Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-11-25 - AGENDA REPORTS - APPEAL WILEY CANYON MIXED USED PROJ MC 20-238O Agenda Item: 1 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA .` AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARINGS CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: DATE: November 25, 2025 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE WILEY CANYON MIXED USE PROJECT (MASTER CASE 20-238) DEPARTMENT: Community Development PRESENTER: Erika Iverson RECOMMENDED ACTION City Council: 1. Conduct the public hearing. 2. Adopt a resolution, denying Appeal 25-002, and affirming the Planning Commission decision to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2202030626) prepared for the project, including adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 3. Adopt a resolution denying Appeal 25-002 and affirming the Planning Commission's approval of the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project (Master Case 20-238). BACKGROUND REQUEST On September 16, 2025, the Planning Commission certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approved the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project, Master Case 20-238, consisting of an Architectural Design Review (ADR), Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Development Review (DR), Minor Use Permit (MUP), Oak Tree Permit (OTP), and Tentative Map (TM) to allow for the development of a mixed -use project consisting of a senior -living facility with 120 assisted -living units; 9,000 square feet of commercial floor area; 45 detached single-family units, 8 of which would include an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU); and 179 townhome units (Project). An appeal of the Planning Commission determination was filed on September 30, 2025. The Page 1 Packet Pg. 7 O appeal letter was signed by 30 members of the public (collectively "the appellant"). A copy of the appeal letter is provided as an attachment to this agenda report for the City Council's review. The appeal letter claims that 1) the determination is not in accord with the purposes of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code (SCMC); 2) there was an error or abuse of discretion; 3) the record includes inaccurate information; and 4) the decision is not supported by the record. In summary, the appeal raises the following concerns about the points above: 1. Wiley Canyon Road should be constructed as four lanes, and the environmental impact regulations for protocol site surveys of the Crotch's Bumble Bee are not being followed; 2. The Final EIR did not provide adequate response to the public comments received on the Draft EIR; 3. The roadway measurements for Wiley Canyon Road are inaccurate; and 4. The City of Santa Clarita (City) did not assess the impacts of traffic intrusion into the local neighborhoods due to the construction of new roundabouts on Wiley Canyon Road; Los Angeles County Fire Department response time; and the Draft EIR did not adequately address air quality. PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission has conducted four public hearings on the Project: March 19, 2024, June 18, 2024, August 19, 2025, and September 16, 2025 (copies of the Planning Commission staff reports are available in the City Clerk's reading file). The Project qualifies as a housing development project in accordance with the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Government Code section 66300). As such, the Project is subject to and must be evaluated based on compliance with the objective standards of the SCMC for the Mixed -Use Neighborhood (MXN) zone and the City's Community Character and Design Guidelines (CCDG). Additionally, under state law, the City cannot conduct more than five public hearings (including appeals) to consider the Project. At the March 19, 2024, hearing, City staff introduced the Project and summarized the Draft EIR. At that time, the Project request was for a larger, mixed -use project that consisted of a senior - living facility with 130 independent -living units, 61 assisted -living units, and 26 memory -care beds; 8,914 square feet of commercial floor area; and 379 multi -family apartment units. The hearing was continued, and the Planning Commission requested clarification and additional information on several topics from City staff and the applicant, including traffic circulation and access, emergency plans for the senior living facility, parking operations, construction management plan, landscaping along Project boundaries, additional renderings, discussion on the geotechnical analysis, and community outreach. At the June 18, 2024, hearing, City staff provided an overview of the applicant responses to Planning Commission comments made at the March 2024 hearing. The Planning Commission requested clarification and additional information on many topics from City staff and the applicant, including traffic circulation on Wiley Canyon Road, timing for roadway improvements and right -of -way -acquisition, parking operations, emergency operation plan for the senior living facility, construction phasing plan and construction noise mitigation, interior Project renderings, and community outreach. Page 2 Packet Pg. 8 O Following the June 2024 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant submitted an Alternative Project that reduced the overall density and floor area of the Project for the Planning Commission's consideration. At the August 19, 2025, Planning Commission hearing, staff presented the Alternative Project. The Planning Commission directed staff to return with a recommendation for the Alternative Project and the Final EIR for the Commission to consider. At the September 16, 2025, Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission, in a 4-0 vote with one abstention, adopted Resolution P25-13, to certify the Final EIR (SCH No. 2022030626) prepared for the Project, and adopted Resolution P25-14, to approve the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project under Master Case 20-238, for a development consisting of a senior - living facility with 120 assisted -living units; 9,000 square feet of commercial floor area; 45 detached single-family units, 8 of which would include an attached ADU; and 179 townhome units. PROJECT SETTING AND DESCRIPTION The Project site has a General Plan land use and zoning designation of MXN and is located within an approximately 38-acre area that is specifically identified in the General Plan as the Calgrove Corridor/Smiser Ranch Special Development Area (Smiser Ranch area). The General Plan limits the total allowable floor area for the Smiser Ranch area to 830,000 square feet of combined residential and commercial development. The Project site is also located within the Planned Development Overlay zone. The Project is located east of Interstate 5 (I-5) and west of Wiley Canyon Road, between Hawkbryn Avenue and Calgrove Boulevard, in the community of Newhall. Historically, approximately 31 acres, was used as a mule ranch. The northeastern portion of the Project site is separated from the proposed development by Wiley Canyon Road and consists of vacant land on an elevated hillside that will remain vacant. The South Fork Santa Clara River (creek) bisects the Project site at the southern end and continues northerly into a concrete -lined channel along the west side of Wiley Canyon Road. The existing Mulberry Mobile Home Park is located immediately adjacent to the north. Uses to the east, across Wiley Canyon Road are improved with single-family residences. The properties immediately adjacent to the south are improved with commercial uses, including an existing gym and medical office building. The I-5 is immediately adjacent to the west. There are 36 oak trees located on the Project site and its surroundings. The applicant is seeking approvals for the development of a mixed -use project on the approximately 31-acre site, consisting of a senior -living facility with 120 assisted -living units; 9,000 square feet of commercial floor area; 45 detached single-family units, 8 of which would include an attached ADU; and 179 townhome units. The development of the proposed Project would require several off -site roadway improvements, including the construction of three new roundabouts at the intersections of 1) Wiley Canyon Road and the Project entrance; 2) Wiley Canyon Road at Canerwell Street; and 3) Wiley Canyon Road at Calgrove Boulevard. The Project would require approximately 44,000 cubic yards of cut, 59,000 cubic yards of fill, over excavation of 515,000 cubic yards, and the import of approximately 85,000 cubic yards of earth to balance the grading for the Project. The Project proposes the removal of four non -heritage oak trees. Page 3 Packet Pg. 9 O As it relates to development standards of the MXN zone and development limitations established for the Smiser Ranch Area of the General Plan, the Project complies with all applicable objective development regulations. The General Plan establishes a limitation on the overall allowable floor area of 830,000 square feet of total residential and commercial combined development in the Smiser Ranch Area. The combined floor area of the Project is 523,890 square feet. The maximum height allowed in the MXN zone is 50 feet. The assisted -living facility would have a maximum height of four stories, not to exceed 50 feet. The single-family detached condominiums and townhomes would be two stories, with a maximum height of 35 feet. Parking would exceed the City's mixed -use development standards by 50 parking stalls, as shown in the table below. Each single-family condominium and each townhome would provide a two -car garage. Each ADU would have one surface parking space. Guest parking would be accommodated along the private street. The parking for the commercial and senior -living facility would be provided in surface parking spaces around the building. Land Use Parking Ratio Units Required Spaces Provided Spaces Single -Family Condominium 2/Unit 45 90 90 Townhome 2/Unit 179 358 358 ADU 0/Unit 8 0 8 Residential Guest 0.5/Umt 224 112 129 Senior Living Facility 0.5Bed or Unit 120 60 66 Commercial 1/200 sq. ft. 9,000 sq. ft. 45 64 TOTAL 665 Spaces 715 Spaces APPEAL A discussion of the appeal points is provided below. 1. The determination is not in accord with the purposes of the SCMC; namely Wiley Canyon Road was not required to be constructed as four lanes; and the environmental impact regulations for protocol site surveys of the Crotch's Bumble Bee are not being followed; Wiley Canyon Road Improvements The Project includes roadway improvements along Wiley Canyon Road that would construct three new roundabout intersections 1) at the Project entrance on Wiley Canyon Road; 2) at Canerwell Street and Wiley Canyon Road; and 3) at Calgrove Boulevard and Wiley Canyon Road. In addition, a Class I trail (two-lane bicycle path and separated, five-foot wide pedestrian path) would be installed along the Project frontage on Wiley Canyon Road from the Project entrance to Calgrove Boulevard. As discussed in the Planning Commission staff reports and in the staff presentations for the Planning Commission hearings, Wiley Canyon Road is designated by the City's General Plan Page 4 Packet Pg. 10 O Circulation Element as a Secondary Highway, which is a four -lane road configuration. However, the Project would maintain a two-lane roadway configuration along Wiley Canyon Road. Due to the significantly lower daily trips generated by the proposed Project (3,500) than had been contemplated by the General Plan (27,000) for this site, there is not a nexus between the Project and build -out of a four -lane roadway. Additionally, based on the projected future traffic volumes, including the Project trips, it is not anticipated that this portion of Wiley Canyon Road will ever reach the need to be four -lanes because these anticipated volumes fall far below the maximum capacity of a two-lane roadway as detailed below. A traffic analysis was prepared for the Project, and based on the analysis, the proposed Project would generate approximately 3,500 daily trips. The General Plan had assumed a build -out of the Project site that would generate approximately 27,000 daily trips, which had informed the designation of Wiley Canyon Road as a four -lane roadway in the Circulation Element. The traffic analysis for the Project considers the traffic volumes, inclusive of the current and expected future traffic volumes, plus the traffic volumes for the Project, along this portion of Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard. As discussed in the analysis and as presented at the Planning Commission hearings, the vehicle trips would be between 9,000 and 10,000 vehicle trips per day along this portion of Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard. This is well below the maximum capacity of a two-lane roadway, which has a maximum capacity of 16,000 to 18,000 vehicle trips per day. The Project would maintain a two-lane roadway configuration on Wiley Canyon Road, but the Project will not change the roadway designation of Secondary Highway in the Circulation Element. Based on the traffic analysis for the Project, it is not expected that four lanes will ever be necessary. Nonetheless, City Traffic and Transportation Planning staff have determined that Wiley Canyon Road could be designed with four vehicle lanes and a sidewalk on either side, if that was ever necessary in the future as a result of new development. Crotch's Bumble Bee California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is the regulatory agency responsible for the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, and native plants. The CDFW submitted a comment letter on the Draft EIR. In the comment letter, CDFW made recommendations for revisions to Mitigation Measure BIO-1 to mitigate impacts to Crotch's Bumble Bee. The CDFW revisions were accepted and incorporated into the Final EIR. As was discussed in the staff report and staff presentation at the September 16, 2025, Planning Commission hearing, the revision to Mitigation Measure BIO-1 simply refined the mitigation measure, addressing impacts to Crotch's Bumble Bee, which was already included in the Draft EIR. It did not introduce a new mitigation measure nor identify a new significant impact. 2. There was an error or abuse of discretion; namely, the Final EIR did not adequately address the public comments submitted; As was discussed in the staff report and in the staff presentation at the September 16, 2025, Planning Commission hearing, a Final EIR was prepared for the Project in conformance with Page 5 Packet Pg. 11 O CEQA. Specifically, in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR for the Project includes the 60 comment letters that were received during the public review period from public agencies, organizations, and members of the public. Each comment letter was reviewed and bracketed to assign each individual comment a unique identifier for the use of providing a response. These bracketed comment letters are provided in Attachment 1 of the Final EIR. Written responses to every bracketed comment are provided in Chapter 2 of the Final EIR. In addition, a summary of the response to comments was discussed in the staff report and staff presentation at the September 16, 2025, Planning Commission hearing. 3. The record includes inaccurate information; namely the roadway measurements for Wiley Canyon Road are inaccurate; As discussed above, there is no nexus between the expected future traffic volumes, inclusive of the Project, that warrants the need for a build -out to four lanes. Accordingly, the proposed roadway improvements shown on the Tentative Map maintain a two-lane roadway configuration with roundabout intersections at the Project entrance, at Wiley Canyon Road and Canerwell Street, and at Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard. The Tentative Map includes dimensioned roadway sections, which demonstrate how the proposed improvements would be constructed. The roadway improvements and traffic analysis were discussed at length in the Planning Commission hearings. While the expected future traffic volumes do not indicate a need for a four -lane roadway, the City's Traffic and Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the right- of-way width of Wiley Canyon Road and determined that, in the unlikely event four -lanes ever became necessary with future development, at its narrowest point, Wiley Canyon Road could be designed with four vehicle lanes and a sidewalk on either side of the roadway. 4. The decision is not supported by the record; namely the City did not address traffic intrusion into local neighborhoods due to construction of new roundabouts on Wiley Canyon Road; Los Angeles County Fire Department response time; the Draft EIR did not adequately address air quality; Traffic Intrusion As indicated in the appellant letter, the Conditions of Approval for the Project include Condition Number TE20, which reads as follows: Before the City Engineer issues a grading permit, the permittee must conduct vehicle counts on Canerwell Street, Ebelden Avenue, Fambrough Street, and Kalmar Avenue (Oak Ridge Estates neighborhood) and submit the counts to the City Engineer. Within one year of full occupancy of the Project, if requested by the City Engineer, the permittee must conduct new vehicle counts in Oak Ridge Estates neighborhood. If the new vehicle counts demonstrate a significant diversion of vehicles, as determined by the City Engineer, into the Oak Ridge Estates neighborhood, the permittee will be required to implement appropriate traffic calming measures that must be approved by the City Engineer to discourage such diversion. This Condition of Approval was included in direct response to public comments regarding Page 6 Packet Pg. 12 O concern that the proposed construction of the roundabout intersections would result in vehicles using the neighborhood streets as an alternate route to avoid Wiley Canyon Road. It is important to note that this is not a deferred mitigation measure as suggested by the appellant. There is no indication in the traffic analysis that vehicles would cut through the neighborhood streets in an effort to avoid using Wiley Canyon Road. Nonetheless, the Condition of Approval provides a mechanism for the City Engineer to evaluate and implement traffic calming measures after the Project is completed, if that is ever determined to be needed. Los Angeles Coun . Fire The conclusions made in the Draft EIR regarding Fire Department response come directly from coordination with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department (LACFD), the regulatory authority for fire protection services at the Project site. The City, as part of the EIR preparation, received a letter from LACFD indicating the available fire stations in the vicinity to provide service to the Project site, indicating that the development of the proposed Project would not create a capacity or service level problem, and would not require the need for new or upgraded facilities. In addition, the letter from LACFD states that developer fees and property tax revenue generated by new developments help ensure adequate service levels with new development. Air Quali , Analysis An air quality analysis was prepared for the Project and evaluated based on the guidance of the local and state regulatory agencies, as outlined below. Per the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook, characterization of existing ambient air quality in an EIR should include the most recent available data on background concentrations of criteria pollutants, as well as the number of days in which ambient levels exceed the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This data must be obtained from the nearest SCAQMD air monitoring station within the Source Receptor Area (SRA) of the project, which is SRA 13. However, as SRA 13 did not provide data for all pollutants, available data from the nearest monitoring stations to SRA 13 were included, which include SRA 6 (the West San Fernando Valley Monitoring Station) and SRA 1 (the Central Los Angeles County Monitoring Station). Consistent with this guidance, the Draft EIR appropriately establishes existing background concentrations for the Project, as presented on page 4.2-4 of the Draft EIR. It should also be noted that the existing ambient air quality does not change the impact findings of the Draft EIR. The effects of the existing environment on the Project are not considered environmental impacts pursuant to CEQA (California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) (Case No. S213478)), which states in summary that "agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project's future users or residents. But when a proposed project risks exacerbating those environmental hazards or conditions that already exist, an agency must analyze the potential impact of such hazards on future residents or users. In those specific instances, it is the project's impact on the environment - and not the environment's impact on the project - that compels an evaluation of how future residents or users could be affected by exacerbated conditions." Thus, the EIR is not required to anticipate the potential impact of off - Page 7 Packet Pg. 13 O site ambient air quality on the Project. Nevertheless, as detailed above, the EIR adequately provided contextual data for ambient air quality. Overall, as discussed in detail in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR, all air quality impacts were determined to be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Furthermore, the SCAQMD's CEQA mass daily thresholds for criteria air pollutants are designed to evaluate the incremental increase in emissions resulting from a proposed project. These thresholds are informed, in part, by the current attainment status of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) for each pollutant and the levels that the SCAB can accommodate without affecting the attainment date for the NAAQS or CAAQS. Therefore, the SCAQMD mass daily emissions inherently account for existing ambient air quality conditions within the SCAB. The Project's air pollutant emissions inventory for both construction and operational phases was evaluated against these thresholds. Accordingly, the analysis of potential impacts related to criteria air pollutant emissions has been conducted in accordance with SCAQMD guidance and significance criteria. PUBLIC NOTICING All notices required by law were completed, which consisted of a legal advertisement in The Signal newspaper on November 4, 2025, and notification of public hearing by mail to all property owners and occupants within a 1,000-foot radius of the Project site. Two signs were also posted at the Project site on November 11, 2025. In addition, notices were sent to all signatories on the appeal letter. Following the publication of the public hearing notice, and as of the writing of this staff report, staff has received one letter from the applicant in response to the appeal letter which is provided as an attachment. CONCLUSION The Project is a housing development project in accordance with the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Government Code section 66300). Accordingly, the Project was reviewed and evaluated based on conformance with the City's objective development standards as discussed above, and as discussed at each Planning Commission hearing. As a housing project, the Project cannot be denied if it complies with the City's objective design standards. The Project complies with objective standards of the SCMC for the MXN zone; therefore, the Planning Commission voted to approve the Project. City staff has prepared the necessary resolutions for consideration, and recommends the City Council adopt resolutions to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission determinations to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2022030626) prepared for the Project, and to approve the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project under Master Case 20-238 (ADR 20-023, CUP 20-005, DR 20-017, MUP 20-013, OTP 425-004, and TM 83295) for development consisting of a senior -living facility with 120 assisted -living units; 9,000 square feet of commercial floor area; 45 detached single-family units, 8 of which would include an attached ADU; and 179 townhome units; subject to the Conditions of Approval. Page 8 Packet Pg. 14 O ALTERNATIVE ACTION Other action as determined by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT There is no impact to the General Fund. ATTACHMENTS Public Hearing Notice CEQA Resolution and Exhibits- Draft and Final EIR Project Resolution and Exhibit Appeal Letter Site Plan Applicant Response to Appeal Comments 2024-03-19 Planning Commission (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) 2024-06-18 Planning Commission (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) 2025-08-19 Planning Commission (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) 2025-09-16 Planning Commission (available in the City Clerk's Reading File) Page 9 Packet Pg. 15 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 1.a COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPEALS OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FOR MASTER CASE 20-238 APPLICATION: Appeal 25-002 regarding Master Case 20-238: Tentative Map 83295, Architectural Design Review 20-023, Conditional Use Permit 20-005, Development Review 20-017, Minor Use Permit 20-013, Oak Tree Permit (Class 4), and Environmental Impact Report 20-002 PROJECT APPLICANT: Wiley Canyon, LLC PROJECT LOCATION: East of Interstate 5 and west of Wiley Canyon Road, between Hawkbryn Avenue and Calgrove Boulevard. Assessor's Parcel Numbers 2825-012- 007, 2825-007-010, 2825-012-011, 2825-012-901, and 2825-012-902 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: On September 16, 2025, a public hearing was conducted for the proposed project, and the Planning Commission certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and approved Master Case 20-238. Master Case 20-238 granted an Architectural Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Development Review, Minor Use Permit, Oak Tree Permit, and Tentative Map to allow for development of a mixed -use project consisting of a senior -living facility with 120 assisted -living units; 9,000 square feet of commercial floor area; 45 detached single-family units, eight of which would include an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU); and 179 townhome units. The project would include off -site improvements, which consists of a new roundabout at the Project entrance on Wiley Canyon Road, and at the intersections at Wiley Canyon Road with Canerwell Street, and Wiley Canyon Road with Calgrove Boulevard, as well as construction of Class I, II, and III bicycle lanes along Wiley Canyon Road from north of Lyons Avenue to Calgrove Boulevard, and along Calgrove Boulevard to The Old Road. In addition, off -site improvements are necessary for the buildout of the project, including a new water line proposed within Old Wiley Canyon Road, a new storage tank and a new pump within an existing pump station. The Project would require grading for up to 44,000 cubic yards of cut and 59,000 cubic yards of fill, and the import of approximately 85,000 cubic yards of fill. The Project includes removing four non - heritage oak trees and the encroachment of 19 oak trees. A timely appeal of the Planning Commission decision was filed on September 30, 2025. In accordance with the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, the City Council will conduct a public hearing on this matter on the following date: DATE: Tuesday, November 25, 2025 TIME: At or after 6:00 p.m. LOCATION: City Hall, Council Chambers 23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor Santa Clarita, CA 91355 In accordance with California law, a decision must be rendered at this public hearing; no continuances are permitted. The City Council agenda can be found at www.santaclarita.gov/agendas on or before November 21, 2025. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Final EIR was prepared to identify the project's potential environmental impacts. The Final EIR for the Wiley Canyon project is available for review by appointment in the City Clerk's Office at the following location: City of Santa Clarita City Hall, City Clerk's Office 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Packet Pg. 16 1.a The Final EIR for the Wiley Canyon Project is also available for public review on the City of Santa Clarita website at: htips:Hsantaclarita.gov/planning/environmental-impact-reports-under-review/ 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 hearings described in this notice, or written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clarita at, or before, the public hearings. For further information regarding this proposal, you may contact the project planner at the City of Santa Clarita, Permit Center, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Telephone: (661) 255- 4330. Website: www.santaclarita.gov/planning. Send written correspondence to: 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Project Planner: Erika Iverson, eiversonksantaclarita.gov. Mary Cusick, MMC City Clerk Published: The Signal, November 4, 2025 Packet Pg. 17 wnx,1pw�� a `ya1'u p II rr I1 I } �I ��� I`■rA Md r4j P 1.b RESOLUTION NO. 25- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING APPEAL 25-002 AND AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH No. 2022030626) FOR MASTER CASE 20-238 (ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 20-023, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 20-005, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 20-017, MINOR USE PERMIT 20-013, OAK TREE PERMIT 425-004, AND TENTATIVE MAP 83295) INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT, AND ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS FOR MASTER CASE 20-238. The City Council makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: A. On October 28, 2020, an application for Master Case 20-238 was filed, consisting of Architectural Design Review (ADR) 20-023, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 20-005, Development Review (DR) 20-017, Minor Use Permit (MUP) 20-013, Oak Tree Permit (OTP) 425-004, and Tentative Map (TM) 83295. The properties affected by the application are Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN) 2825-012-007, 2825-007-010, 2825-012-011, 2825- 012-901, and 2825-012-902; B. The approximately 31-acre Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project (Project) site is located at 24924 Hawbryn Avenue, and has a General Plan land use and zoning designation of Mixed Use Neighborhood (MXN). The Project site is also located within the area designated by the General Plan as the Calgrove Corridor/Smiser Ranch Special Development Area (Smiser Ranch Area), and located within the Planned Development Overlay (PD) zone; C. The Project includes the proposed development of 45 two-story detached, single-family condominium units, eight of which would include an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU); 179 two-story townhome units; a four-story, 120-unit assisted -living facility; and 9,000 square feet of commercial floor area, including the merger and subdivision into seven lots; D. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq.), including the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15000, et seq.), the City of Santa Clarita (City) is the lead agency; E. The City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared for the Project; F. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project EIR was circulated to affected agencies, pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, for 30 days, beginning on March 24, 2022, and ending on April 25, 2022. Agencies that received the NOP include, but are not limited to, the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Page 1 of 9 Packet Pg. 19 1.b Department of Fish and Wildlife, South Coast Air Quality Management District, law enforcement agencies, school districts, water agencies, and utility companies serving the Santa Clarita Valley in accordance with CEQA's consultation requirements. Comments from public agencies, organizations, and members of the public were received in response to the NOP for the Project; G. A scoping meeting was held at City Hall on April 14, 2022, to obtain information from the public as to issues that should be addressed in the EIR. Notice of the scoping meeting was published in The Signal newspaper on March 24, 2022. Approximately 58 people attended the scoping meeting. The topics of concern that were raised at the meeting included changes to the existing visual characteristics, displacement of wildlife, wildland fire and emergency evacuation, increase in traffic, water quality and water supply, drainage and flooding, and increase in density; H. The City hosted a community meeting in an open house format on June 30, 2022, providing the opportunity for the public to view the Project proposal and engage with City staff. There were approximately 40 people in attendance; I. A site tour of the Project site with the Planning Commission was held February 21, 2023, to provide the Planning Commission with context for the site setting and surroundings; The City prepared a Draft EIR, for the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project, that addressed all issues raised in comments received on the NOR The Draft EIR was circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, in compliance with CEQA. Specifically, the Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion for the Draft EIR was advertised on March 1, 2024, for a 45-day public review period that ended on April 15, 2024, at 5:00 p.m. in accordance with CEQA. The City received written comments throughout the comment period as well as oral testimony at the March 19, 2024, June 18, 2024, August 19, 2025, and September 16, 2025, Planning Commission meetings for the Project; K. The Planning Commission public hearings for the Project were duly noticed in accordance with the noticing requirements for each of the Entitlements. The Project was advertised in The Signal newspaper, through on -site posting 14 days before the hearing, and by direct first- class mailing to property owners and occupants within 1,000 feet of the Project site; L. On March 19, 2024, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. The Planning Commission opened the public hearing for the Project and received a presentation from City staff on the Project setting, requested Entitlements, Project description, and the Draft EIR sections. The Planning Commission provided direction to bring the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project back to the Planning Commission with additional information regarding traffic circulation and access, a parking plan, residential amenities, landscape buffers, emergency evacuation operations for the senior facility, construction management plans, and discussion of the geotechnical analysis. The Planning Commission continued the item to the June 18, 2024, Planning Commission meeting; Page 2 of 9 Packet Pg. 20 1.b M. On June 18, 2024, the Planning Commission received a presentation regarding the follow-up items from the March 19, 2024, meeting, along with a presentation from the applicant, and public testimony. Additional time was needed to respond to all comments received on the Draft EIR and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission provided direction to bring the Project back to the Planning Commission with additional information regarding traffic simulations, timing for right-of-way acquisition, parking operations plan, construction phasing, and construction noise mitigation plans, additional renderings, and additional community outreach. The Planning Commission then continued the item; N. On August 19, 2025, a duly noticed continued public hearing was held before the Planning Commission at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. The Planning Commission received a staff presentation on the follow-up items from the March 19, 2024, and June 18, 2024, meetings, along with a presentation of a reduced Project alternative proposed by the applicant. Following public testimony, the Planning Commission directed that the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project return to the Planning Commission at the September 16, 2025, meeting with a draft resolution and Conditions of Approval for the reduced Project alternative for consideration; O. On September 16, 2025, the Planning Commission received a presentation on the follow-up items from the March 19, 2024, June 18, 2024, and August 19, 2025, meetings, along with the applicant's presentation and public testimony. The Planning Commission considered the staff report, Draft Final EIR, Resolutions, and Conditions of Approval; P. The Draft EIR was presented to the Planning Commission on March 19, 2024. On September 16, 2025, the Planning Commission considered the Draft Final EIR prepared for the Project, as well as information provided in staff reports, presented to the Planning Commission by experts, and presented in public testimony, including letters submitted to the Planning Commission. At the close of the public hearing, the Planning Commission, in a 4-0 vote, with one abstention, certified the Final EIR for the Project. The Final EIR for the Project was prepared in compliance with CEQA; Q. On September 30, 2025, an appeal (Appeal 25-002) to the City Council of the Planning Commission's decision was filed; R. On November 25, 2025, a duly noticed public hearing regarding the appeal was held before the City Council at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita; and S. During this public hearing, the City Council considered the staff report, the staff presentation, the applicant presentation, and public testimony. This resolution, and its findings, are based upon the City Council's de novo review of the entire administrative record including, without limitation, the staff reports, testimony, written evidence, and meeting minutes provided during the various public hearings. Page 3 of 9 Packet Pg. 21 1.b SECTION 2. CEQA REQUIREMENTS. Based on the foregoing facts and findings for Master Case 20-238, the City Council determines as follows: A. CEQA provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002). The procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects" (Id.); B. CEQA's mandates and principles are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions: (1) "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR," (2) "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency," or (3) "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines § 15091.) CEQA defines "feasible" to mean capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal and technological factors. (CEQA §21061.1; CEQA Guidelines § 15364.); C. The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. "Feasibility" under CEQA, then, encompasses "desirability" to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors; D. CEQA requires that the lead agency exercise its independent judgment in reviewing the adequacy of an EIR and that the decision of a lead agency in certifying a Final EIR and approving a project not be predetermined. The City Council has conducted its own review and analysis, and is exercising its independent judgment when acting as herein provided; E. CEQA requires decision -makers to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for those mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR that would mitigate or avoid each significant impact identified in the EIR and to incorporate the MMRP, including all mitigation measures, as a condition of Project approval; Page 4 of 9 Packet Pg. 22 1.b F. CEQA requires that the responses to comments in the Final EIR demonstrate good faith and a well -reasoned analysis, and not be overly conclusory. In response to several of the comments received, portions of the Draft EIR have been revised. Although new material has been added to the Draft EIR through preparation of the Final EIR, this new material provides clarification to points and information already included in the Draft EIR and is not considered to be significant new information or a substantial change to the Draft EIR or to the Project that would necessitate recirculation; and G. CEQA Guidelines § 15003 notes that the purpose of an EIR is to inform other governmental agencies and the public generally of the environmental impacts of a proposed project. CEQA does not require technical perfection or exhaustive treatment of issues in an EIR, but rather adequacy, completeness, and a good -faith effort at full disclosure. SECTION 3. CEQA FINDINGS. The City Council finds that the Draft Final EIR for Master Case 20-238 (ADR 20-023; CUP 20-005; DR 20-017; MUP 20-013; OTP (Class 4) 425-004; and TM 83295) identifies and discloses Project -specific impacts and cumulative Project impacts. Environmental impacts identified in the Draft Final EIR, findings, and facts in support of findings are incorporated as CEQA Facts and Findings referred to as Exhibit A, which is incorporated by reference, and identified as follows: A. The Draft Final EIR identifies significant but mitigated impacts, as set forth in Section 5.3 of Exhibit A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that will avoid or reduce these potential impacts to a less -than -significant level. B. The Draft Final EIR also identifies less -than -significant impacts, as set forth in Section 5.2 of Exhibit A. C. The Draft Final EIR also identifies significant and unavoidable, but mitigated to the extent feasible, as set forth in Section 5.4 of Exhibit A. D. The less -than -significant impacts set forth in Section 5.2 of Exhibit A will not contribute to cumulative impacts. E. The MMRP, attached as Exhibit B, which is incorporated by reference, is required to mitigate Project impacts. SECTION 4. CONSIDERATION OF A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including the Project Draft Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Project and the Draft Final EIR and otherwise, upon studies and investigation made by the City Council, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, the City Council further finds that the Draft Final EIR analyzes a reasonable range of Project alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project, would lessen any of the significant impacts of the Project, and adequately evaluates the comparative merits of each alternative. Page 5 of 9 Packet Pg. 23 1.b A. The objectives of the Project are specified in the Draft Final EIR and Section 2.2 of Exhibit A. These objectives are used as the basis for comparing the Project alternatives and determining the extent that the objectives would be achieved relative to the proposed Project. B. Alternative 1 — No Project/No Development Alternative. This alternative is required by the CEQA Guidelines and compares the impacts that might occur if the site is left in its present condition with those that would be generated by the proposed Project. Under this alternative, no development or redevelopment would occur beyond what exists today; therefore, all impacts would remain at current levels. This alternative would have the least impact compared to the Project; however, it would not attain any of the Project Objectives as summarized in Section 2.2 of the CEQA Facts and Findings (Exhibit A). Therefore, this alternative is infeasible. C. Alternative 2 — Affordable Housing Alternative. This alternative includes the development of 837 apartment units, including 201 units designated for lower -income households. The maximum height would be 65 feet, with a proposed floor area ratio of 0.63. This alternative would not develop the recreation area located to the south of the creek. The infrastructure improvements, including the drainage basins and off -site street improvements, would remain the same as the Project. This alternative would generally have similar impacts as the proposed Project. Impacts to Greenhouse Gas (GHG), Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, and Utilities would be slightly higher, but this alternative would necessitate the same mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. This alternative would have the same temporary, significant, unavoidable impact on construction noise. This alternative generally meets the Project Objectives, though it does not provide a senior -living component or commercial component, and does not develop the same recreational space as the Project. D. Alternative 3 — Private Recreation Facility Alternative. This alternative includes the development of a private recreational facility, including a 10,000-square-foot clubhouse/restaurant. The facility would consist of eight tennis courts, seven pickleball courts, a soccer field, a football field, a baseball field, and an outdoor basketball court. All fields would include overhead lighting. The infrastructure improvements, including the drainage basins and off -site street improvements, would remain the same as the Project. This alternative would have greater impacts in the areas of Aesthetics, due to overhead field lighting. Impacts in the areas of Air Quality, Energy, GHG, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, and Utilities would be less than the Project. Impacts in all other areas would be similar to the Project, including the same temporary significant unavoidable impact for construction noise. This alternative would not meet the primary Project Objectives to provide a mixed -use development with housing, senior -living, and commercial uses. Page 6 of 9 Packet Pg. 24 1.b E. Alternative 4 — Construction Noise Setback Alternative. This alternative includes the development of a 139-bed assisted -living facility, 47 detached condos, and 237 apartment units. The assisted -living facility would be three stories in height, and the multifamily units would range from two to four stories. Under this alternative, a 200-foot open space/landscaped buffer between the mobile home park to the north and the Project site would be provided. A similar recreation space to the Project at the southern portion of the Project site would be provided. This alternative would have similar or slightly lower impacts as the proposed Project. Impacts to Air Quality, Energy, GHG, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, and Utilities would be slightly lower, but expected to require the same mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. This alternative would eliminate the temporary, significant, unavoidable impact of construction noise. This alternative generally meets the Project Objectives; however, it does not provide the commercial component. F. Alternative 5 — Mixed Use Project Alternative. This alternative includes the development of 232 townhome and/or detached condominium units, two stories in height. In addition, this alternative would include a senior/assisted-living facility with 120 units, four stories in height. The commercial component under this alternative would be 9,000 square feet. A similar recreation space to the Project at the southern portion of the Project site would be provided. This alternative would have similar or slightly lower impacts than the proposed Project. Impacts to Air Quality, Energy, GHG, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, and Utilities would be slightly lower, but expected to require the same mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. This alternative would have the same temporary significant unavoidable impact for construction noise. This alternative meets the Project Objectives. SECTION 5. FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record including, without limitation, the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project Draft Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Project and the Draft Final EIR, upon studies and investigation made by the City Council, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, the City Council finds: A. That the Draft Final EIR for the Project is adequate, complete, was prepared in accordance with CEQA, and should be certified on that basis; B. That the City Council independently reviewed and considered the Draft Final EIR in reaching its conclusions; C. That the Draft Final EIR was presented and reviewed prior to taking final action to recommend certification of the Final EIR and approval of the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project; Page 7 of 9 Packet Pg. 25 1.b D. That, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the Draft Final EIR includes a description of each potentially significant impact and rationale for finding that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as detailed in Exhibit A attached hereto. The analyses included in the Draft Final EIR to support each conclusion and recommendation therein is hereby incorporated into these findings; E. That, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081, modifications occurred to the Project to reduce significant effects; F. That, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, changes and alterations have been required and incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen its significant environmental effects because feasible mitigation measures, including those in the MMRP, are made Conditions of Approval for the Project; G. That the Draft Final EIR reflects the decision -maker's independent judgment and analysis; H. That an MMRP has been prepared and is recommended for adoption to enforce the mitigation measures required by the Draft Final EIR and Project approvals; and I. The documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings on which this decision is based are under the custody of the Director of Community Development and are located at the City of Santa Clarita, Community Development Department, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, California 91355. SECTION 6: STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including the Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Project and the Final EIR and otherwise, upon studies and investigation made by the City Council, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, the City Council further finds that there is substantial evidence that supports the conclusion that the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project will result in community benefits including specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits that outweigh the one significant effect of the Project on the environment that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant. A. One significant unavoidable impact relates to construction noise, as further described in attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated by reference; and B. The benefits of the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project outweigh its one significant unavoidable impact that cannot be mitigated to a level below significant. These benefits are listed in Section 7.3 of Exhibit A. SECTION 7: APPROVALS. The City Council reviewed and considered the Draft Final EIR (SCH No. 2022030626) and determined that it is adequate and in compliance with CEQA. Accordingly, the City Council certifies the Final EIR and associated documents, and adopts the attached MMRP as if fully set forth. Page 8 of 9 Packet Pg. 26 1.b SECTION 8: RELIANCE ON RECORD. Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this resolution 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 9: SUMMARIES OF INFORMATION. All summaries of information in the 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 finding is not based in part on that fact. SECTION 10: NOTICE. The City Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this resolution to the City Council and any other person requesting a copy. SECTION 11: EFFECTIVE DATE. This resolution becomes effective immediately upon adoption and memorializes the City Council's final decision made on November 25, 2025. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 25th day of November, 2025. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Date: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Mary Cusick, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 25- was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 25th day of November, 2025, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK Page 9 of 9 Packet Pg. 27 1.b EXHIBIT A STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FOR THE WILEY CANYON PROJECT SCH NO. 2022030626 Lead Agency: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 November 25, 2025 Packet Pg. 28 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS......................................................................2 2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY....................................................................................................4 2.1 Description of Project Proposed for Approval..............................................................4 2.2 Statement of Objectives................................................................................................ 6 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.................................................8 4.0 INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND FINDING................................................................10 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS.............................................................12 5.1 Effects Determined to Have No Impact in the EIR.....................................................12 5.2 Effects Determined to Be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation in the EIR......... 13 5.3 Effects Determined to Be Mitigated to Less -Than -Significant Levels in the EIR....... 18 5.4 Effects Determined to Be Significant and Unavoidable But Mitigated to the Extent Feasible....................................................................................................................... 33 5.5 Alternatives to the Proposed Project.......................................................................... 34 6.0 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR...........................................................................48 6.1 Findings.......................................................................................................................48 6.2 Conclusions................................................................................................................48 7.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS...................................................50 7.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................50 7.2 Significant Unavoidable Impacts................................................................................50 7.3 Overriding Considerations.......................................................................................... 51 8.0 STATEMENT OF LOCATION AND CUSTODIAN OF DOCUMENTS ............................55 November 2025 i Packet Pg. 29 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. November 2025 1 Packet Pg. 30 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report 1.0 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a Lead Agency make specific findings before approving a project that would significantly impact on the environment. In this Statement of Facts and Findings, the City identifies the significant impacts of the Project, presents facts supporting the conclusions reached in the analysis, makes one or more of three potential findings for each impact, and explains the reasoning behind the agency's findings. This Statement of Facts and Findings was prepared in accordance with CEQA, specifically Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a) provides that: No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The three findings available for the Statement of Facts and Findings pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 are as follows: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. The City of Santa Clarita (City), the CEQA Lead Agency, finds and declares that the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City's City Council finds and certifies that the EIR was reviewed, and information contained in the EIR was considered before approving the Wiley Canyon Project ("project"). Based upon its review of the EIR, the City Council finds that the EIR is an adequate assessment of the potentially significant environmental impacts of the project, represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City, and sets forth an adequate range of alternatives to this project. The EIR for the project is comprised of the following elements: • Wiley Canyon Project Draft EIR and Technical Appendices (March 2024) Wiley Canyon Project Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (September 2025) November 2025 2 Packet Pg. 31 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. November 2025 3 Packet Pg. 32 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report 2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT The project site consists of approximately 31.8 acres of vacant land located at 24924 Hawkbryn Avenue in the southwestern portion of Santa Clarita bordered by Interstate 5 (1-5) to the west, Wiley Canyon Road to the east, Hawkbryn Avenue to the north and Calgrove Boulevard to the south, within the Newhall area of the City of Santa Clarita (City). The project site is located approximately 28 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles and is locally accessible via Wiley Canyon Road and Hawkbryn Avenue. Regionally, the project site is accessible from the 1-5 freeway via Calgrove Boulevard, south of the site, or via Lyons Avenue approximately 0.6 miles north of the site. The project site is located entirely within the City's jurisdictional boundaries, and unincorporated Los Angeles County is located immediately west of the 1-5 freeway. The project applicant proposes to redevelop existing vacant land with a new mixed -use development consisting of the following components: a 277,108 square -foot senior living facility, 8,914 square feet of commercial space, 379 multifamily residential apartments, a publicly accessible outdoor recreational field space, and off -site circulation improvements (e.g., new roundabouts, traffic signals, Class I and II bike lanes on Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard, and pedestrian trails). A 277,108-square-foot senior living facility is proposed with 130 independent living units, 61 assisted living units, and 26 memory care beds. This facility would be located on a 7.27-acre area in the northernly portion of the project site. Within the proposed senior living facility would be an 8,914-square-foot commercial space on the first floor by the facility's entrance. A total of 379 multifamily residential units are proposed to be south of the senior living facility. A total of five 3-story buildings comprised of 152 units would be constructed on a 4.47-acre area. Amenities on site would include a leasing center, clubhouse with fitness center, and a pool area, totaling 5,886 square feet. The proposed residences would range from 1-, 2-, and 3-bedrooms as well as loft style apartments. In addition, a total of eight buildings with 227 units would be developed within an 8.17-acre area and consist of four 4-story buildings and four 2-story buildings. The proposed residences would include studios, and 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom apartments as well as a 2,400 square -foot clubhouse and pool area. The project also proposes active and passive on -site recreational facilities. A 50,600-square-foot passive recreational grass pad would be located on the southern portion of the project site. A 16- foot-wide pedestrian trail/maintenance road would be run approximately 7,040 linear feet (1.3 miles) throughout the project site and along Wiley Canyon Road. Additionally, Lot 6, which is 128,659 square feet (2.9 acres) in size and located to the east of Wiley Canyon Road would remain undeveloped under the proposed project. Within the senior living facility, a memory care garden with a central fountain, table and bench seating, faux turf, and enhanced concrete pavers are proposed. The senior living facility would also include a pool and spa, chaise lounge seating, and outdoor dining areas as well as a barbeque area with a shade structure, counter space, and pedestrian pathways and paving. The project site would be redeveloped to include landscaping throughout and would be used to screen certain facilities on site, such as transformers and November 2025 4 Packet Pg. 33 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report maintenance buildings. In addition, the project would utilize landscaping for fuel modification zones. Implementation of the proposed project would require infrastructure improvements including curb and gutter, storm drain, and water and sewer connections to existing facilities within the local vicinity. The project proposes to connect to an existing 12-inch sewer line and a 12-inch dip water line located to the east of the project site along the right-of-way for Wiley Canyon Road. Existing power poles and overhead electric lines would be removed along the western boundary of the site adjacent to the 1-5 freeway, with the exception of select power poles and overhead lines at the southern end of the site adjacent to the proposed drainage basin, and updated, underground electrical lines would be installed. Electrical transformer units would be installed intermittently around the perimeter of the project site. A 30,011-square-foot (0.69-acre) drainage basin would be located immediately south of the multifamily apartment buildings, and two smaller water quality basins would be located at the northwestern end of the project site and the eastern portion of the site adjacent to the multifamily residences. Additionally, between the drainage basin discussed above, and the South Fork of the Santa Clara River, the project proposes a soil cement bank protection, adjacent to the asphalt trail and maintenance road, for protection during a 25-year storm event. The majority of the off -site infrastructure improvements would be street improvements along Wiley Canyon Road and its intersecting streets, including Fourl Road, Canerwell Street, Valley Oak Court, and Calgrove Boulevard. Street improvements would include three new roundabouts, new curbs and gutters, a storm drain box culvert extension, new bus bays, bicycle paths (e.g., Classes I and 11) and ramps, walking trails and sidewalks, as well as changes to existing directional signage and utilities (i.e., new power poles). The intersection of Calgrove Boulevard and 1-5 located at the southwest corner of the project site would also be signalized. AGREEMENTS, PERMITS, AND APPROVALS This EIR is intended to inform and provide clearance under CEQA for all governmental approval actions necessary to authorize the project to proceed. These approvals include those listed below. City of Santa Clarita • Tentative Map to subdivide the project site into seven lots. • Grading Permit for up to 44,000 cubic yards of cut and 59,000 cubic yards of fill, and the import of approximately 85,000 cubic yards of fill. • Conditional Use Permit for new development within the Planned Development Overlay and to permit the assisted living facility in MXN zone. • Minor Use Permit for commercial floor area ratio that does not meet the minimum required in the zone, and the import of approximately 85,000 cubic yards of fill. • Development and Architectural Design Review for the development of the proposed project. • Oak Tree Permit for removal of, encroachment upon, and/or impact to existing oak trees. • Certification of the EIR prepared for the project. November 2025 5 Packet Pg. 34 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report • Approval by the City Council that the EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA and other applicable codes and guidelines. • Approval by the City Council of the project or an alternative to the project. Other Agencies To allow for construction for certain improvements, the following permits would be required: • Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (if jurisdictional aquatic resources are impacted) • Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (if jurisdictional aquatic resources are impacted) • Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 (if jurisdictional aquatic resources are impacted) • Domestic Water Supply Permit Amendment with the Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency from the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water. • Encroachment Permit from the California Department of Transportation. • Transportation Permit from the California Department of Transportation for the use of heavy construction equipment and/or materials that require the use of oversized transport vehicles on State highways. 2.2 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES The primary objectives of the project include the following: • Create a new mixed -use community that allows for residential, retail/commercial, and senior housing while preserving and enhancing natural resources. • Provide a sensitive and protective interface with the adjacent Wiley Canyon Creek by utilizing appropriate setback, grading, landscape, buried bank stabilization and water quality treatments. • Provide development and transitional land use patterns that are compatible with surrounding communities and land uses and are consistent with the City's General Plan. • Arrange land uses and add amenities to reduce vehicle miles traveled and to encourage the use of transit. • Design neighborhoods to locate residential and non-residential land uses in close proximity to each other and major road corridors, transit and trails. • Provide public spaces, including plazas, private and public recreational areas and trails. • Implement waste reduction, drought -tolerant landscaping, and use of water efficiency measures. November 2025 6 Packet Pg. 35 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report • Provide a meandering trail with public access along Wiley Canyon Road and within the project site along Wiley Canyon Creek. • Provide a landscape design emphasizing a pleasant neighborhood character and inviting streetscapes. • Enhance and augment the City's housing market by providing a variety of housing product to meet the needs of future residents. • Maintain and enhance the use of Wiley Canyon Creek with native revegetation as a to serve as a natural channel to be utilized by wildlife. • Incorporate new oak trees into the project design, including public spaces. • Incorporate vehicle and pedestrian circulation improvements on Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard through the widening of the roadways where needed, as well as the addition of appropriate traffic controls at various intersections. • Provide a Class I trail and sidewalks along the roadways. • Provide publicly accessible passive and active recreational opportunities for prospective residents and existing residents in proximity to the project site. • Include amenities to specifically support senior residents requiring senior services including memory care, supporting amenities for basic -needs nursing care, and housekeeping service. • Include recreational amenities to improve quality of life of prospective on -site residents and existing off -site residents and encourage senior living tenants to socialize and maintain active lifestyles. November 2025 7 Packet Pg. 36 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The City conducted an extensive review of this project, which included a Draft EIR and this Final EIR, including technical reports, along with a public review and comment period. The following is a summary of the City's environmental review of this project: • Pursuant to the provision of CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to public agencies, organizations, and members of the public who had requested such notice for a 30-day period. The NOP was submitted to the State Clearinghouse and filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk on March 24, 2022, with the 30- day review period ending on April 25, 2022. • The NOP public review period ran for 30 days. The City received comment letters from State, regional, and local public agencies, as well as comment letters and comment cards from local organizations and individuals; these comment letters were included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. • A scoping meeting was held at Santa Clarita City Hall, Century Conference Room on April 14, 2022, to obtain information from the public as to issues that should be addressed in the EIR. Notice of the scoping meeting was published in The Signal newspaper, in addition to approximately 51 agencies, interested parties, and individuals who requested to be notified of the project. Approximately 58 persons from or members of the public attended the scoping meeting. • The Draft EIR was distributed for public review, and a Notice of Availability (NOA) and Notice of Completion (NOC) were filed with the State Clearinghouse on February 21, 2024, to commence a 45-day review period, beginning on March 1, 2024, and ending on April 15, 2024. The NOA was filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk on February 21, 2024. The NOA was also mailed to approximately 57 agencies, interested parties, and individuals who requested to be notified of the project, and was published in The Signal. • The project and the Draft EIR were presented at four Planning Commission meetings held on March 19, 2024, June 18, 2025, August 19, 2025, and September 16, 2025 to solicit comments from the public and the Planning Commission on the Draft EIR. Notice of the Planning Commission meeting in March 2024 was published in The Signal newspaper. Notice of the Planning Commission in August 2025 was also published in the Signal newspaper. • The City received a total of 60 comment letters on the Draft EIR from public agencies and the public, as well as numerous letters from organizations and members of the public regarding the merits of the project or questions regarding the project. The City prepared responses to all written comments. The comments and responses are contained in Section 2.0, Responses to Comments, of the Final EIR. • In accordance with CEQA, the City provided written responses to the public agencies that commented on the Draft EIR at least 10 days before certification of the EIR. November 2025 8 Packet Pg. 37 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. November 2025 9 Packet Pg. 38 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report 4.0 INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND FINDING The City solicited proposals from independent consultants to prepare the Wiley Canyon Project EIR. Subsequently, the City selected and retained Dudek to prepare the Wiley Canyon Project EIR. Dudek prepared the EIR under the supervision and direction of the City of Santa Clarita staff. All findings set forth herein are based on substantial evidence in the record as indicated with respect to each specific finding. FINDING: The EIR for the project reflects the City's independent judgment. The City exercised independent judgment in accordance with PRC Section 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining its own environmental consultant and directing the consultant in the preparation of the EIR. The City independently reviewed and analyzed the EIR and accompanying studies and finds that the report reflects the independent judgment of the City. The City Council considered all the evidence presented in its consideration of the project and the EIR including, without limitation, the Final EIR and its supporting studies, written and oral evidence presented at hearings on the project, and written evidence submitted to the City by individuals, organizations, regulatory agencies, and other entities. On the basis of such evidence, the City Council finds that, with respect to each environmental impact identified in the review process, the impact (1) is less than significant and would not require mitigation; (2) is potentially significant but would be avoided or reduced to a less -than -significant level by implementation of identified mitigation measures; or (3) would be significant and not fully mitigated but would be, to the extent feasible, lessened by implementation of identified mitigation measures. The Final EIR identifies certain significant adverse environmental effects of the project which cannot be avoided or substantially lessened. Before approving this project, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations which finds, based on specific reasons and substantial evidence in the record (as specified in Section 7.0), that certain identified economic, social, or other benefits of the project outweigh such unavoidable adverse environmental effects. November 2025 10 Packet Pg. 39 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. November 2025 11 Packet Pg. 40 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS 5.1 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO HAVE NO IMPACT IN THE EIR The Wiley Canyon Project EIR found that the project would have no impact on a number of environmental topic areas, as listed below. A detailed analysis of these topic areas is provided in Section 4.1, 4.3, 4.6, 4.8, 4.12, and Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR. FINDING: The EIR for the project reflects the City's independent judgment. The City has exercised independent judgment in accordance with PRC Section 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining its own environmental consultant and directing the consultant in the preparation of the EIR. The City has independently reviewed and analyzed the EIR and accompanying studies and finds that the report reflects the independent judgment of the City. Aesthetics e) Would the project result in changes to the topography of a Primary or Secondary Ridgeline? Agriculture and Forestry Resources a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? d) Would the project result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non - forest use? e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forestland to non -forest use? Biological Resources f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? j) Would the project result in a disturbance to any Significant Ecological Area (SEA) as identified by the City of Santa Clarita? Geology and Soils November 2025 12 Packet Pg. 41 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Faults e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Hazards and Hazardous Materials e) Would the project be 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, and would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Population and Housing b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)? 5.2 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITHOUT MITIGATION IN THE EIR The Wiley Canyon Project EIR found that the project would have a less -than -significant impact on a number of environmental topic areas, as listed below. A detailed analysis of these topic areas is provided in Sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, 4.16, 4.18, and 4.19 of the Draft EIR prepared for the project. FINDING: The City of Santa Clarita City Council, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Draft EIR and Technical Appendices, Final EIR, and administrative record, finds that based on substantial evidence in the record, impacts related to the following topics, to the extent they result from the project, would be less than significant. Aesthetics a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 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) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? November 2025 13 Packet Pg. 42 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Cumulative Aesthetics Impacts Air Quality a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Cumulative Air Quality Impacts Biological Resources e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? g) Would the project result in the removal of any heritage oak trees, as defined in Unified Development Code §17.17.090, removal of more than five (5) oak trees from a project on a site that has an existing single-family residence, or the removal of more than three (3) oak trees, proposed as part of any other project? Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts Energy a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable energy impact? Cumulative Energy Impacts Geology and Soils a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: ii) Seismic Ground Shaking iii) Seismic -Ground Failure (Liquefaction) iv) Landslides b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? November 2025 14 Packet Pg. 43 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? g) Would the project result in the movement or grading of earth exceeding 100,000 cubic yards? Cumulative Geology and Soils Impacts Greenhouse Gas Emissions a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emission, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Cumulative Greenhous Gas Emissions Impacts Hazards and Hazardous Materials a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving explosion or the release of hazardous materials into the environment (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or radiation)? c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Cumulative Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts Hydrology and Water Quality a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management in the basin? c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would: Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site; November 2025 15 Packet Pg. 44 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? iii. 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? e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Cumulative Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts Land Use and Planning a) Would the project disrupt or physically divide an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? Cumulative Land Use and Planning Impacts Mineral Resources a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Cumulative Mineral Resources Impacts Noise b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Population and Housing a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned 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)? Cumulative Population and Housing Impacts Public Services a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? November 2025 16 Packet Pg. 45 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? Cumulative Public Services Impacts Recreation a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Cumulative Recreation Impacts Transportation a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Cumulative Transportation Impacts Utilities and Service Systems a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction? e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Cumulative Utilities and Service Systems Impacts Wildfire November 2025 17 Packet Pg. 46 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report a) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? d) Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Cumulative Wildfire Impacts 5.3 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO LESS -THAN - SIGNIFICANT LEVELS IN THE EIR The Wiley Canyon EIR found that the project would have a less -than -significant impact with mitigation incorporated on a number of environmental topic areas, as listed below. A detailed analysis of these topic areas is provided in Sections 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.6, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.12, 4.15, 4.17, and 4.19 of the Draft EIR. FINDING: The City of Santa Clarita City Council having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Draft EIR and Technical Appendices, Final EIR, and administrative record, finds, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), that changes or alterations ha ve been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which would avoid or substantially lessen to below a level of significance potentially significant environmental effects identified in the Draft EIR. The potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that can be mitigated are listed below. The City of Santa Clarita City Council finds that based on substantial a vidence in the record, the impacts discussed below, to the extent they result from the project, would be less than significant afterimplementation of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. AIR QUALITY The project's impacts related to air quality that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential substantial adverse effects related to a cumulatively considerable new increase of any criteria pollutant; exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and exceeding the most recent air quality thresholds as determined by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, as published in its "Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook." Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings Construction of the project would result in emissions that exceed the NOx regional threshold. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) MM-AQ-1, which establishes construction equipment emissions standards, would reduce construction emission impacts below the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) standards to a less -than -significant level. In addition, MM-AQ-1 would reduce health November 2025 18 Packet Pg. 47 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report risk impacts relating to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and relating to exceeding the most recent air quality thresholds to a less -than -significant level. Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-1: Construction Equipment Features. The project must utilize off -road diesel - powered construction equipment that meets or exceeds the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Tier 4 Final off - road emissions standards or equivalent for equipment rated at 50 horsepower (hp) or greater during project construction. Such equipment must be outfitted with Best Available Control Technology (BACT), which means a CARB-certified Level 3 diesel particulate filter (DPF) or equivalent. An exemption from this requirement may be granted by the Director of Community Development, or designee, if (1) the City documents equipment with Tier 4 Final engines are not reasonably available, and (2) the required corresponding reductions in criteria air pollutant emissions can be achieved for the project from other combinations of construction equipment. Before an exemption may be granted, the permittee must (1) demonstrate that at least three construction fleet owners/operators in Los Angeles region were contacted and that those owners/operators confirmed Tier 4 Final equipment could not be located within Los Angeles County during the desired construction schedule, and (2) the permittee must provide evidence to the Director that the proposed replacement equipment was evaluated using California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) or other industry standard emission estimation method, and documentation was provided to confirm that necessary project -generated emissions reductions are achieved. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project's impacts to biological resources that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential substantial adverse effects related to candidate, sensitive, or special -status species; riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities; State- or federally -protected wetlands; movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory corridors, or impedes the use of native wildlife nursery sites; disturbance or encroachment of any river, river tributary, riparian habitat, stream or similar waterway identified on a United States Geological Survey map as a "blue -line" watercourse, or any waterway otherwise identified as a significant resource by the City; and disturbance of any habitat known or suspected to contain a plant or animal species listed as endangered on such Federal and/or State lists. