✓l ® OSMALL 0M PALO V wEIU POPVLVE TNCIT CARE ELACKCOTTONuv00o IMI EVERGREEN TREE R2 BOX AND LARNERI OLEAEUROPA COMMONODUE ILIN �ELM IL) SCALE CANOPYTREE R4"BOXI �RFTR CURILE TEAT EOEUO IMI NN AR"UEMPRINA MRINAAR"Ue IMULT TRTLER IMi SHRUBS WITH TREELIKE HABIT 24"BOXI ®SCALE ARPAFbVNPRIIFb[TA— F CfuM� RE CERCIROCCUENTALIR EBV BAYj ILL OW IU Q eCENTEO TEAT REE IQ PRVNVE IUCIFOUA HOLLYLFAF CHERRYNU LARGE SCREEN SHRUBS IS GALLONAND LARGER RANMACROUP 1 1 KI RULE INTEOR CO LAIIPI ®PARK CUPREEEUE EPP.IU CANOPYTREE 24"BOXAIJD LARGER ACACASHEN PH, "MI LEAN MEEOUHORNA8YCiiEjLRE1M H c1U FRPXINUCOIPETAIA CAIFORNCAEHIU EXISTING PARKWAYTREESAT LOST CANYON ROAD PROTECT IN PLACE GROUNDPLANE PLANTING GENERALPLANTINGARE. ISHRUBC,GROUNDCOVERIANXI -SEE SHEET LET 03 TO SEE LIST OF PLANTING PALETTE TURF- SPEXES TBD ■ - —`eNORTH LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN N E W p]�'� V i W All" L US WM WITHEE MALCOLM URBANMIN,ORD,EN­ WC. IL swca / R �G H I T E G T S W E S T P �o sss era E aLo see ntm a�orH. ,zs „tenI--11 o w s„ 1-17 _,,—I m PLANT PALETTE )4 ``./ PERIMETER STR�Ef TREES �24"B 104 Q C SREES 1BOX ANDERACE . S aG5IT IT OM ILI Lv IT AK QUERCUD RUDER cowl AK I AK ILI 4u (.:) PROMENADESTREETTRBE(YERAOUND INTEREST) [36"BOX] �./ UfVe IDTANQ EL6TRVNp (M) Al"SAIROLAIRANI TOeOLTHE AGNou OLEARKROGA EI4 M L ULMUD DARK LOLA TRUE GREEN EVERRDEENENM,, SCULPTURAL ACCENT TREE 14" BOXANDLARGER] `9'1GW 1 IT LO V ROE 14 POPVLVBT I[4 RICHOCARPA SLACK COTTONWOOD jM SO 0 EVERGREEN TREE ]24 BOX AND LARGER] OLEA EUROPA COMMON OLIVE ILI EVE ELM 14 N O, SMALL SCALE CANOPY TREE 214"BOX] �aNR EDUQ IM) IN LE ARDmUDmwRINA MARRHARNUFUS(MULTURUNp IMI P ® LARGESCALESHRUBS WITH TREELIKE HABIT ]24"BOX] ALL 'US ERNRR )MM S14 YL OW I PRUNUD IUOIFOUA HOLLY)EAFOHERRYIV4E" 6A 4 REF 1 i LARGE SCREEN SHRUBS IM 5 GALLON AND LARGER] ) muxn MDS. MI) ITS oM 14 ALLI CUPRESSUS SPP. 14 N ® PARK CANOPYTREEIII "BOX AND LARGER] MI LEAN MESQUITE I4 TOTAL RHU�0NFA ARE " PCgI AVI ,I, FLNUSNPETAI CAUFORNI DH14 0 EXISTIN G PARKWAY TREES AT LOST CANYON ROAD EST IN P LARGE LANDSCAPE AREA CALCULATIONS NET DITEARFA QEVmES TO INQeCAPING.l W187 RAFT (I¢s XOFTOTAL DITE NET ACREAGE) PARwNG LOT AREAOEvoTEO To UwoscAPwG.itptiv GET rvXoFTOTAE PARKING AREA TREE COVERAGE CALCULATION To RE 5 TREES PER ARRE 214 URBAN canFo,HIa eoaaa W E S T P. aD o. see ema F. aDo. see. Gam I N C GENERAL PLANTING AREAS LARGESCREENINGSHRUBS Loo IQ4'LEoxwi GUN BAMBOO I'L4" Bop LARGE ACCENT SHRUBS AOE 14 TOP REE "OE OE EFOE AIRICARK PP PIT AL "PUTUR UPS DO RTA ULTHTRUNK) STRACHIERRYTREEI4 URFACAENA "GO EE 4 14 wLVEReHEEN"OHUHUI4 MEDIUM SIZE MASSI NG SHRUBS ACCIAl ITC LITTLERIVERIHATTLE "Q O M SI WA AF BOTTLE DRUDH IM) CAR PEA PER OCTAL ONNUE RUSH DARYL R ON . HEELER PER EST PNLA NWZALAND RETIE RHAPHO VPA)QLOO THORN14 CALECA HNNAALDTEECA O14 EA ER CADDIA N4 LY WE IT RIN AGAVE SLVE FLAME SLVE FLAME AGAVEMALYII SMALL SIZEACCENT SUCCULENTS, GRASSES & GROUNDCOV Ra AEONUMNPP UMiR TIME GAVE Q GIDDY ALOE w ERE HOOTAL FERN IQ LEA w NG I clEw HE D AIL CKIIS4 VARIEGATED TAX ILY 14 CAMPREI WOOLY LILEA 141GROVNOCWEw A14 CA I W YE 14 LSW FMAN RUSH I4 YIN GRM s14 PORTHICARRIADEACAREGALl N4 P 14 CO CH5141GROVN000VEw mER sTARJASSMINE ITS WT CALL = ILITIETHED'EODUDLE MIN OTTLEDRUDH I4 KARO SHRUGCA O=NUCANNIA MN.WONDAGEIWM SHRUG ROSEMARY SHADES NPDITIONSHRUBS IGROUNDCOVERS IN IN EwAlRP CM IM11GRooNQcwEw LYw PC OL=�EA THISCHELOPPERMUMNAGM No srARaASMmEIru IGROVNQcouEw TURF & GRASSES FOR D DWARF PERMUCAS vINEs NDERTRUMPET VINE I CUP REPEND CREEP PC RICH ER 'Go R STARIASMINE RUMP INSTALLLED IN WATER QUALITY BASINS NATI ALE®srs SEEDS FESCUEATO lK wMNE FESCUE Q FEETHCAOCCIDEPFAPR SN FEITHCARUIREF NBURCE MOW FREE ROD AGNE rtHHQF)E� E GALLON GLADDER ®Tu° Oc. EIM' LAR GE RUSH Q MQHLENDERGIACAPIUAND Pw"MUHLYIU NUSwGLAee LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCHEDULE WM WITHEE MALCOLM ps �s I--1I1� wms++1 a211 E C T 5 w_aao.—1.._FEI Loe O 1 15 PROEERTi'LINO `. —- — WALL & FENCE LEGEND WALL &,■ FENCE DIAGRAM N E w WM WITHEE MALCOLM URBAN swca A R �Gs„ H I T� E C T S W E S T P �o sss era F a,o see �m aoma �s „�n,�,�u o w O WALL & FENCE LEGEND % \ �r��,wo �.�,wtueEcooEmwxwwi I 1 w caEExco�oamwsx aMEo°o"cow�e.Errtaaw .T }, ���'� � � \ ' � /, / nexn.oxnw xxruwrwn cone xwnumox ox naux xxmionoxs WALL & FENCE DIAGRAM N E w WM WITHEE MALCOLM URBAN swca A R �Gs„ H I T E C T S W E S T P �o sss era F a,o see �m aoma �s „�n,�,�u o w N C .,ae rb.amaa oMe,o so_o�o �\ cO END BARRI ER WALL Mo 3 PATi o V 4S _LE 11 Z P00; ENCLOSURE (CODE COMPLIANT) FENCE Q RETANINGWkLS WALL & FENCE LEGEND WALL & FENCE ELEVATIONS N E W p,] �'� V i W p;; L US WM WITHEE MALCOLM URBAN �i� I— A R �G H I T� E C T S W E S T P �o sss era F a,o see �m a�om�a �s „�n,�,�u o w s„ N C .,ae �.am<o oMe,o so_o�oIIIIIMMM I 1.d I APPENDIX 5.0=1 Plan Renderings 0 Co N le N U r E E Q ca a u m CL Co Y fC O L C� G Q a Co c� L Y 2� 7 O L C� G i E t u m Q Packet Pg. 204 1 MEN 4' ALL AGE - MARKET RATE PERSPECTIVE N E W N E 1 R G V-� L F WM WITHEE MALCOLM URBAN WEST P �o sss spa F ago sss �m m�acanama eoaw �s �n,�, ma�,m� 'J I AGE QUALIFIED BUILDING PERSPECTIVE N E W N E 1 RG L F WM WITHEE MALCOLM URBAN A R CC R I T E C i E W EST P �o sss spa F ago sss �m m�acanama eonca �s „eg,�„, ma�,m� 1 -e-01 SENIOR AFFORDABLE BUILDING - PERSPECTIVE N E W N E 1 R G V—� L F WM WITHEE MALCOLM URBAN A R CC B I I E C i i WEST P �o sss spa F ago sss �m m�acanama eoaw �s erg,, ma�,m� N C f 7, m PERSPECTIVE PLEX 12 BUILDING New q C�9 is �� WM WITHEE MALCOLM URBAN A R CC R Z 7 E C i E WEST P ago sss era F ago see �m m�acan�oma eoaoa �s,.�n,m„,� ma�,m� N C rr T rah if■ � _ill A: Market -Rate All -Ages Apartments B: Market -Rate Age -Qualified Apartments C: Affordable Senior Apartments C D: Townhomes A 0' 60' 120' © 6.="_j FEET SOURCE: New Urban West FIGURE 2.0-2b Conceptual Site Plan Alternative - Scenario B 1.f Draft Addendum to the Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment MetroWalk Specific Plan Amendment DECEMBER 2024 Prepared for: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Prepared by DUDEK 225 South Lake Avenue #M-210 Pasadena, California 91 101 Packet Pg. 211 1.f 0 M N 4 N U r E E Q cv a u d CL Co Y_ fC O L C� G E i Q Q W U co r E u m r r Q 16917 OCTOBER 2024 Packet Pg. 212 1.f Table of Contents SECTION PAGE 1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................4 1.1 Project Summary ....................................................................................................................................4 1.2 Purpose of an Addendum......................................................................................................................5 1.3 CEQA Compliance...................................................................................................................................5 2 Project Description...............................................................................................................................................7 3 Environmental Analysis........................................................................................................................................9 3.1 Aesthetics............................................................................................................................................10 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources...................................................................................................13 3.3 Air Quality.............................................................................................................................................16 3.4 Biological Resources...........................................................................................................................21 3.5 Cultural Resources..............................................................................................................................27 3.6 Energy.................................................................................................................................................. 30 3.7 Geology and Soils................................................................................................................................ 33 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................................................................................................39 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.....................................................................................................40 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality............................................................................................................... 45 3.11 Land Use and Planning....................................................................................................................... 54 3.12 Mineral Resources.............................................................................................................................. 56 3.13 Noise.................................................................................................................................................... 59 3.14 Population and Housing......................................................................................................................63 3.15 Public Services.................................................................................................................................... 65 3.16 Recreation............................................................................................................................................69 3.17 Transportation..................................................................................................................................... 70 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources....................................................................................................................76 3.19 Utilities and Service Systems.............................................................................................................. 79 3.20 Wildfire.................................................................................................................................................84 3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance................................................................................................... 88 4 Addendum Conclusion......................................................................................................................................91 5 References........................................................................................................................................................ 92 16917 3 OCTOBER 2024 Packet Pg. 213 1.f 1 Introduction This document is an Addendum to the Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) for the MetroWalk Specific Plan (Specific Plan or Originally Approved Plan), which was adopted by the City of Santa Clarita (City) in February 2021. This Addendum analyzes proposed changes (Modified Plan) to the MetroWalk Specific Plan in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines allows for lead agencies to prepare an Addendum to a previously certified EIR or adopted negative declaration and outlines when and how the use of an Addendum is appropriate, as discussed in further detail below. 1.1 Project Summary The City prepared the SCEA for the MetroWalk Specific Plan (City of Santa Clarita 2020) to evaluate potential environmental impacts of the Originally Approved Plan. The SCEA found that the following environmental topic impacts would be less than significant or were found to have no impact: • Aesthetics • Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Energy, Geology and Soils • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Mineral Resources • Noise • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Transportation • Utilities and Service Systems • Wildfire Impacts to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Tribal Cultural Resources were found to be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures. The SCEA was published on December 22, 2020, for a 30-day comment period and ended on January 21, 2021. Pursuantto Section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Santa Clarita is the lead agency for the proposed Project. The Originally Approved Plan includes development of up to 498 residential units within four planning areas, on an approximately 20.4-acre site in the City in northern Los Angeles County (County). The Specific Plan Area is located north and west of the Metrolink train tracks, east of Lost Canyon Road within the Canyon Country community in the City. Under the Originally Approved Plan, the proposed units would be comprised of 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 Specific Plan Area to the Metrolink Vista Canyon Station to the east and the Vista Canyon Specific Plan Area located north of the Specific Plan Area while connecting a variety of other private amenities throughout the Specific Plan Area and within the Vista Canyon Specific Plan as well. The multi -use path would terminate at a public plaza at the eastern end of the Specific Plan area and would provide a publicly accessible outdoor amenity adjacent to the Metrolink Station and a connection to commercial uses, trails, and other amenities within the Vista Canyon Specific Plan area. The Modified Plan and its Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) would provide an alternative development plan under the Specific Plan to allow for the construction of single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously planned multi- family units. As such, buildout of the Modified Plan could result in a reduced number of residential units constructed compared to the Originally Approved Plan and the analysis included within the SCEA for the Specific Plan. The Originally Approved Plan allowed for up to 498 multifamily units whereas the Modified Plan would provide an alternative 16917 4 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 214 1.f development plan that would allow for up to 307 new dwelling units if single-family residential were to be developed, 318 new units if duplex units, or a range between 307 and 318 dwelling units with a combination of single-family, duplex, and multi -family were to be developed. A detailed description of the Modified Plan is provided below in Chapter 2, Project Description, of this Addendum. Both the Originally Approved Plan (as analyzed in the adopted 2021 SCEA) and the Modified Plan (analyzed in this Addendum) are discussed further below. 1.2 Purpose of an Addendum The City of Santa Clarita (City) adopted a SCEA for the MetroWalk Specific Plan (Originally Approved Plan) in 2021 (State Clearinghouse No. 2020120433). The SCEA was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and contains a disclosure and analysis of potential environmental effects associated with implementation of the Originally Approved Plan. Based on the analysis contained in the SCEA and other considerations, the City Council approved the Originally Approved Plan in 2021. Since adoption of the SCEA and approval of the Originally Approved Plan in 2021, the MetroWalk Specific Plan is being amended to allow for additional residential unit types (i.e., single-family and duplex units). The MetroWalk Specific Plan will be referred to as the "Originally Approved Plan" in this Addendum. The purpose of this Addendum is to analyze the proposed modifications to the Originally Approved Plan to determine whether implementation of the Specific Plan Amendment ("Modified Plan") would result in any new significant environmental impacts not identified in the adopted SCEA, or whether any previously identified significant effects would be substantially more severe under the Modified Plan. 1.3 CEQA Compliance Under CEQA, the Lead Agency is required to prepare an Addendum to a previously -adopted SCEA if some changes or additions are necessary to a prior adopted SCEA, but none of the conditions calling for preparation of a Subsequent CEQA document have occurred (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164). Once a SCEA has been adopted, a Subsequent SCEA is only required when the Lead Agency determines that one of the following conditions has been met: 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous SCEA due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous SCEA due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of the previous SCEA was adopted, shows any of the following: A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous SCEA; B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous SCEA; 16917 5 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 215 1.f C. Mitigation measures or alternative previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adoptthe mitigation measure or alternative; or D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous SCEA would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. CEQA recommends that a brief explanation of the decision to prepare an Addendum rather than a Subsequent CEQA document be included in the record for a proposed project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(e)). This Addendum has been prepared because the proposed Modified Plan, as shown by the analysis herein, does not include Project changes, new information, or changed circumstances leading to new or substantially worse significant environmental impacts. The Modified Project would result in substantially fewer dwelling units than the Originally Approved Plan. In all respects, as the analysis herein demonstrates, the Modified Plan would not result in new or substantially worse significant environmental impacts. The Modified Plan does not require major revisions to the SCEA because no new significant impacts or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant impacts would occur. The anticipated environmental impacts of the Modified Plan, as explained in detail in the following analysis and checklist, have been analyzed and mitigated accordingly in the previous SCEA prepared for the Originally Approved Plan adopted in 2021, and there have been no new circumstances since thattime that would result in new or more severe significant environmental impacts. Lastly, as evaluated in the supporting analysis of this Addendum, mitigation measures that have been previously identified would adequately reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Those mitigation measures that have been identified in the SCEA and are applicable to the Modified Plan are identified within this analysis. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15163(c) or (e), an Addendum need not be circulated for public review, but can be included in or attached to the final CEQA document. Prior to approval of the Modified Plan, the City will consider this Addendum together with the SCEA when making a decision regarding the Modified Plan. As demonstrated by the analysis in this document, the Modified Plan would not result in any new significant impacts and would not substantially increase the severity of any previously identified impacts. Furthermore, there is not any new information requiring new analysis or verification, and no new project design features or mitigation measures are required for any new impacts. As such, and pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum to the SCEA is the appropriate CEQA-compliant document for the SPA. 16917 6 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 216 1.f 2 Project Description Originally Approved Plan The Approved MetroWalk Specific Plan Project (Originally Approved Plan) proposed development of up to 498 residential units with a mix of multi -family and affordable senior housing types organized within four different planning areas within the 20.4-acre Specific Plan Area. The MetroWalk Specific Plan includes development plans, infrastructure development plans, design guidelines, and the implementation program for the Originally Approved Plan. The Specific Plan Area 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 and is located directly south of the Vista Canyon Specific Plan Area, which allows for the construction of residential, office, and commercial uses. In general, the underlying purpose of the Originally Approved Plan is to develop a new transit -oriented residential community adjacent to transit, retail/commercial, office, hotel, and recreational uses thatwould serve as a functional and visual extension of the new mixed -use Vista Canyon Specific Plan area directly north of the Specific Plan Area. The Originally Approved Plan would include approximately 902 covered and uncovered parking spaces for residents and guests, and approximately 100 bicycle parking spaces. Building heights are planned to reach a maximum of 50 feet, plus up to 10 additional feet of architectural treatments in conformance with the site development standards of the MetroWalk Specific Plan Section 4.8.2. Underthe Originally Approved Plan, the average density would be 24.6 units per acre, although, the maximum allowable density within the Specific Plan area is 30 dwelling units per acre. The Originally Approved Plan intended to have a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.76. The Originally Approved Plan included the following discretionary actionsfrom the Citythatwere all approved by the City Council: (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. Existing Conditions Since the approval of the Originally Approved Plan, the majority of the Specific Plan area has undergone rough grading, and installation of select utilities has occurred. The fire water lines have been completed, the trenching for domestic water and dry utilities has been completed, the backbone loop road has been constructed, and traffic signals at the intersections of both Los Canyon Drive/Medley Ridge Drive and Lost Canyon Drive/Canyon Park Boulevard have been installed. Additionally, the onsite detention basin has been completed. The Originally Approved Plan included a buildout scenario consisting of 50 affordable senior apartments, 150 for -sale townhomes, and an additional 298 apartments. Construction has begun for the originally envisioned 50 affordable senior apartments and the 150 for -sale townhomes. The portion of the Specific Plan area originally envisioned to include an additional 298 apartments is graded, has utilities either installed or partially installed, and sits vacant. Modified Plan The Modified Plan would allow the Originally Approved Plan to proceed, or to proceed as an alternative. The Modified Plan provides an alternative development plan option for the MetroWalk Specific Plan that would allow for the construction of single-family and duplex units, in addition to multifamily and affordable senior housing throughout the 16917 OCTOBER 2024 Packet Pg. 217 1.f Specific Plan area. As such, buildout of the Modified Plan would result in the same development footprint as the Originally Approved Plan but could ultimately result in a reduced number of residential units and reduced density when compared to the Originally Approved Plan. The Originally Approved Plan proposes up to 498 units whereas the Modified Plan option introduces single-family and duplex units as allowable uses such that the total Specific Plan buildout would range between 307 to 318 total units within the Modified Plan. Buildout of single-family residential uses in the area previously identified as Planning Area 1, the currently undeveloped portion of the Specific Plan area, would result in 307 total residential units while buildout of duplexes would result in a total of 318 residential units. The Modified Plan option would allow a combination of single family and duplex residential uses within the previously identified Planning Area 1, up to a total of 318 dwelling units within the entirety of the Specific Plan area. The remainder of the Specific Plan area outside of the previously identified Planning Area 1 would be built out as envisioned in the Originally Approved Plan. No other modifications to the Originally Approved Plan and Specific Plan are proposed under the Modified Plan option. Therefore, no significant changes to the impacts associated with the Modified Plan would occur for any environmental issue area, as detailed in the analysis that follows. 16917 8 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 218 1.f 3 Environmental Analysis This section of the SCEA Addendum provides an analysis of the impacts associated with the Modified Plan. The analysis below addresses each of the environmental issue areas that would be impacted from the modifications to the Originally Approved Plan. The conclusions of the previously adopted SCEA for each environmental topic area are included in the analysis below as a reference for the purposes of comparing and describing how the Modified Plan would not result in any new significant impacts when compared to the analysis for the Originally Approved Plan in the SCEA. The SCEA concluded that the following environmental topic impacts would either result in no impacts or impacts determined to be less than significant: • Aesthetics • Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Energy, Geology and Soils • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Mineral Resources • Noise • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Transportation • Utilities and Service Systems • Wildfire Impacts to Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Tribal Cultural Resources were found to be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures. As described in Section 2, Project Description, above, the Modified Plan would allow the Originally Approved Plan to proceed, or as an alternative, for single-family and duplex residential uses instead of the originally approved multi -family residential uses within Planning Area 1 of the Specific Plan Area. Under the Originally Approved Plan, up to 498 multi -family residential units were permitted; under the Modified Plan, the secondary Townhome/SFR Project would allow for buildout of at least 307 units and up to 318 total units, with up to 125 single-family and duplex units allowed specifically in Planning Area 1. No other modifications to the Originally Approved Plan and Specific Plan are proposed under the SPA. Therefore, no significant changes to the impacts associated with the Modified Plan would occur for any environmental issue area, as detailed in the analysis that follows. A modified CEQA Appendix G Environmental Checklist was used in the assessment below to compare the anticipated environmental effects of the Modified Plan with those disclosed in the SCEAfor the Originally Approved Plan. 16917 9 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 219 1.f 3.1 Aesthetics New ntially PoteSignificant New Mitigation No New/ No -. Impact is Required Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS - Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, 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 public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from ❑ ❑ ® ❑ publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect ❑ ❑ ® ❑ day or nighttime views in the area? SCEA Analysis Summary - Originally Approved Plan Aesthetic impacts were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-18 through 4-23. Potential impacts on scenic vistas and resources, degradation of the existing visual character or quality of public views within the study area, and sources of light and glare were evaluated. The SCEA stated that pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 743 relating to aesthetic impacts for residential projects within a transit priority area (TPA), the Project's aesthetic impacts shall not be considered significant and determined that there would be no impact regarding scenic vistas, scenic resources within a state scenic highway, degradation of existing visual character or quality, or sources of light and glare. Modified Plan Analysis a) Would the Modified Plan have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? As discussed in the SCEA, the City lies within the Santa Clarita Valley and is surrounded by the San Gabriel Mountains to the south and east, the Santa Susana Mountains to the southwest, the Sierra Pelona Mountains to the north, and the mountains of the Angeles National Forest to the northeast which provide a visual backdrop for the City. Other scenic resources include the Santa Clara River corridor, as close as approximately 600 feet north of the Specific Plan area, and a variety of canyons and natural drainages in portions of the City (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The SCEA states that public views of the Santa Clara River are generally not available in the Originally Approved Plan vicinity due to topography and intervening development, unless the viewer is directly adjacentto the Santa Clara River corridor. Building heights under the Originally Approved Plan would not exceed 60 feet, the maximum allowable building height for 16917 10 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 220 1.f structures currently under construction within the Vista Canyon Specific Plan immediately to the north of the Specific Plan area and development of the Originally Approved Plan would not block existing northerly views of the Sierra Pelona Mountains, which would also continue to be available from north -south roadways in the Project vicinity, or the Santa Clara River from various public vantage points south of the Specific Plan area as such public views are already interrupted by existing development. As such, the SCEA determined that there would be no impact to scenic vistas. Furthermore, the Originally Approved Plan is a residential project within a TPA, and any aesthetic impacts shall not be considered significant pursuant to SB 743. Under the Modified Plan, should single-family or duplex units be constructed, this would reduce building heights to 40 feet within the previously identified Planning Area 1, and views of mountains surrounding the Specific Plan area would continue to be viewable from public vantage points along the north -south roadways in the Project vicinity. Therefore, these views would not be impacted on an area -wide basis and the Modified Plan would continue to not damage or obstruct any views of scenic resources such that public views would no longer be available. As such, the project changes would result in no new or substantially worse significant impact. Additionally, there are no changed circumstances or new information; there would be no new or substantially worse significant impact. Thus, the Modified Plan would not result in any new significant impact related to scenic vistas and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. b) Would the Modified Plan substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? As shared in the SCEA, there would be no impact to scenic resources within a state scenic highway as scenic highways do not currently exist in the area, and none are proposed. Interstate 5 (1-5), the closest roadway to the Specific Plan area under the State Scenic Highway Program, is designated as an Eligible State Scenic Highway and is located more than 7 miles west of the Specific Plan area where it is not visible from the site (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Because the Specific Plan area does not contain scenic resources within or near a state scenic highway, no impact related to scenic resources would occur. Furthermore, the Originally Approved Plan is a residential project within a TPA, and any aesthetic impacts shall not be considered significant pursuant to SB 743. There are no project changes, new information, or changed circumstances leading to new or substantially worse significant impact related to substantially damaging scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan as the Specific Plan area has not changed. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. The Modified Plan would not result in any new significant impact related to scenic resources and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. c) In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the Modified Plan conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? As discussed in the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan would alter the appearance of the currently vacant Specific Plan area with the presence of construction equipment and various construction activities, some of which would be a visible from roadways adjacent to the Specific Plan area. Although buildout of the Specific Plan area would temporarily impact the visual character of the Originally Approved Plan area, the impact would not be substantial and would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of the 16917 11 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 221 1.f Specific Plan area and surrounding area. Under construction, appearance of the Specific Plan area would be typical of construction sites in urban areas and views of construction activities would be limited in duration and location. Furthermore, the Originally Approved Plan would include architectural styles and design elements consistent with the City's 2009 Community Character and Design Guidelines to enhance visual interest. The visual character of the Specific Plan area buildout would also be consistent with the Vista Canyon Specific Plan immediately north of the Specific Plan area and would serve as an extension of that Specific Plan (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The SCEA states that the Originally Approved Plan would provide extensive open space, recreational opportunities, as well as public and private parks, and landscaping would be varied in texture and scale to soften surrounding architecture and would include native and drought -tolerant plants. Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would be compatible with the surrounding community character and would not adversely affectthe visual quality of the Specific Plan area. Furthermore, the Originally Approved Plan would be subject to the development standards within the MetroWalk Specific Plan and its architectural plans which are subject to review by the City. Thus, the Originally Approved Plan would be constructed with high professional standards and would be consistent with the aesthetic character of the surrounding community and would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations regarding scenic quality, and no impact would occur. Furthermore, the Originally Approved Plan is a residential project within a TPA, and any aesthetic impacts shall not be considered significant pursuant to SB 743. The analysis in the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan, which would amend the Specific Plan to allow for buildout of single-family and duplex residential units as approved housing product types (in addition to the existing approved product types). All other Project features discussed above would be the same under the Modified Plan. The conversion of a portion of the Specific Plan area to duplex and/or single-family uses would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings as compared to the Originally Approved Project. Neither would there be changed circumstances or new information related to the existingvisual character or quality of public views of the site. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. The Modified Plan would not result in any new significant impact related to visual character or zoning regarding scenic quality and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. d) Would the Modified Plan create a new source of substantial light orglare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Construction of the Originally Approved Plan would result in new sources of light and glare associated with the proposed residential units; however, as discussed in the SCEA, Section 11.44.080 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code (SCMC) states that construction activities within 300 feet of residentially zoned property would only occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM on weekdays, and not during weekends. Therefore, construction would only occur during the daylight hours and would only require construction lighting if construction were to occur in the evening hours during the winter season when daylight is no longer sufficient. Furthermore, SCMC Section 17.51.050 would require all outdoor lighting to be shielded and facing down in order to minimize or eliminate light trespass onto neighboring properties (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As such, the Originally Approved Plan would not result in a new source of substantial light that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the Originally Approved Plan area. Any glare generated during daytime construction would be highly transitory and short-term given the movement of equipment and materials within the construction area and the temporary nature of construction itself. Therefore, the potential for daytime glare to occur would be minimal. 16917 12 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 222 1.f New sources of light would be generated by the construction of interior residential lighting, Originally Approved Plan -related signage, wayfinding lighting, outdoor lighting, and security markings. Pedestrian areas would include security lighting along pathways and at building entryways. Lighting would also be installed at internal private driveways within the Specific Plan area. However, no new lighting would be located within public rights -of -way. In accordance with SCMC Section 17.51.050 and the City's Community Character & Design Guidelines, the outdoor light sources would be shielded and facing down to minimize or eliminate light trespass onto neighboring properties. Furthermore, the Originally Approved Plan would incorporate generally non -reflective exterior building materials such as stucco, concrete, stone, and wood. As such, the increased light and glare that would result would not detract from daytime or nighttime views and compliance with the City's outdoor lighting restrictions and incorporation of non -reflective building materials would ensure that any significant impacts would not occur. There would be no impact relating to light and glare. Furthermore, the Originally Approved Plan is a residential project within a TPA, and any aesthetic impacts shall not be considered significant pursuant to SB 743. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respectto the Modified Plan. The Modified Plan would continue to adhere to the SCMC requirements that reduce light and glare impacts and would continue to utilize non -reflective exterior building materials. The conversion of a portion of the Specific Plan area to duplex and/or single-family uses would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area as compared to the Originally Approved Project. Neither would there be changed circumstances or new information related to creation of a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. The Modified Plan would not result in any new significant impact related to light and glare and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) 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 non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act ❑ ❑ ® ❑ contract? 16917 13 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 223 1.f Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 1222O(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(a))? Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in ❑ ❑ ® ❑ conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? SCEA Analysis Summary - Originally Approved Plan Agriculture and forestry resources impacts were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-23 through 4-26. The SCEA determined that the Specific Plan area does not include any zoning or resources for agricultural, forestry, or timberland uses, and that there are no lands subjectto Williamson Act contracts within the City. Modified Plan Analysis a) Would the Modified Plan 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 non-agricultural use? The SCEA states that the Specific Plan area is not located in an area that consists of any of these farmland designations and that the Specific Plan area is classified as Other Land which includes vacant and non- agricultural land surrounded by existing urban development. Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would have no impact. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan as the Specific Plan area has not changed. The conversion of a portion of the Specific Plan area to duplex and/or single-family uses would not create a new or substantially worse significant impact with respect to farmland. Neither would there be changed circumstances or new information related to farmland. As such, there would be no impact to farmland as disclosed in the SCEA. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relatingto conversion of important farmland and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 16917 14 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 224 1.f b) Would the Modified Plan conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? The SCEA identified that Williamson Act contract land does not exist within the City at the time of its drafting and that potential future Williamson Act contracts are not anticipated because the Specific Plan area does not consist of agriculturally zoned land. As such, there would be no impact. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan as the Specific Plan area has not changed. The conversion of a portion of the Specific Plan area to duplex and/or single-family uses would not create a new or substantially worse significant impact with respect to existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. Neither would there be changed circumstances or new information related to zoningfor agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relatingto agricultural zoning and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. c) Would the Modified Plan conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 1222O(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 511O4(g))? The Specific Plan area is currently Specific Plan and is not located within an area zoned as Open Space - National Forest (OS-NF). As such, the Originally Approved Plan had no impact with respect to zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan. The conversion of a portion of the Specific Plan area to duplex and/or single-family uses would not create a new or substantially worse significant impact with respectto zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Neither would there be changed circumstances or new information related to zoningfor forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. The Specific Plan area does not contain forest land or timberland, and no conflicts with forest land zoning would occur as part of implementation of the Modified Plan. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to forest land or timberland zoning and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. d) Would the Modified Plan result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? The Specific Plan area is currently zoned for Business Park uses and is not located within an area zoned as Open Space -National Forest (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As such, the Originally Approved Plan would have no impact. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan. The conversion of a portion of the Specific Plan area to duplex and/or single-family uses would not create a new or substantially worse significant impact with respect to the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. Neither would there be changed circumstances or new information related to the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. The Specific Plan area does not contain forest land or timberland, and no loss of forest land would occur as part of Modified Plan implementation. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to loss or conversion of forest land and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 16917 15 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 225 1.f e) Would the Modified Plan involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use? As discussed in the SCEA, the Specific Plan area is surrounded by existing urban development and there are not agricultural operations on the Specific Plan area or in the surrounding area. As such, implementation of the Originally Approved Plan would not create conflicts involving agricultural or forest zoning and would not result in other changes to the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland or forests, to non-agricultural or non -forestry use. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan as the Specific Plan area has not changed. The conversion of a portion of the Specific Plan area to duplex and/or single-family uses would not create a new or substantially worse significant impact with respect to conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. Neither would there be changed circumstances or new information related to conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis SCEA, and impacts would not occur. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to other changes in the environment that could result in conversion of farmland or forest land and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 3.3 Air Quality III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the oroiect: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ❑ ❑ ® ❑ quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable ❑ ❑ ® ❑ federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantial number of people? 16917 16 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 226 1.f SCEA Analysis Summary - Originally Approved Plan Air quality impacts were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-26 through 4-47. The SCEA evaluated potential impacts relating to whether development of the Plan area would conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan, violate any air quality standards or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation, result in cumulatively considerable increases in air pollutants, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odors. The SCEA determined that impacts relating to the creation of objectionable odors would be less than significant with mitigation upon implementation of Project -specific MM AQ-1, while all other impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation measure AQ-1 is included below: MM 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 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. Modified Plan Analysis a) Would the Modified Plan conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The SCEA determined that the Originally Approved Plan and the new residents and employees generated, as well as the new housing units constructed, would not exceed SCAG's population, employment, and housing stock forecasts for the City for 2040. Due to the relatively small size of the Originally Approved Plan, it is anticipated that construction workers would be from the existing local or regional workforce (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Thus, the Originally Approved Plan was determined to be consistent with SCAG population growth forecasts and the underlying assumptions of the emissions forecasts contained in the applicable air quality management plan (AQMP), and, as such, the Originally Approved Plan was found to have no impact. As discussed in the SCEA, development of the Originally Approved Plan would result in the construction of 498 new residential units and would generate approximately 1,479 new residents, usingthe DOF's average number of persons per household in the City of 2.97, which would represent a 0.7% increase in the January 2020 citywide population or approximately 4% of the total City growth forecast for 2045 as identified in the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. These were conservative estimates for the Originally Approved Plan as the actual number of people that would occupythe Projectwould likely be less as Planning Area 2 and 3 include 16917 17 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 227 1.f market -rate, age -qualified units and because Planning Area 3 would also include 169 units that are affordable senior apartments (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Given this, the Originally Approved Plan's share of forecast growth is not considered significant. Considering that the Modified Plan would reduce the total number of proposed units and therefore reduce the total number of Project residents, the Modified Plan would also not exceed SCAG's population, employment, and housing stock forecasts for the City for 2045. The Modified Plan would allow for single- family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi -family residential units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated. The changes within the Modified Plan as compared to the Originally Approved Plan would have a reduced impact on the applicable AQMP. Further, there are also no changed circumstances or new information relating to conflicts with or obstruction of implementation of the applicable air quality plan. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would continue to result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to conflicts with the applicable AQMP and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. b) Would the Modified Plan violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? r c) Would the Modified Plan result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal orstate ambient air qualitystandard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? As detailed within the SCEA, the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), in which the Specific Plan area is located, is a nonattainment area for the federal standards for ozone and PM2.5, and for the State standards for ozone, PM1O, and PM2.5. The Los Angeles County portion of the SCAB is also designated nonattainment for the federal lead standard and the SCAB is designated unclassifiable or in attainment for all other federal and State standards (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Table III-1 and Table III-2 within the SCEA summarize the estimated maximum daily construction emissions and estimate maximum daily on -site emissions while considering the Originally Approved Plan's compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 to regulate fugitive dust emissions and Rule 1113 which minimizes VOC emissions during construction. As shown in these tables, Originally Approved Plan construction emissions of VOC, NOx, CO, SO2, PM1O, and PM2.5 would not exceed South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) regional thresholds or local significance thresholds (LST) as the estimated emissions fall well below the LSTs. As such, construction emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria air pollutant for which the Originally Approved Plan region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State plan. Table III-3 within the SCEA summarizes the estimated maximum daily emissions during operation of the Originally Approved Plan, a majority of which would come from vehicle trips to and from the Specific Plan area. The analysis in the SCEA found that operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for criteria pollutants. As such, operational emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria air pollutant for which the Originally Approved Plan region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State plan. Thus, the Originally Approved Plan would not violate any air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in nonattainment, and impacts would therefore be less than significant. 16917 18 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 228 1.f The Modified Plan proposes a reduced number of new residential units and residents generated compared to the Originally Approved Plan. The Modified Plan is anticipated to have similar or lesser maximum daily construction emissions compared to the Originally Approved Plan. Furthermore, with a conversion of a portion of the Specific Plan area from 179 multi -family units to 125 single family and/or duplex units, the Modified Plan would result in fewer residents generated at max buildout and therefore would also result in a reduction of operational emissions generated. In addition, the Modified Plan would continue to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 and Rule 1113. There are also no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relatingto a violation of any air quality standards or relatingto a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutantfor which the project region is nonattainment and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. d) Would the Modified Plan expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? The SCEA determined that the nearest sensitive receptors to the Specific Plan area are homes approximately 200 feet west of the Specific Plan area and additional residences approximately 250 feet south of the site across railroad tracks and stated that planned sensitive receptors (residences) are sited approximately 100 feet north within the Vista Canyon Specific Plan area. The entire SCAB is in conformance with State and federal CO standards and, as shown in Tables III-1 and III-2, maximum daily CO emissions during construction would be 66.2 pounds and would not exceed SCAQMD's regional threshold or their LST screening criteria for CO. Operational emissions from area, energy, and mobile sources would also not exceed the SCAQMD regional threshold (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Based on the low background level of CO in the Originally Approved Plan area, ever -improving vehicle standards, and the Project's low level of operational CO emissions, the Originally Approved Plan would not create new hotspots or contribute substantially to existing hotspots, and CO impacts would be less than significant. As discussed in the SCEA, one of the main sources of toxic air contaminants (TAC) in California is diesel engines that emit exhaust containing solid materials known as diesel particulate matter (DPM) which are associated with cancer health risks. Potential TAC emissions from DPM during construction were listed in Table III-4 which presents the estimated incremental excess cancer risk and chronic health risk resulting from construction of the Originally Approved Plan. The incremental excess cancer risk and chronic health risk at the Most Exposed Individual Residents (MEIRs) would exceed SCAQMD thresholds (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan construction would potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC concentrations and, thus, incorporated Project -specific MM AQ-1 which would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant. The Originally Approved Plan would also utilize Tier 4 Final engines for all diesel -fueled construction equipment or would use control technology sufficient to achieve the same average fleet emissions reduction, which would result in construction -related health risks that are below SCAQMD significance thresholds. As such, construction impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. The Originally Approved Plan would construct residential uses which are not sources of substantial TAC emissions, and it is expected that quantities of hazardous TACs generated on -site during operations would be below thresholds warranting further study under the California Accidental Release Program (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Because the Originally Approved Plan would not include substantial sources of TACs, the Originally Approved Plan would not expose off -site sensitive receptors to significant amounts of carcinogenic emissions or TACs, and impacts would therefore be less than significant. Based on the above information, the Originally Approved Plan would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations related to CO hotspots or TACs upon implementation of MM AQ-1, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. 16917 19 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 229 1.f With respect to construction, the Modified Plan would continue to utilize Tier 4 Final engines for all diesel - fueled construction equipment or would use control technology sufficientto achieve the same average fleet emissions reduction and would still incorporate Project -specific MM AQ-1. The change to single-family and/or duplexes within a portion of the Specific Plan area as compared to the Originally Approved Project would not increase exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Further, there is no new information or changed circumstances in relation to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan. Furthermore, given that the Modified Plan proposes a reduced number of new residential units and residents generated compared tothe Originally Approved Plan, the Modified Plan would result in a reduction of operational emissions generated. There is no new information or changed circumstances in relation to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations for operations. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to exposure of sensitive receptors and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. e) Would the Modified plan create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? As detailed within the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan would generate oil and diesel fuel odors during construction from equipment use and odors related to asphalt paving and architectural coating. The odors generated would be limited to the construction period, would be intermittent and temporary, and would dissipate rapidly with distance from in -use construction equipment (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The SCEA states that with respect to Originally Approved Plan operations, residential uses are not included on SCAQMD's list of uses associated with odor complaints, and the Project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 during construction and operation that prohibits the discharge of air contaminants that would cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to the public. As such, the Originally Approved Plan would not generate objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, and impacts would be less than significant. The Modified Plan proposes a reduced number of new residential units and residents generated compared to the Originally Approved Plan, the Modified Plan would result in a reduction of operational emissions generated. In addition, the Modified Plan would continue to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402. There are no project changes as compared to the Originally Approved Plan, new information, or changed circumstances that would create new or substantially worse significant impacts related to objectionable odors. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to objectionable odors and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 16917 20 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 230 1.f 3.4 Biological Resources IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special - status species in local or regional ❑ ❑ ® ❑ plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) 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? d) 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? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation ❑ ❑ ® ❑ policy or ordinance, including oak trees? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? g) Affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or Significant Natural Area (SNA) ❑ ❑ ® ❑ as identified on the City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map? 16917 21 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 231 1.f SCEA Analysis Summary - Originally Approved Plan Biological resources impacts were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-47 through 4-68. Potential impacts to special status species were determined to be less than significant with mitigation upon implementation of Project -specific MM-1310-1 and MM-1310-2 while all other impacts were determined to be less than significant or were determined to have no impact. The SCEA and its proposed actions would not conflict with other existing local policies, regulations, or standards and a less -than -significant impact to the Santa Clara River SEA, in which the Specific Plan area is located, would occur. Mitigation measures 1310-1 and 1310-2 are included below: MM BIO-1: Sixty days prior to grading activities, a qualified biologistshall contactand consultwith 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 and relocation efforts shall be provided to the City. Collection and relocation of animals shall only occur with the proper handling permits, as applicable. MM BIO-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. Modified Plan Analysis a) Would the Modified Plan 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? 16917 22 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 232 1.f As discussed in the SCEA, no wildlife species are anticipated to occur within the Specific Plan area that are listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). However, listed species have documented in the Originally Approved Plan area, including California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica), least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii extimus), yellow -billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), California red -legged frog (Rana draytonii), and arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus) (City of Santa Clarita 2020). No special -status plants or wildlife species were observed within the Specific Plan area during the reconnaissance -level survey or the protocol, floristic surveys; however, searches of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) indicate that special -status species have been documented within the nine -quadrangle area surroundingthe Specific Plan area and some have the potential to occur on site based on habitat requirements and site characteristics. Furthermore, the floristic survey revealed negative results, indicating that regardless of the presence of suitable habitat on - site for some species, rare plants are not present within the Specific Plan area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Specific Plan area does contain suitable habitat for sensitive wildlife species and native birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), but as stated above, no sensitive wildlife species were detected on -site. Based on the literature review and surveys conducted for the Originally Approved Plan, the SCEA determined thatthe San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii), a CDFW-designated Species of Special Concern, has a high potential to occur within the Specific Plan area. In addition, two Species of Special Concern, the coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri) and the coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), as well as the California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), a Watch Listspecies, have moderate potential to occurwithin the Specific Plan area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan would remove all existing habitat during construction, including on -site shrubs that provide nesting habitat. The SCEA states that in the event that jackrabbits are not able to escape, injury or mortalityto individual jackrabbits could occur due to being struck or crushed by vehicles. Similarly, 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 and, without mitigation, the Originally Approved Plan's impacts would be potentially significant. Thus, the Originally Approved Plan includes Project -specific MM BIO-1 which would relocate special -status species and would reduce any potential impacts to a level of less than significant. If vegetation removal or site preparation occurs during the breeding season, birds may be unable to avoid contact with construction equipment and could result in the mortality of adults, eggs, and nestlings (City of Santa Clarita 2020). In addition, noise, dust, and human presence on the Specific Plan area during construction could agitate birds and cause nest abandonment. As such, Originally Approved Plan -specific MM BIO-2 would require preconstruction surveys and avoidance of any active nests discovered on -site and which would reduce any potential impacts to a level of less than significant and serve to ensure compliance with federal and State laws protecting bird nests. Because the habitat being removed from the Specific Plan area is degraded and because habitats for the California horned lark and protected native birds are abundant in the region, loss of habitat would not significantly impact these species (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would not have a substantial effect 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 with mitigation. As noted in the Project Description, the majority of the Specific Plan area has undergone rough grading, and installation of select utilities has occurred. The area of construction would be the same with the Modified Plan as compared to the Originally Approved Plan. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan as the Specific Plan area has not changed. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi -family and affordable senior units 16917 23 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 233 1.f and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated. Ground disturbance under the Modified Plan would remain the same as the Originally Approved Plan. In addition, the Modified Plan would continue to incorporate MM 131O-1 and MM 131O-2. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, project changes associated with the development of the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to any candidate, sensitive, or special -status species, and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impactthat was not previously identified. b) Would the Modified Plan have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or othersensitive 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? The SCEA states that the Specific Plan area does not include any riparian habitat and would therefore have no impact to riparian habitat. Furthermore, the Originally Approved Plan would remove all 20.4 acres of existing habitat on the Specific Plan area, including 3.5 acres of big sagebrush scrub dominated by a mixture of Parish's big sagebrush (A.t. parishii) and common big sagebrush (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The SCEA discloses that Parish's big sagebrush is designated as sensitive by CDFW; although, the on -site occurrence is ecologically degraded, and approximately 50% of the big sagebrush individuals in the on -site stands are Parish's big sagebrush. As such, the on -site stands are not a pure example of this community. In addition, all vegetation on the Specific Plan area currently occurs in a disturbed settingthat includes soil disturbance and a prevalence of non-native plant species, and the acreage of this habitat is limited and occurs in a fragmented configuration interspersed with non-native weedy habitat (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Given the above, the Originally Approved Plan would not have a substantial impact on sensitive natural communities identified in any plans, and impacts would be less than significant. The Specific Plan area has not changed and as the Modified Plan would continue with plans to remove all 20.4 acres of existing on -site habitat. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi -family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. There are also no changed circumstances or new information. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. c) Would the Modified Plan 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 discussed in the SCEA, the Specific Plan area does not contain State or federal protected wetlands and thus protected wetlands would not be disturbed. The Specific Plan areas does contain a man-made, largely unvegetated detention basin in the northwestern corner that did not exhibit signs of prolonged inundation, and which is not an aquatic resource subject to federal or State agency jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act, or the CFGC (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would result in no impact. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi- family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated. The single-family and duplex units would be within a portion of the Specific Plan area previously analyzed for development. Further, there are no changed circumstances 16917 24 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 234 1.f or new information relating to federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.). As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to federally protected wetlands and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. d) Would the Modified Plan 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? The SCEA states that the Specific Plan area is surrounded by urban development and does not serve to connect habitat areas or provide a conduit by which wildlife could reach the areas necessary for their life history. The Santa Clara River does serve as such a conduit for wildlife and is located approximately 600 feet from the Specific Plan area at the closest point and separated by intervening development (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As such, the Originally Approved Plan would not result in any substantial effects on wildlife movement or established wildlife corridors, and impacts would be less than significant. Regarding nursery sites, development of the Originally Approved Plan would result in a permanent loss of on -site habitat suitable to function as a rearing area for wildlife; however, as discussed in the SCEA, the Specific Plan area does not contain any significant features that offer unique or high -quality nursery opportunities for wildlife, and the site's habitat is common in the region. Animals that use the Specific Plan area would be displaced during construction and forced to find alternative nesting sites, if not killed, and could also perish due to competition or exposure (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Nesting birds would likely be able to find new nesting sites due to their high mobility. Because the species affected by the Originally Approved Plan are common with secure populations in the region and because the Project would not impact rare or especially valuable nursery habitat, the loss of potential nursery habitat would less than significant. Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would not impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites, and impacts would be less than significant. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi- family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated. The development of the Modified Project would be in the same location as the Originally Approved Plan, except with lower density. Further, there would be no changed circumstances and no new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. e) Would the Modified Plan conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, including oak trees? The SCEA states that the Specific Plan area does not contain any trees, and as such, the City's oak tree ordinance does not apply and there would be no conflict. However, the Specific Plan area is partially within the Santa Clara River Significant Ecological Area (SEA) designated by the County, although there are no resources on -site (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The SCEA evaluated the Originally Approved Plan for compatibility with SEA resources, guided by the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, and found that the Originally Approved Plan is compatible with biological resources, maintains watercourses and waterbodies in a natural state, maintains wildlife corridors, preserves adequate buffer areas or barriers between development and natural resources, provides fences or walls where necessary to buffer important 16917 25 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 235 1.f habitat areas from development, and ensures that road and utilities are designed to mitigate impacts to biological resources. Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and impacts would be less than significant. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan as the Specific Plan area has not changed. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi -family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated as compared to the Originally Approved Plan. There are no changed circumstances and no new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to conflicts with any local policies protecting biological resources and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. f) Would the Modified Plan conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? As discussed in the SCEA, the Specific Plan area is not located within the coverage area of a federal, State, or local habitat conservation plan, and therefore the Originally Approved Plan would not conflict with the provisions of any adopted habitat or natural community conservation plan or any other approved conservation plan, and no impact would occur. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan as the Specific Plan area has not changed. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi -family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated as compared to the Originally Approved Plan. There are no changed circumstances and no new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to conflicts with an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 9) Would the Modified Plan affect a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) or Significant Natural Area (SNA) as identified on the City of Santa Clarita ESA Delineation Map? The SCEA states that a portion of the Specific Plan area is within the Santa Clara SEA designed by the County and within the County's overlay zone; however, no unique biological resources are present within the SEA, and the Originally Approved Plan would therefore not affect the SEA, and impacts would be less than significant. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan as the Specific Plan area has not changed. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi -family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated as compared to the Originally Approved Plan. There are no changed circumstances and no new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to an SEA or SNA and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 16917 26 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 236 1.f 3.5 Cultural Resources V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource ❑ ❑ ® ❑ pursuant to §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological ❑ ❑ ® ❑ resource pursuantto §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy or impact a unique paleontological resource or site ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal ❑ ❑ ® ❑ cemeteries? SCEA Analysis Summary e Originally Approved Plan Potential impacts to cultural resources were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-68 through 4-80 using information contained in the Cultural Resources Inventory for the MetroWalk Development Project. The SCEA determined there would be no impact to historical resources and impacts relating to the disturbance of human remains were determined to be less than significant. Impacts to archaeological resources were determined to be less than significant with mitigation upon implementation of Project -specific MM-CUL-1 while impacts to paleontological resources were determined to be less than significantwith mitigation upon implementation of Project -specific MM-CUL-2. These mitigation measures are included below: MM 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 be warranted. MM 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 16917 27 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 237 1.f 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. Modified Plan Analysis a) Would the Modified Plan cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? The Specific Plan area is a vacant infill site located in the Canyon Country community within the City. As discussed in the SCEA, a records search was conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) that identified three previously conducted cultural resources studies that overlap or intersect with the Specific Plan area which revealed no cultural resources on the Specific Plan area. In addition, Exhibit CO-6, Historical Resources, of the City's General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element reveals that there are not any historical resources on the Specific Plan area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Specific Plan area is located adjacent to two Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) lines, one of which may contain historical associations with the original 1875 SPRR alignment between Northern and Southern California; however, the Cultural Resources Inventory determined thatthe Originally Approved Plan would not result in significant direct or indirect impacts to the 1875 SPRR track because it is at least 300 feet outside of the Originally Approved Plan boundaries and because the historical setting has been significantly altered by freeway and residential development (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Because the Originally Approved Plan would not directly or indirectly cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, no impact wouId occur. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan as the Specific Plan area has not changed and because the Modified Plan amends the Specific Plan to allow for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi -family and affordable senior uses and reduces the total number of new units proposed to a total of up to 318 units as compared to the Originally Approved Plan. There are no changed circumstances and no new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. The Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to historical resources and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. b) Would the Modified Plan cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? The Originally Approved Plan would require a maximum excavation depth of approximately 12 feet. As discussed in the SCEA, the SCCIC records search identified three previously conducted cultural resources studies that overlap or intersect with the Specific Plan area which revealed no cultural resources on the Specific Plan area. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted in February 2020 to request a search of their files to determine whether any Native American resources have been mapped within or near the Specific Plan area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The NAHC responded in March 2020 stating that the search was negative for Native American resources. In addition, a pedestrian survey of the 16917 28 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 238 1.f Originally Approved Plan Site was conducted by an archaeologist and a Tataviam Native American Monitor, and no cultural resources were found on the Specific Plan area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Nonetheless, construction activities have the potential to encounter previously undiscovered archaeological resources, and therefore the Originally Approved Plan includes Project -specific MM 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 and would halt construction immediately within 100 feet if an inadvertent discovery is made. With incorporation of MM CUL-1, Originally Approved Plan impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan as the Specific Plan area has not changed and the same area would be graded, even with the allowance single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi -family and affordable senior uses. Furthermore, the Modified Plan would continue to incorporate Project -specific MM CUL-1. Additionally, there are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in an impact of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to archaeological resources and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. c) Would the Modified plan directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? As disclosed in the SCEA, according to the City's General Plan EIR, the Santa Clarita Valley is sensitive for paleontological resources, with most of the potential fossil -producing rock formations in the City located within hilly terrain, and the Santa Susana Mountains and Sierra Pelona Mountains are sensitive to paleontological resources. Based on the Paleontological Resources Review conducted by Dudek for the Originally Approved Plan, middle to early late Miocene Mint Canyon Formation, which has a high paleontological resource sensitivity and has produced scientifically significant vertebrates, is exposed at the surface in the northeastern portion of the Specific Plan area and may be exposed at an unknown depth elsewhere within the Specific Plan area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Furthermore, according to records results received from the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum, the closest fossil locality to the Specific Plan area is east-northeast of the Specific Plan area, along Sand Canyon Road. The Originally Approved Plan would require a maximum excavation depth of approximately 12 feet. Although the Specific Plan area has been previously disturbed and no paleontological resources were identified on -site, due to the proximity of past fossil discoveries and to the Mint Canyon Formation, Dudek determined that the Specific Plan area is highly sensitive for paleontological resources and therefore the Originally Approved Plan included MM CUL-2 to ensure that any impacts in the event that paleontological resources are found would be reduced to a level of less than significant (City of Santa Clarita 2020). With incorporation of MM CUL-2, Originally Approved Plan impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. The Specific Plan area has not changed and the Modified Project area of construction would be the same as the area within the Originally Approved Plan. Furthermore, the Modified Plan would continue to incorporate Project -specific MM CUL-2. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in an impact of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to paleontological resources and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 16917 29 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 239 1.f dy Would the Modified Plan disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? As discussed in the SCEA, the Specific Plan area is not part of a formal cemetery and is not known to have been used for disposal of historical or prehistoric human remains and therefore human remains are not expected to be encountered during construction. In the unlikely eventthat human remains are encountered during construction, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires projects to halt until the county coroner has examined the remains, and if the coroner determines that the remains may be Native American, PRC Section 5097.98 requires that the NAHC be notified within 24 hours and that they notify those persons it believes to be the most likely descendant (MLD) of the deceased Native American who will then complete their inspection within 48 hours and determine the disposition of the human remains (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Compliance with these regulations would reduce any potential impacts to a level of less than significant. The area of construction would be the same with the Modified Plan as with the Originally Approved Plan. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to human remains and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 3.6 Energy VI. ENERGY - Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary ❑ ❑ ® ❑ consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy ❑ ❑ ® ❑ efficiency? SCEA Analysis Summary - Originally Approved Plan Energy impacts were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-80 through 4-87. The SCEA determined that impacts relatingto wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and conflicts with a state or local plan for renewable energy would be less than significant. 16917 30 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 240 1.f Modified Plan Analysis a) Would the Modified Plan result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? As detailed within the SCEA in Table VI-1, the Originally Approved Plan's energy usage would constitute an approximate 0.0016% increase over Los Angeles County's typical annual electricity consumption, an approximate 0.0037% increase over the County's typical annual natural gas consumption, and operational vehicle fuel consumption would increase the County's annual consumption by 0.0213%. The Originally Approved Plan would consume energy through fuel energy consumed by construction vehicles and equipment and by bound energy in construction materials. The overall fuel consumption during construction of the Originally Approved Plan would be approximately 809,336 gallons, resulting in a nominal increase in fuel use in the County and the Originally Approved Plan would therefore result in a minimal effect on local and regional energysupplies and would not require additional capacity (City of Santa Clarita 2020). According to the SCEA, some energy conservation would occur during construction through compliance with State requirements and with the latest Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) engine emissions standards which require highly efficient combustion systems that maximize fuel efficiency and reduce unnecessaryfuel consumption. The Originally Approved Plan includes Project -specific MM AQ-1 which requires that all diesel -fueled equipment used during construction shall be equipped with Tier 4 Final engines which would reduce air pollutant emissions and increase fuel efficiency, thus reducing the amount of fuel off -road equipment would consume (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The SCEA states that there are no unusual Originally Approved Plan characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment, building materials, or methods that would be less efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or State, and construction fuel energy and construction materials would not represent a significant demand on energy resources. As such, construction energy use would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. The Originally Approved Plan would consume approximately 661,775 gallons of fuel per year during operation which would increase Countywide vehicle fuel consumption 0.0213% and does not propose any unusual features that would result in excessive long-term fuel consumption (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan includes the installation of 203 electric vehicles (EV) charging stations and designated EV parking spaces in compliance with 2019 CALGreen Code which supports EV use and would reduce petroleum fuel consumption. Therefore, fuel consumption from vehicle trips generated by the Originally Approved Plan would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary. As discussed in the SCEA, the California Energy Commission (CEC) forecasts that the Statewide annual average growth rates of energy demand between 2016 and 2030 would be 0.99%to 1.59%for electricity and 0.25%to 0.77% for natural gas. Operational energy consumption of the Originally Approved Plan would represent an approximately 0.0016% in electricity consumption and a 0.0037% increase natural gas consumption over the current Countywide usage, which would be significantly below the CEC's forecasts and the current Countywide usage (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As such, the Originally Approved Plan would be consistent with the CEC's forecasts and would not require additional capacity or supplies. Furthermore, the Originally Approved Plan would consume energy during the same time periods as other residential developments and would consume energy evenly throughout the day, therefore not resulting in unique or more intensive peak or base period electricity demand (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan would be required to comply with the 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards which would significantly reduce energy usage and ensure that the Project is consistent with various City General Plan goals and objectives. Furthermore, Southern California Edison (SCE) is subject to California's Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) which would increase the reliance on renewable energy sources and would ensure that new development projects would not result in the waste of finite energy resources (City of Santa Clarita 16917 31 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 241 1.f 2020). As such, the Originally Approved Plan would not cause wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of building energy during operations or construction and would not preempt future energy development or conservation, and impacts would therefore be less than significant. Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Modified Plan would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. The Modified Plan would continue to require a minimal amount of fuel use, not requiring additional capacity, would continue to not propose any unusual features requiring excessive long-term fuel consumption, and would continue to comply with all applicable State and federal standards, including Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The Modified Plan allows for single- family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi -family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated. Given that the Modified Plan reduces the total number of proposed units, the Modified Plan would also reduce the total on -site energy use. The Modified Plan would result in reduced operational fuel consumption as there would be fewer dwelling units and less people residing within the Specific Plan area compared to the Originally Approved Plan. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. b) Would the Modified Plan conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency The Originally Approved Plan was designed to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local plans and codes, including the 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which the City enforces through its local building code, plan check, and permitting processes, and compliance with which would ensure that the Originally Approved Plan incorporates energy -efficient design features (City of Santa Clarita 2020). According to the SCEA, electricity supplied to the Originally Approved Plan by SCE would be subject to the State's RPS that increases energy procurement from renewable sources. In addition, the Originally Approved Plan would comply with the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction policies and other policies within the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS that focus on creating livable communities, reducing fossil fuel use by decreasing VMT, reducing building energy use, and increasing the use of renewable resources, and would comply with General Plan Goal CO 8, Objective 8.1 and Objective 8.3 (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The SCEA states thatthe Specific Plan area is within a High -Quality Transit Area (HQTA) a TPA, and a livable corridor consistentwith the 2040-2045 RTP/SCS thatfocuses on placing housing neartransit, which would reduce the consumption of electricity, natural gas, and petroleum, and states thatthe Specific Plan area is well -served by the Vista Canyon Multi -Modal Center. As such, the Originally Approved Plan would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than significant. The Modified Plan, similar to the Originally Approved Plan, would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local policies and plans, including Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi -family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated, which would result in reduced operational fuel consumption as less people would reside on the Specific Plan area compared to the Originally Approved Plan. Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to conflicts with a 16917 32 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 242 1.f state or local plan for renewable energy and would not result in anew or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 3.7 Geology and Soils VIL GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause 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. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ iii) Seismic -related ground failure, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, either on- ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or off -site? c) 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, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) 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? f) Result in a change in topography or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ground surface relief features? g) Result in earth movement (cut and/or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? h) Involve development and/or grading on a slope greater than 10% natural ❑ ❑ ® ❑ grade? 16917 33 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 243 1.f Result in the destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or SCEA Analysis Summary - Originally Approved Plan Potential impacts to geology and soils were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-87 through 4-100. Potential impacts relating to geology and soils were determined to be less than significant or were determined to have no impact. Modified Plan Analysis a) Would the Modified Plan directly or indirectly cause 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. As discussed in the SCEA, the Specific Plan area is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones or any other known fault zones, and no known Holocene -active faults cross the Specific Plan area. Although the potential forfault rupture atthe Specific Plan area is lowto non-existent, the Originally Approved Plan would still be required to comply with the California Building Standards Code (CBC). Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would not expose people or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects, and no impact wouId occur. Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Modified Plan would comply with the CBC. Proposed development would occur in the same Specific Plan area as the Originally Approved Plan. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relatingto rupture of a known earthquake fault and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? The Originally Approved Plan area is subject to potential earthquake hazards due to the seismically active nature of Southern California; although, according to the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the Originally Approved Plan, the closest known active fault capable of producing strong ground shaking is the San Gabriel Fault located approximately 4.5 miles west of the Specific Plan area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Consequently, the Specific Plan area could be impacted by strong ground shaking should an earthquake occur along this fault. However, the Originally Approved Plan would be required to comply with the CBC, the City of Santa Clarita Building Code, and other applicable codes, and would still be subject to building inspection during and after construction. Compliance with these applicable codes would ensure that the Originally Approved Plan would not expose people or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects, and impacts would be less than significant. 16917 34 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 244 1.f Similar to development under the Originally Approved Plan, the Modified Plan would comply with all applicable codes including the CBC and the Santa Clarita Building Code and would still be subject to building inspection during and after construction. Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to strong seismic ground shaking and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? As discussed in the SCEA, the Specific Plan area is located within a liquefaction hazard area, as shown on Exhibit S-3 of the City's General Plan Safety Element. However, the Project would be required to comply with the Recommended Procedures of Implementation of CGS Special Publication 117A, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California to achieve standards that reduce the risk of liquefaction -induced settlementto a level of less than significant (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan itself would not exacerbate the risk of liquefaction to occur on the Specific Plan area, and the City's Building Code requires mitigation of liquefaction hazards in new development projects. The appropriate design techniques would be confirmed during the City's plan check process and would ensure that the Originally Approved Plan's impacts would be less than significant. Similarto the Originally Approved Plan, the Modified Plan would comply with the Recommended Procedures of Implementation of CGS Special Publication 117A, the City's Building Code, and would have its design techniques confirmed during the City's plan check process. Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to seismic -related ground failure and liquefaction and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. iv) Landslides? As discussed in the SCEA, the Specific Plan area is not located within an area subject to potential seismic - induced slope instability or a mapped landslide zone, and no steep slopes exist on or within the immediate vicinity of the site. As such, seismic -induced landslides are not a significant hazard for the Originally Approved Plan and the Project would not expose people or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects. There would be no impact. Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, development under the Modified Plan would occur within the same Specific Plan area where it would not be located within an area subject to potential seismic -induced slope instability or a mapped landslide zone, and no steep slopes exist on or within the immediate vicinity of the site. Further, there are no changed circumstances nor any new information. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan as the Specific Plan area has not changed. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to landslides and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 16917 35 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 245 1.f b) Would the Modified Plan result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, either on- or off -site? As described in the SCEA, during construction, soils on -site may become exposed and subject to erosion; however, the Originally Approved Plan would be required to incorporate existing regulations that reduce erosion potential including SCAQMD Rule 403, which would reduce the potential for wind erosion, while compliance with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit would reduce potential water erosion impacts by requiring best management practices (BMPs) to prevent eroded soils from traveling off -site. Erosion potential during construction would be greatly reduced through required compliance with existing regulations. After construction, the Specific Plan area would be covered with structures, landscaping, pavement, and other hard surfaces which would reduce erosive potential of the Specific Plan area. Therefore, because the Originally Approved Plan would be required to implement SCAQMD Rule 403 and NPDES requirements, and because development of the Originally Approved Plan would reduce erosive potential compared to existing conditions, the Project would not result in substantial wind or water soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, and impacts would be less than significant. Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, development under the Modified Plan would incorporate existing regulations including SCAQMD Rule 403, comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit, and would also introduce structures, landscaping, pavement, and other hard surfaces that would reduce erosive potential within the Specific Plan area. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relatingto wind or water soil erosion or the loss of topsoil and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. c) Would the Modified Plan 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, or collapse? As discussed in the SCEA, saturated soils that have experienced liquefaction may be subject to lateral spreading where they are located adjacent to free faces, such as slopes, channels, and rivers. However, the Specific Plan area does not include any free faces or steep slopes, and as such, no lateral spreading or landslides would occur. Incorporation of appropriate design and engineering techniques and BMPs, such as removal and recompaction of soil, in combination with structural solutions (e.g., matfoundation and pile and grade beams) would be confirmed during the City's plan check process, and proper design and engineering techniques would be included in construction specifications to the satisfaction of the City's Department of Building and Safety prior to issuance of grading permits (City of Santa Clarita 2020). This standard regulatory compliance process would reduce potential impacts associated with subsidence or collapse due to unstable soils to a level of less than significant. Therefore, compliance with regulatory requirements would ensure thatthe Originally Approved Plan would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the Originally Approved Plan, and impacts would be less than significant. Similarto the Originally Approved Plan, development underthe Modified Plan would implement appropriate design and engineering techniques or structural solutions confirmed to the satisfaction of the City's Department of Building and Safety during the City's plan check process. Development would occur within the same Specific Plan area. Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in 16917 36 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 246 1.f any new or different impacts relating to unstable soils and would not result in anew or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. d) Would the Modified Plan be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? The Geotechnical Investigation for the Originally Approved Plan showed that the soil on the Specific Plan area has low expansive characteristics based on field soil classifications and lab testing and based on the recommended foundation systems and underlying soil properties, soil expansion or contraction is unlikely to affect the Originally Approved Plan (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than significant. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan as the Specific Plan area has not changed. There are also no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relatingto expansive soils and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. e) Would the Modified Plan 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? The SCEA identified there would be a less than significant impact in this regard because the Originally Approved Plan would be required to connectto the existing public sewer system. Therefore, septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems would not be used, and there would be no impact. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respectto the Modified Plan as the Modified Plan would still be required to connect to the existing public sewer system. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. f) Would the Modified Plan result in a change in topography or ground surface relief features? The Specific Plan area is relatively flat and would require gradingfor site preparation and forthe installation of utility lines. The SCEA determined that as the Originally Approved Plan would have consisted of approximately 50,000 cubic yards of cut, up to 50,000 cubic yards of fill, and approximately 400,000 cubic yards of over excavation, grading would have been balanced on the Specific Plan area and would not have resulted in noticeable changes in topography or ground surface relief features. Impacts were determined to be less than significant. Grading of the site has already largely occurred. The Modified Plan would not change the amount of grading or change in topography or ground surface relief features. There are also no changed circumstances nor any new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the conclusion in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to a change in topography or ground surface relief features and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 16917 37 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 247 1.f 9) Would the Modified Plan result in earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? The Originally Approved Plan consists of approximately 50,000 cubic yards of cut, up to 50,000 cubic yards of fill, and approximately 400,000 cubic yards of over excavation (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As discussed in the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan would be required to submit a grading plan to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Building and Safety Division, that incorporates the preliminary design recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Investigation Report and the final geotechnical reportthat provides design -level values for development for the final Project plans. Compliance with all applicable City grading permit requirements would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. Grading of the site has already largely occurred. The Modified Plan would involve similar amounts of earth movement as the Originally Approved Plan. Further, there are no changed circumstances nor any new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relatingto significant earth movement and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. h) Would the Modified Plan involve development and/or grading on a slope greater than 10 o natural grade? The Specific Plan area includes steep slopes on the western boundary of the Specific Plan area; however, the Specific Plan area is largelyflat, and there are not natural slopes largerthan a 10%grade on -site where the Originally Approved Plan's uses are planned for (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Therefore, as stated in the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan would not cause any impacts regarding grading or slopes greater than 10%, and impacts would be less than significant. The Modified Plan development would occur in the same Specific Plan area as the Originally Approved Plan. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to grading on a slope greater than 10% natural grade and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. i) Would the Modified Plan result in the destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? As discussed above, the Specific Plan area is largely flat and does not contain any ridgelines or other regionally notable topographic features (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would not impact any unique geologic or physical feature, and no impact would occur. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan as the Specific Plan area has not changed. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA, and no impact would occur. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to any unique geologic or physical feature and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 16917 38 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 248 1.f 3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS - Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may ❑ ❑ ® ❑ have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? SCEA Analysis Summary e Originally Approved Plan Greenhouse gas emissions impacts were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-100 through 4-113. The SCEA did not identify any significant impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and was found to be consistent with the City of Santa Clarita Climate Action Plan, the OVOV General Plan, the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, and the 2017 State Scoping Plan, and therefore would not substantially contribute to global climate change impacts. Impacts were determined to be less than significant. Modified Plan Analysis a) Would the Modified Plan generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? AND b) Would the Modified Plan conflict With an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? The Originally Approved Plan would generate temporary and long-term increases in GHG emissions during construction and operation. As discussed within the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan would generate GHG emissions during construction from off -road equipment usage, construction vehicles, and construction worker trips, and would result in combined annual emissions of 2,061 metric tons of CO2e. Even though the City's Climate Action Plan (CAP) expired in August 2020, the Air Quality and GHG Study prepared for the Originally Approved Plan determined that the Project would be consistent with the measures of the CAP that would have applied (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan would be consistent with General Plan Goal CO 8 as it would be required comply with the CALGreen Code, the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, the City's Green Building Standards Code, and the City's Energy Conservation Code, and would include energy- and water -efficient appliances and fixtures and would be located adjacentto the Metrolink Vista Canyon Station (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan would also include a recreation center, a tot lot, a multi -use trail, and pedestrian linkages, thereby reducing VMT by providing recreational opportunities within walking distance. The SCEA also determined that the Originally Approved Plan would be consistent with all 10 goals of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS that overall focus growth near destinations and mobility options, promote diverse 16917 39 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 249 1.f housing choices, leverage technology innovations, support implementation of sustainability policy, and promote a green region. The Originally Approved Plan would also be consistent with the goals of the 2017 Scoping Plan that reduce fossil fuel use and energy demand and maximize recycling and landfill diversion and would comply with the IatestTitle 24 standards. Thus, the Originally Approved Plan would notgenerate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation to reduce GHG emissions, and impacts would therefore be less than significant. In June 2022, the City adopted an updated CAP that sets new targets for reaching aggressive emissions reductions across five main focus areas: Buildings & Energy, Transportation & Land Use, Materials & Consumption, Natural Systems & Water Resources, and Community Resilience & Wellbeing. The updated CAP sets a near -term target to achieve a 40% reduction in GHG emissions by 2030 and an interim target to reach an 80% reduction by 2035. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi -family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated, which would result in reduced operational fuel consumption, and thus, less GHG emissions, resulting in a slightly reduced impact compared to the Originally Approved Plan. In addition, the Modified Plan would continue to be consistent with all plans and their goals and would comply with all applicable standards and codes. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to significant GHG emissions or relating to conflicts with an applicable plan, policy or regulation to reduce GHG emissions, and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving explosion ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or the release of hazardous materials into the environment (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or radiation)? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ❑ ❑ ® ❑ one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 16917 40 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 250 1.f New Potentially Significant _. • • • Reduced ImpactRequired `i i.Impact d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuantto Government ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result ❑ ❑ ® ❑ in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency ❑ ❑ ® ❑ response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) 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? i) Expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards (e.g., electrical ❑ ❑ ® ❑ transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)? Prior SCEA Analysis Summary Potential impacts to hazards and hazardous materials were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-113 through 4-127. All potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts were determined to be less than significant or were determined to result in no impact. Modified Plan Analysis a) Would the Modified Plan create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? As discussed in the SCEA, the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials are closely regulated through State and federal law, including those incorporated into the California Health and Safety Code, such as the California Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law and the California Hazardous Waste Control Law as well as other regulations promulgated by State and federal regulatory agencies including the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW), the California 16917 41 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 251 1.f Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). The Originally Approved Plan, as a residential land use, would involve the handling of minor quantities of common household hazardous materials such as cleaning products, paints, solvents, and adhesives, among others, which are considered acceptable in residential areas and are not a significant threatto the environment (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Given the relatively minor use of hazardous materials and the requirement to adhere to State and federal law closely regulating hazardous materials, the Originally Approved Plan was determined to result in less than significant impacts. The Modified Plan involves the transport, use, or disposal of common household hazardous materials and would also be required to adhere to State and federal regulations that heavily regulate the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, similar to the Originally Approved Plan. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impact relating to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. b) Would the Modified Plan create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving explosion or the release of hazardous materials into the environment (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or radiation)? The Originally Approved Plan included a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) to delineate the environmental conditions on the Specific Plan area, which reviewed the historical land uses of the Specific Plan area, included a local and regional environmental records search, and included Specific Plan area reconnaissance (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As discussed in the SCEA, the records search and the Specific Plan area reconnaissance did not reveal any aboveground storage tanks, hazardous materials, or petroleum products on the Specific Plan area. The Phase 11 ESA for the Originally Approved Plan confirmed that the adjacent railroad tracks, historical agricultural use, and historical hog farm operations of the Specific Plan area do not represent recognized environmental conditions (RECs) or an unacceptable human health risk and therefore would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment through potential upset or accident conditions. The SCEA determined that impacts would be less than significant. Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Modified Plan would adhere to all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations related to emissions of or the handling of hazardous substances. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relatingto reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. c) Would the Modified Plan emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? The nearest school to the Specific Plan area is the Fair Oaks Ranch Community School located approximately 0.6 mile southwest of the site, and there are no proposed schools within 0.25 mile of the Specific Plan area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As such, the Originally Approved Plan was determined to have no impact regarding hazardous emissions or materials near existing or proposed schools. 16917 42 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 252 1.f The Modified Plan is located in the same Specific Plan area as the Originally Approved Plan. Similar to the the Originally Approved Plan, development under the Modified Plan would adhere to all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations related to emissions of or the handling of hazardous substances. Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous materials within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. d) Would the Modified Plan 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 the environment? As discussed in the SCEA, the Specific Plan area is not listed on the DTSC's Cortese List of hazardous waste sites and therefore would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As such, the Originally Approved Plan was determined to have no impact in this regard. The Modified Plan is located in the same Specific Plan area as the Originally Approved Plan. Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to a hazardous materials site and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 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 Modified Plan result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? As discussed in the SCEA, the nearest airport to the Specific Plan area is the Whiteman Airport located approximately 10 miles south of the Specific Plan area. As such, the Specific Plan area is not within 2 miles of an airport and the Project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The SCEA determined there would be no impact regarding public or public use airports. The Specific Plan area has not changed, and there are no changed circumstances nor new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to safety hazards for people residing or working in the Specific Plan area and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Modified Plan result in a safety hazard for people residing or wonting in the Specific Plan area? The airport or airstrip nearest to the Specific Plan area is the Whiteman Airport located approximately 10 miles south of the site and the Originally Approved Plan therefore would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The SCEA determined there would be no impact regarding private airstrips. The Specific Plan area has not changed, and there are no changed circumstances nor new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis 16917 43 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 253 1.f in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to safety hazards for people residing or working in the Specific Plan area and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 9) Would the Modified Plan impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? As discussed in the SCEA, the City has a Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP), adopted in 2004 and updated in 2010 and 2015, which provides a framework for communications, decisions, and actions by emergency response personnel for emergencies requiring evacuation (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The SCEA determined thatthe HMP emergency response system would be adequate to address emergency response evacuation scenarios for potential hazard events in the Originally Approved Plan area, and thatthe Project's proposed emergency access features would be evaluated as part of the development review process. Furthermore, as discussed in the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan would develop the currently vacant Specific Plan area with impervious surfaces or managed landscape areas which would remove existing wildfire fuel loads and would reduce the wildfire risk on the Specific Plan area. The Project would be constructed to the stringent standards of the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD) to reduce wildfire risk and would also be required to be in full compliance with all applicable standards for development in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The City would review all construction plans to determine the Originally Approved Plan is in compliance. Through compliance with the City's development review process and the HMP, the Originally Approved Plan would not impair or interfere with implementation of an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan and impacts would therefore be less than significant (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Specific Plan area has not changed, and there are no changed circumstances nor new information. There would be fewer residents would potentially need to evacuate during an emergency. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relatingto conflicts with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. h) Would the Modified Plan 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? As discussed in the SCEA analysis for this impact threshold and in Section XX, Wildfire, the Originally Approved Plan would not impair or interfere with implementation of an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan, would not result in any significant impacts related to wildfire, and wildfire impacts would therefore be less than significant (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Specific Plan area has not changed, and there are no changed circumstances nor new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to exposure of people or structures to wildland fires and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 16917 44 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 254 1.f i) Would the Modified Plan expose people to existing sources of potential health hazards (e.g., electrical transmission lines, gas lines, oil pipelines)? The SCEA disclosed that the Specific Plan area is located in a suburban area with major utilities running underneath nearby roads and no overhead power lines in the immediate vicinity. SoCalGas revealed there is a natural gas pipeline located underneath the railroad segment immediately southeast of the Specific Plan area; however, the Project does not propose any ground disturbance in this area and the pipeline would therefore not be affected, and standard construction precautions would further reduce the potential risk of hazards to construction workers (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan would locate utilities within underground conduits in the public or private street corridors/rights-of-way of each Planning Area. Thus, the SCEA determined that the Originally Approved Plan would not expose people to existing sources or potential health hazards such as electrical transmission lines, gas lines, or oil pipelines, and impacts would therefore be less than significant. The Specific Plan area has not changed, and there are no changed circumstances nor new information. Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Modified Plan would locate all utilities underground. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) 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) 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? 16917 45 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 255 1.f New Potentially Significant _. • • • Reduced ImpactRequired `i i.Impact d) 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) 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? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ❑ ❑ ® ❑ quality? g) 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) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ redirect flood flows? i) 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) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ mudflow? k) Result in changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and direction of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ surface water and/or groundwater? 1) Other modification of a wash, channel ❑ ❑ ® ❑ creek, or river? m) Impact stormwater management in any of the following ways: i) Potential impact of project construction and project post- ❑ ❑ ® ❑ construction activity on stormwater runoff? ii) Potential discharges from areas for materials storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? 0 M N v N U m E m E Q c� (L U U 0 CL co Y 0 L d) 2 E 0 r- m Q Q w U co r- m E U r r Q 16917 46 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 256 1.f New Potentially Significant _. • • • Reduced ImpactRequired `i i.Impact iii) Significant environmentally harmful increase in the flow velocity or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ volume of stormwater runoff? iv) Significant and environmentally harmful increases in erosion of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Specific Plan area or surrounding areas? v) 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) Cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage systems, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ watersheds, and/or water bodies? vii) Does the Proposed Project include provisions for the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials ❑ ❑ ® ❑ both during construction and after project occupancy? SCEA Analysis Summary - Originally Approved Plan Potential impacts to hydrology and water quality were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-127 through 4-142. All potential impacts relating to hydrology and water quality were determined to be less than significant or were determined to result in no impact. Modified Plan Analysis a) Would the Modified Plan violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? As described in the SCEA, the City is within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB which has adopted water quality objectives in its Stormwater Quality Management Plan (SQMP) designed to ensure that stormwater achieves compliance with receiving water limitations so that the stormwater generated by any given development does not exceed the limitations of receiving waters and, thus, would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Chapter 17.90 of the SCMC prescribes the requirements for compliance with Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (the NPDES program) for all proposed grading activities (City of Santa Clarita 2020). MS4 permits are required under the NPDES program which mandate low impact development (LID) practices to be implemented and require submittal of a comprehensive LID plan and analysis to demonstrate compliance with Los Angeles County's LID Standards Manual (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The applicant for the Originally Approved Plan would be required to prepare a comprehensive LID plan for review and approval by the City. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable City grading permit standards to reduce sediment and erosion, would be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit, and would be required to implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with erosion and sediment control measures to eliminate or 16917 47 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 257 1.f control pollutants discharged from the Specific Plan area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As stated in the SCEA, compliance with the City's permitting process and the SWPPP would ensure that the Project would not significantly alter the drainage of the Specific Plan area or result in erosion from the Specific Plan area that would impact water quality. Potential pollutants during Project operation would be typical of pollutants from urban land uses and of runoff from impervious surfaces which could result in the discharge of these potential pollutants into the local storm drain system. As discussed in the SCEA, stormwater discharges containing urban pollutants are regulated by the countywide MS4 permit. The Project would include BMPs to treat the Project's stormwater runoff prior to discharge. Specifically, infiltration would be the method for water quality treatment for the Project. The infiltration chamber, which would replace the existing desilting basin near the northwestern corner of the Specific Plan area, would remove pathogens, nutrients, pesticides, organic compounds, oxygen demanding substances, trash and debris, oils and grease, sediments, and metals by filtering the runoff though natural earth/soil prior to entering the underground aquifer. Furthermore, there would be multiple catch basins on the Specific Plan area, which would collect the runoff and send it the proposed underground infiltration chamber located on the northwestern corner of the Specific Plan area. All runoff from the Specific Plan area would be captured in area drains and routed through an underground storm drain system, which would tie into the existing 42-inch storm drain in Harriman Drive. Prior to discharge into this storm drain, the first -flush runoff would be treated in the underground infiltration chamber. During flood events, the total flowrate thatwould be generated bythe Originally Approved Plan and discharged into the 42-inch storm drain is estimated to be 61.34 cfs, which would be below the storm drain's design capacity of 98.75 cfs. With incorporation of the infiltration chamber into the Project design, as well as compliance with the MS4 permit and NPDES permit requirements, the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and Originally Approved Plan impacts would be less than significant. Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Modified Plan would comply with all applicable City grading permit standards to reduce sediment and erosion, obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit, and would implement a SWPPP with erosion and sediment control measures to eliminate or control pollutants discharged from the Specific Plan area. Further, there are no changed circumstances or any new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to violations of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. b) Would the Modified Plan 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)? The Origi na I ly Approved Plan is located within the Santa Clara River Va I ley Su bbasi n of the Santa Clara River Valley Groundwater Basin where groundwater is replenished by the Santa Clara River, its tributaries, and stormwater percolation (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As discussed in the SCEA. the Originally Approved Plan would not install any groundwater wells or otherwise directly withdraw any groundwater and there are not any known aquifer conditions on the Specific Plan area or in the vicinity that could be affected by construction activities. The City's General Plan EIR has determined that urbanization in the Santa Clarita Valley has not reduced groundwater recharge, nor depleted the amount of groundwater stored in the local groundwater basin due to long-term stability in pumping and groundwater levels with the addition of imported water from the State Water Project, and the Originally Approved Plan therefore would not interfere 16917 48 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 258 1.f with any groundwater supplies (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The SCEA disclosed that groundwater was not encountered at the Specific Plan area at a depth of 51.5 feet in recent exploration and that the Originally Approved Plan would have a maximum excavation depth of approximately 12 feet. The Originally Approved Plan would adhere to the NPDES Construction General Permit which authorizes construction dewatering activities and the General Waste Discharge Requirements of the Los Angeles RWQCB that include BMPs that govern construction -related dewatering discharges within project development areas. Compliance with the General Waste Discharge Requirements would ensure that Originally Approved Plan impacts relating to discharges would be less than significant. Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, development under the Modified Plan would involve the same maximum depth of excavation at 12 feet. Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Modified Plan would continue to comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit and the General Waste Discharge Requirements of the Los Angeles RWQCB. Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to groundwater supplies and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. c) Would the Modified Plan 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? As described in the SCEA, the Specific Plan area drains in a northwest direction and into an existing 42- inch storm drain in Harriman Drive while a desilting basin exists near the northwestern corner of the site at the inlet to the 42-inch storm drain to collect debris from the natural condition of the Specific Plan area. Development of the Originally Approved Plan would alter the drainage of the Specific Plan area as it would introduce impervious surfaces (residential buildings, ancillary structures, parking lots, sidewalks, pedestrian paths, and landscaping) on a previously undeveloped and pervious site (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As discussed in the SCEA, the proposed on -site drainage system for the Originally Approved Plan would incorporate BMPs to reduce erosion and siltation to the maximum extent possible, which include catch basins designed to physically screen pollutants and an underground infiltration chamber, while all runoff from the Specific Plan area would be captured in private storm drain lines and routed through an underground storm drain system. Before the system discharges into the existing 42-inch storm drain, a diverter (splitter) box would route the required low flow volume to an underground water quality infiltration chamber while lettingthe high flow continue on to the existing 42-inch storm drain. The low flow pipe would be sized to convey the water quality flow into the underground chamber, and during flood events, the total flow rate that would be generated by the Originally Approved Plan and discharged into the 42-inch storm drain was estimated to be 61.34 cfs, which would be below the storm drain's design capacity of 98.75 cfs (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Thus, given standard engineering practices and compliance with NPDES requirements and City standards, the SCEA determined that the Originally Approved Plan would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the Specific Plan area or area in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site, and that impacts would be less than significant. The Modified Plan, similar to the Originally Approved Plan, would continue to be required to comply with the NPDES requirements and City standards. There are no changed circumstances or new information as no other changes to pervious surfaces or to the development plans have occurred. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the area that would result in 16917 49 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 259 1.f substantial erosion or siltation and would not result in anew or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. d) Would the Modified Plan 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? As discussed in the SCEA, all runoff from the Project would be captured in private storm drain lines and routed through an underground storm drain system and before it drains into the existing 42-inch storm drain in Harriman Drive, a diverter (splitter) boxwould routethe required lowflowvolumeto an underground water quality infiltration chamber while lettingthe high flow continue on to the existing 42-inch storm drain. The low flow pipe would be sized to conveythe water qualityflow into the underground chamber, and during flood events, the total flow rate that would be generated by the Originally Approved Plan and discharged into the 42-inch storm drain was estimated to be 61.34 cfs, which would be below the storm drain's design capacity of 98.75 cfs (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Through incorporation of the infiltration chamber and compliance with MS4 and NPDES permit requirements, the Originally Approved Plan was determined to not result in a substantial alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or a substantial increase in the rate or amount of surface runoff, and impacts were determined to be less than significant. Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Modified Plan would continue to comply with MS4 and NPDES permit requirements. Further, there is no change in circumstances nor any new information as no other changes to pervious surfaces or to the development plans have occurred. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relatingto alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the area or relatingto a substantial increase in the rate of surface runoff that would result in flooding and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. e) Would the Modified Plan 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? As discussed in the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan would not increase stormwater runoff discharged from the Specific Plan area, and during flood events, the total flow rate that would be generated by the Originally Approved Plan and discharged into the 42-inch storm drain was estimated to be 61.34 cfs, which would be below the storm drain's design capacity of 98.75 cfs. The Originally Approved Plan would comply with all applicable City grading permit regulations and NPDES requirements and would implement BMPs to reduce and treat stormwater runoff from the Specific Plan area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Furthermore, the Originally Approved Plan would comply with the City's stormwater ordinance that ensures the stormwater flows are properly treated before entering the storm drain system (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As stated in the SCEA, the existing stormwater infrastructure would be sufficient and would have the capacity to serve the Specific Plan area. Thus, the Project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, and impacts would be less than significant. Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Modified Plan would continue to comply with NPDES permit requirements, all applicable City grading permit regulations, and the City's stormwater ordinance, and would implement BMPs that reduce and treat stormwater runoff from the Specific Plan area. Further, there are no changed circumstances nor any new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to 16917 50 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 260 1.f excessive runoff water or additional sources of polluted runoff and would not result in anew or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. f) Would the Modified Plan otherwise substantially degrade water quality? As discussed in the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan would not be a point -source generator of water pollutants and its compliance with the City's stormwater ordinance would ensure thatthe Project would not generate stormwater pollutants that would substantially degrade water quality. The Project could generate short-term pollutants during construction, including sediment, trash, construction materials, and equipment fluids; however, the countywide MS4 permit required for the Originally Approved Plan requires construction sites to implement BMPs to reduce the potential for construction -induced water pollutant impacts (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Furthermore, the Originally Approved Plan is required to obtain coverage under the NPDES Construction General Permit and submit a Notice of Intent to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) that includes a SWPPP outlining the BMPs that would be incorporated during construction to minimize construction -induced water pollutants. Compliance with the MS4 construction site requirements and the NPDES Construction General Permit, as well as the implementation of a SWPPP would ensure that construction activities on the Specific Plan area would not significantly impact water quality and that impacts would be less than significant. Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Modified Plan would continue to comply with MS4 and NPDES Construction General Permit requirements and would still implement a SWPPP to minimize construction - induced water pollutants from the Specific Plan area. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relatingto degradation of water quality and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 9) Would the Modified Plan 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? The Specific Plan area is located within Zone X on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) flood insurance rate map, which means the Specific Plan area is within an area of minimal flood hazard and was determined to be outside the 500-year flood and is protected by levee from the 100-year flood (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As such, the Originally Approved Plan was determined to have no impact regarding placing housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. The Modified Plan is located within the same Specific Plan area as the Originally Approved Plan. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to placement of housing within a 100-year flood hazard area and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. h) Would the Modified Plan place within a 1OOyear flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? The Specific Plan area is located within Zone X on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) flood insurance rate map, which means the Specific Plan area is within an area of minimal flood hazard and was determined to be outside the 500-year flood and is protected by levee from the 100-year flood 16917 51 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 261 1.f (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Thus, the Originally Approved Plan was determined to have no impact regarding placing housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. The Modified Plan is located within the same Specific Plan area as the Originally Approved Plan. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relatingto placement of structures within a 100-year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flows and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. i) Would the Modified Plan 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? The Specific Plan area is not within a mapped flood hazard area, and there are no levees or dam facilities in the vicinity of the Specific Plan area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Thus, the Originally Approved Plan would not expose people or structures to a risk involving flooding, and no impact would occur. The Modified Plan is located within the same Specific Plan area as the Originally Approved Plan. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to exposure of people or structures to flooding and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. D Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? As discussed in the SCEA, the Specific Plan area is not located downstream of any dams and is located 25 miles from the Pacific Ocean. Due to the Specific Plan area's distance from large bodies of water and the coastline, the potential for inundation by seiche or tsunami is low. Furthermore, the Specific Plan area is not located in an area prone to landslides, soil slips, or slumps, and would not be inundated by mudflow (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Therefore, no impact would occur. The Modified Plan is located within the same Specific Plan area as the Originally Approved Plan. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow inundation, and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impactthat was not previously identified. k) Would the Modified Plan result in changes in the rate of flow, currents, or the course and direction of surface water andlor groundwater? As discussed in the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan would alter the Specific Plan area's drainage patterns; however, compliance with City engineering requirements and the City's stormwater ordinance would ensure proper design of the proposed drainage system. There are no surface water features on the Specific Plan area that would be impacts by the Project, and although dewatering may be necessary if groundwater is encountered during site excavation, the Project would comply with the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit to ensure that the impacts to surface water and groundwater would be less than significant (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Thus, the Originally Approved Plan would not result in changes in the rate, flow, currents, or the course and direction of surface water and groundwater, and impacts would be less than significant. 16917 52 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 262 1.f The Modified Plan is located within the same Specific Plan area as the Originally Approved Plan and plans to continue with the same depth of excavations. There are no changed circumstances or new information. The Modified Plan would continue to comply with NPDES Construction General Permit requirements. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to changes in flow rates or course and direction of surface water and groundwater resources and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 1) Other modification of a wash, channel creek, or river? The Specific Plan area does not contain a creek or any riverine feature and would therefore not result in the modification of a wash, channel creek, or river (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Thus, no impact would occur. The Modified Plan is located within the same Specific Plan area as the Originally Approved Plan. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to other water resource modifications and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. m) Would the Modified Plan impact stormwater management in any of the following ways: i) Potential impact of Modified Plan construction and Modified Plan post -construction activity on stormwater runoff? ii) Potential discharges from areas for materials storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? iii) Significant environmentally harmful increase in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff? iv) Significant and environmentally harmful increases in erosion of the Specific Plan area or surrounding areas? v) 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) Cause harm to the biological integrity of drainage systems, watersheds, and/or water bodies? vii) Does the Modified Plan include provisions for the separation, recycling, and reuse of materials both during construction and after project occupancy? As discussed in the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan is required to comply with the City's stormwater ordinance, the countywide MS4 permit, and the NPDES Construction General Permit, and is required to implement a LID compliance plan and SWPPP. Compliance with these requirements of the Clean Water Act and the NPDES would ensure that the Originally Approved Plan would not cause any significant impacts related to stormwater management (City of Santa Clarita 2020). In addition, the Project's engineered stormwater facility would be designed so that stormwater flows off -site would not increase during the 85th 16917 53 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 263 1.f percentile storm event as a result of Originally Approved Plan construction. Thus, the Project would not significantly increase flows, impair beneficial uses of downstream uses, or harm the biological integrity of downstream waters. Finally, the Project would be required to comply with the City of Santa Clarita's construction and demolition recycling ordinance (05-09), as well as required City recycling programs during operation (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Modified Plan would continue to comply with MS4 and NPDES Construction General Permit requirements and would be required to implement a LID compliance plan and SWPPP. Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 3.11 Land Use and Planning XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the proiect: a) Disrupt or physically divide an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, and/or policies by ❑ ❑ ® ❑ agencies with jurisdiction over the project? SCEA Analysis Summary - Originally Approved Plan Potential impacts to land use and planning were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-142 through 4-147. Potential impacts related to physically dividing an existing community, conflicts with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation, and conflicts with any applicable habitat conservation plan were determined be less than significant or were determined to have no impact. 16917 54 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 264 1.f Modified Plan Analysis a) Would the Modified Plan disrupt or physically divide an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? As discussed in the SCEA, the Specific Plan area is located in a suburban portion of the City with multi- family residential uses to the west and south, and the Vista Canyon Specific Plan development to the north and east. The Originally Approved Plan would use existing public streets (Lost Canyon Road and Harriman Drive) to provide access to the residential buildings and related amenities and would connect to utilities beneath Harriman Drive (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan would also provide pedestrian connections to the Vista Canyon Specific Plan area, which includes the Metrolink Vista Canyon Station and nearby trail systems. The Project would not result in the construction of a linear feature, such as railroad tracks, a flood control channel, or a major roadway that would result in a physical division of an established community or any physical alterations to land uses beyond the Specific Plan area, and the Originally Approved Plan therefore would not physically divide an established community (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Thus, no impact would occur. The Modified Plan is located within the same Specific Plan area as the Originally Approved Plan. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to disruption or division of an established community and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. b) Would the Modified Plan 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? As described in the SCEA, a General Plan Amendment and zone change needed to occur in order to accommodate the Originally Approved Plan. Such General Plan Amendment and zone change have occurred. The General Plan Land Use Element includes policies designed to encourage preparation of specific plans where appropriate to meet the goals for more healthy, vibrant, and attractive communities (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan includes multi -family residential uses in regional and community commercial areas to encourage more residences to be within walking distance of rail transit stations to facilitate rail commuting to employment outside of the Santa Clarita Valley, which is expressly emphasized in the City's General Plan Land Use Element (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The SCEA states that the Project's mix of residential densities will allow for the permitting of housing at all income levels and age preferences, including affordable and mixed -income housing in support of a goal of the General Plan Land Use Element, and which would be in close proximity to transit jobs and services. The Originally Approved Plan would be immediately adjacent to the Metrolink Vista Canyon Station and the Vista Canyon Multi -Modal Center which would include a bus transfer station that will accommodate local routes within the Santa Clarita Valley and regional routes to and from Los Angeles, the Antelope Valley, Van Nuys, and the Warner Center (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan's location would provide residential uses next to public transit, other employment opportunities, commercial uses, other transit -oriented mixed uses associated with the Vista Canyon Specific Plan, and other surrounding residential, commercial, and service uses (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Therefore, as disclosed in the SCEA, while the Project requests a General Plan Amendment and zone change, the Project would be consistent with the goals of the City's General Plan and the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS related to placement of mixed residential densities near transit centers to facilitate rail commuting to employment outside of the Santa 16917 55 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 265 1.f Clarita Valley and to encourage pedestrian activity in the Project area to reduce vehicle trips and air pollution. Thus, the Originally Approved Plan would not conflict with any existing specific plan area, coastal zone, or other plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and impacts would be less than significant. The Modified Plan would allow for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi -family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. Therefore, the Modified Plan would result in a reduced number of units constructed and residents generated compared to the Originally Approved Plan. The Modified Plan would necessitate a Specific Plan Amendment in order to accommodate the single-family and duplex uses. With approval of such Specific Plan Amendment, the Modified Plan would be consistent with applicable plans, policies, and regulations, similar to the Originally Approved Plan. Additionally, there are no changed circumstances nor any new information. As such, the Modified Plan would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to conflicts with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation, and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. c) Would the Modified Plan conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, andlor policies by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? As discussed in the SCEA, the Specific Plan area is not within a habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved environmental resource conservation and there are no land use restrictions for the site that would require conservation of the Specific Plan area for purposes of protecting wildlife habitat or other natural resources and there are no policies in the City's Safety Element that establish land use restrictions for the Specific Plan area pertaining to avoidance of environmental hazards. Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would not conflict with any adopted environmental conservation plans, and no impact would occur. Development under the Modified Plan would have the same development footprint as development under the Originally Approved Plan. The Modified Plan and the Originally Approved Plan occupy the same Specific Plan area. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan and no conservation plans would be affected. Additionally, there are no changed circumstances nor any new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to conflicts with an applicable habitat conservation or natural community conservation plan and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 3.12 Mineral Resources Xll. NNERAL RESOURCES - Would the oroiect: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be El El H El of value to the region and the residents of the state? 16917 56 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 266 1.f Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? c) Use nonrenewable resources in a wastafiil and inaffir.iant mannar? SCEA Analysis Summary - Originally Approved Plan Potential impacts to mineral resources were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-147 through 4-149. Potential impacts due to the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or State and 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 were determined to be less than significant while impacts relating to nonrenewable resources were determined to have no impact. Modified Plan Analysis a) Would the Modified Plan 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? As discussed in the SCEA, the Specific Plan area is not located within a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ), as depicted on Exhibit CO-2, Mineral Resources, of the City's General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element. An area designated as MRZ-2 is located immediately north of the Specific Plan area which is located on either side of the Santa Clara River and is characterized by aggregate resources (i.e. sand and gravel used in construction). However, the Specific Plan area itself has a General Plan Land Use and zoning designation of BP which does not allow for mineral recovery uses and does not contain any known mineral resources (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Thus, the Originally Approved Plan would not result in the loss of availability of any resource of known value to the region and State, and no impact would occur. The Modified Plan is located within the same Specific Plan area as the Originally Approved Plan. There are no changed circumstances or new information. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan as the Specific Plan area has not changed. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to availability of a known mineral resource of value to the region or state and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. b) Would the Modified Plan 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? As discussed in the SCEA, the Specific Plan area is not located within a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ), as depicted on Exhibit CO-2, Mineral Resources, of the City's General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element. An area designated as MRZ-2 is located immediately north of the Specific Plan area which is located on either side of the Santa Clara River and is characterized by aggregate resources (i.e. sand and gravel used in construction). However, the Specific Plan area itself has a General Plan Land Use and zoning 16917 57 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 267 1.f designation of BP which does not allow for mineral recovery uses and does not contain any known mineral resources (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Thus, the Originally Approved Plan would not result in the loss of availability of any resource of known value to the region and State, and no impact would occur. The Modified Plan is located within the same Specific Plan area as the Originally Approved Plan. There are no changed circumstances or new information. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan as the Specific Plan area has not changed. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. c) Would the Modified Plan use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? As discussed in the SCEA analysis for this impact threshold and in Section VI, Energy, the Originally Approved Plan would consume energy resources during construction and operation. The Originally Approved Plan would also utilize building materials and human resources, many of which are nonrenewable, such as manpower, sand, gravel, earth, iron, steel, and hardscape materials, and would utilize some resources, such as lumber, that are slowly renewable (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan would also commit energy and water resources during construction and through operation and maintenance. The SCEA also discloses that market -rate conditions encourage the efficient use of materials and manpower. Market -rate conditions encourage the efficient use of materials and manpower during construction, and similarly, the energy and water resources that would be used for the Project would be supplied by the regional utility purveyors which participate in various conservation plans (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan is expected to use energy and water resources in the same manner as typical modern developmentand is designed to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local plans and codes which includes the 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards which mandate a variety of energy conservation and efficiency requirements to be met through building design and construction. Thus, the Originally Approved Plan would not use nonrenewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner, and no impact would occur. The Modified Plan is located within the same Specific Plan area as the Originally Approved Plan. There are no changed circumstances or new information. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan. The Modified Plan would involve the use of nonrenewable and some slowly renewable building materials and resources and is expected to use typical amounts of energy and water compared to other modern development. The Modified Plan would still adhere to the requirements of all applicable federal, State, and local plans and codes which includes the 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to nonrenewable resource use in an inefficient manner and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 16917 58 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 268 1.f 3.13 Noise XIII. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project ❑ ❑ ® ❑ vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 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 noise levels? SCEA Analysis Summary e Originally Approved Plan Potential noise and vibration impacts were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-149 through 4-165. All potential noise impacts were determined to be less than significant or were determined to result in no impact. Modified Plan Analysis a) Would the Modified Plan 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? The SCEA states that the most prevalent source of noise in the Originally Approved Plan vicinity is vehicular traffic on Lost Canyon Road to the west, SR-14 to the west and north, and the Union Pacific Railroad to the south, in addition to Harriman Drive, a newly constructed street for the Vista Canyon Specific Plan Project. 16917 59 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 269 1.f Ambient noise levels are highest during the daytime and rush hours, unless congestion slows speeds, which also reduced noise levels. Table XIII-1 within the SCEA summarizes the results of noise measurements taken at four locations for the Originally Approved Plan and showed that existing ambient noise levels ranged from 40 dBA (A -weighted decibels) Leq (equivalent continuous sound level) to 53 dBA Leq. Table XIII- 2 of the SCEA summarizes the estimated construction noise levels and shows that noise levels would not exceed the daytime construction noise threshold of 80 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receptors. Furthermore, the Originally Approved Plan would comply with applicable requirements of the SCMC and would implement standard construction practices and BMPs to reduce construction noise levels, including, but not limited to, temporary noise barriers and proper maintenance of construction equipment fitted with muffling devices. Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan construction noise would not expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of established standards in the City General Plan or SCMC, and construction noise impacts would be less than significant (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan would include ground -level heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, one for each townhome, while several apartment units would share a larger HVAC unit and would require approximately 86 HVAC units in total (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As discussed in the SCEA, HVAC equipment would be located as close as 145 feet from the property line of the nearest sensitive receptor (planned residences part of the Vista Canyon Specific Plan) and would result in noise levels of approximately 50 dBA Leq at a distance of 145 feet. However, SCMC Section 17.57.O2O(E) requires all HVAC equipment on residential properties to be screened, shielded, or sound -buffered, and as such, HVAC screening would reduce noise levels to approximately 45 dBA Leq for each unit (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Based on the Specific Plan area design, planned residences to the north would be exposed to noise from up to 7 HVAC units at a distance of 145 feet, resulting in combined noise levels of approximately 54 dBA Leq which would not exceed the daytime and nighttime standards for residential land uses of 65 dBA and 55 dBA Leq, respectively, and impacts relatingto HVAC would be less than significant. On -site vehicles would generate intermittent noise while traveling throughout the Specific Plan area. during peak hour traffic, approximately 190 vehicles would enter and exitthe Specific Plan area which would result in an hourly noise level of approximately 39 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the source (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The SCEA states that vehicle circulation areas on -site would be approximately 100 feet from the nearest sensitive receptors, resulting in an approximate noise level of 36 dBA Leq which would not exceed the City's established thresholds. As such, impacts from vehicle circulation would be less than significant. The sound analysis within the SCEA also revealed that sensitive receptors near the Originally Approved Plan's main park would be exposed to a noise level of approximately 54 dBA Leq, which would not exceed established standards. Furthermore, noise levels at the sensitive receptors closest to other outdoor use areas throughout the Specific Plan area would be less than the levels generated by the Originally Approved Plan's main park due to the smaller size/capacity of these outdoor use areas and other factors. Therefore, impacts from recreational activities would be less than significant. During operation, the Originally Approved Plan would generate vehicle trips that would cause an incremental increase in noise levels on surrounding streets. As shown in Table XIII-3 within the SCEA, Project -related traffic would not increase ambient noise levels by more than 5 dBA or result in a change in land use compatibility classifications for sensitive receptors. Therefore, Originally Approved Plan -related traffic would be less than significant. Furthermore, Table XIII-4 shows that a cumulative traffic noise impact would occur along Lost Canyon Road between Jakes Way and Medley Ridge Drive because cumulative plus Project traffic noise levels would result in greater than a 3 dBA increase in traffic noise levels, as well as a change in the land use compatibility classification from "normally acceptable" to "conditionally acceptable." However, the Originally Approved Plan would only contribute approximately 1 dBA to the overall 12 dBA noise level increase, which is an increase of noise levels that would not be perceptible to the human ear. 16917 60 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 270 1.f Given the Originally Approved Plan's projected increase of 1 dBA, well below the roadway noise impact threshold of 3 dBA, the Originally Approved Plan would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in traffic noise levels along Lost Canyon Road. Based on the above information, the SCEA determined that the Originally Approved Plan would not expose people to or generate noise levels in excess of established standard within the General Plan or SCMC, and Originally Approved Plan impacts would therefore be less than significant. The Modified Plan is located within the same Specific Plan area as the Originally Approved Plan. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi -family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and up to 946 new residents. Therefore, the Modified Plan would result in a reduced number of units constructed and residents generated compared to the Originally Approved Plan, and thus, would result in a reduced impact to operational traffic noise and resident -generated noise. In addition, the Modified Plan would require less HVAC units compared to the Originally Approved Plan, resulting in a reduced HVAC noise impact. Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relatingto exposure of people to or generation of noise levels in excess of established standards and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. b) Would the Modified Plan result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? As discussed within the SCEA, the construction equipment that would generate the highest levels of vibration and are necessary for development of the Originally Approved Plan include rollers, loaded trucks, and bulldozers. The City does not have established significance criteria to assess vibration impacts; however, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) developed limits for the assessment of vibrations from transportation and construction sources which were used to assess Originally Approved Plan impacts. Vibration -generating construction equipment, including bulldozers and rollers used for grading and paving of the Specific Plan area, would occasionally pass by off -site structures and would operate as close as 100 feet away from the nearest structure located within the Vista Canyon Specific Plan area immediately north of the site (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Bulldozers and loaded trucks would generate vibrations for longer periods of time at locations of proposed on -site structures and would operate as close as 115 feet from the nearest structure located within the Vista Canyon Specific Plan area. As shown in Table XIII-6 in the SCEA, Originally Approved Plan vibration levels would not exceed the human annoyance or structural damage thresholds for occasional pass-bys of construction equipment or for extended periods of construction activities. Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would not expose people to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels during construction, and furthermore, given thatthe Project is a residential land use, it does not include significant stationary sources of vibration such as manufacturing or heavy equipment operations (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Impacts would be less than significant. The Modified Plan is located within the same Specific Plan area as the Originally Approved Plan. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi -family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and up to 946 new residents. Therefore, the Modified Plan would result in a reduced number of units constructed and residents generated compared to the Originally Approved Plan. Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information relating to vibration. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan 16917 61 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 271 1.f would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to exposure of people to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. c) Would the Modified Plan result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? As discussed in the SCEA response to Checklist Question XIII(a), or Section 3.13(a) above, noise generated during operation of the Originally Approved Plan would be below the City's established thresholds. Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project area above established levels, and impacts would therefore be less than significant. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respectto the Modified Plan. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi -family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and up to 946 new residents. Therefore, the Modified Plan would result in a reduced number of units constructed and residents generated compared to the Originally Approved Plan, and thus, would result in a reduced impact relating to a permanent increase in ambient noise levels as less people would be residing and generating noise within the Specific Plan area. In addition, the Modified Plan would require less HVAC units compared to the Originally Approved Plan, resulting in a reduced HVAC noise impact. Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information relating to in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relatingto a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. d) Would the Modified Plan result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? As discussed in the SCEA response to Checklist Question XIII(a), or Section 3.13(a) above, noise generated during construction of the Originally Approved Plan would be below the City's established thresholds. Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would not result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project area above established levels, and impacts would therefore be less than significant. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respectto the Modified Plan. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi -family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and up to 946 new residents. Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information relating to in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels. Impacts relating to a temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise level are anticipated to remain largely the same compared to the Originally Approved Plan. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 16917 62 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 272 1.f 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? The SCEA states that there are no public use airports in Santa Clarita, and that no portion of the City is within an airport land use plan (ALUP). The nearest airport to the Specific Plan area is the Whiteman Airport located approximately 10 miles south of the Specific Plan area. As such, the Originally Approved Plan would not be within an ALUP, would not expose people residing or working in the Originally Approved Plan area to excessive noise levels, and therefore, no impact would occur. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan as the Specific Plan area has not changed, and there are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new significant impacts relating to exposure of people to excessive noise levels and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 3.14 Population and Housing XIV. POPULATION AND DOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ elsewhere (especially affordable housing)? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of replacement housing elsewhere? SCEA Analysis Summary - Originally Approved Plan Potential impacts to population and housing were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-165 through 4-169. Potential impacts related to inducing substantial population growth, displacement of existing housing, and displacement of people were determined to be less than significant or were determined to have no impact. 16917 63 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 273 1.f Modified Plan Analysis a) Would the Modified Plan 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)? The SCEA states that as of January 1, 2020, according to the California Department of Finance (DOF), the City had an estimated population of 221,932, a total housing stock of 77, 008 units, and a housingvacancy rate of 3.7%. As discussed in the SCEA, development of the Originally Approved Plan would result in the construction of 498 new residential units and would generate approximately 1,479 new residents, using the DOF's average number of persons per household in the City of 2.97, which would represent a 0.7% increase in the January 2020 citywide population or approximately 4% of the total City growth forecast for 2045 as identified in the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. These were conservative estimates for the Originally Approved Plan as the actual number of people thatwould occupythe Projectwould likely be less as Planning Area 2 and 3 include market -rate, age -qualified units and because Planning Area 3 would also include 169 units that are affordable senior apartments (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Given this, the Originally Approved Plan's share of forecast growth is not considered significant. Furthermore, the proposed infrastructure improvements would be sized for the needs of the Project and would not provide capacity for or extensions to other properties that could induce growth outside of the Specific Plan area. According to the SCEA, SCAG calculated the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation for the City forthe 2013-2021 Housing Element which was applicable atthe time of the SCEA's drafting as 10,981 units, with 1,532 moderate income units and 1,678 low income units. The total housing units in the City increased between 2013 and 2021 by6,O12 units, falling short of the 10,981 unit target set by SCAG (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan would assist the City in reaching the housing development targets set by SCAG. As such, the Originally Approved Plan would not induce substantial growth, and impacts would be less than significant. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi- family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. Therefore, the Modified Plan would result in a reduced number of units constructed and residents generated compared to the Originally Approved Plan, and thus, would result in a reduced impact relatingto substantial growth in an area. With respect to changed circumstances and new information, since the approval of the Originally Approved Project, SCAG has released updated RHNA numbers for the City which require the City to build 10,031 new units. The Modified Plan, similar to the Originally Approved Project, would assist the City in producing housing within the RHNA projections. Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Modified Project would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to substantial population growth and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. b) Would the Modified Plan displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)? The SCEA states that the Originally Approved Plan is located on a relatively flat and undeveloped 20.4-acre parcel located within a suburban setting consisting of residential development and would not demolish or require removal of any residential units. No impact would occur. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan as the Specific Plan area has not changed, and there are no changed circumstances or new information relating to displacement of 16917 64 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 274 1.f substantial numbers of existing housing. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. c) Would the Modified Plan displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? As stated above, the Specific Plan area is undeveloped and does not contain existing housing, and therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would not displace any people. No impact would occur. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan as the Specific Plan area has not changed, and there are no changed circumstances or new information relating to displacement of substantial numbers of people. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to displacement of substantial numbers of people and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 3.15 Public Services XV. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project result in: a) Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times. or other performance obiectives for anv of the public services: i) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ii) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ iii) Schools? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ iv) Parks? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ v) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ SCEA Analysis Summary - Originally Approved Plan Potential impacts to public services were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-169 through 4-177. The SCEA determined that impacts to public services would be less than significant. 16917 65 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 275 1.f Modified Plan Analysis a) Would the Modified Plan 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 public services: i) Fire protection? As discussed in the SCEA, fire suppression and emergency medical response services for the Specific Plan area are provided by the LACoFD specifically with 16 fire stations and 15 engine companies, 5 paramedic squads, 1 hazardous materials squad, and 2 ladder trucks serve the Santa Clarita Valley. The nearest fire station to the Specific Plan area is LACoFD Station 107 located approximately 0.7-mile northwest of the site while the second nearest fire station, Station 150, is located approximately 2 miles southwest of the site (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan would construct 498 residential units adjacent to the Vista Canyon Specific Plan area, which is a large scale residential and commercial development, and near to other single- and multi -family residential developments to the west and south. Thus, the SCEA determined that since the Originally Approved Plan would not represent a unique land use or type of construction, the Originally Approved Plan would not require additional fire department resources and impacts would therefore be less than significant. The analysis within the SCEA remains accurate with respect to the Modified Plan as the Specific Plan area has not changed. Furthermore, the Modified Plan would reduce the total number of new units constructed and new residents generated. There are also no changed circumstances or new information relatingto fire protection. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relatingto fire protection services and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. ii) Police protection? As discussed in the SCEA, police protection services for the Specific Plan area are provided by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD) who strive to maintain a service ratio of approximately one officer for every 1,000 residents within the communities it serves. The Specific Plan area would be serviced by the LASD Santa Clarita Valley Station located approximately 4 miles northwest of the Specific Plan area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan would increase the demand for police services upon buildout as new residential units would be constructed and, as such, to maintain the service ratio identified bythe LASD, the Originally Approved Plan would require 1.5 new officers. LASD adopted a funding program in 2008 for capital facilities needed to meet the law enforcement needs of expected growth in the Santa Clarita Valley through collection of a law enforcement impact fee which both the City and the County collect from new development permits to fund future facilities (City of Santa Clarita 2020). At the time the SCEA was being drafted, a new Santa Clarita LASD Station, approximately 3.6 miles west of the Specific Plan area, was being constructed and is now operational. The new police station has adequate space and is expected to improve the level of service provided by the Santa Clarita Valley Station (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Therefore, the need for an additional 1.5 new police officers from Originally Approved Plan implementation would not require the new construction or expansion of any LASD facilities, and thus, impacts would be less than significant. The analysis within the SCEA remains largely accurate with respect to the Modified Plan, although, the Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi -family 16917 66 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 276 1.f and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. Thus, the Modified Plan would result in a reduced number of new residents and, thus, a reduced number of new police officers required to accommodate the Modified Plan compared to the Originally Approved Plan. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to police protection services and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impactthat was not previously identified. iii) Schools? The Originally Approved Plan would generate approximately 1,479 new residents within the Specific Plan area by constructing 498 new residential units, many of which would likely include one or more school -age children who would attend local schools (City of Santa Clarita 2020). However, as discussed in the SCEA, 169 of the Originally Approved Plan units would be age -qualified apartments and affordable senior apartments, and would, therefore, not include a substantial number of school -age children. The Specific Plan area is within the Sulphur Springs Union School District and the William S. Hart Union High School District, but the Originally Approved Plan residents would likely attend Sulphur Springs Community School, La Mesa Junior High School, and Golden Valley High School (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The SCEA states that both school district make decisions on how to respond to enrollment changes with respectto optimizing existing resources and facilities or constructing new facilities and that planned development in both districts may increase enrollment. Planned development within the Sulphur Springs Union School District boundaries may increase enrollment in transitional kindergarten through sixth grade students and affect the existing overcrowded capacity of Sulphur Springs Community School while planned development within the William S. Hart Union High School District boundaries, including the Originally Approved Plan, may increase enrollment injunior high and high school students and affectthe overcrowded capacity of La Mesa Junior High School and Golden Valley High School (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As disclosed in the SCEA, new school sites may be necessary as a result of implementation of the Originally Approved Plan and both districts assess development impact fees, which the Originally Approved Plan would be required to pay under SB 50, to help finance new and expanded facilities needed to accommodate population growth and increasing enrollments. Thus, impacts to schools would be less than significant. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi- family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. Thus, the Modified Plan would result in a reduced number of new residents and, thus, a reduced number of potential school -age children. There are no changed circumstances or new information relating to schools. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to schools and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. iv) Parks? The SCEA states that, accordingto the City's General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, there is a citywide shortage of local parkland in the City. The City's General Plan parkland standard is identified as 5 acres per 1,000 residents; however, the General Plan states thatthe City currently provides approximately 1.5 to 2 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents through 20 existing parks as of 2020 (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan would increase the population of the City and would be required to 16917 67 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 277 1.f provide approximately 7.4 acres of parkland, including open space, recreation opportunities, and public/private parks featuring approximately 3.4 acres of common open space and recreational facilities. The City has adopted a parkland fee ordinance pursuant to the State's Quimby Act, which allows local agencies to collect impactfees from residential projects to finance the acquisition and development of new parkland to serve local residents (City of Santa Clarita 2020). SCMC Section 17.51.010(E) allows developers to dedicate land, build parks to serve residents of a new development, or pay in -lieu fees to the City for parkland acquisition and development. As disclosed in the SCEA, the City determined that the Originally Approved Plan does not include 7.4 acres available for dedication and would instead pay in -lieu fees as a condition of approval toward existing and future improvements at nearby parks, including Canyon Country Park, Fair Oaks Park, and the expansion of Canyon Country Community Center. Thus, the Originally Approved Plan would not require the provision of new or physically altered parks beyond the existing and future improvements identified, and, therefore, Originally Approved Plan impacts would be less than significant. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi- family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. Thus, the Modified Plan would result in a reduced number of new residents and, thus, a reduced number of residents potentially using park facilities. Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information related to parks. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to parks and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. v) Other public facilities? The SCEA states that although the Originally Approved Plan includes on -site recreational facilities, such as pools and community gathering areas, future residents may occasionally visit other public facilities, such as senior centers, community centers, pools, and libraries. The additional residents generated by the Originally Approved Plan would have a less -than -significant impact on facilities as only a small percentage of residents would visit a particular facility on a given day (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As disclosed in the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan would not result in a need to construct new types of "other" public facilities and would adhere to the requirements of SCMC Section 17.51.010(C) which requires a proposed residential land use to pay the Library Facilities and Technology Mitigation Fee as a condition of approval to acquire a land use permit or entitlement. Payment of this fee would sufficiently offset the Originally Approved Plan's increase in demand for local public libraries and contribute to the City's efforts to improve existing libraries and resources. Thus, the Originally Approved Plan would not result in a need to construct new libraries or other public facilities and impacts would be less than significant. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi- family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. Thus, the Modified Plan would result in a reduced number of new residents compared to the Originally Approved Plan and, thus, a reduced number of residents potentially using public facilities in the area. There are also no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to other public facilities and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 16917 68 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 278 1.f 3.16 Recreation XVI. RECREATION - Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have ❑ ❑ ® ❑ an adverse physical effect on the environment? SCEA Analysis Summary - Originally Approved Plan Potential impactsto recreation were analyzed in the SCEAon pages 4-177 through 4-179. Potential impacts to existing parks or recreational facilities were determined to be less than significant while potential construction of new recreational facilities was determined to have no impact. Modified Plan Analysis a) Would the Modified Plan 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? The SCEA states that the Originally Approved Plan would provide outdoor recreation areas for residents and amenities such as parks, playgrounds, pools, courtyards, landscaped areas, club houses, and trials, some which would connect to nearby regional recreational facilities include the multi -use trails within the Vista Canyon Specific Plan area and along the Santa Clara River. These on -site recreational amenities would reduce the impact on municipal recreation facilities as would the requirement to pay development impact fees designed to offset a development's impact on municipal recreational facilities (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Thus, the Originally Approved Plan is not expected to result in or expediate substantial physical deterioration of any existing recreational facilities and impacts would be less than significant. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi- family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. The Modified Plan includes outdoor recreation and open space areas and trails, including an outdoor public plaza on the east side of the Specific Plan area. Thus, the Modified Plan would result in a reduced number of new residents and, thus, a reduced number of residents potentially using park and recreational facilities. There are also no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan 16917 69 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 279 1.f would not result in any new or different impacts relating to existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. b) Does the Modified Plan include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? As discussed in the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan is not anticipated to substantially increase the demand on municipal parks and recreation facilities in the City, thus requiring construction or expansion of any facilities. The Originally Approved Plan includes outdoor recreation and open space areas and trails, including an outdoor public plaza on the east side of the Specific Plan area which would connect the site to the Metrolink station and to commercial uses, trials, and other amenities within the Vista Canyon Specific Plan area. Therefore, no impact would occur. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi- family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. The Modified Plan includes outdoor recreation and open space areas and trails, including an outdoor public plaza on the east side of the Specific Plan area. Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to construction or expansion of recreational facilities and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impactthat was not previously identified. 3.17 Transportation XVIL TRANSPORTATION - Would the project: a) 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? b) 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? 16917 70 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 280 1.f New Potentially Significant _. • • • Reduced ImpactRequired `i i.Impact c) 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? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency ❑ ❑ ® ❑ access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? SCEA Analysis Summary - Originally Approved Plan Potential impacts to transportation were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-179 through 4-191. Potential impacts relating to transportation were determined to be less than significant or were determined to result in no impact. Modified Plan Analysis a) Would the Modified Plan 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? As discussed in the SCEA, the existing circulation network in the Originally Approved Plan area includes the roadway network surroundingthe Specific Plan area; tra nsit service includingthe Metrolink com m uter trai n service and Santa Clarita Transit bus service; and a network of Class I, Class II, and Class III bicycle routes. Metrolink operates three stations within the City, the Santa Clarita, New Hall, and Via Princessa Metrolink Stations. The same rail line is occasionally used by freight trains when the Union Pacific Railroad line is closed or restricted (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Furthermore, the Antelope Valley Line that runs throughout the City provides access to the City of Lancaster to the north and to Union Station in Los Angeles. As detailed within the SCEA, the Via Princessa Metrolink Station, located less than 500 feet northeast of the Specific Plan area, was replaced by a new station as part of development of the Vista Canyon Multi -Modal Center. Santa Clarita Transit provides local bus transitservices and commuter express routes. A Class I bicycle path runs along the Santa Clara River west of Deep Creek Drive and two Class II bike lanes are within Soledad Canyon Road and Jason Drive (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Vehicle access to the Specific Plan area would be provided by two unsignalized driveways along Harriman Drive, while the eastern driveway at the intersection of Harriman Drive and Cooper Street could also be used to access the site via Cooper Street. The Vista Canyon Multi -Modal Center located immediately within 16917 71 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 281 1.f 500 feet northeast of the Specific Plan area provides bus and rail transit services to the site. Pedestrian and bicycle access to the Specific Plan area would be provided via two sidewalks with marked pedestrian crossings at the two driveways along Harriman Drive. The Originally Approved Plan would include sidewalks and marked pedestrian crossings on all public roads adjacent to the Specific Plan area, while the Project would also connect to a series of mixed -use tails including the Santa Clara River trail at the intersection of Lost Canyon Road and Jakes Way. On -site pedestrian and bicycle circulation would be provided by a series of walkways and trials that join the two driveway entrances to the Vista Canyon trail system. Given this, the SCEA determined thatthe Originally Approved Plan would not impede a planned or operating transit facility, or planned pedestrian or bicycle facility, and impacts to transit and nonmotorized transportation would be less than significant. Construction of the Originally Approved Plan would last for approximately five years and would include three phases: (1) grading, (2) street and utility improvements, and (3) building construction. During each of these phases, off -site trips would be generated by construction workers and by large trucks used for a variety of construction purposes. The greatest number of daily passenger -car -equivalent (PCE) trips would occur during the building construction phase (472 daily PCE), with construction workers generating the majority of the construction -related traffic. Because construction workers often travel outside of typical commute hours, these trips are expected to have a negligible effect on the circulation network in the Originally Approved Plan area. Originally Approved Plan grading would be balanced on -site with cut soils used to level the site in preparation for the proposed residential development, and as the Specific Plan area is vacant, preparation would not require a substantial number of haul trucks that could result in roadway closures or detours (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Additionally, because the Specific Plan area is currently located at the terminus of Lost Canyon Road, construction activities would not substantially disrupt traffic movements or require temporary traffic control. Given this, a construction management plan is not required for the Originally Approved Plan, and no substantial impacts to the circulation network would be generated during construction. Impacts to the circulation network during construction would be less than significant. The City's VMT guidelines and thresholds state that, absent evidence indicating a project would generate a significant level of VMT, projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day may be assumed to cause a less than significant impact, and that projects within TPAs may be exempt from a VMT analysis (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As discussed in the SCEA, although the Originally Approved Plan would generate more than 110 trips per day, the Originally Approved Plan would connect via a walking trail to the adjacent Vista Canyon Multi -Modal Center and its substantial bus services, park -and -ride lot, and new Metrolink commuter rail station along the existing Antelope Canyon Line. The Originally Approved Plan was also required to satisfy the following criteria to allow for screening under the City's and OPR's VMT Guidance: 1. Has a floor area ratio (FAR) of greater than 0.75; 2. Does not include more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees than other typical nearby uses, or more than required by the City; 3. Is consistent with the applicable SCS (as determined by the lead agency); and 4. Does not replace affordable residential units with a small number of moderate- or high -income residential units. As detailed within the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan was determined to have a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.76, above the requirement of Criterion No. 1. Regarding Criterion No. 2, the Originally Approved Plan was required to provide a total of 902 parking spaces in line with the regulations of the MetroWalk Specific 16917 72 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 282 1.f Plan to maintain the Project's pedestrian -oriented character and accessibility to transit, amenities, and daily services intended to minimize vehicle trips and parking demand. Although, the parking supply would be less than that the required by the SCMC, the Originally Approved Plan would meet the requirements of the MetroWalk Specific Plan and would meet Criterion No. 2. The Originally Approved Plan was determined to be consistent with Criterion No. 3 as the Project would be located adjacent to the Vista Canyon Multi - Modal Center and would be a transit -oriented development with connecting walkable/bikeable trails from the residential community to the station. Regarding Criterion No. 4, the Specific Plan area is currently vacant and would not remove or replace any affordable residential units and would therefore be consistent with Criterion No. 4 and would be screen from VMT analysis (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As such, the City presumed that the Originally Approved Plan would have a less than significant impact. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi- family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. Therefore, the Modified Plan would result in a reduced number of units constructed and residents generated on -site compared to the Originally Approved Plan, and thus, would result in a reduced impactto the circulation network on the Specific Plan area and in the surrounding area. The Modified Plan would continue to provide an internal circulation network, sidewalks and pedestrian crossings, and trails. Similar to the Originally Approved Plan, the Modified Plan would be consistent with the VMT screening criteria, as it: 1. Continues to have a floor area ratio (FAR) of greater than 0.75; 2. Continues to not include more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees than other typical nearby uses, or more than required by the City; 3. Continues to be consistent with the applicable SCS (as determined by the lead agency); and 4. Continues to not replace affordable residential units with a small number of moderate- or high - income residential units. To this end, there is no affordable residential unit replacement with a smaller number of moderate- or high -income residential units. The Modified Plan would continue to be consistentwith all of the City's criteria for VMT screening and would not require a VMT analysis. In addition, there are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the developmentof the Modified Plan would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to conflicts with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. b) Would the Modified Plan 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? The SCEA states that the Congestion Management Plan (CMP) is managed at a County -level and was established statewide in 1990 to implement Proposition 111, linking transportation, land use, and air quality decisions. However, the City and other cities, in partnership with Los Angeles County Metro, elected to be exempt from the California CMP in accordance with the CMP statute. As such, a CMP analysis is no longer applicable in the City's environmental documents, and no impact would occur. 16917 73 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 283 1.f The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi- family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. A CMP analysis is still not required for environmental documents in the City. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to conflicts with an applicable congestion management program or other standards established by the County and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. c) Would the Modified Plan 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? The Specific Plan area is not within an ALUP or within 2 miles of a public or public use airport as none exist within the City (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Thus, the Originally Approved Plan would not affect any airport facilities or cause a change in the directional patterns of aircrafts. Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would not cause a change in air traffic patterns or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks, and no impact would occur. The Specific Plan area has not changed and would not result in a change in air traffic patterns. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi -family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to a change in air traffic patterns and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. d) Would the Modified Plan substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? As stated above and within the SCEA, access to the Specific Plan area would be provided by two unsignalized driveways along Harriman Drive, as well as an eastern driveway at the intersection of Harriman Drive and Cooper Street while on -site circulation would be provided bya network of internal roadways, many of which would have on -street parking. Two internal intersections would be roundabouts with final design being subject to City review to ensure proper accommodations, and there would be no sharp curves or geometric design features within the internal driveway or surface parking lots that could create circulation hazards (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan would not generate incompatible uses of area roadways that could impar circulation or safety and the internal circulation system would meet the mandatory design standards of the City as they relate to width, intersection control, and sight distance. Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses, and no impact would occur. The Modified Plan does not propose changes to the circulation network and improvements. The entry points to the community would remain the same, and there would be no introduction of hazardous design features, such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections, nor would there be incompatible uses. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi -family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. Further, there 16917 74 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 284 1.f are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in no impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to substantially increasing hazards due to a design feature and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. e) Would the Modified Plan result in inadequate emergency access? As discussed in the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan's ingress/egress and circulation network are required to meet the standards of LACoFD which ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles. Furthermore, final Project plans are subject to review and approval by the LACoFD to ensure the site's compliance with all LACoFD ordinances and policies. Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would not cause significant impacts due to inadequate emergency access, and impacts would be less than significant. The Modified Plan circulation network would still be required to adhere to all LACoFD ordinances and policies. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi -family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. The Modified Plan's reduction in dwelling units would reduce the number of dwelling units and residences who would utilize surrounding roadways, and the Modified Plan's access to surrounding roadways would remain the same. Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to inadequate emergency access and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. f) Would the Modified Plan conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? As discussed in the SCEA and in 3.17(a) above, the Originally Approved Plan would not impede a planned or operating transit facility, or a planned bicycle or pedestrian facility. The City's Transit Development Plan (TDP) ensures that transit accessibility is not negatively impacted by development projects that would increase transit ridership. The TDP also identifies transit infrastructure improvements, none of which would be impaired by the Originally Approved Plan (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Furthermore, the Originally Approved Plan is designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle activities as transportation modes within the MetroWalk development and within surrounding areas. The Originally Approved Plan includes a series of pedestrian walkways ranging from 4 feet wide to 10 feet wide, an 8-foot-wide pedestrian walkway connecting the northeast portion of the Specific Plan area to the Vista Canyon Transit Center, ensuring transit options are accessible to Project residents, and includes a sidewalk along Harriman Drive's frontage that connects to a sidewalk on the east side of Lost Canyon Road. The Originally Approved Plan also includes a 1-mile-long landscaped trail that would connect the retail uses within the Vista Canyon Specific Plan area, the Metrolink Station, and the Specific Plan area. The SCEA states that these Originally Approved Plan features are consistent with the City's General Plan Circulation Element goals of a multi -modal circulation network. As evaluated in the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan is a transit -oriented development that would construct 498 residential units in close proximity to commuter rail and bus service at the Multi -Modal Transit Center and the Metrolink Vista Canyon Station which would likely increase transit ridership. While the Originally Approved Plan would likely increase rail and bus ridership, these increases are planned for in SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP/SCS and the Santa Clarita OVOV General Plan through goals and policies that 16917 75 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 285 1.f encourage transit -oriented development and multi -modal projects (City of Santa Clarita 2020). In addition, the SCEA states that impacts relating to the increase in transit ridership would be offset by the Originally Approved Plan's provision of approximately 902 surface parking spaces and by the Project's requirement to pay the City's Transit Facilities Mitigation Fee, which was established to mitigate adverse impacts due to the inadequacy of transit facilities that might otherwise occur due to new residential development. Therefore, because the Originally Approved Plan would not conflict with an adopted policy, plan, or program regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, and because the Projectwould paythe City's Transit Facilities Mitigation Fee, impacts would be less than significant. Similar to development under the Originally Approved Plan, the Modified Plan would pay the City's transit mitigation fee and would provide parking spaces for Project residents pursuantto the ratios provided in the amended Specific Plan. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi -family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. There are no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American trihe. 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 16917 76 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 286 1.f New Potentially ImpactSignific nt New Mitigation No New/ No Reduced rRequired Impact Impact ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuantto criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. ❑ ❑ ® ❑ In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. SCEA Analysis Summary - Originally Approved Plan Potential impacts to tribal cultural resources were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-192 through 4-194. The SCEAdetermined that impacts to tribal cultural resourceswould be lessthansignificantwith mitigation upon implementation of Project -specific MM-TCR-1 through MM-TCR-3. These mitigation measures are included below: MM 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 documentthe potential finds in real time. MM TCR-2: If significant pre -contact and/or postcontact 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 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. MM 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. 16917 77 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 287 1.f Modified Plan Analysis a) Would the Modified Plan cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is 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)? b) Would the Modified Plan cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is 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 § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? As discussed in the SCEA, in compliance with SB 18, the City sent notification letters to the 14 Tribal Representatives on the Tribal Consultation List received from the NAHC on October 9, 2020, and pursuant to AB 52, the City sent a formal notification letter to the Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (Tataviam) on October 20, 2020. The Tataviam responded to commence formal consultation with the City for the Originally Approved Plan while the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians also responded that the tribe may wish to request formal consultation; however, no further information from the Santa Ynez was received by the City at the time of the publication of the SCEA. In addition, the San Fernando Band of Mission Indians (SFBMI) also responded and expressed interest in the Project; SFBMI did not requestformal consultation but requested to be notified of public hearings (City of Santa Clarita 2020). A records search was conducted at the SCCIC which identified three previously conducted cultural resources studies that overlap or intersect with the Specific Plan area and which revealed no cultural resources on the Specific Plan area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). In addition, consultation with the NAHC regarding their records as well as a pedestrian survey of the Specific Plan area conducted by an archaeologist and a Tataviam Native American Monitor did not identify any cultural resources on the Specific Plan area. As discussed further in the SCEA, although the records searches and pedestrian survey did not identify any cultural resources don the Specific Plan area, the Tataviam expressed concern regarding the site's location within a culturally - sensitive area and referred to their records which indicate the presence of several tribal cultural resource sites and isolated resources surrounding the Specific Plan area in addition to the Santa Clara River which is known to the Tataviam as a historic and sacred tribal cultural resource. Moreover, the Tataviam acknowledged that, although portions of the Specific Plan area currently contain redeposited fill, the natural undisturbed surface of the Specific Plan area remains buried under the fill and was not assessed during the intensive pedestrian survey (City of Santa Clarita 2020). To address any inadvertent discovery of tribal cultural resources on the Specific Plan area during construction, Project -specific MM-TCR-1 through MM- TCR-3 have been identified and incorporated into the Project to reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources to a level of less than significant. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation measures, the Originally Approved Plan would notcause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. 16917 78 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 288 1.f The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi- family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. As there would be fewer dwelling units, there would be less ground disturbance activities that could potentially implicate tribal cultural resources. The Modified Plan would continue to incorporate Project -specific mitigation measures MM-TCR-1through MM-TCR-3. With respectto changed circumstances and new information, the Project site has undergone rough grading, and installation of select utilities. The fire water lines have been completed, the trenching for domestic water and dry utilities has been completed, the backbone loop road has been constructed, and traffic signals at the intersections of both Los Canyon Drive/Medley Ridge Drive and Lost Canyon Drive/Canyon Park Boulevard have been raised. Additionally, the onsite detention basin has been completed. The Project -specific mitigation measures would continue to apply. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in an impact of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to tribal cultural resources and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 3.19 Utilities and Service Systems XOX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) 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) 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) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) 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? 16917 79 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 289 1.f Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to ❑ ❑ ® ❑ solid waste? SCEA Analysis Summary e Originally Approved Plan Potential impacts to utilities and service systems were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-194 through 4- 206. All potential impacts related to water, wastewater, stormwater, sufficient water supplies, and landfills were determined to be less than significant. Modified Plan Analysis ay Would the Modified Plan exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? As discussed in the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan is solely a residential development and therefore none of the proposed uses would generate atypical wastewater, and that all wastewater generated under the Project is expected to be domestic sewage. Wastewater treatment facilities operated by the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Sanitation Districts) are designed to treat domestic sewage in compliance with requirements of the Los Angeles RWQCB (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Thus, the SCEA determined that typical domestic sewage does not exceed requirements of the existing wastewater treatment system and that the Originally Approved Plan would result in a less than significant impact. The analysis within the SCEA remains largely accurate with respect to the Modified Plan, although, the Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi -family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. Therefore, the Modified Plan would result in a reduced total amount of wastewater generated compared to the Originally Approved Plan. There are also no changed circumstances or new information with respect to wastewater treatment requirements. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Thus, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to wastewater treatment requirements and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. by Would the Modified Plan 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? The SCEA states that water service to the Specific Plan area is provided by the Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency (SCVWA). The Originally Approved Plan would include new connections to the existing potable water system infrastructure, including a 48-inch SCVWA potable water pipeline that crosses the Specific Plan area 16917 80 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 290 1.f from the southwest to the intersection of Harriman Drive and Cooper Street, a 12-inch potable water pipeline within Harriman Drive, and a 6-inch recycled water pipeline within Lost Canyon Road, Harriman Drive, and Cooper Street, and would connectto the existing 12-inch potable water pipeline within Harriman Drive at two locations: approximately 440 linear feet east of the intersection of Harriman Drive and Lost Canyon Road and at the intersection of Harriman Drive and Cooper Street (City of Santa Clarita 2020). In addition, a network of smaller lines would be located within the planned roadway network providing water to the proposed residential units and recycled water from the Vista Canyon Specific Plan Project immediately north of the Specific Plan area would satisfy the Originally Approved Plan's demand for non - potable water (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Wastewater treatmentforthe Santa Clarita Valley is provided bythe Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District, a part of the Sanitation District's regional wastewater treatment system. The Sanitation Districts operate two, interconnected water reclamation plants (WRPs) in the Valley, the Saugus WRP and the Valencia WRP, which operate under a joint powers agreement to serve the residents of the Valley. The Vista Canyon WRP, associated with the Vista Canyon Project, is located immediately north of the Specific Plan area and would treat the wastewater generated by the Originally Approved Plan while all solids would be conveyed to the Valencia WRP. The Vista Canyon WRP would provide recycled waterto the Specific Plan area for non -potable use, such as for landscaping needs (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As detailed in the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan would connect to two existing north -south, 10-inch sewer pipelines, one of which is located approximately 440 linear feet east of the intersection of Harriman Drive and Lost Canyon Road, and the other of which is located at the intersection of Harriman Drive and Cooper Street. Overall, the Originally Approved Plan would be within the existing service capacities of water and wastewater service purveyors and that the only water or wastewater improvements necessary are on -site connections to the existing infrastructure which are subject to connection fees (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Therefore, the SCEA determined that the Originally Approved Plan would not require or result in the construction or expansion of new water or wastewater treatment facilities, and that impacts would therefore be less than significant. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi- family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. Therefore, the Modified Plan would result in a reduced total amount of water demand and wastewater generated compared to the Originally Approved Plan due to the significant reduction of residents generated. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information with respect to the water or wastewater providers' existing facilities and the Modified Plan's reduced demand for water and generation of wastewater. Thus, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to construction or expansion of water or wastewater treatment facilities and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. c) Would the Modified Plan 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? As described in the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan would require the construction of new drainage and water quality features to create a system that protects development from erosion and potential flooding and preserves the Santa Clara River. The Originally Approved Plan would include construction of conventional drainage improvements like storm drains and retention/detention systems, and also envisions using sustainable drainage and water quality techniques such as infiltration basins, biofiltration areas, vegetated swales, and filter strips (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The SCEA states that the primary purpose of the LID practices utilized by the Originally Approved Plan is to maintain landscape functionality 16917 81 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 291 1.f equivalent topredevelopment hydrologic conditions and to minimize stormwater pollutants of concern. As required by the City and by the countywide MS4 permit, the final design of the development must be engineered so that post -development peak runoff discharge rates are equal to or less than predevelopment peak runoff rates. It was determined that the Originally Approved Plan's engineered stormwater system would be complaint with the MS4 and NPDES permit requirements and would not exceed capacity of the existing 42-inch storm drain near the northwestern corner of the Specific Plan area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Thus, the SCEA determined that the Originally Approved Plan would not require or result in the construction of new off -site stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities off -site, and impacts would be less than significant. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi- family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. Given the reduction in impervious surfaces as a result of converting a portion of the Specific Plan area to single-family dwellings and/or duplexes, the Modified Plan would result in a reduction of stormwater flows. Nevertheless, the Originally Approved Plan's stormwater drainage facilities would remain the same, even if there is a small reduction in stormwater flows. Additionally, there are no changed circumstances or new information with respect to stormwater drainage facilities. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Thus, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relatingto construction or expansion of stormwater drainage facilities and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. dy Would the Modified Plan have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? SCVWA adopted the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in 2016, which provides a detailed summaryof present and future water resources and demands within the SCVWAservice area and assesses the Valley's water resource needs. The SCVWA's water sources come from the State Water Project and local groundwater is generated by the Santa Clara River (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As discussed in the SCEA and as analyzed in the UWMP, projected water supplies in the UWMP greatly exceed the projected water demand for the SCVWA service area in 2020 and in 2050. The Originally Approved Plan would generate a total water demand of 116 gallons per minute (gpm) on an average day, with 103 gpm being required for the proposed residential uses, 7 gpm being required for the irrigated landscaping, parks, and community center, and 6 gpm required for the four pools (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As disclosed by the SCEA, this average daily demand forthe Originally Approved Plan would represent approximately O.3%ofcurrentwater supply and approximately 0.3% of available water supplies in 2050, when including planned water supplies. As such, existing water supplies are sufficient to serve the Originally Approved Plan, the Project would not require new or expanded water entitlements, and impacts would be less than significant. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi- family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. Since the time that the SCEA was approved by the City, SCVWA has adopted a 2020 UWMP (SCVWA 2021). The 2020 UWMP identifies that the projected water demand of the SCVWA service area for the year 2050 is 101,000 acre-feet whereas projected water supply in 2050 (existing and planned sources) is 111,758 acre-feet (SCWVA 2021). Therefore, the Modified Plan would continue to have adequate water supplies, similar to the Originally Approved Plan. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant 16917 82 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 292 1.f impact. Thus, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to sufficient water supplies and would not result in anew or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. e) Would the Modified Plan result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projects projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? See the discussion above under Section 3.19(b) for more information regarding this impact. Given the discussion within the SCEA and Section 3.19(b) above which states that recycled water from the Vista Canyon Specific Plan Project immediately north of the Specific Plan area would satisfy the Originally Approved Plan's demand for non -potable water and that the Originally Approved Plan would be within the existing service capacities of water and wastewater services and would not require or result in the construction or expansion of new water or wastewater treatment facilities, impacts relating to wastewater would therefore be less than significant. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi- family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. Therefore, the Modified Plan would result in a reduced total amount of wastewater generated compared to the Originally Approved Plan. The wastewater treatment provider would continue to be able to serve the Modified Plan as wastewater generation would be reduced compared to the Originally Approved Project since there would be a significant reduction in residents generated. There are no other changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Thus, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has adequate capacity to serve the Modified Plan and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. f) Would the Modified Plan be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? As discussed in the SCEA, there are three Class III (nonhazardous) landfills that serve the City which all have significant remaining capacities. The Originally Approved Plan would generate approximately 2,644 pounds (3.3 cubic yards) of solid waste per day which the existing landfills have sufficient capacity to handle, and the Project would be required to comply with the City's and California's solid waste diversion regulations (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Thus, impacts would be less than significant. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi- family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. Therefore, the Modified Plan would result in a reduced total amount of wastewater generated compared to the Originally Approved Plan. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Thus, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relatingto landfill capacity to accommodate the Modified Plan and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 16917 83 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 293 1.f 9) Would the Modified Plan comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The SCEA states that the California Integrated Waste Management Act required that jurisdictions maintain a 50% or better diversion rate for solid waste which the City implements through its franchised Solid Waste Management Services. Per the agreements between the City and the franchised trash disposal companies, each franchisee is responsible for meeting the minimum recycling diversion rate of 50% on a quarterly basis (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan is required to comply with the applicable solid waste franchisee's recycling system and, thus, would meet the City's and California's solid waste diversion regulations. Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would not conflict with any statutes or regulating regarding solid waste and impacts would be less than significant. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi- family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. The reduction in proposed dwelling unit count under the Modified Plan would result in the generation of less solid waste as less construction materials would be required. Additionally, the Modified Plan would be subject to SB 1383's organic waste diversion requirement of a 75 percent reduction, and SB 341's waste diversion goal of 75 percent. There is no other new information or changed circumstances. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would result in a less than significant impact. Thus, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to compliance with applicable solid waste regulations and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 3.20 Wildfire XX. WILDFIRE - If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) 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 a wildfire? c) 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? 16917 84 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 294 1.f Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instabilitv. or drainaafe chanafes? SCEA Analysis Summary - Originally Approved Plan Wildfire impacts were analyzed in the SCEA on pages 4-206 through 4-212. Potential wildfire impacts were determined to be less than significant. Modified Plan Analysis a) Would the Modified Plan substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? As discussed in the SCEA, the City has a HMP that provides the overall direction for efforts by the City's agencies, organizations, and citizens to mitigate risk from natural and man-made hazards. Section 7 of the HMP addressed wildfire hazards within the City and provides a framework for communications, decisions, and actions by emergency response personnel for emergencies requiring evacuation. Further, the command structure of the HMP would assess local conditions in an ongoing manner to identify locations and severity of threats to all types of land uses (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The SCEA determined that the Originally Approved Plan would increase the number of residents and employees that could be affected during a wildfire event in the area and would incrementally add to the scale and complexity of evacuation procedures, but also determined that Originally Approved Plan residents would be able to adequately travel north or south, connecting to major roadways for the purpose of evacuation. As such, and given MMs included in the 2020-2040 RTP/SCS that provide local and regional strategies for respondingto emergency events and hazards that are incorporated into the Originally Approved Plan, the City's existing emergency response system would be sufficient to allow evacuation of the Specific Plan area in the event of future wildfires in the Project area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Development of the Originally Approved Plan would not substantially impair the City's HMP's emergency response protocols, and impacts would therefore be less than significant. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi- family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. Therefore, the Modified Plan would result in a reduced potential number of residents evacuating during a potential evacuation compared to the Originally Approved Plan and would thus have a reduced effect on evacuation protocols. Further, as noted in the Environmental Setting, traffic signals at the intersections of both Los Canyon Drive/Medley Ridge Drive and Lost Canyon Drive/Canyon Park Boulevard have been installed. These help facilitate access to and from the Project site. There are other no changed circumstances or new information. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 16917 85 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 295 1.f b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Modified Plan occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? As discussed in the SCEA, the Specific Plan area is relatively flat and contains very little natural vegetation due to extensive past disturbances, with the exception of some California sage scrub primarily located on the eastern side of the Specific Plan area. Additionally, the Specific Plan area is within a VHFHSZ identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (City of Santa Clarita 2020). With implementation of the Originally Approved Plan, wildfire risk would be reduced on the Specific Plan area compared to existing conditions as the site would be developed with impervious surfaces or managed landscaped areas. In addition, the Originally Approved Plan would be designed to the stringent standards of the LACoFD to resist fire ignition and slow the spread of fire, and no building permits would be issued by the City until construction plans have been reviewed and determined to be in full compliance with all applicable standards for development within a VHFHSZ, which include requirements for fire-resistant building materials, sprinkler systems in all homes, certain water flow pressures for fire hydrants, and adequate internal circulation and site access for fire engines and crews (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The SCEA states that through implementation of the Originally Approved Plan's proposed uses, fuel loads on the Specific Plan area would be reduced and would thus reduce the risk of a wildfire occurring or intensifying on -site and threatening surrounding properties. The Originally Approved Plan would not involve storage, use, or disposal of significant quantities of hazardous materials, and would not include any significant sources of hazardous materials that could add to the fuel load and produce harmful pollutants in the event of a wildfire (City of Santa Clarita 2020). As such, the Originally Approved Plan would not exacerbate wildfire risks and would not expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire, and therefore impacts would be less than significant. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi- family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. Therefore, the Modified Plan would result in a reduced number of residents on the Specific Plan area compared to the Originally Approved Plan and would thus have a reduced effect of potential wildfire risk exposure to Project residents. There are no changed circumstances or new information with respect slope, prevailing winds, and other factors that could exacerbate wildfire risks. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to exacerbation of wildfire risks and exposure of people to wildfire risks and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. c) Would the Modified Plan 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? The Originally Approved Plan would develop the Specific Plan area that is located within a VHFHSZ with impervious surfaces including residential buildings, surface parking lots, drive aisles, outdoor gathering spaces and walkingtrails, and managed landscaped areas. The firststage of construction forthe Originally Approved Plan would involve grading and clearing which would effectively remove all existing flammable vegetation from the Specific Plan area and would therefore reduce construction -related wildfire risks to a level of less than significant (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Furthermore, as detailed in the SCEA, all wet and dry utilities required for the Originally Approved Plan would be connected to existing utilities north of the Specific Plan area within Harriman Drive and would be underground, thus, reducing the risk of fire during operations. No additional wildfire -resistant design measures have been identified by LACoFD followingtheir 16917 86 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 296 1.f review of the Originally Approved Plan. As such, the design of the Originally Approved Plan would not exacerbate wildfire risks or result in temporary or ongoing environmental impacts, and impacts would therefore be less than significant. The Modified Plan would include residential uses, but with potential single-family and/or duplex uses in lieu of multi -family uses, and the Specific Plan area would continue to have all flammable vegetation removed during grading and clearing and would continue with plans to connect to undergrounded utilities within Harriman Drive north of the Specific Plan area. There are no changed circumstances or new information with respect to 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. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Thus, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to exacerbation of wildfire risks that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. d) Would the Modified Plan 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? As discussed in the SCEA, the Specific Plan area would be transformed with implementation of the Project and would result in an effective reduction of the on -site vegetation fuel load and would reduce the risk that a wildfire would strip the site of vegetation, thus, creating possible flooding conditions due to bare land. Furthermore, the Specific Plan area is relatively flat and is not within a landslide zone as identified by the California Department of Conservation, and therefore no landslide risks exist on the Specific Plan area that would be exacerbated by a wildfire (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Thus, the SCEA determined that the Originally Approved Plan would not expose people or structures to significant risks as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes, and impacts would therefore be less than significant. The Modified Plan does not change the Specific Plan area. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi -family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. Therefore, the Modified Plan would result in a reduced number of residents on the Specific Plan area compared to the Originally Approved Plan and would thus have a reduced effect of potential wildfire risk exposure to Project residents. The reduction in dwelling units would not 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. Further, there are no changed circumstances or new information with respectto this topic. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in a less than significant impact. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts relating to exposure of people or structures to significant wildfire risks and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 16917 87 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 297 1.f 3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance New Potentially Significant New Mitigation No New/ No Reduced Impact is Required Impact Impact XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to substantially 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, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have 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) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Does the Modified Plan have the potential to substantially 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, substantially 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? As discussed in the SCEA, based on the analysis within the Initial Study Checklist Section IV, Biological Resources, with incorporation of Project -specific mitigation measures MM-131O-1 and MM-131O-2, the Originally Approved Plan would not have substantial impacts to special -status species or protected native birds. Furthermore, the Originally Approved Plan would not affectthe local, regional, or national populations or ranges of any plant or animal species and would not threaten any plant communities. The Originally Approved Plan would not impact historical or tribal cultural resources but would require the incorporation of MM-CUL-2 and MM-TCR-1 through MM-TCR-3 to ensure less than significant impacts to archaeological/paleontological and tribal cultural resources (City of Santa Clarita 2020). Thus, with the incorporation of these mitigation measures, the Originally Approved Plan would not eliminate any important examples of California history or prehistory and would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the 16917 88 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 298 1.f 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 species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. As such, the SCEA determined that the Originally Approved Plan would not result in a mandatory finding of significance in this regard (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi- family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. The Modified Plan would continue to incorporate MM-131O-1, MM-131O-2, MM-CUL-1, MM-CUL-2, and MM-TCR-1 through MM-TCR-3. There are no changed circumstances or new information with respect to this topic. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in an impact of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. b) Does the Modified Plan 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.) The SCEA states that the cumulative projects identified in the SCEA are located approximately 0.7 mile to 2.1 miles away from the Specific Plan area, with the exception of the Vista Canyon Specific Plan located adjacent to the north of the site and Related Project No. 8 located approximately 0.5 mile from the site. Accordingly, these related projects are located sufficiently and physically distantfrom the Specific Plan area (City of Santa Clarita 2020). When considering the Originally Approved Plan in combination with these projects in regard to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology, and hazards and hazardous materials, the Originally Approved Plan does not have the potential to cause any cumulative impacts due to the significant distances to the other projects from the Specific Plan area. As detailed in the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan would have no impact, a less -than -significant impact, or a less -than -significant impact with mitigation incorporated, with respect to all environmental issues considered. Cumulative impacts of several resource areas have also been addressed in the individual resource sections, including Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, Noise, and Transportation/Traffic. Ca1EEMod was utilized to assess the air quality and GHG impacts resulting from the Originally Approved Plan, concluding less -than -significant impacts. Noise and traffic studies conducted as part of the SCEA both considered cumulative increases in traffic and concluded that the impacts of the Originally Approved Plan would not be cumulatively considerable, and, as such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Some of the other resource areas (agricultural and mineral resources) were determined to have no impact in comparison to existing conditions. The Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to these issues. As such, cumulative impacts would be lessthan significantand not cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would not have impactsthat are individually limited butcumulatively considerable, and the Originally Approved Plan would not result in a mandatory finding of significance in this regard. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi- family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. As such, impacts associated with the development of the Modified Plan would be consistent with the analysis in the SCEA and would result in an impact of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, 16917 89 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 299 1.f the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. c) Does the Modified Plan have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? As discussed in the SCEA, the Originally Approved Plan would not result in significant adverse effects to air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, geology and soils, hydrology, and noise with the incorporation of associated mitigation measures. In regard to air quality, construction and operational activities associated with the Originally Approved Plan would produce TACs in proximity to the residents (sensitive receptors) of the Vista Canyon Specific Plan Project. However, with incorporation of MM AQ-1, impacts would be less than significant. The SCEA also states that occupants of the Originally Approved Plan could be exposed to strong seismic ground shaking during earthquake events; however, the Originally Approved Plan would not exacerbate seismic risks, and the geologic conditions of the Specific Plan area (which is located within a liquefaction zone) would be alleviated by the required compliance with the California Building Standards Code, Santa Clarita Building Code, and other applicable codes. Construction activities would abide by all standard construction practices and regulatory requirements related to hazardous materials handling and disposal to reduce the risk of exposure during construction and to ensure that potential exposure risk of residents to on -site contaminants would be reduce to less than significant (City of Santa Clarita 2020). The Originally Approved Plan would not expose people to flooding, and noise impacts would not exceed applicable thresholds at adjacent sensitive receptors. Therefore, the Originally Approved Plan would comply with all applicable rules and regulations and recommended motivation measures that would reduce potential impacts on human beings to less than significant. The Originally Approved Plan would not result in a mandatory finding of significance in this regard. The Modified Plan allows for single-family and duplex units in addition to the previously proposed multi- family and affordable senior units and reduces the total number of new residential units constructed and total number of new residents generated to a total of up to 318 new units and a total of up to 946 new residents. As such, the Modified Plan would result in fewer impacts as a result of the reduction in density as compared to the Originally Approved Plan. There are no changed circumstances or new information that would cause the Modified Plan to result in substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The Modified Plan would result in an impact of less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not result in any new or different impacts and would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified. 16917 90 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 300 1.f 4 Addendum Conclusion As demonstrated by the analysis and discussion above, impacts associated with the Modified Plan would be similar to or less than the impacts identified within the SCEA and associated with the Originally Approved Plan. No substantial changes to the Originally Approved Plan would occur that would require major revisions of the SCEA due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. In addition, no changed circumstances or new information of substantial importance have become available relative to any of the environmental topic categories that would result in new or more severe significant environmental impacts. Furthermore, the applicable mitigation measures incorporated into the Originally Approved Plan and the SCEA would continue to be implemented under the Modified Plan. All Modified Plan impacts would be within the level of impacts analyzed in the SCEA, and none of the conditions described in PRC Section 21166and CEQAGuidelines Section 15164 requiringa recirculated documentwould occur. Therefore, the Modified Plan would not create any potential adverse impacts beyond those evaluated within the SCEA. As such, the preparation of this SCEAAddendum to modify the Project Description would be appropriate and fully complies with the requirements of PRC Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. In addition, the information provided in this Addendum does not result in any of the conditions set forth in Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines requiring recirculation of the SCEA. Rather, as provided within CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, this Addendum supports the conclusion that recirculation is not required. In conclusion, the changes to the Originally Approved Plan proposed by the Modified Plan would not result in any new significant impacts or any increases in the severity of previously identified impacts. Nor are there are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Originally Approved Plan was approved, and no new information of substantial importance has been identified that would result in any new significant impacts or any increases in the severity of previously identified impacts. For the above reasons, the changes proposed by the Modified Plan do not require preparation of a new, supplemental or subsequent SCEA pursuantto CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, and no further environmental analysis is required under CEQA. 16917 91 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 301 1.f 5 References SCVWA (Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency). 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Volume 1 Final. Adopted June 2021. Accessed December 2024. https://www.you rscvwater.com/sites/defa u It/files/SCVWA/SCVWA-2020-UWM P-Vol u me-l_FI NAL.pdf. 16917 92 DECEMBER 2024 Packet Pg. 302 1.g NOTICE OF DETERMINATION 4f cY A 9 [X] County Clerk [ ] State Clearinghouse County of Los Angeles 1400 Tenth Street 12400 E. Imperial Hwy., Rm. 1007 Sacramento, CA 95815 Norwalk, CA 90650 PROJECT Newhall Mixed -Use Project: Master Case 24-230: Specific Plan Amendment 24-002 NAME: PROJECT Southeast corner of Lost Canyon Road and Harriman Drive (Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APNs) 2840- LOCATION: 034-020, -021, -022, -023, -024, and -026) PROJECT The applicant, B1uMax Santa Clarita, LLC, is requesting to amend the MetroWalk Specific Plan to DESCRIPTION: expand the housing types allowed within the Specific Plan area, reduce setbacks between units, eliminate planning areas, and adjust the timing for the construction of the senior affordable units. The proposed amendment will facilitate greater flexibility to provide a variety of housing options consistent with the design guidelines included in the specific plan. The site is approximately 20 acres and there are no proposed changes to the amenities, open spaces, and maximum number of units within the specific plan. A Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) for the MetroWalk Specific Plan was approved by the City Council on March 23, 2021. PROJECT B1ueMax Santa Clarita, LLC APPLICANT: This is to advise that the City of Santa Clarita has made the following determinations regarding the project described above: 1) The project was approved by the [] Director of Community Development [ ] Planning Commission [X] Mayor and City Council on the following date: May 27, 2025. 2) [X ] An Addendum to the Final SCEA was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3) The project [ ] WILL [X] WILL NOT have a significant impact on the environment. 4) Mitigation measures [X] WERE [ ] WERE NOT made a condition of project approval. 5) A Statement of Overriding Considerations [ ] WAS [X] WAS NOT adopted for this project. This is to certify that the [ ] NEGATIVE DECLARATION [ ] ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT [X] ADDENDUM with record of project approval is available for public review at: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, California 91355 (661)255-4330 Contact Person/Title: Justin Sauder, Associate Planner Signature: Packet Pg. 303 1.h 9 �A� Ufa a � �Fh' IS. f�EULmS�,'CP APPLICATION CITY OF SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Master Case 24-230: Specific Plan Amendment 24-002 PROJECT APPLICANT: B1uMax Santa Clarita, LLC PROJECT LOCATION: Southeast Corner of Lost Canyon Road and Harriman Drive (APNs: 2840- 034-020, -021, -022, -023, -024, and-026) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, B1uMax Santa Clarita, LLC, is requesting to amend the MetroWalk Specific Plan to permit duplexes and single-family condominiums, as the plan currently contemplates only multi -family housing types of three or more units. The proposed amendment will facilitate greater flexibility to provide a variety of housing options consistent with the design guidelines included in the specific plan. The site is approximately 20 acres and there are no proposed changes to the amenities, open spaces, and maximum number of units within the specific plan. The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on this matter on the following date: DATE: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 TIME: At or after 6:00 p.m. LOCATION: City Hall, Council Chambers 23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor Santa Clarita, CA 91355 The Planning Commission agenda can be found at www.santaclarita.gov/a, eg ndas by April 11, 2025. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment (SCEA) for the MetroWalk Specific Plan was approved by the City Council on March 23, 2021. An addendum to the SCEA was prepared for the proposed project and is available for review by appointment in the City Clerk's Office located in the City Hall building at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. In addition, a copy will be available on the Planning Division's website. htlps:Hsantaclarita.gov/planning/environmental 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 written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita at, or prior to, the public hearings. If you wish to have written comments included in the materials the Planning Commission receives prior to the public hearing, it must be submitted to the Community Development Department by Friday, April 4, 2025. For further information regarding this proposal, you may contact the project planner, by appointment, at the City of Santa Clarita, Permit Center, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Telephone: (661) 255-4330. Website: www.santaclarita.gov/planning. Send written correspondence via e-mail to jsauder@santaclarita.gov, or by US mail to: City of Santa Clarita Planning Division, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Project Planner: Justin Sander, Associate Planner. Patrick Leclair Planning Manager Published: The Signal, March 25, 2025 Packet Pg. 304 1.h PROJECT SITE Southeast Corner of Lost Canyon Road and Harriman Drive Assessor's Parcel Numbers 2840-034-020, -021, -022, -023, -024, and -026 Packet Pg. 305 MetroWalk Specific Plan Prepared for: Blumax Santa Clarita, LLC 2001 Wilshire Boulevard, Ste. 401 Santa Monica, California 90403 Contact: Adam Browning Prepared by: DUDEK MARCH 2025 Printed on 30% post -consumer recycled material. Section TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. 1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Intent and Purpose of Specific Plan................................................................1-1 1.2 Organization of the Specific Plan...................................................................1-2 1.3 Project Location.................................................................................................1-3 1.3.1 Location..................................................................................................1-3 1.3.2 Surrounding Uses.................................................................................1-3 1.3.3 Site Characteristics................................................................................1-4 1.4 Authority............................................................................................................1-4 1.5 The Specific Plan's Relationship to the General Plan and Santa Clarita MunicipalCode.................................................................................................1-4 1.5.1 Relationship to the General Plan........................................................1-4 1.5.2 Relationship to the Santa Clarita Municipal Code ...........................1-5 1.6 Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act ...........................1-5 1.6.1 Senate Bill 226 CEQA Streamlining....................................................1-5 1.6.2 Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013)..........................................................1-6 1.7 Compliance with Other Laws and Regulations............................................1-6 1.7.1 Global Warming Solutions Act...........................................................1-6 1.7.2 The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act ...........1-6 1.7.3 Southern California Association of Governments ...........................1-7 2.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN............................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Introduction....................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Specific Plan Objectives.................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Land Use Plan....................................................................................................2-2 2.3.1 Land Use Designation Zones.............................................................. 2-5 2.3.2 Conceptual Development Scenarios (Residential Zones)PlaffffiRg Areas....................................................................................................... 2-5 2.4 Mobility Plan...................................................................................................2-11 2.4.1 Introduction......................................................................................... 2-11 2.4.2 Existing Regional Circulation and Access.......................................2-11 2.4.3 Local Roadway Circulation and Access .......................................... 2-12 2.4.4 Parking Plan.........................................................................................2-13 2.5 Landscape Plan................................................................................................ 2-25 2.6 Open Space, Parks and Recreation Plan ...................................................... 2-25 2.7 Sustainability Plan.......................................................................................... 2-26 2.7.1 Introduction......................................................................................... 2-26 2.7.2 Application of Project Design Features...........................................2-26 MetroWalk Specific Plan i February 2025 3.0 INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ...................................................... 3-1 3.1 Purpose and Intent............................................................................................3-1 3.2 Grading Plan......................................................................................................3-1 3.2.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................. 3-1 3.2.2 Proposed Conditions............................................................................ 3-1 3.3 Drainage/Water Quality...................................................................................3-2 3.3.1 Existing Conditions...............................................................................3-2 3.3.2 Proposed Conditions............................................................................ 3-2 3.4 Water Service/Recycled Water........................................................................3-4 3.4.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................. 3-4 3.4.2 Proposed Conditions............................................................................ 3-4 3.5 Wastewater Service...........................................................................................3-5 3.5.1 Existing Conditions...............................................................................3-5 3.5.2 Proposed Conditions............................................................................ 3-6 3.6 Dry Utilities........................................................................................................ 3-6 3.6.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................. 3-6 3.6.2 Proposed Conditions............................................................................ 3-6 4.0 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.......................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Purpose and Intent............................................................................................4-1 4.2 Consistency with Adopted Plans....................................................................4-1 4.3 Relationship to City's Unified Development Code ......................................4-1 4.4 Existing Uses and Severability........................................................................ 4-1 4.5 Administration.................................................................................................. 4-2 4.6 Land Use Designations.................................................................................... 4-2 4.6.1 Land Use Plan and Zones.................................................................... 4-2 4.7 Allowed Land Uses/Permit Requirements.................................................... 4-2 4.7.1 Introduction........................................................................................... 4-2 4.7.2 Residential (R) Use Types.................................................................... 4-3 4.7.3 Open Space (OS) Use Types................................................................ 4-4 4.8 Site Development Standards...........................................................................4-5 4.8.1 Purpose and Intent................................................................................4-5 4.8.2 Development Standards.......................................................................4-5 4.9 T+affsferDevelopment Adjustment Regulations...........................................4-7 7 ...................................................................... .................... 8 4.10 Signage Regulations......................................................................................... 4-9 4.10.1 Purpose and Intent................................................................................ 4-9 4.10.2 Applicability and Conformance....................................................... 4-10 4.11 Parking Regulations........................................................................................ 4-10 MetroWalk Specific Plan ii February 2025 4.11.1 Purpose and Intent.............................................................................. 4-10 4.11.2 Parking Regulations............................................................................ 4-10 5.0 DESIGN GUIDELINES.............................................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Purpose and Intent............................................................................................ 5-1 5.2 General Guidelines........................................................................................... 5-1 5.2.1 Design Themes...................................................................................... 5-1 5.2.2 Site Planning.......................................................................................... 5-1 5.2.3 Architecture...........................................................................................5-2 5.2.4 Fencing....................................................................................................5-2 5.3 Other Applicable Architectural Guidelines .................................................. 5-2 5.3.1 Application Process Guidelines.......................................................... 5-3 6.0 SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Purpose and Intent............................................................................................ 6-1 6.2 Implementation Procedures............................................................................ 6-1 6.3 Phasing............................................................................................................... 6-1 6.4 Specific Plan Administration, Review, and Amendments ................................................. 6-1 6.4.1 Substantial Conformance for Minor Deviations ............................... 6-2 6.4.2 Substantial Conformance Procedure; Adjustments, Variances, and Minor Use Permit for Parking Reductions Procedure ..................... 6-3 6.4.3 Specific Plan Amendments and Major Modifications ..................... 6-4 FIGURES Figure 1.0-1 Regional Location Figure1.0-2 Site Vicinity........................................................................................... Figure 1.0-3 Plan Area Aerial..................................................................................... Figure 1.0-4 Development Surrounding Specific Plan ............................................... Figure 1.0-5 Project Site Photos................................................................................. Figure2.0-1 Land Use Plan........................................................................................ Figure 2.0-2a Conceptual Site Plan — Scenario A Figure 2.0-2b Conceptual Site Plan Alternative — Scenario B Figure 2.0--23 Mobility Plan......................................................................................... Figure 2.044 Pedestrian Pathways............................................................................... Figure 2.0-45 Lost Canyon Road.................................................................................. Figure 2.0---';6 Harriman Drive...................................................................................... Figure 2.0-47 Cooper Street Section............................................................................ Figure 2.0--78 Drive Aisle Entry ................... Figure 2.0-99 Private Drive Section Carport Figure 2.0-910Private Drive Parallel Parking .......... 1-8 .......... 1-9 ........ 1-10 ........ 1-11 ........ 1-12 .......... 2-8 2=9 2-10 ........ 2-16 ........ 2-17 ........ 2-18 ........ 2-19 ........ 2-20 ........ 2-21 ........ 2-22 ........ 2-23 MetroWalk Specific Plan iii February 2025 Figure 2.0-118Private Drive Section No Parking.......................................................... Figure 2.0-4412 Conceptual Landscape Plan ....................................................... Figure 2.0-13-2Conceptual Landscape Plan................................................................... Figure 2.0-143Conceptual Open Space Plan................................................................. Figure 2.0-154Conceptual Park and Recreation Enlargements ..................................... Figure 2.0-163Conceptual Parks and Recreation Enlargements ................................... Figure 2.0-176Conceptual Parks and Recreation Enlargements ................................... Figure 2.0-18-7Conceptual Park Illustrative Plan........................................................... Figure 2.0-19.&Multi-Use Trail Plan.............................................................................. Figure 3.0-1 Conceptual Grading Plan....................................................................... Figure3.0-2 Drainage Plan......................................................................................... Figure 3.0-3 Conceptual On -Site Potable and Non -Potable Water Systems .............. Figure 3.0-4 Conceptual Wastewater Systems........................................................... Figure 3.0-5 Conceptual Dry Utilities........................................................................ TABLES ........ 2-24 ........ 2-29 ........ 2-30 ........ 2-31 ........ 2-32 ........ 2-33 ........ 2-34 ........ 2-35 ........ 2-36 .......... 3-8 .......... 3-9 ........ 3-10 ........ 3-11 ........ 3-12 2.0-1 Specific Plan Land Use Summary............................................................................... 2-3 2.0-3 Parking Summary....................................................................................................... 2-14 4.0-1 Site Development Standards Matrixes ^ 1, n n 2, nE ^ 3 afwl ^ 4 ) 4-7 4.0-2 Parking Requirements Matrixl, 2,3 ............................................................................. 4-10 APPENDICES 1.0-1 Legal Description 1.0-2 General Plan Consistency Analysis 1.0-3 Tentative Tract Map No. 83087 4.0-1 Conceptual Landscape Plan 5.0-1 Plan Renderings MetroWalk Specific Plan iv February 2025 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTENT AND PURPOSE OF SPECIFIC PLAN The MetroWalk Specific Plan (Specific Plan) contains the development plans, infrastructure development plans, development regulations, design guidelines, and implementation program necessary to achieve the orderly and compatible development of MetroWalk, a new transit - oriented residential community directly south of the Vista Canyon Specific Plan that was approved by the City of Santa Clarita (City) in 2011. The Specific Plan facilitates additional high - quality, attainably priced, multifamily residential apartments and townhomes, and single-family homes and duplexes in proximity to the new City/Metrolink Station, Bus Transfer Station and Vista Canyon Town Center amenities and services. While separate and standalone, this Specific Plan serves as a natural extension of the Vista Canyon Specific Plan and is consistent and compatible with the provisions contained in the Vista Canyon Specific Plan, as well as the goals and policies of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan (General Plan). The MetroWalk Specific Plan was prepared in conjunction with a zone change request to change the zoning of the site from Business Park (BP) to Specific Plan (SP). The City of Santa Clarita Municipal Code (SCMC), Section 17.37.030 (Specific Plan (SP) Zone), establishes the Specific Plan zoning designation, and indicates that specific allowable uses, maximum intensity standards, and development standards shall be determined by the adopted specific plan. Therefore, this Specific Plan will achieve the purposes of the City's SP Zone, and will serve as the zoning code for the Specific Plan site (described more fully in Section 2.0, Development Plan). In April 2020, the applicant filed a development application (Master Case No. 20-045) with the City. As required by the City, the applicant is requested the following discretionary land use entitlement approvals to facilitate adoption of the Specific Plan in Februar3� 2021: (a) General Plan Amendment and Zone Change (GPA/ZC). The property �lwas previously zoned and designated Business Park (BP) in both the City's Zoning Code and General Plan. To accommodate the project, the City approved a Zone Change and General Plan Land Use Element Amendment to revise the land use zone/designation for the property from Business Park (BP) to Specific Plan (SP). A new SP land use zone/designation for the property will ensure that the development of the site is consistent and compatible with the Vista Canyon Specific Plan to the north. (b) Metro Walk Specific Plan. This Specific Plan, r,,4;& wati establishes the zoning, development plans, regulations, guidelines, and implementation provisions governing development within the Specific Plan site. The Specific Plan serves as a guide to implementation of the City's General Plan goals, policies, and objectives. Key components of the proposed Specific Plan include the land use plan, permitted use chart, development standards, circulation plan, conceptual landscape plan, pedestrian plan, trails plan, and sustainability plan. MetroWalk Specific Plan 1-1 February 2025 (c) Tentative Tract Map No. 83087. The TTM organizes the property into five lots , and subdivides the property to facilitate construction of up to 498 residential units (including 479 market rate apar-tments, 119 age Etualif4ed apartments, 59 affer-Elable se- ' . Other components of the Specific Plan include parking, courtyards, community rooms, parks and playground, landscape/open space, club houses, trails, paths and private drives. ULDevelopment Review and Architectural Design Review. The applicant is proposing development plans for a new, residential development that allows for single-family dwelling, duplex, apartment and townhome development. As such, a development review and architectural design review a+e-were proposed by the applicant in accordance with the provisions of SCMC Chapter 17.23, Sections 17.23.110 and 17.23.120, in order to safeguard and enhance the appearance and quality of development in the City. Procedures and requirements for subsequent development applications and discretionary approvals are provided in Section 6.0, Specific Plan Implementation. 1.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN The Specific Plan is divided into six sections. The content of each section is described below. Section 1.0, Introduction, describes the intent, purpose, structure, and organization of the Specific Plan. The section also describes the Specific Plan location, surrounding land uses, and site characteristics, including existing and planned land use designations. In addition, the section describes the site's characteristics and existing conditions, and discusses the Specific Plan authorization. The section also addresses the relationship between the Specific Plan and the Santa Clarita General Plan, SCMC, and other laws and regulations. Section 2.0, Development Plan, identifies the Specific Plan objectives and development plans, including the land use plan, conceptual development scenari , mobility plan, sustainability plan, landscape plan, parks and recreation plan, and parking plan. Each plan is described in detail in this section. Section 3.0, Infrastructure Development Plan, describes the infrastructure and utilities needed to serve the Specific Plan site. Specifically, the section describes the backbone infrastructure systems (sewer, water, recycled water, water quality, and storm drainage), and utilities (e.g., gas, electricity), needed to support the Specific Plan site. Sections 4.0, Development Regulations, sets forth the Specific Plans land use designation zones, site development standards, allowed land uses and permit requirements, permitted accessory uses, parking, and signage restrictions, and other regulations. MetroWalk Specific Plan 1-2 February 2025 Section 5.0, Design Guidelines, address design themes, site planning, and architectural themes for each of the major land use designation zones within the Specific Plan. Section 6.0, Specific Plan Implementation, describes the Specific Plan implementation procedures. The Specific Plan, Volume II, includes appendices supporting the Specific Plan, including a legal description of the property (Appendix 1.0-1); General Plan Consistency Analysis (Appendix 1.0- 2); Tentative Tract Map No. 83087 (Appendix 1.0-3); and Renderings of the development contemplated by the Specific Plan (Appendix 5.0-1). 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION 1.3.1 Location The Specific Plan site consists of approximately 20.4 gross acres located in the northeastern portion of the Santa Clarita Valley within the City of Santa Clarita. The City, located in the center of the Santa Clarita Valley, is approximately 35 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles. The City generally is bound by Interstate 5 (I-5) and State Route 14 (SR-14) to the east, west, and south, and is about 1 mile from the Angeles National Forest boundary to the north and east. The Santa Clarita Valley planning area encompasses several distinct communities both within the City limits and in the surrounding unincorporated areas. The existing communities within the City include most of Newhall, Valencia, Saugus, and Canyon Country, with sub -communities of Sand Canyon and Placerita Canyon. The communities within the unincorporated areas are Stevenson Ranch, Castaic Junction, Val Verde, Hasley Canyon, and Castaic. The Specific Plan site is located within the Canyon Country community of the Santa Clarita Valley planning area. Figure 1.0-1, Regional Location, depicts the Specific Plan site in relation to the region. Figure 1.0- 2, Vicinity Map, illustrates the Specific Plan vicinity. Figure 1.0-3, Plan Area Aerial, illustrates the physical characteristics of the Specific Plan site and vicinity. 1.3.2 Surrounding Uses The Specific Plan site is located immediately south of the Vista Canyon Specific Plan area, which is approved for residential and mixed -use transit -oriented development and is currently under construction. Colony Townhomes, a multifamily residential community, is directly west of the Specific Plan site. To the south is the existing Metrolink rail line and the Fair Oaks Ranch/West Sand Canyon Annexation area, which consists of single-family and multifamily residential units, an elementary school, community park, and vacant land. A commercial horse breeding facility with accessory residential and bam structures are located to the east of the Specific Plan site. Additionally, the eastern half of the Specific Plan site is within the Significant Ecological Area Overlay Zone (SEA). Figure 1.0-4, Development Surrounding Specific Plan, depicts the surrounding development in relation to the Specific Plan site. MetroWalk Specific Plan 1-3 February 2025 1.3.3 Site Characteristics The Specific Plan site is a 20.4-acre vacant infill site directly accessible by one existing roadway, Lost Canyon Road, which borders the site to the west. Regional access to and from the MetroWalk Specific Plan site will also be made possible through the Vista Canyon Specific Plan area to the north. Vista Canyon Road Bridge, currently under construction in the Vista Canyon Specific Plan site as of the date of this Specific Plan, will connect the Vista Canyon Plan Area with Soledad Canyon Road and Antelope Valley Highway. The Specific Plan site is bordered by the Metrolink rail to the south, which is held by the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) for Los Angeles County. This rail corridor includes the Metrolink Santa Clarita/Antelope Valley commuter line and freight service. Figure 1.0-5, Site Photographs, illustrates the existing conditions within the Specific Plan site. The site is irregularly shaped and generally flat. From the rail corridor the site drains northwest toward the Santa Clara River. With the exception of various utility easements on site, there are no other natural or historic conditions of significance. Existing site elevations range from a high of 1,505 elevation in the central southeast portion of the Specific Plan site to a low of 1,481 elevation in the northwest portion of the site. 1.4 AUTHORITY The Specific Plan has been prepared pursuant to the provisions of the California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450 through 65457. The California Government Code authorizes jurisdictions to adopt specific plans by resolution as policy documents or by ordinance as regulatory documents. The law allows preparation of specific plans, as may be required for the systematic execution of the General Plan and further allows for their adoption and amendment. The Specific Plan is regulatory in nature and will serve as the zoning code for the Specific Plan site. The Specific Plan is prepared in accordance with SCMC, Section 17.37.030 (Specific Plan (SP) Zone), which establishes the specific plan zoning designation and indicates that specific allowable uses, maximum intensity standards, and development standards shall be determined by the adopted specific plan. Development plans, tract maps, parcel maps and other entitlement requests processed in conjunction with the Specific Plan must be consistent with both the Specific Plan and the City's General Plan. 1.5 THE SPECIFIC PLAN'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND SANTA CLARITA MUNICIPAL CODE 1.5.1 Relationship to the General Plan The Specific Plan implements the goals and policies of the City's General Plan. Appendix 1.0-2, General Plan Consistency Analysis, contains an analysis of the Specific Plan's consistency with the City's General Plan. MetroWalk Specific Plan 1-4 February 2025 1.5.2 Relationship to the Santa Clarita Municipal Code The Specific Plan will be incorporated into the SCMC and provide the allowable land uses, development regulations, design guidelines, and implementation procedures for the property within the boundary of the Specific Plan. The regulations contained within the Specific Plan are in addition to those set forth in the planning, zoning, and subdivision provisions of the SCMC, and do not convey any rights not otherwise granted under the provisions and procedures contained in the SCMC or other ordinances, except as specifically provided for herein. Whenever the Specific Plan contains provisions that establish regulations, including, but not limited to, uses, densities, intensities, heights, parking, signage, open space, and landscaping requirements, which are different from, or more restrictive or permissive than would be allowed pursuant to the provisions of the SCMC, the Specific Plan shall prevail and supersede the applicable provisions of the SCMC. 1.6 COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The MetroWalk Specific Plan project qualifies as a Transit Priority Project per Senate Bill (SB) 375's CEQA reform provisions and is consistent with Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and its associated climate goals. As such, the MetroWalk Specific Plan project will use a streamlined review and analysis of the project consistent with the SCS. As part of this modified environmental review and analysis, an expedited Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment for Transit Priority Projects, consistent with the SCS, will be prepared. Under SB 375's streamlined review and analysis, the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/SCS Environmental Impact Report serves as a first -tier environmental document under CEQA. 1.6.1 Senate Bill 226 CEQA Streamlining In 2011, Governor Jerry Brown signed into legislation SB 226, which became effective in 2013. SB 226 streamlined the environmental review process for eligible infill projects by limiting the topics subject to review at the project level where the effects of infill development have been addressed in a planning level decision or by uniformly applicable development policies. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.3, a project may be eligible for streamlining if it does the following: Is located in an urban area on a previously developed site or surrounded by urban uses (75% of perimeter); • Satisfies performance standards in CEQA Guidelines Appendix M; and • Is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies in SCAG's SCS. MetroWalk Specific Plan 1-5 February 2025 1.6.2 Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013) SB 743 made several changes to CEQA for projects located in areas served by transit. SB 743 proposes to eliminate auto delay, level of services, and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts. It also creates a new exemption for certain projects that are consistent with a Specific Plan, and eliminates the need to evaluate aesthetic and parking impacts of a project in some circumstances. 1.7 COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER LAWS AND REGULATIONS 1.7.1 Global Warming Solutions Act The Global Warming Solutions Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 32) of 2006 established a comprehensive program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change. AB 32 requires the California Air Resources Board to develop regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. As of January 1, 2012, the greenhouse gas rules and market mechanisms adopted by the California Air Resources Board took effect and are legally enforceable. The reduction goal for 2020 is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% of the current rate to meet the 1990 level, and a reduction of 80% of current rates by 2050. The AB 32 Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California will use to reduce greenhouse gases. The Scoping Plan has a range of greenhouse gas reduction actions that include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and nonmonetary incentives, voluntary actions, market -based mechanisms such as a cap -and -trade system, and an AB 32 program implementation regulation to fund the program. 1.7.2 The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375) of 2008 provides incentives for cities and developers to bring housing and jobs closer together and improve public transit. The goal behind SB 375 is to reduce automobile commuting trips and thus help meet the statewide targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions set by AB 32. This mandate requires the California Air Resources Board to determine per capita GHG emission -reduction targets for each metropolitan planning organization (MPO) in the state at two points in the future-2020 and 2035. In turn, each MPO must prepare an SCS that demonstrates how the region will meet its GHG reduction target through integrated land use, housing, and transportation planning. MetroWalk Specific Plan 1-6 February 2025 1.7.3 Southern California Association of Governments The Southern California Association of Governments' Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal, the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Connect SoCal is a long- range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. Connect SoCal charts a course for closely integrating land use and transportation so that the region can grow smartly and sustainably. What is at the heart of Connect SoCal are over 4,000 transportation projects —ranging from highway improvements, railroad grade separations, bicycle lanes, new transit hubs and replacement bridges. In addition, Connect SoCal is supported by a combination of transportation and land use strategies that help the region achieve state greenhouse gas emission reduction goals and federal Clean Air Act requirements, preserve open space areas, improve public health and roadway safety, support our vital goods movement industry and use resources more efficiently. The Specific Plan is consistent with the Connect SoCal in that it also embodies the vision of integrating land use with planned mobility improvements by creating a transit -oriented residential community that connects residents to the new City/Metrolink transit center and new Bus Transfer Station. The Specific Plan also provides open space and recreational resources and accessibility to employment and day-to-day services that support a healthy and balanced quality of life. MetroWalk Specific Plan 1-7 February 2025 I i i i KERN CO. LOS ANGELES CO. j LANCASTER •� I •� ti 5 i 138 SANTA I '� CLARITA Project 126 1 Location 118 j � 5 � -••-••-••-� PASADENA 101 134 10 ! 210 % 101 / 1 10 1 LUG iHl�ttLr. 60 �• 110 605 � LOS ANC, 710 �..-..-..-..-..- 105 ORANGE CC �. �.._..� \w 5 j� '•� �..J 405 91/-•J 57 V LONG BEACH r� ,405 rTTMI © NOT TO SCALE 5 14 CITY OF 14 SANTA CLARITA 14 Existing Vista Canyon Specific Plan Area MetroWalk Specific Plan Area 0 1 2 6 MILES 1 AW r „ tA to -' r. - AM 1 b r y'Vista Canyonary Specific OstMetroWalk C Specific Plan AreLa , >� SOURCE: New Urban West fs a�3r1 . � d _ ��Oa f\�O S� 0 Metrolink Basil Line a � P - r r FIGURE 1.0-3 Plan Area X �,' lo oad _ *' � Soledad Gardenhomes a Residentials� Canyon Iv (Commercial) ° o r a �- -'x a- Soledad Canyon Roa'dr` "070 Tres Robles E ,. (Residential) E C ,t. olony _ - Townhomes �- River Ranch (Residential) . ,. , t L .Townhomes (ResidentiRtv •* wa i4 O 0 8_ SOURCE: New Urban West Fair Oaks ,,, y (Residen � a Cq 4 Metrolink Rail Line Commercial Horse Facility _ .' ,Y Sand Canyon ' #h Fnch$ FIGURE 1.0-4 Development Surrounding Specific Plan Area View: Site, looking South. Metrolink train passing by. JMBL View: New streetscape bordering site to the North, looking West ;�� �'� � '"' �'"� a tl\;•r �„�_� � _ — i MIS as INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK MetroWalk Specific Plan 1-13 February 2025 2.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN 2.1 INTRODUCTION The Specific Plan is designed to deliver a premier transit -oriented residential community that serves as a functional and visual extension of the new mixed -use Vista Canyon Specific Plan directly north. The MetroWalk Specific Plan is designed to achieve a unified vision with a cohesive architectural theme and an integrated vehicular and pedestrian mobility system connected to the new Vista Canyon Metrolink transit station and Bus Transfer Station. Both Specific Plans are guided by a shared goal of creating a unique community where residents enjoy accessibility to transit, recreation, nearby employment, shopping, and services. The 20.4-acre site of the MetroWalk Specific Plan provides the opportunity to develop up to 498 residential units, with a diversity of attainably priced residential typologies, including market -rate apartments, age -qualified apartments, affordable senior apartments, and market -rate single family dwellings, duplexes, and townhomes. The site design concept is intended to maximize walkability and encourage day-to-day interaction within the community. A unifying multi -use path is centrally located and links the Specific Plan with the Metrolink station and Vista Canyon to the north while connecting various private amenities throughout the community, including parks nodes, open space, a central club house and a playground. In addition, the multi -use path terminates at a public plaza at the far eastern area of the Specific Plan, which provides an outdoor publicly accessible amenity adjacent to the Metrolink transit station as well as shopping, trails, and other amenities to the north. 2.2 SPECIFIC PLAN OBJECTIVES The Specific Plan's design is based on the following objectives: 1. Create a new transit -oriented community that provides a diversity of attainably -priced residential uses in close proximity to transit, retail/commercial, office, hotel, and recreational uses. 2. Enhance the housing market and support the City of Santa Clarita's Regional Housing Needs Assessment by providing a variety of housing types and densities to meet the varying needs of future residents. 3. Provide development and a land use pattern that serves as an integrated extension of the Vista Canyon Specific Plan to the north, with coordinated and attractive streetscapes and a high -quality architectural design theme. 4. Arrange land uses to support safe and convenient access to nearby transit and amenities to reduce vehicle miles traveled and energy consumption, and to encourage walking and the use of transit. 5. Design the community to achieve an integrated neighborhood feel and unique sense of place. MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-1 February 2025 6. Provide a rich set of shared outdoor spaces, including parks, courtyards, pathways and a public plaza. 7. 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. 8. Create and enhance opportunities for non -vehicular travel and encourage pedestrian mobility by providing an internal pedestrian circulation system that links the residential community to the nearby Metrolink station, Bus Transfer Station, schools, parks, trail systems, shopping and employment opportunities. 9. Provide a landscape design that emphasizes a pleasant neighborhood character and inviting streetscapes and gives MetroWalk its own unique outdoor aesthetic. 10. Adopt development regulations that provide a measure of flexibility to respond and adjust to changing economic and market conditions. 2.3 LAND USE PLAN The Specific Plans objectives, above, guide the overall Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan (Figure 2.0-1) and the Specific Plan Land Use Summary (Table 2.0-1) provide the framework for development of the Specific Plan site. This section establishes the Specific Plan's land use designation zones (zones) (Residential (R) and Open Space ,OSD by Planning A.Fea and uses/acreage. Table 2.0-1 further identifies the land use types in each zone established by the Specific Plan. ''�2.0 2, JL1,-•d Use Tula Statistical is ,, ;.ae to show the JLand MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-2 February 2025 Table 2.0-1 Specific Plan Land Use Summary Specific Plan a Dwellins Zone A Use Tvpe Other Land Uses Acres (gross) Units Private Drives, Private Recreation Areas, Single -Family Detached Dwellings, Residential, R Duplexes, Multifamily Dwellings' Play Area and Gathering Spaces, Paths, 19.49 4982 Landscape Areas, Parking Public Plaza, Playground, Paths, Open Space, OS Public Plaza Landscape Areas, Water Easement 0.93 N/A Parking Total 20.42 4982 Sources: Appendix 1.0-3; Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 83087. 1. Multifamily dwelling types include age -restricted apartments, deed -restricted affordable senior apartments, and market -rate townhomes and apartments. 2. In no case shall the Specific Plan site exceed a total of 498 residential units. The number of restricted affordable senior units within the Specific Plan site shall not be less than 50 units, inclusive of one manager unit. MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-3 February 2025 (lthpr- T ;44; d T IV, P.V, A er-e ge (gross) 47� 124Nc to PFiNN es 124N,.t„ 7,44 9 Ur;N,ate Pr-i s Ur;N,at, Deere t;.,r, Areas, 12 tl,s r Ar;N, t Pr-i ., 124N, t„ Deere t;.,r, Areas, 12 tl,s 4-.P4 r 124N, t Pr-i ,, 124N, t Deere do Areas, Public Are, Water- gase+net 9-.47- TAW 498 20.42 Planning Area No. T ^-ccrrd v.,;c pe&igagiow Use- AEM6 �g 9Ss} pivelling Units n 4--Relf;-e 1 T R-. rl..,t D 4p- n 11 Ages A n tt l a >\ 4;;W-4et 14 t g n �4 4-4-9-o n t nr ntt-, ,,1,.,.] rl.,.,.] Up,; rjp, p.] 4-.P rp n tt 4,.1 ,,,a 1~ r c 41„ T- t„r,l,P-4-4;,, € .54 4158 94 V41 4.9; 4A4 TAW 20.42 498 MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-4 February 2025 2.3.1 Land Use Designation Zones The following two land use designation zones are established by this Specific Plan, and are applied to property within the Specific Plan site, as shown on the Specific Plan Land Use Plan (Figure 2.0-1): Residential (R). The R land use Elesignafien zone is applied to areas appropriate for a variety of attached and detached, attainably -priced residential units, including market - rate apartments, age -qualified apartments, affordable senior apartments, and single- family dwellings, duplexes, and townhomes,_fe-F sa4e �aTves, and other similar residential product types, with private drives, parking garages, carports, and surface parking. The R designation includes for rent and for sale units and both market -rate and affordable units. The designation also allows recreational uses, including club houses and a community room, parks, playgrounds and pathways, as well as landscaped areas and courtyards. 2. Open Space (OS). The OS zone is applied to the public plaza area at the far eastern end of the Specific Plan site, which connects to the new Metrolink station. 2.3.2 Conceptual Residential Development Scenarios The Specific Plan allows for up to 498 residential units on approximately 19.5 acres of the Specific Plan site, including a mix of residential dwelling_ types, such as single-family detached dwellings, duplexes, and multifamily dwellings, including age -qualified apartments, deed -restricted affordable senior apartments, market -rate apartments and townhomes. The Specific Plan includes two potential conceptual site plan scenarios based on the regulations and guidelines defined by the Specific Plan. It should be noted that while the conceptual development plans presented in this Section depict illustrative examples of potential site plan scenarios, -9building footprints, building locations, and residential product types shown are provided for illustrative purposes only and can be modified consistent with the requirements of the Specific Plan. The first conceptual site plan scenario, Scenario A, shown on Figure 2.0-2a, Conceptual Site Plan - Scenario A and shown as the site plan on all the development plan figures included in this Section 2.0 of the Specific Plan (with the exception of Figure 2.0-2b, which illustrates Scenario B) includes up to 498 dwelling units. This conceptual scenario includes a mix of multifamily dwelling use types, including 50 attached, deed -restricted affordable senior apartments' for lease, 150 attached, for -sale townhomes, 179 attached, market -rate all -ages apartments for lease, and 119 attached, market -rate age -qualified apartments for lease. ' Except as permitted in Section 4.9, Development Adjustment Regulations. MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-5 February 2025 Alternatively, the second concel2tual site 121an scenario, Scenario B, as shown on Figure 2.0-2, Conceptual Site Plan Alternative - Scenario B, includes a1212roximately 325 dwelling units, including a mix of single-family dwelling, dul2lex, and multifamily dwelling use tomes. This alternative scenario includes 50 affordable senior al2artments', and 150 townhomes as described above for Scenario A, as well as, u12 to 125 single-family detached dwellings and/or dul2lexes ranging in size from a1212roximately 1,500 to 2,500 gross square feet. Additionally, both concel2tual site 121an scenarios also include 12rivate 12ool/recreation areas, such as community rooms, clubhouses,12ark nodes, and 12laygrounds, as well as courtyards, multi -use pathways, landscal2ed areas,12rivate drives, and 12arking areas and garages. in F_vMQft!IIII • •• No omi - - -mIN • _• • imi momi i_ ------ • • . • T. M T.W.WbIllo. E»r i U r11 • • s • M - .�• -: Im. - -� - i_ • MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-6 February 2025 �eIMP. OFF.Mr. re sMERNP. : .. .. 11111., - - -� - WIN ■ MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-7 February 2025 rg hT-tT� rti-trlrf ttT t: 't tt"Ir VISTA CANYON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA) -- - - - - -- w i y� , -- ___ dT?iii3iTiTi i —-----------•--- — — — — — — — — — — -- F.W " 4- -4- NIN Mll Metrol-ink Station LAND USE DESIGNATION ZONES Residential (R) Open Space (OS) 0' 60' 120' © 6m=6m==l FEET SOURCE: New Urban West FIGURE 2.0-2a Conceptual Site Plan - Scenario A � m N I o O N �L W M OC = I� V L N I a+ co Z i a+ Q to IK a+ 4i 4 N V O °z 2.4 MOBILITY PLAN 2.4.1 Introduction The Specific Plan's Mobility Plan provides for a transportation/circulation system using private vehicular and non -vehicular modes of transportation in a system of private roadways and pedestrian pathways. The Mobility Plan seeks to implement street sections that slow traffic, create a pleasant walking environment and reduce the urban "heat island" effect.20-2 The Specific Plan s circulation network described below is conceptually shown on Figure 2.0-23 Mobility Plan. Pedestrian pathways are shown on Figure 2.0-34 Pedestrian Pathways. The exhibits included in this Section are provided for illustrative purposes only and may be modified consistent with the requirements of the Specific Plan, as detailed in Section 4.9 and the implementation procedures in Section 6.0. The Specific Plan is guided by its proximity and access to the new Metrolink transit center and the new Bus Transfer Station, which provide residents of the Specific Plan an option of riding the train or using transit to travel to and from work and other destinations. Proximity to transit reduces automobile trips and the associated greenhouse gas emissions, thus contributing to local and regional emissions reduction goals. The Mobility Plan connects the community to nearby transit amenities through a central multi -use path that terminates at Metro Plaza, a public plaza, at the far eastern area of the site near the Metrolink transit station. The multi -use path and public plaza are key features of the Specific Plan. The multi -use path connects various recreational amenities across the site, thus creating and enhancing further opportunities for non -vehicular travel and pedestrian mobility. The public plaza features outdoor amenities including outdoor seating, shaded areas, a play area, and pathways to bring residents and the community together in an attractive, lively atmosphere. The Specific Plan is designed as a pedestrian -oriented community that is easily accessible to nearby services and amenities, including Vista Canyon to the north which features a mix of office, commercial, retail, and residential uses surrounded by a Main Street thoroughfare (Vista Square). Proximity to Vista Canyon offers residents accessibility to pedestrian -oriented shops, restaurants, and services all within walking distance. The Specific Plan is linked to Vista Canyon through Cooper Street and a second private street to the west, which intersect with Harriman Drive, the main east -west private entrance into the Specific Plan from Lost Canyon Road. 2.4.2 Existing Regional Circulation and Access The City 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 I-5, located 2.0-2 The term "heat island" describes built environment areas that are hotter than nearby rural or open areas. Heat islands can affect communities by increasing summertime peak energy demand, air conditioning costs, greenhouse gas emissions, heat -related illness and mortality, and water quality (see http://www.epa.gov/heatisland/index.htm, last updated January 23, 2020). MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-11 February 2025 south and west of the Specific Plan site. SR-14, located north of the Specific Plan site, also provides a regional link between the Los Angeles basin and the high desert communities of Palmdale and Lancaster. SR-14 connects to I-5 southwest of the Specific Plan site. Soledad Canyon Road provides secondary regional access, paralleling SR-14 along the northern boundary of the Specific Plan site and extending north to Palmdale and Lancaster. Sierra Highway, which intersects Soledad Canyon Road east of the Specific Plan area, also provides secondary regional access north to Palmdale and Lancaster. 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 City also presently is served by a 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. The Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) also provides commuter service with stops in the Santa Clarita Valley. 2.4.3 Local Roadway Circulation and Access The Specific Plan Mobility Plan roadway network is designed as an orderly extension of the existing regional circulation pattern in the Santa Clarita Valley and the new local roadway system of the Vista Canyon Specific Plan to the north. The proposed development pattern within the Specific Plan site, integrated with existing roadway alignments, form the basis for this network. The Mobility Plan is designed to integrate modes of travel, accommodate anticipated traffic demands generated by the Specific Plan, and provide important private roadway improvements that ultimately will connect the Specific Plan to the Vista Canyon Specific Plan and out to Lost Canyon Road, which provides access to the rest of the Santa Clarita Valley. Primary vehicular access to and from the Specific Plan site will be from Harriman Drive, a new east -west private road that forms the northern boundary of the Specific Plan site. Harriman Drive extends from the approved westerly extension of Lost Canyon Road. As part of the approved Vista Canyon Specific Plan, Lost Canyon Road south of Jakes Way was extended (approximately 800 feet) north from its previous terminus at the northerly abutment of the bridge over the Metrolink rail tracks within Fair Oaks Ranch, past the Specific Plan site to the south and west of the Vista Canyon Specific Plan site. This segment, a public street, has a maximum 90-foot-wide right-of-way and provides two vehicular lanes in each direction with a raised median, and curbs and gutters, parkways, and sidewalks on both sides. Cross sections for each street servicing the Specific Plan site are shown in Figures 2.0-4 through 2.0-10 and described below. 2.4.3.1 Lost Canyon Road Lost Canyon Road from Via Princessa to Jakes Way is designated as a "Major Highway' in the Santa Clarita General Plan Circulation Element and the Los Angeles County Master Plan of Highways. Per the Vista Canyon Specific Plan, Lost Canyon Road was extended north (approximately 800 feet), from its previous terminus at the northerly abutment of the bridge over the Metrolink rail tracks within Fair MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-12 February 2025 Oaks Ranch. This segment, a public street, has a maximum 90-foot-wide right-of-way and provides two vehicular lanes in each direction with a raised median, and curbs and gutters, parkways, and sidewalks on both sides. This road is depicted in cross-section and plan view in Figure 2.045 below. 2.4.3.2 Harriman Drive Harriman Drive is a two-lane, private street providing primary vehicular access to and from the Specific Plan site and internal circulation for the residential land uses. It has a maximum 54-foot- wide right-of-way, with curbs and gutters, as well as a sidewalk and parkway on one side. Harriman Drive is depicted in cross-section and plan view in Figure 2.046 below. 2.4.3.3 Cooper Street Cooper Street is a two-lane, private street, and provides internal circulation for the residential and open space land uses ��4. The street has a maximum 44-foot-wide right-of-way with parking, sidewalks, curbs and gutters on both sides. Cooper Street is depicted in cross-section and plan view in Figure 2.0-67 below. 2.4.3.4 Other Internal Private Drives Internal private drives will be two-lane private streets providing internal circulation for the residential land uses. There are four typical types of internal drives: one that is 28 feet wide with one 14-foot lane in each direction and a 5-foot-wide sidewalk and 4-foot wide parkway on both sides providing access between residential buildings; one that is 26 feet wide, with one 13-foot lane in each direction providing access to residential carports; one that is 38 feet wide with a 14- foot lane in each direction, 10-foot wide parallel parking on one side, and a 4-foot sidewalk on one side and a 6-foot meandering sidewalk on the other; and one that is 28 feet wide inclusive of a 14-foot lane in each direction, and a 4-foot sidewalk on one side. Each private drive contains curbs and gutters on both sides. Private drives are depicted in cross-section and plan view in Figures 2.0-7 through 2.0-10, below. 2.4.4 Parking Plan The Specific Plan parking plan consists of private residential and guest parking. Under the Specific Plans parking plan, the required residential parking supply for the conceptual site plan in Scenario A is 902 parking spaces and 675 parking spaces in Scenario B, including guest parking. This supply is based on a parking demand study provided as part of this project and parking regulations provided in Section 4.0 of this Specific P1an.9C'_` 4C= i a.Fk rg 4a-R a-Fi . (see SCMC Qia fte,. ,; pi-,; sie 5 r r V4an-. All parking will be reserved for residents and their guests. A percentage of total parking will include electric vehicle charging stations. MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-13 February 2025 Table 2.0-3, Parking Summary, provides the required parking supply for each conceptual site plan scenario by residential product type, based on the parking regulations outlined in Section 4.0, Development Regulations. The Specific Plan allows for modifications to the residential product types and parking plan consistent with the provisions of this Specific Plan, including all corresponding development regulations and parking regulations set forth in Section 4.0. Table 2.0-3 Parking Summary Potential Conceptual Site Plan - Scenario A Residential Product Type Units Per Unit Guest Required P 44-Market Rate All -Ages Apartments S1: Studio/1 Bath 26 1.5 0.5 52 A-1: 1 Bedroom/1 Bath 108 1.5 0.5 216 A-2: 2 Bedroom/2 Bath 45 1.5 0.5 90 Subtotal 179 358 P-4-2-Market Rate Age -Qualified Apartments A-1: 1 Bedroom/1 Bath 86 0.5 0.5 86 A-2: 2 Bedroom/2 Bath 33 0.5 0.5 33 Subtotal 119 119 P 44-Deed-Restricted Affordable Senior Apartments A-1: 1 Bedroom/1 Bath 49 0.5 0.5 49 A-2: 2 Bedroom/2 Bath 1 0.5 0.5 1 Subtotal 50 50 P-A-¢For-Sale Townhomes TH-1-A: 2 Bedroom/2.5 Bath 28 2.0 0.5 70 TH-1-B: 3 Bedroom/2.5 Bath 31 2.0 0.5 77.5 TH-2: 3 Bedroom/2 full, 2 half Bath 6 2.0 0.5 15 TH-3: 3 Bedroom/2 full, 2 half Bath 32 2.0 0.5 80 TH-4: 3 Bedroom/2 full, 2 half bath 47 2.0 0.5 117.5 TH-5: 3 Bedroom/2.5 Bath 6 2.0 0.5 15 Subtotal 150 375 Total Required Parking Stalls 498 902 Potential Conceptual Site Plan - Scenario B Residential Product Type Units Per Unit Guest Required Single -Family Detached Dwellings and/or Duplexes Single -Family Dwellings/ Duplexes Up to 125 2 0_5 Up to 312.5 Subtotal 125 Up to 312.5 Deed -Restricted Affordable Senior Apartments A-1: 1 Bedroom/1 Bath 49 0.5 0.5 49 MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-14 February 2025 A-2: 2 Bedroom/2 Bath 1 0.5 0.5 1 Subtotal 50 50 For -Sale Townhomes TH-1-A: 2 Bedroom/2.5 Bath 28 2.0 0.5 70 TH-1-B: 3 Bedroom/2.5 Bath 31 2.0 0.5 77.5 TH-2: 3 Bedroom/2 full, 2 half Bath 6 2.0 0.5 15 TH-3: 3 Bedroom/2 full, 2 half Bath 32 2.0 0.5 80 TH-4: 3 Bedroom/2 full, 2 half bath 47 2.0 0.5 117.5 TH-5: 3 Bedroom/2.5 Bath 6 2.0 0.5 15 Subtotal 150 375 Total Required Parking Stalls 325 738 MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-15 February 2025 err—— --o - — o IT 1NWrU11 � � CIMIE I 10 PWVAM MM PWVAM CWYE PINA7E dNE PWVAX MM �flii IIi'�®Ii!llli — � 'e . IIIV 11 111 1 Illll AA a -a o • fi• pq p a 1T I _ e x r "— 4' Pedestrian Walk 5' Pedestrian Walk — — — — — — 6' Pedestrian Walk 8' Pedestrian Walk 7' Pedestrian Walk -- 8' D.G. Trail 0' 60' 120' © 1 INCH=120 FEET M ETROWALK ROAD CROSS SECTION (LOST CANYON ROAD) WEST C/L EAST R/W 9b' R/W 43.5' 1 46.5' 2' 10' 27' 1327' 13' 2' MIN. 5' 5' MEDIAN 6' 7$ MIN. 2. 7 2% 2% 2% 21 2% 2. 5' SIDEWALK (TYP) 7' SIDEWALK (TYP) CURB & GUTTER (TYP) CURB & GUTTER (TYP) LOST CANYON ROAD (PUBLIC) NOT TO SCALE �I I I I � I I� I z � o I � � III I � PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE METROWALK ROAD SECTION (HARRIMAN DRIVE) SOUTH C/L NORTH R/W 54' R/W 32' I 22' 2' 10' 8' 14' 14' 8' MIN. 5' PARK NGL LANE LANE PARKING PKWY 2% 2' CURB & GUTTER 5' SIDEWALK (TYP) (TYP) HARRIMAN DRIVE (PRIVATE) NOT TO SCALE HARRIMAN DRIVE (PRIVATE) �t �t PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE METROWALK ROAD SECTION (COOPER STREET) WEST R/W CA EAST R/W (LOT LINE) (LOT LINE) 5' I 44' 15' 5' :SIDEWALK 5' SIDEWALK (TYIBBON GUTTER (TYP) (TYP) CURB (TYP) CURB (TYP) COOPER STREET (PRIVATE) NOT TO SCALE I I I I I� � � W � }� O C) I �I PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE 22' 22' � 8' 14' 14' 8' � PARALLEL LANE LANE PARALLEL PARKING � PARKING 2q I 1% 1MIN I �. M ETROWALK ON -SITE ROAD SECTION TYPICAL DRIVE AISLE (ENTRY) C/L 28' 4' 1 14' I 14' 1 4' PKWYl IPKWY 5' SIDEWALK (TYP)J CURB & GUTTER TYPICAL DRIVE (PRIVATE) NOT TO SCALE HARRIMAN DRIVE -'-5' SIDEWALK (TYP) & GUTTER (TYP) Lul, _ww w _ • l PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE METROWALK ON -SITE ROAD SECTION TYPICAL DRIVE AISLE (CARPORT) BUILDING C/L CARPORT 26' 213, 13, I 2% 2% CURB &GUTTER (TYP) RIBBON GUTTER (TYP) TYPICAL DRIVE (PRIVATE) NOT TO SCALE 71 WII Ll WI QI I 71 >I �I PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE METROWALK ON -SITE ROAD SECTION TYPICAL DRIVE AISLE (PARALLEL PARKING) TYPICAL DRIVE (PRIVATE) NOT TO SCALE IW ry 0 W Q PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE METROWALK ON -SITE ROAD SECTION TYPICAL DRIVE AISLE (NO STREET PARKING) C/L ,,,-BUILDING BUILDING 28' 4' 4' 14' 14' 2' 2� 2% 2 5r. 4' SIDEWALK (TYP) CURB & GUTTER (TYP) CURB &GUTTER (TYP) TYPICAL DRIVE (PRIVATE) NOT TO SCALE W W _ G� G � � I PLAN VIEW NOT TO SCALE 2.5 LANDSCAPE PLAN The MetroWalk Conceptual Landscape Plan is shown on Figure 2.0-44--12 and Figure 2.0-4213 Conceptual Landscape Plan. The Conceptual Landscape Plan focuses primarily on the use of native and drought -tolerant tree and plant species to create a natural and vibrant environment. The landscape will be varied in texture and scale to soften surrounding architecture and create comfortable, inviting outdoor spaces. All plant species listed, both native and non-native, have been chosen due to their ability to thrive in the Santa Clarita climate. Drought -tolerant species will be used in a creative way throughout the Specific Plan area to limit water usage. Plants listed that are non- native or not drought tolerant will be used sparingly and only in areas that require their unique properties. Turf will be primarily used at the Metro Plaza and limited to locations where it will serve for passive or active recreation, and to small pockets intended for pet use along the pedestrian pathways and/or trail. The irrigation systems will be designed, installed, operated, and maintained in conformance with the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The main objective for the irrigation design is to minimize water use, maximize efficiency, and explore the feasible uses of recycled water. These objectives will be met through the use of Smart ET Based controllers, hydro - zoning, moisture sensors, rain -shut-off devices, cisterns, and drip irrigation. Although much of the native planting areas may receive temporary irrigation, a permanent irrigation system is important for a majority of the landscape planting to comply with the Los Angeles County Fire Department Fuel Modification Guidelines. 2.6 OPEN SPACE, PARKS AND RECREATION PLAN The Specific Plan includes extensive open space, recreation opportunities, and public/private parks featuring 147,854 square feet of common open space, including a gym, pool, parkways, and trails, and approximately 63,986 square feet of private open space dedicated to rear yards and private patio decks/balconies. The Specific Plan provides open space per unit in accordance with the development regulations provided in Section 4.0, Development Regulations . Figure 2.0-4-314, Open Space Plan, illustrates the conceptual locations of private and common open space areas within the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan's parks and recreation component provides active and passive recreational opportunities for its residents. Figure 2.04-415, Conceptual Parks and Recreation Plan, Figures 2.0-4&-16 through 2.0-4617, Conceptual Park and Recreation Enlargements, and Figure 2.0-4718, Conceptual Park Illustrative Plan illustrate the locations of private parks, playgrounds and recreation facilities in relation to other designated open space within the Specific Plan area, and provide close-up visuals of the major amenities. The major Specific Plan recreational amenities include an approximately 1,125-foot-long meandering and centrally located multi -use path, fati+ swimming pools serving each residential product type, and a 0.93-acre Metro Plaza. Figure 2.0- MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-25 February 2025 4819, Multi -Use Trail, shows how the multi -use path connects with Metro Plaza, Metrolink Station, Vista Canyon, and the City Master Trail System. 