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings As potentially suitable habitat for special -status wildlife species exists on the project site, implementation of the project would potentially impact existing habitat. Mitigation Measures November 2025 19 Packet Pg. 48 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report MM-131O-1 through MM-131O-3, which involve focused, protocol, and pre -construction surveys for Crotch bumble bee nests, least Bell's vireo, and Cooper's hawk and avoidance measures, would reduce the potential to impact candidate, sensitive, or special -status species, including Crotch bumble bee, least Bell's vireo, and Cooper's hawk to a less -than -significant level. The project site supports three sensitive plant communities considered high priority by CDFW, Fremont cottonwood/mulefat forest, Fremont cottonwood forest, and the California sycamore woodland. To reduce potentially significant impacts to these sensitive habitats, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-4 requires on -site or off -site restoration or enhancement of sensitive plant communities at a ratio of no less than 1:1 to mitigate for impacts to sensitive plant communities. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-131O4, impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities would be reduced to a less -than -significant level. The project site includes 1.081-acres (3,209 linear feet) of federally and state protected waters (e.g., wetlands or drainages). The project would impact 0.19 acre of waters of the U.S. and about 1.1 acre of CDFW jurisdiction. The proposed impact is approximately 1,400 linear feet in length, with approximately 400 feet of the 1,400 linear feet being within the existing concrete drainage channel at the northeast end of the project site. Mitigation Measure MM-131O-5 requires on -site or off -site restoration or enhancement of United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)/Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and CDFW jurisdictional waterways and aquatic resources at a ratio of at least 2:1 for permanent impacts and the restoration of impacted areas to pre -project conditions for temporary impacts. Mitigation Measure MM-131O-5 would reduce permanent impacts to protected waters to a less -than -significant level. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-131O-5 would reduce potential impacts to State- or federally -protected wetlands to less -than -significant levels. The project site and adjacent areas support potential nesting habitat for migratory and residential birds covered under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. Project activities may result in direct and/or indirect loss of an active nest. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-131O-3 would require that pre -construction surveys for active nests be conducted during the breeding season for Cooper's hawk. If active nests are found during the surveys, buffers around the nests would be established and work within these buffers would be postponed or halted until the nest is vacated. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-131O-3, impacts to wildlife nurseries would be reduced to a less -than -significant level. The Study Area contains 1.081-acres (3,209 linear feet) of federally and state protected water, including two aquatic features considered to be waters of the U.S., waters of the State, and features subject or Fish and Game Code Section 1600, et seq., which may be impacted by the proposed project. The project would impact 0.19-acre of waters of the U.S. and about 1.1-acres of CDFW jurisdiction. The proposed impact would be approximately 1,400 linear feet in length, with approximately 400 feet of the 1,400 being within the existing concrete drainage channel at the northeast end of the project site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-131O-5, which requires on -site or off -site restoration or enhancement of USACE/RWQCB and CDFW jurisdictional waterways and aquatic resources at a ratio of at least 2:1 for permanent impacts and the restoration of impacted areas to pre -project conditions for temporary impacts, would reduce potentially significant impacts to a level of less -than -significant. The project design is anticipated to impact 0.78 acre of marginally suitable habitat for least Bell's vireo. In addition, Cooper's hawk could potentially occur as nesting occurs in the woodlands and November 2025 20 Packet Pg. 49 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report forests in adjacent to the project site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-131O-1 through MM-131O-3, which involve focused, protocol, and pre -construction surveys and avoidance measures, would reduce any potential impacts to special -status wildlife to a less -than -significant level. Mitiaation Measures MM-131O-1: Crotch Bumble Bee. Surveys for Crotch bumble bee must be conducted within one year of Project ground -disturbing. Surveys must include 1) a habitat assessment and 2) focused surveys, both of which shall adhere to the "Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species," released by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) on June 6, 2023, or the most current at the time of construction. The habitat assessment must include historical and current species occurrences; document potential habitat onsite including foraging, nesting, and/or overwintering resources; and identify which plant species are present. Focused surveys must be performed by a qualified entomologist with appropriate handling permits and familiarity with identification, behavior, and life history of the species. Surveys must include at least three survey passes that are not on sequential days or in the same week, preferably spaced two to four weeks apart. The timing of these surveys must coincide with the Colony Active Period (April 1 through August 31 for Crotch bumble bee). Surveys must occur between one hour after sunrise and two hours before sunset. Surveys may not be conducted during wet conditions (e.g., foggy, raining, or drizzling). Optimal surveys are when there are sunny to partly sunny skies that are greater than 600 Fahrenheit. Surveys may not be conducted when it is windy (i.e., sustained winds greater than 8 mph). The qualified entomologist must seek out nest/hive resources suitable for bumble bee use. Ensuring that all nest resources receive 100% visual coverage, the qualified entomologist must watch the nest resources for up to five minutes, looking for exiting or entering worker bumble bees. Worker bees should arrive and exit an active nest site with frequency, such that their presence would be apparent after five minutes of observation. If a bumble bee worker is detected, then a representative individual must be identified to species to determine if it is Crotch bumble bee or one of the common, unregulated species. It is up to the discretion of the biologist regarding the actual survey viewshed limits from the chosen vantage point which would provide 100% visual coverage; this could include a 30- to 50-foot-wide area. If a nest is suspected, the surveyor may block the entrance of the possible nest with a sterile vial or jar until nest activity is confirmed (not longer than 30 minutes). Identification must include the qualified entomologist netting/capturing the representative bumble bee in appropriate insect nets, per the protocol in U.S. National Protocol Framework for the Inventory and Monitoring of Bees (Droege, Engler, Sellers, and O'Brien (2016)). If Crotch bumble bee nests are not detected, no further mitigation is required. However, if construction in a given phase area does not start within a year of the last survey, surveys must be repeated for that phase area. Additionally, if construction November 2025 21 Packet Pg. 50 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report stops for 14 days or longer, surveys would be repeated if construction resumes in the nesting season. Outside of the nesting season, it is assumed that no live individuals would be present within the nest as the daughter queens (gynes) usually leave by September, and all other individuals disperse to outside of the construction footprint to surrounding open space areas. Following the habitat assessment and focused surveys, a written survey report must be submitted to the Director and CDFW before Project activities. The report will include survey methods, weather conditions, a description and map of the survey area, and survey results, including a list of insect species observed and a figure showing the locations of any Crotch bumble bee nest sites or individuals observed. The survey report must include the qualifications/resumes of the entomologist(s) for identification of photo vouchers, detailed habitat assessment, and photo vouchers. If Crotch bumble bees are observed, the qualified entomologist must provide the location of all nests within and adjacent to the Project site. The survey report must also include the physical (e.g., soil, moisture, slope) and biological (e.g., plant composition) conditions where each nest/colony is found. This includes native plant composition (e.g., density, cover, and abundance) within affected habitat (e.g., species list separated by vegetation class; density, cover, and abundance of each species). The qualified entomologist must also draft an Avoidance Plan with specific avoidance measures that will be implemented before and during Project activities. The Avoidance Plan must be submitted to CDFW before Project activities for review. Upon CDFW approval of an Avoidance Plan, the qualified entomologist must demarcate an appropriate buffer zone around all identified nest(s). If complete avoidance of Crotch's bumble bee is not feasible, the permittee continue consultation with CDFW to determine if take authorization from CDFW is required. Any measures determined to be necessary through the Incidental Take Permit process to offset impacts to Crotch bumble bee supersede measures provided in this CEQA document. In the event an Incidental Take Permit is needed, the Project proponent must provide compensatory mitigation at a minimum 1:1 nesting habitat replacement of equal or better functions and values to those impacted by the project, or as otherwise determined through the Incidental Take Permit process. Mitigation must be accomplished either through off -site conservation and the permittee must provide an endowment determined through the Incidental Take Permit process. MM-131O-2: Least Bell's Vireo. Before starting construction, a qualified biologist must conduct eight focused surveys within suitable least Bell's vireo habitat between April 10 and July 31, and be spaced a minimum of 10 days apart, in accordance with the 2001 United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Least Bell's Vireo Survey Guidelines. The eight focused protocol surveys must be completed, and the results of the surveys be submitted in a draft report to the Director for review within 21 days of the completion of surveys. A final report must be prepared and submitted to the Director and USFWS within 45 days following the completion of the surveys. If least Bell's vireo is determined to be absent, no further action is required. November 2025 22 Packet Pg. 51 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report If least Bell's vireo is determined to be present based on the results of the protocol surveys, no construction may begin before consulting with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and USFWS for compliance with both the federal and State endangered species acts. Compensatory mitigation for impacts to 0.78 acre of marginally suitable least Bell's vireo habitat must be achieved in conjunction with Mitigation Measure BIO-4 for impacts to a jurisdictional drainage with mitigation ratio of at least 2:1. MM-131O-3: Nesting Birds. Before construction that would require removal of potential habitat for raptor and songbird nests between January 15 and September 1, the Project applicant must have a qualified biologist that is approved by the City conduct surveys for any and all active avian nests. Pre -construction nesting bird surveys must be conducted weekly, within 30 days before initiation of ground -disturbing activities to determine the presence of active nests. The surveys should continue on a weekly basis with the last survey being conducted not more than three days before the start of clearance/construction work. Surveys should include examination of trees, shrubs, and the ground, within grasslands, for nesting birds, as several bird species known to the area are shrub or ground nesters, including mourning doves. If ground - disturbing activities are delayed, additional preconstruction surveys may be recommended by the City so that not more than three days elapse between the survey and ground -disturbing activities. If active nests are located during pre -construction surveys, clearing and construction activities within 300 feet of the nest (500 feet for raptors) must be postponed or halted until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged, as determined by the biologist, and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest must be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers and construction personnel should be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. The nest buffers may be reduced by the monitoring biologist when there is a biologist present to observe the nest for changes in behavior. The biologist must serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities will occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests will occur. The results of the survey, and any avoidance measures taken, shall be submitted to the City within 30 days of completion of the pre -construction surveys and/or construction monitoring to document compliance with applicable state and federal laws pertaining to the protection of native birds. MM-131O-4: Sensitive Plant Communities. Before the Building Official issues a grading permit, impacts to sensitive plant communities (e.g., Fremont cottonwood/mulefat forest, Fremont cottonwood forest, and California sycamore woodland) must be mitigated through enhancement or restoration of remaining on -site sensitive plant communities at a ratio of 1:1 or the creation of new sensitive plant communities within the newly created channel area. A habitat mitigation and monitoring plan must be prepared by a City -approved biologist or restoration ecologist and approved by the City before the Public Works Director, or designee, issues a grading permit. The mitigation and monitoring plan must focus on the removal of nonnative elements within disturbed habitat areas of the project site or depict creation areas, planting/restoration methods and success criteria. In addition, this plan must provide November 2025 23 Packet Pg. 52 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report details as to its implementation, maintenance, and future monitoring including the following components: • Description of existing sensitive plant communities on the Project site; • Summary of permanent impacts to the sensitive community based on approved Project design; • Proposed mitigation location areas, with description of existing conditions before mitigation implementation; • Detailed description of restoration or enhancement goals; • Description of implementation schedule, site preparation, erosion control measures, planting plans, and plant materials; • Provisions for mitigation site maintenance and control on non-native invasive plants; and • Monitoring plan, including performance standards, adaptive management measures, and • Monitoring reporting to the City of Santa Clarita Alternatively, mitigation for sensitive plant community impacts may be achieved through off -site restoration or enhancement at a ratio no less than 1:1 and may include the purchase of mitigation credits at an agency- approved off -site mitigation bank or an in lieu fee program within Los Angeles County acceptable to the City. MM-131O-5: Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources. Before the Public Works Director, or designee, issues any grading permit for permanent or temporary impacts in the areas designated as jurisdictional features, the applicant must obtain a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), a Clean Water Act Section 401 permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and Streambed Alteration Agreement permit under Fish and Game Code Section 1602 from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The following shall be incorporated into the permitting, subject to approval by the regulatory agencies: • On- or off -site restoration or enhancement of USACE/RWQCB jurisdictional "waters of the U.S. /"waters of the State" and wetlands at a ratio no less than 2:1 for permanent impacts, and for temporary impacts, restore impact area to pre -project conditions (i.e., revegetate with native species, where appropriate). Off -site restoration or enhancement at a ratio no less than 2:1 may include the purchase of mitigation credits at an agency -approved off -site mitigation bank or in lieu fee program within Los Angeles County or within the same watershed acceptable to the City, where the location has comparable ecological parameters such as habitat types and species mix; • On- or off -site restoration or enhancement of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian habitat at a ratio no less than 2:1 for permanent impacts, and for temporary impacts, restore impact area to pre -project conditions (i.e., revegetate with native species, where appropriate). Off -site November 2025 24 Packet Pg. 53 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report restoration or enhancement at a ratio no less than 2:1 may include the purchase of mitigation credits at an agency -approved off -site mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program within Los Angeles County or within the same watershed acceptable to the City, here the location has comparable ecological parameters such as habitat types and species mix. CULTURAL RESOURCES The project's impacts to cultural resources that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential substantial adverse effects related to historical and archaeological resources, and potential disturbance of human remains. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings No historical resources or unique archaeological resources as defined by CEQA were identified within the project site as a result of either the California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) records search or as a result of the cultural resources survey. The existing structures within the project site do not meet the age thresholds for consideration as historical resources under CEQA. However, the geoarchaeological review revealed that there is a potential for the project site to contain subsurface archaeological deposits. As a result, the project has a potential to impact and thus cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a yet unknown historical resources and inadvertent discovery of intact archaeological resources. Therefore, the project incorporated Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-4. MM-CUL-1 requires the retention of a qualified archaeologist to carry out all mitigation measures related to archeological resources. MM-CUL-2 requires that all project construction personnel participate in a cultural resources sensitivity training given by the qualified archaeologist. MM-CUL-3 involves requires archaeological and Native American monitoring for ground disturbing activities within areas of the project site mapped as containing Holocene -age undifferentiated alluvium. MM-CUL- 4 includes the protocols and procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-4 would reduce potential impacts to historical and archaeological resources to a less -than -significant level. No prehistoric or historic -period burials, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, were identified within the project site as a result of the CHRIS records search, NAHC SLF search and informal tribal outreach, or pedestrian survey. Therefore, the likelihood of encountering human remains within the subsurface of the project site is low. However, the possibility of encountering human remains within the project site exists such that potentially significant impacts could occur. The discovery of human remains would require handling in accordance with PRC 5097.98, which states that in the event that human remains are discovered during construction, construction activity shall be halted, and the area shall be protected until consultation and treatment can occur as prescribed by law. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-5, which includes the protocols and procedures for the inadvertent discovery of human remains, would reduce potentially significant impacts to a level of less -than -significant. November 2025 25 Packet Pg. 54 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-1: Retention of a Qualified Archaeologist. Before the Public Works Director, or designee, issues grading permit and before starting any ground -disturbing activity, the applicant must retain a qualified archaeologist, defined as one meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archeology (U.S. Department of Interior 1983) to carry out all mitigation measures related to archeological resources. MM-CUL-2: Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training. Before starting ground -disturbing activities, the qualified archaeologist must conduct cultural resources sensitivity training for all construction personnel. Construction personnel will be informed of the types of archaeological resources that may be encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. The applicant must ensure that construction personnel attend the training and retain documentation demonstrating attendance. MM-CUL-3: Archaeological and Native American Monitoring. An archaeological monitor (working under the direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist) and a Native American monitor must be present during all ground -disturbing activities within areas of the Project mapped as containing Holocene -age undifferentiated alluvium. The qualified archaeologist, in coordination with the City's Project Manager, may reduce or discontinue monitoring if it is determined that the possibility of encountering buried archaeological deposits is low based on observations of soil stratigraphy or other factors. Archaeological monitoring must be conducted by an archaeologist familiar with the types of archaeological resources that could be encountered within the Project area. The Native American monitor must be selected from the Native American groups identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as having affiliation with the Project area. The archaeological monitor and Native American monitor are empowered to halt or redirect ground -disturbing activities away from the vicinity of a discovery until the qualified archaeologist has evaluated the discovery and determined appropriate treatment. The archaeological monitor must keep daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. After monitoring is completed, the qualified archaeologist must prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring. The report must be submitted to the City and any Native American groups who request a copy. A copy of the final report must be filed at the SCCIC. MM-CUL-4: Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources. Should unanticipated discovery of archaeological materials occur, the contractor must immediately cease all work activities in the area (within approximately 100 feet) of the discovery until it can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked -stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or tool-making debris; culturally darkened soil ("midden") containing heat - affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic -period materials might include stone or concrete footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, November 2025 26 Packet Pg. 55 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report and/or ceramic refuse. Construction may not resume until the qualified archaeologist has conferred with the City's Project Manager on the significance of the resource. If it is determined by the qualified archaeological monitor that the discovered archaeological resource constitutes a historical resource or unique archaeological resource under CEQA, avoidance and preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigation. Preservation in place maintains the important relationship between artifacts and their archaeological context and also serves to avoid conflict with traditional and religious values of groups who may ascribe meaning to the resource. Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space, capping, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation available, an Archaeological Resources Data Recovery and Treatment Plan shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with the City that provides for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource. The qualified archaeologist and City's Project Manager must consult with appropriate Native American representatives in determining treatment for prehistoric or Native American resources to ensure cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond those that are scientifically important, are considered. MM-CUL-5: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. If human remains are encountered, the contractor must halt work in the vicinity (within 100 feet) of the discovery and contact the Los Angeles County Coroner in accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) section 5097.98 and Health and Safety Code section 7050.5. The City's Project Manager must also be notified. If the County Coroner determines the remains are Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission NAHC must be notified in accordance with Health and Safety Code section 7050.5(c) and PRC Section 5097.98. The NAHC will designate a most likely descendent (MLD) for the remains per PRC section 5097.98. Until the landowner has conferred with the MLD, the contractor must ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not disturbed by further activity, is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. GEOLOGY AND SOILS The project's impacts related to geology and soils that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential adverse effects to paleontological resources. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings November 2025 27 Packet Pg. 56 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Although the potential to encounter fossil resources from recent alluvial deposits is relatively low, these sediments are underlain by older alluvial deposits that have increased paleontological sensitivity at depth. These older alluvial deposits and the Plio-Pleistocene Saugus Formation have a high potential for containing fossil resources due to their older age and from previously recorded fossil localities from the same and/or similar sediments found outside of the proposed project area. Mitigation Measures MM-GEO-1 through MM-GEO-4, which require the retention of a qualified paleontologist before the initiation of grading activities, sensitivity and awareness training, monitoring, and procedures to follow in the event of inadvertent discovery, would reduce the potential to damage such resources to a less -than -significant level. Mitiaation Measures MM-GEO-1: Retain Qualified Paleontologist. Before starting construction activities, the developer must retain a Qualified Paleontologist that meets the standards of the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (2010) to carry out all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources. MM-GEO-2: Paleontological Resources Sensitivity Training. Before any person commences ground -disturbing activities, the Qualified Paleontologist must conduct pre - construction worker paleontological resources sensitivity training. The training must include information on what types of paleontological resources could be encountered during excavations, what to do in case an unanticipated discovery is made by a worker, and laws protecting paleontological resources. All construction personnel must be informed of the possibility of encountering fossils and instructed to immediately inform the construction foreman or supervisor if any bones or other potential fossils are unexpectedly unearthed in an area where a paleontological monitor is not present. The developer must ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and retain documentation demonstrating attendance. MM-GEO-3: Paleontological Monitoring. The Qualified Paleontologist must supervise a paleontological monitor meeting the SVP standards (2010) and be present during all excavations extending beyond a depth of 5 feet. Monitoring must consist of visually inspecting fresh exposures of rock for larger fossil remains and, where appropriate, collecting wet or dry screened standard sediment samples (up to 4.0 cubic yards) of promising horizons for smaller fossil remains (SVP 2010). Per the SVP standards (2010), once 50 percent of excavations or other ground disturbing activities are complete within geologic units assigned high paleontological sensitivity and no fossils are identified, monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections or ceased entirely if determined adequate by the Qualified Paleontologist in consultation with the City's Project Manager. Monitoring activities must be documented in a Paleontological Resources Monitoring Report to be prepared by the Qualified Paleontologist at the completion of construction and be provided to the City within six months of Project completion. If fossil resources are identified during monitoring, the report will also be filed with the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. MM-GEO-4:Inadvertent Discoveries. If a paleontological resource is discovered during construction, the paleontological monitor is empowered to temporarily divert or redirect grading and excavation activities in the area of the exposed resource to November 2025 28 Packet Pg. 57 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report facilitate evaluation of the discovery. An appropriate buffer area must be established by the Qualified Paleontologist around the find where construction activities shall not be allowed to continue. Work may be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. At the Qualified Paleontologist's discretion and to reduce any construction delay, the grading and excavation contractor must assist in removing rock samples for initial processing and evaluation of the find. All significant fossils must be collected by the paleontological monitor and/or the Qualified Paleontologist. Collected fossils must be prepared to the point of identification and catalogued before they are submitted to their final repository. Any fossils collected must be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, if such an institution agrees to accept the fossils. If no institution accepts the fossil collection, they may be donated to a local school in the area for educational purposes. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs must also be filed at the repository and/or school. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The project's impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential adverse effects related to the exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The project site is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA), and therefore the project has the potential to expose people or structures to significant risk involving wildland fires. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM- FIRE-1 through MM-FIRE-3, which involve additional requirements for construction activities in hazardous fire areas and limiting or ceasing construction work during high -wind weather events; vegetation management requirements implemented at the start of and throughout all phases of construction; and ensure that plant selection for the project would be in accordance with the fuel modification plant selection guidelines of the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD), would reduce impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials, and specifically impacts associated with potential exposure to wildfire risks, to a less -than -significant level. Mitigation Measures See MM-FIRE-1 through MM-FIRE-3 under Wildfire of Section 5.3 below. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The project's impacts related to hydrology and water quality that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential adverse effects relating to impeding or redirecting flood flows and relating to the risk of release of pollutants in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiches zones. November 2025 29 Packet Pg. 58 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings Based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), the project site is located in an area mapped as either Zone A Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) (without base flood elevation) or Zone AO SFHA (with base flood elevation of 3 feet). Placement of the proposed project would impede and potentially redirect flood flows if not addressed appropriately. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1, which requires that design plans including the site modifications meet FEMA requirements to remove the site from the SFHA, and meet National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements, would reduce potential flooding impacts to a less -than -significant level. Mitigation Measures MM-HYD-1: The applicant must submit an application for a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) along with a hydrology and hydraulics report prepared by a California licensed engineer. The LOMR must be based on the implementation of all physical measures that affect the hydrologic or hydraulic characteristics of the flooding source for the site that are to be included as part of the project before obtaining a building permit. The hydrologic and hydraulics report must demonstrate how modification of the existing regulatory floodway or the Special Flood Hazard Area for the project site will reduce flooding risks to within FEMA requirements. Once the LOMR is approved by FEMA and revises the Flood Insurance Rates Map or Flood Boundary and Floodway Map for the project site, construction of the proposed project may commence in accordance with applicable law. LAND USE AND PLANNING The project's impacts related to land use and planning that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential adverse effects relating to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings As shown in Table 4.10-2, General Plan Land Use Consistency Analysis, within Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR, the project is either consistent or partially consistent with the City's General Plan's applicable goals, objectives, and policies with the implementation of MM-AQ-1, MM-131O-1 through MM-131O-5, MM-HYD-1, MM-NOI-1, MM-NOI-2, and MM-FIRE- 1 through MM-FIRE-3, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures November 2025 30 Packet Pg. 59 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report See MM-AQ-1, MM-1310-1 through MM-1310-5, MM-HYD-1, MM-NOI-1 through MM-NOI-2, and MM-FIRE-1 through MM-FIRE-3. 0 x01:7:_% i[sP►1 The project's impacts related to recreation that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.15, Recreation, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential adverse effects relating to recreational facilities or the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings Construction activities related to the proposed recreational components of the project would involve introducing heavy machinery to the project site for grading, excavation, and development. Impacts associated with project construction would be temporary and short in duration, as the project is proposed to be constructed over a period of approximately 24 months. As discussed throughout the EIR, impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project, including the project's recreational amenities, would result in either no impact or less than significant impacts, either with or without mitigation, for all issues areas with the exception of construction noise. For construction noise, construction impacts associated with the recreational components of the project could result in potentially significant impacts such that mitigation would be required. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-1, MM-1310-1 through MM-1310-4, MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-5, MM-GEO-1 through MM-GEO-4, MM-NOI-1 and MM-NOI-2, and MM-FIRE-1 through MM-FIRE 3 would reduce potential impacts to a less -than -significant level. Mitigation Measures See MM-AQ-1, MM-1310-1 through MM-1310-4, MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-5, MM-GEO-1 through MM-GEO-4, MM-NOI-1 through MM-NOI-2, and MM-FIRE-1 through MM-FIRE-3 in Section 5.3. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES The project's impacts to tribal cultural resources that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.17, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR. Identified potential impacts include those related to a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or local register, and significant to a California Native American Tribe. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings November 2025 31 Packet Pg. 60 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report No tribal cultural resources (TCRs) were identified within the project site; however, the potential to discover TCRs still exists on the project site. Implementation Mitigation Measures MM-CUL- 1 through MM-CUL-5, which involve retention of a qualified archaeologist; project construction personnel participating in a cultural resources sensitivity training; archaeological and Native American monitoring for ground disturbing activities within areas of the project site mapped as containing Holocene -age undifferentiated alluvium; and protocols and procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources, would reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources to a less -than -significant level. Mitigation Measures See MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-5 under Cultural Resources in Section 5.3 above. WILDFIRE The project's impacts related to wildfire that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.19, Wildfire, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential adverse effects relating to exacerbating wildfire risks and thereby exposing project occupants to pollutants concentrations from or spread of a wildfire; and installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings Project construction would introduce potential ignition sources to the project site, including the use of heavy machinery and the potential for sparks during welding activities or other hot work. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-FIRE-1 through MM-FIRE-3, which involve additional requirements for construction activities in hazardous fire areas and limiting or ceasing construction work during high -wind weather events; vegetation management requirements implemented at the start of and throughout all phases of construction; and ensure that plant selection for the project would be in accordance with the fuel modification plant selection guidelines of the LACFD, would reduce potential wildfire impacts to a less -than -significant level. Mitigation Measures MM-FIRE-1: Extreme Fire Day Ignition Avoidance. All construction and maintenance activities must temporarily cease during Red Flag Warnings. The contractor's superintendent must coordinate with personnel to determine which low fire hazard activities may occur. Should the Fire Department declare a Red Flag Warning affecting the Wiley Canyon Project site, the same work activity restrictions occurring during National Weather Service Red Flag Warning periods apply. MM-FIRE-1: Pre -Construction Requirements. Vegetation management must be conducted before the start of construction and throughout all construction phases. Perimeter fuel modification must be implemented and approved by the Fire Department before bringing combustible materials on site. Existing flammable vegetation must be November 2025 32 Packet Pg. 61 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report reduced by 50% on vacant lots upon commencement of construction. Caution must be used to avoid causing erosion or ground (including slope) instability or water runoff due to vegetation removal, vegetation management, maintenance, landscaping or irrigation. Before delivering lumber or combustible materials onto the site, site improvements within the active development area must be in place, including utilities, operable fire hydrants, an approved, temporary roadway surface, and fuel modification zones established. These features must be approved by the Fire Department before combustibles being brought on site. MM-FIRE-1: LACFD FMZ Plant Selection Guideline Compliant. The Fire Department publishes a list of plants that would not contribute to extreme fire behavior are suitable for Fuel Modification Zones. All plants included within fuel modification zones of the proposed project must be from this list and if a minimum distance from structures is stated for the species, such listed species may not be planted closer to any structures associated with the proposed project than the stated minimum distance. No plant that is not listed by the Fire Department on its Fuel Modification Zone Plant Selection Guidelines may be included within a Fuel Modification Zone of the proposed Project without approval by Fire Department. 5.4 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE BUT MITIGATED TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE The Wiley Canyon Project Draft EIR found that the project would have a significant and unavoidable impact related to noise during construction. A detailed analysis of this topic area is provided in Section 4.12 of the Draft EIR. FINDING: The City of Santa Clarita City Council having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Draft EIR and Technical Appendices, Final EIR, and administrative record, finds, pursuant to PRC Section 21081 (a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which would lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Draft EIR to the extent feasible but not to a less -than -significant level. Therefore, the City of Santa Clarita finds, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Draft EIR, and, therefore, the project would cause significant unavoidable impacts related to construction noise and cumulative construction noise, as summarized below. NOISE As further described in Section 4.12, Noise, of the Draft EIR, identified significant impacts related to noise are associated with the project's potential to result in temporary construction noise levels that would exceed exterior daytime noise standards at identified sensitive receptors. Findings November 2025 33 Packet Pg. 62 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Draft EIR. Facts in Support of Findings During the City's permitted construction hours, project construction would result in noise levels at adjacent sensitive receiver locations exceeding the ambient noise (57.7 to 70 dBA [A -weighted decibels] Leq [Equivalent Continuous Sound Pressure Level]) plus 5 dBA (62.7 to 77 dBA Leq) significance threshold. Additionally, the senior living facility would be occupied for approximately 18 months while construction continues on the additional residential (and commercial) buildings at the project site. Based on the site plan, the senior living facility would be approximately 50 feet from the construction area of other residential buildings. Once these nearest residential buildings have been constructed, they would function as barriers shielding construction activity in areas beyond these residential buildings nearest to the senior living facility. Construction noise would reach a maximum of 88.8 dBA Leq at a receiver as close as 50 feet to the construction area thereby resulting in a potentially significant impact. Therefore, mitigation measures are required to protect sensitive receivers. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-1 and MM-NOI- 2 would require construction equipment within 200 feet of the northern and eastern boundary of the project site be limited to small, reduced noise equipment that has a maximum noise generation level of 77 dBA Leq at 50 feet and require noise barriers to be installed during construction with sufficient height to block the line -of -sight between the project construction area and adjacent sensitive receivers, would reduce noise impacts to the extent feasible. As no mitigation measures are feasible to reduce noise impacts to a less than significant level, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-1: Construction equipment within 200 feet of the northern and eastern boundary of the project site is limited to small, reduced noise equipment that has a maximum noise generation level of 77 dBA Leq at 50 feet. This measure also applies to construction equipment during the later phases of construction for residential buildings within 200 feet of the Senior Living Building after it is occupied. MM-NOI-2: Construction noise barriers must be installed during project construction with sufficient height to block the line -of -sight between the project construction area and adjacent sensitive receivers, including proposed on -site residential uses that are completed and occupied while construction in other parts of the project site continues. 5.5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT As set forth in these findings, the implementation of the project would not result in significant impacts that are considered unavoidable, with the exception of impacts related to construction noise and cumulative construction noise. CEQA requires that an EIR include an analysis of a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to a proposed project capable of avoiding or November 2025 34 Packet Pg. 63 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report substantially lessening any significant adverse environmental impact associated with the project. The Draft EIR addressed the environmental effects of alternatives to the project. A description of these alternatives, a comparison of their environmental impacts to the project, and the City's findings are listed below. These alternatives are compared against the project relative to the identified project impacts, summarized in the sections above, and to the project objectives, as stated in Section 2.2, Statement of Objectives, above. In making the alternatives findings below, the City of Santa Clarita certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the EIR, including the information provided in the comments on the Draft EIR and the responses thereto. 176'1d1111'19us] MONV_1IIIIIIi:11:7kl1_AIII 1y/4'59:U1111x61i:1113017_\ki/-M&I&IIkiIiC1:841V Alternatives that were considered but rejected during the scoping process for detailed evaluation in the EIR are discussed below. Alternative Site Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2), the City considered the potential for alternative locations to the project. As stated in CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(f)(2)(A), the key question and first step in analyzing alternative sites is whether any of the significant effects of a project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting that project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of a project need to be considered in the EIR. The project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to construction noise even with the incorporation of mitigation measures MM-NOI-1 and MM-NOI-2, as detailed in Section 4.12, Noise, of this Draft EIR. Similarly, the project would result in cumulatively considerable construction noise impacts. In particular, a significant impact would occur as a result of a temporary exceedance in the ambient noise thresholds during construction, as well as an exceedance in significance thresholds related to the proposed Senior Living residences on site. There are no significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed project that relate to the location of the project site, and development of the project on another site in the City is not likely to lessen or avoid the environmental impacts that required mitigation. Moreover, the objectives of the proposed project are closely tied to redeveloping the former Smiser Mule Ranch. Consideration of the potential to development the proposed project on another site within the City was given. The surrounding vicinity is characterized as urban and suburban development, vacant land, which has been previously disturbed by past agricultural activities, and limited commercial uses. Underutilized developed areas would have the potential to be redeveloped to provide additional housing units, however, the project applicant does not control another site within the area of comparable land that is available for development of the project. Given the site's location, site zoning, and site designations for development, it is also not reasonable to assume that the use of another site would result in the project site being vacant and impacts related to the site conditions avoided. Other surrounding areas are also in other jurisdictions outside the control of the City. Development of the proposed project on an alternate site would result in a similar construction scenario, similar quantities of criteria air pollutant emissions during construction, similar levels of construction noise, and similar levels of energy consumption. Additionally, because of the City's urban nature, mix of land uses, and the presence November 2025 35 Packet Pg. 64 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report of a variety of sensitive receptors throughout the City, it is unlikely that an alternate site would be situated far enough from sensitive receptors to substantially lessen the air quality and noise impacts of the proposed project during construction. Regardless of its location, the proposed project would generally place similar demands on public services, utilities and services systems, and energy resources. With regard to the visibility and appearance of the project, the aesthetic impact on the project is largely related to its height and density, which would not substantially change at an alternative location. For these reasons, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration. The following alternatives were selected for evaluation in the Draft EIR: • Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative • Alternative 2: Affordable Housing Alternative • Alternative 3: Private Recreational Facility Alternative • Alternative 4: Construction Noise Setback Alternative Additionally, another alternative was proposed and evaluated as part of the project's Final EIR • Alternative 5: Mixed Use Alternative Table 1 provides a comparison of environmental impacts for each of the alternatives in relation to environmental impacts associated with the project. Table 1 Summary Comparison of the Impacts of the Alternatives Impact Topic Project Alternative 1 No Project/No Build Alternative 2 Affordable Housing Zoning Alternative 3 Private Recreational Facility Alternative 4 Construction Noise Setback Alternative 5 Mixed Use Aesthetics LTS Less/NI Similar/LTS Greater/LTS Similar/LTS Similar/LTS Air Quality LTSM Less/NI Similar/LTSM Less/LTSM Less/LTSM Less/LTSM Biological Resources LTSM Less/NI Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Cultural Resources LTSM Less/NI Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Energy LTS Less/NI Similar/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS Geology and Soils LTSM Less/NI Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM GHG Emissions LTS Less/NI Greater/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS Hazards and Hazardous Materials LTSM Less/NI Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Hydrology and Water Quality LTSM Less/NI Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Land Use and Planning LTSM Less/NI Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Mineral Resources LTS Similar/LTS Similar/LTS Similar/LTS Similar/LTS Similar/LTS Noise SU Less/NI Similar/SU Similar/SU Less/LTSM Similar/SU Population and Housing LTS Less/NI Greater/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS Public Services I LTS I Less/NI I Greater/LTS I Less/LTS I Less/LTS ILess/LTS November 2025 36 Packet Pg. 65 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Recreation LTSM Less/NI Greater/LTSM Less/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS Transportation LTS Less/NI Greater/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS Tribal Cultural LTSM Less/NI Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Resources Utilities and Service LTS Less/NI Greater/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS Systems Wildfire j LTSM j Less/NI j Similar/LTSM j Similar/LTSM j Similar/LTSM j Similar/LTSM Notes: LTS = Less Than Significant Similar = Impact Similar to the Project LTSM = Less Than Significant with Mitigation Greater = Impact Greater than the Project NI = No Impact Less = Impact Less than the Project PSI = Potentially Significant Impact SU = Significant and Unavoidable Impact Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the No Project Alternative for a project on an identifiable property consists of the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) states that, "in certain instances, the no project alternative means `no build' wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained." Accordingly, for purposes of this analysis, Alternative 1, the No Project/No Build Alternative, assumes that no development would occur on the project site. The project site would continue to be vacant. Findings 1. Alternative 1 would eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with construction noise and cumulative construction noise. 2. Alternative 1 would reduce or eliminate the less -than -significant impacts with mitigation or less -than -significant impacts for aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. 3. Alternative 1 would result in similar impacts for mineral resources. 4. Alternative 1 would not meet any of the basic Project objectives and is, therefore, rejected as infeasible. 5. The findings of the project set forth in this document provide support for the project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration. Facts in Support of Findings: Under the Alternative 1, the Wiley Canyon Project would not be implemented, and no development would occur on the project site. The project site would continue to be vacant. Because no construction or new operational activities would occur under this alternative, the less - than -significant impacts with mitigation or less -than -significant impacts for aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public November 2025 37 Packet Pg. 66 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire would be eliminated. In addition, the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives, as identified below in Table 2. Table 2 Applicability of Project Objectives for Alternative 1 Alternative 1: No Project Project Objective Alternative Create a new mixed -use community that allows for residential, retail/commercial, and senior Does Not Meet housing while preserving and enhancing natural resources. Provide a sensitive and protective interface with the adjacent Wiley Canyon Creek by utilizing Does Not Meet appropriate setback, grading, landscape, buried bank stabilization and water quality treatments. Provide development and transitional land use patterns that are compatible with surrounding Does Not Meet communities and land uses and are consistent with the City's General Plan. Arrange land uses and add amenities to reduce vehicle miles traveled and to encourage the Does Not Meet use of transit. Design neighborhoods to locate residential and non-residential land uses in close proximity to Does Not Meet each other and major road corridors, transit and trails. Provide public spaces, including plazas, private and public recreational areas and trails. Does Not Meet Implement waste reduction, drought -tolerant landscaping, and use of water efficiency Does Not Meet measures. Provide a meandering trail with public access along Wiley Canyon Road and within the project Does Not Meet site along Wiley Canyon Creek. Provide a landscape design emphasizing a pleasant neighborhood character and inviting Does Not Meet streetscapes. Enhance and augment the City's housing market by providing a variety of housing product to Does Not Meet meet the needs of future residents. Maintain and enhance the use of Wiley Canyon Creek with native revegetation as a to serve as Does Not Meet a natural channel to be utilized by wildlife. Incorporate new oak trees into the project design, including public spaces. Does Not Meet Incorporate vehicle and pedestrian circulation improvements on Wiley Canyon Road and Does Not Meet Calgrove Boulevard through the widening of the roadways where needed, as well as the addition of appropriate traffic controls at various intersections. Provide a Class I trail and sidewalks along the roadways. Does Not Meet Provide publicly accessible passive and active recreational opportunities for prospective Does Not Meet residents and existing residents in proximity to the project site. Include amenities to specifically support senior residents requiring senior services including Does Not Meet memory care, supporting amenities for basic -needs nursing care, and housekeeping service. Include recreational amenities to improve quality of life of prospective on -site residents and Does Not Meet existing off -site residents and encourage senior living tenants to socialize and maintain active lifestyles. November 2025 38 Packet Pg. 67 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Alternative 2: Affordable Housing Alternative Alternative 2, the Affordable Housing Alternative, would allow the development of the project site with 837 apartment units, including 201 units designated for low- and very -low-income households. The maximum height of the proposed buildings would be 65 feet under this alternative. The proposed floor -area -ratio for this alternative is 0.63. Under Alternative 2, a total of 1,026 parking spaces would be provided, in compliance with State Density Bonus requirements. In comparison to the proposed project, the recreational areas located on the southern portion of the project site would not be developed under this alternative. Infrastructure improvements, including the northern water quality basin and the southern drainage basin on site, are proposed under this alternative. In addition, off -site street improvements along Wiley Canyon Road and its intersecting streets, including Fourl Road, Canerwell Street, Valley Oak Court, and Calgrove Boulevard would remain. Findings 1. Alternative 2 would result in similar significant and unavoidable impacts after mitigation associated with construction noise and cumulative construction noise. 2. Alternative 2 would result in greater impacts associated with recreation which would be less - than -significant with mitigation incorporated. 3. Alternative 2 would result in greater less -than -significant impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions, population and housing, public services, transportation, and utilities and service systems. 4. Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. 5. The findings of the project set forth in this document provide support for the project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration. Facts in Support of Findings: In comparison to the project, Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts relative to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. However, this alternative would result in potentially greater impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems for the following reasons: • Under Alternative 2, an increase in GHG emissions is anticipated due to an increase of 312 vehicle trips as a result of the proposed land use. Given this, Alternative 2 is anticipated to result in GHG impacts slightly greater than the proposed project. • Under Alternative 2, 837 multifamily residential units are proposed on the project site. Utilizing the City's average persons per household of 3.08 (as identified in Section 4.13 of this EIR), this alternative is anticipated to result in approximately 2,578 residents.' The 837*3.08 = 2577.95 or 2,578 (rounded to the nearest whole person) November 2025 39 Packet Pg. 68 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report population projections under Alternative 2, therefore, would be greater than the 1,371 residents anticipated under the proposed project. • Under Alternative 2, an increase in population is anticipated when compared to the proposed project (see the discussion above regarding population and housing). Given this, the alternative is anticipated to result in an increased demand for police, fire, schools, parks, and other public services (libraries), as well as recreational facilities. • Under Alternative 2, an increase of approximately 312 average daily vehicle trips is anticipated during operations when compared to the project. Given this, Alternative 2 is anticipated to result in transportation impacts slightly greater than the proposed project. • Under Alternative 2, future development would have the same development footprint as the proposed project. Connections to utilities and service systems to the project site would remain. However, due to the potential increase in population generated as a result of 837 multifamily residential units, an increase in demand for potable water, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications is anticipated. Similarly, an increase in the generation of solid waste and wastewater is expected. In addition, Alternative 2 would not meet some of the project objectives, as identified below in Table 3. Table 3 Applicability of Project Objectives for Alternative 2 Alternative 2: Affordable Housing Project Objective Alternative Create a new mixed -use community that allows for residential, retail/commercial, and senior Partially Meets housing while preserving and enhancing natural resources. Provide a sensitive and protective interface with the adjacent Wiley Canyon Creek by utilizing Meets appropriate setback, grading, landscape, buried bank stabilization and water quality treatments. Provide development and transitional land use patterns that are compatible with surrounding Meets communities and land uses and are consistent with the City's General Plan. Arrange land uses and add amenities to reduce vehicle miles traveled and to encourage the Partially Meets use of transit. Design neighborhoods to locate residential and non-residential land uses in close proximity to Meets each other and major road corridors, transit and trails. Provide public spaces, including plazas, private and public recreational areas and trails. Partially Meets Implement waste reduction, drought -tolerant landscaping, and use of water efficiency Meets measures. Provide a meandering trail with public access along Wiley Canyon Road and within the project Meets site along Wiley Canyon Creek. Provide a landscape design emphasizing a pleasant neighborhood character and inviting Meets streetscapes. Enhance and augment the City's housing market by providing a variety of housing product to Meets meet the needs of future residents. November 2025 40 Packet Pg. 69 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Maintain and enhance the use of Wiley Canyon Creek with native revegetation as a to serve as Meets a natural channel to be utilized by wildlife. Incorporate new oak trees into the project design, including public spaces. Meets Incorporate vehicle and pedestrian circulation improvements on Wiley Canyon Road and Meets Calgrove Boulevard through the widening of the roadways where needed, as well as the addition of appropriate traffic controls at various intersections. Provide a Class I trail and sidewalks along the roadways. Meets Provide publicly accessible passive and active recreational opportunities for prospective Partially Meets residents and existing residents in proximity to the project site. Include amenities to specifically support senior residents requiring senior services including Does Not Meet memory care, supporting amenities for basic -needs nursing care, and housekeeping service. Include recreational amenities to improve quality of life of prospective on -site residents and Partially Meets existing off -site residents and encourage senior living tenants to socialize and maintain active lifestyles. Alternative 3: Private Recreational Facility Alternative This alternative includes the development of a private recreational facility, which would include various recreational uses along with a 10,000 square foot clubhouse/restaurant. Development under this alternative would consist of eight tennis courts, seven pickleball courts, a soccer field, a football field, baseball field and outdoor basketball court. All courts and fields would include overhead lighting. Under Alternative 3, parking would be included to support the recreational facility. In addition, on -site infrastructure improvements along the creek off -site street improvements would be included. Findings Alternative 3 would not eliminate the project's significant and unavoidable impacts associated with construction noise and cumulative construction noise. 2. Alternative 3 would result in greater impacts related to aesthetics which would be less -than - significant with mitigation incorporated. 3. Alternative 3 would reduce, but not eliminate, the less -than -significant impacts with mitigation incorporated for air quality and would reduce less -than -significant impacts related to energy, greenhouse gas emissions, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems. 4. Alternative 3 would result in similar impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. 5. The findings of the project set forth in this document provide support for the project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration. Facts in Support of Findings: In comparison to the project, Alternative 3 would result in similar impacts relative to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and November 2025 41 Packet Pg. 70 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. Alternative 3 would have reduced impacts relative to air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems due to the reduced scale of the proposed development compared to the project. Alternative 3 would still require mitigation measures associated with air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. However, this alternative would result in potentially greater impacts related to aesthetics for the following reasons: • Under Alternative 3, the recreational facility would require overhead lighting. Impacts related to lighting and glare would be greater than the proposed project. In addition, Alternative 3 would not meet some project objectives, as identified below in Table 4. Table 4 Applicability of Project Objectives for Alternative 3 Alternative 3: Private Recreational Facility Project Objective Alternative Create a new mixed -use community that allows for residential, retail/commercial, and senior Does Not Meet housing while preserving and enhancing natural resources. Provide a sensitive and protective interface with the adjacent Wiley Canyon Creek by utilizing Meets appropriate setback, grading, landscape, buried bank stabilization and water quality treatments. Provide development and transitional land use patterns that are compatible with surrounding Meets communities and land uses and are consistent with the City's General Plan. Arrange land uses and add amenities to reduce vehicle miles traveled and to encourage the Partially Meets use of transit. Design neighborhoods to locate residential and non-residential land uses in close proximity to Meets each other and major road corridors, transit and trails. Provide public spaces, including plazas, private and public recreational areas and trails. Partially Meets Implement waste reduction, drought -tolerant landscaping, and use of water efficiency Meets measures. Provide a meandering trail with public access along Wiley Canyon Road and within the project Meets site along Wiley Canyon Creek. Provide a landscape design emphasizing a pleasant neighborhood character and inviting Meets streetscapes. Enhance and augment the City's housing market by providing a variety of housing product to Does Not Meet meet the needs of future residents. Maintain and enhance the use of Wiley Canyon Creek with native revegetation as a to serve as Meets a natural channel to be utilized by wildlife. Incorporate new oak trees into the project design, including public spaces. Meets November 2025 42 Packet Pg. 71 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Incorporate vehicle and pedestrian circulation improvements on Wiley Canyon Road and Meets Calgrove Boulevard through the widening of the roadways where needed, as well as the addition of appropriate traffic controls at various intersections. Provide a Class I trail and sidewalks along the roadways. Meets Provide publicly accessible passive and active recreational opportunities for prospective Partially Meets residents and existing residents in proximity to the project site. Include amenities to specifically support senior residents requiring senior services including Does Not Meet memory care, supporting amenities for basic -needs nursing care, and housekeeping service. Include recreational amenities to improve quality of life of prospective on -site residents and Partially Meets existing off -site residents and encourage senior living tenants to socialize and maintain active lifestyles. Alternative 4: Construction Noise Setback Alternative This alternative includes development of the site with a 139-bed assisted living facility, 47 detached condos, and 237 apartment units. The proposed senior living facility would be 3-stories in height and the multifamily apartments would range from 2- and 4-stories. Under Alternative 4, a 200-foot open space/landscaped buffer is proposed between the mobile home park to the north and the project site. This alternative would include development of a recreational building and pool located in the center of the project site surrounded by the proposed apartment buildings. In addition, recreational/ open space uses are proposed on the southern portion of the site. Infrastructure improvements, including the northern water quality basin and the southern drainage basin on site, are proposed under this alternative as well as off -site street improvements along Wiley Canyon Road and its intersecting streets. Findings 1. Alternative 4 would eliminate the project's significant and unavoidable impacts associated with construction noise and cumulative construction noise to a level of less -than -significant with mitigation incorporated. 2. Alternative 4 would reduce, but not eliminate, the less -than -significant impacts with mitigation incorporated for air quality and would reduce less -than -significant impacts for energy, greenhouse gas emissions, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems. 3. Alternative 4 would result in similar impacts for aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. 4. The findings of the project set forth in this document provide support for the project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration. Facts in Support of Findings: In comparison to the project, Alternative 4 would result in similar impacts relative to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. Alternative 4 would have reduced impacts relative to air quality, energy, November 2025 43 Packet Pg. 72 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report greenhouse gas emissions, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems due to the reduced scale of the proposed development compared to the project. Alternative 4 would still require mitigation measures associated with air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. In addition, Alternative 4 would not fully meet all project objectives, as shown below in Table 5. Table 5 Applicability of Project Objectives for Alternative 4 Alternative 4: Construction Noise Setback Project Objective Alternative Create a new mixed -use community that allows for residential, retail/commercial, and senior Partially Meets housing while preserving and enhancing natural resources. Provide a sensitive and protective interface with the adjacent Wiley Canyon Creek by utilizing Meets appropriate setback, grading, landscape, buried bank stabilization and water quality treatments. Provide development and transitional land use patterns that are compatible with surrounding Meets communities and land uses and are consistent with the City's General Plan. Arrange land uses and add amenities to reduce vehicle miles traveled and to encourage the Meets use of transit. Design neighborhoods to locate residential and non-residential land uses in close proximity to Meets each other and major road corridors, transit and trails. Provide public spaces, including plazas, private and public recreational areas and trails. Meets Implement waste reduction, drought -tolerant landscaping, and use of water efficiency Meets measures. Provide a meandering trail with public access along Wiley Canyon Road and within the project Meets site along Wiley Canyon Creek. Provide a landscape design emphasizing a pleasant neighborhood character and inviting Meets streetscapes. Enhance and augment the City's housing market by providing a variety of housing product to Meets meet the needs of future residents. Maintain and enhance the use of Wiley Canyon Creek with native revegetation as a to serve as Meets a natural channel to be utilized by wildlife. Incorporate new oak trees into the project design, including public spaces. Meets Incorporate vehicle and pedestrian circulation improvements on Wiley Canyon Road and Meets Calgrove Boulevard through the widening of the roadways where needed, as well as the addition of appropriate traffic controls at various intersections. Provide a Class I trail and sidewalks along the roadways. Meets Provide publicly accessible passive and active recreational opportunities for prospective Meets residents and existing residents in proximity to the project site. Include amenities to specifically support senior residents requiring senior services including Meets memory care, supporting amenities for basic -needs nursing care, and housekeeping service. November 2025 44 Packet Pg. 73 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Include recreational amenities to improve quality of life of prospective on -site residents and Meets existing off -site residents and encourage senior living tenants to socialize and maintain active lifestyles. Alternative 5: Mixed Use Alternative Alternative 5 removes the for -rent residential component of the proposed project (379 units and up to four stories) and replaces it with 232 townhome and/or detached condominium residential units. The townhome/condominium units would be two-story in height. Under Alternative 5, the size of the senior facility/assisted living facility would reduce to 140,000 square feet (120 assisted living units) when compared to the proposed project. The commercial component under this alternative would remain at 9,000 square feet. The residential area would be 16.5 acres, and the assisted living/commercial area would be 3.5 acres. A total of 601 parking spaces would be provided for residential uses, 64 spaces for commercial use, and 66 spaces for senior living parking. The open space proposed on site would total 120,330 square feet, including 15,000 square feet for recreational amenities (e.g., pool, tot -lot, restroom), an 80,045-square-foot park, 16,850 square feet for the small lot single-family development private yards, and 8,435 square feet for townhome private yards. Under this alternative, the proposed grading activities, bank protection along Wiley Canyon Creek, and off -site infrastructure would all remain the same as the proposed project. Findings 1. Alternative 5 would not eliminate the project's significant and unavoidable impacts associated with construction noise and cumulative construction noise. 2. Alternative 5 would reduce, but not eliminate, the less -than -significant impacts with mitigation incorporated for air quality and would reduce less -than -significant impacts for energy, greenhouse gas emissions, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems. 3. Alternative 5 would result in similar impacts for aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. Facts in Support of Findings: In comparison to the project, Alternative 5 would result in similar impacts relative to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. Alternative 5 would have reduced impacts relative to air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems due to the reduced scale of the proposed development compared to the project. Alternative 5 would still require mitigation measures associated with air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. Alternative 5 would meet all project objectives, as shown below in Table 6. November 2025 45 Packet Pg. 74 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Table 6 Applicability of Project Objectives for Alternative 5 Alternative 5: Mixed Use Project Objective Alternative Create a new mixed -use community that allows for residential, retail/commercial, and senior Meets housing while preserving and enhancing natural resources. Provide a sensitive and protective interface with the adjacent Wiley Canyon Creek by utilizing Meets appropriate setback, grading, landscape, buried bank stabilization and water quality treatments. Provide development and transitional land use patterns that are compatible with surrounding Meets communities and land uses and are consistent with the City's General Plan. Arrange land uses and add amenities to reduce vehicle miles traveled and to encourage the Meets use of transit. Design neighborhoods to locate residential and non-residential land uses in close proximity to Meets each other and major road corridors, transit and trails. Provide public spaces, including plazas, private and public recreational areas and trails. Meets Implement waste reduction, drought -tolerant landscaping, and use of water efficiency Meets measures. Provide a meandering trail with public access along Wiley Canyon Road and within the project Meets site along Wiley Canyon Creek. Provide a landscape design emphasizing a pleasant neighborhood character and inviting Meets streetscapes. Enhance and augment the City's housing market by providing a variety of housing product to Meets meet the needs of future residents. Maintain and enhance the use of Wiley Canyon Creek with native revegetation as a to serve as Meets a natural channel to be utilized by wildlife. Incorporate new oak trees into the project design, including public spaces. Meets Incorporate vehicle and pedestrian circulation improvements on Wiley Canyon Road and Meets Calgrove Boulevard through the widening of the roadways where needed, as well as the addition of appropriate traffic controls at various intersections. Provide a Class I trail and sidewalks along the roadways. Meets Provide publicly accessible passive and active recreational opportunities for prospective Meets residents and existing residents in proximity to the project site. Include amenities to specifically support senior residents requiring senior services including Meets memory care, supporting amenities for basic -needs nursing care, and housekeeping service. Include recreational amenities to improve quality of life of prospective on -site residents and Meets existing off -site residents and encourage senior living tenants to socialize and maintain active lifestyles. November 2025 46 Packet Pg. 75 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report 6.0 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR The City Council finds that no new significant information as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 was received by the City Council after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR. The City Council certifies the Final EIR based on the following findings and conclusions. 6.1 FINDINGS The project would have the potential for creating significant adverse impacts. These significant adverse environmental impacts are identified in the Draft EIR and require mitigation as set forth in the Findings. Significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance after mitigation include noise impacts during project construction. 6.2 CONCLUSIONS All significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the project are identified in the Draft EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to less -than -significant levels, with the exception of construction noise and cumulative construction noise. 2. Alternatives to the project, which could potentially achieve the basic objectives of the project, have been considered. The project and Alternatives 1 through 4 have been rejected in favor of Alternative 5. 3. Environmental, economic, social, and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the proposed project, as further discussed in Section 7.0, override and make infeasible any alternatives to the project or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the project. November 2025 47 Packet Pg. 76 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. November 2025 48 Packet Pg. 77 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report 7.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 INTRODUCTION The City of Santa Clarita is the Lead Agency under CEQA for preparation, review, and certification of the Final EIR for the Wiley Canyon Project. As the Lead Agency, the City is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and which of those impacts are significant, and which can be mitigated through imposition of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA then requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the project. In making this determination, the City is guided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, which provides as follows: a) CEQA requires the decision -making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. In addition, PRC Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby leave significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of Alternative 5. Pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b) and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the Alternative 5 against the one unavoidable adverse impact associated with the Alternative 5 and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to this impact. The City Council, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Wiley Canyon Draft EIR, the Final EIR, including responses to comments, and the public record in its entirety, hereby adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations, which balances the benefits of Alternative 5 against the one unavoidable adverse impact in reaching a decision on this project. 7.2 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS November 2025 49 Packet Pg. 78 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Although all potential project impacts have been substantially avoided or mitigated as described in the preceding findings, there is no complete mitigation for project impact related to construction noise and cumulative construction noise. Details of this significant unavoidable adverse impact were discussed in the EIR and are summarized or were otherwise provided in the Statement of Facts and Findings (above). 7.3 OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The City Council finds that each of the specific economic, legal, social, technological, environmental, and other considerations, and the benefits of the project separately and independently outweigh the remaining significant, adverse impact related to noise impacts associated with construction and is an overriding consideration independently warranting approval of the project. The remaining significant adverse impact identified in Section 7.2, above, is acceptable in light of each of these overriding considerations, and the substantial evidence that supports the enumerated benefits of Alternative 5 can be found in the Statement of Facts and Findings herein, the Final EIR, Alternative 5 itself, and the record of all proceedings in connection with the approval of Alternative 5. In the event that any court decision or regulatory action results in a determination that there are additional remaining significant impacts resulting from the City's approval of the project that cannot be avoided even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures into the project, the Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations herein shall be deemed to apply to such additional remaining significant impacts. After examining the proposed project in light of its alternatives, the City determined that adoption and implementation of one of the alternatives (Alternative 5) is the most desirable, feasible, and appropriate action. The City finds and determines that (1) all significant environmental effects of Alternative 5 are substantially lessened where feasible; (2) Alternative 5 will result in certain significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided or reduced to a less -than -significant level even with incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures; and (3) there are no other feasible mitigation measures or feasible project alternatives that will further mitigate, avoid, or reduce the remaining significant environmental effects to a less -than -significant level. The City finds that the adoption and implementation of Alternative 5 will have the economic, social, legal, and other considerable benefits listed below. The City finds that each of the separate benefits listed below is determined to be unto itself an overriding consideration, independent of other benefits, that warrants approval of Alternative 5 and outweighs and overrides the significant unavoidable impacts related to construction noise and cumulative construction noise described in Section 5.4, and thereby justifies approval of Alternative 5. The specific economic, legal, social, technological, environmental, and other considerations, and the benefits of Alternative 5 that outweigh the significant unavoidable impact of the project are: Alternative 5 would create a new mixed -use community that allows for residential, retail/commercial, and senior housing while preserving and enhancing natural resources. 2. Alternative 5 would provide a sensitive and protective interface with the adjacent Wiley Canyon Creek by utilizing appropriate setback, grading, landscape, buried bank stabilization and water quality treatments. November 2025 50 Packet Pg. 79 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report 3. Alternative 5 would provide development and transitional land use patterns that are compatible with surrounding communities and land uses and are consistent with the City's General Plan. 4. Alternative 5 would arrange land uses and add amenities to reduce vehicle miles traveled and to encourage the use of transit. 5. Alternative 5 would provide designs and neighborhoods to locate residential and non- residential land uses in close proximity to each other and major road corridors, transit and trails. 6. Alternative 5 would provide public spaces, including plazas, private and public recreational areas and trails. 7. Alternative 5 would implement waste reduction, drought -tolerant landscaping, and use of water efficiency measures. 8. Alternative 5 would provide a meandering trail with public access along Wiley Canyon Road and within the project site along Wiley Canyon Creek. 9. Alternative 5 would provide a landscape design emphasizing a pleasant neighborhood character and inviting streetscapes. 10. Alternative 5 would enhance and augment the City's housing market by providing a variety of housing product to meet the needs of future residents. 11. Alternative 5 would maintain and enhance the use of Wiley Canyon Creek with native revegetation as a to serve as a natural channel to be utilized by wildlife. 12. Alternative 5 would incorporate new oak trees into the project design, including public spaces. 13. Alternative 5 would incorporate vehicle and pedestrian circulation improvements on Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard through the widening of the roadways where needed, as well as the addition of appropriate traffic controls at various intersections. 14. Alternative 5 would provide a Class I trail and sidewalks along the roadways. 15. Alternative 5 would provide publicly accessible passive and active recreational opportunities for prospective residents and existing residents in proximity to the project site. 16. Alternative 5 would include amenities to specifically support senior residents requiring senior services including memory care, supporting amenities for basic -needs nursing care, and housekeeping service. 17. Alternative 5 would include recreational amenities to improve quality of life of prospective on -site residents and existing off -site residents and encourage senior living tenants to socialize and maintain active lifestyles. Therefore, the City Council, having reviewed and considered all of the information contained in the Draft EIR, Final EIR, and the public record, adopts the Statement of Overriding November 2025 51 Packet Pg. 80 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Considerations, which balances the benefits of Alternative 5 against the unavoidable adverse impact related to operational air quality in reaching a decision on this project. November 2025 52 Packet Pg. 81 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. November 2025 53 Packet Pg. 82 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report 8.0 STATEMENT OF LOCATION AND CUSTODIAN OF DOCUMENTS Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e), the City of Santa Clarita, as the Lead Agency, specifies that copy of the FEIR and all supporting documents are available at the City Clerk's Office, located in the City Hall Building at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120, Santa Clarita, California, 91355. November 2025 54 Packet Pg. 83 1.b City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. November 2025 55 Packet Pg. 84 1.b CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION MASTER CASE 20-238 EXHIBIT B Final EIR; and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project SCH No. 2022030626 Incorporated by Reference Document can be found at https:Hsantaclarita_ gov/planning/environmental-impact-reports-under-review/wile,,, mixed -use -project/ Packet Pg. 85 1.c RESOLUTION NO. 25- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING APPEAL 25-002 AND AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE MASTER CASE 20-238, CONSISTING OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 20-023, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 20-005, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 20-017, MINOR USE PERMIT 20-013, OAK TREE PERMIT 425- 004, AND TENTATIVE MAP 83295, FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 24924 HAWKBRYN AVENUE (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS: 2825-012-007, 2825-007-010, 2825-012-011, 2825-012-901, AND 2825-012-902), IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, SUBJECT TO THE ATTACHED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (EXHIBIT A). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS FOR MASTER CASE 20-238. The City Council makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: A. On October 28, 2020, an application for Master Case 20-238 was filed, consisting of Architectural Design Review (ADR) 20-023, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 20-005, Development Review (DR) 20-017, Minor Use Permit (MUP) 20-013, Oak Tree Permit (OTP) 425-004, and Tentative Map (TM) 83295. The properties affected by the application are Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN) 2825-012-007, 2825-007-010, 2825-012-011, 2825- 012-901, and 2825-012-902; B. The approximately 31-acre Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project (Project) site is located at 24924 Hawbryn Avenue, and has a General Plan land use and zoning designation of Mixed Use Neighborhood (MXN). The Project site is also located within the area designated by the General Plan as the Calgrove Corridor/Smiser Ranch Special Development Area (Smiser Ranch Area), and located within the Planned Development Overlay (PD) zone; C. The project includes the proposed development of 45 two-story detached, single-family condominium units, eight of which would include an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU); 179 two-story townhome units; a four-story, 120-unit assisted -living facility; and 9,000 square feet of commercial floor area, including the merger and subdivision into seven lots; D. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"; Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq.), including the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15000, et seq.) the City of Santa Clarita (City) is the lead agency for the Project. The findings, conclusions, and actions set forth in Resolution No. 25-_ are incorporated by reference; and E. This resolution and its findings are made based upon City Council's de novo review of the entire administrative record, including, without limitation, testimony and evidence presented to the City Council at its public hearings, including the staff report. Page 1 of 7 Packet Pg. 86 1.c SECTION 2. GENERAL FINDINGS FOR MASTER CASE 20-238. Based on the foregoing facts and findings for Master Case 20-238, the City Council determines as follows: A. That the proposal is consistent with the General Plan; The Project site is designated as Mixed -Use Neighborhood (MXN) under the Santa Clarita General Plan (Land Use Element), which is intended for mixed -use development "in order to create neighborhoods that integrate residential uses with complementary commercial services, including retail and office uses." In addition, the Project site is located within an approximately 38-acre area that is specifically identified in the General Plan as the Calgrove Corridor/Smiser Ranch Special Development Area (Smiser Ranch area). The General Plan establishes a limitation on the overall allowable floor area of 830,000 square feet of total residential and commercial combined development (excluding parking facilities) in the Smiser Ranch area. The proposed Project would develop an underutilized site with a mixed -use development, inclusive of new residential units, assisted -living units, and commercial floor area for neighborhood -serving commercial uses. The proposed development is within the allowable floor area established by the General Plan for the Smiser Ranch area. The Project would construct roadway improvements along its frontage on Wiley Canyon Road to include three new roundabouts and installation of a Class I Trail from the Project entrance to Calgove Boulevard. While Wiley Canyon Road would maintain a two-lane roadway configuration, the Project would not change the General Plan roadway designation, and would not preclude Wiley Canyon Road from being built out to four lanes if that ever became necessary in the future. In addition, the proposed Project would be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, including, without limitation. The proposed Project is consistent with the following Land Use goals, and their associated objectives and policies: Goal LUE 1; Objective LU 1.2; Policy LU 1.2.1; Goal LU 2; Objective LU 2.1; Objective LU 2.3; Goal LU 3; Objective LU 3.1; and Policy LU 3.1.2. The development proposal is consistent with the intent and goals of the General Plan. The Project would provide new housing opportunities in a variety of housing types, and new commercial floor area to provide neighborhood serving commercial retail and office uses, helping to meet the housing and business needs of both current and future residents. B. The proposal is allowed within the applicable underlying zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code (SCMC); The proposed Project is a mixed -use development, located in the MXN zone, which is intended for mixed -use development. Multifamily and single-family residential units are permitted by right in the MXN zone. The assisted -living facility is permitted with the approval of a CUP. In addition, commercial development is permitted in the MXN zone, subject to the objective development standards in SCMC Chapters 17.51 and 17.55. Any Page 2 of 7 Packet Pg. 87 1.c future commercial uses will be subject to the requirements of SCMC Section 17.35.020(B), the permitted use chart for the MXN zone. The MXN zone establishes minimum and maximum density for residential units, and establishes minimum and maximum floor area ratios (FAR) for commercial uses. The FAR for commercial uses is 0.2, and the maximum FAR is 0.5. Based on the 31-acre Project site, the commercial uses should provide between 270,072 and 675,180 square feet of floor area. The required residential density is a minimum of six units per acre and a maximum of 18 units per acre. Based on the Project site area, the Project should provide between 186 to 558 units. The Project includes 232 residential units, meeting the minimum and maximum residential density of the MXN zone. The Project request includes an MUP to provide a commercial FAR that is less than that required by the MXN zone. The applicant proposes a 149,000 square feet of commercial floor area, inclusive of the assisted -living and commercial floor area. The proposed Project is within the allowable building height of 50 feet in the MXN zone. In general, the residential units are two stories, with a maximum height of 35 feet. The assisted living facility is four stories with a maximum height of 50 feet. The architecture was reviewed for conformance with the Community Character and Design Guidelines (CCDG) for the community of Newhall. The Project complies with the objective development standards for the MXN zone, and with approval of the CUP and MUP, the Project would be consistent with the underlying zoning requirements. 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 permittee is required to comply with all applicable laws, including, without limitation, the California Building Standards Code and Fire Code. Sufficient access for firefighting purposes is provided and verified by the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County (LACFD), and the permittee must comply with all LACFD requirements. As described above, the Project complies with the zoning regulations for the MXN zone and would not create a hazard to the public health, safety, and welfare. The Project complies with all applicable laws. There is no evidence demonstrating that the Project, if constructed, would endanger public health and safety. 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 3 of 7 Packet Pg. 88 1.c The Project complies with the City's objective standards for mixed -use development, including, without limitation, setbacks, building height, drive aisle width, outdoor space, and landscaping, and sufficient parking is provided for both the commercial and residential components as required by the SCMC. As described in the above findings, with approval of the CUP and MUP, the Project would be consistent with the underlying zoning requirements. 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 of traffic such proposal would generate; The Project would include several off -site roadway improvements along Wiley Canyon Road. Wiley Canyon Road is currently a two-lane roadway along the Project frontage to Calgrove Boulevard. The are no signalized intersections along this stretch of Wiley Canyon Road. The roadway improvements for the Project include the installation of three new roundabout intersections: 1) at the Project entrance on Wiley Canyon Road; 2) at Canerwell and Wiley Canyon Road; and 3) at Calgrove Boulevard and Wiley Canyon Road. In addition, a Class I trail (two-lane bicycle path and separated, five-foot wide pedestrian path) would be installed along the Project frontage on Wiley Canyon Road from the Project entrance to Calgrove Boulevard. As discussed throughout the public hearing process, the Project trips do not necessitate the build -out of four lanes; however, the Wiley Canyon Road right-of-way could accommodate four lanes if needed in the future. The Project would also improve bicycle trail connections in the vicinity of the Project along Wiley Canyon Road from Lyons Avenue to Calgrove Boulevard. A Class III bicycle lane (signage to indicate a shared bicycle lane in the traffic lane) would be installed on Wiley Canyon Road from Lyons Avenue to Wabuska Street. This would transition to a Class II bicycle lane (striped bicycle lane in the traffic lane right-of-way) at Wabuska Street to the Project entrance. A Class II trail would be installed on Calgrove Boulevard from Wiley Canyon Road to The Old Road. Ultimately, these improvements would make bicycle path connections from existing bicycle trails on the north side of Lyons Avenue to The Old Road. This would provide for a future trail connection to the Towsley Canyon Open Space, on the south side of the intersection of Calgrove Boulevard and The Old Road. 3. Public protection services (e.g., Fire protection and Sheriprotection) are readily available; and The Project site is located in an established, urban environment that is serviced by existing public protection services provided by both the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD) and LACFD, and will not require any significant additional resources or services from those organizations as a result of its operation. The proposal must comply with all applicable requirements of the LACFD and LASD. In addition, the developer will be required to pay applicable fees to the law enforcement and fire protection agencies to assist in offsetting any impacts to the services necessary to Page 4 of 7 Packet Pg. 89 1.c 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) 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. Additionally, the Conditions of Approval require necessary utility connections to support the Project. SECTION 3: ADDITIONAL FINDINGS FOR THE OAK TREE PERMIT. Based on foregoing facts and findings for OTP 425-004, the City Council finds as follows: A. It is necessary to remove, relocate, prune, cut or encroach into the protected zone of an oak tree to enable reasonable use of the subject property which is otherwise prevented by the presence of the tree and no reasonable alternative can be accomodated due to the unique physical development constraints on the property. A total of 36 oak trees are located on the Project site and/or adjacent to planned roadway improvements associated with the Project. The Project would remove four non -heritage oak trees that are located on the Project site. In addition, there are encroachment impacts identified for 19 oak trees, including encroachment into the dripline of two heritage oak trees. Removing oak trees requires mitigation in accordance with the City's Oak Tree regulations The Conditions of Approval require the permittee to prepare a mitigation plan that is equal to the full appraisal value of the oak trees proposed to be removed. The mitigation plan could include on -site planting of oak trees, payment of a fee to the City's oak tree fund, or donation of land for planting of oak trees. SECTION 4: FINDINGS FOR TENTATIVE MAP 83295. Pursuant to SCMC § 16.25.110, the City Council finds that there is no basis for denying TM 83295 under Government Code § 66474 and further finds, determines, and declares that: A. The proposed Tentative Map is consistent with the General Plan as required in Government Code § 65451. 1. As set forth in Section 3, this Project meets the goals and objectives of the General Plan. B. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development; C. The design of the Project and the proposed improvements are unlikely to cause substantial damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed type of improvements are unlikely to cause serious public health problems. There is no evidence demonstrating that the approval of a tentative map is likely to cause any serious public health problems; and E. The design of the Project or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements Page 5 of 7 Packet Pg. 90 1.c acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed Project. The on -site roadways necessary for the Project will be installed and accessible for the future residents, law enforcement, and emergency services. SECTION 5: APPROVALS. The City Council hereby denies Appeal 25-002 and affirms the Planning Commission's decision to approve Master Case 20-238 consisting of ADR 20- 023, CUP 20-005, DR 20-017, MUP 20-013, OTP 425-004, and TM 83295, for the construction of a mixed -use development consisting of 232 residential units, inclusive of eight ADUs; a 120-unit assisted -living facility; and 9,000 square feet of commercial, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). SECTION 6: RELIANCE ON RECORD. Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this resolution 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 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 finding is not based in part on that fact. SECTION 8: NOTICE. The City Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this resolution to the City Council and any other person requesting a copy. SECTION 9: EFFECTIVE DATE. This resolution becomes effective immediately upon adoption and memorializes the City Council's final decision made on November 25, 2025. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 25th day of November, 2025 ATTEST: CITY CLERK DATE: MAYOR Page 6 of 7 Packet Pg. 91 1.c STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Mary Cusick, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 25- was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 251h day of November, 2025, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK Page 7 of 7 Packet Pg. 92 1.c EXHIBIT A DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MASTER CASE 20-238 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 20-023, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 20-005, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 20-017, MINOR USE PERMIT 20-013, OAK TREE PERMIT 425- 004, AND TENTATIVE MAP 83295 In addition to all applicable provisions of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code (SCMC), Wiley Canyon, LLC (permittee) agrees to comply with the following provisions as conditions for the City of Santa Clarita's (City) approval of Master Case 20-238 (MC20-238). GENERAL CONDITIONS GC1. The approval of this project will expire 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 SCMC. GC2. To the extent the use approved with this project is a different use than previously approved for the property, the prior approval is 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 terminates the approval of this use, along with any associated vested rights to such use. The use may not be re-established or resumed after the two-year period. Discontinuation includes cessation of a use regardless of intent to resume. GC3. The permittee may file for an extension 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 becomes 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. GCS. The permittee and property owner must comply with all inspections requirements as deemed necessary by the Director. Packet Pg. 93 Master Case 20-238, Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Page 2 of 21 1.c 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 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 Exhibits, 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 SCMC. This condition serves as notice, pursuant to Government Code § 66020(d), that the City is imposing development impact fees (DIFs) upon the project in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code § 66000, et seq.) and the SCMC. The permittee is informed that it may protest DIFs in accordance with Government Code § 66020. 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 Planning Commission. 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 the 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. 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 Packet Pg. 94 Master Case 20-238, Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Page 3 of 21 1.c requirements of this approval are complied with. Development entitlements may be withheld until violations of the SCMC are abated. GC16. The Building Official 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 granted approval for the subdivision and construction of the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project (Project), with up to 232 two-story residential units, inclusive of a maximum of eight attached Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs); a 120-unit, four- story assisted -living facility; and up to 9,000 square feet of commercial floor area. The construction of the Project must be consistent with the approved plans on file with the Planning Division under MC20-238. Any modification to the approved plans is subject to further review and approval of the Director. PL2. Attached ADUs are not permitted to be sold separately from the primary residential unit, unless otherwise permitted under state law. PL3. The final map submitted to the City Engineer for approval and subsequent recordation must substantially comply with Alternative 5, as approved by the Planning Commission PL4. Before the City Engineer issues a precise grading permit, the permittee must submit an Architectural Design Review (ADR) and a Development Review (DR) for review and approval by the Director. An ADR and a DR are required for each development phase of the Project. The ADR and DR can be submitted for the entire Project or by individual planning phase. PL5. Parking must be provided in accordance with the parking plan shown on Alternative 5, on file with the Director under MC20-238. PL6. All walls and fencing must be shown on the development plans. A minimum six -foot -tall block wall must be installed along the northerly property line. A minimum 10-foot combination of berm and block wall must be installed along the west property line in any area that is not separated from the Interstate-5 freeway by the Metro sound wall. PL7. Before the Building Official issues a Certificate of Occupancy for the assisted -living facility, the permittee must provide the Director with a copy of the Emergency and Disaster Plan approved by the California Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), or other state agency as may be referred to by DHHS. PL8. All construction -related staging, construction equipment, and construction worker parking must be provided on the Project site. No off -site construction parking or staging Packet Pg. 95 Master Case 20-238, Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Page 4 of 21 1.c is permitted. PL9. Heavy earthwork construction is limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development upon written formal notification. PL10. No signage is approved by this permit. All future signage requires a sign permit application in accordance with the SCMC. PL11. The permittee must comply with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) as identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Project, which is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth. Landscaping Conditions LR1. Before the City Engineer issues a grading permit, the permittee must provide final landscape, lighting and irrigation plans (Landscape Document Package) for Director review and approval. The plan must be prepared by a California -registered landscape architect and must be designed with the plant palette suitable for Santa Clarita (Sunset Western Garden Book Zone 18, minimum winter night temperatures typically 20' to 30' F; maximum summer high temperatures typically 105' F to 110' F). The landscape design plan must meet the design criteria of the State Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance and the SCMC. LR2. Before the Building Official issues a final Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must install all proposed irrigation and landscaping, including irrigation controllers, staking, mulching, etc., to the satisfaction of the Director. The Director may impose inspection fees for more than one landscape installation inspection. LR3. Before the Building Official issues a final Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must submit to the Director a letter from the Project landscape architect certifying that all landscape materials and irrigation were installed and function according to the approved landscape plans. ENGINEERING SERVICES DIVISION General Requirements EN1. Before the Building Official issues first Certificate of Occupancy, all new and existing power lines and overhead cables less than 34 KV within or fronting the Project site must be installed underground. EN2. Before the City Engineer, or designee, issues grading permit or approves Final Map, whichever occurs first, the permittee must cooperate, at permittee's expense, with the City to acquire Los Angeles County properties (Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 2825- 001-904, portion of APN: 2825-013-913, and portion of APN: 2825-013-914) for the proposed improvements shown on their properties per Tentative Map (TM) 83295. Packet Pg. 96 Master Case 20-238, Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Page 5 of 21 1.c EN3. Before the City Engineer, or designee approves grading plan, the permittee must obtain a notarized Letter of Permission for access and grading outside the property lines/tract boundary from all affected adjacent property owner(s), including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). EN4. Before Street Plan approval, the permittee must obtain a notarized Letter of Permission from the affected property owner(s) for the proposed driveway closure with the installation of a roundabout at the intersection of Wiley Canyon Road and Canerwell Street. ENS. Before the City Engineer issues grading permit, the permittee must acquire the necessary right of way from each property owner for the construction of proposed roundabouts at the intersection of Wiley Canyon Road/Calgrove Boulevard and Wiley Canyon Road/Canerwell Street, and the proposed Class I Trail from the north side of the Project to Rivendale Park. The permittee must acknowledge and agree with the requirements of EN9. Subdivision Requirements EN6. Before the Building Official issues first building permit, a Tract Map prepared by or under the direction of a person licensed to practice land surveying in the State of California must be filed in the Office of the County Recorder, in compliance with applicable City, County, and State Subdivision Map Act. EN7. This tentative map approval is subject to the permittee's acceptance of the following conditions for acquisition of easements/right-of-way: A. The permittee must secure, at the permittee's expense, sufficient title, or interest in land to permit construction of any required off -site improvements. B. If the permittee is unable to acquire sufficient title or interest to permit construction of the required off -site improvements, the permittee must notify the City of this inability not less than six months prior to approval of the Tract Map. In such case, the City may thereafter acquire sufficient interest in the land, which will permit construction of the off -site improvements by the permittee. C. The permittee must pay all of the City's costs of acquiring said off -site property interests pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5. Permittee must pay such costs irrespective of whether the Tract Map is recorded or whether a reversion occurs. The cost of acquisition may include, but is not limited to, acquisition prices, damages, engineering services, expert fees, title examination, appraisal costs, acquisition services, relocation assistance services and payments, legal services and fees, mapping services, document preparation, expenses, and/or damages as provided under Code of Civil Procedures Sections 1268.510-.620 and overhead. D. The permittee agrees that the City will have satisfied the 120-day limitation of Government Code Section 66462.5 and the foregoing conditions relating thereto when it files its eminent domain action in superior court within said time. E. At the time the permittee notifies the City as provided in "B" hereinabove, the permittee must simultaneously submit to the City in a form acceptable to the City all appropriate appraisals, engineering specifications, legal land descriptions, plans, pleadings, and other Packet Pg. 97 Master Case 20-238, Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Page 6 of 21 1.c documents deemed necessary by the City to commence its acquisition proceedings. Said documents must be submitted to the City for preliminary review and comment at least 30 days prior to the permittee's notice described hereinabove at "B" F. The permittee agrees to deposit with the City, within five days of request by the City, such sums of money as the City estimates to be required for the costs of acquisition. The City may require additional deposits from time -to -time. G. The permittee must not sell any lot/parcel/unit shown on the Tract/Parcel Map until the City has acquired said sufficient land interest. H. If the superior court thereafter rules in a final judgment that the City may not acquire said sufficient land interest, the permittee agrees that the City may initiate proceedings for reversion to acreage. I. The permittee must execute any agreements mutually agreeable prior to approval of the Tract Map as may be necessary to assure compliance with the foregoing conditions. Failure by the permittee to notify the City as required by "B" hereinabove, or simultaneously submit the required and approved documents specified in "E" hereinabove, or make the deposits specified in "F" hereinabove, must constitute permittee's waiver of the requirements otherwise imposed upon the City to acquire necessary interests in land pursuant to Section 66462.5. In such event, subdivider must meet all conditions for installing or constructing off -site improvements notwithstanding Section 66462.5. EN8. Before the Tentative Map being recorded with the County Recorder, the permittee must not grant or record easements within areas proposed to be granted, dedicated, or offered for dedication for public streets or highways, access rights, building restriction rights, or other easements; unless subordinated to the proposed grant or dedication. If easements are granted after the date of tentative map approval, subordination must be executed by the easement holder prior to the filing of the Tentative Map. EN9. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must label driveways as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" on the map, as directed by the City Engineer. EN10. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must dedicate any necessary easements or rights -of -ways for public improvements (such as sewer, storm drain, sidewalk and roadway), to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN11. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must remove existing structures. EN12. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must vacate and/or relocate easements running through proposed structures or other improvements, as directed by the City Engineer. EN13. At map check submittal, the permittee must provide a preliminary subdivision report. A final subdivision guarantee is required prior to Tract Map approval. EN14. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must provide a Will Serve Letter stating that Community Antenna Television service (CATV) will be provided to this project. EN15. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must provide a Will Serve Letter from all necessary utilities, stating that service will be provided to this property. Packet Pg. 98 Master Case 20-238, Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Page 7 of 21 1.c EN16. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the erection of building(s) and other structures within open space lots. EN17. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must adjust, relocate, and/or eliminate lot lines, lots, streets, easements, grading, geotechnical protective devices, and/or physical improvements to comply with ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the date the City determined the application to be complete, all, as directed by the City Engineer. EN18. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must show on the map all Los Angeles County Flood Control District Easements. A permit will be required for any construction affecting the right-of-way or facilities. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions Requirements EN19. Before a Final Map is approved, the permittee must obtain approval from the City Engineer and the City Attorney for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for this development. The permittee must reimburse the City for the City Attorney's review and approval fee. The CC&Rs must include a disclosure to comply with the Geologist's recommendations in the Geology Report concerning restrictions on watering, irrigation, and recommend plant types. The CC&Rs must grant the City the authority to review and approve/disapprove amendments (including dissolution) of the CC&Rs/association. The CC&Rs must grant the City the right (though not the obligation) to enforce the CC&Rs (at a minimum those provisions related to City -required items). EN20. Before the Building Official issues first building permit, the permittee must record the approved CC&Rs with the Los Angeles County Recorder's office. EN21. Before the Building Official issues first Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must establish a Property Owners' Association (POA), or similar entity, to ensure the continued maintenance of all shared/common lots and drainage devices are not transferable to the County Flood Control District. EN22. Before the Building Official issues first Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must transfer ownership of open space lots to the POA. The grant deed must be submitted to Engineering Services for review and approval by the City Engineer before a Final Map is approved. Access Requirements EN23. Before the Building Official issues building permits, the permittee must record a covenant for easement of all shared driveways and drive aisles, and common landscaping/slope maintenance areas, as directed by the City Engineer. This condition may be satisfied by incorporating the appropriate provisions into the CC&Rs. Condominium/Lease Requirements (for residential only) EN24. Before final map approval, the permittee must submit a notarized affidavit to the City Engineer, signed by all owners of record at the time of filing of the map with the City, stating that any proposed condominium building have not been constructed or that all buildings have not been occupied or rented and that said building will not be occupied or rented until after the recording of the map with the Los Angeles County (County) Recorder. Packet Pg. 99 Master Case 20-238, Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Page 8 of 21 1.c Grading and Geology Requirements EN25. Before the City Engineer, or designee, issues a grading permit, the permittee must submit a grading plan consistent with the approved Plan, oak tree report, and Conditions of Approval. The grading plan must be based on a detailed engineering geotechnical report specifically approved by the geologist and/or soils engineer that addresses all submitted recommendations, including seismic hazards associated with landslide and liquefaction. EN26. Before the Building Official issues building permit, the permittee must construct all grading and drainage facilities within the Project site, obtain rough grade certifications, and a compaction report approved by the City Engineer. EN27. The Preliminary Grading Plan shows an import of 85,000 Cubic Yards of dirt to the Project. A. Before the City Engineer, or designee, issues a grading permit for this Project, the permittee must submit a copy of the grading permit for the export/receiving site and an exhibit of the proposed haul route. The permittee is responsible to obtain approval from all applicable agencies for the dirt hauling operation. B. The permittee must comply with the following requirements for the dirt hauling operation: 1. Obtain an encroachment permit for the work. 2. The hours of operation is between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. 3. Provide non-stop street sweeping service on all City streets along the haul route during all hours of work to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 4. Provide traffic control and flagging personnel along the haul route to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. C. Before the City Engineer, or designee, issues a grading permit, the permittee must pay a Haul Route Pavement Repair Security Cash Deposit (Deposit) of $100,000, which may be increased or decreased based upon an estimated cost to complete the repairs of streets damaged during the dirt hauling operation. The limits and scope of the repairs must be determined by the City Engineer. To receive a refund of the Deposit, the permittee or subsequent property owners must complete the pavement repairs to the satisfaction of the City Engineer within one year from the completion of the dirt hauling operation. If the pavement repairs are not completed within one year, the City may use the Deposit to complete the repairs. Any funds remaining at the completion of the repairs will be refunded to the permittee. If the Deposit is insufficient to complete the repairs, the City will seek additional funds from the permittee. D. Before the Building Official issues building permits, the permittee must repair any pavement damaged by the dirt hauling operation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The limits of the road repairs must be consistent with the approved haul route. EN28. Before the City Engineer, or designee issues a grading permit, the permittee must obtain a notarized Letter of Permission for grading and/or improvements over all easements, including the California Department of Transportation. Packet Pg. 100 Master Case 20-238, Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Page 9 of 21 1.c Drainage Requirements EN29. Before the City Engineer, or designee issues a grading permit, the permittee must obtain approval and connection permit from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Land Development Division/Construction Division as appropriate to connect on - site drainage system to the County -maintained drainage channel. EN30. Before the soil -cement bank protection and retaining wall plans approval, the permittee must obtain approval from Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) for the proposed improvement on their property. EN31. Before the City Engineer issues the first building permit, the permittee must form a maintenance district, such as DBAA, to fund the ongoing maintenance of natural channel (Lot 5) and other associated improvements that are not transferable to the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) but required to be maintained by the City. EN32. Before the storm drain plan approval, all existing and proposed storm drain inlets/catch basins within or adjacent to the property along with all new storm drain inlets/catch basins constructed as part of the Project must be provided with filter inserts and/or screen covers, as directed by the City Engineer. EN33. Specific drainage requirements for the site will be established at building permit application. Before Building Official issues a building permit, the permittee must submit a precise grading plan. FEMA Flood Zone Requirements EN34. The Project is located in FEMA Flood Zone (A, AO) in accordance with the Federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). A. For the proposed improvements within the Floodway, the permittee is required to comply with FEMA requirements to revise the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRMs). Before the Building Official issues Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must complete a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). B. For the proposed improvements within the Flood fringe, the permittee must comply with FEMA requirements to revise the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRMs). Prior to issuance of grading permit, the permittee must complete a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and prior to first building final, the permittee must complete a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). Water Quality Requirements EN35. This Project will disturb one acre or more of land. Therefore, the permittee must obtain coverage under a statewide General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit (General Permit). In accordance with the General Permit, the permittee must file with the State a Notice of Intent (NOI) for the proposed Project. Before the City Engineer, or designee issues a grading permit, the permittee must have approved by the City Engineer a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must include a copy of the NOI and shall reference the corresponding Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number issued by the state upon receipt of the NOI. Packet Pg. 101 Master Case 20-238, Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Page 10 of 21 1.c EN36. This Project is a development planning priority Project under the City's NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit as a development with equal to one acre or greater of disturbed area that adds more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. Before the City Engineer, or designee issues a grading permit, the permittee must have approved by the City Engineer, an Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (USMP) that incorporates appropriate post construction Best Management Practices (BMPs), maximizes pervious surfaces, and includes infiltration into the design of the Project. Refer to the Low Impact Development ordinance and the County of Los Angeles Low Impact Development manual for details. EN37. Before the final map recordation, the permittee must establish a POA to maintain all SUSMP devices/systems identified on the latest approved Drainage Concept/Storm drain plan. SUSMP devices/systems shall include, but are not limited to, catch basin inserts, debris excluders, biotreatment basins, vortex separation type systems, and other devices/systems for stormwater quality. The permittee must be responsible for the maintenance of all SUSMP devices/systems until the POA has been established. Street Light Requirements EN38. Before street plan approval, the permittee must submit a Street Light Plan to the City Engineer, or designee, for review and approval. Street -lighting systems must be designed as City -owned and maintained on the LS-3 rate schedule, using LED fixtures approved by the City's Streetlight Maintenance District Division. EN39. Before the Building Official issues a final Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must install street lights per the approved plans, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Street Improvement Requirements EN40. Before any construction (including, without limitation, drive approaches, sidewalks, sewer laterals, curb and gutter, etc.), trenching or grading within public street right-of- way, the permittee must submit a street improvement plan consistent with the approved Plan, Oak Tree Report, and Conditions of Approval; and obtain encroachment permits from the City Engineer, or designee. EN41. The property boundaries of the site abut the Caltrans jurisdiction. Encroachments into Caltrans jurisdiction must be permitted by Caltrans before the Director considers issuing any permit(s). EN42. Before street plan approval, the permittee must submit a street tree location plan to the City's Urban Forestry Division for review and approval by the Director. The location of the street trees shall not conflict with sewer or storm drain infrastructure. The plan must include proposed sewer lateral locations and storm drain infrastructure for reference. EN43. Before final map approval or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the permittee must dedicate to the City the right-of-way required for off -site street improvements (roundabout at Calgrove & Wiley Canyon Road, at Canerwell Street & Wiley Canyon Road, and other locations shown on the TM 83295) EN44. Before final map approval, the permittee must dedicate sidewalk easements sufficient to encompass ADA requirements for sidewalks installed with drive approaches per the current City standard APWA 110-2, Type C, or equivalent. Packet Pg. 102 Master Case 20-238, Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Page 11 of 21 1.c EN45. Before Building Official issues first Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must construct the following street improvements within the Project site, on Wiley Canyon Road from Wabuska Street to Calgrove Blvd, and on Calgrove Boulevard from Wiley Canyon Road to Old Road, as directed by the City Engineer: Street Name Inverted Curb & Base & Street Street Sidewalk Landscaped Shoulder Gutter Paving Lights Trees (5'min) Median Wiley Canyon Road (including roundabouts) x x x x x x Calgrove Boulevard * x x x x x Private driveways/Fire Lanes x x Hawkbryn Avenue x x * Improvements include trail connection to Rivendale Park, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN46. Before the Building Official issues first Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must construct wheelchair ramps at the roundabouts and various intersections along Wiley Canyon Road between the roundabouts, as directed by the City Engineer. EN47. Before final map approval, the permittee must pay an in -lieu fee for landscaping and irrigation of the medians on Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard per plans, at the discretion of the City Engineer. The in -lieu fee must be based on a cost estimate calculated by the permittee and approved by the City Engineer. EN48. Before the Building Official issues Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must repair any broken or damaged curb, gutter, and sidewalk and refurbish the half section of pavement on streets abutting the Project, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A revised street plan and encroachment permit is required. Sewer Improvement Requirements EN49. Before final map approval, the permittee must dedicate all necessary sewer easements. The sewer plans must be reviewed and approved by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (Sewer Maintenance Division), Los Angeles County Sanitation District, and the City Engineer. EN50. Before Building Official issues a building permit, the permittee must annex the property into the County Sanitation District. The permittee must provide the City's Building & Safety Division with written confirmation from the Sanitation District that the property has been annexed. EN51. The on -site sewer must be a publicly maintained sewer. The public sewer plan must be reviewed and approved by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (Sewer Maintenance Division), Los Angeles County Sanitation District, and the City Engineer; and all necessary easement for maintenance of the sewer must be dedicated to the City of Santa Clarita. EN52. Before the Building Official issues building permits, the on -site sewer main with building laterals must be connected to existing public sewer in Wiley Canyon Road (per PC 7599). Before the Building Official issues building permits, the permittee must coordinate with Packet Pg. 103 Master Case 20-238, Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Page 12 of 21 1.c the Building Official, or designee, regarding payment of additional annexation fees, if required, to annex the property into the Los Angeles County Sanitation District. EN53. Before the Building Official issues Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must construct all sewer upgrades per the approved sewer area study, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Bonds, Fees and Miscellaneous Requirements EN54. Before City Engineer, or designee issue encroachment permits for public improvements (Street, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Drain, and Street Lights), the permittee, by agreement with the City Engineer, must guarantee installation of the improvements through faithful performance bonds, letters of credit or any other acceptable means. Certificate of Occupancy/Occupancies must be withheld if the improvements are not completed. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TEL Before final map approval, the permittee must acquire and dedicate to the City the right- of-way required for all street improvements as identified in the traffic study, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. TE2. Before the Building Official issues the first Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must construct all street improvements as identified in the traffic study required to adequately serve this development. TE3. Project access along Wiley Canyon Road must be designed and constructed as a roundabout. The roundabout must be designed according to appropriate design standards including radius, deflection, and design speed. The City Engineer may require permittee to pay for the submitted design being peer reviewed by a third -party consultant. This must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issuing the first building permit. TE4. The Project must construct a roundabout at the intersection of Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard. The roundabout must be designed according to appropriate design standards, including radius, deflection, and design speed. The City Engineer may require permittee to pay for the submitted design being peer reviewed by a third -party consultant. This must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issuing the first building permit. TES. The Project must construct a roundabout at the intersection of Wiley Canyon Road and Canerwell Street and close/relocate the existing driveway on the west side of the intersection. The roundabout must be designed according to appropriate design standards, including radius, deflection, and design speed. The City Engineer may require permittee to pay for the submitted design being peer reviewed by a third -party consultant. This must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issuing the first building permit. TE6. The permittee must install a median at the intersection of Wiley Canyon Road and Fourl Road to prohibit westbound left -turns exiting Fourl Road. This must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issues the first building permit. Packet Pg. 104 Master Case 20-238, Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Page 13 of 21 1.c TE7. Before the Building Official issues the first Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must provide a Class I trail on the west side of Wiley Canyon Road between Calgrove Boulevard and the terminus of Old Wiley Canyon Road. The trail must be 11 feet wide at a minimum and include an adjacent walking path of at least 5 feet wide. On the east side of Wiley Canyon Road, the permittee must install Class 11 bicycle lanes between the same aforementioned limits. TE8. Before the Building Official issues the first Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must extend existing Class II bicycle lanes along both sides of Calgrove Boulevard from Wiley Canyon Road to the intersection of The Old Road and Calgrove Boulevard. Crosswalks must be provided on both the western and southern legs of the intersection. All necessary intersection improvements to ensure ADA compliance will be the responsibility of the permittee. TE9. Before the Building Official issues the first Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must install Class 11 bike lanes on both sides of Wiley Canyon Road from the northern terminus of the Class I trail to Wabuska Street. TE10. Before the Building Official issues the first Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must design and install bicycle facilities on Wiley Canyon Road between Wabuska Street and 200-feet north of Lyons Avenue, subject to approval by the City Engineer. TE11. The permittee must install new conduit for the installation or future installation of fiberoptic cable due to street improvements associated with the Project. This must be shown on all applicable plans and installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This interconnect conduit and cable is required along new frontage improvements. All improvement plans for the above interconnect must be approved by the City Engineer. The interconnect conduit and cable must be installed at the time of the respective traffic signal and/or frontage improvements. TE12. Sidewalks must be provided on all internal roadways that are not alley -type driveways This must be shown on all appropriate cross sections. TE13. Before the Building Official issues the first building occupancy permit, the permittee must obtain approval from the LACFD for any private driveway sections. TE14. Before the Building Official issues the first building occupancy permit for each phase, the permittee must post "No Parking— Fire Lane" signs along all driveways with a curb -to - curb width of less than 34 feet. This must be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TE15. All dead-end driveways must extend five feet beyond the last parking stall or garage to provide back-up area. This must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issuing the first building permit. TE16. Provide access gates for vehicles and bikes/pedestrians at the northerly terminus of the trail (roundabout). Provide vehicle terminus and turnaround at the southerly terminus of the trail. The trail must be designed to meet ADA requirements. Fencing material and design to be decorative, not galvanized chain link. This must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issues the first building permit. Packet Pg. 105 Master Case 20-238, Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Page 14 of 21 1.c TE17. The permittee must provide a connection from the southerly end of the trail to Wiley Canyon Road. This must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issues the first building permit. TE18. The permittee must provide a trail around the westerly perimeter of the site as a continuation of the on -site trail/maintenance road. This must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issues the first building permit. TE19. The permittee must provide a trail connection to Rivendale Park and Open Space. This must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issues the first building permit. TE20. Before the City Engineer issues a grading permit, the permittee must conduct vehicle counts on Canerwell Street, Ebelden Avenue, Fambrough Street, and Kalmar Avenue (Oak Ridge Estates neighborhood) and submit the counts to the City Engineer. Within one year of full occupancy of the project, if requested by the City Engineer, the permittee must conduct new vehicle counts in Oak Ridge Estates neighborhood. If the new vehicle counts demonstrate a significant diversion of vehicles, as determined by the City Engineer, into the Oak Ridge Estates neighborhood, the permittee will be required to implement appropriate traffic calming measures that must be approved by the City Engineer to discourage such diversion. TE21. Before the Building Official issues building permits, the permittee must pay the applicable Bridge and Thoroughfare (B&T) District Fee to implement the Circulation Element of the General Plan as a means of mitigating the traffic impact of this Project. This Project is located in the Via Princessa B&T District. The current rate for this District is $23,170. The B&T rate is subject to change and is based on the rate at the time of payment. Standard B&T Fee Calculation: Townhomes = number of units (232) x the district rate ($23,170) x 0.8 = $4,300,352 Commercial — gross acreage (3.5) x the district rate ($23,170) x 5 = $405,475 SPECIAL DISTRICTS Urban Forestry UFL The Conditions of Approval herein are based on the arborist report dated February 2024 Oak tree removals are limited to trees numbers 450, 452, 455, and 456, as described and proposed in the arborist report. UF2. Permittee must mitigate for the loss of trees 450, 452, 455, and 456. The mitigation value is the International Society of Arboriculture appraised value: a. Oak tree number 450 (Quercus agrifolia) — ISA appraised value $26,000 b. Oak tree number 452 (Quercus agrifolia) — ISA appraised value $15,600 c. Oak tree number 455 (Quercus agrifolia) — ISA appraised value $170,200 Packet Pg. 106 Master Case 20-238, Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Page 15 of 21 1.c d. Oak tree number 456 (Quercus agrifolia) — ISA appraised value $91,600 UF3. Before the City Engineer issues a grading permit, permittee must submit a comprehensive oak tree mitigation plan to Urban Forestry for review and approval by the Director. The oak tree mitigation plan shall include, without limitation: a map identifying the proposed location of replacement mitigation oak trees and the quantities. The mitigation plan must equal no less than $303,400. UF4. Before the City Engineer issues a grading permit, permittee must submit International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) tree appraisal values for all oak trees in the arborist report identified to be encroached on: tree numbers 451, 453, 454, 457, 459, QA4, QA5, QA6, QA8, QA9, QA 10, QA 11, QL 12, QL 13, QL 15, QL 16, QL 17, QL 18, and 463. UF5. Before the City Engineer issues a grading permit, and before removal or encroachment of any oak trees, permittee must secure a Bond equal to 1) the full appraised value for all the oak trees proposed for removal, and 2) the full appraised value of all oak trees proposed for encroachment. The Bond shall be exonerated 24 months after the conclusion of all phases of construction if all conditions of the oak tree permit have been met to the satisfaction of the Director of Administrative Services or their designee. UF6. Before the City Engineer issues a grading permit, permittee must submit a maintenance and care program to Urban Forestry, prepared by the Project's oak tree consultant. The program shall be initiated to ensure the continued health and care of oak trees being preserved, throughout all phases of construction. UF7. Two years after the conclusion of all phases of grading and construction activities, the permittee must submit and affidavit by a qualified oak tree consultant to the Director. Such affidavit shall certify compliance with the conditions of the oak tree permit and the health of all replacement mitigation oak trees. UF8. Permittee must adhere to all oak tree preservation and protection recommendations prescribed in the arborist report. In addition, permittee must adhere to the City's Oak Tree Preservation Guidelines, for the protection of all oak trees being preserved. Street Light Maintenance District SD1. The permittee must annex all parcels into the Santa Clarita Landscaping and Lighting District, Streetlighting Zone B. The annexation fee will be based on the current maximum assessment rate per Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU) for each parcel. There is a one-time annexation fee of $500.00 plus $100.00 per EBU. A minimum of 120 days is required to process the annexation, which must be completed before final map approval, grading, or the issuance of a building permit, whichever occurs first. SD2. Existing streetlights must be protected, preserved, and remain in operation during any modification. Any existing streetlight proposed for removal and/or relocation must be approved by Special Districts, Streetlight Maintenance Districts (SMD). SD3. Within the public right-of-way fronting the Project site or as required by Engineering, the permittee must replace existing streetlights with the City's standard streetlight pole. Before street plan approval, the permittee must obtain approval from SMD on the Light Packet Pg. 107 Master Case 20-238, Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Page 16 of 21 1.c Emitting Diode (LED) fixtures to be installed on public streets and whether the new streetlights will be metered (LS-3 rate) or unmetered. SD4. All new streetlights installed on public streets, per the approved plans, will be owned by the City. A Geographic Information Systems file mapping the underground facilities is required before streetlight acceptance by the City. Landscape Maintenance District SD5. This parcel is located within Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) Areawide Zone 2008-1, which was established to fund the construction and maintenance of landscaped medians on major thoroughfares throughout the City of Santa Clarita. Before the Building Official issues a certificate of occupancy, the applicant must financially contribute to the Areawide Zone in a manner reflective of this LMD zone's assessment methodology. SD6. All medians and turnabouts must be landscaped to the satisfaction of the Director. SD7. Landscape must include, without limitation, installation of concrete pavers, irrigation, trees, shrubs, groundcover, and mulch. SD8. All landscape proposed within the medians and turnabouts must be installed according to the LMD "Design Standards, Notes, Details & Specifications for Median Landscaping in Santa Clarita. " SD9. No on -site landscaping will be maintained by the LMD. SDIO. The permittee must be required to install a separate water meter, electric meter, and pedestal specifically for medians and parkways. Upon successful completion of all required landscape establishment and maintenance period, both meters will be turned over to the City. SDI 1. The applicant is required to install an approved irrigation controller to be used for all landscape located within both the medians and parkways. Applicant shall contact Special Districts for the approved controller and model number. Typically, the controller is a 48 station WeatherTrak® Pro 3. SD12. Upon completion of the Project and after the final walk for acceptance, the permittee must submit a completed turnover sheet with all the required information and materials to the Director. Street Trees SD13. Before the City Engineer issues a grading permit, the permittee is required to submit a site plan which indicates existing parkway tree location and includes a Tree Preservation and Protection Plan to the City's Urban Forestry Division for review and approval by the Director. SD 14. Prior to street tree plan approval and issuance of the building permit, the permittee is required to submit a street tree location plan for proposed parkway tree installations to the City's Urban Forestry Division for review and approval. Location of tree wells and parkway trees must be shown to scale on all required sets of site plans including grading Packet Pg. 108 Master Case 20-238, Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Page 17 of 21 1.c and construction plans. Landscape plans must be prepared by a California licensed landscape architect and comply with the latest edition of the LMD landscape guidelines. Permittee must install parkway trees within the public right of way fronting the Project site along Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard before the Building Official issues a final Certificate of Occupancy. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION A.Before building permit issuance, permittee must submit a Construction and Demolition Materials Management Plan (CDMMP) and receive approval from the Environmental Services Manager or Designee if the project meets the parameters below (SCMC§ 15.46.300): B. All demolition projects (regardless of valuation), all commercial projects of new construction or additions over 1,000 square feet and all tenant improvements, alterations or new construction valued greater than $200,000, all new residential construction projects and all residential additions and improvements that increase building area, volume, or size must comply with the City's Construction and Demolition Materials (C&D) Recycling Ordinance. SCMC § 15.46.200. C. A minimum of 65% of the entire Project's inert (dirt, rock, bricks, etc.) waste and 65% of the remaining C&D waste must be recycled or reused rather than disposing in a landfill. SCMC§15.46.610 and CALGreen sections 4.408, 5.408, 301.1.1 and 301.3. D. For renovation or tenant improvement projects and new construction projects, a deposit of 2% of the estimated total project cost or $15,000, whichever is less, is required. For demolition projects, a deposit of 10% of the estimated total project cost or $15,000, whichever is less, is required. The full deposit will be returned to the permittee upon proving that 65% of the inert and remaining C&D waste was recycled or reused. SCMC§ 15.46.400. E. All projects within the City that are not self -hauling waste materials must use one of the City's franchised haulers for temporary and roll -off bin collection services. SCMC§ 15.44.220. PARKS PLANNING PP 1. Prior to issuance of building permit, the permittee must pay the required Park Dedication Fee equal to the value of the amount of land established per the City's General Plan, "Parks and Recreation Element." The permittee may be required to provide a certified MAI real estate appraisal to establish the fair market value (FMV) of an acre of land within this Project. Final Parkland dedication obligation calculation to be based on current density per dwelling and FMV rates at time of payment. PP2. Prior to issuance of building permit, permittee must dedicate in fee public park parcel to the City, to the satisfaction of the Director of Neighborhood Services. TRANSIT DIVISION Packet Pg. 109 Master Case 20-238, Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Page 18 of 21 1.c TD1. A bus stop is required on the Project's frontage just past the entrance. Additionally, a bus stop is required opposite the Project on Wiley Canyon Road with a pedestrian crossing for access. Bus stops require ROW, and turnout. The bus stop(s) must comply with all ADA regulations as specified in the most recent version of the California Disabled Accessibility Guidebook (Ca1Dag). Proposed disabled access must be drawn on all plans. TD2. Permittee must construct a pedestrian path from the bus stop to the development. TD3. The bus stop must consist of a 10-foot by 25-foot concrete passenger waiting pad placed behind the sidewalk and include a stylized shelter, a stylized bench, and a trash receptacle. Proposed amenities must be approved by the City Engineer, or designee, before installation. Bench and trash receptacle specifications and all appropriate paperwork for the bus stop(s) must be supplied to the City Engineer, or designee, before installation. TD4. The bus stop(s) location must be a minimum of 100 feet from the curb return or as specified by the Director. TDS. Permittee must provide a site plan showing amenities within a 100-foot radius of the bus stop(s). This plan must show the locations of all utility meters, utility structures, landscaping, buildings, pedestrian walkways, and parking spaces. This plan must also show all other items not listed above located within a 100-foot radius of the bus stop(s). TD6. Before the Building Official issues a certificate of occupancy for the first building, the bus stop must be installed to the satisfaction of the Director. TD7. Permittee must construct an in -street concrete pad pursuant to the current City standard APWA 131-2. TDB. Due to the proposed assisted -living, senior apartment, and skilled nursing components of the Project, the permittee must provide a dedicated passenger loading and un-loading area on -site capable of accommodating a van with the approximate dimensions of: 9 feet (height) by 8 feet (width) by 23 feet (length) at each of these locations. In addition, there should be an eight -foot free and clear area for wheelchair access to the front door of the van. CONSOLIDATED FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY ("FIRE DEPARTMENT") FD I . A digital copy of the Final Map must be submitted to the Fire Department's Land Development Unit for review before approval. Submittal must be provided through EPIC -LA using the following Plan Type: Fire Land Development —City Request —Final Map (Tract). FD2. The driveways required for Fire Apparatus Access Roads must be indicated on the Final Map as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" with the widths clearly depicted. FD3. A common access agreement is required for the private driveway since multiple units are sharing the same access. Packet Pg. 110 Master Case 20-238, Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Page 19 of 21 1.c FD5. A digital copy of the Water Plans for the required public fire hydrants shall be submitted to the Fire Department's Land Development Unit for review and approval. Compliance is required prior to Project construction. Submittal shall be provided through EPIC -LA using the following Plan Type: Fire Land Development —City Request —Water Plan & System Review. FD7. All on -site Fire Apparatus Access Roads must be labeled as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" on the site plan, along with the widths clearly depicted on the plan. FD8. The designation allows for appropriate signage prohibiting parking. Fire Apparatus Access Roads must be installed and maintained in a serviceable manner before and during the time of construction in accordance with County of Los Angeles Fire Code (Fire Code) Section 501.4. FD 10. The Fire Apparatus Access Roads and designated fire lanes must be measured from flow line to flow line. FD 11. For buildings where the vertical distance between the access roadway and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet from the lowest level of the Fire Apparatus Access Road, provide a minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet, exclusive of shoulders and an unobstructed vertical clearance "clear to sky" Fire Apparatus Access Roads to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. At least one required access route meeting this condition must be located such that the edge of the Fire Apparatus Access Roadway, not including shoulders, that is closest to the building being served, is between 10 feet and 30 feet from the building, as determined by the Fire Code official, and must be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. The side of the building on which the Fire Apparatus Access Road is positioned must be approved by the Fire Code official. Fire Code 503.1.1; 503.2.1.2; 503.2.1.2.2 & 503.2.1.2.2.1. FD 12. When the Fire Apparatus Access Road is separated by a divided roadway, the width must be not less than 15 feet for residential use and 20 feet for commercial/industrial uses. Fire Code 503.1.1 & 503.6. FD 13. The dimensions of the approved Fire Apparatus Access Roads must be maintained as originally approved by the Fire Code official. Fire Code 503.2.2.L FD 14. Fire Apparatus Access Roads must be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing 75,000 pounds and shall be surfaced so as to provide all- weather driving capabilities. Fire Code 503.2.3. FD 15. The Fire Apparatus Access Roads must be provided with a minimum of a 32-foot centerline turning radius. Fire Code 503.2.4. FD16. Provide approved signs or other approved notices or markings that include the words "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE" must be provided for Fire Apparatus Access Roads. Signs must have a minimum dimension of 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and have red letters on a white reflective background. Signs must be provided for fire apparatus access roads to clearly indicate the entrance to such road or prohibit the obstruction thereof, and at intervals, as required by the Fire Inspector. A no -parking designation must meet the requirements of California Vehicle Code Section 22500.1 and be approved by the Fire Code official. Fire Code 503.3. Packet Pg. 111 Master Case 20-238, Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Page 20 of 21 1.c FD17. The method of gate control is subject to review by the Fire Code official. Where security gates are installed, they must have an approved means of emergency operation, and be in compliance with following criteria: (a) Gates must be of the swinging or sliding type; (b) Construction of gates must be of materials that allow manual operation by one person; (c) Gate components must be always maintained in an operative condition and replaced or repaired when defective; (d) Electric gates must be equipped with a means of opening the gate by fire department personnel for emergency access. Emergency opening devices must be approved by the Fire Code official; (e) Methods of locking must be submitted for approval by the Fire Code official. All locking devices must comply with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department Regulation 5, Compliance for Installation of Emergency Access Devices; (f) An approved key box, listed in accordance with UL 1037, must be provided as required by Fire Code 506. The location of each key box must be determined by the Fire Inspector. Fire Code Sections 503.5; 503.5.1; 503.2; 503.6; (g) Where a single gate is provided, the gate width may not be less than 28 feet, clear -to -sky, with all gate hardware is clear of the access way; (h) he keypad location must be located a minimum of 50 feet from the public right-of-way. FD 18. A minimum 5-foot-wide approved firefighter access walkway leading from the Fire Department Access Road to all required openings in the building's exterior walls must be provided for firefighting and rescue purposes. Fire Code 504.1. FD19. Security barriers, visual screen barriers, or other obstructions may not be installed on the roof of any building in such a manner as to obstruct firefighter access or egress in the event of fire or other emergency. Parapets cannot exceed 36 inches from the top of the parapet to the roof surface on more than two sides. These sides should face an access roadway or yard sufficient to accommodate ladder operations. Fire Code 504.5. FD20. Approved building address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification must be provided and maintained so as to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. The numbers must contrast with their background, be Arabic numerals or alphabet letters, and be a minimum of 4 inches high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inches. Fire Code 505. L FD21. Multiple residential and commercial buildings having entrances to individual units not visible from the street or road must have unit numbers displayed in groups for all units within each structure. Such numbers may be grouped on the wall of the structure or mounted on a post independent of the structure and shall be positioned to be plainly visible from the street or road as required by Fire Code 505.3 and in accordance with Fire Code 505. L FD22. All fire hydrants must measure 6"x 4N 2-1/2" brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA standard C503 or approved equal, and shall be installed in accordance with the Fire Code. FD23. The required fire flow for the public fire hydrants for this Project is 2375 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure for two hours. Two public fire hydrants flowing simultaneously may be used to achieve the required fire flow. Fire Code 507.3 & Appendix B. Packet Pg. 112 Master Case 20-238, Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Page 21 of 21 1.c FD24. For Building 1-Senior Living Facility to comply with the public fire flow requirement, the building shall be separated into 5 zones as "approved" by the Fire Prevention Engineering Section -Building Plan Check Unit on 07/22/2022. FD25. The permittee must install 10 public fire hydrants as noted by the Fire Department. All required public fire hydrants must be installed, tested, and accepted before beginning construction. All fire hydrants must measure 6"x 4N 2-1/2" brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA standard C503 or approved equal, and be installed in accordance with the County of Los Angeles Fire Code. Fire Code 501.4. FD26. Planning Area 2 multi -family residential buildings must be constructed to R-3 Standards to comply for NFPA 13D Standards. FD27. Planning Area 3 multi -family residential buildings must be constructed to R-3 Standards to comply for NFPA 13D Standards. FD28. The required fire flow for more than one on -site fire hydrant is 2500 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure for 2 hours. Two on -site fire hydrants flowing simultaneously may be used to achieve the required fire flow, with one being located the furthest from the public fire hydrant. Fire Code C 106.1. FD29. Install 8 private on -site fire hydrants as noted by the Fire Department. All required private fire hydrants must be installed, tested, and approved before the Building Official issues a certificate of occupancy for any building. Fire Code 901.5.1. FD30. All private fire hydrants must be installed a minimum of 25 feet from a structure or protected by a two (2) hour -rated firewall. For fully sprinkled multi -family structures, private fire hydrants may be installed a minimum of 10 feet from the structure. Fire Code Appendix C 106.1. FD31. Plans showing underground piping for private on -site fire hydrants must be submitted to the Sprinkler Plan Check Unit for review and approval prior to installation. Fire Code 901.2 & County of Los Angeles Fire Department Regulation 7. FD32. This property is located within the area described by the Fire Department as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. A "Fuel Modification Plan" must be submitted to the Fuel Modification Unit before building plan approval. Packet Pg. 113 9-30-25 City Clerk (Via hand delivery) City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 120 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 f� I I S i 4 i: r j i; Y _-EI K.'_, ATTN: Mary Cusick, City Clerk -'F Rachel Clark, Office of City Clerk Re: Appeal of WILEY CANYON MIXED -USE PROJECT (MASTER CASE 20-238), And all associated permits (ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 20-023, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 20-005, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 20-017, MINOR USE PERMIT 20-013, OAK TREE PERMIT 425-004, AND TENTATIVE MAP 83295) INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT, AND ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Project Address: 24924 Hawkbyrn Avenue, Newhall, CA 91321 To the City Clerk: This letter is an Appeal pursuant to the Santa Clarita Municipal Code (hereafter "Appeal"). When the City and the Planning Commission choose to disregard mandatory local and state requirements imposed on all developments, and do so without lawful justification, a proposed development should be denied. At each phase of this Proposed Project, the record shows that the City has made conscious, knowing choices to allow the developer to ignore required and lawful compliance with City and State planning obligations and requirements, including the City's General Plan. The Master Case 20-238 development should be denied for these reasons and those discussed in this Appeal, and as supported by the voluminous detailed objections and comments filed over the past several years. Common sense, state and local law, including the General Plan, should require special interests, and whatever other considerations are placing the interests of this particular developer above those of the residents (key stakeholders) in and around this proposed development, to follow long-established laws and guidelines. This is true especially when the residents' objections have been in service of a shared goal with the City, that is, to make the development of these parcels a better, smart development, not about striking the project altogether. But that hasn't happened in the case of MC 20-238. For these reasons, this document serves as not only an Appeal to the current City and Planning Commission determinations and approvals allowing MC 20-238 to proceed per Section 17.07.040 of Santa Clarita Municipal Code, but it also serves as a simple process check; it is a reminder that it is not too late for the City to help SCV Residents and the developer create a mutually -beneficial development which is not otherwise on its face grossly deficient in complying with material and substantial Q Packet Pg. 114 1.d categories which a development by law must meet to serve the needs and interest of the people of the City of Santa Clarita. ;^�,;t ;__. Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.07.040 Compliance. A. Filing. An appeal shall be filed with the Commission Secretary in the case of the Hearing Officer and Commission or the City Clerk in the case of the Council in the form of a letter, along with any accompanying appeal fee, and shall state specifically: A determination or interpretation is not in accord with the purposes of this code; or 2. It is claimed that there was an error or abuse of discretion; or 3. The record includes inaccurate information; or 4. A decision is not supported by the record. Any one type of violation or defect in the four categories noted above is sufficient to justify vacating all approvals as to all conditions made to date on the MC 20-238. However, in the case of MC-20-238, the City has violated the letter and spirit of all four categories, repeatedly and knowingly, and to such a degree, which vacating and remanding the approvals is mandated. 1. A determination or interpretation is not in accord with the purposes of this Code. (Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.07.040(A)(1)). The Santa Clarita Municipal Code depends on the City's compliance with City guidelines and regulations and state laws. At each phase of this project, the City's determinations regarding this proposed development have been grossly counter to the letter and spirit of many important laws and legal guidelines as is required by the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, including but not limited to: L a. The City's General Plan, including but not limited to Circulation Element C-27; b. CEQA (including but not limited to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2); c. The City's Conservation and Open Space Element Policy; a d. The City's Community Character and Design Guidelines; a e. Santa Clarita Municipal Code; f. SCAQMD regulations and guidelines; and g. Environmental impact regulations, including but not limited to, siting distance recommendations requiring protocol surveys for, at a minimum, the Crotch a Bumble Bee habitat. Just one of many glaring examples of the City and Planning Commission's willingness to ignore the Code in its determinations regarding this proposed development, and this particular developer, is the City's ongoing refusal to enforce the General Plan (Circulation Element C-27) by requiring the developer to build a 4-lane arterial highway on Wiley Canyon Road. The developer has even bragged to residents 2 Packet Pg. 115 1.d that the City told him he didn't need to comply with Circulation Element C-27, and, in support of his claim he mentioned names of people he spoke with at the City. The City doesn't have the authority to ignore the General Plan and this particular Circulation Element, and especially when the City and predecessor entities to the City of Santa Clarita have required all prior owners of the subject parcels to set aside land in support of a 4-lane arterial highway. 2. It is claimed that there was an error or abuse of discretion. (Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.07.040(A)(2)). Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 (d), the required content of a Final EIR must include the responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. The city received nearly 1,000 pages of comments on the DEIR and failed to address these comments in a substantive manner that documents any consideration of them. Yet the Planning Commission chose to certify the Final EIR without meeting this requirement of CEQA. Without the certification of a Final EIR that is CEQA-compliant, the Planning Commission's project approval is inconsistent with law, is not supported by the record and therefore the project's approval is an abuse of discretion. 3. The record includes inaccurate information. (Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.07.040(A)(3)). An incomplete record means that the City is making decisions based on inaccurate information. The City received nearly 1,000 pages of comments on the DEIR and failed to address these comments in a substantive manner, including importantly, addressing comments about inaccurate the City and developer's inaccurate roadway measurements for Wiley Canyon Road. Making approvals on conditions for the development based on these failures and omissions necessarily renders decisions approving MC-20-238, and considerations related thereto, wholly unsupported and based on gross inaccuracies. The City has stated to residents and at public hearings that its recommendation(s) for approval for MC 20-238 are based in part on road, street, and arterial highway measurements (in feet and inches) for which it has never produced documentation and proof of claimed measurements, despite numerous requests in the record for it to provide proof of same. At present, these verbal representations do not rise to the level of "accurate" or reliable information required to support any planning decision. 4. A decision is not supported by the record. Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.07.040(A)(4)). 3 ii._ JLi 30 L J a a Q d E U 2 Q Packet Pg. 116 1.d The City has been aware, and continues to be aware, that the following partial list of deficiencies, individually and cumulatively, demonstrate that the City's decisions at each phase of this proposed development are not supported by the record. Here are a few examples of substantial health and safety issues which have been brought to the City's attention over the past few years, in writing but which the City has ignored by approving conditions related to MC 20-238. • The City failed to evaluate the potential impacts on local neighborhood streets from vehicles avoiding new traffic -slowing features on Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard and the generalized increase in vehicle trips from the project. The City has acknowledged this deficiency by imposing Condition TE20 on the project which requires the submittal of new local traffic counts to the City Engineer within one year after construction. This deferral of both analysis and mitigation is not permitted by CEQA because it prevents the decision -makers from making a fully - informed decision regarding the project. The analysis, and any recommended mitigation, should have come prior to project approval. Therefore, the decision to approve the project is based on inaccurate information and is not supported by information on the record. • The City ignored the finding in the DEIR that the project site just meets the maximum eight -minute response time that is used by the Los Angeles County Fire Department for planning purposes. The obvious conclusion is that the neighborhoods in the city to the immediate east of the site must wait longer than the eight -minute maximum for response from the closest c fire station in Stevenson Ranch, which would be compounded by the project's additional vehicle trips being added to existing roads. Moreover, Q the project would increase these response times for emergency L responders by constructing the traffic -slowing features of two new traffic signals and three new traffic circles. The county had proposed a new fire station site on the Lyons Canyon Ranch Project to address these Q deficiencies, but then removed this requirement from the approved project. a The absence of services in the southern part of the city means that any response to incidents in the Newhall pass would also be unacceptably slow. This is a potentially significant impact that should have been disclosed and mitigated for in the DEIR, possibly by including a fire station Q site on the 32-acre project site. The DEIR included a determination that there was no impact. Project approval is based on inaccurate information and is not supported by the record. • The Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code §65589.5), which the City cites as the reason that the project must be approved by no later than a fifth `.' '_itjT '' i1;'iHG= public hearing states that a housing development project that complies, with the objective standards of the general plan and zoning ordinance IH Packet Pg. 117 1.d must be approved by the agency, unless the agency is able to make written findings based on the preponderance of the evidence in the record that there is an impact to the public health and safety and this impact cannot be mitigated. This exception would apply to a project that brings 232 townhome /detached condominium units and a senior/assisted-living facility with 120 units within the 500-foot setback from the 1-5 Freeway that violates the residential planning standards of both the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and for which no site characterization sampling for air quality was performed. The air quality analysis in the DEIR uses data from SCAQMD stations in Van Nuys, Downtown Los Angeles and in Newhall to east of Railroad Avenue. Site concentrations of pollutants, particularly PM 10/2.5, are undoubtedly higher at the project site than those at the SCAQMD stations used for modeling due to the site being located immediately adjacent to one of the greatest line sources of air pollution in the state, 1-5. Additionally, the project location is at the northern base of the Newhall Pass, and vehicles accelerate in the southbound lanes at the site to begin to climb over the pass and, correspondingly, vehicles brake in the northbound lanes at the base of the pass in order to slow after descending from the top of the pass. These characteristics would lead to an increase in pollutants, particularly particulate matter, which are then pushed onto the site by nighttime drainage winds from the pass as well as from other hills to the north, west and east of the project site. Since the existing level of pollution onsite is unknown, a site characterization study with real time sampling needs to be completed to ascertain actual ambient air quality on site. The modeling performed for the Draft EIR is a desktop computer exercise and does not factor in these characteristics, thereby understating the potential impacts. Therefore, there is no adequate site characterization of levels of air pollution on site in the record. This project would expose both the elderly and children to high levels of pollution of undefined severity and represents a public health and safety impact that cannot be mitigated. This deficiency, like many others brought to the City and the Commission's attention, could be used for the city's denial of the project. The record includes inaccurate information and the determination that project must be approved is not supported by the record. The record is replete with evidence demonstrating this project is inconsistent with many of the desired characteristics that are used to make significance determinations. The record is similarly replete with objections and comments highlighting gross and substantial violations of long-established criteria for a lawful development which violations are 1) Numerous and in all material categories 2) Typical of projects which courts easily quash, vacate and remand as failing to be compliant with CEQA and local 5 Q Packet Pg. 118 1.d law on its face; and 3) Significant — the current approvals of conditions for MC 20-238 affect the quality of life of real people (pollution, noise, dangerous traffic, patterns, etc.). Further, the record amply demonstrates an alarming willingness by the City to throw out the entire rule book for this developer and this proposed development. The City and Planning Commission still have a chance to do the job required for all proposed developments and require the developer to follow local and state law. The City should also work with appellants and the developer to build a scaled project which is in conformity with a planned community — one where the guiding principles encapsulated in the General Plan are utilized, not ignored for this one developer. If prior owners of these parcels can be required to follow the law, so can this developer. Appellants hereby request that the City and the Planning Commission reverse their prior approvals on all conditions for MC 20-238 and deny this proposed development as grossly deficient in dozens of categories. Instead, the City should use common sense and the law to require this developer to follow local and state law for the health, welfare, safety and quality of life of the ultimate stakeholders in any good City Planning analysis, SCV residents. The appellants look forward to meeting with members of the Council to discuss our concerns in greater detail and explore a resolution to our concerns. Respectfully submitted, Appellants within 500' of the project and included within the attached signature list: Linda Heberer, 24857 Fourl Road, Newhall, CA 91321 Ed Bernstein, 24634 Fourl Road, Newhall, CA 91321 Loraine Cuomo, 24868 Fourl Road, Newhall, CA 91321 N. C t �.1 r Packet Pg. 119 r The below listed individuals and groups hereby appeal the following entitlements: WILEY CANYON MIXED -USE PROJECT (MASTER CASE 20-238), And all associated permits (ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 20-023, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 20-005,DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 20-017, MINOR USE PERMIT 20-013, OAK TREE PERMIT 425-004, AND TENTATIVE MAP 83295) INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT, AND ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM NAME ADDRESS ZIP Signature s" ,2 y �G3Y F ou 2 i�b 32( a .mot � i.'� � @ ti� �•.;1' .� Al A/ e (l am a 5 1 T` O'U'2 � Ali, V �y 01' C) i' Ca Vl l.• 6 !� a/ f� 'fir �i S.) -' =- Page / of Packet Pg. 120 y< �* x tre- MI J -tit .. • '�` ■rr� r �� rllrri ,�NhIWIA1Np1 7 �f' . �i a� rrr A • �G H . a IAIIAIIIMAs11 �aEggs � , a n t�11t�1tdg 3s'S a$ Wgt7Nlgtit�l �f typical '" Il .x'.. " 4Y V—ft-_•}f. 2-story Small Lot SFD Home + ADUs • Homes: ±1,425 - 2,120 SF; ADUs:±840 SF • Homes. 2-4 bedrooms; ADUs- 1 bedrooms All Drainage Parr Basin typical 2-Story, Alley Loaded Townhome GOLDEN STATE FREEWAY ±1,Sio-1a asF • 3-4bedrooms '� e,* ,. e,— • 2 car sidq-by-side garage - -- Project Summary Residential Open Space: Residential Area: Approx. 13..5 Acres Required: 46,400 SF (Min. 200 SF per unit) Commercial Area: Approx. 3.5 Acres Provided: 120,330 SF Total Rec Amenity= 15,000 SF Park= 80,045 SF Total Units: 232 (2-Story Homes) Small Lot SFD= 16,850 SF Private Yards Total • (53) 2-Story Small Lot SFD +ADU (2-car Garage) Townhomes: 8,435 SF Total (50 SF or 45 SF Porch Based on Plan Type) •• (16) Plan 1: 1,600 SF; 3 bed/ 2.5 bath Parking Summary: •• (15) Plan 2: 1,970 SF; 4 bed/ 3 bath Required Provided •• (6) Plan 3: 2,120 SF; 4 bed/ 3 bath Land use Parking Raba unire spaces Spaces •• (8) Plan 3: 1,425 SF; 3 bed/ 2 bath + single -Family condominium 2Nnit 45 90 90 (8) ADU: 840 SF; 1 bed/ 1 bath Townhome 2mnR 179 358 See • (179) 2-Story Townhome (2-car Garage) sou CI a 0 8 •• (51) Plan 1: 1,500 SF; 3 bed/ 2.5 bath Residentlal Guest oSlonit 224 112 129 •• (52) Plan 2: 1,600 SF; 3 bed/2.5 bath senior uung Facility 05iBeda unit 120 60 66 •• (76) Plan 3: 1,700 SF; 4 bed/ 3 bath commercial 1/200 SF 9.000 SF 45 64 Density: ±14.0 Homes per Residential Acre CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN WILEY CANYON TTM 083295 WILEY CANYON LLC SANTA CLARITA, CA 2-Story SFD Court Cluster Y . Santa Clarita Athletic Club o m am 2-Story Alley -Loaded Townhome Notes: ee Wdennn, g, nre ' �mmrea•,�o•��•a�o�••a.a.��nBo.�v 0 50 100 200 CLIENT REVIEW © 2024 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. 1 2025087 1 05-18-25 O 1.f Response to Wilev Canvon Proiect Anneal Letter. dated Sent. 30.2025 Letter to City Clerk regarding Appeal of Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project, dated September 30, 2025 Response 1 The comment makes claims that are not supported by facts or other information. Specifically, no fact or evidentiary support is provided for the claims that the City of Santa Clarita Valley (City) and its Planning Commission have "disregard[ed] mandatory local and state requirements" and "ignore[d] ... compliance with City and State planning obligations and requirements, including the City's General Plan." The comment also does not specify what requirements were supposedly disregarded or ignored, so it is impossible to provide more detailed responses at this time. The comment is part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to making a final decision on the proposed project. Response 2 The comment expresses appellants' opinion that the Wiley Canyon project, approved by the Planning Commission, should be denied by the City Council. The comment will be part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to making a final decision on the proposed proj ect. Response 3 This comment expresses opinions that are not supported by references to the record of this project. Further, the comment does not address the adequacy of the project or environmental analysis, and therefore, no further response can be provided. Nonetheless, the comment will be part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to making a final decision on the proposed project. Response 4 This comment expresses opinions that are not supported by references to the record of this project. Moreover, the comment does not address the adequacy of the project or environmental analysis; and therefore, no additional response can be provided. Response 5 The comment cites the City's appeal procedures/standards and concludes generally that the City has "violated the letter and spirit of ' the four appeal grounds specified in Section 17.07.040 of the Santa Clarita Valley Municipal Code, but does not support any ground with facts or evidence. The comment will be part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to making a final decision on the proposed project. Response 6 The comment claims generally that the City's determinations regarding the project are "counter" to a list of laws and regulations, but the comment provides no facts or evidence to support the general claim. Therefore, no further response can be provided. Nonetheless, the comment will be Packet Pg. 122 1.f part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to making a final decision on the proposed project. Response 7 The comment states that the City has ignored and not enforced General Plan Circulation Element C-27 "by requiring the developer to build a 4-lane arterial highway on Wiley Canyon Road." The comment adds that the developer has "bragged" about not needing to comply with Circulation Element C-27, but the comment does not provide any factual or evidentiary support for its claims. The comment concludes that the City has required "all prior owners of the subject parcels to set aside land in support of a 4-lane arterial highway," but again, no factual or evidentiary support is provided. The comments are inaccurate for several reasons. First, the topic was extensively addressed in the City's environmental documents for this project. For example, the Draft EIR's project description makes clear that the project as proposed does not propose to construct a 4-lane arterial highway on Wiley Canyon Road, but instead, would install off -site traffic circulation improvements on Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard, including new roundabouts, traffic signals, Class I and II bike lanes, and pedestrian trails. (See Draft EIR, Section 3, Project Description, pp. 3-4, 3-9-10, Fig. 3-3.) At present, Wiley Canyon Road is 2 lanes along the Project frontage to Calgrove Boulevard with no signalized intersections along this segment of the roadway. (Final EIR, Topical Response No. 3.) Second, the City's Circulation Element (June 2011), page C-27, lists future roadway improvements to implement the recommended the City's long-term Highway Plan, and those future improvements list widening Wiley Canyon Road certain segments from 2 lanes to 4 lanes. However, based on the Project's traffic assessment, the Project would generate approximately 3,500 daily trips, and the Circulation Element had assumed that build -out of the Project site would generate approximately 27,000 daily trips, which resulted in the City's long-term designation of Wiley Canyon Road as a four -lane roadway in the Circulation Element. Third, the Circulation Element does not contain any mandatory Circulation Element goal, policy, or objective requiring such widening improvements or requiring the Project to construct such improvements. Fourth, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the relatively new metric for evaluating a project's significant traffic impacts, and while the General Plan includes long-term build -out assumptions for certain roads, including Wiley Canyon Road, projects that increase roadway capacity (by improving roads from 2-to-4 lanes) must then consider potential impacts of inducing more travel and therefore, increasing VMT leading to greater greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. By not requiring the widening of Wiley Canyon Road, due in part to lower daily trips from the Project, the Project avoids induced impacts, increased VMT, and greater GHG emissions. Fifth, the City does not have the requisite "essential nexus" or connection between the Project's traffic impacts and requiring as mitigation or a condition a large-scale road widening project such as the widening of a segment of Wiley Canyon Road from 2-to-4 lanes. In short, there must be a direct causal link or connection between a project's identified significant impact on the 0 Packet Pg. 123 1.f environment and the mitigation measure or condition imposed on the project applicant. Such mitigation or condition is only legitimate if it addresses an impact that is the result of the project itself. This Project's daily trips do not provide the link needed to impose a large-scale road widening mitigation measure or condition. Further, the CEQA nexus requirement (see CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4(a)(4)) is coupled with a "rough proportionality" constitutional requirement addressing the nature, scope, and extent of aproject's identified impacts. This "rough proportionality" requirement also precludes the City from imposing on the Project a requirement condition to widen a segment of Wiley Canyon Road from 2-to-4 lanes. Sixth, the Final EIR has already demonstrated that traffic volumes, including the current and expected future traffic volumes, plus the Project's traffic volumes, along this portion of Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard would be between 9,000 and 10,000 vehicle trips per day. This volume is well below the maximum capacity of a 2-lane roadway, which has a maximum capacity of 16,000 to 18,000 vehicle trips per day. Due to the significantly lower daily trips generated by the Project (3,500 daily trips) than is contemplated by the General Plan (27,000 daily trips) for this Project site, no nexus or proportionality can be established between the Project and build -out of a 4-lane roadway. Based on the projected future traffic volumes, including the Project trips, it is not anticipated that this portion of Wiley Canyon Road will reach the need to be 4 lanes because these anticipated volumes fall well within the maximum capacity of a 2-lane roadway. As part of the Project, dedication and acquisition of right-of-way will be necessary to accommodate the improvements identified in the Project's traffic study. Nevertheless, the City's Traffic and Transportation Planning Division reviewed the proposed right-of-way width of Wiley Canyon Road and determined that, in the unlikely event 4 lanes ever becomes necessary in the future, Wiley Canyon Road could be designed to accommodate 4 lanes along with sidewalks on both sides, even at its narrowest section measuring 53 feet. This measurement was confirmed by both the City's engineer and the Project applicant's engineer. (See Final EIR, Topical Response No. 3; and see Response to SCOPE comment letter, dated April 15, 2024, Response 03-05.) Response 8 The comment states that the Final EIR "failed to address" 1,000 pages of comments on the Draft EIR, but the comment does not cite any particular response that is "inadequate" under CEQA or the CEQA Guidelines. The Final EIR, Table 2-1 identifies the 60 comment letters that the City received in response to the Draft EIR. The City has provided both Topical Responses and individual written responses addressing the environmental issues raised in those comment letters. The comment does not point to any response that is allegedly inadequate, and therefore, no further response can be provided. Nonetheless, the comment will be part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to making a final decision on the proposed project. 3 Packet Pg. 124 1.f Response 9 The comment repeats the above comment and adds that "inaccurate roadway measurements for Wiley Canyon Road" were used in responding to comments. The comment is inaccurate. First, no citation to any response is provided, and second, no measurements are provided. Combined, neither the Project applicant nor the City can be expected to reasonably respond further to the comment. Additionally, however, the City has independently reviewed the information presented in both the Draft EIR and Final EIR. The City also relies on professional engineers and environmental consultants for accurate information, including roadway measurements. None of these professionals have identified any inaccurate roadway measurements for Wiley Canyon Road. Indeed, in response to one or more individuals providing "measurements," both the Project applicant's engineer and the City's engineer determined that such measurements were not correct. Response 10 The comment refers to "residents" at "public hearings" that provided "road, street, and arterial highway measurements (in feet and inches)," but they did not produce "documentation and proof of [the] claimed measurements," despite requests to do so. The comment adds that resident statements cannot be relied upon as accurate or reliable without supporting information. The comments are not correct. First, the resident testimony is not cited or provided, and second, no dates or other public hearing information is provided. In any event, in response to "measurements" offered of Wiley Canyon Road, including its right- of-way, both the Project applicant's engineer and the City's engineer determined that such measurements were not correct, and we understand that the City is relying upon the information and measurements from the City's engineer and the Project applicant's engineer. Response 11 The comment provides a "partial list" of alleged deficiencies to show that the City Planning Commission decision is not supported by the record. The first "example" is that the City allegedly did not "evaluate the potential impacts on local neighborhood streets from vehicles avoiding new traffic -slowing [calming] features on Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard, nor assess "the generalized increase in vehicle trips from the project." The comment states that the City's inclusion of Condition TE20 (traffic count requirement) "acknowledges" this alleged "deficiency." The comment claims that Condition TE20 is improper deferral under CEQA. The comments are incorrect for the reasons set forth below. First, as shown in the Draft EIR, Section 3, Project Description, page 3-4, the Project would provide traffic calming features that includes roundabouts at intersections and marked crosswalks M Packet Pg. 125 1.f on Wiley Canyon Road, and a roundabout on site. (See also Draft EIR, Section 4.16, Transportation, page 4.16-20.) The City guidelines state that when pedestrian/bicycle safety and traffic calming measures are provided in excess of the City's requirements, vehicle miles travelled, or VMT, can be expected to be reduced. This strategy aligns with the General Plan Policy C 1.1.7. The Project roadways are designed consistently with City standards, and the Project applicant will work with the City to design the roadways in such a way to reduce motor vehicle speeds and encourage bicycle and pedestrian trips, and thereby reduce VMT consistent with state and local standards. Accordingly, these Project features are not traffic "diverters" or "impacts," but rather tools to reduce VMT and associate GHG emissions. Second, the comment provides no facts or evidence to support the claim that pedestrian/bicycle safety and traffic calming features result in traffic diversions to avoid these roadway safety and calming features. To the contrary, based on research published in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report, roundabouts are used as traffic calming devices and regulate the movement of traffic by reducing speed and delay for all vehicles. The roundabouts achieve traffic calming effects on streets by reducing vehicle speeds using geometric design rather than traffic control devices or traffic volume. As a result, speed reduction can be realized at all times of day and on streets of any traffic volume. (See pages 2-9 and 2-10, Chapter 2/Roundabout Consideration. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Roundabouts: An Informational Guide — Second Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/22914.) Based upon the data, roundabouts constructed for the Project would not result in changing the traffic pattern in the area or resulting in cut -through traffic. In fact, they typically improve traffic flow and reduce delays at and through the intersections. They also manage traffic more efficiently than traditional stop -sign or signal -control intersections as they eliminate the "stop -and -go" aspects of stop signs and traffic signals. By improving capacity and efficiency, and reducing delays, roundabouts generally prevent traffic diversion. Further, the Project's traffic analysis included in Appendix K-5 is adequate. No change or addition to the environmental analysis is required as a result of this comment. Third, it is not anticipated that traffic would divert to streets within the Oak Ridge Estates neighborhood because these routes do not provide a time or distance savings for drivers. However, as part of the Project conditions of approval, the Project applicant will be required to conduct traffic counts in the Oak Ridge Estates area both before and after Project implementation. Should these counts demonstrate a significant diversion of vehicles into the neighborhood, the Project applicant will be required to implement appropriate traffic calming measures to discourage such diversion. This is not improper deferred "mitigation," but rather a valid protective condition of approval based on the actual operation of Project traffic in conjunction with other traffic in the immediate vicinity. Fourth, for responsive information regarding increases in traffic, please refer to Topical Response No. 3 — Traffic and Circulation, Final EIR, Section 4.16, Transportation, and the traffic analysis provided in EIR Appendix K-5. Response 12 5 Packet Pg. 126 1.f The comment states that the City "ignored" the "finding in the DEIR that the project site just meets the maximum eight -minute response time that is used by the Los Angeles County Fire Department for planning purposes." The comment adds that the project's increased traffic will "compound" the response time and that the project's traffic -calming features on two new roads will increase response times. The comment further states that the project should mitigate, by "possibly ... including a fire station site on the 32-acre project site, but the EIR determined that there was no impact and therefore, no need for mitigation, but that this EIR determination was based on "inaccurate information" and "not supported by the record." The comments are not correct for several reasons. First, the comment itself acknowledges the Draft EIR's findings that the Project site meets the eight -minute response time used by Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD), and therefore, there is no legitimate basis to impose mitigation or conditions on the Project. There is no impact requiring mitigation under CEQA or the CEQA Guidelines. Second, the Draft EIR, Section 4.14, Public Services, acknowledges that the Project's operations would increase the demand for fire protection and emergency medical services, but that, in suburban areas such as the Project site, the LACFD response standard is eight minutes for the first arriving unit and emergency medical services, and 12 minutes for paramedic units. In correspondence with the LACFD, the Department stated that Fire Station 124, the nearest to the Project site, would have an average response time of 8 minutes, which is consistent with the LACFD response standard of eight minutes for the first arriving unit and emergency medical service units. However, to offset the costs of additional resources needed to serve the growing City and the Project itself, the Project applicant is still required to pay development fees established by LACFD. Accordingly, since there are no response time significant impacts, there is no legitimate basis to impose any mitigation under CEQA or the CEQA Guidelines. Response 13 The comment cites the public health and safety "exception" under the Housing Accountability Act, stating that "a proj ect that brings 232 townhome/detached condominium units and a senior/assisted living facility with 120 units within the 500-foot setback from the I-5 Freeway ... violat[ing] the residential planning standards of both the California Air Resources Board (GARB) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and for which no site characterization sampling for air quality was performed." The comments are not correct for several reasons. First, the Draft EIR evaluated the Project's air quality impacts related to the freeway, including toxic air contaminants (TACs) such as diesel particulate matter, in Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR. As detailed under methodology, guidance on mobile source emissions by the California Air Resources Board (GARB) states TAC exposure and health risk drops substantially within the first no Packet Pg. 127 1.f 300 feet from a freeway and generally recommends avoiding sensitive land uses within 500 feet of a freeway (See Draft EIR, p. 4.2-27.) The closest lane of traffic on the I-5 freeway would be approximately 66 feet to 115 feet from the project site property line where the proposed development would occur. The proposed townhomes along the project site's western boundary would have an additional buffer distance ranging from approximately 5 feet to 24 feet from the property line. Due to the proximity, Dudek completed a Health Risk Assessment (HRA), included as EIR Appendix B, to disclose the potential risk to future occupants of the Project. The analysis shows that potential acute and chronic health impacts are well below established significance thresholds at all locations. And, in accordance with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations that require installation of window filters, impacts were determined to be less than significant. As such, no mitigation measures are required. Second, CARB's handbook recommendations are advisory and not regulatory; and they were considered and balanced against other considerations. The CARB guidance recognizes that local land use agencies have a responsibility to balance other considerations, including housing and transportation needs, economic development priorities and other quality of life issues and to consider site -specific project design features that reduce air pollution exposures. In addition, the CARB guidance recognizes that health risks from mobile sources, in particular diesel particulate matter, would decrease over time as cleaner technology phases in. Response 14 Since the comment does not raise any specific issues regarding the adequacy of the analysis provided by the EIR, no further response can be provided. However, the comment will be part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to making a final decision on the proposed project. Response 15 The comment consists of the concluding remarks of the appellants. The comment will be included as part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to making a final decision on the proposed project. However, the comment does not address the adequacy of the project or the environmental analysis provided by the EIR; and therefore, no further response can be provided. Response 16 The comment attaches a one -page listing of the "individuals and groups" that appeal. The comment will be part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to making a final decision on the proposed project. However, the comment does not address the adequacy of the project or the environmental analysis provided by the EIR; and therefore, no further response can be provided. Response 17 The comment is the 2-page invoice covering the cost of the filed appeal. The comment will be part of the record and made available to the decision makers prior to making a final decision on the 7 Packet Pg. 128 1.f proposed project. However, the comment does not address the adequacy of the project or the environmental analysis provided by the EIR; and therefore, no further response can be provided. 8 Packet Pg. 129 9-30-25 f�l ISi 4i :r jii City Clerk (Via hand delivery) City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 120 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 ATTN: Mary Cusick, City Clerk _"-c -'F Rachel Clark, Office of City Clerk Re: Appeal of WILEY CANYON MIXED -USE PROJECT (MASTER CASE 20-238), And all associated permits (ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 20-023, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 20-005, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 20-017, MINOR USE PERMIT 20-013, OAK TREE PERMIT 425-004, AND TENTATIVE MAP 83295) INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT, AND ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Project Address: 24924 Hawkbyrn Avenue, Newhall, CA 91321 To the City Clerk: This letter is an Appeal pursuant to the Santa Clarita Municipal Code (hereafter "Appeal"). When the City and the Planning Commission choose to disregard mandatory local and state requirements imposed on all developments, and do so without lawful justification, a proposed development should be denied. At each phase of this Proposed Project, the record shows that the City has made conscious, knowing choices to allow the developer to ignore required and lawful compliance with City and State planning obligations and requirements, including the City's General Plan. The Master Case 20-238 development should be denied for these reasons and those discussed in this Appeal, and as supported by the voluminous detailed objections and comments filed over the past several years. Common sense, state and local law, including the General Plan, should require special interests, and whatever other considerations are placing the interests of this particular developer above those of the residents (key stakeholders) in and around this proposed development, to follow long-established laws and guidelines. This is true especially when the residents' objections have been in service of a shared goal with the City, that is, to make the development of these parcels a better, smart development, not about striking the project altogether. But that hasn't happened in the case of MC 20-238. For these reasons, this document serves as not only an Appeal to the current City and Planning Commission determinations and approvals allowing MC 20-238 to proceed per Section 17.07.040 of Santa Clarita Municipal Code, but it also serves as a simple process check; it is a reminder that it is not too late for the City to help SCV Residents and the developer create a mutually -beneficial development which is not otherwise on its face grossly deficient in complying with material and substantial 1 c M N O N U U 0 a X 0 CU U a� 4- 0 a a Packet Pg. 130 categories which a development by law must meet to serve the needs and interest of 1.f the people of the City of Santa Clarita. Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.07.040 Compliance. A. Filing. An appeal shall be filed with the Commission Secretary in the case of the Hearing Officer and Commission or the City Clerk in the case of the Council in the form of a letter, along with any accompanying appeal fee, and shall state specifically: A determination or interpretation is not in accord with the purposes of this code; or 2. It is claimed that there was an error or abuse of discretion; or 3. The record includes inaccurate information; or 4. A decision is not supported by the record. Any one type of violation or defect in the four categories noted above is sufficient to justify vacating all approvals as to all conditions made to date on the MC 20-238. However, in the case of MC-20-238, the City has violated the letter and spirit of all four categories, repeatedly and knowingly, and to such a degree, which vacating and remanding the approvals is mandated. 1. A determination or interpretation is not in accord with the purposes of this Code. (Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.07.040(A)(1)). The Santa Clarita Municipal Code depends on the City's compliance with City guidelines and regulations and state laws. At each phase of this project, the City's determinations regarding this proposed development have been grossly counter to the letter and spirit of many important laws and legal guidelines as is required by the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, including but not limited to: a. The City's General Plan, including but not limited to Circulation Element C-27; b. CEQA (including but not limited to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2); c. The City's Conservation and Open Space Element Policy; d. The City's Community Character and Design Guidelines; e. Santa Clarita Municipal Code; f. SCAQMD regulations and guidelines; and g. Environmental impact regulations, including but not limited to, siting distance recommendations requiring protocol surveys for, at a minimum, the Crotch Bumble Bee habitat. Just one of many glaring examples of the City and Planning Commission's willingness to ignore the Code in its determinations regarding this proposed development, and this particular developer, is the City's ongoing refusal to enforce the General Plan (Circulation Element C-27) by requiring the developer to build a 4-lane arterial highway on Wiley Canyon Road. The developer has even bragged to residents 2 2 N 7 Packet Pg. 131 1.f that the City told him he didn't need to comply with Circulation Element C-27, and, in support of his claim he mentioned names of people he spoke with at the City. The City doesn't have the authority to ignore the General Plan and this particular Circulation Element, and especially when the City and predecessor entities to the City of Santa Clarita have required all prior owners of the subject parcels to set aside land in support of a 4-lane arterial highway. 2. It is claimed that there was an error or abuse of discretion. (Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.07.040(A)(2)). Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 (d), the required content of a Final EIR must include the responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. The city received nearly 1,000 pages of comments on the DEIR and failed to address these comments in a substantive manner that documents any consideration of them. Yet the Planning Commission chose to certify the Final EIR without meeting this requirement of CEQA. Without the certification of a Final EIR that is CEQA-compliant, the Planning Commission's project approval is inconsistent with law, is not supported by the record and therefore the project's approval is an abuse of discretion. 3. The record includes inaccurate information. (Santa Clarita Municipal Code Section 17.07.040(A)(3)). An incomplete record means that the City is making decisions based on inaccurate information. The City received nearly 1,000 pages of comments on the DEIR and failed to address these comments in a substantive manner, including importantly, addressing comments about inaccurate the City and developer's inaccurate roadway measurements for Wiley Canyon Road. Making approvals on conditions for the development based on these failures and omissions necessarily renders decisions approving MC-20-238, and considerations related thereto, wholly unsupported and based on gross inaccuracies. The City has stated to residents and at public hearings that its recommendation(s) for approval for MC 20-238 are based in part on road, street, and arterial highway measurements (in feet and inches) for which it has never produced documentation and proof of claimed measurements, despite numerous requests in the record for it to provide proof of same. At present, these verbal representations do not rise to the level of "accurate" or reliable information required to support any planning decision. 10 4. A decision is not supported by the record. Santa Clarita Municipal Code 1 Section 17.07.040(A)(4)). - Packet Pg. 132 1.f The City has been aware, and continues to be aware, that the following partial list of deficiencies, individually and cumulatively, demonstrate that the City's decisions at each phase of this proposed development are not supported by the record. Here are a few examples of substantial health and safety issues which have been brought to the City's attention over the past few years, in writing but which the City has ignored by approving conditions related to MC 20-238. • The City failed to evaluate the potential impacts on local neighborhood streets from vehicles avoiding new traffic -slowing features on Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard and the generalized increase in vehicle trips from the project. The City has acknowledged this deficiency by imposing Condition TE20 on the project which requires the submittal of new local traffic counts to the City Engineer within one year after construction. This deferral of both analysis and mitigation is not permitted by CEQA because it prevents the decision -makers from making a fully - informed decision regarding the project. The analysis, and any recommended mitigation, should have come prior to project approval. Therefore, the decision to approve the project is based on inaccurate information and is not supported by information on the record. • The City ignored the finding in the DEIR that the project site just meets the maximum eight -minute response time that is used by the Los Angeles County Fire Department for planning purposes. The obvious conclusion is that the neighborhoods in the city to the immediate east of the site must wait longer than the eight -minute maximum for response from the closest fire station in Stevenson Ranch, which would be compounded by the project's additional vehicle trips being added to existing roads. Moreover, the project would increase these response times for emergency responders by constructing the traffic -slowing features of two new traffic signals and three new traffic circles. The county had proposed a new fire station site on the Lyons Canyon Ranch Project to address these deficiencies, but then removed this requirement from the approved project. The absence of services in the southern part of the city means that any response to incidents in the Newhall pass would also be unacceptably slow. This is a potentially significant impact that should have been disclosed and mitigated for in the DEIR, possibly by including a fire station site on the 32-acre project site. The DEIR included a determination that there was no impact. Project approval is based on inaccurate information and is not supported by the record. • The Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code §65589.5), which the City cites as the reason that the project must be approved by no later than a fifth public hearing states that a housing development project that complies with the objective standards of the general plan and zoning ordinance IH Packet Pg. 133 1.f must be approved by the agency, unless the agency is able to make written findings based on the preponderance of the evidence in the record that there is an impact to the public health and safety and this impact cannot be mitigated. This exception would apply to a project that brings 232 townhome /detached condominium units and a senior/assisted-living facility with 120 units within the 500-foot setback from the 1-5 Freeway that violates the residential planning standards of both the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and for which no site characterization sampling for air quality was performed. The air quality analysis in the DEIR uses data from SCAQMD stations in Van Nuys, Downtown Los Angeles and in Newhall to east of Railroad Avenue. Site concentrations of pollutants, particularly PM 10/2.5, are undoubtedly higher at the project site than those at the SCAQMD stations used for modeling due to the site being located immediately adjacent to one of the greatest line sources of air pollution in the state, 1-5. Additionally, the project location is at the northern base of the Newhall Pass, and vehicles accelerate in the southbound lanes at the site to begin to climb over the pass and, correspondingly, vehicles brake in the northbound lanes at the base of the pass in order to slow after descending from the top of the pass. These characteristics would lead to an increase in pollutants, particularly particulate matter, which are then pushed onto the site by nighttime drainage winds from the pass as well as from other hills to the north, west and east of the project site. Since the existing level of pollution onsite is unknown, a site characterization study with real time sampling needs to be completed to ascertain actual ambient air quality on site. The modeling performed for the Draft EIR is a desktop computer exercise and does not factor in these characteristics, thereby understating the potential impacts. Therefore, there is no adequate site characterization of levels of air pollution on site in the record. This project would expose both the elderly and children to high levels of pollution of undefined severity and represents a public health and safety impact that cannot be mitigated. This deficiency, like many others brought to the City and the Commission's attention, could be used for the city's denial of the project. The record includes inaccurate information and the determination that project must be approved is not supported by the record. The record is replete with evidence demonstrating this project is inconsistent with many of the desired characteristics that are used to make significance determinations. The record is similarly replete with objections and comments highlighting gross and substantial violations of long-established criteria for a lawful development which violations are 1) Numerous and in all material categories 2) Typical of projects which courts easily quash, vacate and remand as failing to be compliant with CEQA and local 5 Packet Pg. 134 1.f law on its face; and 3) Significant — the current approvals of conditions for MC 20-238 affect the quality of life of real people (pollution, noise, dangerous traffic, patterns, etc.). Further, the record amply demonstrates an alarming willingness by the City to throw out the entire rule book for this developer and this proposed development. The City and Planning Commission still have a chance to do the job required for all proposed developments and require the developer to follow local and state law. The City should also work with appellants and the developer to build a scaled project which is in conformity with a planned community — one where the guiding principles encapsulated in the General Plan are utilized, not ignored for this one developer. If prior owners of these parcels can be required to follow the law, so can this developer. Appellants hereby request that the City and the Planning Commission reverse their prior approvals on all conditions for MC 20-238 and deny this proposed development as grossly deficient in dozens of categories. Instead, the City should use common sense and the law to require this developer to follow local and state law for the health, welfare, safety and quality of life of the ultimate stakeholders in any good City Planning analysis, SCV residents. The appellants look forward to meeting with members of the Council to discuss our concerns in greater detail and explore a resolution to our concerns. Respectfully submitted, Appellants within 500' of the project and included within the attached signature list: Linda Heberer, 24857 Fourl Road, Newhall, CA 91321 Ed Bernstein, 24634 Fourl Road, Newhall, CA 91321 Loraine Cuomo, 24868 Fourl Road, Newhall, CA 91321 N. I Packet Pg. 135 r The below listed individuals and groups hereby appeal the following entitlements: WILEY CANYON MIXED -USE PROJECT (MASTER CASE 20-238), And all associated permits (ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 20-023, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 20-005,DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 20-017, MINOR USE PERMIT 20-013, OAK TREE PERMIT 425-004, AND TENTATIVE MAP 83295) INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT, AND ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM NAME ADDRESS ZIP Signature s" ,2 y �G3Y F ou 2 i�b 32( a .mot � i.'� � @ ti� �•.;1' .� Al A/ e (l am a 5 1 T` O'U'2 � Ali, �YJ i� / / VL G3 I 9 _ - > �1 r� 11 < < 1 6? r\J i a A' /e ro��- a' in l,' � 3�a 01'i t": i R 1 i�� � �! ': / `(`� i � % i . ` � —_ (-' :�J � � i' `�...Jl Vl l.• S� L� 1. !i'�.l i t� f _ 1 l P � " � ij/1� � ��.r1�1 / " 444 r't __njiq 1, 7 -'7 "Z ill /'' r ; A'll i r� 0,1 C4 14,1 �M ice.. i�� i / Page / of Packet Pg. 136 1.f 0 SANTg CL RECEIPT City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 140 '_ iY L :.V- 06 q.�' Santa Clarita, CA 91355 ry O OF�IF DCGEOEp Phone: (661)255-4935 1.__T'-'• �rtii Business or Project: Wiley Canyon project - assisted living, commercial, multi -family apart Receipt #: 1101890 Applicant: Wiley Canyon LLC, a California Limited Company Receipt Date: 09/30/2025 13120 Telfair Avenue Receipt Issued By: MVILLA Sylmar CA 91342 Job Location: 24924 HAWKBRYN AVENUE Owner: MONTEVERDE DEVELOPMENT CO Record Number Record Type Work Description APL25-00002 Appeal Wiley Canyon project - assisted living, commercial, multi -family apartments with amenities Transaction Details: Description Notes Account# Fee Amount Appeal within 500ft of project 100455115 $1,941.50 Total: 1,941.50 Pay Method Payer/Check Holder Ref. # Payment Amt Pymt Date Rec'd Date Check S.C.O.R.E. 1185 $1,941.50 09/30/2025 09/30/2025 Receipt Printed: 9/30/2025 6:51 pm Page 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 137 1.f OF5pNTA, City of Santa Clarita INVOICE 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 140 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Phone: (661) 255-4935 Please bring this invoice for payment to the Cashier in Suite 140 Fees Associated with Record No: APL25-00002 Invoice M 238285 Record Type: Appeal Invoice Date: 09/30/2025 Project Name: Wiley Canyon project - assisted living, commercial, multi -family apart Job Location: 24924 HAWKBRYN AVENUE Applicant: Wiley Canyon LLC, a California Limited Company 13120 Telfair Avenue Sylmar CA 91342 Fee Item Notes Account ff Fee Appeal within 500ft of project 100455115 1,941.50 INVOICE TOTAL: $1,941.50 BALANCE DUE: $1,941.50 rn r c N E E O U d CL CL Q O r d rn c O CL rn d r c CL CL Q r c d E t L) r r Q :'d Printed On: 6:49 pm 9/30/2025 Page 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 138 O Agenda Item: 1 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 41) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING MANAGER APPROVAL: DATE: March 19, 2024 SUBJECT: Wiley Canyon Mixed -Use Project (Master Case 20-238) APPLICANT: Wiley Canyon, LLC LOCATION: West side of Wiley Canyon Road, between Calgrove Boulevard and Hawkbryn Avenue CASE PLANNER: Erika Iverson RECOMMENDED ACTION Planning Commission: 1. Receive the staff presentation on the Project Description and Draft Environmental Impact Report; 2. Open the public hearing to receive testimony from the applicant and the public; 3. Provide direction to staff on the hearing schedule and project concerns; and 4. Continue the public hearing. REQUEST The applicant, Wiley Canyon, LLC, is requesting approval of an Architectural Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Development Review, Minor Use Permit, Oak Tree Permit, and Tentative Map to allow for the development of a mixed -use project consisting of a senior -living facility with 130 independent living units, 61 assisted -living units, and 26 memory care beds; 8,914 square feet of commercial floor area; and 379 multi -family apartment units. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING The intent of this meeting is to open the public hearing process, provide the Planning Commission with an introduction and overview of the proposed project and Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), and establish a tentative public hearing schedule for the project. A Planning Commission Study Session was held February 21, 2023, to conduct a site visit and Page 1 Packet Pg. 10 O provide the Planning Commission context for the site setting and surroundings. On March 1, 2024, the DEIR was released for a 45-day public review and comment period and will close on April 15, 2024. Staff is proposing the following dates for the project hearing schedule: March 19, 2024 Project introduction, summary of DEIR, and public comments June 18, 2024 Response to Planning Commission and public comments, Final EIR, and project determination GENERAL PLANNING AND ZONING The project site has a General Plan land use and zoning designation of Mixed -Use Neighborhood (MXN) and is located within an approximately 38-acre area that is specifically identified in the General Plan as the Calgrove Corridor/Smiser Ranch Special Development Area (Smiser Ranch area). The General Plan establishes a limitation on the overall allowable floor area of 830,000 square feet of total residential and commercial combined development (excluding parking facilities) in the Smiser Ranch area. The project site is also located in within the Planned Development Overlay zone. As summarized in the table below, the surrounding land uses include a mix of commercial, residential, as well as the Interstate 5 (I-5) freeway. Summary of Surrounding Area General Plan Zone Land Use North UR2 UR2 Mobile Home South MXN MXN Commercial East UR1 and UR2 UR1 and UR2 Single -Family West Caltrans Right -of -Way Caltrans Right -of -Way I-5 *Urban Residential = UR BACKGROUND One Stop Review In June of 2020, the applicant submitted a conceptual proposal for the development of a mixed - use project consisting of 375 multi -family units, 87 independent -living units, a 100-bed assisted - living facility, an 88-bed memory care facility, and 10,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space. Formal Project Submittal On October 28, 2020, the applicant submitted a formal entitlement application for the project, consisting of a four-story senior -living facility with 130 independent -living units, 61 assisted - living units, and 26 memory care beds. The senior -living facility building also included 10,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space. The project request included 375 multi -family apartment units in buildings ranging in height from two- to four -stories. Parking was provided in Page 2 Packet Pg. 11 O a combination of surface, carport, and individual garages. The project was reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC) and the applicant has worked to address comments provided throughout the DRC process. The current Project Description is summarized below under Project Description. Community Outreach by the Applicant The applicant was informed at the time of the One Stop Review, that community outreach was a required component of the application process in conformance with the General Plan regulations for the Smiser Ranch area. The applicant hosted two meetings on -site in October and November of 2021. In addition, the applicant has met with homeowner association groups in the area of the project site. A summary of the organizations and groups that the applicant has contacted during the application review is provided in the attached Applicant Community Outreach Summary. Project Setting The project is located east of I-5 and west of Wiley Canyon Road, between Hawkbryn Avenue and Calgrove Boulevard, in the community of Newhall. The project site is approximately 31 acres of vacant land, historically used as a mule ranch. The northeastern portion of the project site is separated from the proposed development by Wiley Canyon Road and consists of vacant land on an elevated hillside that will remain vacant. The South Fork Santa Clara River (creek) bisects the project site at the southern end and continues northerly into a concrete -lined channel along the west side of Wiley Canyon Road. The existing Mulberry Mobile Home Park is located immediately adjacent to the north. Uses to the east, across Wiley Canyon Road are improved with single-family uses. The properties immediately adjacent to the south are improved with commercial uses including an existing gym and medical office building. The I-5 is immediately adjacent to the west. There are 36 oak trees located on the project site and its surroundings. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is seeking approvals for the development of a mixed -use project on the approximately 31-acre site within three planning areas. Planning Area 1 (PA1) consists of a senior -living facility, ranging in height from one- to four -stories to a maximum height of 50 feet with ground floor commercial space. Planning Areas 2 (PA2) and 3 (PA3) consist of multi- family units ranging in height from two- to four -stories to a maximum height of 50 feet. The project also proposes to improve an approximately 80,000 square -foot lot for publicly accessible recreation space. The development of the proposed project would require several off -site roadway improvements, including the construction of three new roundabouts at the intersection of, 1) Wiley Canyon Road and the Project entrance; 2) Wiley Canyon Road at Canerwell Street; 3) Wiley Canyon Road at Calgrove Boulevard. The project would require approximately 44,000 cubic yards of cut, 59,000 cubic yards of fill, over excavation of 515,000 cubic yards, and the import of approximately 85,000 cubic yards of earth to balance the grading for the Project. The project proposes the removal of four, non -heritage oak trees and encroachment into the protected zone of 19 oak trees, including two, heritage sized oak trees. Senior Living Facility/Commercial Component The project would construct a 277,108 square -foot senior -living facility consisting of 130 independent living units, 61 assisted -living units, and 26 memory care beds. The senior -living Page 3 Packet Pg. 12 O facility would range in height from one- to four -stories. The memory care wing would be located in the one-story portion of the building at its northwest corner. The building would step up to two -stories of independent units along the west portion, and then step up to four -stories along the south and east wings of the building, providing assisted and independent units. The senior -living facility would be designed with 8,914 square feet of commercial space located on the ground floor, opening to an outdoor public plaza at the southeast portion of the building. Multi family Units The project proposes 379 multi -family units, ranging in size from studio units to three -bedroom units within two Planning Areas. PA2 consists of seven, three-story buildings located on the eastern portion of the project site, nearest Wiley Canyon Road. PA3 consists of eleven, two- and four-story buildings, with the four-story buildings located centrally on the project site, and two- story buildings along the western and southern edges, nearest the I-5. The multi -family units consist of 391,258 square feet of floor area. Architecture The project proposes a Spanish Revival architectural style, utilizing material, color, and architectural embellishments that are appropriate to this style. Primary wall surfaces are finished with light, neutral stucco appropriate for the Spanish Revival architectural style. Incorporation of arches, balconies, awnings, and shutters around windows differentiate repetitive elevations. Stone veneer and tile accents are utilized to identify primary entrances and points of interest. Roof forms and heights are varied breaking up long horizontal roof lines. The architecture has been reviewed by the City of Santa Clarita's (City) architectural design consultant and been found to be in conformance with the Community Character and Design Guidelines for the community of Newhall. Parking As summarized in the table below, a total of 943 parking spaces are required for the project, in conformance with the Mixed Use Development Standards of the Unified Development Code (UDC). Land Use Parking Ratio Units Required Spaces Multi -family 2+ Bedrooms 2/Unit 203 units 406 Multi -family Studio/1 Bedroom l/Unit 176 176 Multi -family - Guest 0.5/Unit 379 190 Independent Senior 0.5/Unit 130 65 Independent Senior - Guest 0.125/Unit 130 17 Residential Care Facility 0.5Bed or Unit 87 44 Commercial 1/200 SF 8,914 SF 45 TOTAL 943 Spaces The project would provide a total of 966 parking spaces which exceeds the total number of parking spaces required for the development of the mixed -use project. The multi -family units are proposed to be gated. The project would be required to provide 582 Page 4 Packet Pg. 13 O covered spaces, designated for the multi -family units, which would be provided in a combination of individual garages and carports located within the gated multi -family planning areas, PA2 and PA3. In addition, the project would be required to provide 109 parking spaces designated for the senior -living facility units. These spaces would be provided within the senior -living facility planning area, PAL The UDC permits mixed -use developments to share commercial and guest parking spaces. As indicated in the table above, the combination of guest parking and commercial parking required is a total of 252 spaces. The project provides 275 surface parking spaces that could be shared for guest and commercial uses. The project would be conditioned to enter into a reciprocal parking agreement for purposes of ensuring shared parking. All spaces utilized as shared spaces would be required to be located outside of the gated residential parking area. Amenity Areas and Landscaping The conceptual landscape plan provides approximately 20% landscape coverage over the development pad. On -site landscape and recreation amenities are provided throughout the project site for the residents in both the senior -living facility and the multi -family units. The senior -living facility is designed around central courtyard areas. The memory care wing is situated around a common outdoor courtyard that would be designed with specific programmatic sensory elements for its residents. The assisted -living and independent units are designed with outdoor spaces that offer a pool and spa deck, outdoor seating and barbeque areas, a bocce ball court, and community garden. There are also outdoor plazas designed at the facility entrance and along the commercial frontage at the ground floor. The multi -family component is designed with two pool decks, each with outdoor seating, barbeque areas, and associated clubhouses. In addition, individual units are designed with private balconies. The project proposal includes the development of an approximately 50,000 square -foot recreational space for active and passive play. This space is located at the southern portion of the project site, separated from the development by the creek. It would be accessible from a Class I trail on Wiley Canyon Road. A pedestrian path is proposed around the outer edge to provide a walking loop. Oak Trees A total of 36 oak trees are located on the project site and/or adjacent to planned roadway improvements associated with the project. The project proposes the removal of four, non - heritage oak trees that are located on the project site. In addition, there are encroachment impacts identified for 19 oak trees, including encroachment into the dripline of two heritage oak trees. All oak tree encroachments and removals would be required to comply with mitigation in accordance with the City's Oak Tree Ordinance. Grading and Bank Stabilization The project site is located within areas identified on Federal Emergency Management Agency Page 5 Packet Pg. 14 O (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) as Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs), including areas identified as Zone A, and Zone AO. The proposed development includes grading and modification of the creek to address the SFHAs and ensure the project will not create any adverse off -site impacts or increase the flood hazard to the surrounding area. Development of the project includes grading activities that require up to 45,000 cubic yards of cut and 59,000 cubic yards of fill, as well as the import of up to 85,000 cubic yards of additional fill. In addition, the development activities include widening of the creek bed and bank stabilization for protection of the development pad and roadway improvements along Wiley Canyon Road. Soil cement bank protection will be utilized on creek banks to allow for regrowth of natural vegetation on creek banks. The northerly portion of the creek will remain as a concrete lined channel. Existing rip rap will be extended to transition from the existing concrete channel to the widened creek bed. The purpose of the proposed bank protection is to provide erosion and flood protection for the development pad, the creek, and Wiley Canyon Road. This proposed drainage concept is consistent with City and Los Angeles County Public Works' applicable codes and design standards. The applicant has applied for a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) from FEMA for the modification to the FIRM in the area of the project site. The project would be conditioned to obtain a CLOMR prior to grading permit issuance and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from FEMA to modify the FIRM prior to issuance of any building permits. Off -site Roadway Improvements The project would include several off -site roadway improvements along Wiley Canyon Road. Wiley Canyon Road is currently a two-lane roadway along the project frontage to Calgrove Boulevard. The are no signalized intersections along this stretch of Wiley Canyon Road. The roadway improvements for the project include the installation of three new roundabout intersections 1) at the project entrance on Wiley Canyon Road; 2) at Canerwell and Wiley Canyon Road; and 3) at Calgrove Boulevard and Wiley Canyon Road. In addition, a Class I trail (two-lane bicycle path and separated, five-foot wide pedestrian path) would be installed along the project frontage on Wiley Canyon Road from the project entrance to Calgrove Boulevard. The project would also improve bicycle trail connections in the vicinity of the project along Wiley Canyon Road from Lyons Avenue to Calgrove Boulevard. A Class III bicycle lane (signage to indicate a shared bicycle lane in the traffic lane) would be installed on Wiley Canyon Road from Lyons Avenue to Wabuska Street. This would transition to a Class II bicycle lane (striped bicycle lane in the traffic lane right-of-way) at Wabuska Street to the project entrance. A Class II trail would be installed on Calgrove Boulevard from Wiley Canyon Road to The Old Road. Ultimately these improvements would make bicycle path connections from existing bicycle trails at the north side of Lyons Avenue to The Old Road. This would provide for a future trail connection to Towsley Canyon Open Space, at the south side of the intersection of Calgrove Boulevard and The Old Road. Off -site Infrastructure The project would be required by the Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency (SCV Water) to install off -site water infrastructure. This work is outside the permitting purview of the City, but included as part of the Project Description and was included as part of the project construction assumptions for the environmental analysis. Improvements would include the following: Page 6 Packet Pg. 15 O • Replace 50 feet of an existing six-inch water line within Old Wiley Canyon Road with an eight -inch water line. • Replace 200 feet of an existing eight -inch water line within Old Wiley Canyon Road with a twelve -inch water line. • Construct a new 1. 5 -milli on -gallon storage tank within the existing SCV Water tank site, located approximately 3,100 feet east of the project site. • Replace an existing undersized pump located within the existing SCV Water pump station on Peachland Avenue with a new 2,200 gallon -per -minute capacity pump. Mixed -Use Neighborhood Zone The project site is located in the MXN zone which is intended for mixed use development. The MXN zone establishes minimum and maximum density for residential units, and establishes minimum and maximum floor area ratios (FAR) for commercial uses. The FAR for commercial uses is 0.2, and the maximum FAR is 0.5. Based on the 31-acre project site the commercial uses should provide between 270,072 and 675,180 square feet of floor area. The required residential density is a minimum of six -units per acre and a maximum of 18-units per acre. Based on the project site area, the project should provide between 186 to 558 units. Projects that do not meet the minimum density and/or floor area ratios established by the MXN zone, require approval of a Minor Use Permit. The commercial component of the proposed project consists of the ground floor commercial, assisted -living units, and the memory care units and has a total floor area of 69,417 square feet, which is below the minimum FAR for commercial uses in the MXN zone. The residential component consists of the independent -living senior units and the multi -family units, providing a total of 509 units in compliance with the density requirements of the MXN zone. Smiser Ranch Area The project site is located within the Smiser Ranch Specific Development Area in the General Plan. The Smiser Ranch area is approximately 38 acres generally consisting of the properties located east of I-5, west of Wiley Canyon Road, and north of Calgrove Boulevard. Development limitations were established for the Smiser Ranch area at the time the General Plan was established due to community input during the General Plan update process. Where the zoning designation of MXN would normally allow for the development of up to 830,000 square feet of commercial floor area, plus up to 702 residential units, the General Plan set a limitation of 830,000 square feet of floor area for the combination of commercial and residential development within the Smiser Ranch area. The proposed project site is approximately 31 acres and proposes a total floor area of 677,280 square feet, which complies with the maximum floor area allowance under the General Plan for the Smiser Ranch area. In addition, the project proposes 509 residential units (consisting of the independent -living and multi -family units) which complies with the residential unit allowance under the General Plan. ENTITLEMENT SUMMARY Implementation of the project will require approval of the following entitlements: Page 7 Packet Pg. 16 O Architectural Design Review An Architectural Design Review is required for the proposed building architectural design to ensure that the proposed architecture complies with all of the provisions of the Section 17.51.020 of the UDC and General Plan, and to be consistent with the City's Community Character and Design Guidelines. Conditional Use Permit A Conditional Use Permit is required for new development within the Planned Development Overlay zone in accordance with Section 17.38.060 of the UDC, and gating of the multi -family units in accordance with UDC Section 17.35.020.B. Development Review A Development Review is required for the review of the proposed physical design and layout prior to the issuance of any building permit for subdivision developments or commercial developments in accordance with UDC Section 17.23.120. Minor Use Permit A Minor Use Permit is required to reduce the commercial floor area below the minimum required floor area of the MXN zone in accordance with Section 17.35.020 of the UDC, and for the transportation of approximately 85,000 cubic yards of soil within the City. Oak Tree Permit (Class 4) A Class 4 Oak Tree Permit is required for the encroachment and/or the removal of four or more oak trees with an approval by the Planning Commission in accordance with UDC Section 17.51.040 Oak Tree Preservation. The project includes the removal of four, non -heritage oak trees, and encroachment of 19 oak trees, including encroachment of two heritage oak trees. Tentative Map 83295 A Tentative Map (TM) is required for the subdivision of more than four lots in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act and UDC Section 17.25.110. The project includes a request to merge and subdivide the project site into seven lots for the development of the project. The design of the subdivision and improvements would not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The project is located in an existing developed area of the City. The project would not obstruct any public access. ENVIRONMENTAL The proposed development constitutes a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). After project submittal, staff determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required for this project pursuant to CEQA. Dudek, was awarded a contract by City Council on November 9, 2021 through a competitive bid process to assist the City with the preparation of the project EIR. On March 24, 2022, staff circulated the Notice of Preparation for the project EIR with a 30-day comment period that closed on April 25, 2022. A Scoping Meeting was held on April 14, 2022, with approximately 58 people in attendance. The public comments, questions, and concerns Page 8 Packet Pg. 17 O generally included changes to the existing visual characteristics, displacement of wildlife, wildland fire and emergency evacuation, increase in traffic, water quality and water supply, drainage and flooding, and increase in density. Following the Scoping Meeting, the City hosted a community meeting, in an open house format on June 30, 2022, providing the opportunity for the public to view the project proposal and engage with staff. There were approximately 40 people in attendance. A DEIR has been completed and circulated for Planning Commission and public review for 45 days beginning March 1, 2024, and ending April 15, 2024. The DEIR is available for review at City of Santa Clarita City Hall in the City Clerk's Office, the City of Santa Clarita Old Town Newhall Library, and is available to view online on the Planning Division website at the following web address: <hlt2s://santaclarita.gov/planning/environmental-impact-reports-under-review/wiley-canyon- mixed-use-project/> Comments received on the DEIR during the 45 public review period will be collected and will be responded to in the Final EIR. SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT DEIR The Wiley Canyon Project DEIR analyzes the environmental impacts of the project and identifies concerns for which there is a potential for significant environmental impacts and reasonable measures to mitigate the potential impacts. Section 4.0 Environmental Impact Analysis of the DEIR includes analyses of the impacts to each area and summarized in the below section: • 4.1 Aesthetics • 4.2 Air Quality • 4.3 Biological Resources • 4.4 Cultural Resources • 4.5 Energy • 4.6 Geology and Soils • 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions • 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials • 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality • 4.10 Land Use and Planning • 4.11 Mineral Resources • 4.12 Noise • 4.13 Population and Housing • 4.14 Public Services • 4.15 Recreation • 4.16 Transportation/Traffic • 4.17 Tribal Cultural Resources • 4.18 Utilities and Service Systems • 4.19 Wildfire MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation measures have been applied to reduce potential significant environmental impacts Page 9 Packet Pg. 18 O from the project and are summarized in the Executive Summary of the DEIR. If a potentially significant impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of mitigation, it is categorized as a significant and unavoidable impact. The results of the analyses presented in the DEIR have indicated all mitigation measures would fully mitigate the potential impacts and the project would not result in any significant, unavoidable impacts. The applicant has agreed to implement all proposed mitigation measures. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Section 6.0 Alternatives of the DEIR contains a discussion of the following three alternatives to the project: 1. No Project/No Build Alternative 2. Affordable Housing Alternative 3. Private Recreation Facility Alternative 4. Construction Noise Setback Alternative EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Executive Summary, Section 1 of the DEIR, provides an overview of the DEIR document, and provides an outline of the document organization. An error in production of this section makes incorrect references to the Sand Canyon area of Santa Clarita. The project site is within the Smiser Ranch area as identified in the General Plan and is not within Sand Canyon. These references have been noted for correction in the Final EIR. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS The following sections are summaries of the analysis in the DEIR. For a full discussion of each of the concerns analyzed below and all the conclusions reached, refer to the individual discussions in Section 4.0 of the DEIR. 4.1 Aesthetics The Aesthetics Section of the DEIR evaluates the potential impacts related to the implementation of the project on aesthetic resources, public views, scenic vistas, as well as light and glare impacts. Scenic Resources and Scenic Vistas Scenic vistas within the project site's vicinity include the Santa Susana Mountains, and the San Gabriel Mountains. Views of minor ridgelines are also visible within the vicinity of the project site. For purposes of CEQA analysis, scenic visits are evaluated from public vantage points such as a public roadway. The construction of structures on the project site would change the views from Wiley Canyon Road: however, the built project would not substantially alter the distant views of surrounding ridgelines in the vicitnty. Although there are no designated scenic highways within the project's vicinity, the I-5 segment adjacent the project site is eligible for designation. The project site is visible from the I-5, but there are existing residential land uses and utility and roadway infrastructure to the east that result in intervening views beyond the project site to the east. LA Metro also has plans to construct an 18-foot high sound wall between the project site and the I-5 right-of-way along with current improvements that are underway on the I-5 that would substantially obscure views into the project site. Page 10 Packet Pg. 19 O Given that existing views to the ridgelines from Wiley Canyon Road and the I-5 include views of intervening residential developments, implementation of the project would not substantially alter the expansive views of surrounding ridgelines, the project results in less than significant impact. Lighting and Glare Impacts The project would introduce new sources of light on the project site. Compliance with the City's existing outdoor lighting restrictions would prevent off -site light spillage, require down directed lighting, and would ensure that the project's lighting sources would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Additionally, the project elevations indicate the project would be constructed of primarily non -reflective, neutral -colored materials, therefore not anticipated to result in significant increase in glare. As such, the project light sources and building construction would not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the vicinity and result in less than significant impact. 