2.7 SUSTAINABILITY PLAN 2.7.1 Introduction The Specific Plans location and design enhance the project's sustainability and help realize regional GHG reduction targets as well as local conservation goals as reflected in the City's General Plan. The Specific Plan is located adjacent to the planned Metrolink station and bus transfer station. The concentration of attainably priced, multifamily residential apartments and townhomes, including affordable senior apartments, in proximity to public transit facilities, as well as near employment opportunities, commercial uses, and other transit -oriented mixed -uses associated with the Vista Canyon Specific Plan, supports pedestrian activity and contributes to a land use pattern that reduces vehicle trips and air pollution. The Specific Plan is designed to be pedestrian and bicycle oriented, both within the Plan area and to adjacent areas including paths to Vista Canyon, and the City's master trail system. Energy - saving features and sustainable design are incorporated throughout the Plan area and proposed development. The project applicant will require that each building be designed to meet the requirements of the California Building Code, which incorporates the Cal Green and Title 24 Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). In doing so, the Specific Plan will be developed to achieve energy efficiency, water efficiency, material conservation, and resource efficiency in compliance with the CALGreen Code. 2.7.2 Application of Project Design Features The design features that contribute most to reductions in GHGs are the Plans walkability and accessibility to the planned Metrolink station and bus transfer station, as well as to employment, the trail system and day-to-day amenities as described above. The walkability of the site and accessibility to day-to-day services by foot, bike, or by transit, reduces the need to drive and thereby supports a low carbon, sustainable community. Additionally, the Specific Plan will incorporate various components of a sustainable community in the development of the site and individual buildings, including the following: Water Conservation • High efficiency irrigation. • Use of native/drought-resistant landscaping. • Use of recycled water for non -potable water from the Vista Canyon Water Reclamation Plan. • Low -flow -rate faucets. MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-26 February 2025 • Low flow -rate toilets • High -efficiency clothes washers and dishwashers. Energy Conservation and Efficiency • Use of roof overhangs, low -energy outdoor lighting, and passive solar systems to enhance energy conservation. • High -efficiency heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. • Light -emitting diode (LED) lighting. • Lighting controls, including occupancy sensors, daylighting controls. • Energy Star -labeled equipment (e.g., clothes washers, refrigerators, dishwashers, dryers, ceiling fans). Transportation • On -site electric vehicle charging stations in accordance with the California Green Buildin Standards Code.Per- multi family r-esidential tffiits, 10 percent of d4e total number- of par -king spaces Nvill be EN' c-14ar-ging spaces capable of supper-ting future EN' so • On -site bicycle storage for residents and guests. • Accessibility to multiple public transportation options. Air Quality • Provision of filtered outside air meeting ASHRAE 62.1 (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air -Conditioning Engineers) requirements for all residential systems. • Prohibited use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). • Use of adhesives, sealants, paints, finishes, and other materials that emit low quantities of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Water Quality • Installation of Low Impact Development (LID) on -site water treatment for treating stormwater runoff wherever feasible. • Installation of sustainable drainage/water quality technologies, such as retention and detention systems, biofiltration areas, vegetated swales, and hydromodification. MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-27 February 2025 • Implementation of best management practices (BMPs) and project design features to minimize pollutant runoff during construction and operation. • Use of permeable paving materials (where applicable), reduction in land coverage of buildings by constructing multi -story structures, and incorporation of biofiltration to reduce impervious surfaces. • Directing runoff from impervious areas to vegetated areas (e.g., landscaped areas, vegetated swales). • Use of appropriate building materials (e.g., roof gutters and downspouts without copper or zinc) to reduce the generation and discharge of pollutants of concern in runoff and, therefore, act as a source control BMP. Solid Waste • Trash collection that will facilitate separation of organic, recyclable, and non -recyclable trash streams. MetroWalk Specific Plan 2-28 February 2025 PROPERTY LINE 10B,,Id,,g Semeak ones 5'Le�deeepe Selbdeeepe Selbeak IT" 11 \\ PROPERTY LINE PLANT PALETTE NOTE I. WUCOLS PLANTWATER NEEDS IDENTIFIED IN PARENTHESIS (H-HIGH, —OPERATE, L==Low, VLXERY LOA TREES PERI METER STREET TREES [24"BOX k ESTACIACHINENSIS- GHINESE PISTAGHE(M) OAKS TREES 124" BAND LARGER] QUERCUSAGRFOLIA-COAST LIVE OAK (GL) QUERCUSILEX-HOLLY OAK(Q QUERCUS BELJUNA-BLANK OAK QUERCUS LOBATA-VALLEY OAK (M) QUERCUS ENGELNIANII-MESAOAK (Q QUERCUS SUPER -CORK OAK (L) PROMENADE STREET TREE (YEAR-ROUND INTEREST) 136" BOX AD UTUO NIARNA-NIARNAARBUTUO (STANDAR0.TRUNKJ (MJ LAGERSTROEMIAX'NATCHEZ'-CRAPE MYRTLE (M) MKONOLIAGRANDIFLOIRA-SOUTHER MAGNOLIAPB OLEA EUROPA-COMMON OLIVE (L) PLATANUS RACEMOAP "COLUMBIA"- CALIFORNIASYCAMORE (M) ULMUS PARGROLIA TRUE GREEN '-EVERGREEN ELM (K SCULPTURALUM TREE 24" BOX AND LARGER) cwLOEIs uNEARs-DESERT wlLLow (L7 CERCIDIUM DESERT MUSEUM -DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE IT) POPULUSFREMONTII- FREMONTSCOTTONWOOD(M) POPULUSTRCHOCARPA- BLADKCOTTONWOOD(M) EVERGREEN TREE 24" BOXAND LARGER) LOPH OSTEMONCONFERTUS-BR SBAINEBOX(MJ ULMUS PARGIFOLIA TRUE GREEN '-EVERGREEN ELM (K O OLEAEUROPA-COMMON OLIVE (L) SMALL SCALE OANOPYTREE 2f 4"BOX] CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS-WESTERN REDBUD (LJ CERK cAN/ DENNIS FOREST PANSYPURPLELEAF REDBUD (M) LAGERSTROEMIAX'NATCHEZ'-CRAPE MYRTLE (M) ARBUTUS NIARNA-MARINAARBUTUS (MULTITRUNK)(M) LARGE-SCALE SHRUBS WITH TREE -LIKE HABIT [24"BOX] ACAUTAPOOALYRUFOLIA-PEARLAUACIA(M7 ARBUTUS UNEoo—sTRAWBERRYTREE(L7 CERKIS OKKIDENTALIS—WESTERN REDBUD IF) CH]LOPSIS LINEARS-DESERT WILLOW IF) LAURUS NOBILIS-SWEET BAY (L) LEPTOSPERMUM PETERSONII-LEMON SCENTED TEA TREE (L) PRUNUS ILINFOLIA-HOLLYLEAF CHERRY AL) �j LARGE SCREEN SHRUBS L I GALLON AND LARGER] M%(M) PODOKARPUSMADR FEIJOASELLOWIAINA (M) DODONEAVISCOSA(L) RHOS INTERFOUA(q CUPRESUS SPP IF) PARK CANOPY TREE (24" BOX AND LARGER] ACACIASTEN 0PHYP A- SHOESTRING ACACIA(M) PLATANUS R.EMOSA "COLUMBIA'"- CALIFORNIASYCAMORE (M) HEOSOPIS CHILENSIS-THORNLESS CHILE N MESQUITE (L) PLUS LANCEA-AFRICAN SUMAC (Q FRAXINUS DIPEIALA—DAUFORNIAASH (L) EXISTING PARKWAY TREES AT LOST CANYON ROAD PROTET IN PLACE GROUNDPLANE PLANTING GENERAL PLANTING AREAS (SHRUBS, GROUNDCOVER&VINES) -SEE SHEET LP 03 TO SEE LIST OF PLANTING PALETTE TURF- SPECIES TBD E 1 W PLANT PALETTE NOTE 1. WJCOLS PLANT WATER NEEDS IDENTITED IN PARENTHESIS (hEHIGH, NEMCDERATE, L=LOW, VL=VERV LOSS FREES PERIMETER STREETTREES [24'"BOX] 3c IN ACIA CHwENSIS- CHINESE PISTACHE (Ny OAKS TREES [24" BRAND LARGER] QUERCUS AGRFOLIA- COAST LIVE OAK UU QUERCUS ILEX- HOLLV OAK (L) QUERCUS VELUTINA- BU1CK OAK QUERCUS LOBATA-VALLEY OAK (MI) QUERCUS ENGELMANII -MESA OAK (L) QUERCUS SUBER-CORK OAK (L) 0 PROMENADE STREET TREE (YEAR-ROUND INTEREST) [35' BOX] \� ARBUTUSMARINA-MARINAARBUTUS (STANDAR4TRUNK)(Ivl) UAERSTROEMA A NATCHEZ'- CRAPE MYRTLE (My MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLOIRA- SOUTHER MAGNOLIA (My OLEA EUROPA- COMMON OLIVE (Q PUITANUS RACEMOSA "COLUMBIA"- CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE (MI) TURKS PARVIFOLIA'TRUE GREEN EVERGREEN ELM (Q SCULPTURAL ACCENT TREE [24( BOX AND LARGER] CHILOPSISLINEARIS- DESERT WILLOW (L) CERCIDIUM'DESERT MUSEUM -DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE (L) RD ULUS FREMIONTII-FREMIONTS COTTONWOOD (My POPULUS TRICHOCARPA- BLACK COTTONWOOD EVERGREEN TREE [24'"BOX AND LARGER] ME LOPHOSTENION BRI SBA NE BOXW ULMUS PARVIFOLIA'TRUE GREEN EVERGREEN ELM (Q OLEA EUROPA- COMMON OLIVE (Q SMALL SCALE CANOPYTREE [24"BOX] CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS-WESTFEN REDBUD (L) CERCIS CANADENSIS'FOREST PANSY PURPLE LEAF REDBUD (My LAGERSTROEMA A NATCHEZ'- CRAPE MYRTLE (My ARE UTUS MARI NAVARNA ARE UTUS (MULTI -TRUNK) (MI) LARGE-SCALE SHRUBS WITH TREE -LIKE HABIT [24' BOX] ACACIA PODALYRIIFOLIA-PEARL ACACIA (Ny ARBUTUSUNEDO- STRAWBERRY TREE (Q CERCIS OCCIBENTALIS-WESTERN REDBUD (L) CHILOPSIS LINEARIS- DESSERT WILLOW (Q 1AURUS NOBILIS- SWEET BAY (L) LEPTOSPERMUMPETERSONII-LEMON SCENTED TEA TREE (L) PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA-HOLLYLEAF CHERRY (AD U LARGE SCREEN SHRUBS [15 GALLON AND LARGER] TODOCARPUS MACROPHYLLUS (Ny FBJOA SELLOWIAN , (My DODONEAVI SCOSA (L) RHUS INTEGRIFOLIA (L) CUPRESSUS SOP. (L) PARKCANOPYTREE [24"BOX AND LARGER] PUITANUS RACEMOSA "COLUMBIA"-CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE (MI) PROSOPIS CHILENSIS-THORNLESS CHILEAN MESQUITE h) RHUS LANCEA-AFRICAN SUMWC (L) FRAXINUS DIPETALA-CALIFORNIA ASH (L) EXISTING PARKWAYTREES AT LOST CANYON ROAD PROTECT IN PLACE GROUNDPLANE PLANTING GENERAL PLANTING AREAS (SHRUBS, GROUNDCOVER & VINES) -SEE SHEET LP-1.03 TO SEE LIST OF PLANTING PALETTE TURF-SPECIESTBD PROPERTY.LINE HARRIMAN DRIVE -_-__�-�-_____ _- ----_-_------______ PROPERTY LINE 01- f"t" , — — - E - , O - - Q - r i o Ir © R ---------------- z'iioT P e � LIJ/ s Q Ei O C rrrv♦ l�i�i�i�: i`Kr. � NEI —� -- r r,Ahw ' f.�✓�i°L�^°�" � � �IIILI31uAIlI ;iykv*ir iNi �i,� r ass nn r �I la SOURCE: FIGURE 2.0-16 New Urban West Conceptual Parks and Recreation Enlargements A N 1 ' M. AML SOURCE: FIGURE 2.0-17 New Urban West Conceptual Parks and Recreation Enlargements Playgrountl (Agea 2-5) Playgrountl I. PROPERTY LINE -- — - - --- ---� f � c �LIA' �a •�' , a r.— r 1 �s i Botanical Experience ''' Seating Space with Shatle Struc I METROLINK STATION *00000 H} T 10— 4� F 7171- l I MTGPR11—WIVEr al 3. LL� 1IIt�t��i ��. 4ri1 LLL�.1 Ll E�I�L7C .I RA METRO WALK INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK MetroWalh Specific Plan 2-37 February 2025 3.0 INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT This section addresses the Specific Plan's infrastructure development plans for grading, drainage, water quality, water service/recycled water, wastewater service, and dry utilities. The Sustainable Communities Environmental Assessment accompanying the Specific Plan also addresses this infrastructure and includes additional requirements to help ensure that the infrastructure can support the community envisioned by the Specific Plan. The plans presented in this section are preliminary and are subject to change as detailed engineering designs are prepared, reviewed, and approved by the City of Santa Clarita as part of the final construction or grading plans. With that said, the plans presented in this section do describe the extent of the proposed infrastructure and associated improvements, and the designs intended to establish the standards by which the final infrastructure/improvement plans must conform. 3.2 GRADING PLAN 3.2.1 Existing Conditions The 20.4-acre Specific Plan site is shaped irregularly, and the topography is relatively flat. The Specific Plan site includes a small, elevated terrace on the central northeastern portion of the site. This terrace drains toward the Santa Clara River. Elevations on the Specific Plan site range from a high of 1,505 feet above sea level at the central southeast portion of the site, to a low of 1,481 feet above sea level in the northwest portion of the site. The Specific Plan site is comprised of undeveloped land. Within the Specific Plan boundary, topography along the western and northern boundaries has recently been altered. Lost Canyon Road was extended north of the bridge along the western boundary, creating a 2:1 slope to the road elevations of approximately 1,525 feet above sea level to 1,490 feet above sea level. Along the northern boundary, Harriman Drive (approximately 870 linear feet of road beginning at the western boundary) was built with road elevations of approximately 1,490 feet above sea level. Conditions on the Specific Plan site have been altered by historic uses of the property, including agricultural cultivation and raising of livestock. On site there is little remaining natural vegetation, with the exception of some California big sage scrub and introduced grasses. 3.2.2 Proposed Conditions Just south of Harriman Drive, a drainage ditch flowing from the northeastern edge of the site (1,494 feet above sea level) to the northwestern corner (1,476 feet above sea level; where Lost Canyon Road meets Harriman Drive) will be created. MetroWalk Specific Plan 3-1 February 2025 Within the Specific Plan boundary, the earthwork will consist of approximately 60,000 cubic yards of cut, up to 60,000 cubic yards of fill, and approximately 300,000 cubic yards of over - excavation. The Specific Plan site's cut and fill areas are shown on Figure 3.0-1, Conceptual Grading Plan. No dirt will be hauled on or off the site. 3.3 DRAINAGE/WATER QUALITY The MetroWalk Drainage and Water Quality Plan incorporates methodologies to meet or exceed the ongoing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit requirements. The Drainage and Water Quality Plan includes a comprehensive series of drainage and water quality improvements designed to allow for a system to both protect development and preserve the Santa Clara River. 3.3.1 Existing Conditions The Specific Plan site consists of minor contributing sheet flow that independently drains to the Santa Clara River located northerly of the Specific Plan site. 3.3.2 Proposed Conditions The Specific Plan will require construction of new drainage and water quality features to allow for a system that protects development from erosion and potential flooding and preserves the Santa Clara River. In addition to construction of conventional drainage improvements like storm drains and retention/detention systems, the Specific Plan envisions using sustainable drainage and water quality technologies, such as biofiltration areas, vegetated swales, and filter strips. The primary objectives of the Specific Plans drainage concept and stormwater management program are as follows: (a) Incorporate low -impact development (LID) practices wherever feasible; (b) Effectively manage wet and dry weather runoff water quality by limiting increases in runoff pollutants and flows at the source through Project Design Features (PDFs) and best management practices (BMPs); (c) Avoid or minimize impacts to water quality through site design and use of sustainable drainage/water quality technologies; (d) Comply fully with the local and regional NPDES permit requirements Figure 3.0-2, Drainage Plan, illustrates the Specific Plans drainage related improvements. The plan incorporates methodologies to meet or exceed NPDES permit and LID requirements. It also includes a comprehensive series of drainage and water quality facilities designed to allow for a system to protect development and preserve the Santa Clara River. MetroWalk Specific Plan 3-2 February 2025 The Specific Plans drainage concept is designed to provide drainage and maintain stormwater flows from the Specific Plan during and after buildout. As proposed, on- site surface runoff will be conveyed to a network of treatment structures, including detention and retention systems, biofiltration areas, vegetated swales, and water quality basins. Parking lot and roof runoff will be directed through landscaped parkways and grassy swales, or through sections of permeable pavement, to provide initial treatment prior to discharge into the drainage system. The Specific Plan will incorporate PDFs to address water quality and hydrologic impacts, including site design, source control, treatment control, and hydromodification control BMPs. As currently planned, stormwater runoff from all developed areas within the Specific Plan site will be routed to sustainable drainage improvements, such as retention and detention systems and biofiltration areas. The Specific Plan will incorporate numerous source -control BMPs to address pollutants of concern. These practices are designed to minimize introduction of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, and will include education programs, animal waste bag stations, street sweeping, and catch basin cleaning. In addition, the Specific Plan will use LID practices and treatment control BMPs as part of the final drainage/water quality design for the project area. The primary goals of LID practices are to maintain a landscape functionally equivalent to pre -development hydrologic conditions, and to minimize the generation of pollutants of concern. LID principles include the following: (a) Minimize Impervious Area/Maximize Permeability. Principles include reducing impervious surfaces (through reduced road width, for example), using permeable paving materials (where applicable), reducing land coverage of buildings by constructing multi -story structures, and incorporating biofiltration into the Specific Plans landscape design. (b) Minimize Directly Connected Impervious Areas. Minimizing directly connected impervious areas can be achieved by directing runoff from impervious areas to vegetated areas (e.g., landscaped areas, vegetated swales). (c) Select Appropriate Building Materials. Use of appropriate building materials (e.g., roof gutters and downspouts without copper or zinc) reduces the generation and discharge of pollutants of concern in runoff; and, therefore, acts as a source control BMP. Further, the Specific Plan will incorporate numerous treatment control BMPs that are designed to remove pollutants once mobilized by rainfall and runoff. These treatment control BMPs include the following: (a) Biofiltration. Biofiltration areas are vegetated (i.e., landscaped) shallow depressions that provide storage, infiltration, and evapotranspiration. Bioretention areas also remove pollutants by filtering stormwater through plants adapted to the local climate and soil MetroWalk Specific Plan 3-3 February 2025 moisture conditions and an engineered soil mix. Biofiltration will be considered for use, wherever feasible, as part of the Specific Plans landscaping plan. (b) Vegetated Swales. Vegetated swales treat stormwater runoff through both vegetative treatment and infiltration. Swales treat the water quality design flow as the runoff sheet - flows through grassy vegetation on the swale surface, removing pollutants by filtering stormwater through plants adapted to the local climate and soil moisture conditions. Incidental infiltration occurs into native soil when water is present. Plants use soil moisture and promote the drying of the soil through transpiration, thereby promoting volume reduction. (c) Hydromodification Control Measures. Hydromodification control measures will be accomplished through connection to an existing downstream drainage and discharge system, previously designed to accept conveyance from the Specific Plan area to prevent and control hydromodification impacts to the Santa Clara River. 3.4 WATER SERVICE/RECYCLED WATER 3.4.1 Existing Conditions The Specific Plan site currently is undeveloped; as such, most of the site is not served by water or recycled water facilities. There is an existing 48-inch-Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency (SCVWA) potable water pipeline that crosses the project site from the southeast to the intersection of Harriman Drive and Cooper Street. Surrounding the project site there is an existing 12-inch-diameter SCVWA potable water pipeline in Harriman Drive that turns north on Cooper Street. This 12-inch-diameter pipeline is also connected to an existing 16-inch-diameter SCVWA potable water pipeline on the west side of Lost Canyon Road. Surrounding the project site, SCVWA has existing 6-inch-diameter recycled water in Lost Canyon Road, Harriman Drive, and Cooper Street. 3.4.2 Proposed Conditions The proposed water system in the Specific Plan site will be designed to meet the estimated total water demand associated with the proposed development. Potable water demand will be met by the SCVWA through a combination of State Water Project water and local groundwater from wells located primarily in the Alluvial aquifer. The Alluvial aquifer and the Saugus Formation comprise the two -aquifer system known as the Santa Clara River Valley Groundwater Basin, East Subbasin (Basin), located in the Santa Clarita Valley. The amount delivered from each source varies year-to-year due to hydrologic and other conditions. Non -potable water demand will be met through use of recycled water from the Vista Canyon Water Reclamation Plant MetroWalk Specific Plan 3-4 February 2025 (WRP) located adjacent to the western boundary of the Vista Canyon Specific Plan site, directly north of Humphreys Parkway. Figure 3.0-3, Conceptual On -Site Potable and Non -Potable Water Systems, depicts the on -site potable and non -potable water system and associated infrastructure to serve the Specific Plan. As shown on Figure 3.0-3, the potable water delivery system consists of a network of varying sized water mainlines that generally follow major roadways. Project potable water pipelines will pull off of the existing 12-inch-diameter SCVWA potable water pipeline in Harriman Drive at the following two locations: 1. Approximately 440 linear feet east of the intersection of Harriman Drive and Lost Canyon Road 2. The intersection of Harriman Drive and Cooper Street A network of smaller lines would be located within the planned roadway network and would distribute the water for connection to laterals located on individual buildings. Potable water storage will come from the existing SCVWA infrastructure system. The Vista Canyon Specific Plan's WRP will be sized to treat approximately 400,000 gallons per day, and is owned and operated by the City of Santa Clarita. As such, it is considered a "municipal wastewater treatment plant" or publicly owned treatment work. The Vista Canyon Specific Plan site is currently within the boundary of the SCVWA. The WRP was constructed in conjunction with the Vista Canyon Specific Plan, and provide a turnkey facility to the City. The City will likely contract for operation of the WRP, and all costs associated with the ongoing maintenance of the plant will be paid for by future residents and property owners within the property through the formation of an assessment district. 3.5 WASTEWATER SERVICE 3.5.1 Existing Conditions The Specific Plan site is mostly undeveloped, and will require wastewater infrastructure to serve the site. Because the Specific Plan site is surrounded by existing development, the provision of wastewater services to the site will not require considerable extension of distribution infrastructure. Existing south -to -north flowing 10-inch-diameter sewer pipelines are located just north of the Specific Plan site at the following two locations: 1. Approximately 440 linear feet east of the intersection of Harriman Drive and Lost Canyon Road 2. The intersection of Harriman Drive and Cooper Street MetroWalk Specific Plan 3-5 February 2025 3.5.2 Proposed Conditions The Vista Canyon WRP will treat the wastewater generated by the project. All solids from the WRP will be sent to the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District's existing Valencia WRP for processing and disposal. Recycled water from the WRP will be delivered to the SCVWA as the wholesale water agency for the Santa Clarita Valley to offset existing water demands. This water will be distributed by SCVWA through its reclaimed water distribution system both within and outside of the project boundary. Initially, some of the water may be directed to the percolation pond, or infiltration basin, adjacent to the WRP until the SCVWA recycled system is operational. Figure 3.0-4, Conceptual Wastewater Systems, depicts the on -site wastewater system and associated infrastructure to serve the Specific Plan. The proposed wastewater system on the Specific Plan site consists of a network of varying sized sewer pipeline that generally follow proposed project roadways. Project sewer pipelines will deposit collected project site sewage to the two existing 10-inch-diameter sewer pipelines north of the Specific Plan site. 3.6 DRY UTILITIES 3.6.1 Existing Conditions The Specific Plan site currently is mostly undeveloped, and will require electric, natural gas, and telecommunication infrastructure to serve the project. Because the Specific Plan site is surrounded by existing development, the provision of electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication services to the site will not require considerable extension of distribution infrastructure. 3.6.2 Proposed Conditions As discussed in further detail below, electric, natural gas, and telecommunication infrastructure will be installed to serve the Specific Plan. These "dry' utilities will be located within underground conduits in the public or private street corridors/rights-of-way in general conformance with the phasing of the Specific Plan. Consultation with all appropriate utilities to determine the extent of the "dry" utilities needed to serve the site will be required prior to and during the final infrastructure/improvement plan stages. With respect to electricity, the Specific Plan site is located within the Southern California Edison service area. Primary service will come from the intersection of Harriman Drive and Cooper Street. This existing line will be extended to serve the Specific Plans initial development phases. Phone service will be provided by AT&T. Primary service will come from the intersection of Harriman Drive and Cooper Street. Telephone lines will be constructed underground throughout the site within phases as development commences. Existing service lines are also located within Lost Canyon Road. These localized lines may also be extended to the site and used for the early phases of the project. MetroWalk Specific Plan 3-6 February 2025 The Specific Plan site is within the Charter cable service area. Existing service lines are located at the intersection of Harriman Drive and Cooper Street. Existing service lines are also located within Lost Canyon Road. These localized lines may be used for the early phases of the project. As to natural gas, the Specific Plan site is within the Southern California Gas Company service area. Existing service lines are located at the intersection of Harriman Drive and Cooper Street. Gas service to the site will be extended from one of these existing sources. MetroWalk Specific Plan 3-7 February 2025 ate_ rt— p p p p p p{ p p pt� e o 0 �r 0 0/ a a L / o � a� la 0 p ,g 0 I I , oa ,� a a . .I „w ,. rs �rs , ,o e; �IIIIIIl`1`lI I]I IIi! o ,P o � - 0 o - MetroWa Ik SP Boundary mow" Proposed Lot Line —teoo— Existing Contour eCTlOu e-a CTIOU LC NOT TO SCALE ����� off: �; ,- � � ���� � � i - �---__�I///�i �`---_ -_/// �1 t �11� i / i / ' �� _���� �� is Millimmillimillin 11 VISTA CANYON APARTMENTS ���II�II TR 69164-01 qI, i VA A IIIAl mm i[� �' GG v JJ i 8„ b I - 11Y1L � LLLL �i 5A 8„ s �- 4i APH o Q �� SOURCE: FIGURE 3.0-5 New Urban West Conceptual Dry Utilities 4.0 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 4.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT This section provides regulations for the development and land uses within the Specific Plan and describes how these development regulations will be used as part of the City's development review process. Proposed development, subdivisions, and new land uses within the Specific Plan area must comply with all applicable requirements of this Specific Plan. 4.2 CONSISTENCY WITH ADOPTED PLANS As required by Government Code Sections 65454 and 65455, upon adoption, the Specific Plan would be consistent with the City's adopted General Plan. Appendix 1.0-2, General Plan Consistency Analysis, of this Specific Plan discusses this consistency in detail. All subsequent land use entitlements and permits (e.g., tentative Tract Maps, Parcel Map, General Plan Amendment, or Zone Change), implementing the Specific Plan must also be consistent with the Specific Plan. 4.3 RELATIONSHIP TO CITY'S UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE The Specific Plan, including the development regulations, are intended to provide a comprehensive set of regulations governing the use and development of the land within the Specific Plan area. These Development Regulations replace the requirements of the City's Unified Development Code, Titles 16 and 17 of the SCMC. Any matter or issue not specifically and directly covered by this Specific Plan shall be subject to the nonconflicting regulations and procedures of the SCMC. If a conflict arises between the Specific Plan and the City's Unified Development Code, the provisions of this Specific Plan shall control. 4.4 EXISTING USES AND SEVERABILITY Existing uses within the Specific Plan area as of the effective date of this Specific Plan are addressed as follows: (a) Any development or land uses that were lawfully established and existing as of the effective date of this Specific Plan may continue, and may be altered or replaced, only in compliance with this Specific Plan; and (b) Existing land uses that may continue within the Specific Plan area include water supply well operations and maintenance, and maintenance and operation of all existing easements and pipelines. MetroWalk Specific Plan 4-1 February 2025 If any term or provision of this Specific Plan, or the application of any provision of this Specific Plan to a particular situation, shall for any reason be found to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such term or provision will remain in force and effect to the extent allowed by such ruling, and all other terms and other provisions of this Specific Plan or its application shall remain in full force and effect. 4.5 ADMINISTRATION The regulations, standards, and other requirements of this Specific Plan shall be administered and enforced by the City's Community Development Department, Planning Commission, and City Council in the same manner as the provisions of the City's Unified Development Code. 4.6 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS 4.6.1 Land Use Plan and Zones The following two land use designation zones zones are established by this Specific Plan, and are applied to the property within the Specific Plan area as shown on the Land Use Plan (Figure 2.0-1): 1. Residential (R). The R zone is applied to areas appropriate for a variety of attached and detached residential units, including market -rate apartments, age - qualified apartments, affordable senior apartments, and single-family dwellings, duplexes, and townhomes, and other similar residential product types, with parking garages, carports, and surface parking. The R designation includes for rent and for sale units and both market -rate and affordable units. The designation also allows recreational uses, including club houses, parks, playgrounds, and pathways, as well as landscaped areas and courtyards. 2. Open Space (OS). The OS zone is applied to the public plaza area at the far eastern end of the Specific Plan site, which connects to the new Metrolink station. 4.7 ALLOWED LAND USES/PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 4.7.1 Introduction This section sets forth the permitted land uses within the R and OS land use designation zones. Each Land Use Type identified in this section is defined in Unified Development Code, Chapter 17, Division 5 (Use Classifications and Required Parking). These definitions shall be applied within the Specific Plan area. Any one or more land uses identified in this section as allowed land uses within a specific zone may be established on any parcel within that zone, subject only to the planning permit requirements. MetroWalk Specific Plan 4-2 February 2025 The City's Director of the Community Development Department (Director) may determine that a proposed land use type not listed in this section is an allowed land use in accordance with Section 6.4.1, Substantial Conformance for Minor Deviations. Temporary uses are allowed within the Specific Plan area in compliance with the Temporary Use Permit requirements of the SCMC. 4.7.2 Residential (R) Use Types The following uses shall be permitted by right in the Residential (R) zone within the Specific Plan site. 4.7.2.1 Primary Uses A primary use is the main principal use of land or structures on the site. The following uses are permitted by right as Primary Uses in the R zone: 1. Dwelling = Single -Family, Duplex, Multifamily 2. Model Homes, Rental, Sales Offices4.0-3 4.7.2.2 Secondary Uses Where a primary use is established on a development site, secondary uses may also be permitted. A secondary use is a use that is not the primary use and not the main use of land or structures on the development site. A secondary use is incidental to or in support of the primary use(s) on the same development site or another development site within the R zone of this Specific Plan. The following categories of uses that are allowed in the R zone are permitted by right as secondary uses. 1. Clubrooms and Community Rooms, private 2. Courtyards and Plazas, public and private 3. Food Trucks4.0-4 4. Health/Fitness Facilities, private 5. Home Occupation4.0-5 a. Telecommuting/Business and Professional Offices4.0-6 4.0-3 Model homes shall be developed in accordance with Section 17.67.030(C) (Temporary Uses) 4.0-4 Food Truck Vendors shall be in accordance with the provisions of SCMC Section 11.37.080 (Peddlers of Prepared Food Products from Motor Vehicles Permitted). 4.0-5 Home occupation businesses shall be in accordance with Chapter 17.65 (Home Occupations). 4.0-6 Home occupation businesses shall be in accordance with Chapter 17.65 (Home Occupations). MetroWalk Specific Plan 4-3 February 2025 6. Parking Lots, accessory to principal use 7. Parks, public and private 8. Residential Recreational Facilities 9. Swimming Facility, private 10. Trails, Biking 11. Trails, Equestrian 12. Trails, Pedestrian 4.7.3 Open Space (OS) Use Types The following uses shall be permitted by right in the Open Space (OS) zone within the Specific Plan site. 4.7.3.1 Primary Uses A primary use is the main principal use of land or structures on the site. The primary uses permitted by right as Primary Uses in the Open Space (OS) land use designation zone shall be those permitted in the Open Space (OS) Zone of SCMC Chapter 17.36 of the Zoning Regulations. 4.7.3.2 Secondary Uses Where a primary use is established on a development site, secondary uses may also be permitted. A secondary use is a use that is not the primary use and not the main use of land or structures on the development site. A secondary use is incidental to or in support of the primary use(s) on the same development site or another development site within the OS zone of this Specific Plan. The following categories of uses that are allowed in the OS zone are permitted by right as secondary uses. 1. Bicycle Rentals 2. Community Garden 3. Farmer's Market 4. Food Truck4.0-7 4.0-7 Food Truck Vendors shall be in accordance with the provisions of SCMC Section 11.37.080 (Peddlers of Prepared Food Products from Motor Vehicles Permitted). MetroWalk Specific Plan 4-4 February 2025 5. Outdoor events4.0-8 4.8 SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 4.8.1 Purpose and Intent This section sets forth the Development Standards governing the R land use designation zone shown on the Land Use Plan (Figure 2.0-1), and described in Section 4.6, above. The Specific Plan s Development Standards are set forth in the Site Development Standards Matrix (Table 4.0-1). 4.8.2 Development Standards The Site Development Standards Matrix (Table 4.0-1) below provides the standards for maximum building heights, minimum distance between buildings and open space requirements, as appropriate to each land use designation zone. In addition to these development standards, the overall maximum density of the Specific Plan area is 30 dwelling units per acre; however, in no event shall the project be permitted to exceed a maximum of 498 residential units. 4.8.2.1 Setback Requirements In order to create development regulations that are sensitive to adjacent uses, the Specific Plan contains setbacks for development along the entire site perimeter. As indicated in the City's Zoning Code, a setback is defined as the distance from a defined point or line governing the placement of buildings, structures, parking or uses on a lot. No habitable structures or buildings are allowed within setback areas. The following minimum setback requirements, are as follows: 1. Front Setback4.0-9 (along Lost Canyon Road) shall be 20 feet, landscaped and maintained. 2. Reverse Corner4.0-10 Lot Setback (along Harriman Drive) shall be 10 feet with a minimum five-foot landscaped planter to be maintained. 3. Rear4.0-11 Setback (RR easement) shall be 15 feet, inclusive of a seven -foot -wide maintained landscaped planter, including six-inch curbs, which is sufficient in size for mature trees. 4.8.2.2 Landscaping Requirements Landscaping requirements within the Specific Plan area shall be addressed as follows: 4.0-8 Outdoor events includes temporary, predominantly spectator uses conducted in the open or partially enclosed or screened facilities, such as outdoor movie screenings, "live" theaters or concerts with limited spectator capacity, as determined by the Director. 4.0-9 As defined in the SCMC, the front yard setback shall be measured from the ultimate street right-of-way or the line established by the General Plan, whichever is greater, and be removed therefrom by the perpendicular distance prescribed for the front yard setback 4.0-10 As defined in the SCMC, the rear or side yard setback shall be measured from the property line, removed therefrom by the perpendicular distance prescribed for the yard setback. MetroWalk Specific Plan 4-5 February 2025 1. On -site trees and landscaping shall be completed in accordance with the Conceptual Landscape Plan, provided in Appendix 4.0-1. 2. Additional landscape requirements are listed for parking areas in Section 4.11.2, Parking Regulations. 3. On -site and parking lot landscaping shall be completed in accordance with the Conceptual Landscape Plan, provided in Appendix 4.0-1. 4.8.2.3 Storage Space Requirements If a fully enclosed garage is not provided, a minimum of two hundred fifty (250) cubic feet per unit of lockable, enclosed storage space shall be provided. Storage areas may be located in -unit or elsewhere within a residential building. Multiple storage areas may be provided. 4.8.2.4 Open Space Requirements Open space for active recreation and passive leisure space shall be provided for each residential unit within the Specific Plan and shall be provided through a combination of common and private space in accordance with the approved architectural and conceptual open space plans. Modifications to the approved conceptual open space plans may approved by the Director in accordance with Section 6.4.1, Substantial Conformance for Minor Deviations. Open Space shall be provided for each residential unit as follows: 1. Studio units - two hundred (200) square feet; 2. One -bedroom units - three hundred (300) square feet; 3. Two or more -bedroom units - four hundred (400) square feet; 4. Single -Family Detached, Duplexes, and Townhome units - six hundred fifty (650) square feet. Common open spaces may include, but are not limited to, outdoor areas such as plazas, outdoor dining areas, rooftop gardens, and landscaped areas designed for active or passive use. Land required for setbacks or occupied by buildings, streets, driveways or parking spaces may not be counted in satisfying the open space requirement; however, land occupied by any recreational structures may be counted as required open space. Private open space may include, but is not limited to, outdoor patios, balconies, or decks, but in no case shall an area dedicated for private open space be less than 60 square feet. MetroWalk Specific Plan 4-6 February 2025 Table 4.0-1 Site Development Standards Matrix WA _, VA _2 VA _3 and n A _n � Site Development Standards Land Use Type e&ignatio„ Minimum Distance between Building (in feet) Maximum Building Heights (in feet)1,2 nPsi deMia] (R Single -Family or Duplex Dwelling Single-Famil)�/ Duplex s4}e} 497 5A40 124 UP-;idP4; a"n4Multifamily Dwelling Apartments — Market -Rate/ Age -Qualified/ Affordable Senior Apartments N444 �Pan4l�� (Age Qualified AfaAmeF4 10 50 J24 3 49 50 R ,;idP4;4a1 R �Townhome4 10 40 Roof Projections: In all zones, building's architectural elements such as hips, gables, and spires, may not project more than 10 feet above the permitted standard height limit, without approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Buildings and structures exceeding the maximum building heights " may be permitted subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit and shall conform to the requirements of the SCMC (Chapter 17.25, Section 17.25.100 - Conditional Use Permit). 4.9 Trz A NSIP T] DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENT REGULATIONS .� .� •. .� . Fell.� r. MetroWalk Specific Plan 4-7 February 2025 ■. P. The City and the applicant (or its designee) will retain certain flexibility with respect to the details of the Specific Plan provided that no new environmental impacts occur and, therefore, agree that the following Administrative Modifications (see Section 6.0, Specific Plan Implementation) for the Specific Plan site shall, unless otherwise provided in the Specific Plan, be approved by the Director: (a) In order to accommodate the needs of third party purchasers, the size and configuration of lots or parcels and dimensions and/or locations of improvements may be modified at the discretion of the applicant, and the City shall fully cooperate therewith, subject to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, and provided that the aggregate total density and intensity of the Specific Plan is not increased, the permitted uses are not modified from those approved, and the parcels and lots and improvements thereon are consistent with the applicable rules and project approvals, including all development standards contained within this Specific Plan. (b) The design and configuration of lots and related improvements within the Specific Plan site may be reconfigured and redesigned by the applicant provided the maximum number of approved residential units is not increased and the number of restricted affordable senior units is not less than 50 units, inclusive of one manager unit. Such reconfiguration and redesign may include making one or more Planning Areas less dense making changes to the unit distribution proposed under either potential conceptual site plan detailed in Section 2.3.2 and modifying the design of streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, drainage and affected utilities to be consistent with such recoR4g+t+ation and redesign so long as each reconfi with the design and configuration standards and requirements in the Specific Plan and Conditions of Approval. MetroWalk Specific Plan 4-8 February 2025 (c) Any subsequent revision to the tentative tract map that is submitted for review and approval shall be approved by the City provided the residential design and configuration complies with the Specific Plan and Conditions of Approval. (d) Upon adoption of the Specific Plan, the applicant shall have the vested right to develop the Specific Plan site that is consistent with the project approvals and the Specific Plan. The City agrees to process and administratively approve any modifications to the tentative tract map, including modifications in the size, design and configuration of the lots and improvements as provided in the Specific Plan and Conditions of Approval, required for the applicant to develop the Specific Plan site consistent with the Specific Plan and project approvals, and such administrative approvals are deemed to constitute ministerial acts implementing the Specific Plan and the project approvals. 4.10 SIGNAGE REGULATIONS 4.10.1 Purpose and Intent The signage regulations in this section shall govern the design and maintenance of all signage within the Specific Plan area. The regulations are intended to result in functional, attractive signage that incorporates a uniformly high level of design, graphics, continuity, consistency, and maintenance throughout the Specific Plan area. All signage is intended to be consistent with the architectural and landscape character of the specific parcel development and with the design intent of the Specific Plan as a whole. Consistency shall be determined in terms of materials, scale, size, and placement on buildings or in landscaping; integration with the buildings' architectural design, texture, color, relation to other signage in the immediate vicinity and in the public spaces; and type of illumination, if any. The scale and proportion of graphics used in signage shall be consonance with the design of buildings, individual stores, landscape, and site design. Bold or inharmonious colors or color combinations shall not be used. The purposes of the signage regulations are to: (a) Avoid traffic safety hazards to motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians caused by visual distractions and obstructions; (b) Promote the aesthetic values of the Specific Plan community by providing for signs that do not impair its attractiveness; (c) Provide for signs as an effective channel of communication while ensuring that signs are aesthetically proportioned in relation to adjacent buildings/structures and the buildings/structures to which they are attached; and (d) Safeguard and protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. MetroWalk Specific Plan 4-9 February 2025 4.10.2 Applicability and Conformance Consistent with the intent and purpose provisions set forth above, all signage within the Specific Plan area shall conform to the requirements of the SCMC provisions regulating signage on private property (Chapter 17.51, Section 17.51.080). No person shall erect, construct, enlarge, alter, move, improve, remove, convert, or equip any sign or sign structure, or cause or permit the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of the provisions of this Specific Plan and Chapter 17.15, Section 17.51.080 of the SCMC (Sign Regulations (Private Property)). Conformance shall be strictly enforced. All non -conforming or unapproved signs shall be brought into conformance at the expense of the person(s) responsible for installation of the sign or sign structures. 4.11 PARKING REGULATIONS 4.11.1 Purpose and Intent Parking regulations within the Specific Plan are intended to provide the requisite number of parking spaces for all uses, while reinforcing the pedestrian -oriented character and accessibility to transit, amenities and daily services intended to minimize vehicle trips and parking demand. The overall purpose, therefore, of the Specific Plans Parking Regulations is to create a well - planned community that provides for the sufficient parking needs of each resident, while in turn promoting the community as a place with all of the advantages within walking distance to live, work, play, and shop and enjoy a high quality of life. 4.11.2 Parking Regulations The Specific Plan establishes a parking ratio of 1.5 spaces per unit for all Market -Rate, All -Ages Apartments, consistent with Vista Canyon Specific Plans residential use parking requirements of 1.5 spaces per unit. Guest parking for Market -Rate, All -Ages Apartments and parking for all other uses are consistent with SCMC parking standards (see SCMC, Chapter 17, Division 5, Use Classifications and Required Parking). The Specific Plans Parking Regulations governing the site are provided in Table 4.0-2. Table 4.0-2 Parking Requirements Matrix', z, 3, 4 Unit Type Parking Requirements Single-Familyor r Duplex Dwelling Single -Family/ Duplex 2 enclosed parking spaces per unit Multi amilU Dwelling Market Rate All -Ages Apartments 1.5 enclosed parking space or carport parking per unit Market -Rate Age -Qualified Affordable Senior Apartments 0.5 enclosed parking space or carport parking per unit MetroWalk Specific Plan 4-10 February 2025 Table 4.0-2 Parkins Requirements Matrix', z, 3, 4 Unit Type Parking Requirements Townhomes 2 enclosed parking spaces per unit All Dwelling Unit Types Guest parking - 0.5 parking space per unit i Accessible parking stalls shall be required in accordance with the Building Code. 2 Additional parking for secondary uses shall not be required. 3 Parking for temporary uses shall be as determined by the Director. 4 Parking must be provided in accordance with the parking regulations set forth in this table, unless a parking reduction is permitted subject to the approval of a minor use permit as outlined in Section 6.4.2, Adjustments, Variances, and Minor Use Permits for Parking Reductions, and a new parking demand study is provided if there is a proposed deviation from the parking ratios provided in this Chapter. (a) Parking Space Specifications. Unless otherwise noted in the Specific Plan, all required parking spaces shall be designed in accordance with the specifications set forth in the SCMC Chapter 17.51, Section 17.51.060(E) - Specifications for Development of Parking Facilities. Carports shall be provided in accordance with the approved architectural plans. (b) Parking Landscaping Standards. 1. Assigned parking spaces shall be shaded by a carport. 2. Guest parking spaces shall be shaded by trees and/or screening hedges with a landscaped island at least 5 feet wide; each tree shall provide a minimum of 40 SF of cumulative root planting area. 3. Shrub and ground coverage shall be installed in and near carport areas to provide additional visual relief from concrete hardscape in parking areas. 4.11.2.1 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (a) Multifamily Dwellings. In accordance with Section 4.106.4.2 of the California Green Building Standards Code, for new multifamily dwellings where residential parking is available, ten (10) percent of the total number of parking spaces shall be electric vehicle (EV) charging spaces capable of supporting future EV supply equipment. Calculations for the required number of EV spaces shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. (b) Single -Family Dwellings, Duplexes, and Townhouses with Attached Private Garages. In accordance with Section 4.106.4.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code, each new single-family dwelling, duplex, or townhome with attached private garage must provide capability for EV charging by installing a listed raceway to accommodate a dedicated 208/240-volt branch circuit. MetroWalk Specific Plan 4-11 February 2025 4.11.2.2 Bike Parking (a) Number of Bicycle Spaces Required. _n-site bicycle parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with t4e fallowing ratio of 4 space SCMC Chapter 17.51, Section 17.51.060(I) On -Site Bicycle Parking Requirement. (b) Bicycle Parking Facilities. Parking facilities shall be conveniently located throughout the Specific Plan area and may include the following: 1. Covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored racks for bicycles; 2. Lockable bicycle rooms with permanently anchored racks; and 3. Lockable, permanently anchored bicycle lockers. MetroWalk Specific Plan 4-12 February 2025 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK MetroWalk Specific Plan 4-13 February 2025 5.0 DESIGN GUIDELINES 5.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT The purpose of the Specific Plans Design Guidelines is to describe the visual character that is desired for the residential development within MetroWalk, and the manner in which developed areas should relate to other elements of the MetroWalk community. As this Specific Plan site is an extension of the Vista Canyon Specific Plan, the intent of these guidelines are to be consistent with the Vista Canyon Design Guidelines for residential development, to achieve a common aesthetic and high -quality design in both the public and private realm. The Design Guidelines address issues that are primarily aesthetic in nature and subject to a variety of solutions. Due to varying interpretations of aesthetic design, flexibility should be permitted to encourage design innovations and changes in design standards that occur over time. For these reasons, rigid adherence to the Specific Plans Design Guidelines is not intended. Instead, it is intended that developments within MetroWalk be evaluated for their substantial conformance to the general intent associated with the applicable "General Guidelines" and the other applicable guidelines set forth below. 5.2 GENERAL GUIDELINES The following General Guidelines are intended to allow flexibility and innovation throughout the Specific Plan site. 5.2.1 Design Themes (a) Consistent with the Vista Canyon Specific Plan adopted by the City of Santa Clarita in April 2011, MetroWalk will retain and encourage architectural variety and promote quality development. The overarching design objectives are to create a sense of timelessness, ownership, place and identity, and community. (b) Neighborhood design concepts will encourage sustainable planning and design practices, including the smart growth, new urbanism, and sustainability principles described in Chapter 2 of the 2009 Santa Clarita Community Character and Design Guidelines. (c) Siting and design of structures should consider views relative to the Specific Plan area. 5.2.2 Site Planning (a) Residential streets should be designed so that traffic to the highway system flows as directly as possible. Circuitous street patterns and very long residential streets should be avoided. (b) Creative siting, design, and landscaping solutions should be used to blend structures into the site, to the extent possible. MetroWalk Specific Plan 5-1 February 2025 (c) Pedestrian and vehicular circulation should be designed to create a consistent community image. (d) Entries to residential buildings should be visibly reinforced through techniques such as landscape treatments, monument signage, and/or pavement details. 5.2.3 Architecture A diversity of architectural styles is encouraged to enhance the character of the community. (a) Use of roof overhangs, low -energy outdoor lighting, and passive solar systems to enhance energy conservation is encouraged. (b) Roof equipment should be screened from view where feasible. (c) Utility and service areas should be treated (i.e., color, landscaping, screening) to minimize visual effects. (d) Variations in height within and among buildings is encouraged to create visual interest and avoid a monotonous street scene. (e) Siting variations in building facades, articulation, height, mass, and scale is encouraged to create and enhance architectural interest. (f) Elements such as stairways should be architecturally compatible and integrated into buildings. 5.2.4 Fencing (a) Fencing should be compatible with the architectural theme and character of the neighborhood. (b) Fencing should be consistent in style and color. (c) Wall or fencing sections should be horizontally offset at regular intervals to provide visual relief and landscape opportunities. (d) Fencing and landscaping should be designed as an integral part of the overall site design. 5.3 OTHER APPLICABLE ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES The MetroWalk Specific Plan also incorporates by reference the Vista Canyon Specific Plan, adopted by the City of Santa Clarita in 2011. The architectural style will be consistent with the Vista Canyon Specific Plan Design Guidelines, which incorporate numerous elements, including wall articulation, roof elements, attached elements, openings, accents, exterior building materials, and colors, all of which are described in Chapter 3 of the 2009 Community Character and Design Guidelines. MetroWalk Specific Plan 5-2 February 2025 5.3.1 Application Process Guidelines This Specific Plan will utilize the "Application Process" set forth in the 2009 Community Character and Design Guidelines, including the Development Review Committee process. For all projects/developments within the Specific Plan, design review determinations shall be made by the City's Director of Community Development, and those determinations shall be considered the final decision, consistent with SCMC Chapter 17.23, Section 17.23.110 - Architectural Design Review. MetroWalk Specific Plan 5-3 February 2025 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK MetroWalk Specific Plan 5-4 February 2025 6.0 SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 6.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT This section sets forth the Specific Plans implementation procedures. The section contains procedures to implement the regulatory provisions of the Specific Plan, which are set forth in Section 4.0, Development Regulations. Included are provisions unique to the Specific Plan for the implementation of the rDevelopment Adjustment Regulations in Section 4.0. The section also contains criteria under which the City's Director of Community Development (Director) may make a determination of whether a proposal is in substantial conformance with the Specific Plan; or whether, an amendment to the Specific Plan is required. In addition, the section provides a discussion of the California Government Code provisions governing the amendment of specific plans. 6.2 IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES The Specific Plan may be implemented primarily through the process of subdivision maps. All land subdivision maps of any type (e.g., tentative or final, vesting or non -vesting, tract or parcel) shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved in accordance with the SCMC and Subdivision Map Act. Where the provisions or procedures of the SCMC conflict with the provisions of this Specific Plan, the Specific Plan shall apply. 6.3 PHASING Subject to market and economic changes and conditions, the rate of growth in the immediate vicinity and region, and changes in infrastructure/public facilities requirements, conditions and needs, initial construction is estimated to begin in 2022. Subject to market conditions, buildout of the project is estimated to occur over approximately 5 years ending in 2027. It is anticipated that buildout would occur in three phases: (1) grading, (2) infrastructure improvements, and (3) building and remaining construction. The grading phase and infrastructure improvements phase would each occur over the entire specific plan area, with the grading phase first, and the infrastructure improvements phase following. The building and remaining construction phase would follow. . 6.4 RE A T-IO S141P 4A1TT17 T-14E CIT IS T TNIFIE I TlL'VE 11DAiTENT COPESPECIFIC PLAN ADMINISTRATION, REVIEW, AND AMENDEMENTS While the Specific Plan includes land use diagrams, additional details regarding subsequent development are required with subsequent application submittals. The Specific Plan includes development and design standards and guidelines but cannot foresee every potential condition MetroWalk Specific Plan 6-1 February 2025 requiring decisions within the Use Permit process. Prior to the issuance of any building12ermit, a Class II a1121ication (Section 17.23 (Class II A2121ications—Discretionar3) of the SCMC)for a Development Review and Architectural Design Review shall be required for either conceptual site plan presented in this Specific Plan. Review and approval of such applications shall occur at staff level and shall be reviewed against the applicable development standards and guidelines contained in this Specific Plan. Any subsequent discretionary approval or amendment to the Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan, as amended and/or updated. Future development applications will be processed that are in substantial conformance with the Specific Plan or that may require an amendment to the Specific Plan as determined by the Director. 6.4.1 Substantial Conformance for Minor Deviations The following items may deviate, within specified limitations, from the adopted Specific Plan but shall be considered in substantial conformance with the Specific Plan. Review of such proposed modifications shall occur at staff level, through the Development Review, ^ di+ki .,is. -,.,,-;:, Architectural Design Review, or over the counter review process if so determined by the Director. The Director, however, shall have the discretion to refer any such request for modification to the City Council and/or Planning Commission as a Major Modification to the Specific Plan. (a) Modification to the Approved Building Types, Unit Mix, Unit Size. Modification to the approved building types, unit mix, and unit size may vary provided the use is permitted under this Specific Plan with no new significant environmental impacts and the overall 498-unit count is not exceeded. In all cases, the number of restricted affordable senior units within the Specific Plan area shall not be less than 50 units, inclusive of one manager unit, except as permitted in Section 4.9, Development Adjustment Regulations. ARM r ■ • WOMM .:1. S.- MINI ?ism • - acreage E)f each E)r- any Vla+u4ing Area, as sl4own an the Land Use 121an Statistica! Summar-y MetroWalk Specific Plan 6-2 February 2025 (c) Landscaping Plan Modifications. Modifications to the approved Conceptual Landscaping Plan, or requirements set forth in Subsections 4.8.2.2, Landscaping Requirements, and 4.11.2.b, Parking Landscaping Standards, may be permitted, so long as they do not exceed a 10% deviation from total tree and plant species. (d) Open Space Plan or Parks and Recreational Amenities Modifications. Modifications to the approved Conceptual Open Space Plans design and layout, as well as proposed parks and recreational amenities, may be permitted, so long as the amount of open space provided, and the number of recreational amenities remain consistent with the required open space and Conceptual Parks and Recreation Plan approved under the Specific Plan. (e) Alignment, Location and Design of Vehicular and Pedestrian Pathways and/or Parking Spaces. Modifications to the approved alignment, location, and design of vehicular and pedestrian pathways, and/or layout of the parking, including the modifications set forth in Subsection 4.9.b, may be permitted, provided that such adjustments do not change the requirement of providing adequate infrastructure and/or public facilities within the Specific Plan. (f) Changes in the Exterior Building Color or Material. Changes to the approved exterior building color or material, may be permitted, so long as the changes in building material or colors are similar to and have the same general appearance comparable to or of a higher quality as the material approved. (g) Interpretation for Unlisted Uses. The Director may determine that a use that is not listed in Section 4.7, Allowed Land Uses/Permit Requirements, substantially complies with the land use designation in which the use is requested; and, therefore, is permitted within that land use designation. (h) Other administrative items determined to be appropriate by the Director within the scope of authority of the MetroWalk Specific Plan and SCMC. 6.4.2 Substantial Conformance Procedure; Adjustments, Variances, and Minor Use Permit for Parking Reductions Procedure (a) Substantial Conformance Determination. The Director shall review a request for a determination of Substantial Conformance through the Development Review, Administrative Permit, or over the counter review process. The Director, however, shall have the discretion to refer any such request for modification to the City Council and/or Planning Commission as a Major Modification to the Specific Plan. (b) Adjustments and Variances. Requests for Adjustments or Variances may be granted pursuant to the procedures and requirements of the SCMC provisions set forth in Chapter 17.24, Section 17.24.100 - Adjustments, and Chapter 17.25, Section 17.25.120 - Variances. MetroWalk Specific Plan 6-3 February 2025 Adjustments and Variances are considered a form of relief from the development standards identified in Section 4.0 of this Specific Plan and the applicable development standards in the Unified Development Code. (c) Minor Use Permit for Parking Reductions. Pursuant to the procedures and requirements of the SCMC provisions set forth in Chapter 17, Section 17.51.060(N)(2) - Reduction of Parking. A reduction in the number of parking spaces required by this Specific Plan may be permitted by up to 20% with approval of a minor use permit. Parking reductions greater than 20% may be permitted subject to the approval of a minor use permit by the Planning Commission. 6.4.3 Specific Plan Amendments and Major Modifications Amendments may be requested at any time pursuant to Chapter 17, Section 17.28.110(H) - Adoptions and Amendments, of the SCMC. Any proposed modification to the Specific Plan that is deemed major by the Director will be processed as an Amendment to the Specific Plan. Depending upon the nature of the proposed amendment to the Specific Plan, additional environmental analysis may be required, pursuant to Section 15162 of CEQA. (a) Amendment Procedures. The California Government Code (Sections 65453-65454) sets forth the manner in which Specific Plans are to be prepared, adopted, and amended. Amendment(s) to the Specific Plan shall not require a concurrent General Plan amendment unless it is determined by the Director that the proposed Specific Plan amendment is inconsistent with the General Plan. (b) Major Modifications. Requests for a Major Modification may be granted pursuant to the procedures and requirements of the SCMC provisions for Class VII application set forth in Chapter 17, Section 17.28.030 - Review Authority and Related Procedures. Major Modifications to the Specific Plan shall reflect the same comprehensive analysis which was undertaken in the adoption of the Specific Plan and the application shall demonstrate that the proposed modification meets the goals and objectives of the Specific Plan and General Plan, and ensure that any significant impacts from the amendment can be satisfactorily mitigated. MetroWalk Specific Plan 6-4 February 2025 APPENDIX I .0=1 Legal Description PRELIMINARY REPORT Chicago Title Company YOUR REFERENCE: ORDER NO.: 00108576-021-JH5-KD EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED SANTA CLARITA, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 15 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT OF SAID LAND FILED IN THE DISTRICT LAND OFFICE MARCH 29, 1877, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF, DISTANT THEREON SOUTH 89 DEGREES 57 MINUTES 20 SECONDS EAST 124.57 FEET FROM THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 57 MINUTES 20 SECONDS EAST TO A POINT DISTANT THEREON NORTH 89 DEGREES 57 MINUTES 20 SECONDS WEST 150.99 FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION OF SAID NORTHERLY LINE WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THE 100 FOOT WIDE STRIP OF LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED DATED APRIL 22, 1890 FROM JOHN T. HUMPHREY'S TO SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY; RECORDED APRIL 26, 1890, IN BOOK 650, PAGE 125 OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 53 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 05 SECONDS WEST 421.92 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 53 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 43 SECONDS WEST 157.20 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2764.82 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 9 DEGREES 44 MINUTES 35 SECONDS (TANGENT TO SAID CURVE AT THE LAST MENTIONED POINT) BEARS SOUTH 56 DEGREES 04 MINUTES 05 SECONDS WEST AND NORTH OF SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 59 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 22 SECONDS WEST 469.59 FEET) AN ARC DISTANCE OF 470.15 FEET; THENCE NORTH 25 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 20 SECONDS WEST 50.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG A COMPOUND CURVE TO THE RIGHT (TANGENT TO SAID CURVE AT THE LAST MENTIONED POINT BEARS SOUTH 64 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 40 SECONDS WEST) HAVING THE FOLLOWING RADII, CENTRAL ANGLES AND ARC LENGTHS; 2714.82 FEET, 10 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 36 SECONDS (CENTRAL ANGLES), 500.36 (ARC), 1759.91 FEET, 8 DEGREES 01 MINUTES 14 SECONDS (CENTRAL ANGLES), 246.36 (ARC), TO A POINT IN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LAND DESCRIBED FIRST IN DEED DATED APRIL 26, 1890, FROM JOHN T. HUMPHREY'S TO SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY RECORDED APRIL 26, 1890, IN BOOK 642, PAGE 277, OF DEEDS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED NORTHERLY LINE TO A LINE HAVING A BEARING OF NORTH 2 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST THAT PASSES THROUGH THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE NORTH 2 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. APN: 2840-004-009 CLTA Preliminary Report Form —Modified (11/17/06) Page 3 APPENDIX 1.0=2 General Plan Consistency Analysis City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Table 1. Project's Consistency with City of Santa Clarita's General Plan Goal and Policies General Plan Goals and Policy Consistency of Proposed Project Land Use Element Urban Form Goal LU 1: Interconnected Valley of Villages providing Consistent: This Goal is a responsibility of and directed to diverse lifestyles, surrounded by a greenbelt of natural the City of Santa Clarita. However, the project does assist open space. with the implementation of this Goal as it creates a village in the eastern Santa Clarita Valley that would provide for diverse housing types and open space. Policy LU 1.1.1: Where appropriate, protect mountains Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and and foothills surrounding the Valley floor from urban directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Moreover, the project development by designating these areas as Open Space site is not located immediately adjacent to any mountains or Non -Urban uses on the Land Use Map. or foothills. Policy LU 1.1.2: On the Land Use Map, concentrate urban Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to development within flatter portions of the Santa Clarita the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the project site is Valley floor in areas with limited environmental mostly flat and surrounded by existing development and constraints and served with infrastructure. development under construction. Further, the site is served with some existing infrastructure and the project would be developed on disturbed portions of the project site with limited environmental constraints. Policy LU 1.1.3: Discourage urban sprawl into rural areas Consistent: The proposed project would be located by limiting non-contiguous, "leap -frog" development adjacent to existing residential and commercial outside of areas designated for urban use. developments. Policy LU 1.1.4: Preserve community character by Consistent: Under the proposed project, the Santa Clara maintaining natural features that act as natural River corridor would be preserved as open space and boundaries between developed areas, including dedicated to the City of Santa Clarita. Additionally, the significant ridgelines, canyons, rivers and drainage project would be developed on an infill site that lacks courses, riparian areas, topographical features, habitat natural features; thus, preserving community character. preserves, or other similar features, where appropriate. Policy LU 1.1.5: Promote infill development and re -use of Consistent: The project site, which is adjacent to existing underutilized sites within and adjacent to developed residential and commercial areas, is currently designated urban areas to achieve maximum benefit from existing for business park uses. The project site is currently infrastructure and minimize loss of open space, through vacant, and thus, would promote infill development and redesignation of vacant sites for higher density or mixed re -use of underutilized sites. The project would is located uses, where appropriate. in proximity to existing infrastructure and would not minimize availability of open space, but rather would develop higher density housing and associated open space. Policy LU 1.1.6: Preserve the rural lifestyle in canyons and Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and low -density, outlying areas of the Santa Clarita Valley, directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Moreover, the project through designating these areas as Non -Urban on the site is not located in a canyon or low -density, Land Use Map, where appropriate. outlying area of the Santa Clarita Valley. Policy LU 1.1.7: Preserve and protect important Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and agricultural resources, including farmland and grazing directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Further, the project land, through designating these areas as Open Space and site does not contain important Farmland.' Non- Urban on the Land Use Map, where appropriate. Policy LU 1.2.1: In Newhall, provide opportunities for new Not Applicable: The project site is not located in Newhall. i California Department of Conservation. 2016. "California Important Farmland Finder." Updated 2016. Accessed December 1, 2020. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 1 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis business and housing by implementing the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan, provide incentives to promote infill development and re -use of underutilized sites, and continue to plan for future development of North Newhall. Policy LU 1.2.2: In Valencia, promote business NotADDlicable: The project site is not located in Valencia. development, job creation, and expansion of regional commercial, civic, cultural, and entertainment uses, to create a vibrant Town Center serving as a community focal point for the entire Santa Clarita Valley. Policy LU 1.2.3: In Saugus, promote revitalization of older Not Applicable: The project site is not located in Saugus. commercial areas; relieve traffic congestion; look for opportunities to minimize cut -through traffic; and enhance streetscapes with landscaping, lighting, benches and other fixtures. Policy LU 1.2.4: In Canyon Country, promote revitalization Not Applicable: While the project site is located in the along Sierra Highway from Soledad Canyon Road to Canyon Country area of the Santa Clarita Valley, the Vasquez Canyon Road by encouraging retail and service project site is not located along Sierra Highway, nor is it uses, and enhance on and off ramps alongthe Antelope adjacent to on and off ramps along SR-14. Valley Freeway with landscape amenities and appropriate uses. Policy LU 1.2.5: In Sand Canyon, ensure compatibility of Not Applicable: The project site is not located in Sand development with existing rural, equestrian lots and the Canyon as it is not included in the Sand Canyon Special adjacent National Forest land; provide additional Standards Area. That said, portions of the project site are recreational trail links; minimize impacts to the Santa located adjacent to northern portion of Sand Canyon. Clara River; and maintain community character consistent Consistent with this Policy, the project includes extensive with applicable special standards. open space, recreational opportunities, and parks. Further, the project design has minimized traffic impacts through implementation of street sections that slow traffic and create a pleasant walking environment. The portion of the project closestto Sand Canyon would be townhomes, at lower density than other uses within the project site. Policy LU 1.2.6: In Placerita Canyon, ensure compatibility Not Applicable: The project site is not located in Placerita of development with existing rural, equestrian lots and the Canyon. adjacent National Forest land; maintain community character consistent with applicable special standards; provide an orderly transition between existing rural and low -density residential uses and proposed new development; and encourage provision of needed infrastructure. Policy LU 1.2.7: On the Whittaker-Bermite site, continue to Not Applicable: The project site is not located on the work with the property owner to facilitate master planning, Whittaker-Bermite site. remediation, and the economic re -use of the property to include roadway infrastructure and transit -oriented development around the Metrolink station. Policy LU 1.2.8: In Castaic, promote expansion of Not Applicable: The project site is not located in Castaic. neighborhood commercial uses to serve local residents; address traffic congestion; and ensure compatibility between highway -oriented commercial uses and nearby residential uses. Policy LU 1.2.9: In Val Verde, protect the existing rural NotADDlicable: The projectsite is not located in Val Verde. lifestyle and small town community character while providing residents with additional access to needed services; and ensure compatibility between existing MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 2 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis residential areas and the nearby landfill. Policy LU 1.2.10: In Agua Dulce, recognize the scenic and Not Applicable: The project site is not located in Agua environmental qualities of Vasquez Rocks in future Dulce. planning; protect the existing rural lifestyle while providing opportunities to enhance the village center; and provide additional services to residents. Policy LU 1.2.11: In Pico Canyon, recognize the historic Not Applicable: The project site is not located in Pico significance of Mentryville in future planning; preserve the Canyon. existing rural development pattern; and ensure compatibility of new development with the adjacent Significant Ecological Area and habitat. Policy LU 1.2.12: In the Fair Oaks community, facilitate Not Applicable: The project site is not located in the Fair location of commercial and community services in Oaks community. However, the project site is located proximity to residences to serve local needs. adjacent to Fair Oaks. The construction of housing near the Fair Oaks community would not prevent the City from locating commercial and community services in proximity to the area because the residential land use would also be compatible with such uses. Policy LU 1.2.13: Encourage use of the specific plan Consistent: The project applicant is proposing a Specific process to plan for cohesive, vibrant, pedestrian -oriented Plan (SP) designation for the project site. The MetroWalk communities with mixed uses, access to public transit, Specific Plan implements this Policy as it is designed to and opportunities for living and working within the same provide a transit -oriented neighborhood for the eastern community. Santa Clarita Valley. Policy LU 1.3.1: Encourage subdivision design techniques Consistent: The proposed projectwould not substantially that reflect underlying physical topography or other unique alter the underlying physical topography of the site, which physical features of the natural terrain. is generally flat. Policy LU 1.3.2: Substantially retain the integrity and Not Applicable: The proposed project would not alter natural grade elevations of significant natural ridgelines natural ridgelines or Iandforms that form the Valley's and prominent Iandforms that form the Valley's skyline skyline as it would be developed along a terrace of the backdrop. Santa Clara River in a flatter area of the Valley. Policy LU 1.3.3: Development on ridgelines and land Not Applicable: The project site is not located on ridgelines containing 50% slopes shall be discouraged and or land containing 50 percent slopes. maintained as natural open space. Policy LU 1.3.4: Encourage density transfers where Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to appropriate to facilitate development in more suitable the City of Santa Clarita. However, the project would assist locations while retaining significant natural slopes and in the implementation of this Policy through the provision areas of environmental sensitivity. of residential density and jobs with transit in an infill area with adjacent infrastructure. Policy LU 1.3.5: Encourage flexible citing and design Not Applicable: The project site is not located within a techniques within hillside areas designated as Non -Urban hillside area designated as Non -Urban. in order to preserve steep slopes or other unique physical features, including clustering of residential units provided all of residential lots are maintained with a usable two - acre minimum lot size. Policy LU 1.3.6: Encourage retention of natural drainage Consistent: The project site would not cross the Santa patterns and the preservation of significant riparian areas, Clara River, thus, would not alter existing drainage both of which are commonly located in hillside areas. patterns. Additionally, the project site is generally flat and not located in a hillside area. The Specific Plan would require construction of new drainage and water quality features to allow for a system that protects development from erosion and potential flooding and preserves the Santa Clara River. MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 3 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Mired Lend Uses Goal LU 2: A mix of land uses to accommodate growth, Consistent: The proposed project would include a mix of supported by adequate resources and maintaining residential land uses, including multi -family residential community assets. and townhomes, and would provide open space opportunities tosupportthe residential uses. Policy LU 2.1.1: On the Land Use Map, designate a NotADDlicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and balance of land uses in appropriate amounts to meet directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the future community needs, while ensuringthat no use proposed projectwould assist in the implementation of designation is over -represented in a manner that is not this Policy through its inclusion of a mix of residential land economically viable. uses in close proximity to transit. Policy LU 2.1.2: On the Land Use Map, integrate land use Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and designations in a manner that promotes healthy, walkable directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the project communities, by providing an appropriate mix of does assist with the implementation of this Policy through residential and service uses in proximity to one another. construction of new residential land uses in proximity to a mixed -use development and the Metro line extension. Policy LU 2.1.3: Provide a range of land use types and Consistent: The project would introduce a mix of densities to reflect the special characteristics, lifestyles, residential land use types in an area surrounded by single - and opportunities that differentiate various communities family residences. The range of multi -family apartment - and villages in the Santa Clarita Valley, including types and for -sale town homes would differentiate the urban, suburban, and rural living environments. community from the more suburban and rural areas. Policy LU 2.1.4: Adopt a compatible set of land use Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and designations between the City of Santa Clarita and the directed to the City of Santa Clarita and County of Los County of Los Angeles for land in the Santa Clarita Valley, Angeles. That said, the proposed project would assist in to be implemented through standards and zones applied the implementation of this Policy through its development by each agencyto ensure compatibility with the character of land uses in a manner that is compatible with the of each area and with the goals of the City's General Plan character of surrounding areas. and the County's Area Plan. Policy LU 2.1.5: Identify areas with hazardous conditions Consistent: Prior to construction of the project, hazardous and ensure that uses in or adjacent to these areas pose conditions would be identified and compliance with minimal risk to public health or safety. federal, state, and local regulations would ensure that these uses pose minimal risk to public health or safety. . Policy LU 2.2.1: Identify areas of scenic or aesthetic value Consistent: Section 4.16, Visual Resources, of the Vista to the community, and minimize designating uses in these Canyon Draft EIR concludes that, with mitigation, the areas that would diminish the aesthetic quality of these project would not result in any significant visual impacts. areas. Policy LU 2.2.2: Identify sites and areas with historical or Consistent: There are no historic conditions of significance cultural value to the community, and ensure that uses in on the site. or adjacentto these areas will not impact their historical integrity. Policy LU 2.2.3: Consistent with adopted plans, ensure Consistent: The Specific Plan includes extensive open that adequate open space is set aside and protected from space, recreation opportunities, and public/private development throughout the planningarea in orderto parks. The project site would not extend into existing provide the benefits of watershed management, habitat waters, or areas of habitat preservation. preservation and connectivity, and recreational opportunities. Policy LU 2.3.1: In a mixed -use development, residential NotADDlicable: The proposed projectwould not include a densities atthe higher end of the allowed range shall be mixed -use development. allowed only if the development incorporates a robust mix of non-residential uses. Policy LU 2.3.2: Either vertical or horizontal integration of Not Applicable: The proposed project would not include a uses shall be allowed in a mixed -use development, with mixed -use development. However, the project would an emphasis on tying together the uses with appropriate incorporate pedestrian linkages. MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 4 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis n lin Policy LU 2.3.3: Manufacturing, processing of goods and materials, and warehousing shall not be allowable uses in a mixed -use development. Some light manufacturing and warehousing may be appropriate in second story units. Policy LU 2.3.4: Adequate public spaces and amenities shall be provided in a mixed -use development to support both commercial and residential uses, including but not limited to plazas, landscaped walkways, village greens, and greenbelts. Policy LU 2.3.5: Mixed -use developments shall be designed to create a pedestrian -scale environment through appropriate street and sidewalk widths, block lengths, relationship of buildings to streets, and use of public spaces. Policy LU 2.3.6: Encourage provision of parking alternatives in mixed -use developments, including subterranean parking and structured parkingto limitthe amount of surface area devoted to vehicle storage. Healthy Nelghborhoodl Goal LU 3: Healthy and safe neighborhoods for all residents. Policy LU 3.1.1: On the Land Use Map, designate adequate land for residential use at various densities to provide a mix of housing opportunities for all segments of the population, including attached, detached, senior, and mixed -use housing types, which are consistent with community character and meet the region's housing ,,oa Is. Not Applicable: The proposed project would not include a mixed -use development. Manufacturing uses are not proposed by the project. NotAaalicable: The proposed project would not include a mixed -use development. Not Applicable: The proposed project would not include a mixed -use development. Nonetheless, the project would include a pedestrian -scale environment through appropriate street and sidewalk widths, block lengths, relationship of buildings to streets, and use of public spaces. Not Applicable: The proposed project would not include a mixed -use development. Consistent: This Goal is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. However, the proposed project design would provide for a healthy and safe neighborhood for future residents. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would assist in the implementation of this Policy through its provision of a mix of housing types, all of which would be consistent with community character and assist in meeting the region's housing goals. Policy LU 3.1.2: Promote a mix of housing types within Consistent: The proposed project would provide a mix of neighborhoods that accommodate households with varied housing types that would accommodate income levels. households with varied income levels. Policy LU 3.1.3: Promote opportunities for live -work units to accommodate residents with home -based businesses. Policy LU 3.1.4: Promote development of workforce housing to meet the needs of those employed in the Santa Clarita Valley. Policy LU 3.1.5: Promote development of housing affordable to residents, including households with incomes in the very low, low, and moderate income classifications, through provision of adequate sites on the Land Use Map, allowance for density bonuses and other development incentives, and other means as appropriate. Policy LU 3.1.6: Promote development of housing suitable to residents with special needs, including but not limited to senior citizens and persons with disabilities. Not Applicable: The proposed project would not include live -work units. Consistent: The proposed projectwould include various housing types that would accommodate households with various income levels. It is envisioned that all of these housing types could provide housing opportunities for persons employed in the Santa Clarita Valley. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would assist in the implementation of this Policythrough its inclusion of various housingtypes that would accommodate households with varied income levels. Consistent: The proposed projectwould assist in the implementation of this Policy through its inclusion of various housing types that would accommodate households with varied income levels and age-restric MetroWalk Specific Plan December 2020 12546 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis units for senior citizens. Further, nothing in the site design would preclude individuals with special needs from residing at the project. Policy LU 3.1.7: Promote development of housing for Consistent: It is anticipated that students attending local students attending local colleges, in consideration of colleges may reside in the project. access to campuses to the extent practicable. Policy LU 3.2.1: Require provision of adequate walkways Consistent: The proposed project's Mobility Plan provides in urban residential neighborhoods that provide safe and for a comprehensive pedestrian circulation system accessible connections to destinations such as schools, throughout the project's planning areas. parks, and neighborhood commercial centers. Policy LU 3.2.2: In planning residential neighborhoods, Consistent: The proposed project's Mobility Plan provides include pedestrian linkages, landscaped parkways with for a comprehensive pedestrian circulation system sidewalks, and separated trails for pedestrians and throughoutthe project's four planning areas, linking these bicycles, where appropriate and feasible. areas to each other and the proposed open space areas. The proposed project would include pedestrian linkages and landscaped parkways. Policy LU 3.3.1: Identify areas subject to hazards from Consistent: Prior to construction of the project, the areas seismic activity, unstable soils, excessive noise, subject to hazards would be identified and mitigated, as unhealthful air quality, or flooding, and avoid designating appropriate. residential uses in these areas unless adequately mitigated. Policy LU 3.3.2: In areas subjectto wildland fire danger, Consistent: The construction of the proposed project ensure that land uses have adequate setbacks, fuel would eliminate fire hazards associated with the natural modification areas, and emergency access routes. vegetative cover found on the project site due to replacement with urban landscape vegetation. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with the Los Angeles County Fire Department Fuel Modification Guidelines. Further, the project would provide emergency access through the vehicular access roads within the project site. Policy LU 3.3.3: Identify neighborhoods in which uses that Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and pose a potential hazard to human health and safety may directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Further, the land uses be over -concentrated, and address public safety through contemplated by the proposed project (e.g., residential) use of buffer areas, policies on siting decisions for such are not traditionally perceived to constitute a hazard to uses, changing land use designations, or other means as human health. deemed appropriate. Policy LU 3.3.4: Evaluate service levels for law Consistent: Projected law enforcement and fire protection enforcement and fire protection as needed to ensure that service levels are evaluated and would be mitigated, as adequate response times are maintained as new appropriate. residential development is occupied. Policy LU 3.3.5: Through the development review process, Consistent: The proposed project would be reviewed by ensure that all new residential development is provided the City's Development Review Committee to ensure with adequate emergency access and that subdivision compliance with emergency access requirements. and site designs permit ready access by public safety personnel. Policy LU 3.3.6: Ensure adequate street -lighting in all Consistent: The proposed project would include urban residential neighborhoods, as appropriate, for each appropriate street lighting per City of Santa Clarita community. requirements. Policy LU 3.3.7: Ensure adequate addressing in all Consistent: The proposed project would include adequate residential neighborhoods for emergency response addressing in its residential neighborhoods per City of personnel. Santa Clarita requirements. Policy LU 3.3.8: Within multiple family residential projects Consistent: The proposed project design reflects the comprised of multiple buildings, ensure that project inclusion of the various safety features described in this MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 6 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis designs include crime prevention measures such as Policy. delineating public and private open space, designs for defensible space, easy surveillance by residents of all outdoor and indoor common areas, lack of dead end aisles or paths, and similar measures. Policy LU 3.4.1: Promote the inclusion of green spaces, Consistent: The open space plan for the proposed project neighborhood parks, and other gathering places that incorporates a gym, pool, parkways, and trails, all of allow neighbors to meet one another and encourage which provide for passive and active recreation "eyes on the street" for safety purposes. opportunities and would encourage "eyes on the street" for safety and security purposes. Policy LU 3.4.2: Ensure provision of streettrees in urban Consistent: The proposed project's Landscape Plan residential areas where appropriate, to provide shade, ensures the provision of street trees in urban residential comfort, and aesthetic enhancement. areas to provide shade, comfort, and aesthetic enhancement. Policy LU 3.4.3: Provide appropriate levels of code Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and enforcement to ensure maintenance of neighborhoods in directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the a clean, healthy, and safe condition. covenants, conditions & restrictions (CC&Rs) developed for the proposed project would ensure the overall maintenance of the neighborhood. Policy LU 3.4.4: Within higher density housing Consistent: The parks and open space plan for the project developments, ensure provision of adequate recreational incorporates a gym, pool, parkways, and trails, along and open space amenities to ensure a high quality living with 63,554 square feet of private open space. These environment. recreational components would provide for passive and active recreation opportunities for future residents and would ensure a high quality living environment.. Policy LU 3.4.5: Ensure compatibility between single Consistent: The proposed project's design and family and multiple family residential developments architectural standards would ensure compatibility through consideration of building height and massing, between single-family and multi -family residential units. architectural treatment, connectivity, privacy, and other Elements such as massing, building height, architectural design considerations. treatment connectivity and other design considerations would be addressed by the proposed Specific Plan. Policy LU 3.4.6: Promote mixed -density residential Consistent: The project site is surrounded by the Fair Oaks neighborhoods that are consistent with community Ranch community to the south, the existing Colony character, and avoid over -development of high density Apartments to the west and the northern portion of the multiple family units in any particular location. Sand Canyon community to the east. Fair Oaks Ranch is a residential community consisting of single- and multi- family dwelling units. The Colony Apartments consists of higher density, attached dwelling units. The portion of Sand Canyon closestto the project site includes single- family detached residential units and two schools. The proposed project would locate higher density residential units in the western portion of the project site, adjacent to the Colony Apartments. The easterly portion of the project site would be developed with less dense town -home residential units. In summary, the proposed project would develop higher density housing near the existing Colony Townhomes and proposed Vista Canyon Specific Plan area, and develop less dense residential units in the easterly portion of the project site. Policy LU 3.4.7: Minimize the prominence of areas Consistent: Parking within the project site would be largely devoted to automobile parking and access in the design shielded from the street and other residential of residential neighborhoods. neighborhoods. MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 7 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Policy LU 3.4.8: Require architectural design treatment Consistent: The proposed projectwould include four - along all sides of new housingto promote continuity of sided architecture consistent with this Policy. architectural scale and rhythm and avoid the appearance of blank walls (360 degree enhancement). Policy LU 3.4.9: Street cross -sections that locate Consistent: Roadways within the proposed project would landscaped parkways between the curb and the sidewalk provide a landscaped parkway between the curb and are encouraged to create a visually pleasing streetscape sidewalk in order to provide a buffer for and provide pedestrian protection. pedestrians. Economic Vitality Goal LU 4: A diverse and healthy economy. Consistent: This Goal is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. However, the proposed project would assist in the implementation of this Goal through the provision of residents to contribute to the tax base of the City. Policy LU 4.1.1: Promote expansion and enhancement of Not Applicable: The project site is not located in Valencia. the Valencia Town Center to provide a focal pointfor cultural, civic, educational, and shopping activities serving the entire Santa Clarita Valley. Policy LU 4.1.2: Promote creation of village commercial Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and centers throughout the Santa Clarita Valley to meet the directed to the City of Santa Clarita. However, the local and convenience needs of residents. proposed project would not prevent the City from promoting village commercial centers. Policy LU 4.1.3: Encourage business creation and Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to expansion for larger companies within and adjacent to the City of Santa Clarita. However, the proposed project existing and planned business centers and major would assist in implementing this Policy as the project site transportation corridors. is located adjacent to a Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station along with its business center. Policy LU 4.1.4: Promote economic opportunity for all Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to segments of the community, including small businesses the City of Santa Clarita. However, the proposed project and new businesses. would assist in implementing this Policy through its provision of residential uses, whom would patronize small businesses and new businesses Policy LU 4.1.5: Provide a clear and consistent planning Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to and permitting process to encourage new development the City of Santa Clarita. However, as determined by this that conforms to the General Plan. consistency analysis, the proposed project would be consistent with the One Valley One Vision Goals and Policies. Policy LU 4.2.1: Pursue business attraction and expansion NotAaalicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and programs for clean industries that provide job directed to the City of Santa Clarita. opportunities for local residents, particularly in the areas of film/entertainment, biotechnology, aerospace, and technology. Policy LU 4.2.2: Achieve a balanced ratio of jobs to Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to housing through business expansion and economic the City of Santa Clarita. However, the proposed project development programs, with a goal of at least 1.5 jobs would expand housing opportunities in proximity to the per household. Metrolink Station and future employment opportunities within the City. Policy LU 4.2.3: Encourage businesses to locate in all Not Applicable The proposed project would not provide appropriate areas of the community to encourage job businesses. creation in closer proximity to workforce housing. Policy LU 4.2.4: Coordinate with local colleges to promote Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 8 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis job training programs for Santa Clarita Valley residents. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy LU 4.2.5: Through the Santa Clarita Enterprise Zone Not Applicable This Policy is a responsibility of and and other business assistance programs as appropriate, directed to the City of Santa Clarita. The proposed project promote development of uses that create job would not provide businesses. opportunities for residents. Policy LU 4.3.1: Promote redevelopment in Old Town Not Applicable: The project site is not located in Old Town Newhall through construction of public improvements Newhall. pursuant to the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan and future area planning efforts. Policy LU 4.3.2: Promote business development in Castaic Not Applicable: The project site is not located in Castaic or and Val Verde to provide a greater range of goods and Val Verde. services to area residents. Policy LU 4.3.3: Promote revitalization of commercial uses Not Applicable: The project site is not located along Sierra along Sierra Highway between Soledad Canyon Road and Highway. Vasquez Canyon Road, to encourage businesses serving the Canyon Country neighborhoods and support services for the College of the Canyons east campus. Policy LU 4.3.4: Promote business development that NotADDlicable: The project site is not located in the upgrades and revitalizes older commercial corridors, immediate vicinity of these commercial corridors. including Lyons Avenue, Railroad Avenue/Newhall Avenue, Main Street and Soledad Canyon Road, in a manner that reflects each area's character, architecture, and history. Policy LU 4.3.5: Coordinate with property owners and Not Applicable: The project site is a part of the Whittaker environmental agencies, and provide assistance as Bermite property. appropriate, to promote clean up and redevelopment of the Whittaker Bermite property as a business and employment center. Policy LU 4.3.6: Coordinate with property owners and Not Applicable: The project site is not located in the oil environmental agencies, and provide assistance as fields west of SR-14. appropriate, to promote clean up and remediation of oil fields west of State Route 14. Policy LU 4.3.7: Promote revitalization and reuse of the NotADDlicable: The project site is not located in the older industrial areas east of the railroad, adjacent to the Springbrook or Honby areas. intersection of Springbrook and Drayton Avenues and in the Honby area adjacent to the Santa Clara River. Policy LU 4.4.1: Promote extension of state-of-the-art Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to communication facilities to serve commercial and the City of Santa Clarita. industrial areas, including fiber optic cable, telecommunication facilities, and other technology as deemed appropriate. Policy LU 4.4.2: Improve flood control facilities along Not Applicable: The project site is not located in the Sierra Highway north of Soledad Canyon Road to allow Sierra Highway corridor north of Soledad Canyon Road. increased use of this corridor for business and employment uses. Policy LU 4.4.3: Evaluate the feasibility of connecting Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to business activity centers throughout the Santa Clarita the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project Valley with light rail, to provide increased mobility and would have direct access to the Metrolink system and the access for customers and employees between the City's transit system though the inclusion of a Metrolink Valencia Town Center, Whittaker Bermite property, Station and Bus Transfer Station. Newhall, Valencia Industrial Center, Magic Mountain and Entrada, Newhall Ranch, and other areas as deemed appropriate. MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 9 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Policy LU 4.4.4: Protect and enhance public utility facilities as necessary to maintain the safety, reliability, integrity, and security of essential public service systems for all Valley residents. Policy LU 4.5.1: Promote inclusion of employee amenities in the workplace, including but not limited to outdoor seating and break areas, child care services, wellness facilities, and facilities for bicycle commuters, including bike lockers and showers where appropriate. Policy LU 4.5.2: Encourage the provision of usable open space that is accessible to employees and visitors, and discourage the provision of large areas of water - consuming landscaping that are not usable or accessible. Policy LU 4.5.3: Promote the inclusion of state-of-the-art technology within business complexes for telecommunications, heating and cooling, water and energy conservation, and other similar design features. Policy LU 4.5.4: Encourage the provision of support services for employees within business park areas, such as dining and personal services where appropriate, to reduce vehicle trips and promote pedestrian -friendly work environments. Mob!W Goal LU 5: Enhanced mobility through alternative transportation choices and land use patterns. Policy LU 5.1.1: Require safe, secure, clearly -delineated, adequately -illuminated walkways and bicycle facilities in all commercial and business centers. Policy LU 5.1.2: Require connectivity between walkways and bikeways serving neighborhoods and nearby commercial areas, schools, parks, and other supporting services and facilities. Policy LU 5.1.3: Ensure that adequate bus turnouts, served by walkways and comfortable, safe, and convenient waiting facilities, are provided for transit users within residential, shopping, and business developments. Policy LU 5.2.1: Designate higher -density residential uses in areas served by public transit and a full range of support services. Policy LU 5.2.2: Provide for location of neighborhood commercial uses in proximity to the neighborhoods they serve, to encourage cycling and walking to local stores. Policy LU 5.2.3: Promote location of non-polluting businesses providing employment opportunities in proximity to neighborhoods, to encourage walkingtowork. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would connect to and install public utility facilities. Not Molicable: The proposed project would not include employees. Consistent: The parks and open space plan for the proposed project would be accessible to residents and visitors. Additionally, the project would include native/drought resistant landscaping to promote water conservation. Not ADDlicable: The project would not include business complexes. NotADDlicable: The project would not include business pa rks. Consistent: The proposed project has been designed to provide a transit -oriented neighborhood for the eastern Santa Clarita Valley. The proposed project would develop higher density housing near the Metrolink Station, Bus Transfer Station, with trails connecting users to residential areas. Consistent: The proposed project includes an extensive pedestrian mobility system consisting of trails, sidewalks and bicycle facilities consistent with this Policy. Consistent: The proposed project's Mobility Plan provides for an extensive mobility system throughout the project's four planning areas, linking these areas to each other and trails and walkways. Consistent: The proposed project would provide transit - oriented neighborhood for the eastern Santa Clarita Valley. The proposed project would develop higher density housing near the Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station, with trails and walkways connecting the residential areas to transit. Consistent: The proposed project would locate residential uses near the Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station. NotADDlicable: The project would not include commercial uses. NotADDlicable: The project would not provide employment opportunities. MetroWalk Specific Plan December 2020 12546 10 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Policy LU 5.2.4: Encourage transit -oriented development (TOD) through designation of land uses that allow compact, mixed -use development in proximity to rail stations and multi -modal transit facilities, in conformance with applicable policies. Policy LU 5.2.5: Encourage the mix of compatible uses in areas where, though not served by rail or transit, mixed uses will achieve more walkable neighborhoods and trip reduction, in conformance with applicable policies. Consistent: The proposed project is a transit -oriented development as it consists of residential uses in proximity to the Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station. Consistent: The proposed project would be served by rail and transit. Though this Policy is not directly applicable to the proposed project due to its transit accessibility, the project has been designed to be walkable. Community Appearance Goal LU C: A scenic and beautiful urban environmentthat Consistent: This Goal is a responsibility of and directed to builds on the community's history and natural setting. the City of Santa Clarita. Policy LU 6.1.1: Designate ridgelines throughout the planning area, and preserve these ridgelines from development by encouraging a minimum distance for grading and development from these ridgelines of 50feet, or more, if determined preferable by the reviewing authority based on site conditions. Policy LU 6.1.2: On the Land Use Map, designate the Santa Clara River corridor, along with its major tributaries, as Open Space. Policy LU 6.1.3: Ensure that new development in hillside areas is designed to protect the scenic backdrop of foothills and canyons enjoyed by Santa Clarita Valley communities, through requiring compatible hillside management techniques that may include but are not limited to clustering of development; contouring and landform grading; revegetation with native plants; limited site disturbance; avoidance of tall retaining and build-up walls; use of stepped pads; and other techniques as deemed appropriate. Policy LU 6.2.1: Promote the inclusion of plazas, courtyards, seating areas, public art, and similar features within commercial centers, business parks, and civic facilities visited by the general public. Policy LU 6.2.2: Provide and enhance trail heads where appropriate with landscaping, seating, trash receptacles and information kiosks. Policy LU 6.3.1: Promote planting of street trees throughout urban areas in the Santa Clarita Valley. Policy LU 6.3.2: Develop compatible landscape plans for major arterials traversing the Santa Clarita Valley, including landscaped medians and parkways, and implement these plans in both City and County areas, where feasible and appropriate based on right of way and other conditions. Policy LU 6.3.3: Enhance major entrance points to the community, including on and off ramps from Interstate 5 and State Route 14; entrances along State Route 126; and at the northern and southern entrance points on Not Applicable: The project side does not include any identified ridgelines. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Not Applicable: The project site is not located in a hillside area. NotADDlicable: The proposed project would not include commercial centers, business parks, and civic facilities. Consistent: The project would improve any existing trailhead located on the project site. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would plant trees throughout the site consistent with City requirements. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, portion of the project near Lost Canyon Road would be appropriately landscaped. Not Applicable: The project site is not adjacent to or located along any of the referenced roadways. MetroWalk Specific Plan December 2020 12546 11 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Sierra Highway, where feasible and appropriate. Policy LU 6.3.4: Require undergrounding of utility lines for Consistent: Dry utilities will be located within underground new development where feasible, and plan for conduits, including telephone lines which will be undergrounding of existing utility lines in conjunction with constructed underground throughout the site within street improvement projects where economically feasible. phases. Policy LU 6.3.5: Restrict the establishment of billboards Not Applicable: The proposed project would not include within the planning area. any billboards. Policy LU 6.4.1: Maintain the historic buildings in Newhall, Not Applicable: The project site is not located in Newhall. including the William Hart Regional Park buildings, the Tom Mix cottages at Heritage Junction, the American Theater, the Melody Ranch, and various other commercial and residential structures designated as local historic resources, through implementation of preservation measures in the Downtown Newhall Specific Plan. Policy LU 6.4.2: Enhance the area around historic Lang Not Applicable: The project site is not located in the Lang Station by requiring a Specific Plan for redevelopment of Station area. this area. Policy LU 6.4.3: Maintain cultural resources from pre- Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to historical Native American habitation and historical the City of Santa Clarita. That said, all artifacts collected at settlement in the areas around Vasquez Rocks, Elsmere this site, would be conveyed to the Fernandeno Tataviam Canyon, and alongthe Santa Clara River, through Band of Mission Indians, consistent with State designation of these areas as Open Space on the Land requirements. Use Map. Policy LU 6.4.4: Maintain the historic site of Mentryville by Not Applicable: The project site is not located in the designating the site as Open Space on the Land Use Map. Metryville area. Policy LU 6.4.5: Maintain the historic area of the Rancho Not Applicable: The project site is not located in the San Francisco Estancia through implementation of historic area of the Rancho San Francisco Estancia. preservation measures in the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan. Policy LU 6.4.6: Through the environmental review and Consistent: The proposed project would evaluate impacts development review and environmental review processes, on historic and cultural sites during the environmental evaluate impacts on historic and cultural sites from review and development review process. proposed development and require appropriate mitigation. Policy LU 6.5.1: Require use of high quality, durable, and Consistent: The proposed project's Design Guidelines natural -appearing building materials. would require the use of high quality, durable and natural - appearing building materials. Policy LU 6.5.2: Encourage the use of designs and Consistent: The proposed project's Design Guidelines architectural styles that incorporate classic and timeless would require the use of designs and architectural styles architectural features. that incorporate classic and timeless architectural features. Policy LU 6.5.3: Require architectural enhancement and Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to articulation on all sides of buildings (360 degree the City of Santa Clarita. However, the proposed project architecture), with special consideration at building would comply with this Policy through implementation of entrances and corners, and along facades adjacent to the project's Design Guidelines. major arterial streets. Policy LU 6.5.4: Evaluate new development in Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to consideration of its context, to ensure that buildings the City of Santa Clarita. However, the proposed project create a coherent living environment, a cohesive urban would comply with this Policy through implementation of fabric, and contribute to a sense of place consistent with the project's Design Guidelines. the surrounding neighborhoods. MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 12 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Environmentally Responsible Development Goal LU 7: Environmentally responsible development Consistent: The proposed project is a compact, transit - through site planning, building design, waste reduction, oriented development with a mix of residential land uses. and responsible stewardship of resources. The proposed project design encourages walkability through its location of residential uses to existing transit. The proposed project also would incorporate energy efficiency measures and water recycling into the project design. Policy LU 7.1.1: Require shade trees within parking lots Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to and adjacent to buildings to reduce the heat island effect, the City of Santa Clarita. However, the proposed project in consideration of Fire Department fuel modification would incorporate shade trees adjacent to buildings restrictions. consistent with City requirements. Policy LU 7.1.2: Promote the use of solar panels and other Consistent: The proposed project would include roof renewable energy sources in all projects. overhangs, low -energy outdoor lighting, and passive solar systems to enhance energy conservation. Policy LU 7.1.3: Encourage development of energy- Consistent: The proposed project's would include energy efficient buildings, and discourage construction of new conservation features such as those mentioned under buildings for which energy efficiency cannot be Policy LU7.1.1, high -efficiency heating, ventilation, and air demonstrated. conditioning (HVAC) equipment, light -emitting diode (LED) lighting, lighting controls, and Energy Star labeled equipment. Policy LU 7.1.4: Support the establishment of energy- Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to efficient industries in the Santa Clarita Valley. the City of Santa Clarita. However, as indicated above, the proposed project would be consistent with this Policy. Policy LU 7.2.1: Monitor growth, and coordinate with water Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to districts as needed to ensure that long-range needs for the City of Santa Clarita. However, the proposed project potable and reclaimed water will be met. would monitor growth, and coordinate with water districts as needed to ensure that long-range needs for potable and reclaimed water will be met. Policy LU 7.2.2: If water supplies are reduced from Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to projected levels due to drought, emergency, or other the City of Santa Clarita. However, as indicated above, the unanticipated events, take appropriate steps to limit, proposed project would be consistent with Policy.. reduce, or otherwise modify growth permitted by the General Plan in consultation with water districts to ensure adequate long-term supply for existing businesses and residents. Policy LU 7.3.1: Promote the use of permeable paving Consistent: The proposed project would be designed to materials to allow infiltration of surface water into the include water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs), water table. such as bioretention areas, rain gardens, planter boxes, vegetated swales and permeable pavement to promote infiltration and mitigate any potential water quality impacts. Policy LU 7.3.2: Maintain stormwater runoff onsite by Consistent: The proposed project would be designed to directing drainage into rain gardens, natural landscaped include water quality BMPs, such as bioretention areas, swales, rain barrels, permeable areas, and use of rain gardens, planter boxes, vegetated swales drainage areas as design elements, where feasible and and permeable pavementto promote infiltration and reasonable. mitigate any potential water quality impacts. Policy LU 7.3.3: Seek methods to decrease impermeable Consistent: The proposed project incorporate sustainable site area where reasonable and feasible, in order to drainage and water quality technologies, such as reduce stormwater runoff and increase groundwater biofiltration areas, vegetated swales, and filter strips to infiltration, including use of shared parking and other reduce stormwater runoff and increase groundwater means as appropriate. infiltration. MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 13 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Policy LU 7.3.4: Implement best management practices Consistent: BMPs would be implemented consistent with for erosion control throughout the construction and City requirements and this Policy. development process. Policy LU 7.3.5: Limit development within flood -prone Consistent: All site development would meet City of Santa areas to minimize down -stream impacts. Clarita, County of Los Angeles and FEMA requirements. Policy LU 7.4.1: Require the use of drought tolerant Consistent: The proposed project's landscape plan would landscaping, native California plant materials, and minimize high water areas and emphasize the use of evapotranspiration (smart) irrigation systems. native and drought tolerant plant species. Smart irrigation systems and recycled water would be utilized for all irrigated areas. Policy LU 7.4.2: Require the use of low -flow fixtures in all Consistent: The project would comply with City non-residential development and residential development requirements per this Policy. Additionally, the project with five or more dwelling units, which may include but are would include a water reclamation plant, which would not limited to water conserving shower heads, toilets, provide a recycled water supply equal to the project's total waterless urinals and motion -sensor faucets, and demand. encourage use of such fixtures in building retrofits as appropriate. Policy LU 7.5.1: Ensure that all new development provides Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to adequate space for recycling receptacles and bins on site. the City of Santa Clarita. However, the proposed project would provide recycling receptacles consistent with City requirements. Policy LU 7.5.2: Promote the use of recycled building Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to materials. the City of Santa Clarita. However, the proposed project would comply with City requirements related to the use of recycled building materials. Policy LU 7.6.1: Limit outdoor lighting levels to the Consistent: The proposed project would comply with City minimum needed for safety and security, and lighting standards and requirements. Lower level encourage lighting would be utilized in most on -site areas. lower lighting levels when businesses are closed. Policy LU 7.6.2: Preserve habitat connectivity in site Consistent: The proposed project would preserve the planning where feasible, and discourage the creation of surrounding Significant Ecological Area by developing on open space islands surrounded by paving. an infill site in proximity to other residential uses and the Metrolink Station. Policy LU 7.6.3: Protect wildlife corridors through site Consistent: The reach of the Santa Clara River corridor design and appropriate land use designations, including located to the north of the project site would be preserved mapped corridors and other corridors that may be as open space. The proposed project would preserve the identified through biological surveys. surrounding Significant Ecological Area (SEA) by developing on an infill site in proximity to other residential uses and the Metrolink Station. Policy LU 7.6.4: Encourage site designs that protect oak Consistent: There are no City -identified hillsides on the trees, hillsides, and biological resources through creative project site and the site is generally flat. The proposed solutions. project would preserve protected trees and biological resources to the extent feasible. The project would incorporate measures, as appropriate, to reduce impacts to these resources. Policy LU 7.7.1: Maintain a suitable distance and/or Not Applicable: The project site would not be located in provide bufferingto separate aggregate mining and proximity to aggregate mining and processing activities. processing activities from nearby residential uses and other uses with sensitive receptors to noise and airborne emissions. Policy LU 7.7.2: Avoid designating land uses in areas with Not Applicable: There are no significant mineral resources significant mineral resources or utility facilities that would or utility facilities located on the projectsite. MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 14 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis preclude the future extraction and use of those resources and facilities. Policy LU 7.8.1: Adopt and implement consistent policies for protection of oak woodlands and oak trees throughout the planning area. Policy LU 7.8.2: Protect all designated Significant Ecological Areas (SEA's) from incompatible development. Environmental Justice Goal LU 8: Equitable and convenient access to social, cultural, educational, civic, medical, and recreational facilities and opportunities for all residents. Policy LU 8.1.1: Coordinate plans for new residential development with affected school districts to ensure adequate mitigation of impacts on school facilities; provision of facilities and programs to promote academic excellence for Santa Clarita Valley students; coordination on joint use of facilities and transportation; and long- range planning. Policy LU 8.1.2: Implement a master plan for trails throughout the Santa Clarita Valley to serve all residents. Policy LU 8.1.3: Implement a master plan for parks, with special focus on provision of additional playfields for youth sports in locations accessible to underserved neighborhoods. Policy LU 8.1.4: Ensure that an adequate and diverse supply of child care facilities and services is available to parents who live and/or work in the Santa Clarita Valley, by promoting child care facilities in commercial and residential areas. Policy LU 8.1.5: Coordinate with the Los Angeles County Library System to assist in expanding library services as needed to meetthe needs of the community. Policy LU 8.1.6: Coordinate with the Arts Alliance and other similar entities to promote access to cultural events and facilities for all residents. Policy LU 8.1.7: Work with medical service providers to facilitate preservation and enhancement of health Consistent: The proposed project would preserve protected trees and biological resources to the extent feasible. The project would incorporate measures, as appropriate, to reduce impacts to these resources. Consistent: Portions of the project site currently are located within a designated SEA boundary (i.e., SEA 23). However, the project proposes a General Plan amendment and a Specific Plan designation that would change the SEA boundaries to be consistent with identified sensitive biological resources. Consistent: This Goal is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita, and is not directly applicable to the proposed project. Consistent: The project would coordinate plans with affected school districts as part of the development review process. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. However, the proposed project would provide a multi -use path that terminates at a public plaza atthe far eastern area of the Specific Plan, which provides an outdoor publicly accessible amenity adjacent to the Metrolink transit station as well as shopping, trails, and other amenities to the north. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would further implementation of this Policythrough its provision of walkways connecting residential units, adjacent commercial uses, and the Metrolink Station. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, consistent with City requirements and this Policy, the project would mitigate impacts to library services through the payment of a library impact fee. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. MetroWalk Specific Plan December 2020 12546 15 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis services, including the Santa Clarita Valley's trauma center, provided applications are in conformance with applicable General Plan policies and environmental requirements. Policy LU 8.1.8: Work with social service agencies providing assistance to homeless persons to develop and maintain a suitable shelter in the Santa Clarita Valley. Policy LU 8.1.9: Assist persons and households with temporary housing needs by promoting transitional housing facilities for victims of domestic violence in multiple -family residential land use designations, subject to applicable zoning requirements. Policy LU 8.1.10: Coordinate with agencies that provide services to seniors and the elderly to expand senior facilities, which may include a new senior center. Policy LU 8.2.1: In making locational decisions for siting new community facilities, consider ease of access for all users (vehicular, pedestrian, and transit). Policy LU 8.2.2: Identify neighborhoods that are underserved by public facilities and community services, and plan for equitable distribution of these facilities. Policy LU 8.3.1: Require fair and equitable treatment in considering, adopting, implementing, and enforcing development regulations and policies, including but not limited to providing equal opportunityfor public input and considering impacts from development approvals on all segments of the Doaulation. Public Facilities Goal LU 9: Adequate public facilities and services, provided in a timely manner and in appropriate locations to serve existing and future residents and businesses. Policy LU 9.1.1: Ensure construction of adequate infrastructure to meet the needs of new development prior to occupancy. Policy LU 9.1.2: Coordinate review of development projects with other agencies and special districts providing utilities and other services. Policy LU 9.1.3: Protect major utility transmission corridors, pumping stations, reservoirs, booster stations, and other similar facilities from encroachment by incompatible uses, while allowing non -intrusive uses such as plant nurseries, greenbelts and recreational trails. Policy LU 9.1.4: Develop and apply compatible standards within City and County areas for design and maintenance of utility infrastructure, in consideration of the character of Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. However, the proposed project would further implementation of this Policy through its location near the adjacent Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station, which would provide transit accessibility for the project and surrounding areas. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. However, the proposed project would provide affordable housing opportunities within the City and be located near the Metrolink Station. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent: This Goal is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project's phasing plan is consistent with this Policy as it would bring adequate public facilities and services on-line with residential uses. Consistent: The proposed project's phasing plan would bring adequate infrastructure on-line to meetthe needs of each phase of development prior to occupancy. Consistent: The City's development review process conducted for the proposed project includes consultation with affected agencies and utilities. NotAmNicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Further, the project site is not located on or adjacent to any major utility transmission corridors, pumping stations, reservoirs, booster stations, or other similar facilities. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the project's utility infrastructure design would consider the character of the community. MetroWalk Specific Plan December 2020 12546 16 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis each commu Policy LU 9.1.5: Work with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department to expand law enforcement facilities to meet the needs of the Valley's growing population. Policy LU 9.1.6: Coordinate with appropriate agencies and organizations to ensure that landfill expansion needs are met while minimizing adverse impacts to Valley residents. Policy LU 9.1.7: Provide for location of additional waste transfer stations and other facilities to promote recycling and reuse of materials within Industrial designations on the Land Use Map, subject to applicable zoning reo u i rements. Circulation Ele►nent Consistent: The proposed projectwould paythe required sheriff facilities impact fee. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. I MuffiWodal Circulation Network I Goal C 1: An inter -connected network of circulation facilities that integrates all travel modes, provides viable alternatives to automobile use, and conforms with regional plans. Policy C 1.1.1: Reduce dependence on the automobile, particularly single -occupancy vehicle use, by providing safe and convenient access to transit, bikeways, and wa I kways. Policy C 1.1.2: Promote expansion of alternative transportation options to increase accessibility to all demographic and economic groups throughout the community, including mobility -impaired persons, senior citizens, low-income persons, and youth. Policy C 1.1.3: Work with local and regional agencies and employers to promote an integrated, seamless transportation system that meets access needs, including local and regional bus service, dial -a -ride, taxis, rail, van pools, car pools, bus pools, bicycling, walking, and automobiles. Policy C 1.1.4: Promote public health through provision of safe, pleasant, and accessible walkways, bikeways, and multi -purpose trail systems for residents. Policy C 1.1.5: Plan for efficient links between circulation systems at appropriate locations, including but not limited to bus -rail connections and pedestrian -bus connections. Policy C 1.1.6: Encourage multi -modal travel through provision of adequate facilities, including but not limited to bicycle parking and storage, expansion of park -and -ride lots, and provision of adequate station and transfer facilities in appropriate locations. Policy C 1.1.7: Consider the safety and convenience of the traveling public, including pedestrians and cyclists, in design and development of all transportation systems. Consistent: The proposed project would be located adjacent to the proposed multi -modal transit facility (Metrolink Station, Bus Transfer Station, multi -purpose trails, and sidewalks) to serve the project's residential uses. Consistent: The proposed project would be located adjacent to the proposed multi -modal transit facility (Metrolink Station, Bus Transfer Station, multi -purpose trails, and sidewalks) to serve the project's residential uses. Consistent: The proposed project would be located adjacent to the proposed multi -modal transit facility (Metrolink Station, Bus Transfer Station, multi -purpose trails, and sidewalks) to serve the project's residential uses. Consistent: The proposed project would be located adjacent to the proposed multi -modal transit facility (Metrolink Station, Bus Transfer Station, multi -purpose trails, and sidewalks) to serve the project's residential uses. Consistent: The proposed project's Mobility Plan includes safe and pleasant multi -purpose trails, sidewalks, and bike lanes. Consistent: The proposed project would be located adjacentto the proposed multi -modal transitfacility (Metrolink Station, Bus Transfer Station, multi -purpose trails, and sidewalks) to serve the project's residential uses. Consistent: The proposed project is a transit -oriented development and would be located adjacent to the proposed Metrolink Station, Bus Transfer Station, sidewalks, and multi -purpose trails. Bicycle storage would be provided for residents and guests. Consistent: The proposed project's Mobility Plan would provide a safe, convenient, and comprehensive pedestrian/bicycle mobility system throughout the project MetroWalk Specific Plan December 2020 12546 17 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis site Policy C 1.1.8: Acquire and/or reserve adequate right -of- Consistent: The proposed project is a transit -oriented way in transportation corridors to accommodate multiple development, and would be located adjacent to the travel modes, including bus turnouts, bus rapid transit Metrolink Station, Bus Transfer Station, sidewalks, and (BRT), bikeways, walkways, and linkages to trail systems. multi -purpose trails. Policy C 1.1.9: Incorporate funding for all modes of NotADDlicable This Policy is a responsibility of and transportation in the capital improvement program, and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. seek fundingfrom all available sources for multi -modal system development. Policy C 1.1.10: Provide for flexibility in the transportation Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and system to accommodate new technology as it becomes directed to the City of Santa Clarita. available, in order to reduce trips by vehicles using fossil fuels where feasible and appropriate. Policy C 1.1.11: Promote use of multi -modal facilities by NotADDlicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and providing adequate and attractive way -finding programs directed to the City of Santa Clarita. directing users to transit stations, park -and -ride lots, bicycle storage, and other facilities. Policy C 1.1.12: Implement recommendations of the City's Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to Non -Motorized Transportation Plan to expand the City of Santa Clarita. However, the proposed project opportunities for alternative travel modes. would assist in the implementation of the City's Non - Motorized Transportation Plan. Policy C 1.1.13: Activity centers should be designed or Not Applicable: The proposed project would not include improved to prioritize walking, bicycling and circulator activity centers, such as employment or commercial uses. transitfor internal circulation of person -travel. Policy C 1.2.1: Develop coordinated plans for land use, Consistent: The proposed project would assist in the circulation, and transit to promote transit -oriented implementation of this Policy. The proposed project is a development that concentrates higher density housing, transit -oriented development and locates higher density employment, and commercial areas in proximity to transit housing in close proximity to a Metrolink Station and Bus corridors. Transfer Station. Policy C 1.2.2: Create walkable communities, with paseos Consistent: The proposed project's Mobility Plan would and walkways connecting residential neighborhoods to include an extensive bicycle/pedestrian system multi -modal transportation services such as bus stops throughout the project site, linking residential land uses to and rail stations. the Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station. Policy C 1.2.3: Require that new commercial and Not Applicable: The proposed project would not include industrial development provide walkway connections to commercial or industrial development. public sidewalks and transit stops, where available. Policy C 1.2.4: Consider location, availability, and Consistent: The proposed project is a transit -oriented accessibility of transit in evaluating new development development and locates higher density housing in close plans. proximity to a Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station. Policy C 1.2.5: Encourage compact development and Consistent: The proposed project is a compact, transit - mixed uses to locate housing, workplaces, and services oriented development that would place residential uses within walking or bicycling distance of each other. within walking distance of the Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station Policy C 1.2.6: Provide flexible standards for parking and Consistent: The proposed project would include flexible roadway design in transit -oriented development areas to parking and roadway design standards to promote transit promote transit use, where appropriate. use. Policy C 1.2.7: In pedestrian -oriented areas, provide a Consistent: The project design would encourage highly connected circulation grid with relatively small pedestrian mobility through its highly connected blocks to encourage walking. circulation grid and small blocks. Policy C 1.2.8: Provide safe pedestrian connections Consistent: The proposed project's Mobility Plan provides across barriers, which may include but are not limited to for safe pedestrian connections. major traffic corridors, drainage and flood control MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 18 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis facilities, utility easements, grade separations, and walls. Policy C 1.2.9: Emphasize providing right-of-way for non - vehicular transportation modes so thatwalking and bicycling are the easiest, most convenient modes of transportation available for short trips. Policy C 1.2.10: Protect communities by discouraging the construction of facilities that sever residential neighborhoods. Policy C 1.2.11: Reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through the use of smart growth concepts. Policy C 1.2.12: Balance the anticipated volume of people and goods movement with the need to maintain a walkable and bicycle friendly environment. Policy C 1.3.1: Continue coordinating with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA or Metro) to implement the County's Congestion Management Pro,ram (CMP) for desiPnated CMP roadways. Policy C 1.3.2: Through trip reduction strategies and emphasis on multi -modal transportation options, contribute to achievingthe air quality goals of the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan. Policy C 1.3.3: Coordinate circulation planning with the Regional Transportation Plan prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), to ensure consistency of planned improvements with regional needs. Policy C 1.3.4: Continue coordination with Caltrans on circulation and land use decisions that may affect Interstate 5, State Route 14, and State Route 126, and support programs to increase capacity and improve operations on these highways. Policy C 1.3.5: Ensure consistency with the County's adopted Airport Land Use Plan as it pertains to the Agua Dulce Airport, in order to mitigate aviation -related hazards and protect airport operations from encroachment by incompatible uses. Street and Highway System Goal C 2: A unified and well -maintained network of streets and highways which provides safe and efficient movement of people and goods between neighborhoods, districts, and regional centers, while maintaining community character. Policy C 2.1.1: Protect mobility on arterial highways by limiting excessive cross traffic, access points, and turning movements; traffic signals on arterial highways should be spaced at least 1/2-mile apart, and the minimum allowable Consistent: The proposed project's Mobility Plan encourages and promotes walking and bicycling through its extensive system of trails, bike paths, and sidewalks. Consistent: The proposed project would not sever existing residential neighborhoods; rather, through its pedestrian mobility system, mix of land uses and multi -modal transit facility, the proposed project would connect surrounding communities to the each other and the project. Consistent: The proposed project would assist in the implementation of this Policy. The proposed project utilizes various smart growth policies (e.g., compact development, transit accessibility, etc.) in its design. Consistent: The proposed project's Mobility Plan would provide a comprehensive network of bicycle and pedestrian trails throughout the project site, linkingthe various usestogetherand connectingto the City's trail system. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent: The proposed project would include a multi - modal transit facility that would contribute to achieving the air quality goals of the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plant. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, coordination with Caltrans may be required as part of the environmental review process. Not Applicable: The project site is not located in the vicinity of Agua Dulce Airport. Consistent: The proposed project would further implementation of this Goal through designing an orderly extension from the local roadway system to the internal circulation system of the project site. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. MetroWalk Specific Plan December 2020 12546 19 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis separation should be at least 1/4-mile. Policy C 2.1.2: Enhance connectivity of the roadway Consistent: The proposed project would extend access network to the extentfeasible given the constraints of from Lost Canyon Road through a new east -west private topography, existing development patterns, and road - Harriman Drive. environmental resources, by constructing grade separations and bridges; connecting discontinuous streets; extending secondary access into areas where needed; prohibiting gates on public streets; and other improvements as deemed appropriate based on traffic analysis. Policy C 2.1.3: Protect and enhance the capacity of the Consistent: The proposed project would implement roadway system by upgrading intersections to meet level measures, as necessary to ensure compliance with this of service standards, widening and/or restriping for Policy. additional lanes, synchronizing traffic signals, and other means as appropriate. Policy C 2.1.4: Ensure that future dedication and Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and acquisition of right-of-way is based on the adopted directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Circulation Plan, proposed land uses, and projected demand. Policy C 2.1.5: Periodically monitor levels of service, traffic Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and accident patterns, and physical conditions of the existing directed to the City of Santa Clarita. street system, and upgrade roadways as needed through the Capital Improvement Program. Policy C 2.2.1: Designate roadways within the planning Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and area based on their functional classification as shown on directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Exhibit C-2. Policy C 2.2.2: Adopt consistent standard street cross Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and sections for City and County roadways in the planning directed to the City of Santa Clarita. area, as shown on Exhibit C-3. Policy C 2.2.3: Coordinate circulation plans of new Consistent: The proposed project's circulation network development projects with each other and the would be coordinated with the surrounding street surrounding street network, within both City and County network. areas. Policy C 2.2.4: Strive to maintain a Level of Service (LOS) Consistent: The proposed project would implement D or better on most roadway segments and intersections measures, as necessary to ensure compliance with this to the extent practical; in some locations, a LOS E may be Policy. acceptable, or LOS F may be necessary, for limited durations during peak traffic periods. Policy C 2.2.5: Adopt common standards for pavement Consistent: The proposed project would be consistent with width in consideration of capacity needs to serve this Policy. Street widths within the project site projected travel demand, provided that a reduction in accommodate projected travel demand while enhancing pavement width may be allowed in order to reduce traffic pedestrian and bicycle mobility. speeds, protect resources, enhance pedestrian mobility, or as otherwise deemed appropriate by the reviewing agency. Policy C 2.2.6: Within residential neighborhoods, promote Consistent: The proposed project's circulation system the design of "healthy streets" which may include reduced would promote a "healthy street" design through the use pavement width, shorter block length, provision of on- of reduced street widths, on -street parking, traffic street parking, traffic -calming devices, bike routes and calming, bike routes, landscaped parkways and pedestrian connectivity, landscaped parkways, and pedestrian connectivity. canopy street trees. Policy C 2.2.7: Where practical, encourage the use of grid Consistent: The project would increase connectivity and MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 20 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis or modified grid street systems to increase connectivity walkability through the internal street sections that slow and walkability; where cul-de-sacs are provided, promote traffic and facilitate pedestrian access. the use of walkways connecting cul-de-sac bulbs to adjacent streets and/or facilities to facilitate pedestrian access; where street connectivity is limited and pedestrian routes are spaced over 500 feet apart, promote the use of intermediate pedestrian connections through or between blocks. Policy C 2.2.8: Local street patterns should be designed to Consistent: The proposed project's internal circulation create logical and understandable travel paths for users system would be designed as local street sections that and should provide access between neighborhoods for provide for vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle connections local residents while discouraging cut -through traffic; cul- from the four planning areas to open space areas and the de -sac length should not exceed 600 feet, and "dog -leg" Metrolink Station. cul-de-sacs with one or more turns between the bulb and the outlet should be avoided where possible. Policy C 2.2.9: Medians constructed in arterial streets Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to should be provided with paved crossover points for the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project emergency vehicles, where deemed necessary by the Fire would comply with this Policy as required by the City. . Department. Policy C 2.2.10: The street system design, including block Consistent: The proposed project's street system design length, width, horizontal and vertical alignments, curves, would function safely and effectively without the and other design characteristics, should function safely subsequent need for excessive traffic control devices. The and effectively without the subsequent need for excessive proposed project's circulation system would include multi - traffic control devices to slow or deflecttraffic. use path on internal, private streets. Policy C 2.2.11: For intersections of collector or larger Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to streets, four-way intersections are preferred over offset the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project intersections. would comply with this Policy as required by the City. Policy C 2.2.12: Private streets, other than driveways and Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to alleyways typically associated with multi -family the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project development, should be constructed to standards for would comply with this Policy as required by the City. public rights -of -way, except as otherwise approved by the reviewing agency. Policy C 2.2.13: Protect the community character of rural Not Applicable: The project site is not located in a rural areas by requiring use of rural street standards, which area. may include reduced pavement width, reduced street lightingto protect night skies, rolled curbs, or no curbs and no sidewalks. Policy C 2.2.14: Streets should be designed in context Consistent: The proposed project would also include an with the terrain and the natural and built features of the extensive and efficient pedestrian/bicycle mobility system. area, but excessively circuitous streets should be avoided to minimize unnecessary vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian mileage. Policy C 2.2.15: Adopt consistent standards for Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to implementation of Americans with Disabilities Act the City of Santa Clarita. However, the project would requirements such as curb ramp design and accessible comply with this Policy as required by the City. pedestrian signals. Policy C 2.3.1: Enhance community appearance through Consistent: The proposed project would include landscaping, street lighting, street furniture, bus shelters landscaping that would be visible to those within the and benches, and other aspects of streetscape design public right-of-way, near the project site. within the right-of-way, where appropriate. Policy C 2.3.2: Encourage unified treatment of arterial Consistent: The proposed project's internal roadways streets within both City and County areas, while permitting would preserve and enhance the village character. MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 21 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis flexibility of streetscape design between neighborhoods and districts to preserve village character. Policy C 2.3.3: When evaluating road widening projects, Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to consider the impacts of additional traffic, noise, and the City of Santa Clarita. Impacts related to additional fumes on adjacent land uses and use context -sensitive traffic, noise, and fumes would be evaluated during the design techniques where appropriate. environmental review process. Policy C 2.3.4: Protect residential neighborhoods from cut- Consistent: The proposed project's internal roadways through traffic using local streets to avoid congested would not provide connections to other uses; thereby arterials, through use of street design and traffic control reducing the ability for cut -through in the residential devices. neighborhood. Policy C 2.4.1: Require design of pavement sections on Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and major and secondary highways to account for truck traffic, directed to the City of Santa Clarita. to prevent excessive pavement deterioration from truck use. Policy C 2.4.2: Establish adequate setbacks from major Consistent: The project's residential uses are setback and secondary highways for sensitive receptors and from major and secondary highways. sensitive uses, so as to minimize impacts on these individuals and uses from noise and air pollution caused by truck traffic. Policy C 2.4.3: Prohibit through truck traffic on designated Not Applicable: There are no designated scenic routes scenic routes. located on the project site. Policy C 2.4.4: Adopt regulations for truck parking on Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and public streets, to avoid impacts to residential directed to the City of Santa Clarita. neighborhoods. Policy C 2.5.1: Maintain a current evacuation plan as part Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and of emergency response planning. directed to the City of Santa Clarita Policy C 2.5.2: Ensure that new development is provided Consistent: The proposed project would be served by with adequate emergency and/or secondary access for adequate emergency and secondary access. The access purposes of evacuation and emergency response; require within the project site would be reviewed by the City as two points of ingress and egress for every subdivision or part of the development review process. phase thereof, except as otherwise approved for small subdivisions where physical constraints preclude a second access point. Policy C 2.5.3: Require provision of visible street name Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to signs and addresses on all development to aid in the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project emergency response. would provide visible street name signs and addresses consistent with this Policy per City requirements. Policy C 2.5.4: Provide directional signage to Interstate 5 Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to and State Route 14 at key intersections in the Valley, to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project assist emergency evacuation operations. would provide directional signage per City requirements. Policy C 2.6.1: Require that new development construct or Consistent: The project applicant either would construct or provide its fair share of the cost of transportation pay fair -share fees for transportation improvements. improvements, and that required improvements or in -lieu contributions are in place to support the development prior to occupancy. Policy C 2.6.2: Evaluate the feasibility of establishing a Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and joint City/County Intelligent Transportation Management directed to the City of Santa Clarita. System (ITMS) impact fee for new development that is unable to otherwise mitigate its impacts to the roadway system through implementation of the adopted Highway Plan. Policy C 2.6.3: Support local, regional, state and federal Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and agencies in identifying and implementing funding directed to the City of Santa Clarita. MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 22 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis alternatives for the Valley's transportation systems. Policy C 2.6.4: Coordinate road construction with Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and improvements to other utility systems in the right-of-way. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy 8.6: Encourage Green Building principles for new Consistent The project applicant would require that each building and renovation projects. building be designed to meet the requirements of the California Building Code, which incorporates the Cal Green and Title 24 Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). In doing so, the Specific Plan wouldbe developed to achieve energy efficiency, water efficiency, material conservation, and resource efficiency in compliance with the CALGreen Code. Vehicle Trip Reduction Goal C 3: Reduction of vehicle trips and emissions Consistent: The proposed project is a transit -oriented through effective management of travel demand, development, such that it would create fewer vehicle trips transportation systems, and parking. than a typical, suburban residential development with the same number of residential units. The project would locate residential uses adjacentto the Metrolink Station, Bus Transfer Station, trails, sidewalks and bike routes. Policy C 3.1.1: In evaluating new development projects, Consistent: The project would locate residential uses require trip reduction measures as feasible to relieve adjacent to the Metrolink Station, Bus Transfer Station, congestion and reduce air pollution from vehicle trails, sidewalks and bike routes. The transit -oriented emissions. development would promote use of alternative transportation to reduce air pollution from vehicle emissions. Policy C 3.1.2: Promote home -based businesses and live- Consistent: The proposed project would permit home work units as a means of reducing home -to -work trips. occupation businesses; however, it would not include live - work units. Policy C 3.1.3: Promote the use of flexible work schedules Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and and telecommuting to reduce home to work trips. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy C 3.1.4: Promote the use of employee incentives to Consistent: The proposed project would encourage the encourage alternative travel modes to work. use of alternative travel modes through its proximity to the Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station. Policy C 3.1.5: Promote the use of van pools, car pools, Not Applicable: The proposed project would not include and shuttles to encourage trip reduction. such uses that would utilize van pools, car pools, or shuttles (i.e. employment centers). Policy C 3.1.6: Promote the provision of showers and Not Applicable: The proposed project would not include lockers within businesses and employment centers, in business and employment centers. order to encourage opportunities for employees to bicycle to work. Policy C 3.2.1: Adopt clean vehicle purchase policies for Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and City and County fleets. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy C 3.2.2: Continue to enhance signal timing and Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and synchronization to allow for free traffic flow, minimizing directed to the City of Santa Clarita. idling and vehicle emissions. Policy C 3.2.3: When available and feasible, provide Not Applicable: The proposed project would not include opportunities and infrastructure to support use of infrastructure, such as a parking structure, that would alternative fuel vehicles and travel devices. support the use of alternative fuel vehicles. Policy C 3.3.1: Evaluate parking standards and reduce Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and requirements where appropriate, based on data showing directed to the City of Santa Clarita. that requirements are in excess of demand. Policy C 3.3.2: In pedestrian -oriented, high density mixed Not Applicable: The proposed project would not include a use districts, provide for common parking facilities to mixed -use development. MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 23 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis serve the district, where appropriate. Policy C 3.3.3: Promote shared use of parking facilities Not Applicable: The proposed project would not include between businesses with complementary uses and hours, businesses. where feasible. Policy C 3.3A Within transit -oriented development Not Applicable: The proposed project would not include projects, consider providing incentives such as higher commercial uses. floor area ratio and/or lower parking requirements for commercial development that provides transit and ride - share programs. Policy C 3.3.5: Encourage convenient short-term parking Not Applicable: The proposed project would not include a in high -activity areas, and all day parking at the periphery high -activity area. of the development areas. Policy C 3.3.6: Site plans should prioritize direct Consistent: The proposed project would include pedestrian access between building entrances, sidewalks pedestrian access between buildings, sidewalks and and transit stops, by placing parking behind buildings transit stops. where possible, to the sides of buildings when necessary, and always away from street intersections. Rail Service Goal C 4: Rail service to meet regional and inter -regional Consistent: The proposed project would place a number of needs for convenient, cost-effective travel alternatives, residential uses in proximity to the Metrolink Station. which are fully integrated into the Valley's circulation systems and land use patterns. Policy C 4.1.1: Develop permanent Metrolink facilities with Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and an expanded bus transfer station and additional park -and- directed to the City of Santa Clarita. ride spaces at the Via Princessa station, or other alternative location as deemed appropriate to meet the travel needs of residents on the Valley's east side. Policy C 4.1.2: Coordinate with other agencies to facilitate Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and extension of a passenger rail line from the Santa Clarita directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Station to Ventura County, which may be used for Metrolink service. Policy C 4.1.3: Continue to expand and improve commuter Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to services, including park -and -ride lots, bicycle parking and the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project storage, and waiting facilities, at all Metrolink stations. would place residential uses in proximity to the Metrolink Station with parking, bicycle parking and storage, and waiting facilities. Policy C 4.1A Encourage the preservation of abandoned Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and railroad right-of-way for future transportation facilities, directed to the City of Santa Clarita. where appropriate. Policy C 4.1.5: Work with other agencies to increase rail Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and efficiency and public safety through street and track directed to the City of Santa Clarita. improvements, and grade separations where needs are identified. Policy C 4.1.6: Provide incentives to promote transit- Consistent: The proposed project would be a transit oriented development near rail stations. oriented development, and would place residential uses in proximity to the Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station. Policy C 4.1.7: Facilitate coordination of planning for any Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and future high speed regional rail systems in the Valley with directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Metrolink services. Policy C 4.1.8: Minimize impacts to passenger rail service Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and and the community from any proposed increase to freight directed to the City of Santa Clarita. MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 24 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis rail service through the Valley. Policy C 4.2.1: Continue to work with the Orange Line Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and Development Authority (OLDA) to plan for development of directed to the City of Santa Clarita. an environmentally sensitive, high speed transportation system with a route through the Santa Clarita Valley, including a regional station hub with associated infrastructure that would provide connections to the Los Angeles Basin, Palmdale Regional Airport, and other destinations. Policy C 4.2.2: Coordinate with other agencies as needed Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and to facilitate planning for other high-speed rail alternatives directed to the City of Santa Clarita. in the Santa Clarita Valley. Policy C 4.2.3: Promote and encourage the expansion of Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and Amtrak Rail Service to the Santa Clarita Valley. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Bus Transit Goal C 5: Bus transit service as a viable choice for all Consistent: The project proposes residential uses in residents, easily accessible and serving destinations proximity to a Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer Station. throughout the Valley. Both transit facilities would make these alternative modes of transportation more accessible to residents in the eastern Santa Clarita Valley. Policy C 5.1.1: Require that new subdivisions provide for Consistent: The proposed project would have two means two means of access into and out of the development, in of access off Harriman Drive, as well as a connection to order to provide for transit access, where feasible. the new Metrolink Station. Policy C 5.1.2: For private gated communities, require the Not Applicable: The proposed project would not be a developer to accommodate bus access through the entry private, gated community. gate, or provide bus waiting facilities at the project entry with pedestrian connections to residential streets, where appropriate. Policy C 5.1.3: Consider the operational characteristics of Consistent: The proposed project would be adjacent to a buses when determining acceptable street designs, Bus Transfer Station. The proposed street designs near including grades and turning radii. bus routes would be reviewed and approved as part of the City's development review process. Policy C 5.1.4: Provide for location of bus stops within 1/4- Consistent: The Bus Transfer Station is within mile of residential neighborhoods, and include paved bus walking/biking distance of the project's residential units. waiting areas in street improvement plans wherever appropriate and feasible. Policy C 5.1.5: Location and design of bus turnouts should Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and not obstruct traffic and should provide sufficient merging directed to the City of Santa Clarita. length for the bus to re-enter the traffic flow. Policy C 5.1.6: Evaluate the feasibility of giving buses Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and priority at signalized intersections to maintain transit directed to the City of Santa Clarita. service level standards, where appropriate. Policy C 5.2.1: Require paved waiting areas, accessible by Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and paved walkways and reasonably direct pedestrian routes, directed to the City of Santa Clarita. for bus stops in new development; and provide for retrofitting of existing bus stops, where feasible and practicable. Policy C 5.2.2: Adopt and implement consistent design Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and standards for use in both City and County areas for bus directed to the City of Santa Clarita. shelters, bus benches, trash receptacles, lighting, and other improvements for transit stops that are aesthetically MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 25 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis pleasing and consistent with community character. Policy C 5.2.3: Adopt and implement common design standards for bus turnouts and merging lanes along arterial streets, in convenient, accessible locations. Policy C 5.2.4: Enhance way -finding signage along walkways and paseos to direct pedestrians to transit stops. Policy C 5.2.5: Complementary transportation modes should be interconnected at intermodal transit centers, including provisions for bicycles on buses, bicycle parking at transit centers, and park -and -ride at transit stops. Policy C 5.3.1: Continue to provide fixed route service to significant activity areas and neighborhoods with moderate to high density, and serve low -density and rural areas with dial -a -ride, flexible fixed routes, or other transit services as deemed appropriate. Policy C 5.3.2: Promote concentrated development patterns in coordination with transit planning to maximize service efficiency and ridership. Policy C 5.3.3: Evaluate the feasibility of providing "fly- away" bus transit service to airports located at Burbank, Palmdale, and Los Angeles, and implement this program when warranted by demand. Policy C 5.3.4: Evaluate the feasibility of providing bus rapid transit (BRT) for key transit corridors when light -rail is notfeasible or cost effective. Policy C 5.4.1: Establish transit impactfee rates that are based on the actual impacts of new development on the transit system, and regularly monitor and adjust these fees as needed to ensure adequate mitigation. Policy C 5.4.2: Evaluate the feasibility of establishing a joint City/County transit impact fee to equitably distribute the capital costs of transit system expansion to meet the needs of new development in both County and City areas of the Valley. Policy C 5.4.3: Seek fundingfor transit system expansion and improvementfrom all available sources, including local, state, and federal programs and grants. Bikeways Goal C 6: A unified and well -maintained bikeway system with safe and convenient routes for commuting, recreational use and utilitarian travel, connecting communities and the region. Policy C 6.1.1: For recreational riders, continue to develop Class I bike paths, separated from the right-of-way, linking neighborhoods to open space and activity areas. C 6.1.2: For long-distance riders and those who NotAaalicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent: The project applicant would work with the City of Santa Clarita to ensure that appropriate transit station way -finding signage is included on project walkways and trails. Consistent: The proposed project would connectto the Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer station by walking or biking. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent: The proposed project is a transit -oriented development. The project would consist of residential uses in close proximity to transit and other uses. The design of the proposed project would assist in maximizing transit service efficiency and ridership. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the project applicant would construct improvements or pay transit impact fees consistent with City requirements. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the project applicant would construct improvements or pay transit impact fees consistent with City requirements. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent: The proposed project's Mobility Plan would provide a comprehensive network of bicycle and pedestrian trails, paths and sidewalks throughout the project site. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. However, the project would ensure connectivity of bicycle facilities within the project site to the surrounding areas. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 26 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis bicycle to work or services, provide striped Class II bike lanes within the right-of-way, with adequate delineation and signage, where feasible and appropriate. Policy C 6.1.3: Continue to acquire or reserve right-of-way and/or easements needed to complete the bicycle circulation system as development occurs. Policy C 6.1A Where inadequate right-of-way exists for Class I or II bikeways, provide signage for Class III bike routes or designate alternative routes as appropriate. Policy C 6.1.5: Plan for continuous bikeways to serve major destinations, including but not limited to regional shopping areas, college campuses, public buildings, parks, and employment centers. Policy C 6.2.1: Bicycle parking, which can include bicycle lockers and sheltered areas, should be required at commercial sites and multi -family housing complexes for use by employees and residents, as well as customers and visitors. Policy C 6.2.2: Bicycle racks on transit vehicles should be provided to give bike -and -ride commuters the ability to transport their bicycles. Policy C 6.2.3: Promote the inclusion of services for bicycle commuters, such as showers and changing rooms, as part of the development review process for new development or substantial alterations of existing commercial or industrial uses. where aaaroariate. Pedestrian Circulation Goal C 7: Walkable communities, in which interconnected walkways provide a safe, comfortable and viable alternative to driving for local destinations. Policy C 7.1.1: In reviewing new development proposals, consider pedestrian connections within and between developments as an integral component of the site design, which may include seating, shading, lighting, directional signage, accessibility, and convenience. Policy C 7.1.2: For existingwalled subdivisions, promote the extension of pedestrian access to connect these neighborhoods to transit and services through public education and by facilitating retrofitted improvements where feasible. Policy C 7.1.3: Where feasible and practical, consider grade separated facilities to provide pedestrian connections across arterial streets, flood control channels, utility easements, and other barriers. Policy C 7.1A Identify and develop an improvement program to connect existing walkways and paseos to transit and services, where needed and appropriate. Policy C 7.1.5: In new commercial development, provide for direct, clearly delineated, and preferably landscaped the City of Santa Clarita. However, the project would ensure connectivity of bicycle facilities within the project site to the surrounding areas. Consistent: The proposed project would provide the required bike paths required by the City of Santa Clarita consistent with this Policy. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. However, the project would ensure connectivity of bicycle facilities within the project site to the surrounding areas. Consistent: The proposed project would incorporate bicycle parking/lockers for residents and guests. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Not Applicable: The proposed project would not include commercial uses or other employment opportunities that would require services for bicycle commuters. Consistent: The proposed project would assist in the implementation of this Goal as it would create a safe, walkable community, thereby providing a viable alternative to driving to local destinations. Consistent: The proposed project would include pedestrian connections within and between the project site. Seating areas, shading, lighting, directional signage, accessibility and convenience would be incorporated into the project design. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Not Applicable: The project site does not include barriers that would require grade -separated facilities. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. However, the proposed project would further implementation of this Policy through its inclusion of an extensive pedestrian/bicycle system that would provide direct access to transit and services. Not Applicable: The project does not include commercial development. MetroWalk Specific Plan December 2020 12546 27 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis pedestrian walkways from transit stops and parking areas to building entries, and avoid placement of uses (such as drive -through facilities) in locations that would obstruct Policy C 7.1.6: Encourage placement of building entries in locations accessible to public sidewalks and transit. Policy C 7.1.7: Promote use of pedestrian -oriented scale and design features in areas intended for pedestrian use. Policy C 7.1.8: Upgrade streets that are not pedestrian - friendly due to lack of sidewalk connections, safe street crossing points, vehicle sight distance, or other design deficiencies. Policy C 7.1.9: Promote pedestrian -oriented street design through traffic -calming measures where appropriate, which may include but are not limited to bulb -outs or chokers at intersections, raised crosswalks, refuge islands, striping, and landscaping. Policy C 7.1.10: Continue to expand and improve the Valley's multi -use trail system to provide additional routes for pedestrian travel. Noise Element Noise Environment Goal N 1: A healthy and safe noise environment for Santa Clarita Valley residents, employees, and visitors. Policy N 1.1.1: Use the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines contained on Exhibit N-8, which are consistent with State guidelines, as a policy basis for decisions on land use and development proposals related to noise. Policy N 1.1.2: Continue to implement the adopted Noise Ordinance and other applicable code provisions, consistent with state and federal standards, which establish noise impact thresholds for noise abatement and attenuation, in order to reduce potential health hazards associated with high noise levels. Policy N 1.1.3: Include consideration of potential noise impacts in land use planning and development review decisions. Policy N 1.1.4: Control noise sources adjacent to residential, recreational, and community facilities, and those land uses classified as noise sensitive. Policy N 1.1.5: Monitor and update data and information regarding current and projected noise levels in the planning area. Policy N 1.1.6: Provide development review comments on projects proposed by other agencies and special districts that may generate noise impacts affecting land uses within the Santa Clarita Valley, including any freeway and high-speed rail projects. Consistent: The project would include design features that allow for easy access to public sidewalks and transit. Consistent: The proposed project would incorporate pedestrian -oriented scale and design features in pedestrian areas. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent: The proposed project would incorporate pedestrian -oriented street design. Consistent: The proposed project would incorporate trails to connect to surrounding uses. Consistent: This Goal is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would comply with City requirements regulating construction -related noise. Consistent: During the environmental review process, the Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines would be used to assess the potential noise impacts of the project. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would comply with the Noise Ordinance requirements during project construction and operation. Consistent: The development review and environmental review process would consider potential noise impacts. Consistent: The environmental review process would ensure the proposed project controls noise sources generated during construction and operations. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. MetroWalk Specific Plan December 2020 12546 28 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Reduction of Noise from Traffic I Goal N 2: Protect residents and sensitive receptors from traffic -generated noise. Policy N 2.1.1: Encourage owners of existing noise - sensitive uses, and require owners of proposed noise sensitive land uses, to construct sound barriers to protect users from significant noise levels, where feasible and appropriate. Policy N 2.1.2: Encourage the use of noise absorbing barriers, where appropriate. Policy N 2.1.3: Where appropriate, coordinate with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to ensure that sound walls or other noise barriers are constructed along Interstate 5 and State Route 14 in the immediate vicinity of residential and other noise sensitive developments, where setbacks and other sound alleviation devices do not exist. Policy N 2.1A Reduce significant noise levels related to through -traffic in residential areas by promoting subdivision circulation designs to contain a hierarchy of streets, which efficiently directtraffic to highways. Policy N 2.1.5: Encourage employers to develop van pool and other travel demand management programs to reduce vehicle trip -generated noise in the planning area. Policy N 2.1.6: Work with the City of Santa Clarita Transit to improve and expand current public transit services and routes to reduce vehicle trips and resulting noise levels. Policy N 2.1.7: Require vehicle owners to properly maintain their equipment to avoid generating excessive noise levels. Residential Neighborhoods Goal N 3: Protect residential neighborhoods from excessive noise. Policy N 3.1.1: Require that developers of new single- family and multi -family residential neighborhoods in areas where the ambient noise levels exceed 60 CNEL provide mitigation measures for the new residences to reduce interior noise levels to 45 CNEL, based on future traffic and railroad noise levels. Policy N 3.1.2: Require that developers of new single- family and multi -family residential neighborhoods in areas where the projected noise levels exceed 65 CNEL provide mitigation measures (which may include noise barriers, setbacks, and site design) for new residences to reduce outdoor noise levels to 65 CNEL, based on future traffic conditions. This requirement would apply to rear yard areas for single-family developments, and to private open Consistent: This Goal is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project has been designed in a manner to minimize noise impacts from roadways on sensitive receptors. Consistent: The environmental review process would ensure noise sensitive land uses are protected from significant noise levels. . Consistent: The environmental review process would include such measures listed in this Policy, if appropriate. Consistent: Proposed residential uses within the project site are separated from SR-14 by the Santa Clara River; given the distance between these areas and SR-14, no noise absorbing barriers would be required. That said, the project applicant would coordinate with Caltrans on the identification of a fair- share mitigation fee for off -site sound walls or other noise barriers, if necessary. Consistent: Internal roads within the proposed project would be arranged in a hierarchy, organized byfunction, to facilitate access within and around the project site. Not Molicable. The proposed project would not generate employees. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. The proposed project would, however, locate residential uses in close proximity to transit options. These transit opportunities provided by the proposed project would reduce vehicle trips and subsequently resulting noise levels. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent: The proposed project is designed to minimize excessive noise levels in residential neighborhoods. Consistent: The increase in ambient noise levels would be evaluated as part of the environmental review process. The proposed project would comply with this Policy. Consistent: The increase in noise levels would be evaluated as part of the environmental review process. The proposed project would comply with this Policy. MetroWalk Specific Plan December 2020 12546 29 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis space and common recreational and open space areas for multi- family developments. Policy N 3.1.3: Through enforcement of the applicable Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and Noise Ordinance, protect residential neighborhoods from directed to the City of Santa Clarita. noise generated by machinery or activities that produce significant discernable noise exceeding recommended levels for residential uses. Policy N 3.1A Require that those responsible for Consistent: The proposed project would adhere to the construction activities develop techniques to mitigate or City's Noise Ordinance, which regulates the days and minimize the noise impacts on residences, and adopt times of construction activity. standards that regulate noise from construction activities that occur in or near residential neighborhoods. Policy N 3.1.5: Require that developers of private schools, Consistent: The increase in ambient noise levels would be childcare centers, senior housing, and other noise evaluated as part of the environmental review process. sensitive uses in areas where the ambient noise level The proposed project would comply with this Policy. exceeds 65 dBA (day), provide mitigation measures for these uses to reduce interior noise to acceptable levels. Policy N 3.1.6: Ensure that new residential buildings shall Consistent: The project site is not located within 150 feet not be located within 150 feet of the centerline for of the centerline for Interstate 5. Interstate 5. Policy N 3.1.7: Ensure that design of parks, recreational Consistent: The proposed project design would ensure facilities, and schools minimize noise impacts to thatthe design of parks and recreational facilities residential neighborhoods. minimizes noise impacts to residential neighborhoods. Policy N 3.1.8: As a condition of issuing permits for special Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and events, require event promoters to mitigate noise impacts directed to the City of Santa Clarita. to adjacent sensitive uses through limiting hours of operation and other means as appropriate, which may include notification to affected residents. Policy N 3.1.9: Implement a buyer and renter notification Consistent: The proposed project's disclosure documents program for new residential developments where would make potential buyers and renters aware of the appropriate, to educate and inform potential buyers and railroad tracks, Metrolink Station, Bus Transfer Station renters of the sources of noise in the area and/or new and commercial uses. sources of noise that may occur in the future. As determined by the reviewing authority, notification may be appropriate in the following areas: a. Within one mile of Six Flags Magic Mountain theme park, potential buyers and renters should receive notice that noise may occasionally be generated from this facility and that the frequency and loudness of noise events may change overtime. b. Within 1,000 feet of the railroad, potential buyers and renters should receive notice that noise may occasionally be generated from this facility and thatthe frequency and loudness of noise events may change overtime. c. Within 2OOfeet 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, thatthe commercial uses may change overtime, and the associated noise MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 30 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis levels and frequency of noise events may change along with the use. d. Within 1,000 feet of the Saugus Speedway, in the event speedway operations are resumed in the future. I Commercial and Industrial Noise I Goal N 4: Protection of sensitive uses from commercial and industrial noise generators. Policy N 4.1.1: Implement and enforce the appropriate noise ordinance adopted by the City and the County to control noise from 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/industrial uses and residential neighborhoods and other sensitive uses. Policy N 4.1.3: Adopt and enforce standards for the control of noise from commercial and entertainment establishments when adjacentto residential neighborhoods and other sensitive uses. Conservation and Open Space Goals and Policies Responsible Management of Environmental Systems Goal C0.1: A balance between the social and economic needs of Santa Clarita Valley residents and protection of the natural environment, so that these needs can be met in the present and in the future. Policy CO 1.1.1: In making land use decisions, consider the complex, dynamic, and interrelated ways that natural and human systems interact, such as the interactions between energy demand, water demand, air and water quality, and waste management. Policy CO 1.1.2: In making land use decisions, consider the impacts of human activity within watersheds and ecosystems, to maintain the functional viability of these systems. Policy CO 1.1.3: In making land use decisions, encourage development proposals that preserve natural ecosystem functions and enhance the health of the surrounding community. Policy CO 1.3.2: Promote reducing, reusing, and recycling in all Land Use designations and cycles of development. Policy CO 1.2.1: Improve the communities' understanding of renewable resource systems that occur naturally in the Santa Clarita Valley, including systems related to hydrology, energy, ecosystems, and habitats, and the interrelationships between these systems, through the following measures: a. Through the environmental and development Not Applicable. The proposed project would not include commercial and industrial noise. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would not include commercial and industrial noise generators. Consistent: The project would be appropriately buffered from commercial uses to the north and the Metrolink Station to the west. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would not include commercial and industrial noise generators. Consistent: The project would balance the social and economic needs of Santa Clarita Valley residents while protecting the environment through developing within an area surrounded by development; thereby reducing urban sprawl. Consistent: This Policy is the responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would include energy efficiency measures, a water reclamation plant and use of recycled water, water quality improvements, and waste management measures. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project will consider impacts within the watershed and ecosystem. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would preserve the environment through developing within an area surrounded by development; thereby reducing urban sprawl. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would comply with City requirements related to recycling. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the environmental review process would address impacts of the proposed development on traffic, noise, air quality, and water quality. MetroWalk Specific Plan December 2020 12546 31 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis review processes, consider development proposals within the context of renewable resource systems and evaluate potential impacts on a system -wide basis (rather than a project - specific basis), to the extent feasible; b. In planningfor new regional infrastructure projects, consider impacts on renewable resources within the context of interrelationships between these systems; c. Provide information to decision -makers about the interrelationship between traffic and air quality, ecosystems and water quality, land use patterns and public health, and other similar interrelationships between renewable resource systems in order to ensure that decisions are based on an understanding of these concepts. Policy CO 1.2.2: Working with other agencies as Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and appropriate, develop and apply models and other tools for directed to the City of Santa Clarita. decision -making to support the sustainability of renewable systems. Policy CO 1.3.1: Explore, evaluate, and implement Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to methods to shiftfrom using non-renewable resources to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project use of renewable resources in all aspects of land use would include energy conservation and efficiency planning and development. features. Policy CO 1.3.2: Promote reducing, reusing, and recycling Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to in all Land Use designations and cycles of development. the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would comply with City requirements related to recycling. Policy CO 1.3.3: Provide informational material to the Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and public about programs to conserve non-renewable directed to the City of Santa Clarita. resources and recover materials from the waste stream. Policy CO 1.4.1: In cooperation with other appropriate Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and agencies, identify pollution sources and adopt strategies directed to the City of Santa Clarita. to reduce emissions into air and water bodies. Policy CO 1.4.2: In cooperation with other appropriate Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and agencies, abate or remediate known areas of directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Moreover, the project contamination, and Iimitthe effects of any such areas on site is not known to be contaminated. public health. Policy CO 1.4.3: Encourage use of non -hazardous building Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and materials, and non-polluting materials and industrial directed to the City of Santa Clarita. processes, to the extent feasible. Policy CO 1.4A In cooperation with other appropriate Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and agencies, continue to develop and implement effective directed to the City of Santa Clarita. methods of handling and disposing of hazardous materials and waste. Policy CO 1.5.1: Promote the use of environmentally- Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to responsible building design and efficiency standards in the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the project applicant new development, and provide examples of these will require that each building be designed to meet the standards in public facilities. requirements of the California Building Code, which incorporates the Cal Green and Title 24 Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). In doing so, the Specific Plan will be developed to achieve energy MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 32 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis efficiency, water efficiency, material conservation, and resource efficiency in compliance with the CALGreen Code. Policy CO 1.5.2: Design and manage public urban Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and infrastructure systems to reduce impacts to natural directed to the City of Santa Clarita. systems. Policy CO1.5.3: Consider life -cycles for buildings, Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to development patterns, and uses, and their long-term the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project effects on natural systems, through the following would incorporate energy efficiency measures, use measures: recycled water for irrigation purposes, and incorporate a. Through the environmental review and electric vehicle charging, all of which would reduce development review processes, consider the environmental impacts associated with the entire "life - impacts of new development on renewable cycle" of the project. systems through various phases including construction, use and operation, potential reuse, cessation of use, demolition, and reuse or restoration of the development site. b. Ensure that mitigation measures and conditions of approval intended to protect natural systems are adequately funded and monitored for the required timeframe. Policy CO 1.5.4: Seek ways to discourage human behavior NotAmNicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and that may be detrimental to natural systems and to directed to the City of Santa Clarita. encourage environmental responsibility, through education, incentives, removing barriers, enforcement, and other means as practicable and feasible. Policy CO1.5.5: Promote concentration of urban uses Consistent: The proposed project is an infill development, within the center of the Santa Clarita Valley, through and is surrounded on all sides by existing development. incentives for infill development and rebuilding, in order to limit impacts to open space, habitats, watersheds, hillsides, and other components of the Valley's natural ecosystems. Policy CO 1.5.6: Through the development review Consistent: The proposed project would comply with this process, consider the impacts of development on the Policy entire watershed of the Santa Clara River and its tributaries, including hydromodification. Policy CO1.5.7: Consider the principles of environmental Consistent: The proposed project is adjacent to a multi- sustainability, trip reduction, walkability, stormwater modal transit center (Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer management, and energy conservation at the site, Station) and trail system to reduce vehicle trips and neighborhood, district, city, and regional level, in land use improve walkability. Additionally, the project would decisions. incorporate BMPs to reduce water quality impacts; and, energy efficiency and conservation measures. Policy CO1.5.8: Consider environmental responsibility in Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and all procurement decisions, including purchasing policies directed to the City of Santa Clarita. and capital projects. Policy CO1.6.1: Identify environmental conditions that Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and represent a healthy, sustainable community. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy CO1.6.2: Use Geographic Information Systems, Consistent: Geographic Information Systems modelingwill modeling, and other tools to indicate the locations of be used as appropriate during the environmental review natural systems such as floodplain and floodway areas, process. oak tree woodlands, significant ecological areas, and plant and animal species habitat Policy CO1.6.3: Provide information on the condition of Consistent: The environmental review process will provide MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 33 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis natural systems to decision makers as part of the an analysis of existing natural conditions compared to decision -making process regarding land use and built conditions to inform decision makers. development. Geological Resources Goal CO 2: Conserve the Santa Clarita Valley's hillsides, Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to canyons, ridgelines, soils, and minerals, which provide the the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project is physical setting for the natural and built environments. an infill development and would result in the preservation of the Santa Clarita Valley's hillsides. Policy CO 2.1.1: Review soil erosion and sedimentation Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to control plans for development -related grading activities, the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project where appropriate, to ensure mitigation of potential would comply with City and State requirements related to erosion by water and air. erosion control. Policy CO 2.1.2: Promote conservation of topsoil on Consistent: Stockpiled native topsoil would be utilized development sites by stockpiling for later reuse, where over the bank stabilization for planting of native species. feasible. Policy CO 2.1.3: Promote soil enhancement and waste Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and reduction through composting, where appropriate. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy CO 2.2.1: Locate development and designate land Consistent: The proposed project site is generally flat. uses to minimize the impact on the Santa Clarita Valley's When graded, the project site would mimic natural topography, minimizing grading and emphasizing the use topography, to the extentfeasible. of development pads that mimic the natural topography in lieu of repetitive flat pads, to the extent feasible. Policy CO 2.2.2: Ensure that graded slopes in hillside Not Applicable: The project site is not located in a hillside areas are revegetated with native drought tolerant plants area. or other approved vegetation to blend manufactured slopes with adjacent natural hillsides, in consideration of fire safety requirements. Policy CO 2.2.3: Preserve designated natural ridgelines Not Applicable: The project site does not include a from development by ensuring a minimum distance for designated ridgeline. grading and development from these ridgelines of 50 feet or more if determined preferable by the reviewing authority based on site conditions, to maintain the Santa Clarita Valley's distinctive community character and preserve the scenic setting. Policy CO 2.2A Identify and preserve significant Consistent: There are no significant geological or geological and topographic features through designating topographic features on -site, however the proposed these areas as open space or by other means as project would preserve open space areas on the western appropriate. portion of the site. Policy CO 2.2.5: Promote the use of adequate erosion Not Applicable: The project site is not located in a hillside control measures for all development in hillside areas, area. including single family homes and infrastructure improvements, both during and after construction. Policy CO 2.2.6: Encourage building designs that conform Consistent: The proposed project would utilize building to the natural grade, avoiding the use of large retaining designs that conform to the natural grade. The proposed walls and build-up walls that are visible from offsite, to the project would not include retaining walls visible to off -site extentfeasible and practicable. properties. Policy CO 2.3.1: Identify areas with significant mineral Not Applicable: There are no significant mineral resource resources that are available for extraction through areas on or adjacent to the projectsite. appropriate zoning or overlay designations. Policy CO 2.3.2: Consider appropriate buffers near Not Applicable: There are no significant mineral resource mineral resource areas that are planned for extraction, to areas on or adjacent to the projectsite. provide for land use compatibility and prevent the MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 34 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis encroachment of incompatible land uses. Policy CO 2.3.3: Through the review process for any mining or mineral extraction proposal, ensure mitigation of impacts from mining and processing of materials on adjacent uses or on the community, including but not limited to air and water pollution, traffic and circulation, noise, and land use incompatibility. Policy CO 2.3.4: Ensure that mineral extraction sites are maintained in a safe and secure manner after cessation of extraction activities, which may include the regulated decommissioning of wells, clean-up of any contaminated soils or materials, closing of mine openings, or other measures as deemed appropriate by the agencies having jurisdiction. Policy CO 2.3.5: Promote remediation and restoration of mined land to a condition that supports beneficial uses, which may include but are not limited to recreational open space, habitat enhancement, groundwater recharge, or urban development. Biological Resources Goal CO 3: Conservation of biological resources and ecosystems, including sensitive habitats and species. Policy CO 3.1.1: On the land use map and through the development review process, concentrate development into previously developed or urban areas to promote infill development and prevent sprawl and habitat loss, to the extent feasible. Policy CO 3.1.2: Avoid designating or approving new development that will adversely impact wetlands, floodplains, threatened or endangered species and habitat, and water bodies supporting fish or recreational uses, and establish a buffer area as deemed appropriate through site specific review. Policy CO 3.1.3: On previously undeveloped sites ("greenfields"), identify biological resources and incorporate habitat preservation measures into the site plan, where appropriate. (This policy will generally not apply to urban infill sites, except as otherwise determined by the reviewing agency). Policy CO 3.1.4: For new development on sites with degraded habitat, include habitat restoration measures as part of the project development plan, where appropriate. Policy CO 3.1.5: Promote the use of site -appropriate native or adapted plant materials, and prohibit use of invasive or noxious plant species in landscape designs. Policy CO 3.1.6: On development project sites, preserve and enhance natural site elements including existing water bodies, soil conditions, ecosystems, trees, vegetation and habitat. to the extent feasible. CO 3.1.7: Limit the use of turf -grass on NotAaalicable: Mining is not proposed on the projectsite. Not Applicable: The proposed project would not involve any mining operations. Not Applicable: The proposed project would not involve any mining operations, and the project site was not previously used for mining operations. Consistent: The proposed project is an infill development and would result in the preservation of biological resources and ecosystems. Consistent: The proposed project is an infill development, as the project site is surrounded on all sides by existing and proposed development. Consistent: The proposed project would not adversely impact the referenced environmental resources and would provide an adequate buffer between the project site and the Santa Clara River corridor. Consistent: The proposed project is infill. That said, the environmental review process identifies biological resources and includes mitigation measures, as necessary, that would require habitat preservation and creation. Consistent: The proposed project would enhance the open space areas within the site. Consistent: The proposed project's Landscape Plan would promote the use of native and drought tolerant species, and would prohibit the use of invasive or noxious plant species on the project site. Consistent: The proposed project would preserve and enhance natural site elements. Consistent: The proposed project's Landscape Plan would MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 35 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis development and promote use of native or adapted limit the use of turf and promote the use of native and plantings to promote biodiversity and natural habitat. drought -tolerant plants. Policy CO 3.1.8: On development sites, encourage tree Consistent: The proposed project would plant trees on the plantingto provide habitat and shade to reduce the heat project site. island effect caused by pavement and buildings. Policy CO 3.1.9: During construction, ensure preservation Consistent: The environmental review process would of habitat and trees designated to be protected through ensure the proposed project would comply with this Policy. use of fencing and other means as appropriate, so as to prevent damage by grading, soil compaction, pollution, erosion or other adverse construction impacts. Policy CO 3.1.10: To the extent feasible, encourage the Consistent: The project would encourage open space use of open space to promote biodiversity. areas on the western portion of the project site. Policy CO 3.1.11: Promote use of pervious materials or Consistent: Pervious materials would be utilized on porous concrete on sidewalks to allow for planted area various walkways/trails within the proposed project. infiltration, allow oxygen to reach tree roots (preventing sidewalk lift -up from roots seeking oxygen), and mitigate tree -sidewalk conflicts, in order to maintain a healthy mature urban forest. Policy CO 3.2.1: Protect wetlands from development Consistent. The proposed project would not place the impacts, with the goal of achieving no net loss (or development on wetlands. functional reduction) of jurisdictional wetlands within the planning area. Policy CO 3.2.2: Ensure that development is located and Consistent: The proposed project would preserve a designed to protect oak, sycamore, and other significant protected oak, sycamore, and other significant indigenous indigenous woodlands. woodlands. Policy CO 3.2.3: Ensure protection of any endangered or Consistent: The environmental review process would threatened species or habitat, in conformance with State ensure compliance with this Policy. If necessary, and federal laws. measures would be implemented to ensure protection of any endangered or threatened species or habitat. Policy CO 3.2.4: Protect biological resources in the Consistent: Portions of the project site currently are designated Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) through the located within a designated SEA boundary (i.e., SEA 23). citing and design of development which is highly However, the project proposes a General Plan compatible with the SEA resources. Specific development amendment and a Specific Plan designation that would standards shall be identified to control the types of land change the SEA boundaries to be consistent with use, density, building location and size, roadways and identified sensitive biological resources. other infrastructure, landscape, drainage, and other elements to assure the protection of the critical and important plant and animal habitats of each SEA. In general, the principle shall be to minimize the intrusion and impacts of development in these areas with sufficient controls to adequately protect the resources. Policy CO 3.3.1: Protect the banks and adjacent riparian Consistent: The proposed project would provide adequate habitat along the Santa Clara River and its tributaries, to buffer between the project site and Santa Clara River. provide wildlife corridors. Policy CO 3.3.2: Cooperate with other responsible Not Applicable: The project site is not located in the area agencies to protect, enhance, and extend the Rim of the referenced by the Policy. Valley trail system through Elsmere and Whitney Canyons, and other areas as appropriate, to provide both recreational trails and wildlife corridors Iinkingthe Santa Susana and San Gabriel Mountains. Policy CO 3.3.3: Identify and protect one or more Not Applicable: The project site is not located in the area designated wildlife corridors Iinkingthe Los Padres and referenced bythe Policy. Angeles National Forests through the Valley (the San MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 36 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Gabriel-Castaic connection). Policy CO 3.3.4: Support the maintenance of Santa Clarita Not Applicable: The project site is not located in the area Woodlands Park, a critical component of a cross- referenced bythe Policy. mountain range wildlife habitat corridor linkingthe Santa Monica Mountains to the Angeles and Los Padres National Forests. Policy CO 3.3.5: Encourage connection of natural open Consistent: The proposed project would maintain open space areas in site design, to allow for wildlife movement. space as part of the site design. Policy CO 3.4.1: Coordinate with the United States Forest Not Applicable: The project is not located within nor would Service on discretionary development projects that may it impact a U.S. National Forest. have impacts on the National Forest. Policy CO 3.4.2: Consider principles of forest management Not Applicable: The project site is not adjacentto a U.S. in land use decisions for projects adjacent to the National National Forest. Forest, including limitingthe use of invasive species, discouraging off -road vehicle use, maintaining fuel modification zones and fire access roads, and other measures as appropriate, in accordance with the goals set forth in the Angeles National Forest Land Management Plan. Policy CO 3.4.3: On the Land Use Map, maintain low Not Applicable: The project site is not adjacentto forest density rural residential and open space uses adjacent to land. forest land, and protectthe urban -forest interface area from overdevelopment. Policy CO 3.4.4: Participate as a stakeholder in planning Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and efforts by the United States Forest Service for land uses directed to the City of Santa Clarita. within the National Forest, providing input as appropriate. Policy CO 3.5.1: Continue to plant and maintain trees on Consistent: The proposed project would plant trees on the public lands and within the public right-of-way to provide project site. shade and walkable streets, incorporating measures to ensure that roots have access to oxygen at tree maturity, such as use of porous concrete. Policy CO 3.5.2: Where appropriate, promote planting of Consistent: The proposed project's Landscape Plan would trees that are native or climactically appropriate to the promote the use of climactically appropriate trees, such surrounding environment, emphasizing oaks, sycamores, as oaks, sycamores, and other native species, while maple, walnut, and other native species in order to limiting the use of introduced species. enhance habitat, and discouragingthe use of introduced species such as eucalyptus, pepper trees, and palms except as ornamental landscape features. Policy CO 3.5.3: Protect heritage oak trees pursuant to the Consistent: The proposed project would result in the zoning ordinance that, due to their size and condition, are preservation of a majority of heritage oak trees on the deemed to have exceptional value to the community. project site. Policy CO 3.6.1: Minimize light trespass, sky -glow, glare, Consistent: The proposed project conditions would ensure and other adverse impacts on the nocturnal ecosystem by that future lighti ng wou Id not contribute to nighttime limiting exterior lighting to the level needed for safety and visual pollution and light and glare. comfort; reduce unnecessary lightingfor landscaping and architectural purposes, and encourage reduction of lighting levels during non -business nighttime hours. Policy CO 3.6.2: Reduce impervious surfaces and provide Consistent: The proposed project would consider all of the more natural vegetation to enhance microclimates and design concepts listed in this Policy. provide habitat. In implementing this policy, considerthe following design concepts: a. Consideration of reduced parking requirements, MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 37 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis where supported by a parking study and/or through shared use of parking areas; b. Increased use of vegetated areas around parking lot perimeters; such areas should be designed as bioswales or as otherwise determined appropriate to allow surface water infiltration; c. Use of connected open space areas as drainage infiltration areas in lieu of curbed landscape islands, minimizing the separation of natural and landscaped areas into isolated "islands"; d. Breaking up large expanses of paving with natural landscaped areas planted with shade trees to reduce the heat island effect, along with shrubs and groundcover to provide diverse vegetation for habitat. Policy CO 3.6.3: Restrict use of unauthorized off -road Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to vehicles within sensitive habitat areas through signage, the City of Santa Clarita. fencing, or other means as appropriate. Policy CO 3.6.4: Provide public information and support Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and with demonstration sites at City facilities on gardening directed to the City of Santa Clarita. and landscaping techniques to reduce spread of invasive species and pollution from pesticides and fertilizers that threaten natural ecosystems. Policy CO 3.6.5: Ensure revegetation of graded areas and Consistent: The proposed project would revegetate slopes adjacent to natural open space areas with native graded areas and slopes adjacent to natural areas with plants (consistent with fire prevention requirements). native plants. Policy CO 3.7.1: Supportthe public education programs Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and offered at the Placerita Canyon Natural Area and Ed Davis directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Park (Sonia Thompson Nature Center). Policy CO 3.7.2: Seek opportunities for partnerships with Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and schools, non-profit organizations, and volunteers, to directed to the City of Santa Clarita. increase public access to and information about natural areas. Water Resources Goal CO 4: An adequate supply of clean water to meet the Consistent: The environmental review process would needs of present and future residents and businesses, ensure consistency with this Policy. balanced with the needs of natural ecosystems. Policy CO 4.1.1: In coordination with applicable water Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to suppliers, adopt and implement a water conservation the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project strategy for public and private development. would incorporate water conservation strategies into the project design, including high efficiency irrigation, use of native/drought-resistant landscaping, use of recycled water for non -potable water from the Vista Canyon Water Reclamation Plan, low -flow -rate faucets, low flow -rate toilets. Policy CO 4.1.2: Provide examples of water conservation Consistent: The proposed project would utilize low water in landscaping through use of low water use landscaping use landscaping in public spaces. Additionally, these in public spaces such as parks, landscaped medians and areas would be served by recycled water. parkways, plazas, and around public buildings. Policy CO 4.1.3: Promote low water use landscaping Consistent: The proposed project would utilize low water design into new residential subdivisions and other private use landscaping and would minimize turf -grass areas. development projects, including a reduction in the allowable amount of turf -grass. MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 38 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Policy CO 4.1.4: Provide informational materials to Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to applicants and contractors on the Castaic Lake Water the City of Santa Clarita. That said, as indicated above, Agency's Landscape Education Program, and/or other the proposed project would utilize recycled water for information on xeriscape, native California plants, and irrigation areas and utilize low water use landscaping. water -conserving irrigation techniques as materials become available. Policy CO 4.1.5: Promote the use of low -flow and Consistent: The proposed project would utilize low- flow waterless plumbing fixtures and appliances in all new fixtures and appliances in all residential areas. residential and non-residential development and residential development of five or more dwelling units. Policy CO 4.1.6: Support amendments to the building Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and code that would promote upgrades to water and energy directed to the City of Santa Clarita. efficiency when issuing permits for renovations or additions on existing buildings. Policy CO 4.1.7: Apply water conservation policies to all Consistent: As indicated above, the proposed project pending development projects, including approved would utilize water conservation measures in construction tentative subdivision maps to the extent permitted by law; and landscape design. where precluded from adding requirements by vested entitlements, encourage water conservation in construction and landscape design. Policy CO 4.1.8: Upon the availability of non -potable water Consistent: The proposed project would utilize recycled services, discourage and/or consider restrictions on the water for irrigation purposes. use of potable water for washing outdoor surfaces. Policy CO 4.2.1: In cooperation with the Sanitation District Consistent: As indicated above, recycled water would be and other affected agencies, seek to expand opportunities utilized by the proposed project for irrigation purposes. for use of recycled water for the purposes of landscape maintenance, construction, water recharge, and other uses as appropriate. Policy CO 4.2.2: Require new development to provide the Consistent: As indicated above, the proposed project infrastructure needed for delivery of recycled water to the would use non -potable water from the Vista Canyon Water property for use in irrigation, even if the recycled water Reclamation Plant. The project would construct main delivery lines have not yet reached the site, where appropriate infrastructure for the delivery of such water. deemed appropriate by the reviewing authority. Policy CO 4.2.3: Promote the installation of rainwater Consistent: The proposed project would implement capture and gray water systems in new buildings for sustainable drainage/water quality technologies, such as irrigation, where feasible and practicable. retention and detention systems, biofiltration areas, vegetated swales, and hydromodification. Policy CO 4.2.4: Identify and protect areas with Consistent: The proposed project would include various substantial potential for groundwater recharge, and water quality measures, such as permeable pavement, promote recharge of groundwater basins throughoutthe vegetated swales, and bioretention areas, which would watershed (excludingthe river bed). promote groundwater recharge. Policy CO 4.2.5: Participate and cooperate with other Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and agencies to complete, adopt, and implement an directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Integrated Regional Water Management Plan to build a diversified portfolio of water supply, water quality, and resource stewardship priorities forthe Santa Clarita Valley. Policy CO 4.3.1: On undeveloped sites proposed for Consistent: The proposed project would promote on -site development, promote onsite stormwater infiltration stormwater infiltration through the use of various BMPs. through design techniques such as pervious paving, draining runoff into bioswales or properly designed landscaped areas, preservation of natural soils and vegetation, and limiting impervious surfaces. MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 39 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Policy CO 4.3.2: On previously developed sites proposed Not Applicable: The project site is currently vacant and for major alteration, provide stormwater management undeveloped. improvements to restore natural infiltration, as required by the reviewing authority. Policy CO 4.3.3: Provide flexibility for design standards for Consistent: The proposed project would include smaller street width, sidewalk width, parking, and other street sections, and the use of pervious materials. The impervious surfaces when it can be shown that such project's use of these flexible design standards would reductions will not have negative impacts and will provide benefit stormwater retention, groundwater infiltration, and the benefits of stormwater retention, groundwater other environmental areas while not creating negative infiltration, reduction of heat islands, enhancement of impacts. habitat and biodiversity, saving of significant trees or planting of new trees, or other environmental benefit. Policy CO 4.3.4: Encourage and promote the use of new Consistent: The proposed project would incorporate materials and technology for improved stormwater stormwater management into the project design through management, such as pervious paving, green roofs, the use of sustainable drainage/water quality raingardens, and vegetated swales. technologies, such as retention and detention systems, biofiltration areas, vegetated swales, and hyd romod ification. Policy CO 4.3.5: Where detention and retention basins or Consistent: The proposed project would integrate ponds are required, seek methods to integrate these detention basins into the project design. areas into the landscaping design of the site as amenity areas, such as a network of small ephemeral swales treated with attractive planting. Policy CO 4.3.6: Discourage the use of mounded turf and Consistent: The proposed project would minimize turf and lawn areas which drain onto adjacent sidewalks and lawn areas and primarily utilize native and drought parking lots, replacing these areas with landscape tolerant plant materials in a design that would retain designs that retain runoff and allow infiltration. runoff and permit infiltration. Policy CO 4.3.7: Reduce the amount of pollutants entering Consistent: The proposed project would include an the Santa Clara River and its tributaries by capturing and extensive water quality plan that would capture and treat treating stormwater runoff at the source, to the extent stormwater runoff at the lot and project levels. possible. Policy CO 4.4.1: Cooperate with the Los Angeles County Not Applicable: The Policy is a responsibility of and Sanitation District and Regional Water Quality Control directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Board as appropriate to achieve Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) standards for chlorides in the Santa Clara River. Policy CO 4.4.2: Support the cooperative efforts of Not Applicable: The project site is not located within or property owners and appropriate agencies to eliminate adjacent to the Whittaker-Bermite site. perchlorate contamination on the Whittaker-Bermite property and eliminate the use of any industrial chemicals or wastes in a manner thatthreatens groundwater quality. Policy CO 4.4.3: Discourage the use of chemical fertilizers, Consistent: The proposed project would utilize BMPs to herbicides and pesticides in landscaping to reduce water limit or eliminate the use of herbicides and pesticides on pollution by substances hazardous to human health and the project site. natural ecosystems. Policy CO 4.4.4: Promote the extension of sanitary sewers Consistent: The project would still connect to the sanitary for all urban uses and densities, to protect groundwater sewer system and dispose of all solids into the system. quality, where feasible. The project would not include the use of any septic systems. Cultural and Historical Resources Goal CO 5: Protection of historical and culturally Consistent: The project site does not include other natural significant resources that contribute to community identity or historic conditions of significance MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 40 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis and a sense of history. Policy CO 5.1.1: For sites identified on the Historical Not Applicable: The project site does not contain any sites Resources Map, review appropriate documentation prior identified on the referenced Historical Resources Map. to issuance of any permits for grading, demolition, alteration, and/or new development, to avoid significant adverse impacts. Such documentation may include cultural resource reports, environmental impact reports, or other information as determined to be adequate by the reviewing authority. Policy CO 5.1.2: Review any proposed alterations to Not Applicable: The project site does not contain any sites cultural and historic sites identified in the Historical listed in the referenced Santa Clarita Valley Planning Area Resources in the Santa Clarita Valley Planning Area Table Table. or other sites which are so designated, based on the guidelines contained in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Properties (Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 1, Part 68, also known as 36 CFR 68), or other adopted City guidelines. Policy CO 5.1.3: As new information about other Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and potentially significant historic and cultural sites becomes directed to the City of Santa Clarita. available, update the Cultural and Historical Resources Inventory and apply appropriate measures to all identified sites to protect their historical and cultural integrity. Policy CO 5.2.1: In keeping with the Downtown Newhall Not Applicable: The project site is not located in Newhall. Specific Plan policies, ensure thatthe scale and character of new development is compatible with and does not detractfrom the context of historic buildings and block patterns. Policy CO 5.2.2: Support expansion and enhancement of Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and a city historical park adjacent to the Pioneer Oil Refinery directed to the City of Santa Clarita. to illustrate historic oil operations in the Valley. Policy CO 5.2.3: Ensure that all aspects of community Not Applicable: The project site is not located in Newhall. design in Newhall, including street furniture, lighting, trash collection and storage areas, seating, and other accessory structures, are of a design and scale appropriate for the historic character of the district, while maintaining a sense of authenticity. Policy CO 5.2.4: Continue to support "Heritage Junction" Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and and the historical museum within William S. Hart Park as directed to the City of Santa Clarita. historical resources that illustrate the various phases of settlement within the Santa Clarita Valley. Policy CO 5.3.1: For any proposed general plan Consistent: As required by this Policy, the project applicant amendment, specific plan, or specific plan amendment, will consult with any California Native American tribes on notify and consult with any California Native American the contact list maintained by the Native American tribes on the contact list maintained by the California Heritage Commission that have traditional lands located Native American Heritage Commission that have within the City's jurisdiction, and consider the input traditional lands located within the City's jurisdiction, received in the development decision. regarding any potential impacts to Native American resources from the proposed action, pursuant to State guidelines. Policy CO 5.3.2: For any proposed development project Consistent: As required by this Policy, the City will consult that may have a potential impact on Native American with any California Native American tribe on the contact cultural resources, provide notification to California Native list maintained by the Native American Heritage MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 41 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis American tribes on the contact list maintained by the Commission that have traditional lands located within the Native American Heritage Commission that have City's jurisdiction, and consider the input received in the traditional lands located within the City's jurisdiction, and development decision. consider the input received in the development decision. Policy CO 5.3.3: Review and consider a cultural resources Consistent: The environmental review process with review study for any new grading or development in areas and consider a cultural resources study. identified as having a high potential for Native American resources, and incorporate recommendations into the project approval as appropriate to mitigate impacts to cultural resources. Scenic Resources Goal CO C: Preservation of scenic features that keep the Consistent: The dominant topographic feature near the Santa Clarita Valley beautiful and enhance quality of life, project site is the Santa Clara River, which would not be community identity, and property values. altered by the proposed project. Policy CO 6.1.1: Protect scenic canyons, as described in Not Applicable: The project site is not located in a scenic Part I of this element, from overdevelopment and canyon. environmental degradation. Policy CO 6.1.2: Preserve significant ridgelines, as shown Not Applicable: The project site is not located along or on the Scenic Resources Map, as a scenic backdrop adjacent to an identified significant ridgeline. throughout the community by maintaining natural grades and vegetation. Policy CO 6.1.3: Protect the scenic quality of unique Not Applicable: There are no unique geologic features geologic features throughoutthe planning area, such as located on the project site. Vasquez Rocks, by includingthese features within park and open space land, where possible. Policy CO 6.3.1: Supportthe efforts of Los Angeles County Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and to protectthe shores of Castaic Lake to preserve its scenic directed to the County of Los Angeles. Further, the project qualityfrom development. site is not located adjacent to Castaic Lake. Policy CO 6.3.2: Protect the banks of the Santa Clara River Consistent: The Santa Clara River would not be altered by and its major tributaries through open space designations the proposed project.. and property acquisitions, where feasible, to protect and enhance the scenic character of the river valley. Policy CO 6.4.1: Preserve scenic habitat areas within Consistent: The proposed project would provide open designated open space or parkland, wherever possible. space and recreational resources within the project site. Policy CO 6.4.2: Through the development review process, Consistent: The proposed project would provide open ensure that new development preserves scenic habitat space and recreational resource within the project site. areas to the extent feasible. Policy CO 6.5.1: In approving new development projects, Not Applicable: The project site is not located near or consider scenic views at major entry points to the Santa adjacent to an entry point to the Santa Clarita Valley. Clarita Valley, including gateways located at Newhall Pass and along Lake Hughes Road, Route 126, Bouquet Canyon Road, Sierra Highway, State Route 14, and other locations as deemed appropriate by the reviewing authority. Policy CO 6.5.2: Establish scenic routes in appropriate Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and locations as determined by the reviewing agency, and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Further, the project adopt guidelines for these routes to maintain their site is not located along a scenic route. scenic character. Policy CO 6.6.1: Enhance views of the night sky by Consistent: The proposed project would minimize or reducing light pollution through use of light screens, reduce light pollution consistent with the requirements of downward directed lights, minimized reflective paving this Policy. surfaces, and reduced lighting levels, as deemed MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 42 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis I appropriate by the reviewing authority. I I Policy CO 6.6.2: Improve views of the Valley through various policies to minimize air pollution and smog, as contained throughout the General Plan. Policy CO 6.6.3: Restrict establishment of billboards throughout the planning area, and continue abatement efforts to remove existing billboards that impact scenic views. Policy CO 6.6.4: Where appropriate, require new development to be sensitive to scenic viewpoints and/or viewsheds through building design, site layout and building heights. Policy CO 6.6.5: Encourage undergrounding of all new utility lines, and promote undergrounding of existing lines where feasible and practicable. Air Quality Goal CO 7: Clean air to protect human health and support healthy ecosystems. Policy CO 7.1.1: Through the mixed land use patterns and multi -modal circulation policies set forth in the Land Use and Circulation Element, limit air pollution from transportation sources. Policy CO 7.1.2: Supportthe use of alternative fuel vehicles. Policy CO 7.1.3: Support alternative travel modes and new technologies, including infrastructure to support alternative fuel vehicles, as they become commercially available. 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. Policy CO 7.3.1: Coordinate with local, regional, state, and federal agencies to develop and implement regional air aualitv Dolicies and Droaframs. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goal CO 8: Development designed to improve energy efficiency, reduce energy and natural resource consumption, and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Consistent: The project is a transit -oriented development that seeks to minimize emissions by developing residential uses in proximity to transit opportunities. NotADDlicable: The project site would not include any billboards. Consistent: The proposed project is designed in a manner that is sensitive to scenic viewpoints and/or viewsheds through building design, site layout and building heights. Consistent: Dry utilities will be located within underground conduits, including telephone lines which will be constructed underground throughout the site within phases. Consistent: This Goal is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. In addition, the project is a transit -oriented development that seeks to minimize emissions by developing residential uses in proximity to transit opportunities. Consistent: The proposed project would be a transit oriented development. The proposed project design promotes walkability through locating service and transit uses within walking distance of all residential uses on -site, thereby reducing air pollution from transportation sources. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would include electric vehicle charging stations. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would include electric vehicle charging stations. Consistent: The proposed project would not place any sensitive uses adjacent to high traffic freeways and roads, distribution centers, truck stops; chrome plating facilities, dry cleaners and large gas stations. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent: The project applicant will require that each building be designed to meet the requirements of the California Building Code, which incorporates the Cal Green and Title 24 Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). In doing so, the Specific Plan will be developed to achieve energy efficiency, water efficiency, material conservation, and resource efficiency in compliance with the CALGreen Code. As discussed previously, the project design MetroWalk Specific Plan December 2020 12546 43 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis incorporates various water conservation measures and transit services that would reduce natural resource consumption. Policy CO 8.1.1: Create and adopt a Climate Action Plan Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and that meets State requirements and includes the following directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the components: proposed Specific Plan includes a Sustainability Plan that a. Plans and programs to reduce GHG emissions to identifies the project's sustainable development State- mandated targets, including enforceable attributes. reduction measures; b. Mechanisms to ensure regular review of progress towards the emission reduction targets established by the Climate Action Plan; c. Procedures for reporting on progress to officials and the public; d. Procedures for revisingthe plan as needed to meet GHG emissions reduction targets; e. Allocation of funding and staff ingfor plan implementation. Policy CO 8.1.2: Participate in the preparation of a Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and regional Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) Plan to directed to the City of Santa Clarita. meet regional targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions, per SB 375. Policy CO 8.1.3: Revise codes and ordinances as needed Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to to address energy conservation, including but not limited the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the project applicant to the following: will require that each building be designed to meet the a. Strengthen building codes for new construction requirements of the California Building Code, which and renovation to achieve a higher level of energy incorporates the Cal Green and Title 24 Building efficiency, with a goal of exceeding energy Standards Code (CALGreen Code). In doing so, the efficiency beyond that required by Title 24; Specific Plan will be developed to achieve energy b. Adopt a Green Building Program to encourage efficiency, water efficiency, material conservation, and green building practices and materials, along with resource efficiency in compliance with the CALGreen appropriate ordinances and incentives; Code. c. Promote orientation of buildings to maximize passive solar heating during cool seasons, avoid solar heat gain during hot periods, enhance natural ventilation, promote effective use of daylight, and optimize opportunities for on- site solar generation; d. Encourage mitigation of the "heat island" effect through use of cool roofs, light-colored paving, and shading to reduce energy consumption for air conditioning. Policy CO 8.1.4: Provide information and education to the Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and public about energy conservation and local strategies to directed to the City of Santa Clarita. address climate change. Policy CO 8.1.5: Coordinate various activities within the Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and community and agency related to GHG emissions directed to the City of Santa Clarita. reduction activities. Policy CO 8.2.1: Ensure that all new City buildings, and all Not Applicable: The proposed project does not include any major renovations and additions, meet adopted green new, renovated or remodeled City buildings. building standards, with a goal of achieving the LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Silver rating or above, where appropriate. MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 44 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Policy CO 8.2.2: Ensure energy efficiency of existing public Not Applicable: The project site does not include any buildings through energy audits and repairs, and retrofit existing public buildings. buildings with energy efficient heating and air conditioning systems and lighting fixtures, with a goal of completing energy repairs in City facilities by 2012. Policy CO 8.2.3: Support purchase of renewable energy Not Applicable: The proposed project does not include any for public buildings, which may include installing solar public buildings. photovoltaic systems to generate electricity for city buildings and operations and other methods as deemed appropriate and feasible, in concert with significant energy conservation efforts. Policy CO 8.2.4: Establish maximum lighting levels for Consistent: The project applicant would include provisions public facilities, and encourage reduction of lighting levels within the project covenant, codes and restrictions to the level needed for security purposes after business (CC&Rs) that would restrict outdoor lighting during hours, in addition to use of downward -directed lighting overnight hours to security lighting only. and use of low -reflective paving surfaces. Policy CO 8.2.5: Support installation of photovoltaic and Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to other renewable energy equipment on public facilities, in the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the project would concert with significant energy conservation efforts. include EV charging spaces for the multifamily residential u nits. Policy CO 8.2.6: Promote use of solar lighting in parks and Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to along paseos and trails, where practicable. the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would promote the use of solar lighting in open space areas, where appropriate. Policy CO 8.2.7: Support the use of sustainable alternative NotAaalicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and fuel vehicles for machinery and fleets, where practicable, directed to the City of Santa Clarita. by evaluating fuel sources, manufacturing processes, maintenance costs and vehicle lifetime use. Policy CO 8.2.8: Promote the purchase of energy -efficient Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and and recycled products, and vendors and contractors who directed to the City of Santa Clarita. use energy -efficient vehicles and products, consistent with adopted purchasing policies. Policy CO 8.2.9: Reduce heat islands through installation Consistent: The proposed project would include the of trees to shade parking lots and hardscapes, and use of plantingtrees in accordance with the Landscape Plan, light-colored reflective paving and roofing surfaces. which would provide shade for parking areas and hardscapes. Additionally, the proposed project would utilize light- colored reflective paving and roofing surfaces, where appropriate. Policy CO 8.2.10: Support installation of energy -efficient Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to traffic control devices, street lights, and parking lot lights. the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the project applicant is committed to working with the City of Santa Clarita and Southern California Edison to evaluate the feasibility of an energy efficiency municipal lighting program. Policy CO 8.2.11: Implement recycling in all public Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to buildings, parks, and public facilities, including for special the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project events. would comply with all City recycling requirements. Policy CO 8.2.12: Provide ongoingtraining to appropriate Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and City employees on sustainable planning, building, and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. engineering practices. Policy CO 8.2.13: Support trip reduction strategies for Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and employees as described in the Circulation Element. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy CO 8.3.1: Evaluate site plans proposed for new Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 45 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis development based on energy efficiency pursuant to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) would be located in an infill site that is surrounded by standards for New Construction and Neighborhood existing and proposed multi -family and single-family uses, Development, including the following: commercial, and transit. Thus, the proposed project is in a) location efficiency; an efficient location, away from habitat that would b) environmental preservation; contribute to urban sprawl. c) compact, complete, and connected neighborhoods; and d) resource efficiency, including use of recycled materials and water. Policy CO 8.3.2: Promote construction of energy efficient Consistent: The proposed project incorporates energy buildings through requirements for LEED certification or efficiency measures into the design. Additionally, the through comparable alternative requirements as adopted applicant is committed to use "Energy Star" equipment. by local ordinance. Policy CO 8.3.4: Encourage new residential development Consistent: The proposed project would incorporate to include on -site solar photovoltaic systems, or prewiring, designated spaces on the roof plans to allow for future in at least 50% of the residential units, in concert with roof panels, in concert with the energy efficiency other significant energy conservation efforts. measures summarized above (e.g., Title 24 exceedance; use of Energy Star appliances; recycled water use). Policy CO 8.3.5: Encourage on -site solar generation of Not Applicable: The proposed project would not include electricity in new retail and office commercial buildings retail and office commercial buildings. and associated parking lots, carports, and garages, in concert with other significant energy conservation efforts. Policy CO 8.3.6: Encourage new development to use Consistent: The proposed project would be designed in a passive solar heating and cooling techniques in building manner to encourage passive solar heating and cooling design and construction, which may include but are not techniques. be limited to building orientation, clerestory windows, skylights, placement and type of windows, overhangs to shade doors and windows, and use of light colored roofs and paving materials. Policy CO 8.3.7: Encourage the use of trees and Consistent: The proposed project would include the landscaping to reduce heating and cooling energy loads, planting of trees in accordance with the Landscape Plan, through shading of buildings and parking lots. which would reduce heating and cooling energy loads. Policy CO 8.3.8: Encourage energy -conserving heating and Consistent: The project applicant will require that each cooling systems and appliances, and energy -efficiency in building be designed to meet the requirements of the windows and insulation, in all new construction. California Building Code, which incorporates the Cal Green and Title 24 Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). In doing so, the Specific Plan will be developed to achieve energy efficiency, water efficiency, material conservation, and resource efficiency in compliance with the CALGreen Code. In addition, Energy Star major appliances would be utilized, where available. Policy CO 8.3.9: Limit excessive lighting levels, and Consistent: The proposed project would minimize lighting encourage a reduction of lighting when businesses are levels, consistent with this Policy and as required by the closed to a level required for security. City. Policy CO 8.3.10: Provide incentives and technical Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and assistance for installation of energy -efficient directed to the City of Santa Clarita. improvements in existing and new buildings. Policy CO 8.3.11: Consider allowing carbon off -sets for Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and large development projects, if appropriate, which may directed to the City of Santa Clarita. include funding off -site projects or purchase of credits for MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 46 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis other forms of mitigation, provided that any such mitigation shall be measurable and enforceable. Policy CO 8.4.1: Encourage and promote the location of Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and enclosed materials recovery facilities (MRF) within the directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Santa Clarita Valley. Policy CO 8.4.2: Adopt mandatory residential recycling Consistent: Recycling areas would be provided for future programs for all residential units, including single-family residents within the proposed project. and multi -family dwellings. Policy CO 8.4.3: Allow and encourage composting of Consistent: The proposed project would provide open greenwaste, where appropriate. space for active and passive recreation. Composting of greenwaste could occur within the project site, if appropriate. Policy CO 8.4.4: Promote commercial and industrial Not Applicable: The proposed project does not include recycling, including recycling of construction and commercial and industrial uses. demolition debris. Policy CO 8.4.5: Develop and implement standards for Consistent: The proposed project would provide recycling refuse and recycling receptacles and enclosures to areas as required by the City. accommodate recycling in all development. Policy CO 8.4.6: Introduce and assist with the placement Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and of receptacles for recyclable products in public places, directed to the City of Santa Clarita. including at special events. Policy CO 8.4.7: Provide information to the public on Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and recycling opportunities and facilities, and support various directed to the City of Santa Clarita. locations and events to promote public participation in recycling. Policy CO 8.4.8: Take an active role in promoting, Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and incubating, and encouraging businesses that would directed to the City of Santa Clarita. qualify under the Recycling Market Development Zone program or equivalent, including those that manufacture products made from recycled products, salvage, and resource recovery business parks. Park Recreation, and Trail Facilities Goal CO 9: Equitable distribution of park, recreational, and Consistent: The proposed project includes extensive open trail facilities to serve all areas and demographic needs of space, recreation opportunities, and public/private parks existing and future residents. featuring 147,854 square feet of common open space, including a gym, pool, parkways, and trails, and 63,554 square feet of private open space dedicated to rear yards and private patio decks/balconies. Policy CO 9.1.1: Common park standards shall be Consistent: The proposed project would comply with the developed and applied throughoutthe Santa Clarita City's policy of requiring five acres of parkland per 1,000 Valley, consistent with community character objectives, residents. with a goal of five acres of parkland per 1000 population. Policy CO 9.1.2: A range of parkland types, sizes, and uses Consistent: The proposed project includes extensive open shall be provided to accommodate recreational and space, recreation opportunities, and public/private parks leisure activities. featuring 147,854 square feet of common open space, including a gym, pool, parkways, and trails, and 63,554 square feet of private open space dedicated to rear yards and private patio decks/balconies. Policy CO 9.1.3: Provide local and community parks within Consistent: The proposed project's open space would be a reasonable distance of residential neighborhoods. within walking distance from the proposed residential u n its. Policy CO 9.1.4: Explore and implement opportunities to Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 47 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis share facilities with school districts, utility easements, directed to the City of Santa Clarita. flood control facilities, and other land uses, where feasible. Policy CO 9.1.5: Promote development of more playfields Consistent: The proposed project's open space includes for youth and adult sports activities, in conjunction with play areas for youth and adult activities. tournament facilities, where needed. Policy CO 9.1.6: Continue to upgrade and expand existing Not Applicable: The project site does not include any facilities to enhance service to residents, including existing park and recreation facilities. extension of hours through lighted facilities, where appropriate. Policy CO 9.1.7: Establish appropriate segments of the Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and Santa Clara River as a recreational focal point, directed to the City of Santa Clarita. encouraging a beneficial mix of passive and active recreational uses with natural ecosystems by providing buffers for sensitive habitat. Policy CO 9.1.8: Make available easily accessible park Consistent: The proposed project would provide passive and recreation facilities throughout the community. and active recreation. These areas would be readily accessible from the residential uses. Policy CO 9.1.9: Ensure that new development projects Consistent: The proposed project would comply with the provide a fair share towards park and recreational City's policy of requiring five acres of parkland per 1,000 facilities, phased to meet needs of residents as dwelling residents. units become occupied, pursuant to the Quimby Act (California Government Code Section 66477) and local ordinances as applicable. Policy CO 9.1.10: Where appropriate, use flexible planning Consistent: The proposed project would comply with the and zoning tools to obtain adequate park and open space City's policy of requiring five acres of parkland per 1,000 land, including but not limited to specific plans, residents. development agreements, clustering, and transfer of development rights. Policy CO 9.1.11: Locate and design parks to address Consistent: The open space would act as buffer between potential adverse impacts on adjacent development from the proposed project and the proposed Metrolink Station. noise, lights, flying balls, traffic, special events, and other The proposed project's other recreational areas would be operational activities and uses. integrated in the project and would provide active and passive recreational opportunities for future residents. Policy CO 9.1.12: Establish minimum design standards for Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and both public and private parks to provide for public safety directed to the City of Santa Clarita. and welfare through lighting, access, crime prevention through design, equipment, visibility, and other aspects of design. Policy CO 9.1.13: Provide passive areas for natural Consistent: The project's proposed open space would habitat, meditation, bird -watching, and similar activities in include passive areas for natural habitat, meditation, bird - parks, where feasible and appropriate, including watching and similar activities. meditation gardens, wildflower and butterfly gardens, botanicgardens, and similar features. Policy CO 9.1.14: Ensure adequate park maintenance, Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and and encourage programs for volunteers to assist in directed to the City of Santa Clarita. maintaining local parks, where feasible and appropriate. Policy CO 9.1.15: Provide a wide variety of recreational Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and programs geared to all ages and abilities, including directed to the City of Santa Clarita. passive, active, educational, and cultural programs. Policy CO 9.2.1: Plan for a continuous and unified multi- Consistent: The proposed project would include use trail network for a variety of users, to be developed approximately 1,125-foot-long meandering and centrally with common standards, in order to unify Santa Clarita located multi -use path to connect with Metro Plaza, MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 48 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Valley communities and connect with regional and state Metrolink Station, Vista Canyon, and the City Master Trail trails such as the Pacific Crest Trail. System. Policy CO 9.2.2: Provide trail connections between Consistent: The proposed project would include paseos, bike routes, schools, parks, community services, approximately 1,125-foot-long meandering and centrally streets and neighborhoods. located multi -use path to connect with Metro Plaza, Metrolink Station, Vista Canyon, and the City Master Trail System. Policy CO 9.2.3: Use the Santa Clara River as a major Not Applicable: The Santa Clara River is not within the recreational focal point for development of an integrated project site. system of bikeways and trails, while protecting sensitive ecological areas. Policy CO 9.2.4: Ensure that new development projects Consistent: The proposed project would include provide trail connections to local and regional trail approximately 1,125-foot-long meandering and centrally systems, where appropriate. located multi -use path to connect with Metro Plaza, Metrolink Station, Vista Canyon, and the City Master Trail System. Policy CO 9.2.5: Promote the expansion of multi -use trails Consistent: The proposed projecttrails would be multi -use within rural areas of the Santa Clarita Valley. (bike, pedestrian, equestrian). Policy CO 9.2.6: Provide trails to scenic vistas and Consistent: The proposed project would include connect viewpoints. to existingtrails, providing users with views from Mitchell Hill across the Santa Clara River. Policy CO 9.2.7: Explore joint use opportunities to Consistent: The project would include multi -use trails, combine trail systems with utility easements, flood control which could be utilized forflood control purposes, and facilities, open spaces, or other uses, where feasible. various utility easements. Policy CO 9.2.8: Ensure that trails are designed to protect Consistent: The multi -use trails would protect habitat, habitat, ecosystems, and water quality. ecosystems, and water quality. Policy CO 9.2.9: Pursue fundingfortrail maintenance and Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and encourage volunteer participation in trail maintenance directed to the City of Santa Clarita. programs, where appropriate. Open Space Goal CO 10: Preservation of open space to meet the Consistent: The proposed project includes extensive open community's multiple objectives for resource space, recreation opportunities, and public/private parks. preservation. Policy CO 10.1.1: Provide and protect a natural greenbelt Not Applicable: The project site is not located in areas buffer area surrounding the entire Santa Clarita Valley, referenced by this Policy. which includes the Angeles National Forest, Santa Susana, San Gabriel, and Sierra Pelona Mountains, as a regional recreational, ecological, and aesthetic resource. Policy CO 10.1.2: The Santa Clara River corridor and its Not Applicable: The project site is not located on the Santa major tributaries shall be preserved as open space to Clara River corridor. accommodate storm water flows and protect critical plant and animal species, as follows: a. Uses and improvements within the corridor shall be limited to those that benefit the community's use of the river in its natural state. b. Development on properties adjacent to, but outside of the defined primary river corridor shall be: i. Located and designed to protect the river's water quality, plants, and animal habitats, by controlling the type and density of uses, drainage runoff (water MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 49 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis treatment) and other relevant elements; and ii. Designed to maximize the full range of river amenities, including views and recreational access, while minimizing adverse impacts to the river. Policy CO1O.1.3: Through dedications and acquisitions, Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and obtain open space needed to preserve and protect wildlife directed to the City of Santa Clarita. corridors and habitat, which may include land within SEA's, wetlands, woodlands, water bodies, and areas with threatened or endangered flora and fauna. Policy CO1O.1.4: Maintain and acquire, where Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and appropriate, open space to preserve cultural and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. The project site does historical resources. not contain historical resources. Policy CO1O.1.5: Maintain open space corridors along Not Applicable: The project site is generally flat and does canyons and ridgelines as a way of delineating and not include canyons or ridgelines. defining communities and neighborhoods, providing residents with access to natural areas, and preserving scenic beauty. Policy CO1O.1.6: Delineate open space uses within Consistent: The project site is adequately buffered from hazardous areas to protect public health and safety, seismic ruptures, flooding wildfires, and unsafe levels of which may include areas subjectto seismic rupture, noise or air pollution. flooding, wildfires, or unsafe levels of noise or air pollution. Policy CO1O.1.7: Acquire adequate open space for Consistent: The proposed project includes extensive open recreational uses, coordinating location and type of open space, recreation opportunities, and public/private parks. space with master plans for trails and parks. Policy CO1O.1.8: Encourage the use of vacant lots as Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and community gardens, where appropriate. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy CO1O.1.9: Preserve forested areas, agricultural Consistent: The proposed project would include lands, wildlife habitat and corridors, wetlands, approximately 147,854 square feet of common open watersheds, groundwater recharge areas, and other open space space that provides natural carbon sequestration benefits. Policy CO1O.1.1O: Ensure thatthe open space acquisition Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and plan developed pursuant to the 2007 Open Space District directed to the City of Santa Clarita. formation conforms to General Plan goals and objectives. Policy CO1O.1.11: Partner with conservation agencies Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and and other entities to acquire and maintain open space, directed to the City of Santa Clarita. combining funding and other resources forjoint-use projects, where appropriate. Policy CO1O.1.12: Identify, pursue, and ensure adequate Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and funding sources to maintain open space areas. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy CO1O.1.13: Provide reasonable accommodation to Consistent: The proposed project would include ensure that residents throughout the Santa Clarita Valley connections to Citywide trails, which would provide equal have equal access to open space areas, in consideration access to open space areas and health benefits to of the health benefits to residents from access to nature. residents from access to nature. Policy CO1O.1.14: Protect open space from human Consistent: The proposed project would develop on an activity that may harm or degrade natural areas, including infill site, thereby reducing human activity in open space but not limited to off road motorized vehicles, vandalism, areas. campfires, overuse, pets, noise, excessive lighting, dumping, or other similar activities. Policy CO1O.1.15: In conformance with State law, ensure Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 50 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis that any action by which open space land is acquired or disposed of, restricted, or regulated, be consistent with the open space plan contained in this element. Policy CO1O.1.16: In conformance with State law, ensure that all development is consistent with the open space plan contained in this element. Policy CO 1O.1.17: Allow alternative energy projects in areas designated for open space, where consistent with other uses and values. Policy CO1O.2.1: Encourage provision of vegetated open space of a development project's gross site area, which may include shallow wetlands and ponds, drought resistant landscaping, and pedestrian hardscape that includes a vegetated area. Policy CO1O.2.2: Encourage that open space provided within development projects be usable and accessible, rather than configured in unusable strips and left -over remnants, and that open space areas are designed to connect to each other and to adjacent open spaces, to the extent reasonable and practicable. Policy CO1O.2.3: Where feasible, integrate open space areas with neighboring uses and parcels, to create shared amenities and green spaces. Policy CO1O.2.4: Seek opportunities to incorporate site features into the open space of a project design, which may include significant trees, vegetation, terrain, or water features, to provide thermal, acoustic, and aesthetic benefits. Policy CO1O.2.5: Where appropriate, allow density transfers and clusteringto encourage retention of open Safety Element Geological Hazards Goal S 1: Protection of public safety and property from hazardous geological conditions, including seismic rupture and ground shaking, soil instability, and related hazards. Policy S 1.1.1: Maintain maps of potentially active faults and fault zones, based on information available from the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone maps, United States Geological Survey, State Board of Geologists, State Mining and Geology Board, and other appropriate sources. Policy S 1.1.2: Maintain maps of areas subject to liquefaction and landslides, based on data provided by the State and other appropriate sources. Policy S 1.1.3: In the event of significant incidents of soil subsidence, compile data and prepare maps showing areas with potential for this hazard. Policy S 1.1.4: Maintain maps showing potential inundation areas from dam failure. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, it should be noted that the proposed project would include an on -site EV charging stations. Consistent: The proposed project would incorporate vegetated open space. Drought resistant landscaping and water quality features, such as shallow wetlands and vegetated swales, would be incorporated into these open space areas. Consistent: The proposed project would include an extensive system that would connect various useable and accessible open space areas. Consistent: Open space and recreational areas would be integrated with neighboring uses. Consistent: The proposed projectwould include the incorporation of site features into open space areas. Not Applicable. The project would not include clustering. Consistent: The environmental review process would address potential geotechnical impacts and mitigation measures, as required. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the project site does not include any potentially active faults. Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would mitigate any potential liquefaction impacts. NotADDlicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Moreover, there is no dam upstream of the projectsite. MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 51 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Policy S 1.2.1: Implement requirements of the Alquist- Not Applicable: The project site is not located in an Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. Priolo Earthquake fault area. Policy S 1.2.2: Restrict the land use type and intensity of Consistent: The environmental review process would development in areas subject to fault rupture, landslides, address potential geotechnical impacts and mitigation or liquefaction, in order to limit exposure of people to measures, as required. seismic hazards. Policy S 1.2.3: Require soils and geotechnical reports for Consistent: A geotechnical report will be prepared for the new construction in areas with potential hazards from proposed project. faulting, landslides, liquefaction, or subsidence, and incorporate recommendations from these studies into the site design as appropriate. Policy S 1.2.4: Enforce seismic design and building Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and techniques in local building codes. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy S 1.2.5: Consider the potential for inundation from Not Applicable: The project site would not be affected by a failure of the Castaic or Bouquet Canyon Reservoir dams failure of the Castaic or Bouquet Canyon Reservoir dams. when reviewing development proposals within potential inundation areas. Policy S 1.3.1: Identify any remaining unreinforced NotADDlicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and masonry buildings or other unstable structures, and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. require remediation or seismic retrofitting as needed to meet seismic safety requirements. Policy S 1.3.2: Increase earthquake safety in all public Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and facilities through bracing of shelves, cabinets, equipment directed to the City of Santa Clarita. and other measures as deemed appropriate. Policy S 1.3.3: Provide informational materials to the Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and public on how to make their homes and businesses directed to the City of Santa Clarita. earthquake safe. Policy S 1.3.4: Cooperate with other agencies as needed Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and to ensure regular inspections of public infrastructure such directed to the City of Santa Clarita. as bridges, dams, and other critical facilities, and require repairs to these structures as needed to preventfailure in the event of seismic activity. Flood Hazards Goal S 2: Protection of public safety and property from Consistent: The environmental review process would unreasonable risks due to flooding. ensure risks to public safety and property related to flooding, and appropriate mitigation measures, are included. Policy S 2.1.1: On the Land Use Map, designate Consistent: The environmental review process would appropriate areas within the floodplain as open space for ensure risks to public safety and property related to multi -use purposes, includingflood control, habitat flooding, and appropriate mitigation measures, are preservation, and recreational open space. Development included. in the floodplain will require necessary mitigation. Policy 2.1.2: Promote Low Impact Development Consistent: The proposed project would include project standards on development sites, including but not limited design features that satisfy the Los Angeles County Low to minimizing impervious surface area and promoting Impact Development requirements for new development. infiltration, in order to reduce the flow and velocity of stormwater runoff throughout the watershed. Policy S 2.1.3: Promote the use of vegetated drainage Consistent: The proposed project would utilize vegetated courses and soft -bottom channels for flood control swales for flood control and water quality purposes. facilities to the extent feasible, in order to achieve water quality and habitat objectives in addition to flood control. MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 52 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Policy S 2.1.4: Cooperate with other agencies as Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and appropriate regarding the related issues of flood control, directed to the City of Santa Clarita. watershed management, water quality, and habitat protection. Policy S 2.1.5: Promote the joint use of flood control Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and facilities with other beneficial uses where feasible, such directed to the City of Santa Clarita. as by incorporating detention basins into parks and extending trails through floodplains. Policy S 2.2.1: Prepare and maintain maps of floodways Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and and floodplains based on information from the Federal directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other appropriate sources, in order to qualify for FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program. Policy S 2.2.2: Identify areas subject to localized short- Consistent: The environmental review process would term flooding due to drainage deficiencies. identify areas within the project site subject to flooding, and incorporate mitigation measures, if applicable. Policy 2.3.1: Implement drainage master plans Consistent: The proposed project'sflood protection designed to handle storm flows from the 100-year storm. infrastructure would be designed to accommodate the FEMA 100-yearflood and the more conservative County Capital Flood. PolicyS 2.3.2: Include funding for drainage and flood Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and control improvements in the annual City budget. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy S 2.4.1: Require that new development comply with Consistent: The proposed project would adhere to the FEMA floodplain management requirements. FEMA floodplain management requirements. Policy S 2.4.2: On the Land Use and Zoning Maps, restrict Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and the type and intensity of land use in flood -prone areas, or directed to the City of Santa Clarita. require flood -proof construction, as deemed appropriate. Policy S 2.5.1: Address drainage problems that cause Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and flooding on prominent transportation corridors by working directed to the City of Santa Clarita. with multi -jurisdictional agencies and stakeholders to construct needed drainage improvements. Policy S 2.5.2: Provide for the maintenance of drainage Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and structures and flood control facilities to avoid system directed to the City of Santa Clarita. malfunctions and overflows. Fire Hazard Goal S 3: Protection of public safety and property from Consistent: The proposed project would protect public fires. safety and property from fire by complying with all City and County Fire Department regulations. Policy S 3.1.1: Coordinate on planning for new fire Consistent: The environmental and development review stations to meet current and projected needs. process would ensure coordinate for new fire stations and appropriate mitigation measures. Policy S 3.1.2: Program adequate funding for capital fire Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and protection costs, and explore all feasible funding options directed to the City of Santa Clarita. to meetfacility needs. Policy S 3.1.3: Require adequate fire flow as a condition Consistent: The proposed project will meet all Fire of approval for all new development, which may include Department regulations. installation of additional reservoir capacity and/or distribution facilities. Policy S 3.2.1: Identify areas of the Santa Clarita Valley Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and that are prone to wildland fire hazards, and address these directed to the City of Santa Clarita. areas in fire safety plans. MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 53 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Policy S 3.2.2: Enforce standards for maintaining defensible space around structures through clearing of dry brush and vegetation. Policy S 3.2.3: Establish landscape guidelines for fire - prone areas with recommended plant materials, and provide this information to builders and members of the public. Policy S 3.2A Require sprinkler systems, fire resistant building materials, and other construction measures deemed necessary to prevent loss of life and property from wildland fires. Policy S 3.2.5: Ensure adequate secondary and emergency access for fire apparatus, which includes minimum requirements for road width, surface material, and staafinaf areas. Policy S 3.2.6: For areas adjacent to the National Forest, cooperate with the United States Forest Service regarding land use and development issues. Policy S 3.2.7: Continue to provide information and trainingto the public on fire safety in wildland interface areas. Policy S 3.3.1: Plan for fire response times of five minutes in urban areas, eight minutes in suburban areas, and 12 minutes in rural areas. Policy 3.3.2: Require the installation and maintenance of street name signs on all new development. Policy S 3.3.3: Require the posting of address numbers on all homes and businesses that are clearly visible from ad iacent streets. Hazardous Materials Goal S 4: Protection of public safety and property from hazardous materials. Policy S 4.1.1: Continue to support clean-up efforts and re- use plans for the Whittaker-Bermite property. Policy S 4.1.2: Coordinate with other agencies to address contamination of soil and groundwater from hazardous materials on various sites, and require that contamination be cleaned up to the satisfaction of the City and other responsible agencies prior to issuance of any permits for new development. Policy 4.2.1: On the Land Use Map, restrict the areas in which activities that use or generate large amounts of hazardous materials may locate, to minimize impacts to residents and other sensitive receptors in the event of a hazardous materials incident. Consistent: The proposed project would include a Fuel Modification Plan, landscape plan, and irrigation plan consistent with Fire Department regulationsfor the project site. Consistent: The proposed project would include a Fuel Modification Plan, landscape plan, and irrigation plan consistent with Fire Department regulationsfor the project site. Consistent: The proposed project would meet all Fire Department regulations. Consistent: The proposed project would meet all Fire Department regulations. Not Applicable: The project site is not adjacentto a National Forest. NotADDlicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. NotADDlicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent: The proposed project would meet all Fire Department regulations. Consistent: The proposed project would meet all Fire Department regulations. Consistent: Potential impacts to public safety and property related to hazardous materials, and appropriate mitigation measures would be discussed as part of the environmental review process. Not Applicable: The project site is not located on the Whittaker-Bermite site. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Moreover, the project does not propose to generate large amounts of hazardous materials. Policy S 4.2.2: Through the development review process, Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and ensure that any new development proposed in the vicinity directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Moreover, the project of a use that stores or generates large amounts of site is not located adjacent to a use that stores or MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 54 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis hazardous materials provides adequate design features, generates large amounts of hazardous materials. setbacks, and buffers to mitigate impacts to sensitive receptors in the event of a hazardous materials incident. Law Enforcement Goal S 5: Protection of public safety through the provision Consistent: Projected needs for law enforcement services of law enforcement services and crime prevention would be evaluated as part of the environmental review strategies. process. Policy S 5.1.1: Participate in a multi -jurisdictional task Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and force to evaluate alternatives for combining public safety directed to the City of Santa Clarita. services with administrative services within a centralized government complex serving the entire Santa Clarita Valley. Policy S 5.1.2: Provide staff assistance to assess future Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and law enforcement needs, and work together with the directed to the City of Santa Clarita. County, Sheriff's Department, and other partners to develop and implement plans for meeting these needs. Policy S 5.1.3: Cooperate on implementation of funding Consistent: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to mechanisms for law enforcement services. the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would pay the adopted sheriff facility fee in accordance with City requirements. Policy S 5.2.1: Promote and participate in the Business Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and Watch program to assist business owners in developing directed to the City of Santa Clarita. and implementing crime prevention strategies. Policy S 5.2.2: Promote and support Neighborhood Watch Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and programs to assist residents in establishing neighborhood directed to the City of Santa Clarita. crime prevention techniques. Policy S 5.2.3: Provide code enforcement services to Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and maintain minimum health and safety standards and as a directed to the City of Santa Clarita. deterrent to crime. Accidents Goal S 6: Reduced risk to public safety and property Consistent: This Goal is a responsibility of and directed to damage from accidental occurrences. the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project would be designed in a manner to reduce risk to public safety and property damage. Policy S 6.1.1: Continue tree trimming and maintenance Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and programs for trees in the right-of-way and on public directed to the City of Santa Clarita. property, to limit damage from falling limbs. Policy S 6.1.2: Promote the planting of tree types Consistent: The proposed project would plant trees that appropriate to the local climate, to avoid breakage by are appropriate to the local climate. brittle, non-native trees. Policy 6.2.1: In designing or reviewing development Consistent: The proposed project would include lighting plans, ensure that lighting levels are adequate to provide levels that are adequate to provide safe and secure use of safe and secure nighttime use of each site, while limiting each site, while limiting excessive or unnecessary light excessive or unnecessary light and glare. and glare. Policy S 6.2.2: Consider CPTED Principles (Crime Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and Prevention Through Environmental Design) in reviewing directed to the City of Santa Clarita. development proposals, to increase public safety through establishing defensible space, clearly delineated public and private areas, and effective surveillance of common areas. Policy S 6.2.3: In designing or reviewing development Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 55 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis plans, ensure that pedestrian pathways, stairs, steps and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. ramps are designed to provide clear and unimpeded passage in order to avoid trip hazards and conflicts with vehicles. Policy S 6.2.4: Continue to monitor traffic accident data in Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and order to evaluate and address any traffic control needs to directed to the City of Santa Clarita. enhance public safety. Policy S 6.2.5: Use traffic calming devices and reduced Consistent: The proposed project would incorporate traffic street widths to slow traffic speeds and reduce accidents, calming devices and reduced street widths throughout the where deemed appropriate. project site. Policy S 6.3.1: In cooperation with other agencies, ensure Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and adequate shelter for homeless persons to Iimittheir directed to the City of Santa Clarita. exposure to accidental injury and illness. Policy 6.3.2: Implementthe provisions of the Americans Consistent: The proposed project would comply with the with Disabilities Act to ensure safe travel paths and requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. accommodations for persons with disabilities. Emergency Planning Goal S 7: Protection of the public through planning for Not Applicable: This Goal is a responsibility of and directed disaster response and recovery, in order to minimize to the City of Santa Clarita. damage from emergency incidents or terrorist activities. Policy S 7.1.1: Regularly update emergency preparedness Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and and response plans that are consistent with State plans. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy S 7.1.2: Continue to provide regular trainingto Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and public officials and the public on emergency procedures. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy S 7.1.3: Ensure that evacuation routes are clearly Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and posted throughout the City. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy S 7.1.4: Strengthen communication and Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and cooperation between agencies, citizens and non-profit directed to the City of Santa Clarita. groups to plan for disaster response. Policy S 7.2.1: In cooperation with other agencies, plan for Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and temporary shelters for residents displaced by disasters directed to the City of Santa Clarita. and emergency incidents. Policy S 7.2.2: Plan for expedited plan check, permitting, Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and and inspection programs to aid recovery efforts involving directed to the City of Santa Clarita. the rebuilding of damaged structures. Policy S 7.2.3: Ensure that proper record -keeping Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and procedures are in place for purposes of obtaining directed to the City of Santa Clarita. reimbursement from State and Federal agencies. Policy S 7.2.4: Purchase disaster and recovery supplies Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and locally to assist local businesses in their recovery efforts. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Housing Element Adequate Sites Goal H 1: Provide adequate sites to accommodate 8,322 Consistent. The proposed project provides the opportunity new housing units between 2013 and 2021. to develop up to 498 residential units, with a diversity of attainably priced residential typologies, including market rate apartments, age -qualified apartments, affordable senior apartments, and market rate townhomes. Objective: Provide adequate sites at a range of densities Consistent. The proposed project provides the opportunity to accommodate future housing needs. to develop up to 498 residential units, with a diversity of attainably priced residential typologies, including market rate apartments, age -qualified apartments, affordable MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 56 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis senior apartments, and market rate townhomes. Policy H1.1.1: Encourage a variety of housing types such Consistent. The proposed project provides the opportunity as single-family attached (townhouses), multi -family units, to develop up to 498 residential units, with a diversity of planned unit developments mixed use housing and other attainably priced residential typologies, including market housing types that make housing more affordable. rate apartments, age -qualified apartments, affordable senior apartments, and market rate townhomes. Policy H1.1.2: Encourage the development of new Consistent. The proposed projectwould include affordable affordable units through the provision of incentives. senior apartments and affordable units within the residential areas. Policy H1.1.3: Replace housing units demolished by the Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and redevelopment agency for redevelopment projects. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy H1.1.4: Establish minimum densities for residential Consistent. The proposed project requests a zone change land use districts in the Land Use Element of the General from Business Park to the proposed Specific Plan. The Plan. Specific Plan establishes minimum densities for the project site. Assist in the Development of Affordable Housing Goal H.2: Assist in the development of adequate housing Consistent. The proposed project would include affordable to meet the needs of extremely low, very low, low and senior apartments and affordable units within the moderate income households (Government Code Section residential areas. 65583(c)(2)). Objective H 2.1: Assist in the development of new and Consistent. The proposed project would include affordable rehabilitated housing to provide at least 273 units for senior apartments and affordable units within the households with very low and low incomes. residential areas. Policy H 2.1.1: Target one third of housing subsidies to Consistent: This Goal is a responsibility of and directed to extremely low income households in new affordable the City of Santa Clarita. That said, the proposed project development. would be designed in a manner to reduce risk to public safety and property damage. Policy H 2.1.2: Require that all units developed under any Consistent. Any units developed under the City's of the City affordable housing programs remain affordable affordable housing program will remain affordable for at for the longest possible time or at least 55 years. least 55 years. Policy H 2.1.3: Encourage the development of housing Consistent. The proposed project would place affordable affordable to lower income groups in areas well served by units in walking distance to open space, multi -use trails., public transportation, schools, retail, and other services. and the Metrolink Station and Bus Transfer. Policy H 2.1.4: Encourage the transition of the homeless Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and population to stable housing. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Conserve and Improve the Existing Housing Stock Goal H.3: Conserve and improve the existing housing Consistent. The proposed project would introduce 498 stock through Community Preservation, rehabilitation residential units to the current housing stock on a loans, and a handy worker program. currently vacant parcel. Objective H 3.1: Bring existing housing units up to an Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and established standard of habitability. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy H 3.1.1: Enforce existing standards of habitability. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy H 3.1.2: Provide rehabilitation assistance to Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and income -eligible homeowners for repairs related to safety, directed to the City of Santa Clarita. habitability and accessibility standards. Policy H 3.1.3: Provide grants and loans to income -eligible Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and owner -occupants of single family homes for emergency directed to the City of Santa Clarita. and minor safety, habitability and accessibility repairs. MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 57 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis Preserve Units at Risk of Conversion to Market Rate Rents Goal H 4: Preserve affordability of existing homes that are at risk of converti ng to market -rate rents during the planning period. Objective H 4.1.1: Preserve 232 units at risk of losing their subsidies and convertingto market rents between 2013 and 2021. Policy H 4.1.2: Monitor the status of at -risk units throughout the planning period to identify units which are at planned for imminent conversion to market rate units. Consistent. The proposed project would include affordable senior apartments and affordable units within the residential areas. Consistent. This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That being said, the proposed project would include affordable senior apartments and affordable units. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Policy H 4.2: Work with non-profit housing organizations to Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and preserve at -risk units. directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Address and Remove or Mitigate Constraints Goal H-5: Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove government constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing for all income levels. Objective H 5.1: Where possible, reduce or remove government restraints on housing as necessary and feasible. Policy H 5.1.1: Expedite application review, permitting, and inspection procedures for affordable housing Policy H 5.1.2: Consider fee reductions and/or deferrals for affordable housing projects when deemed appropria. Equal Housing Opportunities Goal 1­16: Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status or disability. (Government Code Section 65583(c)(5). Objective H 6.1: Promote fair housing practices and prohibit discrimination. Policy H 6.1.1: Ensure compliance with fair housing laws by adopting development guidelines that encourage the development of mixed -income housing in every zone district and in every area of the community. Policy H 6.1.2: Provide fair housing services that include public information, counseling and investigation Policy H 6.1.3: Prohibit discrimination in housing. Consistent. This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That being said, the proposed project would include affordable senior apartments and affordable units. Consistent. This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. That being said, the proposed project would include affordable senior apartments and affordable units. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent. The proposed project provides the opportunity to develop up to 498 residential units, with a diversity of attainably priced residential typologies, including market rate apartments, age -qualified apartments, affordable senior apartments, and market rate townhomes. Consistent. The proposed project provides the opportunity to develop up to 498 residential units, with a diversity of attainably priced residential typologies, including market rate apartments, age -qualified apartments, affordable senior apartments, and market rate townhomes. The proposed project would promote fair housing practices and prohibit discrimination. Consistent. The proposed projectwould be in compliance with fair housing laws. Not Applicable: This Policy is a responsibility of and directed to the City of Santa Clarita. Consistent. The proposed project prohibit discrimination in housing. Persons With Disabilities Including Persons with Developmental Disabilities Goal H 7: The housing needs of persons with disabilities, I Consistent: The proposed project would assist in the MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 58 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis including persons with developmental disabilities are typically not addressed by Title 24 Regulations. The housing needs of persons with disabilities, in addition to basic affordability, range from slightly modifying existing units to requiring a varying range of supportive housing facilities. implementation of this Policy through its inclusion of various housing types that would accommodate households with varied income levels and age -restricted units for senior citizens. Further, nothing in the site design would preclude individuals with special needs from residing at the project. MetroWalk Specific Plan December 2020 12546 59 City of Santa Clarita General Plan Consistency Analysis INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK MetroWalk Specific Plan 12546 December 2020 60 APPENDIX 1.0=3 Tentative Tract Map No. 83087 A A,,III�4 p( rt„�G°°"" �,<,Iro Lw";" ° _�,o° .., 4 — ------------ — wvlv�, Lag LEGEND 4 F All 11 pr11WT ,A, ACRM F LOT 1 AP --- ----- 777 �1� i'l LOT 2 71 1=1 "AlE.- Mill, Il ABBREVIATIONS A L /-JSLOT ICI -A��I`L'�`11 101II S"'T Al J N _2 7, il�lfiORAPFIIC SCALE All ­o­ All 511 IF ---------- ,d II V7,l - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PBOJECT SUMMARY PUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENT LEGEND A NARI A T IF— — EARTHWORK SUMMARY EASEMENTS -IRIFIA ­D o' ­F` FAA A 121 Ill LI . .... .. ..... ...... .. .. .......... GENERAL NOTES 41'FAILIIAIAI��DI�IFAI IFF P" ("TZ' a V'OLIALEI _n_ EXISTING LOST MN ROAD (PUBLIC) LF11N1OA1 NIFF TIFAlN �Al FLOODZONE A­ 1111IN Al 1, LEGAL DESCRIPTON POANAF IA­FALI01AFN�A�I_FlFAAIIA��F��Ll�'I'��N�2.2NA AZTT L ' 'AA =F A 1­ 1 1%1 11 A11= Ill AFN TOPOGRAPHYAPP : ITIN 1­AO"N FFN­ "­ F— t W 1116 F-W�l Wl �17` 'N I'll" NAFFIAN�,%L�F'l F, 11 F_ .111­ LNIMA. NFAV ��EFU�`2HOI`11`� LlNI FF 'HI F0F1 .11 11111 F F1111101 IN � AF L­ D­A B'D N Dl��D.DA D�APP,�LL22�2,,.Il�l,,NFI.I�1"11�HN.IPHol�M�I � l lR IX IN A IF " 3 ­Dl AFN �N 1- AP AF1 APPA ­DIA .. ..... L F , Pl. NN N, AN, A Mm FP- TIFAT ­1 NF1F1,L1o­,AN ITIR 111NI PAT" I s1­ 1111FN F,01 A-- viu�o. EXISTING HAR DR. (PRIVATE) IF D 5 - F111 P-1 111N11 1RF1H­ ALoN1 D"'W �4 MN F�`D�l �'l K ND A11T1 11 IND ­A1 ­11 AFITI 11 D­ N NIT11 _F F,�A. ND1`NT­ I 111MINIIAN 11F111111AIDIANAL AN1­ ­11 AE,­D FD�FIFATN�LA,,;l��FAFGT ­NNINI AND IN-111INF 1­1TMINT1 111IFFIE OFF FPI D1­1111- 11 M. IN LL 2­ FIR BASIS OF BEARINGS FFI�MA`111V`­�T NEF.FEA1,NT1oFF21T1l ­NT,­, A �%Nl` MIFTIFON6,A,%�.Hl N.OFT.Hl "F Zz `.tIll 12. F" FOL­D'01'NE7N�,N�LD F HI NANA� PAR EL N MBER� PA,ASSESSOR F AA PA IFID ­L Rm 112. PANA 21, AF F1111 111AIDI IF IF— 1AD Fl NFITI � D­ 11 MINIT11 11 IFI.NDA 'IF PINT 11 1,NNNNl �R DINID��l�NTADM Fp�,IIPMOI.Ll' F-LI NRIINI ­ a1 F011H11 "F Ap"FAL 'LAN A, T CONDOMINIUM NOTE. L�FMM�IFRAL " IL,�ATAA ­1N T IMHo AFF, D .......... .. P AN P111A11D FIR 'ILLLN�NCI"L'I'ND'DIL'�'NNINI I ININ111- we 'j",TF OF SANTA .1RITA — 2lF0ALLIANCEFA%NFAA 'AN F'FIN llJ­ —1, A C 2,4,8L,F�DFF&� ARA 7 411­11 ME ROWALK TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 83087 FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES APPENDIX 4.0=1 Conceptual Landscape Plan =TTt i (ramp I'1 11II1t �ot as � 'PV¢n GYP MITCHELL DRIVE':' - `��/ ,I � II � J�v. , I PROPERTY LINE HARRINAN DRIVE PROPERTY LINE .�. .�. —.—. —. —._.—._._.—_—._. , t1 I ro i , �- L- o_1/Legend: _ ��/ \ f� \Py I • O Metro Plaza Park . •/ © Interior "trail" tM1 rougM1 proj t core / © Resitlent Recreation/Pool Al- g., v /• O Passiv overvp rea & gatM1ering spade SM1atle c r parking stalls / O �I � En M1ancetl veM1icular e try Oki 01 Circulation "notle" witM1 small sM1atle structure a s -- / l v f/��/� En M1ancetl petlestrian e p rience at Harriman Dr. O9onneo.... to tlI (V a Canyo) rail \lol n t " /N�pF� �• � Project itlent f tion monument -k f Future Met rolink station t L—F� ' i ® Irregation want of c eo onneotion PROPERTY LINE North � OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN N E URBAN M I� Oo rl W I L P(Z WM WITHEE MALCOLM A R CH I T E C T S 2001 WiIBhlreBlvd.Ste 40L Santa Monies. Califot-90403 2251 wastlean sxreet Its,—l—D 5oa ioilaDBs l wiffi..—ml — W E 5 T P.310.566. 6393 F. 310. 566 6389 Job No. B9040 Date. to_-2020 1 N C O i>�NuNd�7���nkr�I��u�INlpu�a�pTMN�l�al URBAN IME7�OOPellr,1Lr,( 2001 Wilehire Blvd .Ste 401 Santa Monies California 90403 W E S T P.310 566 6393 F.310.566 6389 1 N C r Ll ILL Legend: OInterior "trail" tM1 rougM1 project core — � 4 © Resitlent recreation /pool area I T" � - - © En M1ancetl veM1icular entry i � O Leasing entry /patio " © Bike racks u _ 08' 16' 32' North LANDSCAPEENLARGEMENT WEST ENTRY WM WITHEE MALCOLM A R C H I T E C T S 2251 west 19aM1 Br emalmlm corn mJob Noo B900 D-10_82S 2020�® +Ir a s s 1 r Legend: OInterior "trail" tM1 rougM1 project core © Resitlent recreation/pool area © Passive play area &gat M1ering space OEn M1ancetl veM1icular entry © Circulation "notle" witM1 small sM1atle structure OBike racks _ 08' 16' 32' North LANDSCAPEENLARGEMENT EAST ENTRY W M Oo ��� ���� WM WITHEE MALCOLM A R C5 H I �T E C T S 2001 Wilehire Blvd. Ste 401 Santa Monies. California 90403 2251 wan 1eah sxreetlmrr—l— 5oa io ila Bs lw1h.— mlm_P310566. 6393 F. 310. 566 6389 Job No. B9040 Date. to_2S 2020 ADJACENT MIXED -USE �7.l'EllTY_C_Nl_----`---�/ W7 � Informal Dog -Use Areas with Turf / ~J S t g Sp th Sh tl St t Pn..r "Trail"Connection with Oak Trees for Shade URBAN M E 7 ppi OO W r1 L rK 2001 Wilehlre Blvd Ste 401 Santa M,,l Callf,ml 90403 W E S T P.310.566 6393 F.310.566 6339 1 N C Sculptural Shade St..ure, TYP m m f� �er aced SeMwalls with Turf El—d "Stage"with Shade Structure METROLINK STATION , oo� _ 010' 20' 40' North —� / PARK ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN . METRO PLAZA WM WITHEE MALCOLM A R C H I T E C T S 2251 west 19- ar o 88�emz®Job NooB9040 Dto0 2020 SECTION A SECTION B PROPERTY LINE s-li Pta+�m¢ouri6 puWmtaw> ,—.�ffAos xF✓�Re tecaWTil�Wv PA`Wf� scale NTs /. North Mavi+oirxe De<eu r/vr� w,ry,�s/ BaictWs I � I _ w I I �L teaRacs/steps 08' 16' 32' sTRWT� 0' 8' 16' 32' PARK SECTION METRO PLAZA IN E URBAN M Oo ��� �� ��� WM WITHEE MALCOLM A R C0 H I T� E C T S 2001 Wilehire Blvd. Ste 401 .Santa Monies. Califomia 90403 2251 wan19-sxrenl�orrenoe l oa 5oa io 1785lDom W E S T P.310.566 6393 F. 310. 566.6339 Job No. B9040 Data. 10 22 2020 I N C �� 7� o" �, "✓�E5 L DRi✓� � UNlf VFW BS SECTION C o r 2 a' PLAN VIEW w ME7�OOPellr,1Lr,( 200Wilehire Blvd .Ste 401 Santa Monies California 90403 P30566 6393 F.310.566 6389 _ 010' 20' 40' North —� MAIN TRAIL TOWNHOUSE CONNECTION WM WITHEE MALCOLM A R C H I T E C T S 2251 west 1-h Br erne — corn mJob No o B900 D-10_82S 2020�® Wlo?4vwA4WF,-aM4.t. ®wP Tuwgnew�5'tMD6rpE 3'tPAit, SECTION D .O. DRIVE W i PLAN VIEW w ME7�OOPellr,1Lr,( 200Wilehire Blvd .Ste 401 Santa Monies California 90403 P30566 6393 F.310.566 6389 p&slcedTi?i .vNii' F.F.F. VAA41B (91.W) F- 02' 4' 8' LINE _ o' 10 20' 40' North —� HARRIMAN DRIVE TOWNHOUSE CONNECTION WM WITHEE MALCOLM A R C H I T E C T S 2251 west 1-h Br erne — corn mJob No o B900 D-10_82S 2020�® 0' 4' 8' 16 SECTION E �� r SECTION F _ 0' 816' 32' North 0' 4' 8' 16 PROJECT ENTRY STUDY HARRIMAN DRIVE & LOST CANYON RD uRaarwi gE7100wrk�'LrK WMA R C H I T E C TM A R C� H s E C T S 2001 Wil66 Blvd. S310 .Santa Moniw.Califomia90403 2251wan1ean sxree�l1orrenoel oa soa io i7a as lwimeemaimim oom W E 5 T P. 310. 56�. 6393 F. 310. 566. 6389 Job No. B9040 Date. to_-2020 1 N C ,s Lit J } U! *kn 3 _ 41 4 1p f L NE�— LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN N E W Pu k � R, R W- A L VAS WM WITHEE MALCOLM URBAN A R C R I T E C T S 2001 Wilehire Blvd. Ste 401 Santa Monica. California 90403 2251 w.119 har rr— a905 3021788 W E T P.310.566 6393 F.310.566 6339 N C .S �Jo6 Noeeono oaml 0.202020 ���® lihig it I i I . I le 'll I y'l. Iz I4 II ` I l I J� I I I I I I ti 1 1 i t I mndlbrubs�tlbin+ r I 6t be I I sM1ell protected h pleas I I m I V I r I # I I li I I I� 1 IT I I J II I I I �I 14 I I'lll� I I I III' I �I I MPROPERTY LINE I HARRIMAN D m aeuai�o sebeck ❑�e— � a 6 Ld peObeakLne SL dsaepe SelbeakLine� �Um e ddl to,� p Iplens ■ noon N! � iiiinInnnn OF _ /GN PROPERTY LINE PAVING MATERIAL LEGEND — STANDARD SITE PEDESTRIAN PAVEMENT POTENTIAL MATERALS. • NATU RAL GRAY PAVING WITH ETCHED OR BROOM FINISH — • D ECOMPOSEDGRANITE • I NTEGRAL COLOR CONCRETE WITH ETCHED FINISH —REIIS OIPCRETEPAVER$ • PORCELaNORSTONETILE (AT SIGNIFICANT LOCATIONS SUCH AS BUILDING ENTRIES) AVARIETY OF MATERIALS WILL BE UTILISE ASAPPROPRATE INDIFFERENT CONDITIONS ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN PAVEMENT AT TRAIL POTENTIAL MATERALS. j I • NATURAL GRAY PAVING WITH ETCHED OR BROOM FINISH • INTEGRAL COLOR CONCRETE WITH ETCHED FINISH PRECACTCONCRETEPAVERS • NATURALSTONE ENHANCED VEHICULAR PAVEMENT AT PROJECT ENTRY POTENTIAL MATERALS. • NTERAL COLOR CONCRETE WITH DECORATIVE SCORING . PRECAST CONCRETE PAVERS . LITHOCRETE ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN PAVEMENT AT PARK POTENTIAL MATERALS. • NATURAL GRAY PAVING WITH ETCHED OR BROOM FINISH • INTEGRAL COLOR CONCRETE WITH ETCHED FINISH CM • PRECASTCONCRETEPAVERS • NATURUSTONE INFORMAL PATHS CDPOTENTIAL MATERALS. • DECOMPOSED GRANITE ENHANCED PLAY PAVEMENT AT PARK LLJ POTENTIAL MIERIS.. LLJ _cl) . RESILIENT SURFACING L J S U H Q o 2040' So' q eNORTH LANDSCAPE PAVING AND CIRCULATION PLAN N E W 1u1 k � K, R M A L VAS WM WITHEE MALCOLM URBAN A R C R I T E C T S 2001 WilehU. Blvd. Ste 401 Santa Monica. California 90403 2251 west 1 eah sir rr— ee05 302I7 sa ame 6eloolm oom W E .S T P. 310. 566. 6393 F. 310. 566. 6389 oJob No B9040 Dam. 10. 202020® I N C O PROPERTY LINE r 0, O1 ..� 0 a _° f ��o 1 IoI j /� % j /. /`� 15'Se�beak Line , , -oo e , PAVING MATERIAL LEGEND STANDARD SITE PEDESTRIAN PAVEMENT POTENTIn ATERnLS. . NATURAL GRAY PAVING WITH ETCHED OR BROOM FINISH . DECOMPOSEDGRANITE . INTEGRAL COLOR CONCRETE WITH ETCHED FINISH �REcasT co NDRETEPAVER$ . PORCEWN OR STONE TILE (AT SIGNIFICANT LOCATIONS SUCH AS BUILDING ENTRIES) AVARIETY OF MATERIALS WILL BE UTILIZE ASAPPROPRATE INDIFFERENT CONDITIONS ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN PAVEMENTAT TRAIL POTENTIAL MATERALS. . NATURAL GRAY PAVING WITH ETCHED OR BROOM FINISH . INTEGRAL COLOR CONCRETE WITH ETCHED FINISH . PRECASTCONCRETEPAVERS . NATURUSTONE ENHANCED VEHICULAR PAVEMENTAT PROJECT ENTRY POTENTIAL MATERALS.. . INTEGRAL COLOR CONCRETE WITH DECORATIVE SCORING . PRE CAST CONCRETE PAVERS . LITHUCRETE ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN PAVEMENTAT PARK POTENTIAL MATERALS. . NATURAL GRAY PAVING WITH ETCHED OR BROOM FINISH . INTEGRAL COLOR CONCRETE WITH ETCHED FINISH . PRECASTCONCRETEPAVERS . NATURAL STONE INFORMAL PATHS POTENTIAL MATERALS. . DECOMPOSED GRANITE ENHANCED PLAY PAVEMENT AT PARK POTENTIAL MIERIS. . RESILIENT SURFACING m LANDSCAPE PAVING AND CIRCULATION PLAN N E W 1u1 V3 R W- A L VAS WM WITHEE MALCOLM URBAN A R C R I T E C T S 2001 Wil.hi,. Blvd. Ste 401 Santa Monica. California 90403 2251 west 1eah ar rr— 905 302I7 as olm oom h.—I. W E .S T P. 310. 566. 6393 F. 310. 566. 6389 oJob No 300a0 Dam10. 202020® I N C Y�ry I,d shrub, witU, ell DA DIN Ierf m plea® ill -. PROPERTY LINE PLANT PALETTE NOTE t. WUCOLS PLANT WATER NEEDS IDENTIFIED IN PARENTHESIS (H—HICK —OPERATE, L=Low, vL-VERv LCm9 FREES PERIMETER STREET TREES 24" BOX k PISTACIA CHINENSIS-cHwESE RNTACHE(M) OAKS TREES (24' BOXANDST LIE LARGER( QUERDUS AGRFOLA—COAVOAK (VQ QUERCUS ILEX —HOLLY OAK (Q QUERCUS BELUTINA—BLACK OAK QUERCUS LOBATA—VALLEY OAK (M) QUERC US ENGELMA CH MESAOAK(Q QUERCUS STEP R—CORK OAK (L) PROMENADE STREET TREE (YEAR—ROUND INTEREST) [36' BOXI ARBUTUS NIARINA—NIARNAARBUTUS (STANOAM—TRUNK) (MJ LAG ERSTROEMIAX'NATCHE'—CRAPE MYRTLE (M) MAGNOLIAGRANDIFLOIRA- SOUTHER MAGNOLIA(K OLEAEUROPA—COMMON OLIVE (L) PLATANUS RACEMOSA"COLUMBIA"— CALIFORNIASYCAMORE (M) U LMUS PARVIFOLIA TRUE GREEN '—EVERGREEN ELM (Q (rJy1 SCULPTURAL ACCENTTMI BOX AND LARGER( CwLoaSIS%RIsCMTRT wILLow (q CERCIDIUM DESERT MUSEUM DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE (L) POPULUS FREMONTI—FREMONTS COTTONWOOD (K POLL USTRCHOCARPA— BLACKCOTTONWOOD(M) EVERGREEN TREE (24"BOX AND LARGER( LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS—BRISBANE BOX LK) ULMUS PARVIFOLIA TRUE GREEN' —EVERGREEN ELM (Q 0LEAEUROPA—COMMON OLIVE (L) O SMALL SCALE CANOPY TREE [24"BOX] CERmS occmENTALIS-WESTERN REDBUD (L) CERC CAN. PSISFORESTPANSY— PURPLE LEAF REDBUD(M) LAGERSTROEMIAX'NATCHEZ'—CRAPE MYRTLE (M) ARBUTUS NIARINA—MARNAARBUTUS (MULTI —TRUNK) (M) LARGE—SCALE SHRUBS WITH TREE —LIKE HABIT [24"BOX] ACACIAPODALYRIFOLIA—PEARLACACIA(M) ARBUTUS UNEDo—STRAWBERRY THE (Q CERmS occmENTALIS—WESTERN REDBUD (Q CH]LOPSIS LINEARIS—DESSERT WILLOW IT) LAURUS NOBILIS—SWEET BAY (Q LEPTOSPERMUM PETERSONII—LEMON SCENTED TEA TREE (L) PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA— HOLLYLEAFCHERRY(VL) C LARGE SCREEN SHRUBS f16 GA LON AND ARGER( P000CARPUS MACROPHYLLUS (M) FEIJOA SELLOWIANA(MJ DoDONEAVISCOSA(Q HIT US INTEGRFOLIA(Q CUPRESSUP SPP (Q ®PARK CANOPY TREE [24" BOX AND LARGER] ACACIASTENOPHYLLA— SHOESRNG ACACIA(M) PLATANUS RACEMOSA"COLUMBIA"—CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE (M) PROSOPIS CHILENSIS—THORNLESS CHILEAN MESQUITE IT) RHUS LAN CEA—AFRICAN SUMAC (L)FRAXINUS DIPETALA-CALIFORNULASH (Q EXISTING PARKWAY TREES AT LOST CANYON ROAD PROTECT IN PLACE GROUNDPLANE PLANTING GENERAL PLANTING AREAS (SHRUBS, GROUNDCOVER&VINES) -SEE SHEET LP-1 03 TO SEE LIST OF PLANTING PALETTE TURF - SPECIES LED 0 240' SD 9 NORTH LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN N E W 1u1 k � R, R M A L VAS WM WITHEE MALCOLM URBAN A R C R I T E C T S 2001 VVileh,. Blvd. Ste 401 Santa Monica. California 90403 2251 west lean sir rr— 905 30217 sa olm oom „ .—I. W E .S T P. 310. 566. 6393 F. 310. 566. 6389 oJob No 39040 Dam. 10. 202020® I N C PLANT PALETTE 1. W000LS PLANT WATER NEEDS IDENTIFIED IN PARENTHESIS (H-HICK NOMCDERATE, L=LOW, VL=VERY LOA TREES ' PERIMETER STREET TREES ]24" BOXI PISTAUTAUHINENsls- cHwESEPISTACHE (M) ♦ ,�7D� OAKS TREES [24" BOXAND LARGER] 1-11SAGRIFULIA- COAST LNECAK(VL) / �9y QUERCUS ILEX -HOLLY OAK (K QUERCUS VELUTINA-BLACK OAK QUERCUS TOBATA-VALLEY OAK (M) ♦ CUERO US ENGELMANII-MESAOAK (Q QUERCUS CUBE R-CORK OAK (L) PROMENADE STREET TREE (YEAR-ROUND INTEREST) [36" BOX] ARBUTUSNIARINA- MAIL NAARBUI J8 VIANDARD IRUNBLM) LAGERSTROEMIAX'NATCHEZ'-CRAPE MYRTLE (M) MAGNOLIAGRANmFLOIRA- SOUTHER MAGNOLIA (K 0LEAEUROPA-COMMON OLIVE (L) ♦ PLATANUS RACEMOSA"COLUMBIA"- CALLFORNIASYCAMORE (M) ULMUS PARVIFOLIA TRUE GREEN '-EVERGREEN ELM (L) / SCULPTURAL ACCENT TREE [24 BOX AND LARGER] CHILOPAC UNEARIs-DESERTWILLOW(L) CERCIDIUM DESERT MUSEUM -DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE (L) POPULUS FREMONTII-FREMONTS COTTONWOOD (K POPULUS TRICHOCARPA-BLACK COTTONWOOD (M) EVERGREEN TREE [24" BOX AND LARGER] LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS-BRSBANEBOX (MJ ULMUS PARVIFOLIA TRUE GREENI-EVERGREEN ELM IT) OLEAEUROPA-COMMON OLIVE (L) O SMALL SCA CERCLE CANOPYTREE 2f 4"BOX IS ONOIDENTALLs-WESTERN REDBUD (L) CERCISCANADENSISPURESTPANsr- PURPLE LEAF REDBUD(M) LAGERSTROEMIAX'NATCHEZ'-CRAPE MYRTLE (M) ARBUTUS MARINA -MARNAARBUTUS (MULTI -TRUNK) (M) LARGE-SCALE SHRUBS WITH TREE -LIKE HABIT ]24"BOX] ACACIAPUDALYWIFOLLA-PEARLACACIA (MJ ARBUTUS UNEDo-STRAWBERRY TREE (q CERCISOCCIDENTALIC WESTERNREDBUD(L) CHILOPAC LINEARIs-DESSERT WILLOW W LEPTOSPERMIUMPETERSONII LEMON SC ENDED TEA TREE (L) PRUNUS ILLCIFOLIA-HOLLVLFAF CHERRY (VL) LARGE SCREEN SHRUBS f16 GALLON AND LARGER) PODOCARPUS MACROPHYLW S (M) FEIJOASELLOWIANA(M) DoDONEAVISC OSA IT) RHUS INTEGRIFOLLA(K CUPRESSUS SPP (L) / ® PARK CANOPY TREE [24" BOX AND LARGER] / ACACIA STEM CEMO A- OLUMBIRIN CACACIA(N� PLADANUSRACEMOSA"CHHOENTRINGACACIA(M)SYCAMORE (N) / PROSOPIS CHILENSIS-THORNLESS CHILFAN MESQUITE (L) RHUS LAN CEA-AFRICAN SUMAC (L) / F—IINUSDIPETALA- CALIFORNIAASH(L) EXISTING PARKWAY TREES AT LOST CANYON ROAD /J / PRODECD IN PwcE GROUNDPLANE PLANTING GENERAL PLANTING AREAS (SHRUBS, GROUNDCOVER&VINES) -SEE SHEET LP-1 03 TO SEE LIST OF PLANTING PALETTE TURFSPECIESTBD o 20 40So' 9 eNORTH LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN N E W 1u1 k � R, R M A L VAS WM WITHEE MALCOLM URBAN A R C R I T E C T S 2001 Wilshire Blvd. Ste 401 Santa Monica. California 90403 2251 we.11ean 1r rr— a905 302I7 as „.—I.-- W E .S T P. 310. 566. 6393 F. 310. 566. 6389 oJob OF B-0 Dam10. 202020® I N C I . TREES ARE STANDARD FORM UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 2. TRIPLE STAKE TREES, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE 3. ALL TREES WITHIN S OF HARDSCAPE OR CURBS SHALL RECEIVE ROOT BARRIERS PER SPECIFICATIONS 4. ALL SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVERS SHOWN AS HATCHES SHALL BE SPACED INATRUW GULAR PATTERN 6. WHEREORNAMENTAL GRASSES ARE PLANTED NEXT TO A CURB OR SIDEWALK, HOLD CENTER OF PLANT 30"FROM EDGE OF HARDSCAPE SURFACE 6. MINIMUM TREE SEPARATION DISTANCE TRAFFIC SIGNALS, STOP SIGNS, UTILITY POLES......... 20 FT. UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINES (EXCEPT SEWER)......... 6 FT. SEINER LI NES 10 FT. ABOVEGRou ND UTILITY STRUCTURES .................... 10 FT. FIRE HYDRANTS...... 10 FT. DRIVEWAYS 10 FT. WALKWAYS 6 FT. INTERSECTIONS 25 FT. (INTERSECTING CURB LINES OF TWO STREETS) THE ABOVE DISTANCES MAY BE SUPERSEDED BY CITY CODE) ]. UTILITIESSHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY, REFER TO ENGINEERING PLANS FOR UTILITYLAYOUT. C ONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL UTILITY LOCAL 1 ONS AND NOTIFY LANDSCAPEARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES oR CONFLICTS. 8. CGNTRACTGRSHALL NOTIFY LAND SCAPE ARC HITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR CONFLICTS WITH CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. BY FAILING TO BRING SUCH ITEMS TO THE ATTENTION OF LAND SCAPEARGHITECT, THE CONTRACTORASSUMESFULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY REQUIRED MODIFICATIONS AIND COSTS INCURRED ]. FOR ANY PLANT MATERIAL DESIGNATED TO BE PROTECTED IN PLACECONTRACTOR SHALL REPLACE IN KIND IF DAMAGE OCCURS. 8. ALL PLANT MATERIAL FOR POTS TO BE RETAIL GRADE STOCK 9. ALL TREES PLANTED ADJACENT TO ERE ACCESS ROADS SHALL NW NTAIN AVERTICAL CLEARANCE OF 13 FEET 6INCHES. TREES PLANTED ADJACENT TO BEDROOM EGRESS WINDOWS SHALL NOT OBSTRUCT EGRESS AT WINDOW LEVEL OR EGRESS PATH. 10. MINIMUMTREE SIZE FORALLTREES SHALL BE 24"BOXANDA MINIMUM OF i6% OF 48" BOXAND 30% OF 36" BOX TREES SHALL BE APPLIED TO THE TREE PALETTE N E 18L 1\1 k � U RMALUQ URBAN 2001 wIIarnF6ESIYa. st640 S—taMo,— canto,-90403 W E .S T P.310.566 6393 F.310.566 6339 1 N C PLANT PALETTE NOTE 1. WUCOLS PLANT WATER NEEDS IDENTIFIED IN PARENTHESIS (H=HIGH, —OPERATE, L==Low, -VERY LOND) QTY TREES 14 � PERIMETER STREET TREES (24" BOXI ^./1 H181AUTAUHINEN818 CHINESEPISTACHE(M) OAKS TREES [24" BOXAND LARGER] 104 QUERCUSAGWFOLIA- COAST LIVEOAK(VL) QUERCUS ILEX -HOLLY OAK (Q QUERCUS VELJUNA-BLACK OAK QUERCUS LOBATA-VALLEY OAK (M) QUERCUS ENGELMA CH -MESAOAK (Q QUERCUS SUBER-CORK OAK (L) 40 PROMENADE STREET TREE (YEAR-ROUND INTEREST) [36" BOX] ARBUTUS MARINA-MARNAARBUI—(STANDARD-TRUNK) (M) LAGERSTROEMIAX'NATCHEZ'-SHAPE MYRTLE (M) MA GNOLIAGRANDIFLOIRA- SOUTHER MAGNOLIA(K OLEAEUROPA-COMMON OLIVE (L) PLATANUS RACEMOSA"COLUMBIA'"- CALFORINIASYCAMORE (M) U LMUS PARVIFOLIA TRUE GREEN '-EVERGREEN ELM (L) /" D SCULPTURAL ACCENT TREE [24" BOXAND LARGER] �`�IJY�) CwLoDSIS LDNEIRls-DesERT WILLOW (q CERCIOIUM DESERT MUSEUM-OESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE (Q POPULUS FREMONTII-FREMONTS COTTONWOOD (M) POPU LUS TRCHOCARPA-BLACK COTTONWOOD (M) 124 EVERGREEN TREE I24'BOX AND LARGER) LOPHOMEN CONFERTUS-BRISBANE BOX (MJ U LMUS PARVIF0 LIA TRUE GREEN'- EVERGREEN ELM IT) 126 OLEAEUROPA-COMMON 0 WE (L) SMALL SCALE CANOPYTREE 2fBOX 4"I CERCIS OGGIDENTAIJS-WESTERN REO BUO (LJ CERCIS CANADENSIS'FOREST PANSY' -PURPLE LEAF REDBUD (M) LAGERSTROEMIAX'NATCHEZ'-CRAPE MYRTLE (M) 2 ARBUTUS MARINA-MARINAARBUTUS (MULTI -TRUNK) (M) LARGE-SCALE SHRUBS W ITH TREE -LIKE HABIT [24"BOX] ACACIAPOOALYRUFOLIA-PEARLACACIA(M) ARBUTUS UNEDO-STRAWBERRYTREE (Q —CIS OCCIDENTAIJS-WESTERN REDBUD (DcwLO SIS uNEARIS- DESSERTWILLOW(Q LAURUS NOBILIS-SWEET BAY (Q LEPTOSPERIMUM PETERSONII-LEMON SCENTED TEA TREE (Q PRUNUS ILICIFOLIA-HOLLYLEAF CHERRY (VL) 8GIX9 O FAOMi cooNC LARGE SCREEN SHRUBS f16 GALLON AND LARGER) POOocnRPUS MAC ROPHVM(M FBJOASELLowIANI DODONEAVISCOSA(q 26 ®PARK HIT US INTEGRIFOLIA(D CUPRESSUS SPP. (Q CANOPY TREE (24" BOX AND LARGER) ACACIA STENO PHVLA-SHOESTRNGACACIA(M) TOTAL PLATANUS RACEMOSA"GOLUMBIA'"-CALLFORJIASYCAMORE (M) PROSOPIS -LENSIS-THORNLESS CHILEAN MESQUITE IT) RHUS LANDEA-AFRICAN SUMAC (T) 107 OEXISTING FRAXINU SDIPETALA- CALLFGRNIAASH(L) PARKWAY TREES AT LOST CANYON ROAD PROTECT IN PLACE LANDSCAPE AREA CALCULATIONS SITE AREA DEVOTED TO LANDSCAPING. 144,187 SOFT (18 6 %OF TOTAL SITE NET ACREAGE) PARKING LOT TOTALAREA 174,449 SQFT PARKING LOT AREA DEVOTED TO LANDSCAPING. 11,669 SOFT (6 ]% OF TOTAL PARKING AREA) TREE COVERAGE CALCULATION NET ACRES .17 H TOTAL TREES. 507 TREES PERACRE 2S 4 GENERAL PLANTING AREAS LARGE SCREENING SHRUBS BAMBUSADOLICHOMERITHALLA-GREEN STRIPE BLOWGUN BAMBOO R4" BOX) BAMBUSAOLDHAMII-GIANT TIMBER BAMBOO (24" BOX) PRUNUSCAROLINIANA- CAROLINACHEERYLAUREL HET EROMELESARBUTIFOLIA-TOYON FBJOASELLOWIANA-PINEAPPLEGUAVA LARGE ACCENT SHRUBS ALOEHERCULES- HERCULES TREE ALOE (D ALOE BANENI-TREEALOE(Q nLOEAFRICANA-SPINYALOE ARBUTUS UNEDO'COMPACTA' (MULTI -TRUNK) -STRAWBERRY TREE (LJ DASY INoN W HEELER -DESERT SPOON (VQ D RACAENADRA00-DRAGON TREE (T) PITTOSPORUM TENUIFOLIUM'SIVERSHEEN'-SHVERSHEEN KOHUHU (L) ECHIUM CANDICANS-PRIDE OF MADEIRA OLEA V TTLE owe -DWARF OLIVE MEDIUM SIZE MASS ING SHRUBS ACACIA C.'000SIN ITT)- LITTLE RIVER WATTLE ANIGOZANTHOS SPP.-KANGAROO PAW (L) BOUGAINVILLEA ROSENKA- ROSENKABOUGAINVILLEA(L) CAW STEMON'LITTLEJOHN'-DWARF BOTTLE BRUSH (M) CARIC SPP. NATAL PLUM (M) CHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM-SMALL CAPE RUSH DAevuwoN WHEELER-DESE—POON (VQ LOPHOMYRTUs'RED DRAGON' -NEW ZEALAND MYRTLE RHO RMIUM SPP-NEW ZEALAND FLAX (M) RHAPHIGLEPIS SPP-YEDDO HAWTHORN (Q SALVIA SPP. SALVIA (L) SE— O DEDARYI-MADAGASCAR SENENO (Q SENNAARTEMISIODES- FEATHERYCASSINNq WESTR NGIA'BLUE GEM' -BLUE GEM COAST ROSEMARY(L) WESTRNGIN'MUNDI MUNDICGASTROSEMARY(q AGAVE' BLUE FLAME BLUE FLAMEAGAVE SMALL SIZE ACCENT SUCCULENTS, GRASSES & GROUNDCOVERS AEONIUM SPP. -AEONIUM (L) AGAVE'B W EGLOW' &B W E FLAME.-AGAVE(Q ALOE SPP,.' BLUE ELF', ROONAPPIE','OYNTHIA GIDDY''-101 ASPARAGUS D.'MYERS'-FOXTAIL FERN (L) BOU GAINVI LL. ROSENKA'- ROSENKA GO UGAI NVI FLEA IT) BULBI HE FRUTESC ENS STALKED BU LBINE IT) OAREXTUMULIOOLA-BERKELEY SEDGE IT) DuA ELAD.'CLARITYBLUE'- CLARITY awe DIANELLA(D DA ELLATASMANICA'VARIEGATA'-VARIEGATEDFLAXLILY FESTUCA NW RB -ATLAS FESCUE (Q GREVILEA L'PROSTRATE'-PROSTRATE WOOLY GREVILLEA FAINT ANAMGNTEEDENSIS-TRALINGLANTANA(Q LEYMUS C.'CANYON PRINCE' -CANYON PRINCE WILD RYE (L LONWNDRALONGIFOLIA'BREEZE, LM300 PP16,420'-DWARF MUHLENBERGIA CAPILIRIS-HAIRYAWN MUHLY (L) PENNISETUM'FAIRYTAI LS'-EVERGREEN FOUNTAIN GRASS PO RTULACARIAAFRA'VAREGATA'-RAINBOW BUSH (VL) SHADE CONDITION SHRUBS & GROUNDCOVERS ASPARAGUS D.'MYERS'-FOXTAIL FERN (L) CARRISAM'GREEN CARPET' GREEN CARPET NATAL PLUM (M) (GROUNDC D ANELATASMANICA'VARIEGATA'-VARIEGATED FLAX LILY (Q LOMANDRALONGIFOLIN BREEZE, LM300 PEV420'-DWARF MAT RUSH RHAPHOLEPIS U. MINOR-YEDDO HAWTHORN TRAC ITELOSPERIMUMJASMINOIDES-STAR JASMINE(M) (GROUNDCOVER7 CYCAS REVOLUTA-SAGO PALM DIOON SP ASSORTED FERNS TURF &GRASSES MARATHON II HYBRID DWARF BERMUDAS VINES INSTALLED IN WATER QUALITY BASINS ^NATIVE MOW FREE SOD'-11BLE®S&SSEEDS -FESTUCAIDAH ENSIS-IDAHOFESCUE(Q -FESTUCA OCCIDENTAILIS-WESTERN MOKELUMNE FESCUE (Q -FEATU CA RUBRA- MOLATEFESGUE(M) 'NATIVE MOW FREE SOD ABOVE WITH (1) GALLON GRASSES ® 30" O.C. 'GHONDROPETALUM ELEPHANTINUM-LARGE CAPE RUSH (Q FESTUCA NW RB -ATLAS FESCUE (Q 'PENNISETUM'FAIRYTAILS'-FAIRYTAILS FOUNTAIN GRASS MUHLEN BERG IACAPILLARS-PINK MUHLY(Q LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCHEDULE WM WITHEE MALCOLM A R C H I T E C T S 2251 west 19aF rtr 10 Job N0°B9040 De e 10 20 2020 15 Stb, ck PROPERTY LINE IN E W 1\1 k � K, R W— A L E URBAN 2 01 Will.hii— Blld sUS4o1 S—ta Mo,— canto,— 90403 W E S T P 310 566 6393 F 310 566 6389 1 IN C WALL & FENCE LEGEND CALLITH —DIL HEDIPRUIN I I TOO RAID EI ALL I AT'�"I'AT ON I E L I I C Aga1111 N�l, AREAS ( EE 1111L 11MI) TREAT . RAP III 11ATIM. 111L ENIC—E 111E 1—NAIDI PENCE UP CUT , , STEEL llSlWololll DOE ID'OHIS TO SITEND WITI -ANDElAlE A LNL PH NNATA NSA RWTEo RAHPAPNTEESI 0TEEE 10 M I LIA IT PAT o WALL & "My 8CREEN ISE IIHIECT I RINI FOR MORE INRORMCHIOw : WWA �l HE TGEHRTAA SIREA I TOEID BW TRA DIN G EPRVOR I I P 10 NO R ETE w I :WA " 'No Ho D F NISH PAINTED TO MATCH ARCHITECTURE " SEE E GHT " SCREEN COTORALNWH O'DoNREDDETORCON"ELM MTEANLT ARCH RED, N NIWAU ISE 11 LI RINI FIR "IRE NFIRMAT I . WA, HE G HE GHTVARA E (I MA.) E EE CA wl WALL MAT�HTAL CMU BLOCOWITH PIETER NEPaCONCRETE :WALL COLORDINISH PAINTED TO MATCH ARCHITECTURE o 20 40 So NORTH WALL & FENCE DIAGRAM WM WITHEE MALCOLM A R C H I T E C T 9 2251 w.1 1 91RD, 1— 1 Ar-E— 90504 1 310 217 8885 1 wlh—E.— — J,b N, B-0 -R, 10 20 2020 O PROPERTY LINE WALL & FENCE LEGEND PINNINAI AI�(IE.TREATED WITH ANTI AoAALIINN w A EA NooMEeAABLp LEEDC0TE comANNoecAPE a LNL FIT PAT o WALL PRO"y w, ---- VOR ieWALL ON LC -INIEH PAINTED,TATCHARNATECTURE ME ECREEN ON TO —NIEH PAINTED TO ---- FIR MILE EECEMH PIETER P�Ne TE WALL ON LC —NIEH PAINTED TO MATCH ARCHITECTURE WALL & FENCE DIAGRAM N E W 1u1 k � K, R W- A L VAS WM WITHEE MALCOLM URBAN A R C R I T E C T S 2001 WIDTH. Blvd. Ste 401 Santa Monica. California 90403 2251 west 1 eab sir A—L.. a90504 1 30217 8885 1 w1h.—E.-- W E .S T P. 310. 566 6393 F. 310. 566 6389 Job Noo B-0 Dam.10. 202020 I N C SOUND BARRIER WALL SCALE 1,2 -1 C PATIO WALLS SCALE 1,2 -1 C N E W 1\1 k � K, R W- A L E URBAN 2 01 W,11.hii,. 311,d sto401 S—tE, Mo,— Canto,— 90403 W E S T P 310 566 6393 F 310 566 6389 1 N C El H H H H H H H �POOL ENCLOSURE (CODE COMPLIANT) FENCE VV-LPOOL —P�—E I , I RETAINING WALLS SCALE 1,2 -1 C WALL & FENCE LEGEND — HEDIPIT11 —NIZE-ALL : "ATZITAL C.1 ETIIC .1 :Fo LOR "LTRA L EPRTH =E 8 T FA C E COAT REA ED RRTA NE�D ��Tl AREAE, PECISH—UP, T EAT ..FLTI IM. 100L ENIC—E 1101E 10.1-1 PECIE ETEEL COLO'CZCD DOE ED'OHIP TO EILEND —H L,NDECAlE A LNLFH NNATA NO L.TEo�DAH`�ALNTEEDC`0TEEE C 0 . I LIA UT PAT o WALL & PROA`y ECREEN (IEE 11HIEC, E PINE FOR 10HE INROIMCNIOw = 'I HE TEHRTAA 'CREC E LOED�`� TRA DIN' EpR'OR C I P CO PC R ETE w I IA 'T CNoHo IF NIRH PAINTED TO MATCH ARCHITECTURE PC PER E . ITT �, ECREEN "OTORXNH oPAoNRED`To0RCON`PL- MTEANLT ARCH C��A,IHEUT.L IIEEIEI.LHITPVIANRIIFOeR(eOMRA)N)FeOEREICTV = wl AE 1 MAT�HTHAL CMU PLOC—TH PIETER O�CONCRETE — COLORPFINIEH PAINTED TO MATCH ARCHITECTURE WALL & FENCE ELEVATIONS WM WITHEE MALCOLM A R C H I T E C T 9 2251 w.1 19aF rtr I. -PE— I — 90504 1 310 217 8885 1 w1h.—E.— — Job No B9040 — 10 20 2020 � APPENDIX 5.0=1 Plan Renderings rp.. AM f11 ! amp P - JI bi - a11�IG� r ]A NORTH SENIOR AFFORDABLE BUILDING - PERSPECTIVE N E W Fv E 7 R Co, LIj P� L GK WM WITHEE MALCOLM URBAN - - - A R C H I T E C T S 200 Wile hire Blvd. Ste 401 Santa Monies. California 90403 2251 wan teak street l torr—toe 90-131021788851 wimaeme-- W E S T P. 310. 566. 6393 F. 310. 566. 6389 N C, Job No. Beoao Date10.21.2o2o PA-3-01 1, \I PERSPECTIVE PLEX 12 BUILDING IN w [ G� ,� �� WM WITHEE MALCOLM URBAN A R C H I T E C T S 2001 Wilshire Blvd. Ste 401 Santa Monies. California 90403 225 want-hmrr—l— — 1310 2178 8851wimaeme-- w E .S T P 310 566 6393 F 310 566 6389 IN C Jo6Noeeoao oa�aiozizozo PA-4-01