4.2 Air Quality The Air Quality Section of the Draft EIR discusses the potential impacts the project could have on air quality. The South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) has established significance thresholds to assess the impact of project related air pollutant emissions: volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOx), particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10), and particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5). The California Emissions Estimator Model was utilized to model construction and operational emissions for VOCs, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5. The maximum daily operational emissions of the project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds and therefore, have less than significant impacts. The project would have emissions from heavy construction equipment during the construction phase that could result in a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure MM-AQ-1 would be imposed, which requires construction equipment features that meet applicable California Air Resources Board emissions standards, to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. 4.3 Biological Resources The Biological Resources Section of the DEIR evaluates the potential impacts on plant and animal resources that could result from the project. Biological resource impacts are addressed in terms of potential effects that could result from project construction and operation on endangered and protected species; wetland, riparian, and other sensitive habitat; the movement of native or migratory fish and wildlife; and jurisdictional waters defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Special Status Plant and Wildlife Impacts Special status plants include those that are listed, or candidates for listing, as rare, threatened, or endangered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. There were no special -status plants observed on the project site during seasonal rare plant surveys, jurisdictional delineation survey, or the field reconnaissance survey, therefore considered absent from the site. Three special -status wildlife species were considered to have a moderate potential to occur on Page 11 Packet Pg. 20 O the project site, including Cooper's hawk, least Bell's vireo, and Crotch bumble bee. The project site is potentially suitable habitat for these special -status species and implementation of the project would have potential impact to existing habitat. Mitigation measures MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-3, which require pre -construction surveys, including preconstruction bird surveys during nesting season, would be imposed to reduce potential significant impacts. Compensatory mitigation requirements are identified and would be implemented following pre -construction surveys, if warranted. The project site supports three sensitive plant communities considered a high priority by CDFW, including Fremont cottonwood/mulefat forest (0.48 acres), Fremont cottonwood forest (1.31 acres), and the California Sycamore forest (0.12 acres). Proposed development of the project would impact 0.09 acres of the Fremont cottonwood/mulefat forest, 0.6 acres of the Fremont cottonwood forest, and 0.09 acres of the California Sycamore forest. With implementation of mitigation measure MM-BIO-4, requiring mitigation at a 1:1 ratio through on -site restoration, off -site restoration or the purchase of credits through a mitigation bank, the project would have a less than significant impact to sensitive plant communities. Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands The project site includes just over an acre of federally and state protected waters. The proposed development would impact 0.19 acre of federal waters and 1.1 acre of waters under CDFW jurisdiction. MM-BIO-5 requires the applicant to obtain permits in compliance with Clean Water Act Sections 401 and 404 from the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, respectively, as well as Streambed Alteration Agreement permit from CDFW. In addition, MM-BIO-5 requires mitigation at a ratio of 2:1 for impacts to wetlands and riparian habitat through on -site restoration or enhancement, off -site restoration or the purchase of credits through a mitigation bank. With mitigation measures incorporated, the project would have a less than significant adverse effect on state or federally -protected wetlands. Oak Trees The project site (including areas adjacent to off -site improvements associated with the project) contains 36 oak trees that are protected by the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. The project proposes the removal of four, non -heritage oak trees, and the encroachment of 19 oak trees, including the encroachment of two heritage oak trees. The City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, including the Standards for Performance of Permitted Work of the Oak Tree Preservation Guidelines, would ensure that the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and impacts would be less than significant. 4.4 Cultural Resources The Cultural Resources Section of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the project could have on historical and archeological resources, or any potential to disturb any human remains. The analysis in this section is based on the Cultural Resource Assessment, (Appendix D of the DEIR). No historical resources were identified during the course of the study, and therefore, the project would have no impact on a historical resource. There are no known archaeological resources that would be impacted by the project, but the geoarchaeological review of the project site indicates there is a potential for the site to contain subsurface archaeological deposits. Similarly, there is no known historic burials on the project site; however, the inadvertent discovery of human remains could result in a potentially significant impact. In the event Page 12 Packet Pg. 21 O archaeological deposits or human remains are encountered during ground disturbing activities, mitigation measures MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-5 are proposed to avoid accidental destruction of potentially significant archaeological resources. These mitigation measures include monitoring of ground disturbing activities by a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor, pre -construction training for construction personnel, and procedures for inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources. 4.5 Energy Consumption The Energy Consumption Section of the DEIR evaluates potential short- and long-term energy consumption impacts as a result of the project. The impact analysis focuses on the three sources of energy that are relevant to the project: electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel for vehicle trips associated with the project. The project would comply with applicable state regulations under the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. The project would not place a substantial demand on regional energy supply or require significant additional capacity, or significantly increase peak and base period electricity demand. The project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. 4.6 Geology and Soils The Geology and Soils Section of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the project could have regarding seismic hazards, soils constraints, and paleontological resources. The proposed grading activity includes up to 44,000 cubic yards of cut and 59,000 cubic yards of fill. In addition, up to 85,000 cubic yards of soil would be imported to the project site. Based on the information and analyses presented in the Geotechnical Report (Appendix E of the DEIR), implementation of the project would have less than significant impacts in the areas of seismic ground shaking, seismic -related ground failure, landslide hazards, erosion, and unstable soil conditions. The project would not impact any known paleontological resources, and the potential to encounter fossil resources is low, however at depth where older geological units are present it is possible to encounter fossil resources. To avoid a potentially significant impact to any unanticipated paleontological resources, mitigation measures MM-GEO-I through MM-GEO-4 will be implemented to require worksite training for construction personnel, monitoring of excavation work by a qualified paleontologist who can identify fossil materials, and provide instructions to avoid and recover those materials. With these measures, potential significant impacts to paleontological resources would be avoided. 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Section of the DEIR analyzes the project for consistency with applicable greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction plans and strategies at the local, regional, and state level, and quantifies GHG emissions generated by the project. The total amount of project -related GHG emissions from construction activities, and project operations, as well as a project consistency analysis is outlined in the Tables 4.7-4 to 4.7-8 of the DEIR. The project is consistent with or would not conflict with the plans, policies, regulations, and GHG reduction actions/strategies outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan, 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), and the City's General Plan. Furthermore, Page 13 Packet Pg. 22 O because the project is consistent and does not conflict with these plans, policies, and regulations, the project's incremental increase in GHG emissions would not result in a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, project -related impacts with regard to GHG emissions would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section of the DEIR discusses the existing and historical hazardous conditions of the project site and analyzes potential hazards and hazardous material impacts that could occur during project construction and operation. The analysis in this section is based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the project site in August of 2004 and supplemented with a current review of environmental databases, included as Appendix H of the DEIR. The project site is not listed in any of the state or federal environmental databases that identify underground fuel tank sites, hazardous waste generation sites, or hazardous waste storage and disposal sites. Construction activities are temporary in nature and would involve limited transport, use, and disposal of construction related hazardous materials that would occur in conformance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, and as a result would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. Similarly, long term operations of the project could involve use of hazardous materials, including cleaning products, paints, solvents, adhesives, and other chemical materials used in building maintenance which are typical for a commercial development and would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. The project site is located in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFSZ) and as a result has the potential to expose people or structures to wildland fire risks. Mitigation Measures MM-FIRE-1 through MM-FIRE-3 require construction and vegetation management procedures that reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality The Hydrology and Water Quality Section of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the project could have with respect to water quality, drainage, and flooding. Project construction and operation would generate a variety of potential stormwater pollutants; however, through required compliance with existing regulatory standards, the project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade the quality of surface water or groundwater. The project would be subject to the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit, which includes the preparation, and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP). The SWPPP would include Best Management Practices and erosion control measures to prevent pollution in stormwater discharge. The project site is located within areas identified on FEMA FIRM maps as SFHAs, including areas identified as Zone A, and Zone AO. The project would have to implement physical measures that affect the hydrological or hydraulic characteristics to ensure the proposed development is out of the flood hazard zone. The conceptual hydrology analysis prepared for the project identified bank improvements to address the flood hazards. Mitigation measure MM- HYD-1 requires the applicant to obtain a Letter of Map Revision from FEMA to revise the current FIRM maps which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Page 14 Packet Pg. 23 O 4.10 Land Use and Planning The Land Use and Planning Section of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts to land use and planning, and discusses relevant land use policies and regulations of the City and other state regional plans. The determination of consistency with applicable land use policies and ordinances is based on the City's General Plan Elements, the City's Municipal Code, and the Southern California Association of Governments Connect SoCal plan. The project would generally not conflict with the policies identified in the City's General Plan Elements, specifically the project is consistent with the Land Use Element and the development characteristics called for in the Smiser Ranch area of the General Plan; therefore, implementation of the project would have a less than significant impact. 4.11 Mineral Resources The Mineral Resources Section of the DEIR describes the existing mineral resources setting for the City and evaluate the potential impacts implementation of the project could have on these resources. The Santa Clarita Valley contains mineral resources which have been extracted historically, including gold, natural gas, and oil, however the project site is not within an existing mineral extraction area nor mineral resource zone. Implementation of the project would not result in the loss of availability of known resources; therefore, the project is anticipated to result in a less than significant impact. 4.12 Noise The Noise Section of the DEIR discusses the potential noise and vibration impacts of the project. Construction The project would generate temporary construction noise at levels that exceed exterior daytime noise standards. However, construction activities would be temporary. Mitigation measures MM- NOI-1 and MM-NOI-2 require stand-alone construction noise barriers and use of noise -reduced construction equipment within 200 feet of adjacent sensitive receptors in order to reduce the temporary construction noise. With mitigation measures, the temporary construction noise would still exceed the City's exterior daytime noise standards and would result in a temporary, significant unavoidable impact. The vibration from construction activities experienced at the nearest sensitive receptor would be below the established thresholds, therefore less than significant. Project Operation Noise Activities related to operation of the project were analyzed for impact to offsite receptors, including project related vehicle traffic and on -site noise generating equipment. The overall project contribution to traffic volumes result in noise level increases of less than the established significant threshold of three decibels (dBA) on the surrounding roadway segments, thus the project related vehicle traffic would have a less than significant impact. The project's stationary noise levels from operation of mechanical equipment, parking areas, and emergency generators would not exceed the City's residential exterior noise standards for nearby sensitive receptors of 65 dBA during daytime hours, and 55 dBA during nighttime hours and therefore, would be less than significant. The fully developed/occupied proj ect's normal activities would not generate significant increases in local noise levels and mitigation would not Page 15 Packet Pg. 24 O be required. 4.13 Population and Housing The Population and Housing Section of the DEIR discusses the project's contribution to population, housing, and employment growth within the City, in relation to the growth forecasts established by SLAG, and to relevant goals, policies, and objectives of the City's General Plan. Construction Construction of the project would result in temporary increase in employment opportunities within the City. However, these construction jobs are not anticipated to result in population increase in the City as the need for construction workers would be accommodated within the existing Los Angeles County area labor market, and workers are not anticipated to relocate for the temporary construction period. Construction of the project would not result in substantial unplanned population growth, and therefore would be less than significant. Operation The project would result in new housing units within the City located on the project site with a zoning designation that contemplates multi -family housing units as part of a mixed -use development, would contribute to the regional housing needs identified in the City's Housing Element, and would not result in unplanned housing growth, and therefore, would be less than significant. 4.14 Public Services The Public Services Section of the DEIR discusses the potential for implementation of the project to impact the provision for public services including fire service, police protection, and other public facilities. Fire Protection The project site is located within the service area of Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) and would not require the construction of new or expanded fire stations. The project would be required to pay development fees to offset the additional resources needed by LACFD to serve the growing City and the project itself. In addition, the project would be required to comply with Fire Code standards pertaining to building design, internal circulation, fire flows, and emergency access, sufficient to maintain desired levels of fire protection services to this area. Project impacts would be less than significant. Police Protection The project would result in an increase in demand on existing Los Angeles County Sheriff Department (LASD) services with the addition of new employees and residents within the LASD service area, thus would increase demand for police protection services. The project would be required to pay applicable development and law enforcement impact fees. In addition, the project would comply with state and local development regulations such as providing adequate lighting that increase safety and reduce the likelihood of crime occurring. With implementation of these project design features, payment of impact fees, and permit requirements, impacts would be less than significant. Page 16 Packet Pg. 25 O Schools, Parks, and Other Public Facilities Implementation of the project would result in increased number of elementary, junior high, and high school students, however the increase in the number of students is within the maximum enrollment capacity for the school sites that serve the project site. Nonetheless, the project would be required to pay applicable school impact fees to the affected school districts. These fees are intended to finance construction of school facilities needed to accommodate students coming from new developments. The project would result in modest increase in the number of residents served by the City's park and library services; however, the project would be required to pay impact fees for purposes of developing new or rehabilitating existing park facilities, and ensuring adequate library services are provided. Impacts to schools, parks, and library services would be less than significant. 4.15 Recreation The Recreation Section of the DEIR evaluates the potential impacts on existing recreation facilities as a result of the project. The project would introduce new residents which are anticipated to utilize the City's existing park and recreation facilities. However, the project proposes public recreational amenities including approximately 50,000 square feet of recreation space, and a Class I bicycle trail along Wiley Canyon Road. In addition, private recreational amenities, including courtyards, pool and spa areas, and clubhouse would be provided for the senior -living facility and multi -family units. The project would also be required to pay park development impact fees for continued maintenance and future improvements to City parks. Therefore, impacts to Recreation would be less than significant. 4.16 Transportation/Traffic The Transportation Section of the DEIR evaluates the potential transportation impacts that may result from the project. Transportation impacts are evaluated based on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) rather than the Level of Service (LOS) or any other measure of a project's effect on automobile delay, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines. The VMT analysis was prepared in accordance with the City's Transportation Analysis Updates (TAU) which establishes the City's transportation impact thresholds and provides guidance for preparation of transportation studies in the City. Based on the City's TAU, for a residential project, the significance threshold is when a project exceeds 15 percent below the Citywide baseline VMT for home -based trips. Similarly, for employment generating projects, the significance threshold is when a project exceeds 15 percent below the Citywide baseline VMT for home -based work trips. The City's thresholds are 19.3 VMT per capita for residential development and 15.7 VMT per employee for the commercial development. The VMT analysis shows that the project would generate an average home -based VMT per capita of 15.11 for the residential portion of the project, and an average home -based work VMT per employee of 12.31 for the commercial portion of the project. The project VMT generation for both the residential and commercial components are less than the level of significance, therefore, results in a less than significant impact. Although LOS is not the metric required by CEQA to evaluate performance of the circulation system, the Traffic Analysis did analyze the LOS at nine intersections and includes a list of recommended improvements at the following intersections in order to improve intersections Page 17 Packet Pg. 26 O where project traffic affects intersection operations. These recommendations will be considered by the City Traffic Engineer and incorporated as conditions of approval and, or further modified by the City Traffic Engineer: • At Intersection 910, the project entrance, the project would construct a roundabout. • At Intersection 99, Wiley Canyon Road & Calgrove Boulevard, the project would construct a roundabout. • At Intersection 97, I-5 Southbound & Calgrove Boulevard, the project would install a traffic signal. • At Intersection 98, I-5 Northbound & Calgrove Boulevard, the project would construct a traffic signal. • At Intersection 93, I-5 Northbound & Lyons Avenue, the project would contribute a fair share payment for the adjustment to signal timing. • At Intersection 96, Wiley Canyon Road & Wabuska Street, the project would contribute a fair share payment for the construction of a new signal or roundabout intersection. 4.17 Tribal Cultural Resources The Tribal Cultural Resources Section of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the project could have on tribal cultural resources. The project site is located within ancestral tribal territory of the Fernandeiio Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (FTBMI). There are no known tribal cultural resources on the project site; however, the unanticipated discovery of tribal cultural resources during site development could result in potential impacts. The City has consulted with FTBMI and both the City and the applicant have agreed to implement construction control measures and monitoring of ground disturbing activities to prevent accidental damage or destruction to tribal cultural resources. With those measures, as previously specified in mitigation measures MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-5, potential impacts would be avoided or reduced to less than significant. 4.18 Utilities and Service Systems The Utilities and Service Systems Section of the DEIR discusses the potential impacts the project could have with respect to water supply, wastewater, storm drain, and dry utilities (electric, gas, and telecommunications) infrastructure. Water Supply The project would require water service provided by SCV Water. A Water Supply Assessment was prepared for the project by SCV Water and determined that SCV Water would have a sufficient water supply to meet the project's water demand. The project would connect to the existing 12-inch water line in Wiley Canyon Road and would require connections to provide domestic and fire protection service to the project. SCV Water would require the project to construct new water utility infrastructure, described in the Project Description of this report, and was analyzed as part of the potential construction impacts for the project throughout the DEIR. Impacts would be less than significant. Wastewater The project would connect sewer lines to an existing 10-inch sewer line in Wiley Canyon Road. According to the Sewer Area Study prepared for the project, there is adequate capacity in the existing system to accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the project. Therefore, the project would not require the construction of new or expanded wastewater collection or Page 18 Packet Pg. 27 O treatment facilities and impacts would be less than significant. Stormwater The project includes new storm drainage facilities to be constructed on -site. The project proposal includes the construction of three detention basins which would serve both water quality and water quantity control purposes in order to meet stormwater drainage control requirements and would ensure that on -site flood would not occur. No unique impacts would result from the proposed on -site drainage improvements beyond the impacts evaluated for the overall project footprint. Dry Utilities The project area is already served by electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication service providers. The project would require connections to existing infrastructure, such as electricity lines and natural gas mains in surrounding roadways. As such, the project would not require major reconstruction or expansion of existing off -site infrastructure facilities, resulting in less than significant impacts requiring no mitigation. 4.19 Wildfire The Wildfire Section of the DEIR evaluates the potential wildfire impacts and identifies mitigation measures related to implementation of the project. The project site is designated by the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as a VHFHSZ. A traffic evacuation model was prepared by CR Associates (Appendix N of the DEIR), which analyzed emergency evacuation of existing land uses, as well as the project. Based on the evacuation model prepared for the project, the existing land uses in the immediate vicinity of the project site take between 42 minutes and 63 minutes to evacuate. In the case of the existing land uses with the addition of the project, the evacuation times would not increase for the areas east of the project site. The area immediately north of the project site, south of Wabuska Street, would have an increase in evacuation time of 15 minutes. There is no threshold for evacuation timeframes that projects must meet in order to avoid a CEQA impact or to be consistent with state and local codes, regulations or policies. Rather, a project's impact on evacuation would be significant if the project would significantly impair or physically interfere with implementation of an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. The project would replace the existing undeveloped landscape that has flammable vegetation with non-flammable landscape materials designed to comply with the LACFD fuel modification standards, constructing buildings to meet the current LACFD fire codes, as well as constructing an internal street network to provide access by emergency response vehicles, substantially reducing the fuel loads on -site. Implementation of the project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, or interfere with emergency response plans, nonetheless, mitigation measure MM-FIRE-1 through MM-FIRE-3 would ensure that vegetation management and construction management plans are in place to reduce impacts. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES In preparing an EIR, alternative projects must be analyzed in accordance with CEQA to determine if a revision to the project could result in an environmentally superior project that meets the project objectives. The DEIR analyzed four alternatives: Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative All EIR documents are required to evaluate the "No Project" Alternative to evaluate the potential Page 19 Packet Pg. 28 O impact on the environment if the project is not developed as compared with the project. Under this alternative, no development would occur, therefore all impacts would remain at current levels. Development would not be precluded with this alternative, and any future development would likely require additional analysis under CEQA. Alternative 2: Affordable Housing Alternative This Alternative includes the development of 837 apartment units, including 201 units designation for lower income households. The maximum height would be 65 feet, with a proposed floor area ratio of 0.63. This Alternative would not develop the recreation area located to the south of the creek. The infrastructure improvements, including the drainage basins, and off -site street improvements would remain the same as the project. This Alternative would generally have similar impacts as the proposed project. Impacts to GHG, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, and Utilities would be slightly higher, but this Alternative would necessitate the same mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. This Alternative would have the same temporary significant unavoidable impact for construction noise. This Alternative generally meets the Project Objectives, though it does not provide a senior -living component or commercial component, and does not develop the same recreational space as the project. Alternative 3: Private Recreational Facility Alternative This Alternative includes the development of a private recreational facility, including a 10,000- square foot clubhouse/restaurant. The facility would consist of eight tennis courts, seven pickleball courts, a soccer field, football field, baseball field, and outdoor basketball court. All fields would include overhead lighting. The infrastructure improvements, including the drainage basins, and off -site street improvements would remain the same as the project. This Alternative would have greater impacts in the areas of Aesthetics, due to overhead field lighting. Impacts in the areas of Air Quality, Energy, GHG, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, and Utilities would be less than the project. Impacts in all other areas would be similar to the project, including the same temporary significant unavoidable impact for construction noise. This Alternative would not meet the primary Project Objectives to provide a mixed -use development with housing, senior -living, and commercial uses. Alternative 4: Construction Noise setback Alternative This Alternative includes the development of a 139-bed assisted -living facility, 47 detached condos, and 237 apartment units. The assisted -living facility would be three -stories in height and the multi -family units would range from two- to four -stories. Under this Alternative, a 200-foot open space/landscaped buffer between the mobile home park to the north and the project site would be provided. Similar recreation space to the project at the southern portion of the project site would be provided. This Alternative would have similar or slightly lower impacts as the proposed project. Impacts to Air Quality, Energy, GHG, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, and Utilities would be slightly lower, but expected to require the same mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. This Alternative would eliminate the temporary significant unavoidable impact for construction noise. The Alternative generally meets the Page 20 Packet Pg. 29 O Project Objectives; however, it does not provide the commercial component. Project Alternative Comparison Alternative 1, the "No Project" Alternative, would result in the least environmental impacts, and therefore would be considered the Environmentally Superior Alternative. However, Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines states that if the Environmentally Superior Alternative is the "No Project" Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an Environmentally Superior Alternative among the other alternatives. Of the remaining alternatives previously evaluated, Alternative 4 was found to be environmentally superior over the proposed project because it would eliminate the temporary significant construction noise impact, while still meeting the basic objectives of the project. It would not however, provide a commercial component as part of a mixed -use project that is contemplated by the MXN zoning designation on the project site. NEXT STEPS Staff seeks direction from the Planning Commission, following the staff presentation, applicant presentation, and public comments given at the Planning Commission hearing on March 19, 2024. The 45-day public review period on the DEIR is schedule to close on April 15, 2024. After the close of the public review period, staff will prepare responses to comments received on the DEIR and prepare the Final EIR. A second Planning Commission hearing is anticipated June 18, 2024, upon completion of the Final EIR, where staff would respond to Planning Commission comments, present the Final EIR, and a recommendation on the Project for consideration by the Planning Commission. NOTICING All notices required by law were completed which consisted of a legal advertisement in The Signal newspaper on February 27, 2024, and notification of public hearing by mail to all property owners and occupants within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site. Two signs were also posted at the project site on March 5, 2024. Following the publication of the public hearing notice, and as of the writing of this staff report, staff has received 11 email correspondence from the community, including nine comments in support of the project, one in opposition to the project, and one request to extend the public review of the DEIR. ATTACHMENTS Site Plan Senior Living Elevations Multi -Family Elevations Tentative Map Conceptual Landscape Plan Visual Simulations Applicant Community Outreach Summary Page 21 Packet Pg. 30 O Public Comments Public Notice DEIR Notice of Availability Page 22 Packet Pg. 31 H �s a aT c 7 E E 0 H Z W J _ = O �7 E E Q U air 1'� �3 ao zc� �zo �m c E E 0 � \ \! G: _ _- 9(,(: - /())[:)(())))[(()}: [ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\}} §§\ §§moms^ §©0 �0t# Qk : m ( :>L;o \/ 2 co co - ^ .< z » & u \\ ƒ \ ƒ -LU ®:O/C ° / ^2< °§ / U % :§ /§ \ /\ <\ ) 3� 4/« z O H LU W W r 000000000000000000o Y N V k rn Qeo z N m w 0 0 O R� (�mm N O dR ZQC� w J Q0 �Uv J °O oo j GO �a Uo w w z F— 0 N Uz o6 �a Q0 z = O D Z m M > W Z W Q U H ((8£Z-ozow) asn-Pax!w uoAueo AapM) suoi;enal3 Al!wej-glnW :;uawyae;;y I�y xA O u m OE a OA c O U ° dh� ° O NE � o m O_ U0, � u � > o o oe 0 ° °�m -ps °o' O O C O Q 0B � pc cc O O 0 PE U p"d c U o- zB m� / ' ° Q Q 4❑sV3 5y�� N° 5 Nn ct mj o_S On OO�o N 1 OOL E U N O y e U J J Q Z �3 33 U O a 75" 3N ° Uti W U u © O O J W J 3 ................. 1A 0)LO /� 14 04 Cl) 00 0 CL rr >— LLj F— N 1 2 '61 mao < o UU— < Lu E w w W z w LL w z w w w LL < w 51Z LU 0 w ME mummmmmmml ai MR m VP MH- - -m J 3M7 zFIJ10fl �� e ti o a / w in / LL y /i OF IIzl,I IF L r� / np HUM Aw d I I �;WIV1All �I V w / I any � all s j j -PON QI iiF ts �I ✓< 4 I IT I1- � I� I I ED its � V _ T o, ruL 71 lul PLO ALIMi mans rill ct 41 JP \ pyyI 1 l � II �I I, "die ��/� � � ✓ � �� � � � �y, n� �„�„�n � / Lmg T / II, I u` gl i i da i Nam, a� /f i TOW �r / Ras r or C z W C) LU J C) z zz g IL -o .. I I - , I r-71 (O£Z-ozow) ash-pexlw uoAue:D Aeum) Ueld adeospue-1 len;deouo:D :;u9wLjoe;;V Nm m .3 m m tv Nm % V F uW! m 8L•l P149999• eu114*N Y m e e ma m m a s m .... ....................... c c JS ro z z romp m m m mE mE m3 Cg zi r O �-MINM-70 0■ I e ,- t' 1a Co° M Itt 03 Cb a 0' Y ^^V CL o@ �8d Rj Co .Co Af, 0 Co U i c z W C) W J C) z zz J IL s s s - e .. I F77 jai I rT ((8£Z-ozow) ash-paxlW uoAueo Aaw) Ueld ade3spue-1 len;deouoo :;uawgoe;;V s �m mmm o m F 4'' s ,dim ,im c�Y c�Y tq hhE h h m ro�m�m��(g - Ci mg E S 3 3° � :gym n r o yC9v 0 I8� a m m O �,JO a� 6 G�... 3 E O ,.���•/�� a N D m mtg > 8 S w o o 0 N am m 't 1 r• i '1 I �( m i ai i C ca EL I, U i ca i E i a) I ' U cn Rj cu .cu U cu cu A, J 0 co CU W 1.f Wiley Canyon View A V i S 10 n S C d 0 e IMAGERY A Visualization Firm visionsca peimagery.com Q 1.f Wiley Canyon View B V i S 10 n S C d 0 e IMAGERY A Visualization Firm visionsca peimagery.com ro M N O N U d N 9 N X_ C O T C U T N N C O M 7 E U) 7 N_ C 0) E L U Q 1.f Wiley Canyon View C V i S 10 n S C d 0 e IMAGERY A Visualization Firm visionsca peimagery.com Q 0 Wiley Canyon View D VISIOOSCape. v'AGERY A Visualization Firm visionsca peimagery.com Q 1.f Wiley Canyon View E V i S 10 n S C d 0 e IMAGERY A Visualization Firm visionsca peimagery.com Q ((8£Z-ozow) ash-paxiw uoAueo Aoi!m) Ajewwng yoeaa;no A;iunwwoo;ueoilddV :;uauayoe;;V v E v a � o 0 N O — t a co(P ro � a O C 2 v C7 t r4 r4 N N N N O O N cB r4 ON N .--i a t O vj u � N r4 � a! O Q U O T T T B B B Cv N _O U F T 0 In Ch a r m �a a N N = ar N W CO CO CO CO CO CO CO v a h o m � Q w a O a O a O a O a O a O a O a O C oj = 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 a, a 0 Q 1 U c v U c v u c ai � u Q E E L E i i i ++ y Q O Q O Q O u — — u — v E v E v cB cB E v E v E w \ = v -O v -O O_ Q v 'O O- Q E Z F a! (7 0! (7 � > a! O (D O U O U > > O O O U O U O U T 'E E E t t O U � � N Q O Y O O Y O W v ' > v > v > v Q r r z o z 2 2 2 z cB O_ U C d � T T U � T C E O a T N W C N U u U a � T — U v Q Q Q Q Q Q In Q v C O O N E N O a a C C O _ O O O_ N U O_ C O C C J — >• cB 3 2 T +-' a Q c 2 O c W U oj N co Y u u O O O W— t E O] Q.- CQ� c E iB O �° a�i o Z a- ofQ W J O] U In J T L u v 3 N U 7E N m � O (� CO O a! X B m F a u O Z J m 06 a v a! ?06 E E L > � U_ m Q d U Y F 2 rA N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N � -1 O N M O O N N N 00 Cil c-I c-I M 1-I 1-I c-I c-I N N N N N N \ O O O O O O O l0 rl n n n 00 01 01 01 01 Cil Cil ((8£Z-ozow) ash-paxiw uoAueo Aoi!m) Ajewwng yoeaa;no A;iunwwoo;ueoilddV :;uauayoe;;V v v v v E E E 0 u c 4! ro 0 u C 0) 0 u C 0) N Q Q 0) > O O = o C 0)0 Ln u v E U O = o C v N p v E O u N Q Q 0) > O 0) > O 0) > O u v E O u 4! > O 4! > O 4! > O 4! > O 4! > O (B t 3 v Z T � v O cB cB C Q O v Q Q Q Q Q v Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Z F Z Z Z Z Z = Z Z Z Z Z Z Z C O N i Q LL (6 C v) i c c Q c� c w cocc0) (B Y G C > Q O Q In 4! CL O L(L T Y w 06 T Y C In C . L w Y C cB N J C i! O N v N 'i cB N v L ci N O N O ci N O N O ci N O N O ci N .\-i N O ci N O M O N \ r N \ N \ N \ N \ N \ N \ N \ N \ ci N ij c-I ci N ij c-I ci N ij c-I ci N ij rl ci N 00 ci T LO Ch a r m �a a 1.h Erika Iverson From: Alan Scoggins <alanscoggins@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 12:09 PM To: Erika Iverson Subject: Wiley, Canyon project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. My name is Alan Scoggins and I live at 24935 old Wiley Canyon Road my house is in the cul-de-sac adjacent to the main entrance to the Wiley Canyon project. I have met with Scott Sheridan he has addressed all my issues with privacy and security wall between the roundabout and cul-de-sac Overall I think the traffic improvement on Whaley Canyon is long overdue. I feel very good about them following through on this project. They are willing to do what our community needs. And concerned with our needs. Thank you. Alan Scoggins. Sent from my iPhone Packet Pg. 52 1.h Erika Iverson From: Annette Lucas <calgrovecorridor@aol.com> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 1:29 PM To: Erika Iverson; Jason Crawford Cc: Annette Lucas Subject: Draft EIR date of Release CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Jason Crawford Ericka Iverson I am replying to the release of the Draft EIR. We were advised by Ericka Iverson that the DEIR was going to be released the first week of March, 2024 Finding that the DEIR was released on March 1, 2024, and not the first week of March ( March 4- 8) we would like to extend the comment period due to notification. Also, we would like to extend the comment period two weeks since the document if very large with 31 appendix and the subsections to each appendix. Regards Annette Lucas Calgrove Corridor CO M N O N U a� N 0 x c 0 c CU d N r c a� E E 0 CU v a r c m E t c� r r Q Packet Pg. 53 1.h Erika Iverson From: Victor Leon <victorrleonn@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 9:45 PM To: Erika Iverson Subject: Comments/Concerns on Proposed Wiley Canyon Project (Master Case 20-238) CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Attention: City of Santa Clarita; Erika Iverson My name is Victor Leon and I currently live at the Mulberry Mobile Home Park adjacent to where this proposed project would be built. w co N I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the proposed residential/shopping project. As someone who has O N U lived here their whole life, I have witnessed first-hand the charm and tranquility of this neighborhood. It is a unique trait that makes Santa Clarita such a sought-after place to live. With that being said, one need only look at social media to see N just how many Santa Clarita residents are upset with the city's constant desire to expand the population here. I fear that the proposed development would bring irreversible environmental and social impacts to a community of individuals x who have called this small area of land home for decades. 0 One of the major concerns is the anticipated increase in traffic congestion. Despite proposed road enhancements, the c addition of hundreds of people and their vehicles will not bode well for the individuals already living here. We already CU U find it hard enough trying to get onto the 5 freeway in the morning heading into work. No amount of roundabouts will alleviate the traffic congestion of hundreds of additional commuters in the area. There simply isn't enough space for a project of this size. The addition of residential units and commercial space would undoubtedly lead to a surge in traffic, N disrupting the current peaceful environment and posing numerous safety risks to pedestrians and cyclists. E The environmental impacts are equally alarming. The proposed development would encroach upon wildlife habitats, o leading to a loss of biodiversity and disrupting the local ecosystem. The studies that have been conducted show a lack of U respect for the living organisms that call this land home. To them, a disruption of wildlife is acceptable, as long as it is within a 'reasonable' limit. In my opinion, any disruption of wildlife is unacceptable. The nerve that some humans have a to feign moral superiority while directly and indirectly contributing to the demise of countless life forms is comical. Clearly the City and developers have no care for displacement of animals, they consistently build into our mountainsides E without any remorse. Also, the ability Californian officials have to scream for the conservation of water while also continuing to build in already drought -prone areas is unmatched. The increased water usage from the additional f4 Q households and commercial spaces could strain local water resources to a critical level. Additionally, the project could lead to a significant rise in the cost of living for current residents. With the influx of new residents and businesses, demand for housing and goods would escalate, potentially making it unaffordable for many longtime residents to remain in the area. It seems that —to nobody's surprise —money is the primary motivator here. The proposed project does nothing to address the socioeconomic disparities in this area of the city. Instead of focusing on luxury residential and shopping spaces, the city should prioritize building affordable housing and environmentally - conscious buildings. By doing so, the city can create a more inclusive and sustainable community that benefits all residents, not just a select few. Investing in affordable housing and sustainable development will not only address the pressing needs of the community but also ensure a more equitable and prosperous future for all. How many more houses, cars, and people until the City realizes enough is enough? Packet Pg. 54 1.h I urge you to reconsider the approval of this project in its current form. The environmental and social costs far outweigh any potential benefits. It is crucial to prioritize the well-being and sustainability of our community over short-term gains for the greedy. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Victor Leon Packet Pg. 55 1.h Erika Iverson From: Kay Mazza <kay@ldargroup.com> Sent: Friday, March 8, 2024 8:31 PM To: Erika Iverson Subject: Wiley Canyon Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. To Whom it may Concern, As a resident of Santa Clarita, I am very excited about the prospect of the development of Wiley Canyon. Since moving to Santa Clarita in 2007, 1 have seen the ever-increasing need for more housing, particularly for our aging population. I am looking forward to the many benefits that developing this parcel of land will bring to the community. Thank you, Kaoru Sugimura-Mazza Packet Pg. 56 1.h Erika Iverson From: Matthew Witkin <matthew.witkin@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 8, 2024 5:36 PM To: Erika Iverson Subject: Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project (Master Case 20-238) CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Dear Mr. Iverson, I am sending this email in support of the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project (Master Case 20-238). As a resident of Santa Clarita, I am excited to see continued progress and development in our community. Especially at the entrance to our city, which is currently not as well -maintained as it could be, would certainly be improved by new projects such as this one. Additionally, I am excited to see additional residential and commercial possibilities come to our city. Thank you very much for your time and for reading my email. Sincerely, Matthew Witkin Packet Pg. 57 1.h Erika Iverson From: Colton Seward <chseward12@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 8, 2024 1:52 PM To: Erika Iverson Subject: Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project (Master Case 20-238) CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Dear Erik Iverson, I am in support of the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project (Master Case 20-238). 1 was born and raised in the Santa Clarita community, and just recently purchased my first home near the proposed project. In my opinion, the senior housing proposed will improve the community of Santa Clarita as a whole. It also makes use of a large vacant lot that is not visually appealing in its current state. Sincerely, Colton Seward 25146 Wheeler Road, Newhall CA 91321 chsewardl2@gmail.com 00 M N O N U 0 x c 0 c U d r c d E E 0 U c� a r c m E 0 r r Q Packet Pg. 58 1.h Erika Iverson From: eseward56@gmail.com Sent: Friday, March 8, 2024 12:06 PM To: Erika Iverson Subject: Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project (Master Case 20-238) CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Erik Iverson Associate Planner City of Santa Clarita I am sending this email in support of the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project (Master Case 20-238). As a resident of Santa Clarita for almost 50 years, I believe that the proposed project will improve the community by providing senior housing and road improvements. Personally, having difficulty finding assisted care for my late father-in-law and senior housing for my mother- in-law in Santa Claria, I am of the opinion that there is a need for additional senior housing with assisted living is needed in our community. The proposed street improvements to Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard will improve the safety for pedestrian and bicyclist. In addition, road safety for automobile traffic will be improved by widening, signals, lighting and roundabouts. Sincerely, Eric Seward 21156 Placerita Canyon Road, Newhall CA 91321 eseward56@gmail.com 00 M N 0 N U m x c 0 c U m Packet Pg. 59 1.h Erika Iverson From: Ashlyn Mangandi <ashlyn.mangandi@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 8, 2024 11:45 AM To: Erika Iverson Subject: Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Hello, I am writing to express my support of the Wiley Canyon mixed use project. I often travel the road and was pleased to hear about the improvements to the traffic flow that will be made Also looking forward to a beautiful new park to walk the dog at near home. Can't wait to see the finished project! Thank you, Packet Pg. 60 1.h To: Erika Iverson Senior Planner City of Santa Clarita Date: March 12, 2024 I have attended several outreach events and have met personally with the developers. I fully support the project for the following reasons: (1) The project is consistent with the General Plan (2) The traffic improvements will increase efficiency and traffic flow and safety along Wiley Cyn Road and Calgrove Blvd. (3) The roundabouts, landscaping and sidewalks will enhance the beauty of this corridor (4) The development will take the site out of the flood plan (5) The proposed development provides for a neighborhood park (6) The proposed development provides for a much -needed senior housing development (7) An alternative of affordable housing over seen by the State of Calif would be a disaster Thank you. Jim Brown 23402 Thornwood Dr Newhall, CA 91321 Email: amesbrown.teg@pacbell.net Packet Pg. 61 1.h From: Jeff M To: Erika Iverson Subject: FW: Wiley canyon project Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 9:32:39 AM CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Hi Erika, I am writing you in support of the new project on Wiley Canyon as a resident of the Santa Clarita Valley for over 30 years. I feel the project would make a nice addition for the city to an area that has not had much activity in recent years. Sincerely Jeff Myers 25730 Sand canyon rd Santa Clarita, CA 91387 Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here. Packet Pg. 62 1.h From: Dylan Shierts To: Erika Iverson Subject: Wiley Canyon Project Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 10:44:45 AM Attachments: imaoe003.ono CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Hi Erika, I am writing you in support of the new project on Wiley Canyon as a resident of the Santa Clarita Valley for the last 32 years. I think the project would certainly be appreciated by residents in the city. It will create a wonderful atmosphere to an area that has not had much activity in quite some time. Sincerely Dylan Shierts 28987 Sam Place Canyon Country, CA 91387 Dylan Shierts Assistant Project Manager OAKRIIDGE 28042 Avenue Stanford, Unit E I Valencia, California 1 91355 Phone 661-295-7228 1 Fax 661-295-7230 1 Cell 661-289-2196 oakridaelandscaoe.net • dvlan0oakridaelandscane.net Cci,rnpany Video Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here. Packet Pg. 63 1.i CITY OF SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT -�' 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION: Master Case 20-238; Tentative Tract Map 83295, Architectural Design Review 20-023, Conditional Use Permit 20-005, Development Review 20-017, Minor Use Permit 20-013, Oak Tree Permit (Class 4), and Environmental Impact Report 20-002 PROJECT APPLICANT: Wiley Canyon, LLC PROJECT LOCATION: East of Interstate 5 and west of Wiley Canyon Road, between Hawkbryn Avenue and Calgrove Boulevard. Assessor's Parcel Numbers 2825-012-007, 2825-007-010, 2825-012-011, 2825-012- 901, and 2825-012-902 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting entitlements for the development of the Wiley Canyon Mixed -Use Project, consisting of an approximately 277,108-square-foot senior living facility with 130-independent living units, 61 assisted living units, and 26 memory care beds; approximately 8,914 square feet of ground floor commercial space; and 379 multi -family units. Buildings on -site would range from one- to four -stories, maximum of 50 feet in height. The Project also proposes to improve approximately 50,660 square feet for publicly accessible recreation space. The development of the Project would require several off -site improvements, which include a new roundabout at the Project entrance on Wiley Canyon Road, and at the intersections at Wiley Canyon Road with Canerwell Street, and Wiley Canyon Road with Calgrove Boulevard. The Project would also construct Class I, II, and III bicycle lanes along Wiley Canyon Road from north of Lyons Avenue to Calgrove Boulevard, and along Calgrove Boulevard to The Old Road. In addition, off -site improvements are necessary for the buildout of the project, including a new water line proposed within Old Wiley Canyon Road, a new storage tank and a new pump within an existing pump station. The Project would require grading for up to 44,000 cubic yards of cut and 59,000 cubic yards of fill, and the import of approximately 85,000 cubic yards of fill. The Project includes the removal of four non -heritage oak trees and the encroachment of 19 oak trees. The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission will conduct the first public hearing on this matter on the following date, during which the project will be introduced and described: DATE: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 TIME: At or after 6:00 p.m. LOCATION: City Hall, Council Chambers 23920 Valencia Blvd., First Floor Santa Clarita, CA 91355 No formal action relative to this project will occur at this hearing. The Planning Commission will open the public hearing, receive testimony, and continue the public hearing to a future date. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) is currently being prepared to identify the projects potential environmental impacts and will be available for public review in March 2024. A Notice of Availability will be posted and advertised to the public upon Packet Pg. 64 1.i release of the DEIR. An initial presentation of the DEIR will occur at the March 19, 2024, Planning Commission hearing. 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 hearings 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, March 8, 2024. For further information regarding this proposal, you may contact the project planner at the City of Santa Clarita, Permit Center, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Telephone: (661) 255-4330. Website: www.santaclarita.gov/planning/planning. Send written correspondence to: 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Project Planner: Erika Iverson, eiverson e,santaclarita.gov. Patrick Leclair Planning Manager Published: The Signal, February 27, 2024 Packet Pg. 65 1.j NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TO: Distribution List Lead Agency: Agency Name: City of Santa Clarita Street Address: 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 City/State/Zip: Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Contact: Erika Iverson, Senior Planner Telephone: (661) 255-4962 Consulting Firm: Name: Dudek Street Address: 225 South Lake Avenue, Suite M-210 City/State/Zip: Pasadena, CA 91101 Contact: Nicole Cobleigh, Senior Project Manager Telephone: (626) 204-9829 SUBJECT: Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Wiley Canyon Project (Master Case 20-238) Pursuant to Section 15085 and 15087(a), Title 14, California Code of Regulations, this Notice is provided to announce that the City of Santa Clarita (City) has completed a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed project described below and that it is available for public review. Project Description and Location: As shown in Figure 1, Project Location, the project site lies in the southwestern portion of the City, in the Newhall community, and is bordered by Interstate 5 (1-5) immediately to the west, Wiley Canyon Road immediately to the east, and between Hawkbryn Avenue to the north and Calgrove Boulevard to the south. The 31.8-acre project site is largely vacant with the exception of structures associated with the former Smiser Mule Ranch. The South Fork of the Santa Clara River flows into the project site through a triple concrete box culvert under the 1-5 freeway at the southern end of the project site and continues northerly into a concrete -lined channel. As shown in Figure 2, Site Development Plan, the project proposes to develop a 277,108-square-foot, four-story senior living facility, approximately 8,914 square feet of commercial space, 379 multifamily residential apartments, and a publicly accessible outdoor recreational field space on a vacant 31.8-acre site. Lot 6, approximately 2.9 acres in size and located east of Wiley Canyon Road, would remain undeveloped under the proposed project. The senior living facility would include 130 independent living units, 61 assisted living units, and 26 memory care beds. Approximately 8,914 square feet of commercial retail space would be constructed on the first floor of the senior living facility. A total of 379 multi -family residential units are proposed within 13 buildings ranging between two- and four -stories in height. On - site amenities would include a leasing center, clubhouse with fitness center, and a pool area. The project proposes a total 966 on -site (off-street) parking. A total of 109 parking stalls would be reserved for the senior living residents. The residential component of the project would reserve 582 parking spaces for the multi -family residents. The remaining 275 parking stalls would be shared by the commercial use and guests. The project would include landscaping throughout the project site and would be used to screen certain facilities on site, such as transformers and maintenance buildings. In addition, the project would utilize landscaping for proposed fuel modification zones. The project would also include several active and passive on -site recreational facilities, including a passive recreational grass pad located on the southern portion of the project site. Approximately 1.3 miles of 16-foot-wide pedestrian trails/maintenance road would be constructed throughout the project site and along Wiley Canyon Road to provide active recreational opportunities to on -site residents and provide pedestrian connectivity to the surrounding areas, accessible to both visitors and existing residents in the vicinity. Wiley Canyon Project Draft EIR Page 1 1 Packet Pg. 66 1.j The project would include on -site circulation improvements as well as off -site improvements to Wiley Canyon Road. The improvements differ across intersections and segments of the roadway (i.e., proposed roundabouts, bus bays, utility improvements); however, along the right-of-way, proposed Class I, II and III bicycle routes, pedestrian facilities and trail paths, and two drive lanes (one for each direction) are proposed. The project would include the installation of off -site roundabouts along Wiley Canyon Road at the project's entrance, Canerwell Street, and at Calgrove Boulevard. In addition, off -site improvements are necessary for the buildout of the project, including a new water line proposed within Old Wiley Canyon Road, a new storage tank and a new pump within an existing pump station. Impacts: Project implementation is not expected to result in significant impacts to Agriculture and Forestry Resources. The Draft EIR analyzed the project's environmental impacts with respect to the following topics: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural 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, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems, Wildfire, Cumulative Impacts, and Alternatives. Hazardous Substances or Wastes Site Listing: The project site is not listed on any of the sites enumerated under Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code, which identify sites known to contain hazardous waste facilities, land designated as hazardous waste property, hazardous waste disposal sites and others. Public Review: The public review and comment period for the Draft EIR will be from March 1, 2024, to April 15, 2024. The Draft EIR for the Wiley Canyon Project is available for review at the following locations: City of Santa Clarita City Hall, City Clerk's Office Old Town Newhall Library 23920 Valencia Boulevard 24500 Main Street Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Santa Clarita, CA 91321 The Draft EIR for the Wiley Canyon Project is also available for public review on the City of Santa Clarita website at: https:Hsantaclarita.gov/planning/environmental-documents/ Written comments may be submitted to the City during the public review period to the contact person below. City of Santa Clarita Planning Division Attn. Erika Iverson, Senior Planner — Wiley Canyon Project Draft EIR 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Comments may also be submitted via email to eiverson@santa-clarita.com. Date: February 21, 2024 Name/Title: Erika Iverson, Senior Planner Telephone: (661) 255-4962 Wiley Canyon Project Draft EIR Page 12 Packet Pg. 67 G= DININ / A ;e i o I o i r z �w ✓� z�i III Oias a ; Zw� ti I Q 2U� LU NZ- > J — W / e�;g:3d 4 Al ! iv o I q lj sa _ El I p a.i. Id 1 V ��°✓ a III __._ __ R� a=$= M N O N U v d 0 c m U d s 10 a O d V O Z z w 0 c d L N Q Packet Pg. 69 Tuesday, March 19, 2024 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Chair Burkhart called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL City Council Chambers Chair Burkhart, Vice -Chair Ayala, Commissioner Berlin, Commissioner Eichman, and Commissioner Ostrom were present. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Ostrom led the flag salute. COMMISSION SECRETARY ANNOUNCEMENT Rachel Clark gave the Secretary Announcement. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Berlin and seconded by Commissioner Eichman to approve the minutes from the February 20, 2024 meeting. Said motion carried by a voice -vote of 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM 1 WILEY CANYON MIXED -USE PROJECT (MASTER CASE 20-238) A request to allow for the development of a mixed -use project consisting of a senior -living facility with 130 independent living units, 61 assisted -living units, and 26 memory care beds; 8,914 square feet of commercial floor area; and 379 multi -family apartment units. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Planning Commission: 1. Receive the staff presentation on the Project Description and Draft Environmental Impact Report; 2. Open the public hearing to receive testimony from the applicant and the public; 3. Provide direction to staff on the hearing schedule and project concerns; and 4. Continue the public hearing. Erika Iverson, Associate Planner, and Ian Pari, Senior Traffic Engineer, presented on the item. Public comment portion of the public hearing opened at 6:41p.m. Tom Clark, the applicant, presented on behalf of the project. Vice -Chair Ayala asked the applicant about construction site dust and debris control measures. The applicant responded that they will comply with all local requirements with standard procedures and specialized equipment. She also asked about the plan for the removed oak trees. The applicant stated that the replacement oaks will be planted on -site. Vice -Chair Ayala asked about the number of visitor parking spaces provided sharing concern for off -site overflow parking. Erika Iverson responded that they are providing parking in excess of the code -required parking noting that guest and commercial parking will be shared. There were five public speakers in support of the project noting the project brings sidewalks, bike paths, improved roads, improved traffic safety, improved public safety, new businesses, and avoiding potentially less -desirable project alternatives. There were 17 public speakers in opposition to the project noting concerns of increased traffic congestion, increased density, reduced sight lines, light pollution, loss of wildlife corridor, off - site overflow parking, General Plan inconsistency, lack of hospital services, noise pollution, and emergency evacuation timing. There were five public speakers that held a neutral position or did not disclose their position on the project noting reduced commercial space, need for skilled labor, noise mitigation, overflow parking, air pollution, and impacts on wildlife corridor. The applicant responded to the public speaker's comments and was available for Commissioner questions. There were 15 written comment cards, six in support, eight in opposition, and one holding a neutral or did not disclose their position. Public comment portion of the public hearing closed at 8:02 p.m. Both Commissioner Ostrom and Chair Burkhart requested a detailed geology analysis. Commissioner Eichman asked about the nearby athletic club driveway. Erika Iverson noted that the driveway in the roundabout would close and there are additional driveways available. Commissioner Eichman also asked if the balconies in Planning Areas 2 and 3 are usable or decorative. Erika Iverson responded that they are usable and part of the open space requirement as a private amenity. Commissioner Eichman shared concerns regarding parking, pedestrian safety, and emergency evacuation. Page 2 Commissioner Eichman requested a rendering that includes the sound wall along Interstate 5 and landscaping of the wall, information on Wiley Canyon Elementary traffic flow, ADA guest parking locations in relation to each building and their entrances, and timing of road development with traffic management plans. Vice -Chair Ayala requested traffic simulations for the existing residences and roundabouts, information on the flood system, and statistics of drivers (owners of vehicles) that live in other senior living facilities. Vice -Chair Ayala also asked where emergency vehicles or shuttles would park at the senior living facility. Erika Iverson pointed to the parking roundabout at the entrance of the facility. Commissioner Berlin requested a rendering of the wall with landscaping, requested clarification on emergency manager qualifications, and evacuation procedures with a simulation. She also asked who writes and approves the evacuation plan and if tenants are notified as part of lease. Commissioner Berlin shared concerns regarding neighborhood traffic and parking intrusion and senior living occupancy timing and impacts on the facility residents from construction noise. Commissioner Berlin requested information on a potential children's play area, green space for animals, an additional entrance on Wiley Canyon Road or Calgrove for use as an emergency exit, a rendering of the entrance, outreach meetings with Mulberry Home Park and communities surrounding the project, a condition of approval to reduce heavy construction to be completed by 3:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, disclosure to potential tenants due to close proximity to freeway and very high fire severity zone, operational Electric Vehicle chargers, construction management plan, condition of approval for on -site construction parking, timing of the noise study and if the sound wall was taken into account, Hawkbryn construction sound mitigation, additional landscape buffer between the mobile home park and the project, bus stop improvements and information on service and distance from senior facility, potential backup plan for right-of-way acquisition, Wiley and Lyons intersection improvements, Wabuska and Hawkbryn signal and roundabout functionality, pedestrian crossings, fire and brush clearance in undeveloped areas, landscape plan along northside near mobile home park, renderings of the sound wall from the eastside homes and looking towards Towsley Canyon. Chair Burkhart requested a parking comparison of County -approved projects to the Wiley Canyon project, referencing apartments on Valle del Oro. He also requested information on repair timelines and measures due to wear and tear from oversized construction vehicles. Patrick Leclair, Planning Manager, reminded the Commission of the proposed public hearing schedule and requested direction. The Commission discussed potential schedules. A motion was made by Commissioner Eichman and seconded by Commissioner Berlin to continue the item to June 18, 2024. Said motion carried by a roll -call vote of 5-0. Page 3 RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Lisa Eichman, Commissioner SECONDER: Renee Berlin, Commissioner AYES: Eichman, Ostrom, Burkhart, Berlin, Ayala PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Patrick Leclair gave the Planning Manager's report, providing a meeting forecast. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT There were no reports from the Planning Commission. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Addressing the Planning Commission was Lynne Plambeck regarding oak tree replacement and Amazon trailers on a property located at the northeastern corner of Sierra Highway and Newhall Avenue (behind Carls Jr) and the selection of olive trees at a new bus stop near the Needham Ranch Parkway and Newhall Avenue intersection. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Ostrom and seconded by Vice -Chair Ayala to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 p.m. ATTEST: PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR Page 4 O Agenda Item: 2 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING MANAGER APPROVAL: DATE: June 18, 2024 SUBJECT: Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project (Master Case 20-238) APPLICANT: Wiley Canyon, LLC LOCATION: West side of Wiley Canyon Road, between Calgrove Boulevard and Hawkbryn Avenue CASE PLANNER: Erika Iverson RECOMMENDED ACTION Planning Commission: 1. Receive the staff presentation in response to Planning Commission direction; 2. Continue the public hearing to receive testimony from the applicant and the public; 3. Provide direction to staff on the hearing schedule; and 4. Continue the public hearing. REQUEST The applicant, Wiley Canyon, LLC, is requesting approval of an Architectural Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Development Review, Minor Use Permit, Oak Tree Permit, and Tentative Map to allow for the development of a mixed -use project consisting of a senior -living facility with 130 independent living units, 61 assisted -living units, and 26 memory care beds; 8,914 square feet of commercial floor area; and 379 multi -family apartment units. BACKGROUND At the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on March 19, 2024, staff presented an overview of the proposed Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project (Project), and the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Following the staff presentation, applicant's presentation, and testimony from the public, the Planning Commission requested additional information on various topics and directed staff to bring back additional information prior to considering a recommendation on the Project. The intent of this meeting is to respond to Planning Commission Page 1 Packet Pg. 262 O direction from the March 191h public hearing and to receive direction from the Planning Commission on the public hearing schedule and preparation of a recommendation on the Project. Staff is proposing the following dates for the project hearing schedule: March 19, 2024 Project introduction, summary ofDEIR, and public comments June 18, 2024 Applicant Response to Planning Commission and public comments TBD Response to Planning Commission and public comments TBD Final EIR and project determination MARCH 19, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION FOLLOW-UP At the March 191h meeting, staff provided an overview of the project and DEIR. The Planning Commission requested clarification and additional information on a number of topics from staff and the applicant as follows: • Parking Plan • Traffic Circulation and Access • Incorporation of Residential Amenities • Landscaping at Project Boundaries • Additional Renderings • Discussion on the Geotechnical Analysis • Evacuation Operations for the Senior Facility • Construction Management Plan • Community Outreach Following the March 191h public hearing, staff met with the applicant to outline the questions and requests for additional information on the above topics and outline a schedule to respond to questions in advance of the pending June 181h public hearing. Since that meeting, the applicant has worked to revise the site plan based on the feedback from the Planning Commission and public comments. A revised site plan, along with site sections that detail changes that have been made to the plan, are included as an attachment for consideration by the Planning Commission and will be further discussed in the applicant presentation at the June 18th public hearing. Additional discussion on the revised proposal as it relates to the topics above is provided as follows: Parking Plan In response to comments raised by the Planning Commission regarding the adequacy of the parking provided, the applicant has revised the site plan to accommodate 50 additional parking spaces for a total of 1,016 parking spaces provided. In order to provide additional parking, the design of the landscape berm along the west property line, adjacent to the Caltrans right of way was modified. Due to the impending Page 2 Packet Pg. 263 O construction of the 18-foot tall Metro sound wall, slated to commence in late 2024, the applicant has removed the proposed berm along the westerly property line of Planning Area 3 (the berm is proposed to remain along Planning Area 1). Elimination of the berm allows for additional parking stalls at the south west portion of the project site. A section detail is provided below showing the landscape buffer of approximately 23 feet between the parking and the Caltrans right-of-way. There is an existing chain -link fence along the property line, which the applicant is proposing to replace with a new wrought iron fence. There is an additional 23 feet of Caltrans right-of-way before the new 18- foot tall Metro sound wall for a total of over 40 feet between the Metro wall and the parking area (Section with key map is attached). GOLDEN 11- rAY 5[I cIANPuL EIaST, cat CHAI N LINK FENCE PROP. P. Z WX CONC. v-D FENCE As summarized in the table below, the Mixed Use Development Standards of the Unified Development Code (UDC) require that the Project provide a total of 943 parking spaces. The Project proposal originally included 966 parking spaces, which resulted in 23 parking spaces above the UDC requirement. A parking demand study was also prepared for the Project and concluded that the parking supply of 966 parking spaces was adequate to accommodate all uses on the Project site, with the peak parking demand calculated to be 734 spaces. Land Use Parking Ratio Units Required Proposed Spaces Spaces Multi -family 2+ Bedrooms 2 covered/Unit 203 units 406 406 Multi -family Studio/1 Bedroom 1 covered/Unit 176 units 176 196 Multi -family - Guest 0.5/Unit 379 units 190 194 Independent Senior 0.5/Unit 130 units 65 65 Independent Senior - 0.125/Unit 130 units 17 17 Page 3 Packet Pg. 264 O Guest Residential Care Facility 0.5Bed or Unit 87 units 44 44 Commercial 1/200 SF 8,914 SF 45 45 Unassigned N/A N/A 0 49 TOTAL 943 1,016 With the proposed revisions to the site plan, the project would provide a total of 1,016 parking spaces, an excess of 73 parking spaces than required by the UDC. The applicant has proposed to designate 24 of the surplus parking to the multi -family units (49 surplus parking would remain unassigned). As proposed, the revised site plan would provide 602 covered (garage and carport) parking spaces designated for residential units and 194 surface parking spaces for residential guests. In total, 796 parking spaces would be allocated for the multi -family units resulting in a ratio of 2.1 spaces per unit. As indicated in the table above, the Project proposal provides the number of parking spaces required by the UDC for the Senior Living Facility and the commercial component of the Project. As mentioned above, there are 49 surplus parking spaces that would remain unassigned, which could be utilized for all users of the Project, commercial and guests alike. The Planning Commission requested information regarding the parking requirements for multi -family projects in the City that were approved under jurisdiction of Los Angeles County (LA County). There is not a direct comparison of parking ratios applied to multi -family development under LA County code and parking ratios for mixed -use developments under the UDC. However, there is a distinct difference between LA County and City parking requirements for residential guest parking. LA County requires 1/4 space per unit for residential guests, where the City's UDC requires '/2 space per unit for residential guests in a mixed -use development. Some specific multi -family developments located along Newhall Avenue and Sierra Highway that were approved by LA County include the Valle del Oro apartments on the north side of Newhall Avenue and the Park Sierra Apartments and River Circle Apartments off of Jakes Way. The overall parking ratios provided at these developments range from 1.1 to 2.3 spaces per unit, inclusive of resident and guest parking. The Planning Commission also requested additional information on the location of ADA parking stalls around the Senior Living Facility. The number of required ADA parking stalls is dictated by the California Building Code. In this case, Planning Area 1 has identified 12 ADA parking stalls, or just over 5% of the parking stalls in Planning Area 1 in conformance with the building code requirements. Four of those stalls are proposed to be located at the main entrance to the Senior Living Facility. The balance are proposed to be located in pairs around the building at entrance points to the commercial space and secondary entrances to the Senior Living Facility. The final location of ADA parking stalls will be verified during the building permit plan check Page 4 Packet Pg. 265 O process, subject to the California Building Code. Additionally, the Senior Living Facility has been designed with a covered entrance to allow for drop off and pick up of residents. Incorporation of Residential Amenities In response to inquiries from the Planning Commission regarding amenities for children and pets, the applicant has submitted a revised landscape concept for consideration. The updated landscape concept includes a children's play area with playground equipment and bench seating. In addition, a dog park has been incorporated and several pet waste stations have been identified throughout the project site. Landscaping at Project Boundaries and Additional Renderings In response to feedback received at the March 19th meeting, the applicant revised the site plan, to shift the Senior Living Facility south. This shift results in tightening of outdoor plaza space and reduced landscaping around the base of the Senior Living Facility, but allows for a wider landscape planter along the north property line, adjacent to the mobile home park. As seen in the revised section below, the landscape planter has been widened from 5 to 11 feet. Of particular note, there is approximately 30 feet of existing buffer by way of undeveloped land on the mobile home park property, between the proposed Project property line wall and the nearest mobile home units. This represents a total buffer of 41 feet between the mobile home units and the parking area of the proposed Project. The applicant has submitted a rendered view along the north property line to depict the north drive aisle and landscape area along the property line wall. The rendering and the complete section detail with key map are attached. In addition, the applicant has provided a rendering of the view toward the berm wall located along the westerly property line of Planning Area 1. As noted in the discussion above, the berm wall is proposed to remain as originally designed along the westerly property boundary of Planning Area 1. The 18-foot Metro sound wall stops at this point, where the Caltrans right-of-way expands to over 40 feet between the freeway Page 5 Packet Pg. 266 O and the Project property line. The section view is provided below with the full section details and key map provided as an attachment. FREEWAY v NOR`FBO'JND LANES DOST, Geotechnical Analysis .ar 1NaAR`r f.: "�) CAtTRAKS R 0081, I' -ON C MARK], E 5' HCH YtAU . W The Planning Commission requested additional information regarding the geotechnical analysis for the Project. The applicant's geotechnical consultant has prepared a response to the public hearing comments which is provided as an attachment. The geotechnical analysis for the Project includes recommendations for removal and re - compaction of soils in order to mitigate against the potential for liquefaction. Conditions of Approval would require conformance with all recommendations of the geotechnical report which would be required to be demonstrated on construction drawings and verified through the grading and building plan check processes. Traffic and Circulation Wiley Canyon Road is currently two -lanes along the Project frontage to Calgrove Boulevard and there are no signalized intersections along this stretch of roadway. As discussed at the March 191h meeting, roadway improvements associated with the Project include the installation of three new roundabout intersections 1) at the project entrance on Wiley Canyon Road; 2) at Canerwell and Wiley Canyon Road; and 3) at Calgrove Boulevard and Wiley Canyon Road. In addition, a Class I trail (two-lane bicycle path and separated, five-foot wide pedestrian path) would be installed along the project frontage on Wiley Canyon Road from the project entrance to Calgrove Boulevard. Although, Wiley Canyon Road is designated by the General Plan as a Secondary Highway, which is a four -lane road configuration, along the Project frontage, the proposed Project improvements would maintain a two-lane roadway configuration. Based on the Project Traffic Assessment, the proposed Project would generate approximately 3,500 daily trips. The General Plan had assumed a build out of the Page 6 Packet Pg. 267 O Project site that would generate approximately 27,000 daily trips, which had informed the designation of Wiley Canyon Road as a four -lane roadway in the General Plan. As discussed at the March 191h meeting, the traffic volumes, inclusive of the current and expected future traffic volumes, plus the traffic volumes for the Project, along this portion of Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard would be between 9,000 and 10,000 vehicle trips per day. This is well below the maximum capacity of a two-lane roadway, which has a maximum capacity of 16,000 to 18,000 vehicle trips per day. Due to the significantly lower daily trips generated by the proposed Project (3,500) than had been contemplated by the General Plan (27,000) for this site, there is not a nexus between the Project and build out of a four -lane roadway. Based on the projected future traffic volumes, including the Project trips, it is not anticipated that this portion of Wiley Canyon Road will reach the need to be four -lanes because these anticipated volumes fall well within the maximum capacity of a two-lane roadway. Nonetheless, Traffic and Transportation staff has reviewed the existing right- of -way width of Wiley Canyon Road and determined that, in the unlikely event four -lanes ever became necessary with future development, at its narrowest point, Wiley Canyon Road could be designed with four vehicle lanes and a sidewalk on either side of the roadway. The applicant is working on preparing a traffic simulation to demonstrate the incorporation of the Project vehicle trips into the circulation on Wiley Canyon Road and expects to bring that back at a future meeting. However, the Transportation Analysis has informed the proposed roadway improvements, based on the traffic volumes expected to be generated by the Project. As it relates to vehicle access to the site, there is one access point to the Project along Wiley Canyon Road. A secondary access is not required from a traffic circulation perspective. The Fire Department does require a secondary access for emergency service only, which is provided to Wabuska Street. The Wabuska Street access will be gated with a Fire Department knox box or similar device. This gate will not provide pedestrian access or any non -emergency vehicle access. As a result, there is little expectation that parking associated with the Project would occur on Wabuska Street because there is no direct pedestrian access at this location. Evacuation Operations for the Senior Living Facility The operator of the Senior Living Facility would be required, as part of its licensing process, to prepare and maintain an emergency disaster plan, which includes planning for evacuation events. The applicant is preparing to address questions by the Planning Commission as it relates to the evacuation procedures for the Senior Living Facility at the June 18th meeting. Construction Management Plan Construction management is addressed by staff through implementation of the project Page 7 Packet Pg. 268 O Conditions of Approval. At the March 191h meeting, the Planning Commission requested information about construction management for both the proposed roadway improvements and the on -site construction. As part of the plan check process for street improvements, applicants are required to submit construction phasing and traffic control/detour plans for the roadway improvements. Separately, before grading permits are issued, the applicant is required to prepare a haul route application and comply with specific operation standards for the dirt haul operation including hours of operation between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., provision for street sweeping services along the haul route, and providing traffic control and flagging personnel along the haul route. In addition, the applicant is required to repair any pavement damaged by the dirt hauling operation before a building permit is issued, and must make a security deposit before a grading permit is issued, for haul route pavement repair. The Planning Commission asked specifically how the posted 3-ton weight limit on Wiley Canyon Road is addressed and expressed interest in keeping construction related traffic on the project site. The 3-ton limit is in place to protect the road and it is expected that construction equipment would exceed the limitation. However, as discussed above, conditions of approval, typical of all development projects, would require pavement repair along the haul route to repair any damage to Wiley Canyon Road related to those activities. As it relates to onsite construction, the applicant is working to prepare a construction phasing plan which would identify the construction sequence for the various project components and identify the on -site construction staging areas to accommodate parking and equipment storage for the duration of construction activities. This ensures ample space is allocated onsite for all phases of construction to eliminate construction related parking off -site. Community Outreach In response to comments by the Planning Commission, the applicant has conducted additional outreach to the community. Specifically, the applicant held two community meetings, on June 10, 2024 and June 11, 2024 on the Project site. Invitations to these meetings were sent to the HOA groups of Hidden Valley, Rancho La Salle, and The Oaks, as well as residents of the Mulberry Mobile Home Park and the Oakridge neighborhood. NEXT STEPS The applicant has submitted a revised site plan for consideration by the Planning Commission. There are items that the applicant continues to work to address and would be provided to the Planning Commission at a future meeting. At this time, the comment period on the DEIR has closed. There were 9 letters received from responsible agencies, 4 letters from interested organizations, and 45 public comment letters from 29 individual commenters. In addition, a form letter comment card was submitted with 79 signatures from residents in the Mulberry Mobile Home Park. Staff is working with the applicant and the technical consultants to address the comments that have been received and prepare the Final EIR. Page 8 Packet Pg. 269 O Based on feedback from the Planning Commission on June 18th, staff anticipates returning to the Planning Commission with response to outstanding questions and/or additional comments at a date that is yet to be determined. This is expected to be followed by an additional meeting to consider a recommendation on the Project and Final EIR with responses to all comments. CORRESPONDENCE Separate from response on the DEIR, staff has received one email addressed to the Planning Commission which is provided as an attachment. Additionally, several written comment cards were submitted after the close of the Planning Commission hearing on May 21, 2024. Those written comment cards are attached. ATTACHMENTS Revised Site Plan Revised Conceptual Landscape Plan Site Sections Rendering - Interior North Drive Aisle Rendering - Berm Wall Geotecnical Memo Planning Commission Correspondence Comment Cards Page 9 Packet Pg. 270 ((8£Z-OZOW) MfWd ash paxlw uoAueo Aeim g d M :sg s nae�' v ILH- I � aCSaLEgaS€ @e _ m c w eanaa'gs` e c - if '62 LP �E�a���Aapa�s���a9asggs! ape }a �a =ama 5§S.31i9aF �sS _E `aQ mr m a s ni F ` p,y ew Bd SEpc fl$ g`aS6 b':-ALL 5de��n�ba �g�s a�aeas£L £O�tlee ;as�a$ IF c IL EtlsEm'tl m:s?a` -aS� i E`eige=g=gamr omrn =im= gE 'a amEytlB�ozs!!�a.� earL 1� 1.10 oil rT I-r CC` ueld ade3spue-1 jen;daouoo pasinaU :;uauayoe;;CL br i 9 1 a Q, o a�5 �8d GP�G0.GVE BMW r, Rj • cu W, �_J Ucu / C` cu CU W mod N r- N a. d V ^^cu ILL ((qcz-ozow) ;oefoJd ash Pexlw uoAue:D Aeum) suol;oes em wewLioeuv A a u =�: 42 LM :- -i a- 0 ix - ,:c (nwo LAS cm C?) C14 cu a. cu cu V N (O£Z-OZOW);oafoad ash pax,W uoAueo AOI!M) suolpas a;is :4uauay3ej4v N LM , p' , ,, a W Z a � � UQ �ZW tnK NQZ ZQ XULLU Q J C I / Z N W = QLoJ (n QO H Z X W CP WWO oWm co_ Z 4 S CD U Lu Z cc m m m 0 U N U) U Cu C N C_ U U) i cm. o� r` N y� a. 9 o` @ V i cu a. CU cu cu U) / I O i cu CU W 4 N ((8£Z-OZOW) MfWd ash paxiw uOAUBO AOHM) SU01430S OM :;uauaMOV m �3 o� I �s [4�J Iceo \ oz X Ew W a� I� OW UJ —rI J 2 �U cn2 C Z � C9 I En QLo5 I �5 N<z Wo I Z � a E_. 11 U U Z U y U c O U N U) U cu E N C- U U) RJ cu cu CU [u i cu U) / 1 O cu CU IiE LO ti N CJ IL �a a co N Cb d d Y V cC d lk 2.f ALLAN E. SEWARD ENGINEERING GEOLOGY, INC. Geological And Geotechnical Consultants June 3, 2024 Wiley Canyon, LLC c/o Sheridan Ebbert Development 13120 Telfair Avenue Sylmar, CA 91342 Attention: Mr. Scott Sheridan Subject: Response to Public Hearing Comments Wiley Canyon Mixed -Use Project (Master Case 20-238) Reference: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Review of Tentative Tract Map, dated 5/26/21 Tentative Tract Map No. 083295 Santa Clarita, California Dated: June 15, 2021 — Job No.: 21-2593-4 Dear Mr. Sheridan: Job No. 24-2593-9 This letter has been prepared in response to public comments regarding the liquefaction potential for the proposed Wiley Canyon Mixed -Use project, raised by members of the public during the March 19, 2024 planning commission hearing. In particular, there was a concern regarding the performance of the proposed one- to four-story senior -living and multi -family structures during an earthquake if liquefaction occurs at the site. This company was founded by Allan E. Seward in 1978 and has performed numerous investigations in the Santa Clarita Valley. This firm is very familiar with the Santa Clarita Valley geologic and geotechnical soil conditions. Some of the more notable approved and constructed project investigations include the Newhall Ranch Specific Plan, Old Town Newhall Library, The Plaza at Golden Valley, and 3-story Santa Clarita Valley Medical Plaza Building. Review of the Seismic Hazard Zones Map for the Oat Mountain Quadrangle indicates that the subject site is located in a Seismic Hazard Zone of required investigation for soil liquefaction, which is typical for most of the alluvial valleys in the Santa Clarita Valley. The purpose of the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act is to delineate seismic hazard zones and direct permitting agencies (e.g., Cities) to withhold development permits for a site until the geologic and soil conditions of the project site are investigated and appropriate mitigation measures if any, are incorporated into the development plans. Liquefaction is a phenomenon where saturated sand and silt take on the 27825 Smyth Drive, Valencia, California 91355 661-294-0065 Packet Pg. 278 2.f Wiley Canyon, LLC Job No.: 24-2593-9 June 3, 2024 Page 2 of 2 characteristics of a liquid during the intense shaking of an earthquake. Structures founded on liquefied soils may experience subsidence and/or lateral movement, causing subsequent damage to the structure. The potential for liquefaction, and its possible consequences along with the mitigation measures, were analyzed based on a subsurface investigation discussed in the referenced report and the current standard of care for the profession. The analysis used an estimated Peak Ground Acceleration from a maximum considered earthquake and assumes a historic high ground water depth. The conclusion of this analysis was that the soils in upper 15 to 20 ft were susceptible to potential settlement. The recommended mitigation measure is ground improvements by removing the upper 15 to 20 ft of soil and replacing these excavated soils as a dense compacted fill. This removal and recompaction of the upper soils will be sufficient to mitigate the liquefaction and resulting settlements hazard to the proposed structures. This is a typical mitigation recommended in the Santa Clarita Valley for similar constructed projects. Our referenced geotechnical report has been reviewed by the City of Santa Clarita, the regulatory agency having jurisdiction over the project, and the City did not have any objection to the report findings and recommendations. In summary, the proposed structures will be safe against liquefaction hazard provided the recommended geotechnical liquefaction -mitigation measures (i.e., adequate removal and recompaction) as outlined in the referenced report are performed under observation and testing by the project geotechnical engineer of record. This opportunity to be of continued service is appreciated. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, Eric J eward, CEG 2110 Principal Engineering Geologist Vice President �\ ONA L CFD �0 CL NO. 2110 -+ CERTIFIED * ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST qTF OF CAOFG��\ Martin Neely, MS, GE 2937 Principal Geotechnical Engineer QROFESS/ON G� Z NO. 2937 m rn � EXP. 6/30/25 GT£CHN\G \OF cp'0F Allan E. Seward Engineering Geology, Inc. Geology and Geotec Packet Pg. 279 2.g Rachel A. Clark From: Annette Lucas <calgrovecorridor@aol.com> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2024 12:20 AM To: Rachel A. Clark Subject: Public Outreach for Wiley Project CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. May 31, 2024 Planning Commissioners Rachel Clark, Planning Secretary Re: Directed Neighborhood Outreach for the Wiley project. Hello Commissioners and Planning Secretary Per the Planning Commissioners direction to Tom Clark, the developer for the Wiley Project, is there a date before the June 18,2024 Planning Commission meeting that Mr. Clark is required to follow up with the neighborhood meetings? Also, is there a notification process Mr. Clark needs to follow? Mr. Tom Clark called me, Annette Lucas, and ask if I would contact my group? I do not have a formal group but I have some interested parties email addresses, not the entire Oakridge neighborhood. Isn't this Mr.Clarks' responsibility no notify residents of his meetings? And what is required? In his phone conversation with me he said, I (Annette Lucas) have a group or am well known about the Wiley Project and would I notify my contacts of the dates June 10th and June 11th. for his outreach meetings. He said that he had contacted the three HOA's and their meeting would be on the 10th and Oakridge and other parties would be the 11th both at 6:00 pm. at on Barn on the property. I ask if he notified the Mulberry Mobile home residents and his reply was he had notified the Property Management Company and they had no position and called the park manager. That is not notifying residents of the Mulberry Mobile home park in my humble opinion but may be all he is required to do. Please advise at your earliest convenience Annette Lucas Packet Pg. 280 ash paxiw uoAueo Aeim spaeo;uawwoo :;uauayoe;;v z N O O ca a� C U C 'O a o_ an cn c ro ro � �ic � Y U a o O cn o0 0 U) a (n — m C E U E CO N 0 .� C .E .L O Q (� m -0 cz a C a) ((a 7 Q cn a) o � U a) O L U) = .3 c uu E aU E E w f =o o � U ^� 0 3 a n } O L) O E. U E V1 0 E CI- EU O ov o a) 'C -O F N C ro 0) C y w N 00 0 E E J o U O O 0- 0 � a) 0- o p c C� O Y U O d V.. ) Q 0 y N N Q a z U) I ro U) U) a� U a) .0 a`) L 0 a) U) c m E E O U C a� .� t3 -- y �o E-.p U a) '- Cc -_ �� ar W W 3 � � o O C) V .0 0 N Q T= W D U)N ro C , Cn i C) � cn Qo Z M O $ W J C o O L i C 0) LL W 0 'a < _ N > A E� W cr C� o�- g U w 0 C N a7 i - a a s o P L 3 A T— oo N Ch IL d t„) c a 0 0 0 0 U O Y U al N ro ca U co c ro O L L 3 0 a� a� Ln 0) 2 ca a� ro O a) L Y U a) L U a) U) ro a) a 71 t N M 3 ash paxiw uoAueo Aeim spaeo;uawwoo :;uawg3e;;v U UO a Q ova U � a � 3 v-- U a) A -- a) U E L C � 3 E o E> Vl OU O ,5)0� a) y N 0 o L_ :o in o a)LQo C c c o E in O O to m U "E v, o E m 0 � � U .O tc a 0 0) m C O a) a) -D 70 0 U U c°0E 0_ U O 0 C U O -0 a) ro c O U a) ro C > C c6 O C .O Cn O U a) n o E a) Q) aa) .? o .� o o o_ o c6 a) E c 0 o m ,E O ro a) a a)O a)U �> .- -0 O .? � •C A c9 C .Ln O (z 0) «. En a) U > N a) ro E -0 rn _ c 41 N C C (n p Q) �.-0C2 O 0. J Q O O N co cm »- N c r � U- a a� E o v c� O a) d U L m c Z3 0 a >_ C � (6 �C U_ C C CO 7 —7 E C E O O E U O co ac E ° a) L C ro 0 0 a) C O O U U CZ Q) r U O7 U) �? o a c >, O CU N Q) C Q) a 0 0 0) U C 0) C_ U >_ C N =1 U E E ° U a C C 0 c .0 N - L N 0 O � C O a7 CO �-o C O a) (d � o O O O Q. U) Q) 0 c > O O O p) Q m aa) o ca Z C L a) m - 7 O Q o 3 ash paxiw uoAueo Aeim spaeo;uawwoo :;uawg3e;;v t N �� L O ab — C � E •— � a -0m c ro ro a) �a c ui aQ) c O of O � LQ .0 — ro C U D Z 71 E O U O O N a) L E C ■ - E m c E I a o U c cu OL a) ro- N Q a U) c O a� —O L c .3 E `n o E COE O o U =a) .3 0 3 N �ro O o m � E aa)) U c O .S2 E V1 m E Q p U U z , cz c c N _ro Q CD Oo a) a) Ir a) cn O C J _o ro 70 3 E o U a) O W 0 0 aP a D ro c m O En 0 O Y O U a) t ro• Q a z � N � m � d S fl :o 3 4) V i 04 W V o o) C W � OD Z y N Q Mo W a) cc cr v =N y U ��11 ` iZ p� Cry o z CL `Y �/ , o 0 t Ur) 1 o cr O o) W cr N 2 c v i co L o� g a Q) U O w U C in :D @C a a 0 rn 4� d t M � C a) E � Q U c O _ a) (D V! ai 7 cu c rn J5 M co N Ch IL d Y C� �- 0 0 c 0 0 �a U O Y U m a) a) cn U ca c ro _T CU a) L 0 a a) a) N a) co a) co Z) O T L Y U a) L U O U) cv 7 ash paxiw uoAueo Aeim spaeo;uawwoo :;uawg3e;;v v N I °° 11 J N a) 0) � N '� Ch U O_ R1 a) d �' Z o T ^' 9 a cn(D o a 0 m U U C C Jp � ro:3 _0 o? /n� f a 0 �� .- 0 o�!m U ro C� O 3 `rs (� N .c U O ��ID D) � i 2 C D C ° ° N Y O CD 0 13 fb ,1 Or E o a°>i E o °' '- E o J oCl) -0°� ti m o N c in V a O 0 C o C O O P C �. o o n� MA, ^ T >, 0 0 ca o 1 Jl� J OC E 2 a) .� ai oCU ff a2 C),Q� 3 J 3 �Qoo Qo� ash paxiw i T O ab :C U � C C '- � a a) � ro �ro ro � a. ui ro � C O N O U O O N o� ro o_ Lr- O O O U O in a) E O C C: � a a C O C N ro '0 ro o U 0 U O cn =_ a 3 E N W O E U E C O O U ^I C O 3 T O O } O) r (D c0 Z C cn O U r^ O E E C EU O m , En ca ro e N �N1 i a- �O JOAUE 3 Aelm) spa 20 4uauauao3 :;uauayoe;;d � v N \� Z o O C O ro O E O . C O U N 0) Q +f C ) O m c \ cn O \ U C C U ~ o G ai C CO LO co N CJ IL Y V c d 0 m E 0 c O L a W U 0 Y U m 7 ash paxiw uoAue:D Aeum) spied;uewwoo :;uauayoeuv N a) cn O CD Q a) _ Q T Q) ro C i � O � T 41 != c0 U U_ a) C L E o E T 0-0 U Lo O C N o L +� O ro U) o c O C Q O E .� O _O " E o E a o O U � ro C O a) a) V2) a) C a) E L E O o O ° a a) a) 2 C O U i ro T E:.° O ro U -a cn " E a) a) (D .? T o (0 C Q O a) E c m m = m � U O C � c ro 0) Co cn a) C U T ° CZ CD c N C C o a) a _ — m o ° c Q o 0 ca co p)� N U -0d C C E o u o .� d U L ro C O ° 0) > C � ro C U C C ro � —7 E c E O E ° o ro d = E a) > C L C ro 0 0 cn c O O U U ro O L U O) U) o -o c U U) O C Q) Q o E O O) U C 0) C C Q) = U E E °c U � C C o ro c u) N o L c in.n Co N O o m ro M -0 C O a) RS p O _0 a) Q U) O = C > O O _o ° ro a) a) O O ro ro Z L LD a) _ O Q o 3: ash paxiw uoAueo Aeim spaeo;uawwoo :;uauayoe;;v ti co t N N L �) om a a, r c � E a ao Co tm N H H C O O c0, au) z C E o croi c•ca� d.c p O c 3 0 cco v U �L E ° �° 0'- \ a �. ° c' d ° z a� c ■� E E c c o� a) o y 0 Q .y i U co = E O) O W ° o _� E d ++ > N U H N cc Ci d y Q N U i M N O O O O Z C.) a O O_ *' O � O U N c m ti LL L �� E y •�. .1••• UE c .- % �� F- o E ES c $ 03 E: ro E� v L° a) o 7 U � N O W , y } - 0 C C � Q fn N C m - a co a)ca L co om __" o ° as o r H Q co o ° U) o ° > 0 3 U y N co i) L O. Ep •� •1 V) C Y E U $ ai 0 CLi '� o•- s o o o c cm v �" ' U c y '• T a�i ° c uoi ai a co a. «� m Oa r a) (M d (b i C ``D 2 ¢ a z U) Ir W � 2 k a n pa |vy uoAueo I ) sa2Q;awwoo:;awq,q; co §/* /% K etE #& 6 \ik ff \_\/ \ E o 0 E/ CL \ 0 0 u = eke ¥° £2c tM >c \e5 Cg E> =a �00 /E f % CD0 \/ 00£ -a§ 77° .co E§ 2E a« \/\ -§ coa E 0 0 k 2 S S £ \/0 \\ = 0 § a co \ cCLE 0E0/ />70f k0 //( £E %e2 a0 /]. 0) \ % _ _ _ co S 7 q 0 ¥ � f cz E { E a) ==2 Ea \ƒ0 \\ a« \ \ E 7 o § ° o \ �ocz \\_ © 9 b k( 0 o § 2 0 0 2 2- 2-0o °&° _ >,# §07 B��k 0 a) co %�§� / ) r § 0 k00 t )--0 Ea /f\ ° 20 « �— % �20� 2 z ®=_ 2/M /.05 1 o < § 2 ash paxiw uoAueo Aeim spaeo;uawwoo :;uawg3e;;v rn co N N L a) _. L� a O co U 2J C Y ■1■i c COCD c o l a +, CO v CaC ro ro 14 CM r ro Co C `� C 0- CD � o E c .% U .. W "- d C� O OO -0 c Ali 3p Q V U ■�■icu N L% � `� c y U E .� c ro L Q) J Z c ■i E w c U oo I O ro E Anc Q a ° c W ro rncoE � 1..� > j c ❑- C O cu V Q� w N ro V ro ¢ a) U ? y (n c i c U o Z ro t� a) U CL CL ` (� Q 4.O 0 O r � i r C W c3 �p U E N w cr v E c �r a m ~ 3 o ca ` � ov Q u a) •• 3 E j E o oE ro Ea, g 0 o � U w a`) a) o n a)r, o ^ 0 O Ln tm Eca 0- y cN o CL 1 m ��CL p m j U ro co c O ~ .00 C, U ti O c O 3 y a�i 1p ) s O- O O c cYi RA EO QI aj, O V V N E p) L I�o .0 _ O .C— 4) ! aroi ro c � H ai ¢ N aroi ac) m E m C n- c ��'� Q if Cn cr cl W m / G) „ a n pa |vy uoAueo Aeim saeo;awwoo:;awq,q; FZ S$® /% q £fE #t Ch \ik CL f? y C c E o a) Co Ea o \/ S/ a o#O 20 ago 5E = C: 5 = \ E ? 3 S E> ce U)00 /E \ m ° 0 \£ 00 0§ \\° .co E\ /E /e a)E\ a: \)\ -G = 0 E 0 0 k2S Sc £2e o 2 ca u G 1 o ® a) f t � 0 ca k±E kc 900 »2 \ 0 \ \ n e22 £E co m —o 0 \/a /cm _ _ _ §=K2 E7 of=§ :3 / E 0 2 E c o— E¥ \±of S/ % \ a\E/_ \§ ° \ h o aw \/_ a ; _ co .0 8 0 2 -c 2 > 7\\ƒ °E` = 3 > k ca 0 %°/ ttn f a) $ E CO 7 E e% o% G tm /2o a « E a)o mkt\ o R�cc %ez >_C® mot= /E\ E=8 -j < o ¥ < o 2 ash paxiw uoAueo Aeim spaeo;uawwoo :;uauayoe;;v N () T O m a) U -C C '— :3 o_ -0 Q) �N cro ro ° � c U5 Y O O a) a) U co O °O N — a C C CC CC U C 0 a) u ) E U .E ..- c ._ �� O � ca a' cz C C a) U _m o Q E N a)0 .2 U O N L U) a) E .0 W 0 E U E C O U 03 o — a`) } J z rJ ro o E� ° N 4.Q U C rz O Q 0 V EU y ••'� O U 0 ro ov° : a) C z co �o a) Z a) J � Z C 0 <<J ro F 0 � C E 0 U a) cr a) O o_ O C O C E 0 U ,I � U W a) � o a) ro : cn a) L O v U O U) O O Y m r� ro• a y m c� a ) m ro a z N a a a) m E �r a s c c N C O E N f0 U a) U �t � w 3 o S o 0 w Z N C Q o i W � ai m 0 ro G m C d) L U) Q O Z L. �p o o C7 W a W � O L.c .3 6 W W S m � � Q O O y y C W S O U w 0 C C � E o c ro a a r` ~ O t i t N ash paxiw uoAueo Aeim spaeo;uawwoo :;uawg3e;;v `1 � v � V v O U „v C N � N -7 t 3 U _� o 0 � U O Q Y � O U L o 3 U a� y a) ro U _U a) L c L 3 E o E T in oU O ,5) o fl 0 CO L 'w O a U 0 0 N C C Q O E "U) U 0 ui to o E U) _0 0 T U CM -6 O 0) ro C O N O � 0 U) o ro Q a) E U O 0 C U c o ro c 0 O U U) C jT C ro , C .0 U) O ro U O Q 0 ro E o a,o> o °) o . o o 0-.U) co E c 0 0 °7 E L O O C > (CO .� O �__ 0) Cc U ro N O O mE-o°) cc C C �. Q 7 0 Q c J Q O O N N C L � U D d C C Y 7 � E o E d U D o >_ c �C U_ C C ro C E c E 0 E U O ro Q � E N � 0 Z C L C ro O � a c C 0 O U U ro o � U C c o _T .0 U � a) c o Q o E 0 0) U C C_ U > .0 .0 7 U E E ° U -0 C C O ro ' C co o.0 N _0 cZ N 0 O m c o ro ro �-0 C 0 N ro O 0 -0 O Q to N 0 C >, O O 0) Q O ro E O 0 czz � a a E - 0 Q 0 3: ash paxiw uoAueo Aeim spaeo;uawwoo :;uawg3e;;v t N N o U .0 C Ca c ro as � C � Y ro Q� Q� O o0 in L LD a (n = C E O O U u,)= E U .E c lL p E n 2 RS C U N ro� Q C O cn C .3 FBI E o E U E c O � U O 3: a) } U O) mro � o a O E aa)i O 0 U N O yFn cn V1 E a Eu O U � t6 F O + � c a) d�ID oa L S' C 0 ro E E O .0 O o_ Q O c r o V U y? U O 0 a :1 ro U) O .� O O U � a) *' U ro• ' aca y a) f6 N a a z 4 3 m a ro U cn a) U a) a) N t O co c m E E O U C a) _Q � L C N 0 E O L �� C m U � L 3 o O C v U H `a o H N Q cr) =O w C 'N O cf) L Q 0- Z 4+ O m O U a w i O O 5 m w d o (n > N 15 C w E O (D U o w c C a) C � co a c. O t 3 C C a) U o_ I ash paxiw uoAueo Aeim spaeo;uawwoo :;uawg3e;;v v j U CD (6 N N tJ Ch 3 Eo C E .a) -Fu o +�-U a) > C 3 E O c ro U C C mom ° E Vv Ql ° O O U O O c p E -0 �` 5.... 7 O C Q n U '� E lV NOE o° I N C cn a ro o U o m ro U cn -0 O U `© Uco -• , Q L E _O C o E .o o ° U C� a ai ° c a ' O E c� U o U1 m U V C T OCU ro m Q> (n O ro U .0 U _ E Ems' 0 ° _> oo° C ro°2 :N s �� N �= ro CM: ro-0 4 ^ a) U O o)"C _ 1 '° O .? ° m 'p �.i cz O N C i C C L N o ` - :r N a� ° a m N ro a r o[ a) o f- y 0 .o a> ca ro z i ro p ' O O ' C ° J Q OQ �: ash paxiw uoAueo Aeim spaeo;uawwoo :;uawg3e;;v a) O ca •- C � Q -0 En C Co cu 6 C Y a) � Qa) O U O � a) fl- LZ C 0 a) 0 9 0 o E U ro Q o) 0 a -C C a C ) as a Q d U L OU o °) E a) o E C EO U C C U 0 3 a 7 U } O E aa)) _ O c C O _r_ (n_ E Q 0 EU O U 'C 0 n C ca C cm a) (0 C m '� a=) z O C O U .a a) U U U O 'D Q 0 0 U) a) O U r c O� O Y }' U ca w a) f9 0) w a a z V T m ca U U m U a) w U a) L O co c a) E E O U C a) v 3 D W H CD z_ O W Ir O H W F— Q 2 H W U W 0 -i ash paxiw uoAueo Aeim spaeo;uewwoo :;uawgoe;;v ca rn N > c0i a) O) M N O C L U Cl- m N _O U_ L d N a C C �' m E o U w o 0 .a d 3 C) U _0 0) 3 E o aYE >,C C 6) 0 � E E �J 0cL E0_ ° � m o E > CD-o 0 - C E U) D C O 0 U) � C 0 E m W O E a o J ' / °7 a �5 ° C ° 0 01 (6 U (� C 0 .0 y U -O r. O u) a)U) U c V ^ L a C Q o E .o 73 o U U) 0 C a O E Y O U) U C T C Cn 0 c6 U 'E O O a `° td 7 C) w E (D(D o a� a� ? E C o o cd L) 0 C V Q L C E 0 C 0 ca F O N .O L 'r ) CO) C C� N -0 0 -p O a)c C a W ��tF a)cro(Z C -O O .? ° 2)a c 4� E is ro 0 Uz0 0a � ' i C U T >, O O C v a)� C p U y E a)E ° m ° m� a) _ 0 oC 0 C 0 O O -0 ChL 3 `� -OjQoo Qo3 ash paxiw uoAueo Aeim spaeo;uawwoo :;uauayoeuv � L 0 CX3 '- C C — a fn � ro roa C y Y 0 Q O U C O a) a - U C Lr- 0 0 O E a O U ro Q m� c a) C Q) a C 0 � a) O � cnn — (V cn E cn E ate) 0 E C E 0 U i C 0 3 T En } ro o a E (D o cn C v� O_ Y U N E a E 0 EU 0 0) U C O C to C ro ro C O in C a) E E 0 U a) a) U 0 Q Q C 0 in '0 C a) E E 0 U a) 0 Q Q co 4) C O Y U a) L U IL N U a Q E Z cn I ro U) N Q) U () w a) a a) O a) N c a) E E 0 U C a) v tj -r-: 04 m n Pa |W uoAueo Aeim s aeo} aw woo:; aw q,q; \}0 \/\ $�CL f 2§a � # � 0=� \Eo �00 / % 2§F 7n0 ./\\ E E - E 0 D �/[ M /// c=z 0 @ a ca z / E \ / 0 >sa Co e e % z Ge§ ��K§ /&ct e ± 0 e £[$/ 0 o 0 Gs -a m E �E \ > / [ »70\ »=gam %ego -0.> o ==t.a 2«># r»=3 = n .- 2 ® = 2 7@0 5 $ a § - CC n §\\\ -i%b5 ash paxiw uoAueo Aeim spaeo;uawwoo :;uauayoe;;v N N O cn a� U c a 0 w c m Co a c � m _c a O N c O �O O E E = .� c `m O O O a U U E o E E i C) cz c°o a U C a� d U C U) O Y U L C tWr O E E �1�11 U C O 0 3 T L U r ro l) 0lit, 8 E )i ^` Ln O U i �E E o- O EU O U cm (�0 o� o O C F ro c m m � _N z c .O m E 1\ O N CU O O_ O N O NC i-*,K oI� O YY O U L ca V ro '0 N O f0 N a FL z m =J 16 m m U O U N w a) a U) L O a� E E O U C d 3 ai t N ash paxiw uoAueo Aeim spaeo;uawwoo :;uawg3e;;v ro > (n U U Q N 7 (n Q Y O UL.o � 3 � (D U U_ O 3 E o E T 0-0 in U O O .n a) a� U 0 o L 'ca O E U O CT C U C E E O(n O O (n m (' 'E u) o E n o cm T N O p(Z ) ca C O O O a U (n ro ro a) .E Q U LO o C U � o m C i _ O ro (6 Y U m C O >, c (n O C O _ Ca U N Q o ro E �, °D o : o . (° Q !n c6 m E c C 0 ! E ti o m C O O a U O a a O .? C T �z T O m _ O) m U) cz .0 T y U � ro E a O) +' .O C C cz Q J Q O O 0 0 CZ m � M L U � d E O 'Y E .� o a) d Z3 o >_ C C U C C ro c c E E° O (d Q C E ° N � C L C ro 0 0 En c C O O U U ro O L L� U m U) C i 0 -o c _T .0 CU cz a) c (D D- o E O O) U C M U > .0 .0 C E a) E ° U a C C oca ro C .N N o L (C� N_ L O C O ro ro C � � ro O p O -O O a in U C C >, O O O Q ro � O O ro ro Z C a O 7 O Q o � ash paxiw uoAueo Aeim spaeo;uawwoo :;uawg3e;;v �I v c a) z c O ro C a) E E o U O a a s. can C7- 71 O 0) c m + m c f z a) ro c o a� 2 `v ''fill I m U) a) U a) C a) U) a) O a) O C a) E E O U C m 6 zi C LM 0 W � MA � : \/ n Pa |W uoAueo Aeim s a2Q; aw woo:; aw q,q; q CD\/\ C) > \ \ \/ a. e he E e Id ( .% CL _ ' Ga) a{ 222 /o k) \[5 E» �2 �00 \� /\ � 0o tga >— 0§ s\/ ° E /E» /5 \ ±E)Eo2 ° co E �} / / 5 > 1 \ g / \ (\ { 0co m » 6§/ \ \\ � 7 �\ �/E »— — o o 5 a) E -� / D / . \/2 of o®k /\ / \kK\ 0 ' 2 o n t e a a) \ E / E } 0 >, \\ ¥ Q 0 0 °_0 \)E/ /§ Q oo/E %\ƒ r*- 0 .,�_ � ©2»� mo /222 0M ° = g o .> c = _ » » z b E \ Co cyG7 b/ ' ` = 2 \ - = 7 )@\>, %Gb 7 Co a § o \ o y aE°= ±nt � \\ f�aa) 25z m \-0 ~ cz -i < b 5 < o \ ash paxiw uoAueo Aeim spaeo;uawwoo :;uawg3e;;v L N EL >, C U C •- Cl- a) in c ro ro � c � C ro C a) cn Cl. N ° O o N — ro C C 0 = U o o U En a).n c O E E a c3 F-0 a) a) c ca � Q a U) a) o O N cn = HE -C o EE U O U 7 m� � o U O r /1 a) E V 1 °' E Q Ev <•• O m C ca�r o" o a) C w '0 z a) o) N o +` a) 2 (E a) z 171 (� � cn L O O J E 1 E _ V O i U J \_ a) L J_ +' ` 3 v � 0 _o H �\ .r S O) l ` O � i� N N_ a) ao L J @ O L s Ca 0)o J o 1 N is E C _ E L U, , V o CD c 'c m C y a a o. cn v �° L O d N � S E E O U c 4i 73 ca C I � � e \ / A n Pa |W uoAueo Aeim s a2Q; aw woo:; aw q,q; \/\ \/\ f�f G§a O=y ±\� 0 a) /\e a§� E \ \0 0 /�\ 2 o \\/ /\/ ± E - Eo/ co E 32E ƒgS 0 0) /%/ 7 5 6 cz = E ® 0 \ \\\ f / k co oe\ co @oct a) _ — _ ƒ.> \: 0 yt±> cE« \ b ± [ ®°t t§00 ==o =z»% �K§7 °=2 c 2 (e § \\e a: ) / o \ 0 0%G5 ash paxiw uoAueo Aeim spaeo;uawwoo :;uawg3e;;v tea N O � U :C � Q } U) � U ro C ro m a) c ui Y O C O CO p U O o T - � .ro E E c O O O U � ff - �L o co f� 0 � C � U _ro Q o a) o � U c_ c 3 Fri E t o U E C O +0. U T 7 41 } N r °) ro E a) :� `1^` �I 1 a 0 V p U Ucz 4) ro z N Co c .O a) N cn E a ro a) 0 U m 7 co a) c a) 0) Q Q d o v E V� l� a) C) J `y O a a O C 0 �pn C E J o cc: J 0 a Q a; V^ _0 p d L �-I III m c ro a) U m U a) S U D C E E� O U C a) d � L O C O U .. U = W r � 3 o O v U Lo O N N Q y (n N_ C U) i � U a o Z_ +� o O co CD 'C N W a a:M 7 a) o O CD W f9 y > _ C W E g cn U o w C C L a a = L O L 3 71 W m k � � n Pa |W uoAueo Aeim s a2Q; aw woo:; aw q,q; \}\ /D cl f�CL f $§a B=� =ae ag/ \Eo \ 0 0 7o) 2[E \)0 ./\\ E E 5 209 ` 0 E \ 0 0 a§j 0 I & \\/ _ E ƒ \ 0 ƒ\\ 2 E 0 #m G e ) cz § >, 0 0 c=%w a[$/ \: 0 G)E \ > / E &20\ g a=" ¥2oc -0 a) =go 2Q»# e®ems 0 cz � CZ 7 3 a § //� = ) k��\ 2\E\ -01 < ash paxiw uoAueo Aeim spaeo;uawwoo :;uauayoe;;v t N N ,--. o c� a� � C .- Q- a� 70 cro ro � �5c � Y N U) O aQ) C Cl En p U O N o O N — m CE C O C w p O a) -0 U E O C .i � Q cz C- d C C O O _roa Q U C YO O O � c .3 OO U C O U U J O E a�i O Cl) 4.4 E O- O EU O U C O ro a F m C O) ro ro z 0 C O co E E O U N Cc N O a Q C O i� C E U) \- rn O T 0- _0 a 0 ro N � 0 . O U Q C C, (n O r1 O V � N yc� ro• � N N ro Q a z m 1 iJ a r C N O C E U C f0 r C V y N N 'J O> O_ Uf N C C o ro Q O t m 0 O C a 0 3 rll ai O O) C C O V) O_ Cc -1 -r-: C4 m k n Pe |W uoAueo Aeim s a2Q; aw woo:; aw q,q; \/\ \ ) $\\ \ma ©/y � * � Oc� /\) a§£ 4 E o \\7 70\ /§_ \ &E\ \ f \ 7\[ 3 C) 0 0) /§{ \ 5 a ca [ \ { S >=a e = e \/2 02\ 33yw § f = 2 eon% D 0 a_ E o $ 0 0 ._ »>># 0:t--2� \f=> mE/ \b±[ ®5o\ a=)� % 9 g o = 2 Z _ o =g co cy§» ®=2 ) cz t $ a G Fm /$_ cc a-0\E 2\\\ 0 bm _ R \/ a Eo \ E a \\ \ E \/ \E E E E � / [ :2 \$ \ \ / \ \\ /\ E2 \2 _\ \\ / \ 2 [ .7 / \/ E \ \\ \k %\ƒ ., » _ %\0 \EQ �0 a)\\ 0 \/-0 °20 %az \\\ < o 2 ash paxiw uoAueo Aeim spaeo;uawwoo :;uauayoe;;v t N L N -C O +� C c� Q- - an -0 w CUro ro a_ a) U Y ro _CY) U C Q O a) O �O O C 'U O O O cn a) U U y E o C: 0 Q (SS � c ) c C � ro� CL Cn U O � U O N m = o U E C O U U C 0 3 7 U } U 0 (� � o a� O E aa)) U Q� O rZ cn - En m E a) E Q EU O � 's z aa)) ca m � Q N E C E U 71 C O m a C E \7 O U a U cr w, U O- 0 a�ro C/) Q) -1 O U a) m H �i ro C UJ O) c C a) N U Q a) Ir 71 t N 3 ash paxiw uoAueo Aeim spaeo;uawwoo :;uawg3e;;v o > (n U + O 0 Q (n ro a Y T O N co U � o a) m U C a� 3 E o E T (n° o O .n °7 w O CO L "cz O E U)o cr c o c a O a E 'cn O O cn ro U E u) o E N_ O T O cz O O p� cti C O U 'En a U O O C U � a C_ 0 O ro ro U ro C T C O U) O ro U m a o ro E a) o a) o .> o . o o ain co E E E I� O 0 cm O N U O >_ — -d O C cC6 ,� O 0) U m a) +�+ ro .0 T y (D O ro E a) ¢ __ c { 'cn C C N 'O a) 0 a oo ro .S J Q 0,6 0 a) »- M .C—,. cil OiJ U w d C C Y 7 E o o .� d U L ro C c c a � >_ C � ro �C U_ C C ro � E c E a) E O ro a� E a� a � C �. ro 0 0 U) C i O O U U ro (D r � U rn (n c 0 � C U U) o c ro a o E O O) U C M _C U_ > C a) Zi U E 0 0 U a C C oo ro N -0 ro ,N p m C O c° M �a C O m ro O O -d a, a 'U) U C C > O O O cm aroma o ro ro Z 0,a a N -O 0 Q O 3: ash paxiw uoAueo Aeim spaeo;uawwoo :;uauayoe;;v N � O O m a) � C C' a) ro c ro � C Y a) a) o_ 0 O � Oo O .N � � a — TO C CC U CCC O C — p O a) -0 _� a)E .� O C .L Q �30)-0� C � m ro- Q a N a) a y U a) O � C 3 E J h+l E U E 1 C O 1 3 T r�� N } U a) ro � o � O E a) Z c .>> U „Vir`11_ U Y US �E`` �E OL E cU O 0) a) ro F • C N ro d1 C Grp a 0 j.°� c O f6 E E O U m a) co O O_ O_ I M C -.; O a E U m � U) �~ O O a ro m O M. y 0 a) f9 a) Q a z m " 11 3 C C m U p o_ fr M IL d Y V c d 0 0 C .O O O U O Y U ca .O a) a) m U (o C ca O _T U a) L L 3 L L O a) U) ro a� co Z) O T L Y U a) L U a) ca ro Q) d I n Pa |W uoAueo Aeim s aeo; aw woo:; aw q,q; q � §/I cM \ \\\ \\ Cb _ �o \ 77 a 3 � a ' O o d e c /)\ \\ . \\\ 22 \ »0 §\ «oo E 72\ )0 \/ _)0 �§ \\0 �/ g - ±E© ( (/\ ++ 5 - \L) �\ � ~ 3 — 0 CD ( \ / ( ) 73 \�� � \ 70 [ %/\ 2\ w 3 ` ® § Cn ° _ u k K .2 \ � e o c t 'E a « =±"n §o \ a E / \ E E - _ � ._ E y o o\ S\ _> . E o0 \b/[ \)1 .�. «en5 _ � k= / _ § » o y r -0 0 \kQ \12\ C. /E §o �C=s = � m.- G = Q - \\/� ) o> >oo 2 2}F§ 2&° ( — /\c \/-0 a: `o _%mz { 2 V. 50 E2 \2 //\ /_§ -1 < ) 5 < o a ash paxiw uoAueo Aeim spaeo;uawwoo :;uauayoeuv O cm ro .0 U +� C C "L �Q � ro ro m ma c � ro � a) o aro � a) O OU a .0 'V O O a) a) E c o E o ro a) U Q a a) c a) ro� Q a) 0 L-• U a) O L O a) E O a7 J U E ^ ` C O �v C T aa) } v7 c a) cn _o E o co L o J Ln E E `s Q EU 0 ro '0) -a !N C aroi m °) Q Q a) 2 m z o ro U a) T _ 0 0 c tf Qlwz a 7 %J] 16 ro En cn a) U m w 0 a) L 0 U D c a) E E O U C m v a_ y c E o o U 3 U) _O C V y m y c CD w U) N f O m L Q) ao z o c O a w p 0 w cr _O "d Q N > � N c w E ti. Q c ° o .F — O i a a c o t ai O) C C m N N Q 0 cr w anpxwuoAueOAeIM)s,eQ;ewwo:D ewLioeu¥ \}0 \/\ $\\ 2oa ©Fb 44� 0=- /\0 7 E o \ 0 0 70\ 2[£ a) 0 /0- E E ) //\ cn ƒ\\ \\ƒ -0 0 ± & o\/ [ \ / S >=a 2 C 0 0 e § mm .0 > c _ @on5 =±bc £ E c \ _ , ._ 0 >, 0 0 \t=> =E» \ b / [ »ao\ _ % %>9° _ .! = o = 2 o .> zz>\ ey§(n :moo 2 $ a § �0 /__ a: ) .5£-c \ E =}7 0%>5 � 2a 0 a Eo \ (/ a \\ f E ƒ\ §\ -E \ E E k/ (MD :2 of cn \ \ / / \\ /\ E/ \\ «2 O 3 / \ 2 0 // co 02 E \\ °s o \\1 \\0 \�\ \00 &cm E ) %\z 2/\ / o \ ash paxiw uoAueo Aeim spaeo;uawwoo :;uauayoe;;v o aB U .0 C — a m y C:ro ro o �iC � Y � N O c O _ro N Oo O � o a U E p O i ry o 0 U � � to a) E � O E c U c M a O l 4 C N a y O O a� E — •3 FBI (D E o E CO E .� (D o "v `m } 2 � o � U T = O E _— — j aE E U ' '• O a U C R �����' 4s y z + Co c a a a Ca (U 7 N z 0 Ll C 0 m C E EO - w' -- � a m � O � 1 O �Y O ro' d fn N cc o, E Q a z If I m I C_ C C a� m a� a (1) cr m k anpxwuoAueOAeIM)s,eQ;ewwo:D ewLioeu¥ f & � i\ /c a)Z§ \/\ In = 0- co Day »$- O m: /\\ \Eo \ \ 0 a)0oF 7\/ ./\/ ± E e ±22 U)\[ 220 \\k 6wm 7 E a co = E & 0 0 k/\ n = e as /� 0 2 § f % § _ � _ .- @ont «abn a % % a) 5�:,»> 0:tf2- G«a» a)E �e \ b ± [ <aol m=%� %.-go -0.> m =got r c: :non ) ° ® Mn o ƒ\\o =\f\ 7£aE E =2 =/cz -i< �I ash paxiw uoAueo Aeim spaeo;uawwoo :;uauayoe;;v O o ro a) .— C E- a c ro ro� C � Y O) ca C a) Q N O U � O a) Q- C �= CO O L0 O � E o E Uca Q c c C a) ca Q a cn a) o U O O c �3 a) 0 C E a) 0 E c E O 0 U i C o T 7 o } U °) ro 0 E a0) oc ff`_ C Ln o Url L_ m E U) E Q O E O U N -O = C C 0) F Z co ro C N a U) U U 0 ca a) 0 U Q1 7 U O Q) M. C O tT Q FU D a) z i i a) En 0 Q 7 Q O c O a C Q) E E 0 U a) if O Q Q 0 U) 0 d C O Y v d r v U) N m d a E z J ro U ro U N a) L O CD C Q) E E 0 U C O v g-7 w Z) I— U) 0 z O C7 w O L.L W I— Q 2 W cr g W Q "1 W m n Pa |W uoAueo Aeim s aeo} aw woo:; aw q,q; \}\ \/\ Q- C: a) 2ca 55b ±\� 0 /\== ) . / \Eo \ \ 0 /0) 2§a \)0 /\ a) 0- \ Eo¥ n 2 E ®2E �)0 CM 0 0) j 0 G a \\/ » 0 0 § 0 o >_& = o e %/\ O @ § t0 K cn0 -a co a)c E 0 ¢ 0 T— \\a§ = E �E \ > / [ w z m a=§� ¥200 =2=c ==o Sz»g �x=e ;5/a k°/� t ) a § --0 \}\ §\\\ 0i < co 2\ � \/a Eo o '% a o= \ \ \\ G\ -E \ E E S k/ E '> /0 \ / 0 o CO /\ 72 �§ 2 _41 / /\ / \ 2 0 /\ \/ E 0 \k» co-0 %]0 0 cz �0\ 0 a) %ky &\S E °f\ %az //0 < o \ ash paxiw uoAueo Aeim L + N N O N C V C 'C 0. �Cd Co 1 y CID m a� c oo z O L N a O c C U E C o a)i O U phi U3 = ° d) E C O c�i �Q �3 CD� a O N d co Q cc FL y a) cn L U 0 L � JO y = O ° E E ca 0 _ U '� O �E _ E 3 � E °.3 S 0 a) a)y y O N N O_ 0 C D D O N «. c 0 O E a) a)O C ��) 0 U •y + y U E E y o U ° nCC 4z V tl� co O cz C '0 N N o a E E a)E Q a Z spaeo;uaww( D —J U ro y 10 :;uauay3e44V d y +y+ c c m O E E O L \ v F- c \ a+ W 3 0 °C N O C +O+ ZQ y y C d ++ D 0 m d O Q ` � O t y y+ Q• y 3 i O 7 E1 Q i H �o 0-0 •F); • c E L O U4. 00 C •C E d M IL `c• 4! i Fes• O t 3 C .m rn M IL m OCCL ,c 0 40- E ,o bb U ca O U O a1 `m U ro c (6 O U N L L .0 0 a� d (0 2 ro N L U N L U N y N CL W a n Pa |W uoAueo Aeim s aeo; aw woo:; aw q,q; d$§ atc O�§ o \\0 o = � / /\ _\ $E% 0-0 cn00 � f % gg=_ 7\\ crk/ 2E- 20/ 2\§ k)0 0a0 CD -0 0 Eca CL £ 30CD 0 § 0 S ca lea / E 0 mm2 U�/ ca 0 CO 0 0 c CL0ca 0 (\ / oho@ \fin m f E / /7\k » § t 2 t2uo 2\\ƒ =gam# 0 � co 7 $ e § Im w/\_ �t3\ R�§E .0 c -j\o% 0 /aq \2a E o \ o a \ ƒ \k \\ t E {\ k9 %7 $C 0 0 o \cz � /0 k\ »2 \\ / k a 0 /% \/ E 0c /k \ /� k/0 cz 0 CZ §o\ \�§ _\ § 0 cm �c2 " /\ %az E-a « o 2 ash paxiw uoAueo Aeim spaeo;uawwoo :;uawg3e;;v t N imama) -C j O �Q 7 70 C ro ro � C � Y ro IF as c ro C O p U 0 0 Q- cn C = ca C CO U CO O U cn �E 'E .L c ro cu CL o) -o C N c ca N ro 0_ N N o ice-+ U O N E o(D U E O � U 1 a O U } O E a�i Z cn � '1►1 U c �Ln u) Ln E O O c z C d o in C E o U -a a) N U O a)X 0- cu ) a) cJ O O Y U U a1 t v ro• h a) c0 N Q a z e _Q n (n c c � � E ✓� E 2 > O i O ro U c v L U C) N C Q 0O UJ fn N H c0 @ Cl) U Ck) O O Z_ J L m O O L y W a ir s� CD LU o13 (n 2 E LLr a: I EL ,( \J r U U � O W - C �! c a) ca L :a a a L s F 0 0 3 � U) 1 � E Q E E Q U T c a) N N CO 6 c c c m N N a a) Ir 71 t N M ash paxiw uoAueo Aanm) spieo;uawwoo :;uowLioeiiv N > Q) U '- O U Q T, 7 m Q s a) a� m U L o .3 U O 3 E o �5E>, n UU O O ai a) O CO L w O E N 0 - C C U C Q O E u, O O cn c52E u) O E N ; O T U co a O p) m C O O O � O uUj U E Q U O cmOU O � � O cu C O N U a) LO C > C .O_ (n O U O Q O E >_ o .tf o F C Q V) C7 N E C_ i O O O U O O ? D C T c > m .—Lo o o) ccU)cz�' +L+ co .0 ? fA N tE 0) CC __ c N p O O Q c I Q O O N N M C- L tm d U_ � C C �' E o Y v c� o d U L-� ro 0 � m >_ C � ro �C _U C C (d 7 c E a E ° O ac E N 0 C L C O � � O O U U (Z O U C O) to co -O C >, O U I � C L C Cl O EO O)U C 0) C_ L) > C U C U E 0 0 U � C C O C .0 N .L L N_ o O � C O � � C O O m o O > 0 0 O p) Q Co N o O cn co Z �aa O Q O 3: ash paxiw uoAueo Aeim spaeo;uawwoo :;uawg3e;;v t (� O co C C' a � ro 0 cro ro a) 0 Y ca °' Q� C O p U O U) o D Q U) = c .ro O g o U1 U a) E o C � A ,� U Q c� C a a c � C a) ro d m c O o m C 3 F-i E O O E U c O � U TTOno � O T N U } O E ate) c U Lno En N Q O EU 0 O1 e D ro ro c �l)0 u .a E c _a) cz a c a) co D a) z O ro a E E O U a) a) ro O Q Q O C O (�0 C a) E O U a) W O Q Q U Cl ci C O Y U a) s v m y l9 a) a a) E ro z cli T U m I ro U En a) U Q) -o cn L O U C O E E O U c a) 3 ai n Pa |W u Aueo Aeim s aeo; ew woo:} aw q,q} Iq W \/3 \\ q 5/ %J CL . 3)§ g= \C Eo a) C) cu §± a »!� _ C) a 0 . /\) \_ \ \ 0 . / 2 \ § \ \ �§/ / ( / E / i - eee �2 ` } \ � a) \ �0 �� ƒ %° -§ -0cm ( \ 0 a) / \ 0 $ a 0) 3 0- ± g U) @ 2 3�1c\\ \ _0 / /-0 / \ J `y %±% t\ CoK\ 0 / B o n a a\ ±mac e / e E e 0 \\ o g o = \\E\(_ % ƒ ®5°O \ ^¥00 m N 0 2 %. -gE E- 7\\/ °R\ ± « = z * & § b E .2m � »�/ )m37 t a) a- &\° ) / / o (o aEom n22 �U) �� �/ ® $ \ % % 5 / (8 /-0 -0i %) 5 < § \ a G � Tuesday, June 18, 2024 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Chair Burkhart called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL City Council Chambers Chair Burkhart, Vice -Chair Ayala, Commissioner Berlin, Commissioner Eichman, and Commissioner Ostrom were all present. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Eichman led the flag salute. COMMISSION SECRETARY ANNOUNCEMENT Rachel Clark gave the secretary announcement. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Berlin and seconded by Commissioner Ostrom to approve the minutes from the June 4, 2024 meeting. Said motion carried by a voice vote of 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM 1 APPEAL OF THE HEARING OFFICER APPROVAL OF THE PROMENADE FLATS MIXED USE PROJECT (MASTER CASE 21-086) Public Hearing for Appeal 24-001 of the Hearing Officer approval of the Promenade Flats Mixed -Use Project (Master Case 21-086). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. Receive staff presentation; 2. Conduct the public hearing; 3. Determine that the project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines § 15332, as a Class 32 categorical exemption consisting of an in -fill development project; and, 4. Adopt Resolution P24-11, denying Appeal 24-001 and affirming the Hearing Officer approval of a request by Harvard 826 Property, LLC to construct and operate the Promenade Flats Mixed -Use Project (Master Case 21-086). Andy Olson, Associate Planner, presented on the item. Commissioner Berlin requested the City Attorney, Ephraim "Eppi" Margolian to provide clarity of the Planning Commission's authority as it relates to Senate Bill 330. Eppi responded with the definition of Objective Design Standards that must be applied to the project. Chair Burkhart opened the public comment portion of the public hearing at 6:13 p.m. Hunt Braly, Dean Arizabal (Parking Management Plan), and Brandon Helfer (parking consultant), of the applicant team, presented on behalf of the item. Vice -Chair Ayala asked about the number of handicap accessible (ADA) spaces. Mr. Braly responded that they meet code -required parking. Carolina Henao, of the applicant team, noted that ADA parking is exceeded by 20 percent. Patrick Leclair, Planning Manager, noted that during the building plan check review process, the location and number of accessible stalls are reviewed to ensure compliance with the Building Code. Chair Burkhart posed the question if it makes sense to "overpark" ADA stalls when the number of parking stalls are a concern. He also made note that he may propose not exceed code -required ADA parking to ensure maximum available for public use. Commissioner Berlin asked if the site would be losing parking stalls and if the IHOP restaurant would still be allocated their 30 parking spaces. Mr. Olson confirmed that the number of parking spaces on the project site would be reduced; some spaces would be shifted/dispersed across the project site but the number of spaces based on parking demand would meet requirements for existing uses. Chair Burkhart asked if the spaces will remain convenient to the restaurant. The Commissioners expressed concerns over location, convenience, and availability of parking; guest parking and employee parking usage and enforcement; and monitoring of the parking spaces. Commissioner Eichman expressed the need to have the on -site operator as a continual requirement and concern that employees with long shifts would be cited for parking. The applicant's parking consultant provided a response noting there would be an on -site operator to actively audit and manage the parking lot usage. Chair Burkhart asked if there is another location within the City that requires the same level of parking management. Mr. Leclair responded that he is unaware of another that has been conditioned by the City of Santa Clarita. Commissioner Berlin asked how many parking spaces would be available for the existing businesses during construction, additionally, she shared concern of the distance that the elderly or disabled person would need to travel from the parking stall to the IHOP during construction. Mr. Braly noted that 152 commercial parking spaces would be available during construction and the distance between the southern parking spaces and IHOP would be similar to parking at the mall and walking to a restaurant. Commissioner Berlin asked how the commercial tenants would receive deliveries. Mr. Braly noted that he would respond after consulting with his client after hearing the public speakers. Page 2 There were three speakers in support of the project noting support for in -fill development and mixed -use development, and a reminder to focus on long-term benefits instead of short-term complaints. There were six speakers in opposition expressing concerns of congested parking/spillover into Cinema Park, potential confrontation over parking enforcement, current spillover parking from Las Flores apartments, access to Las Flores access during construction, light spillover, and the potential impacts to employee and customer parking. Additionally, there were two speakers that were neutral or did not disclose their position noting concerns for sewer capacity and commercial delivery spaces. There was one written comment in opposition to the project. Exercising the right of rebuttal, Mr. Braly responded to comments. He noted that IHOP currently closes at 3:00 p.m. with no dinner service; to date, no data has been provided to indicate that off - site parking occurs at Cinema Park; and, one delivery area is available for IHOP. In reference to the number of parking spaces provided for the live/work units, he mentioned that the proposed project meets the City's code and Senate Bill 330 does not affect the required parking. Ms. Henao provided more detail on the number of ADA parking spaces and the excess was due to code and convenience. She also provided more details on locations of commercial delivery spaces. Mr. Braly added that any tenants could use the delivery spaces. Chair Burkhart closed the public comment portion of the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. Commissioner Berlin asked how many employees are currently in the center. Mr. Braly responded that there is no data but the allocated spaces are based on the City's code. Commissioner Berlin stated that upon her visit to the center at around 9:15 a.m., both the project parking lot and Cinema Park were busy. She also noted that during construction, the site would be short 57 spaces, requested that a condition of approval be added for the City to look at the parking management plan and be re-evaluated within six months, and if the on -site parking attendant escort people to the rear parking lot due to safety concerns. Mr. Braly noted that the construction of the new parking lot will happen prior to the construction of the new building thus giving the Las Flores residents uninterrupted access via their access gate, as required per their agreement. He also noted that the Los Angeles County Sanitation District has not provided any feedback regarding issues with the project. Mr. Braly deferred the response to the City if the City would want to evaluate the parking management plan and states that 6 months may be too short of a time. He also stated that that the "shortage" of parking spaces is not correct as this would be prior to construction of the residential and commercial that would require those spaces. Commissioner Berlin requested an ADA accessibility plan, construction management plan, and a parking management plan for during construction. She also asked to limit or reduce construction hours on weekends. She asked the applicant team for the size of the balconies and if there would be a permanent shade structure on the roof top. Ms. Henao responded with the approximate balcony size and confirmed that a shade structure would be provided and discussed with staff. Page 3 Commissioner Berlin suggested that the applicant implement a business interruption plan with signage during construction. She also asked if there is a condition of approval that requires the south parking lot to be built first and, if not, she requests the condition be added. Mr. Olson noted that it is not currently a condition, but that a condition could be added, should the Commission choose to do so. Mr. Braly indicated that the applicant would accept such a condition. Commissioner Berlin asked if there is a northbound bus stop. Andy confirmed. Commissioner Berlin asked that the live/work unit be marketed as live/work for a year, prior to being able to be converted to residential. Commissioner Eichman asked Mr. Braly to confirm that the on -site parking attendant would only be there Monday through Friday during peak hours, out of concern of additional unauthorized overnight parking. Mr. Braly responded that the schedule is not yet confirmed but if it is found that there are impacts during business hours, it can be revisited, evaluated, and enforced. The Commission discussed peak/off-peak parking activities and guest parking for residents. Mr. Braly requested that the parking management plan be reviewed by staff and re-evaluated after six to eight months of implementation and states that they have vested interest in preventing negative parking impacts. Vice -Chair Ayala shared her observations regarding the parking lot and requested to implement measures that ensure the parking is available for its intended uses by way of parking permits, visible signage, real-time monitoring and security personnel, and to keep communicating with tenants during the project. Commissioner Eichman asked about noise mitigation during the 58 weeks of construction noting that the tea house restaurant, specifically, uses the outdoor space. She also shared concern of impacts to businesses during construction and also noted that once the project is built, she believes that the businesses will do well. Commissioner Berlin asked if reduced construction hours on the weekends would be considered. Chair Burkhart stated that it would prolong construction. Commissioner Ostrom, in response to parking concerns, recalled that when the hospital was built, underground parking was suggested but it does not seem practical for this project. Commissioner Berlin and Mr. Leclair confirmed the conditions as requested by the Commission to include: 1. Staff review of the Parking Management Plan before occupancy with an evaluation by the applicant in six to eight months after implementation; 2. A construction management plan, to ensure sufficient overall parking, ADA parking, and ADA access are provided during construction; 3. Marketing of the live/work units for a period of one year, prior to conversion to residential, instead of six months; 4. Permanent shade structure on roof top; and 5. Construction of the southwest parking lot prior to building construction. Mr. Leclair asked the applicant team to confirm that the roof -top solar structures could be dual purpose as shade structures. Ms. Henao confirmed that the structures fulfill both functions. Page 4 Mr. Braly confirmed that the three-hour parking is not applied on all commercial spaces but only the spaces on the north side of the building. Parking enforcement would not negatively impact employees. He also requested an exception for overnight parking for tenants with an approved need. Mr. Braly and Commissioner Berlin clarified that after eight months of the Parking Management Plan implementation, the City would evaluate the plan and provide feedback for any changes that would need to be made. Mr. Leclair suggested that condition PL5 be amended to reflect the Parking Management Plan evaluation. A motion was made by Commissioner Berlin and seconded by Vice -Chair Ayala adopting Resolution P24-11, denying Appeal 24-001 and affirming the Hearing Officer approval of a request by Harvard 826 Property, LLC to construct and operate the Promenade Flats Mixed -Use Project (Master Case 21-086) and determining that the project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines § 15332, as a Class 32 categorical exemption consisting of an in -fill development project, with aforementioned amendments. Said motion carried by a roll -call vote of 4-1. A, recess was called at N:UL D.m. and was called back to order at 6:1 / D.m. by Utiair tBurkhart. RESULT: APPROVED AS AMENDED [4 TO 11 MOVER: Renee Berlin, Commissioner SECONDER: Patsy Ayala, Vice -Chair AYES: Lisa Eichman, Dennis Ostrom, Renee Berlin, Patsy Ayala NAYS: Timothy Burkhart CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 2 WILEY CANYON MIXED USE PROJECT (MASTER CASE 20-238) A request to allow for the development of a mixed -use project consisting of a senior -living facility with 130 independent living units, 61 assisted -living units, and 26 memory care beds; 8,914 square feet of commercial floor area; and 379 multi -family apartment units. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Planning Commission: 1. Receive the staff presentation in response to Planning Commission direction; 2. Continue the public hearing to receive testimony from the applicant and the public; 3. Provide direction to staff on the hearing schedule; and 4. Continue the public hearing. Erika Iverson, Senior Planner, presented on the item. Commissioner Berlin asked to confirm that although this project would not widen Wiley Canyon, there would be sufficient right-of-way for future widening, if needed. Ms. Iverson confirmed that Traffic Engineering has reviewed and, at the narrowest point, the roadway could be designed with four vehicle lanes and sidewalks. Commissioner Berlin asked about the length Page 5 of the Metro sound wall. Ms. Iverson demonstrated the approximate limit of the sound wall. Chair Burkhart asked for clarification that 20 feet of grading and re -compaction does not mean that it will raise or lower the grade by 20 feet and, with compaction, would be relatively close to the existing grade. Ms. Iverson confirmed and deferred to the applicant to provide additional explanation of grading activities but did note that there is also import of dirt to address floodplain issues that would raise the site slightly from current grade. The public comment portion of the public hearing was re -opened at 8:36 p.m. Tom Clark, Glenn Adamick, Ron Ziebart, and Erick Seward spoke on behalf of the item. There were five speakers in support citing needs for more affordable housing, walkable communities, added sidewalks and roundabouts for speed reduction and safety, reduced freeway noise, and improved landscaping. There were 15 speakers in opposition noting concerns regarding parking, local hire, hospital capacity, outreach meeting notifications, language- barrier/communication concerns, discrimination, urbanization, evacuation safety, traffic congestion, invasion of privacy, and proximity of other assisted living facilities. One speaker held a neutral position or did not disclose their position. Exercising the right of rebuttal, Mr. Adamick responded to comments. He noted that the single means of access has been reviewed by the Fire Department and has been found to be sufficient as long as there is an emergency access provided. This access is provided via the Wabuska gated access which will only used for emergency purposes. He also noted that this project does not preclude Wiley Canyon from being expanded to four lanes in the future. He noted that local improvements would benefit the overall community. This is a suburban community with urban components but pedestrian connectivity is important. They can have outreach with the Carpenters Union. The park would be maintained by a private Landscape Maintenance District, would not use General Funds, and would be available to the public. The legal notices were distributed. Notices regarding public outreach do not have same standards as legal notices. Commissioner Ostrom asked about liquefaction concerns and if piles would be used. Mr. Adamick responded that with mitigation measures, liquefaction issues would be mitigated. Erick Seward provided more details on the soils and noted other projects within the area that had similar liquefaction properties and were mitigated in the same manner. The public comment portion of the public hearing was closed at 10:06 p.m. Vice -Chair Ayala encourages the developer to have communications with the community in Spanish. She also asked that City staff to clarify the four -lane requirement for Wiley Canyon. Commissioner Berlin also asked for clarification of the road width required and location of the power poles. Ian Pari, Senior Traffic Engineer, provided information. Vice -Chair Ayala asked the applicant to consider providing solar and/or sustainable power. Mr. Adamick responded that there is potential for solar due to carports. Vice -Chair Ayala also asked the applicant to consider communicating with the nearby neighborhoods regarding an evacuation plan. Commissioner Berlin asked for renderings of the sound wall without the berm from the Page 6 residential side, a rendering of berm at the sound wall gap, from eastside of Wiley from houses on hill looking down project and looking towards Towsley, requested that the installed bus stops be improved on pads, agrees with Commissioner Ayala to provide an outreach meeting with Spanish translation. She asked why Kelton Estates weren't notified, requested the traffic simulation of emergency evacuation of Hawkbryn/Wabuska, evacuation plan for assisted living and memory care, how many employees would be sharing the 44 parking spaces for assisted living facility. Commissioner Eichman agrees with Commissioner Berlin on her requests. She is still concerned about having only one access point (compared to Promenade Flats project that was required to have two) and the drive into the Athletic Club when entering the roundabout. Mr. Adamick stated that they are having discussions with the Athletic Club property owner. Additionally, Commissioner Eichman requests a rendering with a different perspective than provided due to the height of the berm wall and concerns of noise, a traffic simulation with roundabouts, and a simulation of traffic impacts to Wiley Canyon Elementary. She noted that she is a proponent for the four -lanes to be proactive for future growth and asks if there will be an emergency access near the Athletic Club and where overflow parking would go if there is not enough on -site. Commissioner Eichman also asked if ADA guest parking spots would be available within the gates for the multi -family units. Mr. Adamick confirmed. She asked for more information on timing of road development plans or remedies during construction for noise and dust impacts and suggested filters for the mobile home park and Wiley Canyon Elementary. She asked the applicant to consider temporary noise barriers for the senior living while the project is under construction. Commissioner Berlin agreed. Commissioner Berlin asked if the traffic signal and roundabout is too close. Mr. Adamick provided clarification. She echoed Commissioner Eichman's comments regarding the second access and agrees with everything she noted and requested. Vice -Chair Ayala asked that the applicant consider speaking to the Carpenter's Union. Commissioner Berlin asked that the sound wall be tempered with landscaping. She also asked that the project does not return to Commission until all information is available to be provided. She also requested that the applicant host an outreach meeting in Spanish. Commissioner Berlin made a motion and was seconded by Vice -Chair Ayala to continue to ect to a date uncertain. Micl motion carriecl by a roll -call vote of 5-U. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Renee Berlin, Commissioner SECONDER: Patsy Ayala, Vice -Chair AYES: Eichman, Ostrom, Burkhart, Berlin, Ayala PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Patrick Leclair gave the Planning Manager's report providing an update to the anticipated Planning Commission meeting schedule. Page 7 Commissioner Berlin asked to received a copy of the Riverview Project environmental documents as soon as available. Patrick Leclair agreed. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT There were no reports made by the Planning Commission. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION There were no speakers for Public Participation. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made at 10:26 p.m. by Commissioner Ostrom and seconded by Commissioner Eichman to adjourn the meeting. Said motion carried by a voice vote of 5-0. ATTEST: PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR Page 8 O Agenda Item: 1 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 41) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING MANAGER APPROVAL: DATE: August 19, 2025 SUBJECT: Wiley Canyon Mixed -Use Project (Master Case 20-238) APPLICANT: Wiley Canyon, LLC LOCATION: West side of Wiley Canyon Road, between Calgrove Boulevard and Hawkbryn Avenue CASE PLANNER: Erika Iverson RECOMMENDED ACTION Planning Commission: 1. Receive the staff presentation in response to Planning Commission direction; 2. Open the continued public hearing to receive testimony from the applicant and the public; 3. Provide direction to staff on the hearing schedule; and 4. Continue the public hearing to a date certain. REQUEST The applicant, Wiley Canyon, LLC, is requesting approval of an Architectural Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Development Review, Minor Use Permit, Oak Tree Permit, and Tentative Map to allow for the development of a mixed -use project consisting of a senior -living facility with 130 independent -living units, 61 assisted -living units, and 26 memory -care beds; 8,914 square feet of commercial floor area; and 379 multi -family apartment units (Project). BACKGROUND To date, the City of Santa Clarita's (City) Planning Commission has conducted two public hearings on the proposed Project. On March 19, 2024, the Project was introduced, and an overview of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was provided. At that meeting City Page 1 Packet Pg. 11 O staff received comments on the DEIR and direction from the Planning Commission to bring back information on various topics at the June 18, 2024, meeting. On June 18, 2024, during the last public hearing held for the Project, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to a date uncertain, with direction for City staff and the applicant to bring back additional information on various topics before considering a recommendation on the Project. The intent of this meeting is to respond to the Planning Commission's direction from the June 2024 public hearing, to receive direction from the Planning Commission on the public hearing schedule, and direct staff to prepare a recommendation and all associated documents for action on the Project. City staff proposes the following dates for the Project hearing schedule: March 19, 2024 Project introduction, summary of Draft Environmental Impact Report, and public comments June 18, 2024 Applicant Response to Planning Commission and public comments August 19, 2025 Response to Planning Commission and public comments Tentatively September 16, 2025 Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Project determination JUNE 18, 2024, PLANNING COMMISSION FOLLOW-UP At the June 2024 meeting, City staff provided an overview of the applicant responses to Planning Commission comments made at the March 2024 hearing. The Planning Commission requested clarification and additional information on a number of topics from City staff and the applicant as follows: • Traffic Circulation on Wiley Canyon Road/Traffic Simulations • Timing of Roadway Improvements/Right-of-Way Acquisition • Emergency Plans for the Senior Living Facility • Parking Operations Plan • On -site Construction Phasing Plan/Noise Mitigation • Additional Renderings • Consider Community Outreach with Spanish Translation Following the June 2024 meeting, the applicant submitted an Alternative Project for Planning Commission consideration. The Alternative conceptual plan is provided as an attachment and will be discussed in the applicant presentation at the August 19 public hearing. Additional discussion on the Alternative Project and topics above is provided as follows: Alternative Concept Plan In preparing an EIR, alternative projects are required to be analyzed to determine if a revision to the Project could result in an environmentally superior project that meets the Project objectives. The DEIR identified and analyzed four Alternative projects including: (1) No Project/No Build Alternative; (2) Affordable Housing Alternative; (3) Private Recreation Page 2 Packet Pg. 12 O Facility Alternative; and (4) Construction Noise Setback Alternative. While, the Construction Noise Setback Alternative would reduce the number of overall units, it still includes a four- story apartment component, and it would eliminate the commercial component entirely. The applicant provided an additional Alternative concept (Fifth Alternative) for consideration that would reduce the overall density and floor area of the Project as shown in the table below. Specifically, it would eliminate the four-story, for -rent apartment component and replace it with two-story, detached single-family condominiums, and two-story townhomes. The Fifth Alternative would consist of 45 detached single-family units, eight of which would include an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU); and 179 townhome units. In total, 232 residential units would be provided. In addition, the Fifth Alternative would eliminate the independent senior living units. The senior living facility would be reduced to 120 rooms for assisted -living residents. The project would also retain a commercial component of approximately 9,000 square feet, an increase of approximately 86 square feet. Original Project Fifth Alternative Residential Units 379 232 Independent Senior Units 130 0 Assisted Living Units 87 120 Commercial 8,914 s . ft. 9,000 s . ft. Under the Fifth Alternative, all site grading, bank stabilization, oak tree removals, site access, and off -site roadway and infrastructure improvements remain the same. As it relates to development standards of the Mixed -Use Neighborhood (MXN) zone and development limitations established for the Calgrove Corridor/Smiser Ranch Special Development Area (Smiser Ranch Area) of the General Plan, the Fifth Alternative meets the objective development regulations. The General Plan establishes a limitation on the overall allowable floor area of 830,000 square feet of total residential and commercial combined development (excluding parking facilities) in the Smiser Ranch Area. The combined floor area of the Fifth Alternative is 523,890 square feet, a reduction from the 677,280 square feet proposed under the original project request, and still within the allowable floor area for the Smiser Ranch Area. Height is limited to 50 feet in the MXN zone. Under the Fifth Alternative, the assisted -living facility would remain at a maximum height of four stories, not to exceed 50 feet. The single- family detached condominiums and townhomes would be reduced to two stories, with a maximum height of 35 feet. Parking would exceed the City's mixed -use development standards by 50 parking stalls as shown in the table below. Each single-family condominium and each townhome would provide a two -car garage. Each ADU would have one surface parking space. Guest parking would be accommodated along the private street. The parking for the commercial and senior -living facility would be provided in surface parking spaces around the building. Page 3 Packet Pg. 13 O Land Use Parking Ratio Units Required Provided Spaces Spaces Single -Family Condominium 2/Unit 45 90 90 Townhome 2/Unit 179 358 358 ADU 0/Unit 8 0 8 Residential Guest 0.5/Unit 224 112 129 Senior Living Facility 0.5Bed or Unit 120 60 66 Commercial 1/200 sq. ft. 9,000 sq. ft. 45 64 TOTAL 665 Spaces 715 Spaces Traffic Circulation and Traffic Simulations Roadway improvements associated with the Project include the installation of three new roundabout intersections: 1) at the Project entrance on Wiley Canyon Road; 2) at Canerwell Street and Wiley Canyon Road; and 3) at Calgrove Boulevard and Wiley Canyon Road. In addition, a Class I trail (two-lane bicycle path and separated, five-foot wide pedestrian path) would be installed along the Project frontage on Wiley Canyon Road from the Project entrance to Calgrove Boulevard. As discussed at the March and June 2024 meetings, Wiley Canyon Road is designated by the General Plan as a Secondary Highway, which is a four -lane road configuration. Along the Project frontage, the proposed Project improvements would maintain a two-lane roadway configuration. The design is based on the traffic analysis for the Project, which considers the traffic volumes, inclusive of the current and expected future traffic volumes, plus the traffic volumes for the Project, along portions of Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard. As discussed in the traffic assessment, vehicle trips would be between 9,000 and 10,000 vehicle trips per day, well below the maximum capacity of a two-lane roadway, of 16,000 to 18,000 vehicle trips per day. The Project does not change the General Plan Roadway designation. As discussed at the June 2024 meeting, City Traffic and Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the existing right- of -way width of Wiley Canyon Road and determined that, Wiley Canyon Road could be designed with four vehicle lanes and a sidewalk on either side of the roadway in the future if that was ever necessary. Based on the traffic analysis for the Project, it is not expected that four lanes will be necessary. In the case of the Fifth Alternative, the daily trips for the Project would be further reduced than what was analyzed in the traffic assessment for the Project. However, the proposed roadway improvements would remain the same if the Fifth Alternative were selected. The site access has been reviewed by City Traffic and Transportation Planning staff, as well as the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD). The site provides one vehicular access from Wiley Canyon Road. A secondary access is required by LACFD only for emergency service. This is a gated access from Wabuska Street and will have a Fire Department knox box. There is no pedestrian or non -emergency vehicle access provided at this gate. At the August 19 meeting, the applicant will present traffic simulations to demonstrate traffic Page 4 Packet Pg. 14 O circulation on Wiley Canyon Road. Simulations include traffic operations at each of the proposed roundabouts, as well as the intersections of Wiley Canyon Road and Lyons Avenue; Wiley Canyon Road and La Glorita Circle; Wiley Canyon Road and Wabuska Street; and the Calgrove Boulevard interchange with Interstate 5 (I-5). Timing of Roadway Improvement/Right-of-Way Acquisition Before grading permits are issued, the Conditions of Approval would require approval of a street improvement plan. As part of the plan check process for street improvements, applicants are required to submit construction phasing and traffic control/detour plans for the roadway improvements. Conditions of Approval will also dictate the timing of required roadway improvements. In the case of the proposed Project, roadway improvements along the Project frontage of Wiley Canyon Road, from the Project entrance to Calgrove Boulevard, would be required to be in place before any certificate of occupancy is issued for the Project. Separately, the timing for the right-of-way acquisitions is also outlined by Conditions of Approval. In the case of the proposed Project, any property acquisition required for the proposed roadway improvements would be required before approval of the Final Map or before a grading permit is issued, whichever occurs first. City staff has received letters with conceptual approval from the two property owners impacted by the proposed roundabout at Calgrove Boulevard. The applicant worked with City staff on the design and alignment of the roundabout at Canerwell Street to eliminate the need for any property acquisition at that location. The applicant also redesigned the access to the proposed recreation area, eliminating the need for a reciprocal access agreement with the gym property. The round about at the Project entrance does not require private property acquisition. Emergency Operation Plan An operator for the assisted living facility has not been identified at this time, so emergency operations specific to the proposed assisted living facility have not yet been outlined. However, the operation of the assisted living facility is regulated by and requires a state license from the Department of Health and Human Services. Part of the licensing requires the development of an Emergency and Disaster Plan. The plan must be prepared in conformance with requirements under the state Health and Safety Code and the California Code of Regulations (Title 22, Section 87212), Emergency Disaster Plan. Elements of the plan include staff assignments during an emergency, evacuation procedures (including transportation plans), as well as sheltering in place considerations and procedures. The plans also require annual staff training, as well as staff practice drills. If recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission could direct staff to include a Condition of Approval to require a copy of the state approval before building occupancy to ensure this requirement has been met. Parking Operations Plan As described above, the provided parking under the Fifth Alternative exceeds the mixed -use development parking requirements. Specific to the parking operation of the assisted living facility and the commercial space, a total of 105 parking spaces are required, and 130 are provided. Parking spaces are permitted to be shared between the commercial and assisted living Page 5 Packet Pg. 15 O facility. The applicant has not identified an operator for the commercial tenant space(s) or the assisted living facility at this time, but parking operations would be up to the property owner/manager to manage. As noted above, overall provided parking exceeds the development standards by 50 stalls. On -site Construction Phasing Plan/Construction Noise The applicant provided a construction phasing plan for the Fifth Alternative, which is provided as an attachment. As indicated, Phase I of the construction would consist of all the site grading and infrastructure. Phase 11 would consist of the off -site roadway improvements and the single- family detached condominiums and townhome units. Phase III would consist of the construction of the assisted living facility and commercial building. Construction staging and parking are accommodated onsite within the assisted living/commercial lot. Over the course of the construction of Phase III, the construction parking and staging will shift at various stages of construction, but space will be maintained onsite to accommodate the construction workers and equipment staging. This will also be dictated by Conditions of Approval for the Project, which would require that all construction -related parking and equipment be staged on the Project site. Construction -related noise impacts were analyzed in the DEIR. The Project would generate temporary construction noise at levels that exceed exterior daytime noise standards. However, not all construction activities would exceed the daytime noise levels. The temporary impacts are associated with the larger earth moving equipment, and the noise level does reduce as those activities move further from adjacent sensitive receptors. Regarding the adjacent Mulberry Mobile Home Park, there is approximately 30 feet between the existing wall along the Mulberry Mobile Home Park and the property line for the proposed Project. This separation creates a 30- foot buffer between the mobile home residences and the proposed construction for the Project. There is no grading or structures associated with the Project within those 30 feet. In addition, the DEIR incorporates mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of construction noise on adjacent sensitive uses. Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1 requires the use of noise -reduced construction equipment within 200 feet of adjacent sensitive receptors. Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-2 requires stand-alone construction noise barriers, sufficient in height to block the line of sight between the construction area and adjacent sensitive receptors. Adherence to these mitigation measures ensure that the temporary construction noise impacts are reduced for the nearest sensitive receptors. Renderings The applicant has provided one new Project rendering, representative of the Fifth Alternative, to highlight an interior view of the Project, which shows the townhome product, adjacent to the proposed Metro Sound Wall that will be constructed between the I-5 and the Project site. An additional visual simulation was prepared to highlight an exterior view taken from Carland Drive, in the Oakridge Estates neighborhood, looking west toward the Project site. The rendering and visual simulation are provided as attachments. Community Outreach At the June 2024 meeting, the Planning Commission asked the applicant to consider additional Page 6 Packet Pg. 16 O outreach to the community with Spanish interpretation available. In August 2024, the applicant held a community meeting at the Mulberry Mobile Home Park with a Spanish interpreter. Separately, in advance of the August 19 hearing, the applicant has conducted additional outreach in the community to present the Fifth Alternative concept. This included outreach to individual community members as well as conducting an informational community meeting on May 19, 2025. NEXT STEPS The Project is a housing development project in accordance with the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Government Code section 66300). Accordingly, the Project must be reviewed and evaluated based on conformance with the City's objective development standards, and the decision -making body cannot conduct more than five public hearings (including appeals). This meeting is the third public hearing on the Project, and a final decision would be required at a subsequent meeting to allow for an appeal to the City Council, if any were filed. Additionally, as a housing project, the Project cannot be denied if it is in compliance with the City's objective design standards. City staff seeks direction from the Planning Commission on a recommendation for the Project and the hearing schedule. The Planning Commission could recommend the Project as originally submitted, or one of the DEIR alternatives, including the Fifth Alternative presented by the applicant. If the Planning Commission decides the Fifth Alternative is the preferred Project for consideration, City staff will work with the City's environmental consultant to analyze the Fifth Alternative, just as the other alternatives were analyzed in the DEIR, and incorporate into the Final EIR. The Final EIR, with responses to all comments, and any further alternative analysis, would be presented to the Planning Commission for consideration at the next meeting. Additionally, if one of the conceptual Alternative scenarios is selected as the preferred Project for consideration, the Conditions of Approval for the Project would require a Development Review and Architectural Design Review approval before building permits can be issued. Based on Planning Commission direction at the August 19 meeting, City staff anticipates returning to the Planning Commission on September 16, 2025, with a recommendation on the Project and Final EIR with responses to all comments. NOTICING All notices required by law were completed, which consisted of a legal advertisement in The Signal newspaper on July 29, 2025, and notification of public hearing by mail to all property owners and occupants within a 1,000-foot radius of the Project site. Two signs were also posted at the Project site on August 5, 2025. Following the publication of the public hearing notice, and as of the writing of this staff report, City staff has received three comments from the community in opposition to the Project. ATTACHMENTS Fifth Alternative Site Plan Page 7 Packet Pg. 17 O Fifth Alternative Sound Wall Rendering Fifth Alternative Visual Simulation Construction Phasing Public Notice Public Comments Page 8 Packet Pg. 18 H W.wt»w Ql N N N E i- w�= w 0 J 0 t Y N M 2 co J 0 L C L n J z = 0 � Z U c� o � U LU J_ Z O Z a c� W J a c3 a J V H z a y I Packet Pg. 20 Wiley Canyon View G VISIOOSCape "AGERY A Visualization Firm visionsca peimagery.com 1.c CITY OF SANTA CLARITA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION: Master Case 20-238; Tentative Tract Map 83295, Architectural Design Review 20-023, Conditional Use Permit 20-005, Development Review 20-017, Minor Use Permit 20-013, Oak Tree Permit (Class 4), and Environmental Impact Report 20-002 PROJECT APPLICANT: Wiley Canyon, LLC PROJECT LOCATION: East of Interstate 5 and west of Wiley Canyon Road, between Hawkbryn Avenue and Calgrove Boulevard. Assessor's Parcel Numbers 2825-012- 007, 2825-007-010, 2825-012-011, 2825-012-901, and 2825-012-902 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting entitlements for the development of the Wiley Canyon Mixed -Use Project, consisting of an approximately 277,108-square-foot senior living facility with 130-independent living units, 61 assisted living units, and 26 memory care beds; approximately 8,914 square feet of ground floor commercial space; and 379 multi -family units. Buildings on -site would range from one- to four -stories, maximum of 50 feet in height. The Project also proposes to improve approximately 50,660 square feet for publicly accessible recreation space. The development of the Project would require several off -site improvements, which include a new roundabout at the Project entrance on Wiley Canyon Road, and at the intersections at Wiley Canyon Road with Canerwell Street, and Wiley Canyon Road with Calgrove Boulevard. The Project would also construct Class I, II, and III bicycle lanes along Wiley Canyon Road from north of Lyons Avenue to Calgrove Boulevard, and along Calgrove Boulevard to The Old Road. In addition, off -site improvements are necessary for the buildout of the project, including a new water line proposed within Old Wiley Canyon Road, a new storage tank and a new pump within an existing pump station. The Project would require grading for up to 44,000 cubic yards of cut and 59,000 cubic yards of fill, and the import of approximately 85,000 cubic yards of fill. The Project includes the removal of four non -heritage oak trees and the encroachment of 19 oak trees. A public hearing on this item was previously conducted on March 19, 2024, where the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to the regularly scheduled meeting of June 18, 2024, to allow the applicant time to address outstanding items requested by the Planning Commission. At the meeting of June 18, 2024, the item was again continued to a date uncertain. The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission will conduct a continued public hearing on this matter on the following date: DATE: Tuesday, August 19, 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 will reopen the public hearing, receive testimony, and continue the public hearing to a future date. No formal action relative to this project will occur at this hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared to identify the project's potential environmental. A Notice of Availability was posted and advertised to the public on March 1, 2024. The public DEIR for the Wiley Canyon project is available for review by appointment in the City Clerk's Office at the following location: 1.e City of Santa Clarita City Hall, City Clerk's Office 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Packet Pg. 23 1.e The DEIR for the Wiley Canyon Project is also available for public review on the City of Santa Clarita website at: https:Hsantaclarita.gov/planning/environmental-impact-reports-under-review/ 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 hearings 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, August 8, 2025. For further information regarding this proposal, you may contact the project planner at the City of Santa Clarita, Permit Center, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 140, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Telephone: (661) 255- 4330. Website: www.santaclarita.goy/planning. Send written correspondence to: 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302, Santa Clarita, CA 91355. Project Planner: Erika Iverson, eiversonksantaclarita.gov. Patrick Leclair Planning Manager Published: The Signal, July 29, 2025 Packet Pg. 24 1.f From: Jason Crawford To: Marie S Cc: Erika Iverson; Patrick Leclair Subject: Re: Planning Commission: Wiley Canyon Project Under Discussion on August 19, 2025 Date: Friday, August 8, 2025 1:16:55 PM Hi Thanks for your email. Wanted to acknowledge that it has been received, and I will make sure that it is included with the project packet when it goes back to planning commission for consideration. Jason C > On Aug 8, 2025, at 12:57 PM, Marie S <elvetl 160@gmail.com> wrote: > CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. > Dear Mr. Crawford, > I wish to press my concem that the City is again just playing manipulative games to push another development. The Wiley Canyon Project has dragged along with obvious dissatisfaction from many community members, but the Developer and City keep proposing alternatives that come at everyone's expense. The City needs to realize that several questionable events have occurred this year, likely headed by a city council member to the expense of the City's overall reputation. > My specific issues with this project: > 1. Leave open land where it allows everyone to enjoy it, do not house every visible piece of land while picking up hiking trails and hard to build property sites. This is useful but not at the expense of loosing our rural feel. > 2. The transportation study not only was done as COVID-19 was waning, and people were starting to drive more normally, which is taken into account in the formula used for tales, but the study was conducted in July 2022, during school vacation, during a period traffic is always greatly reduced. The effect is numbers should be doubled and tripled. The figures for the assisted living facility are unusually high, as most traffic is staff on weekdays. > 3. Open up Calgrove to Valley. It is no longer, nor has it been for sometime, appropriate to allow for a private barricade on a public street. This project will force other communities to seek the same concessions which may have made sense at one time, but no longer due. The same is true of Placenta Canyon, these routes, which were public roads and were closed for vague political reasons need to be opened up to help traffic control. > 4. Smaller project is better in concept, but we do not need a project. This project is mirroring the questionable actions occurring at the Mall, where the City literally announced their plan as a concept, to avoid public opinion and distributing the plan to nearby residents. But the City is now assuming this is the approved direction, all determined with minimum public comment periods. Though, stakeholder meetings are often held, and referenced as occurring in City Council and City Planning meetings, The stakeholders are business entities, many who live outside of Santa Clarita. Stakeholder meetings, should contain a mix of business, education representatives, and homeowners who are not local business owners. > Marie Scherb > Resident since 1969 Packet Pg. 25 1.f From: Annette Lucas To: Erika Iverson Subject: Final comments for 8/8/25 Wiley project Date: Friday, August 8, 2025 4:43:52 PM CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. The Village at Wiley Canyon proposed project will impede the entire Santa Clarita Valley. Look carefully, the new proposal it may not have lower density than the other alternatives, it is still almost 6 homes per acre. Santa Clarita is a General Plan city and needs to honor the current General Plan to improve to Wiley Canyon Road to four lanes between Wabuska and Calgrove. If not, it may impede the cross valley connector and the 1-5 improvements to the Calgrove on/ off ramps and make the new improvements to the Calgrove on/off ramps a mute improvement. One City Traffic employee has said that Wiley Canyon Road can comply to the Packet Pg. 26 1.f General Plan 4 lanes east of the creek. To my knowledge no firm plans have brought forward. Can you imagine the future developments and a 6-lane road funneling into a two-lane road with 3 RoundAbouts within one mile? The Village at Wiley proposed project needs two access points not one entrance/exit and an alley -way emergency exit. As planned, Mulberry Mobilehome residents may lose parking and in turn use the Kelton Estate neighborhood. The Village at Wiley Canyon proposed development only adds one extra parking space within the development above the city's requirement. A fire station should be required in the area since currently some neighborhoods are out of the 8- minute response time and especially since the County just approved Packet Pg. 27 1.f 510 units of homes across the 1-5 freeway near Calgrove Blvd. There seems to be conflict of statements in the way the "small land dedication" is listed and mapped as a park". This dedicated area is almost behind the Santa Clarita Athletic Club. Who will the small park land be under and what contract and have the accountability? Will it be a vacant lot eventually be sold for a home like they did in the Brittany Lane neighborhood? What about the new residents' children that need to be educated? Will the children go to other schools or go to the already overcrowded classrooms at Wiley Canyon Elementary and other prospective Junior and Senior high schools? Our neighborhoods are requesting that you look at the big picture of Santa Clarita and the laws that govern it regarding Packet Pg. 28 1.f development. Regards, Annette Lucas 24618 Fou rl Road Newhall, CA 661-904-5208 Sent from the all new AOL W12 for iOS Packet Pg. 29 1.f Date: August 6, 2025 City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Blvd, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Attn: Erika Iverson, Project Planner RE: Wiley Canyon Project — Master Case 20-238 Failure to Address EIR Issues and General Plan Conflicts Dear Ms. Iverson, On behalf of the Calgrove Corridor Coalition and myself, I am submitting this formal objection to the advancement of the Wiley Canyon Project (Master Case 20-238) due to major, unresolved deficiencies in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the project's inconsistency with the City's General Plan, circulation infrastructure policies, and applicable state and municipal law. ^ ib M Unresolved EIR Issues c N To date, the City has not sufficiently responded to the more than 500 detailed and legitimate concerns submitted during the public 2 review process for the original EIR. These include major deficiencies in environmental review, traffic, infrastructure capacity, fire m safety, and long-term compatibility with General Plan goals. M Failure to address these comments violates CEQA and undermines the integrity of public participation and environmental planning. x General Plan Violation — Wiley Canyon Road 0 c The Wiley Canyon Project conflicts directly with the City's General Plan Circulation Element, specifically page C-27, which designates f° CU Wiley Canyon Road (between Wabuska Street and Calgrove Blvd) for widening from two lanes to four lanes. This segment is a critical component of the future six -lane Cross -Valley Connector designed to link SR-14 to 1-5 at Calgrove Boulevard. Caltrans has already constructed and expanded the on- and off -ramp improvements along the i-5 route at Calgrove in anticipation of (n this corridor, further emphasizing its long -planned regional importance of the General Plan. Allowing a residential project to proceed along this corridor — without reserving the necessary right-of-way — creates a "planning obstruction" that will permanently eliminate the City's ability to meet its circulation objectives, a direct violation of General Plan Law. Legal Framework This proposed development is inconsistent with the General Plan and must be denied or modified to comply. Relevant legal and regulatory authorities include: • Santa Clarita Municipal Code §§16.01.040(A), 17.15.010 • California Government Codes §§65860, 66473.5 • California Constitution, Article XI, §7 • Subdivision Map Act, §66475 • Santa Clarita Municipal Code 17.06.110(B)(3) notice California case law has repeatedly affirmed the legal requirement for General Plan consistency: • Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras — Projects inconsistent with the General Plan must be denied. • Future v. El Dorado County— Circulation elements are binding and enforceable. • Lesher Communications v. City of Walnut Creek Packet Pg. 30 1.f • Friends of Lagoon Valley v. City of Vacaville Howard v. County of San Diego — Courts upheld conditioning project approval on road alignment consistent with the General Plan. These cases make it clear: A city cannot approve a project that would make its own General Plan impossible to implement. Physical Constraints and Why the General Plan Requires Realignment The existing two-lane segment of Wiley Canyon Road is severely constrained by topography, slopes, retaining walls, culverts, existing homes, and a natural flowing creek. These physical realities prevent widening within the current alignment, which is precisely why the General Plan designates a realigned and widened roadway west of the creek and aligning with previously required implementation of infrastructure for developments to the North and South now existing alignments— to be developed in cooperation with new projects like this one. Failure to condition this development accordingly constitutes a knowing abandonment of the City's transportation vision. What the City Should Do Instead Require Dedication of Additional Right -of -Way Under Gov. Code §66475, the City can and should require the developer to dedicate necessary ROW to fulfill General Plan objectives. 2. Condition the Project on Future Road Alignment or Reroute If existing alignment is infeasible, approval must be conditioned on an alternate route consistent with the Circulation Element (supported by Howard v. County of San Diego). Defer or Deny the Project Until Consistency is Guaranteed If no mechanism exists to fulfill the General Plan at this location, the City must not approve the project until such mechanism exists. Any other action invites litigation and future infrastructure failure. Conclusion (n The approval of the Wiley Canyon Project, without correction or proper conditioning, would constitute a direct violation of CEQA, the Subdivision Map Act, multiple state planning laws, the California Constitution, and Santa Clarita's own General Plan. E No political pressure or private development incentive justifies undermining the community's legally adopted long-range O U transportation and land use policies. Approving this project as proposed would permanently foreclose a major cross -valley circulation route, impose significant legal risks a on the City, and expose taxpayers to unnecessary costs in condemnation or future redesign. It would also constitute a failure by City c staff and the Planning Commission to fulfill their duty to implement the General Plan. m E t On behalf of the Calgrove Corridor Coalition, I strongly urge the City to: U r r Q • Deny or delay approval of the Wiley Canyon Project as currently configured; • Require dedication of necessary right-of-way or conditioning of alternate alignment; and • Fully respond to all EIR comments before taking further action. Sincerely, R. Weston Monroe Calgrove Corridor Coalition Packet Pg. 31 Tuesday, August 19, 2025 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Chair Eichman called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. City Council Chambers ROLL CALL Chair Eichman, Commissioner Burkhart, Commissioner Keith, and Commissioner Verner were all present. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Verner led the flag salute. COMMISSION SECRETARY ANNOUNCEMENT Rachel Clark gave the Secretary Announcement. Chair Eichman acknowledged the absence of former Planning Commissioner Denise Lite. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Burkhart and seconded by Commissioner Verner to approve the minutes from the June 17, 2025, regular Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried by a 4-0 voice vote. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 1 WILEY CANYON MIXED -USE PROJECT (MASTER CASE 20-238) A request to allow for the development of a mixed -use project consisting of a senior -living facility with 130 independent living units, 61 assisted -living units, and 26 memory care beds; 8,914 square feet of commercial floor area; and 379 multi -family apartment units. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Planning Commission: 1. Receive the staff presentation in response to Planning Commission direction; 2. Open the continued public hearing to receive testimony from the applicant and the public; 3. Provide direction to staff on the hearing schedule; and 4. Continue the public hearing to a date certain. R. Weston Monroe objected to the proceeding of the continued public hearing based on the claim of inadequate on -site public notice. Erika Iverson, Senior Planner, presented on the item. The public comment portion of the continued public hearing was opened at 6:24 p.m. Tom Clark, the applicant, and his team presented on behalf of the item. There were 15 public speakers, four in support, six in opposition, and five that were neutral or did not disclose their position. Additionally, there were six written comments in opposition, noting concerns regarding traffic, emergency response, and project design. The applicant team exercised their right to rebuttal, responding to the public comments. Commissioner Burkhart asked to clarify the legal public noticing requirements and the risk of proceeding with the public hearing. Assistant City Attorney Karl Berger provided clarification that the City provides reasonable notice to the public, noting the large number of attendees, and that the City was in compliance. Chair Eichman asked if a public notice was provided in Spanish. Mr. Berger noted that there is no legal requirement to do so. Patrick Leclair, Planning Manager, confirmed that a public notice in Spanish was not provided. Commissioner Keith asked the applicant team to clarify whether the parking for the park was included in the required parking for the residential and commercial portions of the project. Glenn Adamick, of the applicant team, responded that the parking spaces for the park were counted separately from the rest of the project. Mr. Keith asked about the property lines with the adjacent property to the south, which currently has a parking lot. Mr. Adamick noted that discussions are taking place regarding a potential lot line adjustment. Chair Eichman asked about the amenities that would be provided at the park. Mr. Adamick stated that it has not been planned at this stage. Chair Eichman also asked if the gap between the Metro wall, along the Interstate-5 freeway, and the Project's wall has been fixed. Mr. Adamick noted that it has not, but it would be landscaped and include a wrought -iron fence. Chair Eichman asked if the applicant would accept a Condition of Approval requiring the assisted - living facility to submit an emergency disaster plan. The applicant agreed. She also asked about the location of the fire exit. Mr. Adamick responded. Commissioner Verner asked about the height of the Metro wall and berm wall by the assisted living facility. Mr. Adamick and Ms. Iverson responded. The public comment portion of the continued public hearing was closed at 7:20 p.m. Page 2 Chair Eichman noted that she liked the proposed alternative project. Commissioner Burkhart agreed that it is a substantial improvement and commented on the benefit of a locally based developer. Commissioner Keith asked City Planning staff for confirmation that City staff have reviewed the right-of-way access in response to the potential for the future widening of Wiley Canyon Road. Ms. Iverson confirmed. Mr. Keith asked if additional Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) would be allowed per State law. Ms. Iverson stated that per the City's ADU Ordinance, no additional ADUs would be allowed and it is in conformance with State law. Commissioner Keith asked about the next steps in the public hearing process. Ms. Iverson noted that if the Planning Commission selected the proposed alternative as the preferred alternative, the Final Environmental Impact Report would be circulated with the preferred alternative and brought back to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Commissioner Verner asked that the applicant fix the on -site public noticing sign prior to the next public hearing date. Commissioner Keith asked if public notices could be provided in Spanish for the next hearing. Mr. Leclair stated that no public notices would be required if the item were continued to a date certain, as proposed. A motion was made by Commissioner Verner and seconded by Commissioner Burkhart to continue the item to the September 16, 2025, regular meeting, selecting the proposed Alternative 5 be the preferred alternative project, including a Condition of Approval that would require proof of State approval of the assisted living facility before building occupancy, and the itorementioned Uondition of Approval. laid motion was carried by a roll -call vote of 4-0. RESULT: APPROVED AS AMENDED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Pamela Verner, Commissioner SECONDER: Timothy Burkhart, Chair AYES: Eichman, Burkhart, Keith, Verner PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM 2 RUETHER SELF -STORAGE FACILITY (MASTER CASE 25-048) A request for approval of Conditional Use Permit 25-004 and Development Review 25-006, to allow the conversion of an existing one-story industrial building into a three-story, self -storage facility and to permit its operation, all within an existing shell building located on Ruether Avenue. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Planning Commission: 1. Receive staff s presentation; Page 3 2. Open the public hearing to receive testimonial and written evidence; 3. After closing the public hearing, determine that Master Case 25-048 is categorically exempt from additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 as a Class 1 categorical exemption; 4. Adopt Resolution No. P25-08, approving Master Case 25-048, including Conditional Use Permit 25-004 and Development Review 25-006, to allow the conversion of an existing one-story industrial building into a three-story self -storage facility and to permit its operation, all within an existing shell building located at 26477 Ruether Avenue (Assessor's Parcel Number: 2836-017-030), subject to Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A); and 5. Take other action as determined by the Planning Commission. Marlene Mancia, Assistant Planner II, presented on the item. There were no public speakers on the item. Commissioner Burkhart asked to clarify the need for a Conditional Use Permit if the height of the building would not change. Ms. Mancia responded. The public comment portion of the public hearing was opened and closed at 7:37 p.m. A motion was made by Commissioner Burkhart and seconded by Commissioner Keith, determining that Master Case 25-048 is categorically exempt from additional environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15301 as a Class 1 categorical exemption and adopting Resolution No. P25-08, approving Master Case 25- 048, including Conditional Use Permit 25-004 and Development Review 25-006, to allow the conversion of an existing one-story industrial building into a three-story self -storage facility and to permit its operation, all within an existing shell building located at 26477 Ruether Avenue (Assessor's Parcel Number: 2836-017-030), subject to Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). Said motion was carried by a roll -call vote of 4-0. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Timothy Burkhart, Chair SECONDER: Nathan Keith, Commissioner AYES: Eichman, Burkhart, Keith, Verner Page 4 ITEM 3 MARATHON TRUCKS (MASTER CASE 24-104) A request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Development Review (DR) to retroactively permit the operation of an auto body repair and painting use, Marathon Trucks, in an existing industrial building at the southeast intersection of Centre Pointe Parkway and Golden Valley Road. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Planning Commission: 1. Conduct the public hearing; 2. Determine that the project is exempt from additional review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15000, et seq.) Section 15301 as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption; 3. Adopt Resolution P25-10 approving Master Case 24-104 (Conditional Use Permit 24-005 and Development Review 24-009) to retroactively permit the operation of an auto body repair and painting use, Marathon Trucks, in an existing industrial building at the southeast intersection of Centre Pointe Parkway and Golden Valley Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 2836-018-047), subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A); and 4. Take other action as determined by the Planning Commission. Emily Rubalcava, Assistant Planner I, presented on the item. There were no public speakers on the item. The public comment portion of the public hearing was opened and closed at 7:43 p.m. A motion was made by Commissioner Keith and seconded by Commissioner Burkhart, determining that the project is exempt from additional review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15000, et seq.) Section 15301 as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption and adopting Resolution P25- 10 approving Master Case 24-104 (Conditional Use Permit 24-005 and Development Review 24- 009) to retroactively permit the operation of an auto body repair and painting use, Marathon Trucks, in an existing industrial building at the southeast intersection of Centre Pointe Parkway and Golden Valley Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 2836-018-047), subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). Said motion was carried by a roll -call vote of 4-0. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Nathan Keith, Commissioner SECONDER: Timothy Burkhart, Chair AYES: Eichman, Burkhart, Keith, Verner PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Patrick Leclair gave a forecast of the upcoming Planning Commission meetings. Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT There were no reports made by the Planning Commission. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION There were two speaker cards submitted for Public Participation, but they were not present at the time that they were called. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Burkhart and seconded by Commissioner Verner to adjourn the meeting at 7:45 p.m. ATTEST: PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR Page 6 O Agenda Item: 1 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING MANAGER APPROVAL: DATE: September 16, 2025 SUBJECT: WILEY CANYON MIXED -USE PROJECT (MASTER CASE 20-238) APPLICANT: Wiley Canyon, LLC LOCATION: West side of Wiley Canyon Road, between Calgrove Boulevard and Hawkbryn Avenue CASE PLANNER: Erika Iverson RECOMMENDED ACTION Planning Commission: 1. Receive the staff presentation in response to Planning Commission direction; 2. Open the continued public hearing; Based upon the evidence from the public hearing, consider adopting Resolution P25-13, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2202030626) prepared for the project; 4. Consider adopting Resolution P25-14, approving the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project under Master Case 20-238, including Architectural Design Review 20-023; Conditional Use Permit 20-005; Development Review 20-017; Minor Use Permit 20-013; Oak Tree Permit (Class 4) 425-004; and Tentative Tract Map 83295, subject to the conditions of approval; and 5. Take such additional, related action that may be desirable. REQUEST The applicant, Wiley Canyon, LLC, seeks approval of an Architectural Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Development Review, Minor Use Permit, Oak Tree Permit, and Page 1 Packet Pg. 11 O Tentative Map to allow for the development of a mixed -use project consisting of a senior -living facility with 120 assisted -living units; 9,000 square feet of commercial floor area; 45 detached single-family units, eight of which would include an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU); and 179 townhome units (Project). BACKGROUND To date, the City of Santa Clarita's (City) Planning Commission has conducted three public hearings on the proposed Project: March 19, 2024, June 18, 2024, and August 19, 2025. The Project qualifies as a housing development project in accordance with the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Government Code section 66300). Consequently, the City cannot conduct more than five public hearings (including appeals) to consider the Project. Following the June 2024 meeting, the applicant submitted an Alternative Project (Alternative 5) that reduced the overall density and floor area for Planning Commission consideration. At the August 19, 2025, Planning Commission meeting, City staff provided response to the June 2024 Planning Commission comments and presented Alternative 5. The intent of this public hearing is to respond to the Planning Commission's direction from the last public hearing on August 19, 2025. Additionally, the agenda includes responses to comments received during the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) public comment period; recommends certification of the Final EIR; and recommends approval of Project Alternative 5. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES In preparing an EIR, alternative projects are required to be analyzed to determine if a revision to the Project could result in an environmentally superior project that meets the Project Objectives. At the August 2025 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant provided Alternative 5 for consideration, which would reduce the overall density and floor area. The Planning Commission directed staff to incorporate Alternative 5 into the Final EIR. Alternative 5: Mixed Use Alternative Alternative 5 includes the development of 232 townhome and/or detached condominium units, at two stories in height. In addition, this alternative would include a senior/assisted living facility with 120 units, at four stories in height. Under Alternative 5, the commercial component would be 9,000 square feet. Similar recreation space, as proposed in the Project, would be provided at the southern portion of the project site. This Alternative would have similar impacts to the proposed Project's impacts. In the areas of Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, and Utilities impacts would be slightly lower, but expected to require the same mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. This Alternative would have the same temporary significant unavoidable impact for construction noise. This Alternative meets the Project Objectives. A full discussion of Alternative 5 was incorporated into the Final EIR, Chapter 1, Section 1.8, and Chapter 6, Section 6.4. Page 2 Packet Pg. 12 O SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO DRAFT EIR COMMENTS During the public review period from March 1, 2024, to April 15, 2024, staff received 60 comment letters from public agencies, organizations, and members of the public on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Additional comments were received during the public hearing process. These comments have been provided to the Planning Commission throughout the hearing process and incorporated into the record. The Draft Final EIR was issued to the Planning Commission for review on September 5, 2025, was posted on the City's website, and emailed to responding agencies and interested parties. The following summarizes responses to DEIR comments (detailed responses are provided in Resolution P25-13 Exhibit B: Draft Final EIR). PUBLIC AGENCIES State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) The letter provided by the State Water Board notes that the DEIR identifies improvements to the public water system that need to be facilitated by the Project, and as such, construction design documents and permits are required from the State Water Board Division of Drinking Water. The EIR has been revised to include this approval requirement. Detailed responses are included and referenced in Comment Letter Al in the Final EIR. Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) The letter from DTSC notes that a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed and recommends that a Phase II ESA be completed. A Phase II ESA was completed in April 2025, as shown in Chapter 3, Changes to the DEIR, of the Final EIR. The addition does not change the conclusions of the DEIR and does not result in the need for new or altered mitigation measures. Detailed responses are included and referenced in Comment Letter A2 in the Final EIR. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) The letter provided by CDFW includes comments and recommendations related to the impacts on sensitive plant communities, Crotch's Bumble Bee, Arroyo Toad, California species of special concern, and includes recommendations on mitigation measures to address these impacts. The recommendations from CDFW to Mitigation Measure BIO-1, related to the impacts on Crotch's Bumble Bee, have been accepted and incorporated into the EIR. All other impacts were addressed in the Draft EIR, the appendices, and applicable mitigation measures are anticipated to fully address these concerns. Detailed responses to these comments are included and referenced in Comment Letter A3 in the Final EIR. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 7 Page 3 Packet Pg. 13 O The Caltrans letter concurs with the Traffic Analysis prepared for the proposed Project. It goes on to state that Project activities will require encroachment permits within the Caltrans right-of- way, as well as transportation permits for the use of heavy construction equipment. Revisions to identify the Caltrans permit requirement have been made to the EIR. Detailed responses are included and referenced in Comment Letter A4 in the Final EIR. Local Agency Formation Commission of the County of Los Angeles (LAFCO) The LAFCO letter states that consideration should be made for potential annexations and/or Sphere of Influence amendments to special districts. Annexation is underway with the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (LACSD), Santa Clarita Valley Division; no annexation with the Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency or any other special district is required. Detailed responses are included and referenced in Comment Letter A5 in the Final EIR. Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts The LACSD letter states that annexation of the Project area is underway. The letter goes on to specify the expected average wastewater flow for Alternative 2, Affordable Housing Alternative, of the DEIR. A revision has been made to the EIR to clarify that the impacts to wastewater for Alternative 2 would be similar to the Project. In addition, the LACSD letter notes that previous comments from LACSD, provided in response to the Notice of Preparation, and the Will Serve Letter for the Project still apply. Detailed responses are included and referenced in Comment Letter A6 in the Final EIR. Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy(SMMC) The letter from SMMC includes comments and recommendations regarding habitat connectivity. Section 4.3.1.2 of the DEIR discusses habitat linkages and wildlife movement corridors. While the site is not within any linkages identified by the South Coast Mission Linkages report, the DEIR does recognize that the South Fork of the on -site Santa Clara River is a regional wildlife movement corridor. The DEIR does outline that a majority of this on -site area would be maintained, and that the project proposes to widen the existing channel to create additional riparian habitat that would continue to allow any wildlife movement that currently occurs. Detailed responses are included and referenced in Comment Letter A7 in the Final EIR. County of Los Angeles Sheriff's Department Sheriff) The letters provided by the Sheriff state that the project would increase demand on police protection services and makes recommendations for landscaping, security monitoring, and lighting. Police protection is discussed in Section 4.14 of the DEIR. The project would add new employees and residents within the Sheriff service area, but would not necessitate the construction of new police facilities. The applicant would be required to pay applicable development impact fees for law enforcement. Detailed responses are included and referenced in Comment Letters A8 and A9 in the Final EIR. County of Los Angeles Fire Department Prevention Services Bureau (Fire Department) The Fire Department letter outlines routine design standards, standard requirements, and terms of Page 4 Packet Pg. 14 O approval to be incorporated during the plan check process in regards to the Final Map, Water System, Fuel Modification, and the Forestry Division. Fire Department Conditions of Approval have been incorporated into the Project Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A of Resolution P25- 14). Compliance will be addressed during the permit plan check process by the Fire Department. Detailed responses are included and referenced in Comment Letter A10 in the Final EIR. ORGANIZATIONAND PUBLIC COMMENTS Fifty comment letters were received on the DEIR from organizations and individuals. Common themes included: • Traffic Circulation; • Roadway Improvements; • Site Access; • Wildfire Evacuation; • Visual Changes to the site; • Protection of Wildlife Corridor; and • Impacts from construction and grading, among other topics. A summary of common topics is provided below. Detailed responses are included in Comment Letters 01-04 in the Final EIR, and I1-I46 in in the Final EIR. Traffic Circulation/Roadway Improvements/Site Access Wiley Canyon Road is designated by the General Plan as a Secondary Highway, which is a four - lane road configuration; however, the proposed Project improvements would maintain a two-lane roadway configuration. The two-lane design is based on the traffic analysis for the Project, which considers the traffic volumes, inclusive of the current and expected future traffic volumes, plus the traffic volumes for the Project, along portions of Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard. As discussed in the traffic assessment, vehicle trips would be between 9,000 and 10,000 vehicle trips per day, well below the maximum capacity of a two-lane roadway, of 16,000 to 18,000 vehicle trips per day. Given that the daily trips generated by the proposed Project (3,500 trips) is significantly lower than what is contemplated by the General Plan (27,000 trips) for this site, a nexus cannot be established between the Project and the build -out of a four -lane roadway. Nonetheless, the Project does not change the General Plan Roadway designation, and could be designed to accommodate four lanes in the future if ever necessary. The site access was reviewed by City Traffic and Transportation Planning staff, as well as the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD). The site provides one vehicular access from Wiley Canyon Road. A secondary access is required by LACFD only for emergency service. This is a gated access from Wabuska Street and will have a Fire Department Knox box. Wildfire Evacuation Section 4.19, Wildfire, of the DEIR evaluates the potential wildfire impacts and identifies mitigation measures related to the implementation of the Project. A traffic evacuation model was prepared by CR Associates (Appendix N of the DEIR), which analyzed emergency evacuation of existing land uses, as well as the Project. The analysis concluded that the Project would not Page 5 Packet Pg. 15 O significantly impair or physically interfere with the implementation of an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. The Project would replace the existing undeveloped landscape that has flammable vegetation with non-flammable landscape materials designed to comply with the LACFD fuel modification standards, constructing buildings to meet the current LACFD fire codes, as well as constructing an internal street network to provide access by emergency response vehicles, substantially reducing the fuel loads on -site. Implementation of the Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks or interfere with emergency response plans. Visual Changes Section 4.1, Aesthetics, of the DEIR discusses scenic vistas. The City's General Plan and Open Space Element does not specifically list any local scenic vistas. However, Wiley Canyon Road provides a potential public vantage point for views of the surrounding hillsides and mountains. The quality of the views from the roadway near the Project site, however, are regularly obscured by foreground elements such as intervening residential land uses, the Interstate-5 freeway, aboveground utility infrastructure, and vegetation. In addition, the hillsides and mountain views from Wiley Canyon Road are typically narrow and short. Wildlife Corridor Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the DEIR, discusses wildlife corridors, and while the Project site does not represent significant corridors for wildlife movement to and from adjacent sites, the DEIR did recognize that the South Fork of the on -site Santa Clara River is a regional wildlife movement corridor. The Project maintains a majority of this area, and the Project proposes to widen the existing channel on -site to create additional riparian habitat. The river is a concrete -sided and bottomed channel in the northern portion of the project site upstream, and that condition continues downstream of the project for approximately 1.6 miles. Construction and Grading Construction impacts related to air quality are discussed in the DEIR Section 4.2, Air Quality. The analysis utilizes construction schedule, phasing, and trips for air quality modeling. The Project would comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403, Control of Fugitive Dust, and incorporate mitigation measures to reduce fugitive dust emissions from grading and excavation activities to less than significant levels. Construction impacts related to noise are discussed in the DEIR Section 4.12, Noise. The DEIR concludes that the Project will have temporary construction noise levels that would be considered significant and unavoidable. The DEIR includes two mitigation measures (MM-NOI- 1 and MM-NOI-2) designed to reduce construction noise at nearby sensitive receivers to the extent feasible. CONCLUSION The Project is a housing development project in accordance with the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Government Code section 66300). Accordingly, the Project was reviewed and evaluated based on conformance with the City's objective development standards as discussed at the March 19, Page 6 Packet Pg. 16 O 2024, June 18, 2024, and August 19, 2025, Planning Commission meetings, and as a housing project, the Project cannot be denied if it is in compliance with the City's objective design standards. Based on the direction from the Planning Commission at the August 2025 meeting, staff has prepared the necessary Resolutions and Draft Conditions of Approval for consideration, and recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution P25-13, to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2022030626) prepared for the Project, and adopt Resolution P25-14, to approve the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project under Master Case 20-238 (ADR20-023, CUP20-005, DR20-017, MUP20-013, OTP425-004, and TM 83295) for development consisting of a senior -living facility with 120 assisted -living units; 9,000 square feet of commercial floor area; 45 detached single-family units, eight of which would include an attached ADU; and 179 townhome units; subject to the Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A of Resolution P25-14). ATTACHMENTS Resolution P25-13 P25-13-Exhibit A CEQA Findings P25-13-Exhibit B Final EIR-MMRP Resolution P25-14 P25-14-Exhibit A - Draft Conditions of Approval Alternative 5 Site Plan Public Comments Page 7 Packet Pg. 17 1.a RESOLUTION P25-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH No. 2022030626) FOR MASTER CASE 20- 238 (ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 20-023, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 20-005, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 20-017, MINOR USE PERMIT 20-013, OAK TREE PERMIT 425- 004, AND TENTATIVE MAP 83295) INCLUDING REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT, AND ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM THE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS FOR MASTER CASE 20-238. The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: A. On October 28, 2020, the applicant (Community Multihousing, Inc.) filed Master Case 20- 238, consisting of Architectural Design Review (ADR) 20-023, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 20-005, Development Review (DR) 20-017, Minor Use Permit (MUP) 20-013, Oak Tree Permit (OTP) 425-004, and Tentative Map (TM) 83295. The properties affected by the application are Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN) 2825-012-007, 2825-007-010, 2825-012- 011, 2825-012-901, and 2825-012-902; B. The approximately 31-acre Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project (Project) site is located at 24924 Hawbryn Avenue, and has a General Plan land use and zoning designation of Mixed Use Neighborhood (MXN). The Project site is also located within the area designated by the General Plan as the Calgrove Corridor/Smiser Ranch Special Development Area (Smiser Ranch Area), and located within the Planned Development Overlay (PD) zone; C. The Project includes the proposed development of 45 two-story detached, single-family condominium units, eight of which would include an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU); 179 two-story townhome units; a four-story, 120-unit assisted -living facility; and 9,000 square feet of commercial floor area, including the merger and subdivision into seven lots; D. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq.), including the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15000, et seq.), the City of Santa Clarita (City) is the lead agency, and the Planning Commission is the decision -making body for the Project; E. The City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared for the Project; F. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project EIR was circulated to affected agencies, pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, for 30 days, beginning on March 24, 2022, and ending on April 25, 2022. Agencies that received the NOP include, but are not limited to, the County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, South Coast Air Quality Management District, law enforcement agencies, school districts, water agencies, and utility companies serving the Page 1 of 9 Packet Pg. 18 1.a Resolution P25-13 Master Case 20-238 September 16, 2025 Santa Clarita Valley in accordance with CEQA's consultation requirements. Comments from public agencies, organizations, and members of the public were received in response to the NOP for the Project; G. A scoping meeting was held at City Hall on April 14, 2022, to obtain information from the public as to issues that should be addressed in the EIR. Notice of the scoping meeting was published in The Signal newspaper on March 24, 2022. Approximately 58 people attended the scoping meeting. The topics of concern that were raised at the meeting included changes to the existing visual characteristics, displacement of wildlife, wildland fire and emergency evacuation, increase in traffic, water quality and water supply, drainage and flooding, and increase in density; H. The City hosted a community meeting in an open house format on June 30, 2022, providing the opportunity for the public to view the Project proposal and engage with City staff. There were approximately 40 people in attendance; I. A site tour of the Project site with the Planning Commission was held February 21, 2023, to provide the Planning Commission with context for the site setting and surroundings; J. The City prepared a Draft EIR, for the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project, that addressed all issues raised in comments received on the NOR The Draft EIR was circulated for review and comment by affected governmental agencies and the public, in compliance with CEQA. Specifically, the Notice of Availability/Notice of Completion for the Draft EIR was advertised on March 1, 2024, for a 45-day public review period that ended on April 15, 2024, at 5:00 p.m. in accordance with CEQA. The City received written comments throughout the comment period as well as oral testimony at the March 19, 2024, June 18, 2024, August 19, 2025, and September 16, 2025 Planning Commission meetings for the Project; K. The Planning Commission public hearings for the Project were duly noticed in accordance with the noticing requirements for each of the Entitlements. The Project was advertised in The Signal newspaper, through on -site posting 14 days before the hearing, and by direct first- class mailing to property owners and occupants within 1,000 feet of the Project site; L. On March 19, 2024, a duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. The Planning Commission opened the public hearing for the Project and received a presentation from City staff on the Project setting, requested Entitlements, Project description, and the Draft EIR sections. The Planning Commission provided direction to bring the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project back to the Planning Commission with additional information regarding traffic circulation and access, a parking plan, residential amenities, landscape buffers, emergency evacuation operations for the senior facility, construction management plans, and discussion of the geotechnical analysis. The Planning Commission continued the item to the June 18, 2024, Planning Commission meeting; M. On June 18, 2024, the Planning Commission received a presentation regarding the follow-up items from the March 19, 2024, meeting, along with a presentation from the applicant, and Page 2 of 9 Packet Pg. 19 1.a Resolution P25-13 Master Case 20-238 September 16, 2025 public testimony. Additional time was needed to respond to all comments received on the Draft EIR and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission provided direction to bring the Project back to the Planning Commission with additional information regarding traffic simulations, timing for right-of-way acquisition, parking operations plan, construction phasing, and construction noise mitigation plans, additional renderings, and additional community outreach. The Planning Commission then continued the item; N. On August 19, 2025, a duly noticed continued public hearing was held before the Planning Commission at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall, Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. The Planning Commission received a staff presentation on the follow-up items from the March 19, 2024, and June 18, 2024, meetings, along with a presentation of a reduced Project alternative proposed by the applicant. Following public testimony, the Planning Commission directed that the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project return to the Planning Commission at the September 16, 2025, meeting with a draft resolution and Conditions of Approval for the reduced Project alternative for consideration; O. On September 16, 2025, the Planning Commission received a presentation on the follow-up items from the March 19, 2024, June 18, 2024, and August 19, 2025, meetings, along with the applicant's presentation and public testimony. The Planning Commission considered the staff report, Draft Final EIR, Resolutions, and Conditions of Approval; P. The Draft EIR was presented to the Planning Commission on March 19, 2024. On September 16, 2025, the Planning Commission considered the Draft Final EIR prepared for the Project, as well as information provided in staff reports, presented to the Planning Commission by experts, and presented in public testimony, including letters submitted to the Planning Commission, before recommending approval of the Project. The Draft Final EIR for the Project was prepared in compliance with CEQA; and Q. 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 public hearings, including the staff report. SECTION 2. CEQA REQUIREMENTS. Based on the foregoing facts and findings for Master Case 20-238, the Planning Commission determines as follows: A. CEQA provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002). The procedures required by CEQA "are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects" (Id.); B. CEQA's mandates and principles are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. For each Page 3 of 9 Packet Pg. 20 1.a Resolution P25-13 Master Case 20-238 September 16, 2025 significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions: (1) "[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR," (2) "[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency," or (3) "[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR." (CEQA Guidelines § 15091.) CEQA defines "feasible" to mean capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal and technological factors. (CEQA §21061.1; CEQA Guidelines §15364.); C. The concept of "feasibility" also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. "Feasibility" under CEQA, then, encompasses "desirability" to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors; D. CEQA requires that the lead agency exercise its independent judgment in reviewing the adequacy of an EIR and that the decision of a lead agency in certifying a Final EIR and approving a project not be predetermined. The Planning Commission has conducted its own review and analysis, and is exercising its independent judgment when acting as herein provided; E. CEQA requires decision -makers to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for those mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR that would mitigate or avoid each significant impact identified in the EIR and to incorporate the MMRP, including all mitigation measures, as a condition of Project approval; F. CEQA requires that the responses to comments in the Final EIR demonstrate good faith and a well -reasoned analysis, and not be overly conclusory. In response to several of the comments received, portions of the Draft EIR have been revised. Although new material has been added to the Draft EIR through preparation of the Final EIR, this new material provides clarification to points and information already included in the Draft EIR and is not considered to be significant new information or a substantial change to the Draft EIR or to the Project that would necessitate recirculation; and G. CEQA Guidelines § 15003 notes that the purpose of an EIR is to inform other governmental agencies and the public generally of the environmental impacts of a proposed project. CEQA does not require technical perfection or exhaustive treatment of issues in an EIR, but rather adequacy, completeness, and a good -faith effort at full disclosure. Page 4 of 9 Packet Pg. 21 1.a Resolution P25-13 Master Case 20-238 September 16, 2025 SECTION 3. CEQA FINDINGS. The Planning Commission finds that the Draft Final EIR for Master Case 20-238 (ADR 20-023; CUP 20-005; DR 20-017; MUP 20-013; OTP (Class 4) 425- 004; and TM 83295) identifies and discloses Project -specific impacts and cumulative Project impacts. Environmental impacts identified in the Draft Final EIR, findings, and facts in support of findings are incorporated as CEQA Facts and Findings referred to as Exhibit A, which is incorporated by reference, and identified as follows: A. The Draft Final EIR identifies significant but mitigated impacts, as set forth in Section 5.3 of Exhibit A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project that will avoid or reduce these potential impacts to a less -than -significant level. B. The Draft Final EIR also identifies less -than -significant impacts, as set forth in Section 5.2 of Exhibit A. C. The Draft Final EIR also identifies significant and unavoidable, but mitigated to the extent feasible, as set forth in Section 5.4 of Exhibit A. D. The less -than -significant impacts set forth in Section 5.2 of Exhibit A will not contribute to cumulative impacts. E. The MMRP, attached as Exhibit B, which is incorporated by reference, is required to mitigate Project impacts. SECTION 4. CONSIDERATION OF A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including the Project Draft Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Project and the Draft Final EIR and otherwise, upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission further finds that the Draft Final EIR analyzes a reasonable range of Project alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project, would lessen any of the significant impacts of the Project, and adequately evaluates the comparative merits of each alternative. A. The objectives of the Project are specified in the Draft Final EIR and Section 2.2 of Exhibit A. These objectives are used as the basis for comparing the Project alternatives and determining the extent that the objectives would be achieved relative to the proposed Project. B. Alternative 1 — No Project/No Development Alternative. This alternative is required by the CEQA Guidelines and compares the impacts that might occur if the site is left in its present condition with those that would be generated by the proposed Project. Under this alternative, no development or redevelopment would occur beyond what exists today; therefore, all impacts would remain at current levels. This alternative would have the least impact compared to the Project; however, it would not attain any of the Project Objectives as summarized in Section 2.2 of the CEQA Facts and Findings (Exhibit A). Therefore, this alternative is infeasible. Page 5 of 9 Packet Pg. 22 1.a Resolution P25-13 Master Case 20-238 September 16, 2025 C. Alternative 2 — Affordable Housing Alternative. This alternative includes the development of 837 apartment units, including 201 units designated for lower -income households. The maximum height would be 65 feet, with a proposed floor area ratio of 0.63. This alternative would not develop the recreation area located to the south of the creek. The infrastructure improvements, including the drainage basins and off -site street improvements, would remain the same as the Project. This alternative would generally have similar impacts as the proposed Project. Impacts to Greenhouse Gas (GHG), Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, and Utilities would be slightly higher, but this alternative would necessitate the same mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. This alternative would have the same temporary, significant, unavoidable impact on construction noise. This alternative generally meets the Project Objectives, though it does not provide a senior -living component or commercial component, and does not develop the same recreational space as the Project. D. Alternative 3 — Private Recreation Facility Alternative. This alternative includes the development of a private recreational facility, including a 10,000-square-foot clubhouse/restaurant. The facility would consist of eight tennis courts, seven pickleball courts, a soccer field, a football field, a baseball field, and an outdoor basketball court. All fields would include overhead lighting. The infrastructure improvements, including the drainage basins and off -site street improvements, would remain the same as the Project. This alternative would have greater impacts in the areas of Aesthetics, due to overhead field lighting. Impacts in the areas of Air Quality, Energy, GHG, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, and Utilities would be less than the Project. Impacts in all other areas would be similar to the Project, including the same temporary significant unavoidable impact for construction noise. This alternative would not meet the primary Project Objectives to provide a mixed -use development with housing, senior -living, and commercial uses. E. Alternative 4 — Construction Noise Setback Alternative. This alternative includes the development of a 139-bed assisted -living facility, 47 detached condos, and 237 apartment units. The assisted -living facility would be three stories in height, and the multifamily units would range from two to four stories. Under this alternative, a 200-foot open space/landscaped buffer between the mobile home park to the north and the Project site would be provided. A similar recreation space to the Project at the southern portion of the Project site would be provided. This alternative would have similar or slightly lower impacts as the proposed Project. Impacts to Air Quality, Energy, GHG, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, and Utilities would be slightly lower, but expected to require the same mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. This alternative would eliminate the temporary, significant, unavoidable impact of construction noise. This alternative generally meets the Project Objectives; however, it does not provide the commercial component. Page 6 of 9 Packet Pg. 23 1.a Resolution P25-13 Master Case 20-238 September 16, 2025 F. Alternative 5 — Mixed Use Project Alternative. This alternative includes the development of 232 townhome and/or detached condominium units, two stories in height. In addition, this alternative would include a senior/assisted-living facility with 120 units, four stories in height. The commercial component under this alternative would be 9,000 square feet. A similar recreation space to the Project at the southern portion of the Project site would be provided. This alternative would have similar or slightly lower impacts than the proposed Project. Impacts to Air Quality, Energy, GHG, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, and Utilities would be slightly lower, but expected to require the same mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. This alternative would have the same temporary significant unavoidable impact for construction noise. This alternative meets the Project Objectives. SECTION 5. FINDINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record including, without limitation, the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project Draft Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Project and the Draft Final EIR, upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission finds: A. That the Draft Final EIR for the Project is adequate, complete, was prepared in accordance with CEQA, and should be certified on that basis; B. That the Planning Commission independently reviewed and considered the Draft Final EIR in reaching its conclusions; C. That the Draft Final EIR was presented and reviewed prior to taking final action to recommend certification of the Final EIR and approval of the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project; D. That, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the Draft Final EIR includes a description of each potentially significant impact and rationale for finding that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as detailed in Exhibit A attached hereto. The analyses included in the Draft Final EIR to support each conclusion and recommendation therein is hereby incorporated into these findings; E. That, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081, modifications occurred to the Project to reduce significant effects; F. That, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, changes and alterations have been required and incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen its significant environmental effects because feasible Page 7 of 9 Packet Pg. 24 1.a Resolution P25-13 Master Case 20-238 September 16, 2025 mitigation measures, including those in the MMRP, are made Conditions of Approval for the Project; G. That the Draft Final EIR reflects the decision -maker's independent judgment and analysis; H. That an MMRP has been prepared and is recommended for adoption to enforce the mitigation measures required by the Draft Final EIR and Project approvals; and The documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings on which this decision is based are under the custody of the Director of Community Development and are located at the City of Santa Clarita, Community Development Department, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita, California 91355. SECTION 6: STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS. Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including the Final EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the Project and the Final EIR and otherwise, upon studies and investigation made by the Planning Commission, and upon reports and other transmittals from City staff to the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission further finds that there is substantial evidence that supports the conclusion that the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project will result in community benefits including specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits that outweigh the one significant effect of the Project on the environment that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant. A. One significant unavoidable impact relates to construction noise, as further described in attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated by reference; and B. The benefits of the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project outweigh its one significant unavoidable impact that cannot be mitigated to a level below significant. These benefits are listed in Section 7.3 of Exhibit A. SECTION 7: APPROVALS. The Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Draft Final EIR (SCH No. 2022030626) and determined that it is adequate and in compliance with CEQA. Accordingly, the Planning Commission certifies the Final EIR and associated documents, and adopts the attached MMRP as if fully set forth. SECTION 8: RELIANCE ON RECORD. Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this Resolution 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 Planning Commission in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. SECTION 9: SUMMARIES OF INFORMATION. All summaries of information in the 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 finding is not based in part on that fact. Page 8 of 9 Packet Pg. 25 1.a Resolution P25-13 Master Case 20-238 September 16, 2025 SECTION 10: NOTICE. The Secretary is directed to provide a copy of this Resolution to the Planning Commission and any other person requesting a copy. SECTION 11: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution becomes effective immediately upon adoption and memorializes the Planning Commission's final decision made on September 16, 2025. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of September, 2025. LISA EICHMAN, CHAIRPERSON PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: RACHEL CLARK, SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 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 16th day of September, 2025, by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY Page 9 of 9 Packet Pg. 26 1.b EXHIBIT A STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FOR THE WILEY CANYON PROJECT SCH NO. 2022030626 Lead Agency: CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 September 16, 2025 Packet Pg. 27 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS......................................................................2 2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY....................................................................................................4 2.1 Description of Project Proposed for Approval..............................................................4 2.2 Statement of Objectives................................................................................................ 6 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.................................................8 4.0 INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND FINDING................................................................10 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS.............................................................12 5.1 Effects Determined to Have No Impact in the EIR.....................................................12 5.2 Effects Determined to Be Less Than Significant Without Mitigation in the EIR......... 13 5.3 Effects Determined to Be Mitigated to Less -Than -Significant Levels in the EIR....... 18 5.4 Effects Determined to Be Significant and Unavoidable But Mitigated to the Extent Feasible....................................................................................................................... 33 5.5 Alternatives to the Proposed Project.......................................................................... 34 6.0 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR...........................................................................48 6.1 Findings.......................................................................................................................48 6.2 Conclusions................................................................................................................48 7.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS...................................................50 7.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................50 7.2 Significant Unavoidable Impacts................................................................................50 7.3 Overriding Considerations.......................................................................................... 51 8.0 STATEMENT OF LOCATION AND CUSTODIAN OF DOCUMENTS ............................55 co co N O N U a� as X_ 0 CU U a� a� =a ii Q C� w U Q X w co r N d as E w w a September 2025 i Packet Pg. 28 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. September 2025 1 Packet Pg. 29 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report 1.0 STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDINGS The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that a Lead Agency make specific findings before approving a project that would significantly impact on the environment. In this Statement of Facts and Findings, the City identifies the significant impacts of the Project, presents facts supporting the conclusions reached in the analysis, makes one or more of three potential findings for each impact, and explains the reasoning behind the agency's findings. This Statement of Facts and Findings was prepared in accordance with CEQA, specifically Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 (a) provides that: No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The three findings available for the Statement of Facts and Findings pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 are as follows: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. The City of Santa Clarita (City), the CEQA Lead Agency, finds and declares that the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City's Planning Commission finds and certifies that the EIR was reviewed, and information contained in the EIR was considered before approving the Wiley Canyon Project ("project"). Based upon its review of the EIR, the Planning Commission finds that the EIR is an adequate assessment of the potentially significant environmental impacts of the project, represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City, and sets forth an adequate range of alternatives to this project. The EIR for the project is comprised of the following elements: • Wiley Canyon Project Draft EIR and Technical Appendices (March 2024) Wiley Canyon Project Final EIR and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (September 2025) September 2025 2 Packet Pg. 30 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. September 2025 3 Packet Pg. 31 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report 2.0 PROJECT SUMMARY 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT The project site consists of approximately 31.8 acres of vacant land located at 24924 Hawkbryn Avenue in the southwestern portion of Santa Clarita bordered by Interstate 5 (1-5) to the west, Wiley Canyon Road to the east, Hawkbryn Avenue to the north and Calgrove Boulevard to the south, within the Newhall area of the City of Santa Clarita (City). The project site is located approximately 28 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles and is locally accessible via Wiley Canyon Road and Hawkbryn Avenue. Regionally, the project site is accessible from the 1-5 freeway via Calgrove Boulevard, south of the site, or via Lyons Avenue approximately 0.6 miles north of the site. The project site is located entirely within the City's jurisdictional boundaries, and unincorporated Los Angeles County is located immediately west of the 1-5 freeway. The project applicant proposes to redevelop existing vacant land with a new mixed -use development consisting of the following components: a 277,108 square -foot senior living facility, 8,914 square feet of commercial space, 379 multifamily residential apartments, a publicly accessible outdoor recreational field space, and off -site circulation improvements (e.g., new roundabouts, traffic signals, Class I and II bike lanes on Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard, and pedestrian trails). A 277,108-square-foot senior living facility is proposed with 130 independent living units, 61 assisted living units, and 26 memory care beds. This facility would be located on a 7.27-acre area in the northernly portion of the project site. Within the proposed senior living facility would be an 8,914-square-foot commercial space on the first floor by the facility's entrance. A total of 379 multifamily residential units are proposed to be south of the senior living facility. A total of five 3-story buildings comprised of 152 units would be constructed on a 4.47-acre area. Amenities on site would include a leasing center, clubhouse with fitness center, and a pool area, totaling 5,886 square feet. The proposed residences would range from 1-, 2-, and 3-bedrooms as well as loft style apartments. In addition, a total of eight buildings with 227 units would be developed within an 8.17-acre area and consist of four 4-story buildings and four 2-story buildings. The proposed residences would include studios, and 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom apartments as well as a 2,400 square -foot clubhouse and pool area. The project also proposes active and passive on -site recreational facilities. A 50,600-square-foot passive recreational grass pad would be located on the southern portion of the project site. A 16- foot-wide pedestrian trail/maintenance road would be run approximately 7,040 linear feet (1.3 miles) throughout the project site and along Wiley Canyon Road. Additionally, Lot 6, which is 128,659 square feet (2.9 acres) in size and located to the east of Wiley Canyon Road would remain undeveloped under the proposed project. Within the senior living facility, a memory care garden with a central fountain, table and bench seating, faux turf, and enhanced concrete pavers are proposed. The senior living facility would also include a pool and spa, chaise lounge seating, and outdoor dining areas as well as a barbeque area with a shade structure, counter space, and pedestrian pathways and paving. The project site would be redeveloped to include landscaping throughout and would be used to screen certain facilities on site, such as transformers and September 2025 4 Packet Pg. 32 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report maintenance buildings. In addition, the project would utilize landscaping for fuel modification zones. Implementation of the proposed project would require infrastructure improvements including curb and gutter, storm drain, and water and sewer connections to existing facilities within the local vicinity. The project proposes to connect to an existing 12-inch sewer line and a 12-inch dip water line located to the east of the project site along the right-of-way for Wiley Canyon Road. Existing power poles and overhead electric lines would be removed along the western boundary of the site adjacent to the 1-5 freeway, with the exception of select power poles and overhead lines at the southern end of the site adjacent to the proposed drainage basin, and updated, underground electrical lines would be installed. Electrical transformer units would be installed intermittently around the perimeter of the project site. A 30,011-square-foot (0.69-acre) drainage basin would be located immediately south of the multifamily apartment buildings, and two smaller water quality basins would be located at the northwestern end of the project site and the eastern portion of the site adjacent to the multifamily residences. Additionally, between the drainage basin discussed above, and the South Fork of the Santa Clara River, the project proposes a soil cement bank protection, adjacent to the asphalt trail and maintenance road, for protection during a 25-year storm event. The majority of the off -site infrastructure improvements would be street improvements along Wiley Canyon Road and its intersecting streets, including Fourl Road, Canerwell Street, Valley Oak Court, and Calgrove Boulevard. Street improvements would include three new roundabouts, new curbs and gutters, a storm drain box culvert extension, new bus bays, bicycle paths (e.g., Classes I and 11) and ramps, walking trails and sidewalks, as well as changes to existing directional signage and utilities (i.e., new power poles). The intersection of Calgrove Boulevard and 1-5 located at the southwest corner of the project site would also be signalized. AGREEMENTS, PERMITS, AND APPROVALS This EIR is intended to inform and provide clearance under CEQA for all governmental approval actions necessary to authorize the project to proceed. These approvals include those listed below. City of Santa Clarita • Tentative Map to subdivide the project site into seven lots. • Grading Permit for up to 44,000 cubic yards of cut and 59,000 cubic yards of fill, and the import of approximately 85,000 cubic yards of fill. • Conditional Use Permit for new development within the Planned Development Overlay and to permit the assisted living facility in MXN zone. • Minor Use Permit for commercial floor area ratio that does not meet the minimum required in the zone, and the import of approximately 85,000 cubic yards of fill. • Development and Architectural Design Review for the development of the proposed project. • Oak Tree Permit for removal of, encroachment upon, and/or impact to existing oak trees. • Certification of the EIR prepared for the project. September 2025 5 Packet Pg. 33 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report • Approval by the Planning Commission that the EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA and other applicable codes and guidelines. • Approval by the Planning Commission of the project or an alternative to the project. Other Agencies To allow for construction for certain improvements, the following permits would be required: • Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (if jurisdictional aquatic resources are impacted) • Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (if jurisdictional aquatic resources are impacted) • Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 (if jurisdictional aquatic resources are impacted) • Domestic Water Supply Permit Amendment with the Santa Clarita Valley Water Agency from the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water. • Encroachment Permit from the California Department of Transportation. • Transportation Permit from the California Department of Transportation for the use of heavy construction equipment and/or materials that require the use of oversized transport vehicles on State highways. 2.2 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES The primary objectives of the project include the following: • Create a new mixed -use community that allows for residential, retail/commercial, and senior housing while preserving and enhancing natural resources. • Provide a sensitive and protective interface with the adjacent Wiley Canyon Creek by utilizing appropriate setback, grading, landscape, buried bank stabilization and water quality treatments. • Provide development and transitional land use patterns that are compatible with surrounding communities and land uses and are consistent with the City's General Plan. • Arrange land uses and add amenities to reduce vehicle miles traveled and to encourage the use of transit. • Design neighborhoods to locate residential and non-residential land uses in close proximity to each other and major road corridors, transit and trails. • Provide public spaces, including plazas, private and public recreational areas and trails. • Implement waste reduction, drought -tolerant landscaping, and use of water efficiency measures. September 2025 6 Packet Pg. 34 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report • Provide a meandering trail with public access along Wiley Canyon Road and within the project site along Wiley Canyon Creek. • Provide a landscape design emphasizing a pleasant neighborhood character and inviting streetscapes. • Enhance and augment the City's housing market by providing a variety of housing product to meet the needs of future residents. • Maintain and enhance the use of Wiley Canyon Creek with native revegetation as a to serve as a natural channel to be utilized by wildlife. • Incorporate new oak trees into the project design, including public spaces. • Incorporate vehicle and pedestrian circulation improvements on Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard through the widening of the roadways where needed, as well as the addition of appropriate traffic controls at various intersections. • Provide a Class I trail and sidewalks along the roadways. • Provide publicly accessible passive and active recreational opportunities for prospective residents and existing residents in proximity to the project site. • Include amenities to specifically support senior residents requiring senior services including memory care, supporting amenities for basic -needs nursing care, and housekeeping service. • Include recreational amenities to improve quality of life of prospective on -site residents and existing off -site residents and encourage senior living tenants to socialize and maintain active lifestyles. September 2025 7 Packet Pg. 35 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The City conducted an extensive review of this project, which included a Draft EIR and this Final EIR, including technical reports, along with a public review and comment period. The following is a summary of the City's environmental review of this project: • Pursuant to the provision of CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to public agencies, organizations, and members of the public who had requested such notice for a 30-day period. The NOP was submitted to the State Clearinghouse and filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk on March 24, 2022, with the 30- day review period ending on April 25, 2022. • The NOP public review period ran for 30 days. The City received comment letters from State, regional, and local public agencies, as well as comment letters and comment cards from local organizations and individuals; these comment letters were included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. • A scoping meeting was held at Santa Clarita City Hall, Century Conference Room on April 14, 2022, to obtain information from the public as to issues that should be addressed in the EIR. Notice of the scoping meeting was published in The Signal newspaper, in addition to approximately 51 agencies, interested parties, and individuals who requested to be notified of the project. Approximately 58 persons from or members of the public attended the scoping meeting. • The Draft EIR was distributed for public review, and a Notice of Availability (NOA) and Notice of Completion (NOC) were filed with the State Clearinghouse on February 21, 2024, to commence a 45-day review period, beginning on March 1, 2024, and ending on April 15, 2024. The NOA was filed with the Los Angeles County Clerk on February 21, 2024. The NOA was also mailed to approximately 57 agencies, interested parties, and individuals who requested to be notified of the project, and was published in The Signal. • The project and the Draft EIR were presented at four Planning Commission meetings held on March 19, 2024, June 18, 2025, August 19, 2025, and September 16, 2025 to solicit comments from the public and the Planning Commission on the Draft EIR. Notice of the Planning Commission meeting in March 2024 was published in The Signal newspaper. Notice of the Planning Commission in August 2025 was also published in the Signal newspaper. • The City received a total of 60 comment letters on the Draft EIR from public agencies and the public, as well as numerous letters from organizations and members of the public regarding the merits of the project or questions regarding the project. The City prepared responses to all written comments. The comments and responses are contained in Section 2.0, Responses to Comments, of the Final EIR. • In accordance with CEQA, the City provided written responses to the public agencies that commented on the Draft EIR at least 10 days before certification of the EIR. September 2025 8 Packet Pg. 36 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. September 2025 9 Packet Pg. 37 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report 4.0 INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND FINDING The City solicited proposals from independent consultants to prepare the Wiley Canyon Project EIR. Subsequently, the City selected and retained Dudek to prepare the Wiley Canyon Project EIR. Dudek prepared the EIR under the supervision and direction of the City of Santa Clarita staff. All findings set forth herein are based on substantial evidence in the record as indicated with respect to each specific finding. FINDING: The EIR for the project reflects the City's independent judgment. The City exercised independent judgment in accordance with PRC Section 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining its own environmental consultant and directing the consultant in the preparation of the EIR. The City independently reviewed and analyzed the EIR and accompanying studies and finds that the report reflects the independent judgment of the City. The Planning Commission considered all the evidence presented in its consideration of the project and the EIR including, without limitation, the Final EIR and its supporting studies, written and oral evidence presented at hearings on the project, and written evidence submitted to the City by individuals, organizations, regulatory agencies, and other entities. On the basis of such evidence, the Planning Commission finds that, with respect to each environmental impact identified in the review process, the impact (1) is less than significant and would not require mitigation; (2) is potentially significant but would be avoided or reduced to a less -than -significant level by implementation of identified mitigation measures; or (3) would be significant and not fully mitigated but would be, to the extent feasible, lessened by implementation of identified mitigation measures. The Final EIR identifies certain significant adverse environmental effects of the project which cannot be avoided or substantially lessened. Before approving this project, the Planning Commission adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations which finds, based on specific reasons and substantial evidence in the record (as specified in Section 7.0), that certain identified economic, social, or other benefits of the project outweigh such unavoidable adverse environmental effects. September 2025 10 Packet Pg. 38 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. September 2025 11 Packet Pg. 39 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS 5.1 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO HAVE NO IMPACT IN THE EIR The Wiley Canyon Project EIR found that the project would have no impact on a number of environmental topic areas, as listed below. A detailed analysis of these topic areas is provided in Section 4.1, 4.3, 4.6, 4.8, 4.12, and Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR. FINDING: The EIR for the project reflects the City's independent judgment. The City has exercised independent judgment in accordance with PRC Section 21082.1(c)(3) in retaining its own environmental consultant and directing the consultant in the preparation of the EIR. The City has independently reviewed and analyzed the EIR and accompanying studies and finds that the report reflects the independent judgment of the City. Aesthetics e) Would the project result in changes to the topography of a Primary or Secondary Ridgeline? Agriculture and Forestry Resources a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? d) Would the project result in the loss of forestland or conversion of forestland to non - forest use? e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forestland to non -forest use? Biological Resources f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? j) Would the project result in a disturbance to any Significant Ecological Area (SEA) as identified by the City of Santa Clarita? Geology and Soils September 2025 12 Packet Pg. 40 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Faults e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Hazards and Hazardous Materials e) Would the project be 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, and would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Population and Housing b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere (especially affordable housing)? 5.2 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITHOUT MITIGATION IN THE EIR The Wiley Canyon Project EIR found that the project would have a less -than -significant impact on a number of environmental topic areas, as listed below. A detailed analysis of these topic areas is provided in Sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, 4.16, 4.18, and 4.19 of the Draft EIR prepared for the project. FINDING: The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Draft EIR and Technical Appendices, Final EIR, and administrative record, finds that based on substantial evidence in the record, impacts related to the following topics, to the extent they result from the project, would be less than significant. Aesthetics a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, primary/secondary ridgelines, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 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) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? September 2025 13 Packet Pg. 41 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Cumulative Aesthetics Impacts Air Quality a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Cumulative Air Quality Impacts Biological Resources e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? g) Would the project result in the removal of any heritage oak trees, as defined in Unified Development Code §17.17.090, removal of more than five (5) oak trees from a project on a site that has an existing single-family residence, or the removal of more than three (3) oak trees, proposed as part of any other project? Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts Energy a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable energy impact? Cumulative Energy Impacts Geology and Soils a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: ii) Seismic Ground Shaking iii) Seismic -Ground Failure (Liquefaction) iv) Landslides b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? September 2025 14 Packet Pg. 42 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? g) Would the project result in the movement or grading of earth exceeding 100,000 cubic yards? Cumulative Geology and Soils Impacts Greenhouse Gas Emissions a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emission, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Cumulative Greenhous Gas Emissions Impacts Hazards and Hazardous Materials a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving explosion or the release of hazardous materials into the environment (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals, fuels, or radiation)? c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Cumulative Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts Hydrology and Water Quality a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b) Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management in the basin? c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would: i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site; September 2025 15 Packet Pg. 43 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? iii. 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? e) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Cumulative Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts Land Use and Planning a) Would the project disrupt or physically divide an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? Cumulative Land Use and Planning Impacts Mineral Resources a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Cumulative Mineral Resources Impacts Noise b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Population and Housing a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned 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)? Cumulative Population and Housing Impacts Public Services a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? September 2025 16 Packet Pg. 44 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? Cumulative Public Services Impacts Recreation a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Cumulative Recreation Impacts Transportation a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Cumulative Transportation Impacts Utilities and Service Systems a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? c) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? d) Would the project generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction? e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Cumulative Utilities and Service Systems Impacts Wildfire September 2025 17 Packet Pg. 45 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report a) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? d) Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Cumulative Wildfire Impacts 5.3 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATED TO LESS -THAN - SIGNIFICANT LEVELS IN THE EIR The Wiley Canyon EIR found that the project would have a less -than -significant impact with mitigation incorporated on a number of environmental topic areas, as listed below. A detailed analysis of these topic areas is provided in Sections 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.6, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.12, 4.15, 4.17, and 4.19 of the Draft EIR. FINDING: The City of Santa Clanta Planning Commission having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Draft EIR and Technical Appendices, Final EIR, and administrative record, rinds, pursuant to PRC Section 21081 (a)(I) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), that changes or alterations ha ve been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which would avoid or substantially lessen to below a level of signiricance potentially significant environmental effects identified in the Draft EIR. The potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that can be mitigated are listed below. The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission finds that based on substantial evidence in the record, the impacts discussed below, to the extent they result from the project, would be less than significant after implementation of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. AIR QUALITY The project's impacts related to air quality that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential substantial adverse effects related to a cumulatively considerable new increase of any criteria pollutant; exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and exceeding the most recent air quality thresholds as determined by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, as published in its "Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook." Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings Construction of the project would result in emissions that exceed the NOx regional threshold. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) MM-AQ-1, which establishes construction equipment emissions standards, would reduce construction emission impacts below the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) standards to a less -than -significant level. In addition, MM-AQ-1 would reduce health September 2025 18 Packet Pg. 46 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report risk impacts relating to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and relating to exceeding the most recent air quality thresholds to a less -than -significant level. Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-1: Construction Equipment Features. The project must utilize off -road diesel - powered construction equipment that meets or exceeds the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Tier 4 Final off - road emissions standards or equivalent for equipment rated at 50 horsepower (hp) or greater during project construction. Such equipment must be outfitted with Best Available Control Technology (BACT), which means a CARB-certified Level 3 diesel particulate filter (DPF) or equivalent. An exemption from this requirement may be granted by the Director of Community Development, or designee, if (1) the City documents equipment with Tier 4 Final engines are not reasonably available, and (2) the required corresponding reductions in criteria air pollutant emissions can be achieved for the project from other combinations of construction equipment. Before an exemption may be granted, the permittee must (1) demonstrate that at least three construction fleet owners/operators in Los Angeles region were contacted and that those owners/operators confirmed Tier 4 Final equipment could not be located within Los Angeles County during the desired construction schedule, and (2) the permittee must provide evidence to the Director that the proposed replacement equipment was evaluated using California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) or other industry standard emission estimation method, and documentation was provided to confirm that necessary project -generated emissions reductions are achieved. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project's impacts to biological resources that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential substantial adverse effects related to candidate, sensitive, or special -status species; riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities; State- or federally -protected wetlands; movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory corridors, or impedes the use of native wildlife nursery sites; disturbance or encroachment of any river, river tributary, riparian habitat, stream or similar waterway identified on a United States Geological Survey map as a "blue -line" watercourse, or any waterway otherwise identified as a significant resource by the City; and disturbance of any habitat known or suspected to contain a plant or animal species listed as endangered on such Federal and/or State lists. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings As potentially suitable habitat for special -status wildlife species exists on the project site, implementation of the project would potentially impact existing habitat. Mitigation Measures September 2025 19 Packet Pg. 47 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report MM-131O-1 through MM-131O-3, which involve focused, protocol, and pre -construction surveys for Crotch bumble bee nests, least Bell's vireo, and Cooper's hawk and avoidance measures, would reduce the potential to impact candidate, sensitive, or special -status species, including Crotch bumble bee, least Bell's vireo, and Cooper's hawk to a less -than -significant level. The project site supports three sensitive plant communities considered high priority by CDFW, Fremont cottonwood/mulefat forest, Fremont cottonwood forest, and the California sycamore woodland. To reduce potentially significant impacts to these sensitive habitats, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-4 requires on -site or off -site restoration or enhancement of sensitive plant communities at a ratio of no less than 1:1 to mitigate for impacts to sensitive plant communities. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-131O4, impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities would be reduced to a less -than -significant level. The project site includes 1.081-acres (3,209 linear feet) of federally and state protected waters (e.g., wetlands or drainages). The project would impact 0.19 acre of waters of the U.S. and about 1.1 acre of CDFW jurisdiction. The proposed impact is approximately 1,400 linear feet in length, with approximately 400 feet of the 1,400 linear feet being within the existing concrete drainage channel at the northeast end of the project site. Mitigation Measure MM-131O-5 requires on -site or off -site restoration or enhancement of United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)/Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and CDFW jurisdictional waterways and aquatic resources at a ratio of at least 2:1 for permanent impacts and the restoration of impacted areas to pre -project conditions for temporary impacts. Mitigation Measure MM-131O-5 would reduce permanent impacts to protected waters to a less -than -significant level. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-131O-5 would reduce potential impacts to State- or federally -protected wetlands to less -than -significant levels. The project site and adjacent areas support potential nesting habitat for migratory and residential birds covered under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. Project activities may result in direct and/or indirect loss of an active nest. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-131O-3 would require that pre -construction surveys for active nests be conducted during the breeding season for Cooper's hawk. If active nests are found during the surveys, buffers around the nests would be established and work within these buffers would be postponed or halted until the nest is vacated. With implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-131O-3, impacts to wildlife nurseries would be reduced to a less -than -significant level. The Study Area contains 1.081-acres (3,209 linear feet) of federally and state protected water, including two aquatic features considered to be waters of the U.S., waters of the State, and features subject or Fish and Game Code Section 1600, et seq., which may be impacted by the proposed project. The project would impact 0.19-acre of waters of the U.S. and about 1.1-acres of CDFW jurisdiction. The proposed impact would be approximately 1,400 linear feet in length, with approximately 400 feet of the 1,400 being within the existing concrete drainage channel at the northeast end of the project site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-131O-5, which requires on -site or off -site restoration or enhancement of USACE/RWQCB and CDFW jurisdictional waterways and aquatic resources at a ratio of at least 2:1 for permanent impacts and the restoration of impacted areas to pre -project conditions for temporary impacts, would reduce potentially significant impacts to a level of less -than -significant. The project design is anticipated to impact 0.78 acre of marginally suitable habitat for least Bell's vireo. In addition, Cooper's hawk could potentially occur as nesting occurs in the woodlands and September 2025 20 Packet Pg. 48 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report forests in adjacent to the project site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-131O-1 through MM-131O-3, which involve focused, protocol, and pre -construction surveys and avoidance measures, would reduce any potential impacts to special -status wildlife to a less -than -significant level. Mitiaation Measures MM-131O-1: Crotch Bumble Bee. Surveys for Crotch bumble bee must be conducted within one year of Project ground -disturbing. Surveys must include 1) a habitat assessment and 2) focused surveys, both of which shall adhere to the "Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species," released by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) on June 6, 2023, or the most current at the time of construction. The habitat assessment must include historical and current species occurrences; document potential habitat onsite including foraging, nesting, and/or overwintering resources; and identify which plant species are present. Focused surveys must be performed by a qualified entomologist with appropriate handling permits and familiarity with identification, behavior, and life history of the species. Surveys must include at least three survey passes that are not on sequential days or in the same week, preferably spaced two to four weeks apart. The timing of these surveys must coincide with the Colony Active Period (April 1 through August 31 for Crotch bumble bee). Surveys must occur between one hour after sunrise and two hours before sunset. Surveys may not be conducted during wet conditions (e.g., foggy, raining, or drizzling). Optimal surveys are when there are sunny to partly sunny skies that are greater than 600 Fahrenheit. Surveys may not be conducted when it is windy (i.e., sustained winds greater than 8 mph). The qualified entomologist must seek out nest/hive resources suitable for bumble bee use. Ensuring that all nest resources receive 100% visual coverage, the qualified entomologist must watch the nest resources for up to five minutes, looking for exiting or entering worker bumble bees. Worker bees should arrive and exit an active nest site with frequency, such that their presence would be apparent after five minutes of observation. If a bumble bee worker is detected, then a representative individual must be identified to species to determine if it is Crotch bumble bee or one of the common, unregulated species. It is up to the discretion of the biologist regarding the actual survey viewshed limits from the chosen vantage point which would provide 100% visual coverage; this could include a 30- to 50-foot-wide area. If a nest is suspected, the surveyor may block the entrance of the possible nest with a sterile vial or jar until nest activity is confirmed (not longer than 30 minutes). Identification must include the qualified entomologist netting/capturing the representative bumble bee in appropriate insect nets, per the protocol in U.S. National Protocol Framework for the Inventory and Monitoring of Bees (Droege, Engler, Sellers, and O'Brien (2016)). If Crotch bumble bee nests are not detected, no further mitigation is required. However, if construction in a given phase area does not start within a year of the last survey, surveys must be repeated for that phase area. Additionally, if construction September 2025 21 Packet Pg. 49 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report stops for 14 days or longer, surveys would be repeated if construction resumes in the nesting season. Outside of the nesting season, it is assumed that no live individuals would be present within the nest as the daughter queens (gynes) usually leave by September, and all other individuals disperse to outside of the construction footprint to surrounding open space areas. Following the habitat assessment and focused surveys, a written survey report must be submitted to the Director and CDFW before Project activities. The report will include survey methods, weather conditions, a description and map of the survey area, and survey results, including a list of insect species observed and a figure showing the locations of any Crotch bumble bee nest sites or individuals observed. The survey report must include the qualifications/resumes of the entomologist(s) for identification of photo vouchers, detailed habitat assessment, and photo vouchers. If Crotch bumble bees are observed, the qualified entomologist must provide the location of all nests within and adjacent to the Project site. The survey report must also include the physical (e.g., soil, moisture, slope) and biological (e.g., plant composition) conditions where each nest/colony is found. This includes native plant composition (e.g., density, cover, and abundance) within affected habitat (e.g., species list separated by vegetation class; density, cover, and abundance of each species). The qualified entomologist must also draft an Avoidance Plan with specific avoidance measures that will be implemented before and during Project activities. The Avoidance Plan must be submitted to CDFW before Project activities for review. Upon CDFW approval of an Avoidance Plan, the qualified entomologist must demarcate an appropriate buffer zone around all identified nest(s). If complete avoidance of Crotch's bumble bee is not feasible, the permittee continue consultation with CDFW to determine if take authorization from CDFW is required. Any measures determined to be necessary through the Incidental Take Permit process to offset impacts to Crotch bumble bee supersede measures provided in this CEQA document. In the event an Incidental Take Permit is needed, the Project proponent must provide compensatory mitigation at a minimum 1:1 nesting habitat replacement of equal or better functions and values to those impacted by the project, or as otherwise determined through the Incidental Take Permit process. Mitigation must be accomplished either through off -site conservation and the permittee must provide an endowment determined through the Incidental Take Permit process. MM-131O-2: Least Bell's Vireo. Before starting construction, a qualified biologist must conduct eight focused surveys within suitable least Bell's vireo habitat between April 10 and July 31, and be spaced a minimum of 10 days apart, in accordance with the 2001 United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Least Bell's Vireo Survey Guidelines. The eight focused protocol surveys must be completed, and the results of the surveys be submitted in a draft report to the Director for review within 21 days of the completion of surveys. A final report must be prepared and submitted to the Director and USFWS within 45 days following the completion of the surveys. If least Bell's vireo is determined to be absent, no further action is required. September 2025 22 Packet Pg. 50 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report If least Bell's vireo is determined to be present based on the results of the protocol surveys, no construction may begin before consulting with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and USFWS for compliance with both the federal and State endangered species acts. Compensatory mitigation for impacts to 0.78 acre of marginally suitable least Bell's vireo habitat must be achieved in conjunction with Mitigation Measure BIO-4 for impacts to a jurisdictional drainage with mitigation ratio of at least 2:1. MM-131O-3: Nesting Birds. Before construction that would require removal of potential habitat for raptor and songbird nests between January 15 and September 1, the Project applicant must have a qualified biologist that is approved by the City conduct surveys for any and all active avian nests. Pre -construction nesting bird surveys must be conducted weekly, within 30 days before initiation of ground -disturbing activities to determine the presence of active nests. The surveys should continue on a weekly basis with the last survey being conducted not more than three days before the start of clearance/construction work. Surveys should include examination of trees, shrubs, and the ground, within grasslands, for nesting birds, as several bird species known to the area are shrub or ground nesters, including mourning doves. If ground - disturbing activities are delayed, additional preconstruction surveys may be recommended by the City so that not more than three days elapse between the survey and ground -disturbing activities. If active nests are located during pre -construction surveys, clearing and construction activities within 300 feet of the nest (500 feet for raptors) must be postponed or halted until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged, as determined by the biologist, and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest must be established in the field with flagging, fencing, or other appropriate barriers and construction personnel should be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. The nest buffers may be reduced by the monitoring biologist when there is a biologist present to observe the nest for changes in behavior. The biologist must serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities will occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests will occur. The results of the survey, and any avoidance measures taken, shall be submitted to the City within 30 days of completion of the pre -construction surveys and/or construction monitoring to document compliance with applicable state and federal laws pertaining to the protection of native birds. MM-131O-4: Sensitive Plant Communities. Before the Building Official issues a grading permit, impacts to sensitive plant communities (e.g., Fremont cottonwood/mulefat forest, Fremont cottonwood forest, and California sycamore woodland) must be mitigated through enhancement or restoration of remaining on -site sensitive plant communities at a ratio of 1:1 or the creation of new sensitive plant communities within the newly created channel area. A habitat mitigation and monitoring plan must be prepared by a City -approved biologist or restoration ecologist and approved by the City before the Public Works Director, or designee, issues a grading permit. The mitigation and monitoring plan must focus on the removal of nonnative elements within disturbed habitat areas of the project site or depict creation areas, planting/restoration methods and success criteria. In addition, this plan must provide September 2025 23 Packet Pg. 51 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report details as to its implementation, maintenance, and future monitoring including the following components: • Description of existing sensitive plant communities on the Project site; • Summary of permanent impacts to the sensitive community based on approved Project design; • Proposed mitigation location areas, with description of existing conditions before mitigation implementation; • Detailed description of restoration or enhancement goals; • Description of implementation schedule, site preparation, erosion control measures, planting plans, and plant materials; • Provisions for mitigation site maintenance and control on non-native invasive plants; and • Monitoring plan, including performance standards, adaptive management measures, and • Monitoring reporting to the City of Santa Clarita Alternatively, mitigation for sensitive plant community impacts may be achieved through off -site restoration or enhancement at a ratio no less than 1:1 and may include the purchase of mitigation credits at an agency- approved off -site mitigation bank or an in lieu fee program within Los Angeles County acceptable to the City. MM-131O-5: Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources. Before the Public Works Director, or designee, issues any grading permit for permanent or temporary impacts in the areas designated as jurisdictional features, the applicant must obtain a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), a Clean Water Act Section 401 permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and Streambed Alteration Agreement permit under Fish and Game Code Section 1602 from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The following shall be incorporated into the permitting, subject to approval by the regulatory agencies: • On- or off -site restoration or enhancement of USACE/RWQCB jurisdictional "waters of the U.S. /"waters of the State" and wetlands at a ratio no less than 2:1 for permanent impacts, and for temporary impacts, restore impact area to pre -project conditions (i.e., revegetate with native species, where appropriate). Off -site restoration or enhancement at a ratio no less than 2:1 may include the purchase of mitigation credits at an agency -approved off -site mitigation bank or in lieu fee program within Los Angeles County or within the same watershed acceptable to the City, where the location has comparable ecological parameters such as habitat types and species mix; • On- or off -site restoration or enhancement of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian habitat at a ratio no less than 2:1 for permanent impacts, and for temporary impacts, restore impact area to pre -project conditions (i.e., revegetate with native species, where appropriate). Off -site September 2025 24 Packet Pg. 52 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report restoration or enhancement at a ratio no less than 2:1 may include the purchase of mitigation credits at an agency -approved off -site mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program within Los Angeles County or within the same watershed acceptable to the City, here the location has comparable ecological parameters such as habitat types and species mix. CULTURAL RESOURCES The project's impacts to cultural resources that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential substantial adverse effects related to historical and archaeological resources, and potential disturbance of human remains. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings No historical resources or unique archaeological resources as defined by CEQA were identified within the project site as a result of either the California Historical Research Information System (CHRIS) records search or as a result of the cultural resources survey. The existing structures within the project site do not meet the age thresholds for consideration as historical resources under CEQA. However, the geoarchaeological review revealed that there is a potential for the project site to contain subsurface archaeological deposits. As a result, the project has a potential to impact and thus cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a yet unknown historical resources and inadvertent discovery of intact archaeological resources. Therefore, the project incorporated Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-4. MM-CUL-1 requires the retention of a qualified archaeologist to carry out all mitigation measures related to archeological resources. MM-CUL-2 requires that all project construction personnel participate in a cultural resources sensitivity training given by the qualified archaeologist. MM-CUL-3 involves requires archaeological and Native American monitoring for ground disturbing activities within areas of the project site mapped as containing Holocene -age undifferentiated alluvium. MM-CUL- 4 includes the protocols and procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-4 would reduce potential impacts to historical and archaeological resources to a less -than -significant level. No prehistoric or historic -period burials, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, were identified within the project site as a result of the CHRIS records search, NAHC SLF search and informal tribal outreach, or pedestrian survey. Therefore, the likelihood of encountering human remains within the subsurface of the project site is low. However, the possibility of encountering human remains within the project site exists such that potentially significant impacts could occur. The discovery of human remains would require handling in accordance with PRC 5097.98, which states that in the event that human remains are discovered during construction, construction activity shall be halted, and the area shall be protected until consultation and treatment can occur as prescribed by law. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-CUL-5, which includes the protocols and procedures for the inadvertent discovery of human remains, would reduce potentially significant impacts to a level of less -than -significant. September 2025 25 Packet Pg. 53 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Measures MM-CUL-1: Retention of a Qualified Archaeologist. Before the Public Works Director, or designee, issues grading permit and before starting any ground -disturbing activity, the applicant must retain a qualified archaeologist, defined as one meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archeology (U.S. Department of Interior 1983) to carry out all mitigation measures related to archeological resources. MM-CUL-2: Cultural Resources Sensitivity Training. Before starting ground -disturbing activities, the qualified archaeologist must conduct cultural resources sensitivity training for all construction personnel. Construction personnel will be informed of the types of archaeological resources that may be encountered, and of the proper procedures to be enacted in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. The applicant must ensure that construction personnel attend the training and retain documentation demonstrating attendance. MM-CUL-3: Archaeological and Native American Monitoring. An archaeological monitor (working under the direct supervision of the qualified archaeologist) and a Native American monitor must be present during all ground -disturbing activities within areas of the Project mapped as containing Holocene -age undifferentiated alluvium. The qualified archaeologist, in coordination with the City's Project Manager, may reduce or discontinue monitoring if it is determined that the possibility of encountering buried archaeological deposits is low based on observations of soil stratigraphy or other factors. Archaeological monitoring must be conducted by an archaeologist familiar with the types of archaeological resources that could be encountered within the Project area. The Native American monitor must be selected from the Native American groups identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as having affiliation with the Project area. The archaeological monitor and Native American monitor are empowered to halt or redirect ground -disturbing activities away from the vicinity of a discovery until the qualified archaeologist has evaluated the discovery and determined appropriate treatment. The archaeological monitor must keep daily logs detailing the types of activities and soils observed, and any discoveries. After monitoring is completed, the qualified archaeologist must prepare a monitoring report that details the results of monitoring. The report must be submitted to the City and any Native American groups who request a copy. A copy of the final report must be filed at the SCCIC. MM-CUL-4: Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources. Should unanticipated discovery of archaeological materials occur, the contractor must immediately cease all work activities in the area (within approximately 100 feet) of the discovery until it can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist. Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked -stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or tool-making debris; culturally darkened soil ("midden") containing heat - affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones. Historic -period materials might include stone or concrete footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, September 2025 26 Packet Pg. 54 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report and/or ceramic refuse. Construction may not resume until the qualified archaeologist has conferred with the City's Project Manager on the significance of the resource. If it is determined by the qualified archaeological monitor that the discovered archaeological resource constitutes a historical resource or unique archaeological resource under CEQA, avoidance and preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigation. Preservation in place maintains the important relationship between artifacts and their archaeological context and also serves to avoid conflict with traditional and religious values of groups who may ascribe meaning to the resource. Preservation in place may be accomplished by, but is not limited to, avoidance, incorporating the resource into open space, capping, or deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement. In the event that preservation in place is demonstrated to be infeasible and data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation available, an Archaeological Resources Data Recovery and Treatment Plan shall be prepared and implemented by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with the City that provides for the adequate recovery of the scientifically consequential information contained in the archaeological resource. The qualified archaeologist and City's Project Manager must consult with appropriate Native American representatives in determining treatment for prehistoric or Native American resources to ensure cultural values ascribed to the resource, beyond those that are scientifically important, are considered. MM-CUL-5: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. If human remains are encountered, the contractor must halt work in the vicinity (within 100 feet) of the discovery and contact the Los Angeles County Coroner in accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) section 5097.98 and Health and Safety Code section 7050.5. The City's Project Manager must also be notified. If the County Coroner determines the remains are Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission NAHC must be notified in accordance with Health and Safety Code section 7050.5(c) and PRC Section 5097.98. The NAHC will designate a most likely descendent (MLD) for the remains per PRC section 5097.98. Until the landowner has conferred with the MLD, the contractor must ensure that the immediate vicinity where the discovery occurred is not disturbed by further activity, is adequately protected according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, and that further activities take into account the possibility of multiple burials. GEOLOGY AND SOILS The project's impacts related to geology and soils that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential adverse effects to paleontological resources. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings September 2025 27 Packet Pg. 55 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Although the potential to encounter fossil resources from recent alluvial deposits is relatively low, these sediments are underlain by older alluvial deposits that have increased paleontological sensitivity at depth. These older alluvial deposits and the Plio-Pleistocene Saugus Formation have a high potential for containing fossil resources due to their older age and from previously recorded fossil localities from the same and/or similar sediments found outside of the proposed project area. Mitigation Measures MM-GEO-1 through MM-GEO-4, which require the retention of a qualified paleontologist before the initiation of grading activities, sensitivity and awareness training, monitoring, and procedures to follow in the event of inadvertent discovery, would reduce the potential to damage such resources to a less -than -significant level. Mitiaation Measures MM-GEO-1: Retain Qualified Paleontologist. Before starting construction activities, the developer must retain a Qualified Paleontologist that meets the standards of the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (2010) to carry out all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources. MM-GEO-2: Paleontological Resources Sensitivity Training. Before any person commences ground -disturbing activities, the Qualified Paleontologist must conduct pre - construction worker paleontological resources sensitivity training. The training must include information on what types of paleontological resources could be encountered during excavations, what to do in case an unanticipated discovery is made by a worker, and laws protecting paleontological resources. All construction personnel must be informed of the possibility of encountering fossils and instructed to immediately inform the construction foreman or supervisor if any bones or other potential fossils are unexpectedly unearthed in an area where a paleontological monitor is not present. The developer must ensure that construction personnel are made available for and attend the training and retain documentation demonstrating attendance. MM-GEO-3: Paleontological Monitoring. The Qualified Paleontologist must supervise a paleontological monitor meeting the SVP standards (2010) and be present during all excavations extending beyond a depth of 5 feet. Monitoring must consist of visually inspecting fresh exposures of rock for larger fossil remains and, where appropriate, collecting wet or dry screened standard sediment samples (up to 4.0 cubic yards) of promising horizons for smaller fossil remains (SVP 2010). Per the SVP standards (2010), once 50 percent of excavations or other ground disturbing activities are complete within geologic units assigned high paleontological sensitivity and no fossils are identified, monitoring can be reduced to part-time inspections or ceased entirely if determined adequate by the Qualified Paleontologist in consultation with the City's Project Manager. Monitoring activities must be documented in a Paleontological Resources Monitoring Report to be prepared by the Qualified Paleontologist at the completion of construction and be provided to the City within six months of Project completion. If fossil resources are identified during monitoring, the report will also be filed with the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. MM-GEO-4:Inadvertent Discoveries. If a paleontological resource is discovered during construction, the paleontological monitor is empowered to temporarily divert or redirect grading and excavation activities in the area of the exposed resource to September 2025 28 Packet Pg. 56 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report facilitate evaluation of the discovery. An appropriate buffer area must be established by the Qualified Paleontologist around the find where construction activities shall not be allowed to continue. Work may be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. At the Qualified Paleontologist's discretion and to reduce any construction delay, the grading and excavation contractor must assist in removing rock samples for initial processing and evaluation of the find. All significant fossils must be collected by the paleontological monitor and/or the Qualified Paleontologist. Collected fossils must be prepared to the point of identification and catalogued before they are submitted to their final repository. Any fossils collected must be curated at a public, non-profit institution with a research interest in the materials, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, if such an institution agrees to accept the fossils. If no institution accepts the fossil collection, they may be donated to a local school in the area for educational purposes. Accompanying notes, maps, and photographs must also be filed at the repository and/or school. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The project's impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential adverse effects related to the exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings The project site is located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA), and therefore the project has the potential to expose people or structures to significant risk involving wildland fires. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM- FIRE-1 through MM-FIRE-3, which involve additional requirements for construction activities in hazardous fire areas and limiting or ceasing construction work during high -wind weather events; vegetation management requirements implemented at the start of and throughout all phases of construction; and ensure that plant selection for the project would be in accordance with the fuel modification plant selection guidelines of the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD), would reduce impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials, and specifically impacts associated with potential exposure to wildfire risks, to a less -than -significant level. Mitigation Measures See MM-FIRE-1 through MM-FIRE-3 under Wildfire of Section 5.3 below. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The project's impacts related to hydrology and water quality that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.7, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential adverse effects relating to impeding or redirecting flood flows and relating to the risk of release of pollutants in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiches zones. September 2025 29 Packet Pg. 57 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings Based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), the project site is located in an area mapped as either Zone A Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) (without base flood elevation) or Zone AO SFHA (with base flood elevation of 3 feet). Placement of the proposed project would impede and potentially redirect flood flows if not addressed appropriately. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM-HYD-1, which requires that design plans including the site modifications meet FEMA requirements to remove the site from the SFHA, and meet National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements, would reduce potential flooding impacts to a less -than -significant level. Mitigation Measures MM-HYD-1: The applicant must submit an application for a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) along with a hydrology and hydraulics report prepared by a California licensed engineer. The LOMR must be based on the implementation of all physical measures that affect the hydrologic or hydraulic characteristics of the flooding source for the site that are to be included as part of the project before obtaining a building permit. The hydrologic and hydraulics report must demonstrate how modification of the existing regulatory floodway or the Special Flood Hazard Area for the project site will reduce flooding risks to within FEMA requirements. Once the LOMR is approved by FEMA and revises the Flood Insurance Rates Map or Flood Boundary and Floodway Map for the project site, construction of the proposed project may commence in accordance with applicable law. LAND USE AND PLANNING The project's impacts related to land use and planning that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential adverse effects relating to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings As shown in Table 4.10-2, General Plan Land Use Consistency Analysis, within Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of the Draft EIR, the project is either consistent or partially consistent with the City's General Plan's applicable goals, objectives, and policies with the implementation of MM-AQ-1, MM-131O-1 through MM-131O-5, MM-HYD-1, MM-NOI-1, MM-NOI-2, and MM-FIRE- 1 through MM-FIRE-3, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures September 2025 30 Packet Pg. 58 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report See MM-AQ-1, MM-1310-1 through MM-1310-5, MM-HYD-1, MM-NOI-1 through MM-NOI-2, and MM-FIRE-1 through MM-FIRE-3. 0 x01:7:_% i[sP►1 The project's impacts related to recreation that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.15, Recreation, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential adverse effects relating to recreational facilities or the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings Construction activities related to the proposed recreational components of the project would involve introducing heavy machinery to the project site for grading, excavation, and development. Impacts associated with project construction would be temporary and short in duration, as the project is proposed to be constructed over a period of approximately 24 months. As discussed throughout the EIR, impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project, including the project's recreational amenities, would result in either no impact or less than significant impacts, either with or without mitigation, for all issues areas with the exception of construction noise. For construction noise, construction impacts associated with the recreational components of the project could result in potentially significant impacts such that mitigation would be required. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-AQ-1, MM-1310-1 through MM-1310-4, MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-5, MM-GEO-1 through MM-GEO-4, MM-NOI-1 and MM-NOI-2, and MM-FIRE-1 through MM-FIRE 3 would reduce potential impacts to a less -than -significant level. Mitigation Measures See MM-AQ-1, MM-1310-1 through MM-1310-4, MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-5, MM-GEO-1 through MM-GEO-4, MM-NOI-1 through MM-NOI-2, and MM-FIRE-1 through MM-FIRE-3 in Section 5.3. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES The project's impacts to tribal cultural resources that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.17, Tribal Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR. Identified potential impacts include those related to a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or local register, and significant to a California Native American Tribe. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings September 2025 31 Packet Pg. 59 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report No tribal cultural resources (TCRs) were identified within the project site; however, the potential to discover TCRs still exists on the project site. Implementation Mitigation Measures MM-CUL- 1 through MM-CUL-5, which involve retention of a qualified archaeologist; project construction personnel participating in a cultural resources sensitivity training; archaeological and Native American monitoring for ground disturbing activities within areas of the project site mapped as containing Holocene -age undifferentiated alluvium; and protocols and procedures for the inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources, would reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources to a less -than -significant level. Mitigation Measures See MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-5 under Cultural Resources in Section 5.3 above. WILDFIRE The project's impacts related to wildfire that can be mitigated or are otherwise less than significant are discussed in Section 4.19, Wildfire, of the Draft EIR. Identified impacts include potential adverse effects relating to exacerbating wildfire risks and thereby exposing project occupants to pollutants concentrations from or spread of a wildfire; and installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Findings Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findings Project construction would introduce potential ignition sources to the project site, including the use of heavy machinery and the potential for sparks during welding activities or other hot work. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-FIRE-1 through MM-FIRE-3, which involve additional requirements for construction activities in hazardous fire areas and limiting or ceasing construction work during high -wind weather events; vegetation management requirements implemented at the start of and throughout all phases of construction; and ensure that plant selection for the project would be in accordance with the fuel modification plant selection guidelines of the LACFD, would reduce potential wildfire impacts to a less -than -significant level. Mitigation Measures MM-FIRE-1: Extreme Fire Day Ignition Avoidance. All construction and maintenance activities must temporarily cease during Red Flag Warnings. The contractor's superintendent must coordinate with personnel to determine which low fire hazard activities may occur. Should the Fire Department declare a Red Flag Warning affecting the Wiley Canyon Project site, the same work activity restrictions occurring during National Weather Service Red Flag Warning periods apply. MM-FIRE-1: Pre -Construction Requirements. Vegetation management must be conducted before the start of construction and throughout all construction phases. Perimeter fuel modification must be implemented and approved by the Fire Department before bringing combustible materials on site. Existing flammable vegetation must be September 2025 32 Packet Pg. 60 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report reduced by 50% on vacant lots upon commencement of construction. Caution must be used to avoid causing erosion or ground (including slope) instability or water runoff due to vegetation removal, vegetation management, maintenance, landscaping or irrigation. Before delivering lumber or combustible materials onto the site, site improvements within the active development area must be in place, including utilities, operable fire hydrants, an approved, temporary roadway surface, and fuel modification zones established. These features must be approved by the Fire Department before combustibles being brought on site. MM-FIRE-1: LACFD FMZ Plant Selection Guideline Compliant. The Fire Department publishes a list of plants that would not contribute to extreme fire behavior are suitable for Fuel Modification Zones. All plants included within fuel modification zones of the proposed project must be from this list and if a minimum distance from structures is stated for the species, such listed species may not be planted closer to any structures associated with the proposed project than the stated minimum distance. No plant that is not listed by the Fire Department on its Fuel Modification Zone Plant Selection Guidelines may be included within a Fuel Modification Zone of the proposed Project without approval by Fire Department. 5.4 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE BUT MITIGATED TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE The Wiley Canyon Project Draft EIR found that the project would have a significant and unavoidable impact related to noise during construction. A detailed analysis of this topic area is provided in Section 4.12 of the Draft EIR. FINDING: The City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Draft EIR and Technical Appendices, Final EIR, and administrative record, finds, pursuant to PRC Section 21081 (a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which would lessen the significant environmental effect identified in the Draft EIR to the extent feasible but not to a less -than -significant level. Therefore, the City of Santa Clarita finds, pursuant to PRC Section 21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Draft EIR, and, therefore, the project would cause significant unavoidable impacts related to construction noise and cumulative construction noise, as summarized below. NOISE As further described in Section 4.12, Noise, of the Draft EIR, identified significant impacts related to noise are associated with the project's potential to result in temporary construction noise levels that would exceed exterior daytime noise standards at identified sensitive receptors. Findings September 2025 33 Packet Pg. 61 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Draft EIR. Facts in Support of Findings During the City's permitted construction hours, project construction would result in noise levels at adjacent sensitive receiver locations exceeding the ambient noise (57.7 to 70 dBA [A -weighted decibels] Leq [Equivalent Continuous Sound Pressure Level]) plus 5 dBA (62.7 to 77 dBA Leq) significance threshold. Additionally, the senior living facility would be occupied for approximately 18 months while construction continues on the additional residential (and commercial) buildings at the project site. Based on the site plan, the senior living facility would be approximately 50 feet from the construction area of other residential buildings. Once these nearest residential buildings have been constructed, they would function as barriers shielding construction activity in areas beyond these residential buildings nearest to the senior living facility. Construction noise would reach a maximum of 88.8 dBA Leq at a receiver as close as 50 feet to the construction area thereby resulting in a potentially significant impact. Therefore, mitigation measures are required to protect sensitive receivers. Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-1 and MM-NOI- 2 would require construction equipment within 200 feet of the northern and eastern boundary of the project site be limited to small, reduced noise equipment that has a maximum noise generation level of 77 dBA Leq at 50 feet and require noise barriers to be installed during construction with sufficient height to block the line -of -sight between the project construction area and adjacent sensitive receivers, would reduce noise impacts to the extent feasible. As no mitigation measures are feasible to reduce noise impacts to a less than significant level, the impact would be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures MM-NOI-1: Construction equipment within 200 feet of the northern and eastern boundary of the project site is limited to small, reduced noise equipment that has a maximum noise generation level of 77 dBA Leq at 50 feet. This measure also applies to construction equipment during the later phases of construction for residential buildings within 200 feet of the Senior Living Building after it is occupied. MM-NOI-2: Construction noise barriers must be installed during project construction with sufficient height to block the line -of -sight between the project construction area and adjacent sensitive receivers, including proposed on -site residential uses that are completed and occupied while construction in other parts of the project site continues. 5.5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT As set forth in these findings, the implementation of the project would not result in significant impacts that are considered unavoidable, with the exception of impacts related to construction noise and cumulative construction noise. CEQA requires that an EIR include an analysis of a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to a proposed project capable of avoiding or September 2025 34 Packet Pg. 62 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report substantially lessening any significant adverse environmental impact associated with the project. The Draft EIR addressed the environmental effects of alternatives to the project. A description of these alternatives, a comparison of their environmental impacts to the project, and the City's findings are listed below. These alternatives are compared against the project relative to the identified project impacts, summarized in the sections above, and to the project objectives, as stated in Section 2.2, Statement of Objectives, above. In making the alternatives findings below, the City of Santa Clarita certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the EIR, including the information provided in the comments on the Draft EIR and the responses thereto. 176'1d1111'19us] MONV_1IIIIIIi:11:7kl1_AIII 1y/4'59:U1111x61i:1113017_\ki/-M&I&IIkiIiC1:841V Alternatives that were considered but rejected during the scoping process for detailed evaluation in the EIR are discussed below. Alternative Site Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2), the City considered the potential for alternative locations to the project. As stated in CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(f)(2)(A), the key question and first step in analyzing alternative sites is whether any of the significant effects of a project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting that project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of a project need to be considered in the EIR. The project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts related to construction noise even with the incorporation of mitigation measures MM-NOI-1 and MM-NOI-2, as detailed in Section 4.12, Noise, of this Draft EIR. Similarly, the project would result in cumulatively considerable construction noise impacts. In particular, a significant impact would occur as a result of a temporary exceedance in the ambient noise thresholds during construction, as well as an exceedance in significance thresholds related to the proposed Senior Living residences on site. There are no significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed project that relate to the location of the project site, and development of the project on another site in the City is not likely to lessen or avoid the environmental impacts that required mitigation. Moreover, the objectives of the proposed project are closely tied to redeveloping the former Smiser Mule Ranch. Consideration of the potential to development the proposed project on another site within the City was given. The surrounding vicinity is characterized as urban and suburban development, vacant land, which has been previously disturbed by past agricultural activities, and limited commercial uses. Underutilized developed areas would have the potential to be redeveloped to provide additional housing units, however, the project applicant does not control another site within the area of comparable land that is available for development of the project. Given the site's location, site zoning, and site designations for development, it is also not reasonable to assume that the use of another site would result in the project site being vacant and impacts related to the site conditions avoided. Other surrounding areas are also in other jurisdictions outside the control of the City. Development of the proposed project on an alternate site would result in a similar construction scenario, similar quantities of criteria air pollutant emissions during construction, similar levels of construction noise, and similar levels of energy consumption. Additionally, because of the City's urban nature, mix of land uses, and the presence September 2025 35 Packet Pg. 63 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report of a variety of sensitive receptors throughout the City, it is unlikely that an alternate site would be situated far enough from sensitive receptors to substantially lessen the air quality and noise impacts of the proposed project during construction. Regardless of its location, the proposed project would generally place similar demands on public services, utilities and services systems, and energy resources. With regard to the visibility and appearance of the project, the aesthetic impact on the project is largely related to its height and density, which would not substantially change at an alternative location. For these reasons, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration. The following alternatives were selected for evaluation in the Draft EIR: • Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative • Alternative 2: Affordable Housing Alternative • Alternative 3: Private Recreational Facility Alternative • Alternative 4: Construction Noise Setback Alternative Additionally, another alternative was proposed and evaluated as part of the project's Final EIR • Alternative 5: Mixed Use Alternative Table 1 provides a comparison of environmental impacts for each of the alternatives in relation to environmental impacts associated with the project. Table 1 Summary Comparison of the Impacts of the Alternatives Impact Topic Project Alternative 1 No Project/No Build Alternative 2 Affordable Housing Zoning Alternative 3 Private Recreational Facility Alternative 4 Construction Noise Setback Alternative 5 Mixed Use Aesthetics LTS Less/NI Similar/LTS Greater/LTS Similar/LTS Similar/LTS Air Quality LTSM Less/NI Similar/LTSM Less/LTSM Less/LTSM Less/LTSM Biological Resources LTSM Less/NI Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Cultural Resources LTSM Less/NI Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Energy LTS Less/NI Similar/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS Geology and Soils LTSM Less/NI Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM GHG Emissions LTS Less/NI Greater/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS Hazards and Hazardous Materials LTSM Less/NI Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Hydrology and Water Quality LTSM Less/NI Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Land Use and Planning LTSM Less/NI Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Mineral Resources LTS Similar/LTS Similar/LTS Similar/LTS Similar/LTS Similar/LTS Noise SU Less/NI Similar/SU Similar/SU Less/LTSM Similar/SU Population and Housing LTS Less/NI Greater/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS Public Services I LTS I Less/NI I Greater/LTS I Less/LTS I Less/LTS ILess/LTS September 2025 36 Packet Pg. 64 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Recreation LTSM Less/NI Greater/LTSM Less/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS Transportation LTS Less/NI Greater/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS Tribal Cultural LTSM Less/NI Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Similar/LTSM Resources Utilities and Service LTS Less/NI Greater/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS Less/LTS Systems Wildfire j LTSM j Less/NI j Similar/LTSM j Similar/LTSM j Similar/LTSM j Similar/LTSM Notes: LTS = Less Than Significant Similar = Impact Similar to the Project LTSM = Less Than Significant with Mitigation Greater = Impact Greater than the Project NI = No Impact Less = Impact Less than the Project PSI = Potentially Significant Impact SU = Significant and Unavoidable Impact Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the No Project Alternative for a project on an identifiable property consists of the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) states that, "in certain instances, the no project alternative means `no build' wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained." Accordingly, for purposes of this analysis, Alternative 1, the No Project/No Build Alternative, assumes that no development would occur on the project site. The project site would continue to be vacant. Findings 1. Alternative 1 would eliminate the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with construction noise and cumulative construction noise. 2. Alternative 1 would reduce or eliminate the less -than -significant impacts with mitigation or less -than -significant impacts for aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. 3. Alternative 1 would result in similar impacts for mineral resources. 4. Alternative 1 would not meet any of the basic Project objectives and is, therefore, rejected as infeasible. 5. The findings of the project set forth in this document provide support for the project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration. Facts in Support of Findings: Under the Alternative 1, the Wiley Canyon Project would not be implemented, and no development would occur on the project site. The project site would continue to be vacant. Because no construction or new operational activities would occur under this alternative, the less - than -significant impacts with mitigation or less -than -significant impacts for aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public September 2025 37 Packet Pg. 65 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire would be eliminated. In addition, the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives, as identified below in Table 2. Table 2 Applicability of Project Objectives for Alternative 1 Alternative 1: No Project Project Objective Alternative Create a new mixed -use community that allows for residential, retail/commercial, and senior Does Not Meet housing while preserving and enhancing natural resources. Provide a sensitive and protective interface with the adjacent Wiley Canyon Creek by utilizing Does Not Meet appropriate setback, grading, landscape, buried bank stabilization and water quality treatments. Provide development and transitional land use patterns that are compatible with surrounding Does Not Meet communities and land uses and are consistent with the City's General Plan. Arrange land uses and add amenities to reduce vehicle miles traveled and to encourage the Does Not Meet use of transit. Design neighborhoods to locate residential and non-residential land uses in close proximity to Does Not Meet each other and major road corridors, transit and trails. Provide public spaces, including plazas, private and public recreational areas and trails. Does Not Meet Implement waste reduction, drought -tolerant landscaping, and use of water efficiency Does Not Meet measures. Provide a meandering trail with public access along Wiley Canyon Road and within the project Does Not Meet site along Wiley Canyon Creek. Provide a landscape design emphasizing a pleasant neighborhood character and inviting Does Not Meet streetscapes. Enhance and augment the City's housing market by providing a variety of housing product to Does Not Meet meet the needs of future residents. Maintain and enhance the use of Wiley Canyon Creek with native revegetation as a to serve as Does Not Meet a natural channel to be utilized by wildlife. Incorporate new oak trees into the project design, including public spaces. Does Not Meet Incorporate vehicle and pedestrian circulation improvements on Wiley Canyon Road and Does Not Meet Calgrove Boulevard through the widening of the roadways where needed, as well as the addition of appropriate traffic controls at various intersections. Provide a Class I trail and sidewalks along the roadways. Does Not Meet Provide publicly accessible passive and active recreational opportunities for prospective Does Not Meet residents and existing residents in proximity to the project site. Include amenities to specifically support senior residents requiring senior services including Does Not Meet memory care, supporting amenities for basic -needs nursing care, and housekeeping service. Include recreational amenities to improve quality of life of prospective on -site residents and Does Not Meet existing off -site residents and encourage senior living tenants to socialize and maintain active lifestyles. September 2025 38 Packet Pg. 66 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Alternative 2: Affordable Housing Alternative Alternative 2, the Affordable Housing Alternative, would allow the development of the project site with 837 apartment units, including 201 units designated for low- and very -low-income households. The maximum height of the proposed buildings would be 65 feet under this alternative. The proposed floor -area -ratio for this alternative is 0.63. Under Alternative 2, a total of 1,026 parking spaces would be provided, in compliance with State Density Bonus requirements. In comparison to the proposed project, the recreational areas located on the southern portion of the project site would not be developed under this alternative. Infrastructure improvements, including the northern water quality basin and the southern drainage basin on site, are proposed under this alternative. In addition, off -site street improvements along Wiley Canyon Road and its intersecting streets, including Fourl Road, Canerwell Street, Valley Oak Court, and Calgrove Boulevard would remain. Findings 1. Alternative 2 would result in similar significant and unavoidable impacts after mitigation associated with construction noise and cumulative construction noise. 2. Alternative 2 would result in greater impacts associated with recreation which would be less - than -significant with mitigation incorporated. 3. Alternative 2 would result in greater less -than -significant impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions, population and housing, public services, transportation, and utilities and service systems. 4. Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. 5. The findings of the project set forth in this document provide support for the project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration. Facts in Support of Findings: In comparison to the project, Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts relative to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. However, this alternative would result in potentially greater impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems for the following reasons: • Under Alternative 2, an increase in GHG emissions is anticipated due to an increase of 312 vehicle trips as a result of the proposed land use. Given this, Alternative 2 is anticipated to result in GHG impacts slightly greater than the proposed project. • Under Alternative 2, 837 multifamily residential units are proposed on the project site. Utilizing the City's average persons per household of 3.08 (as identified in Section 4.13 of this EIR), this alternative is anticipated to result in approximately 2,578 residents.' The 837*3.08 = 2577.95 or 2,578 (rounded to the nearest whole person) September 2025 39 Packet Pg. 67 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report population projections under Alternative 2, therefore, would be greater than the 1,371 residents anticipated under the proposed project. • Under Alternative 2, an increase in population is anticipated when compared to the proposed project (see the discussion above regarding population and housing). Given this, the alternative is anticipated to result in an increased demand for police, fire, schools, parks, and other public services (libraries), as well as recreational facilities. • Under Alternative 2, an increase of approximately 312 average daily vehicle trips is anticipated during operations when compared to the project. Given this, Alternative 2 is anticipated to result in transportation impacts slightly greater than the proposed project. • Under Alternative 2, future development would have the same development footprint as the proposed project. Connections to utilities and service systems to the project site would remain. However, due to the potential increase in population generated as a result of 837 multifamily residential units, an increase in demand for potable water, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications is anticipated. Similarly, an increase in the generation of solid waste and wastewater is expected. In addition, Alternative 2 would not meet some of the project objectives, as identified below in Table 3. Table 3 Applicability of Project Objectives for Alternative 2 Alternative 2: Affordable Housing Project Objective Alternative Create a new mixed -use community that allows for residential, retail/commercial, and senior Partially Meets housing while preserving and enhancing natural resources. Provide a sensitive and protective interface with the adjacent Wiley Canyon Creek by utilizing Meets appropriate setback, grading, landscape, buried bank stabilization and water quality treatments. Provide development and transitional land use patterns that are compatible with surrounding Meets communities and land uses and are consistent with the City's General Plan. Arrange land uses and add amenities to reduce vehicle miles traveled and to encourage the Partially Meets use of transit. Design neighborhoods to locate residential and non-residential land uses in close proximity to Meets each other and major road corridors, transit and trails. Provide public spaces, including plazas, private and public recreational areas and trails. Partially Meets Implement waste reduction, drought -tolerant landscaping, and use of water efficiency Meets measures. Provide a meandering trail with public access along Wiley Canyon Road and within the project Meets site along Wiley Canyon Creek. Provide a landscape design emphasizing a pleasant neighborhood character and inviting Meets streetscapes. Enhance and augment the City's housing market by providing a variety of housing product to Meets meet the needs of future residents. September 2025 40 Packet Pg. 68 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Maintain and enhance the use of Wiley Canyon Creek with native revegetation as a to serve as Meets a natural channel to be utilized by wildlife. Incorporate new oak trees into the project design, including public spaces. Meets Incorporate vehicle and pedestrian circulation improvements on Wiley Canyon Road and Meets Calgrove Boulevard through the widening of the roadways where needed, as well as the addition of appropriate traffic controls at various intersections. Provide a Class I trail and sidewalks along the roadways. Meets Provide publicly accessible passive and active recreational opportunities for prospective Partially Meets residents and existing residents in proximity to the project site. Include amenities to specifically support senior residents requiring senior services including Does Not Meet memory care, supporting amenities for basic -needs nursing care, and housekeeping service. Include recreational amenities to improve quality of life of prospective on -site residents and Partially Meets existing off -site residents and encourage senior living tenants to socialize and maintain active lifestyles. Alternative 3: Private Recreational Facility Alternative This alternative includes the development of a private recreational facility, which would include various recreational uses along with a 10,000 square foot clubhouse/restaurant. Development under this alternative would consist of eight tennis courts, seven pickleball courts, a soccer field, a football field, baseball field and outdoor basketball court. All courts and fields would include overhead lighting. Under Alternative 3, parking would be included to support the recreational facility. In addition, on -site infrastructure improvements along the creek off -site street improvements would be included. Findings Alternative 3 would not eliminate the project's significant and unavoidable impacts associated with construction noise and cumulative construction noise. 2. Alternative 3 would result in greater impacts related to aesthetics which would be less -than - significant with mitigation incorporated. 3. Alternative 3 would reduce, but not eliminate, the less -than -significant impacts with mitigation incorporated for air quality and would reduce less -than -significant impacts related to energy, greenhouse gas emissions, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems. 4. Alternative 3 would result in similar impacts related to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. 5. The findings of the project set forth in this document provide support for the project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration. Facts in Support of Findings: In comparison to the project, Alternative 3 would result in similar impacts relative to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and September 2025 41 Packet Pg. 69 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. Alternative 3 would have reduced impacts relative to air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems due to the reduced scale of the proposed development compared to the project. Alternative 3 would still require mitigation measures associated with air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. However, this alternative would result in potentially greater impacts related to aesthetics for the following reasons: • Under Alternative 3, the recreational facility would require overhead lighting. Impacts related to lighting and glare would be greater than the proposed project. In addition, Alternative 3 would not meet some project objectives, as identified below in Table 4. Table 4 Applicability of Project Objectives for Alternative 3 Alternative 3: Private Recreational Facility Project Objective Alternative Create a new mixed -use community that allows for residential, retail/commercial, and senior Does Not Meet housing while preserving and enhancing natural resources. Provide a sensitive and protective interface with the adjacent Wiley Canyon Creek by utilizing Meets appropriate setback, grading, landscape, buried bank stabilization and water quality treatments. Provide development and transitional land use patterns that are compatible with surrounding Meets communities and land uses and are consistent with the City's General Plan. Arrange land uses and add amenities to reduce vehicle miles traveled and to encourage the Partially Meets use of transit. Design neighborhoods to locate residential and non-residential land uses in close proximity to Meets each other and major road corridors, transit and trails. Provide public spaces, including plazas, private and public recreational areas and trails. Partially Meets Implement waste reduction, drought -tolerant landscaping, and use of water efficiency Meets measures. Provide a meandering trail with public access along Wiley Canyon Road and within the project Meets site along Wiley Canyon Creek. Provide a landscape design emphasizing a pleasant neighborhood character and inviting Meets streetscapes. Enhance and augment the City's housing market by providing a variety of housing product to Does Not Meet meet the needs of future residents. Maintain and enhance the use of Wiley Canyon Creek with native revegetation as a to serve as Meets a natural channel to be utilized by wildlife. Incorporate new oak trees into the project design, including public spaces. Meets September 2025 42 Packet Pg. 70 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Incorporate vehicle and pedestrian circulation improvements on Wiley Canyon Road and Meets Calgrove Boulevard through the widening of the roadways where needed, as well as the addition of appropriate traffic controls at various intersections. Provide a Class I trail and sidewalks along the roadways. Meets Provide publicly accessible passive and active recreational opportunities for prospective Partially Meets residents and existing residents in proximity to the project site. Include amenities to specifically support senior residents requiring senior services including Does Not Meet memory care, supporting amenities for basic -needs nursing care, and housekeeping service. Include recreational amenities to improve quality of life of prospective on -site residents and Partially Meets existing off -site residents and encourage senior living tenants to socialize and maintain active lifestyles. Alternative 4: Construction Noise Setback Alternative This alternative includes development of the site with a 139-bed assisted living facility, 47 detached condos, and 237 apartment units. The proposed senior living facility would be 3-stories in height and the multifamily apartments would range from 2- and 4-stories. Under Alternative 4, a 200-foot open space/landscaped buffer is proposed between the mobile home park to the north and the project site. This alternative would include development of a recreational building and pool located in the center of the project site surrounded by the proposed apartment buildings. In addition, recreational/ open space uses are proposed on the southern portion of the site. Infrastructure improvements, including the northern water quality basin and the southern drainage basin on site, are proposed under this alternative as well as off -site street improvements along Wiley Canyon Road and its intersecting streets. Findings 1. Alternative 4 would eliminate the project's significant and unavoidable impacts associated with construction noise and cumulative construction noise to a level of less -than -significant with mitigation incorporated. 2. Alternative 4 would reduce, but not eliminate, the less -than -significant impacts with mitigation incorporated for air quality and would reduce less -than -significant impacts for energy, greenhouse gas emissions, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems. 3. Alternative 4 would result in similar impacts for aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. 4. The findings of the project set forth in this document provide support for the project and the elimination of this alternative from further consideration. Facts in Support of Findings: In comparison to the project, Alternative 4 would result in similar impacts relative to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. Alternative 4 would have reduced impacts relative to air quality, energy, September 2025 43 Packet Pg. 71 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report greenhouse gas emissions, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems due to the reduced scale of the proposed development compared to the project. Alternative 4 would still require mitigation measures associated with air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. In addition, Alternative 4 would not fully meet all project objectives, as shown below in Table 5. Table 5 Applicability of Project Objectives for Alternative 4 Alternative 4: Construction Noise Setback Project Objective Alternative Create a new mixed -use community that allows for residential, retail/commercial, and senior Partially Meets housing while preserving and enhancing natural resources. Provide a sensitive and protective interface with the adjacent Wiley Canyon Creek by utilizing Meets appropriate setback, grading, landscape, buried bank stabilization and water quality treatments. Provide development and transitional land use patterns that are compatible with surrounding Meets communities and land uses and are consistent with the City's General Plan. Arrange land uses and add amenities to reduce vehicle miles traveled and to encourage the Meets use of transit. Design neighborhoods to locate residential and non-residential land uses in close proximity to Meets each other and major road corridors, transit and trails. Provide public spaces, including plazas, private and public recreational areas and trails. Meets Implement waste reduction, drought -tolerant landscaping, and use of water efficiency Meets measures. Provide a meandering trail with public access along Wiley Canyon Road and within the project Meets site along Wiley Canyon Creek. Provide a landscape design emphasizing a pleasant neighborhood character and inviting Meets streetscapes. Enhance and augment the City's housing market by providing a variety of housing product to Meets meet the needs of future residents. Maintain and enhance the use of Wiley Canyon Creek with native revegetation as a to serve as Meets a natural channel to be utilized by wildlife. Incorporate new oak trees into the project design, including public spaces. Meets Incorporate vehicle and pedestrian circulation improvements on Wiley Canyon Road and Meets Calgrove Boulevard through the widening of the roadways where needed, as well as the addition of appropriate traffic controls at various intersections. Provide a Class I trail and sidewalks along the roadways. Meets Provide publicly accessible passive and active recreational opportunities for prospective Meets residents and existing residents in proximity to the project site. Include amenities to specifically support senior residents requiring senior services including Meets memory care, supporting amenities for basic -needs nursing care, and housekeeping service. September 2025 44 Packet Pg. 72 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Include recreational amenities to improve quality of life of prospective on -site residents and Meets existing off -site residents and encourage senior living tenants to socialize and maintain active lifestyles. Alternative 5: Mixed Use Alternative Alternative 5 removes the for -rent residential component of the proposed project (379 units and up to four stories) and replaces it with 232 townhome and/or detached condominium residential units. The townhome/condominium units would be two-story in height. Under Alternative 5, the size of the senior facility/assisted living facility would reduce to 140,000 square feet (120 assisted living units) when compared to the proposed project. The commercial component under this alternative would remain at 9,000 square feet. The residential area would be 16.5 acres, and the assisted living/commercial area would be 3.5 acres. A total of 601 parking spaces would be provided for residential uses, 64 spaces for commercial use, and 66 spaces for senior living parking. The open space proposed on site would total 120,330 square feet, including 15,000 square feet for recreational amenities (e.g., pool, tot -lot, restroom), an 80,045-square-foot park, 16,850 square feet for the small lot single-family development private yards, and 8,435 square feet for townhome private yards. Under this alternative, the proposed grading activities, bank protection along Wiley Canyon Creek, and off -site infrastructure would all remain the same as the proposed project. Findings 1. Alternative 5 would not eliminate the project's significant and unavoidable impacts associated with construction noise and cumulative construction noise. 2. Alternative 5 would reduce, but not eliminate, the less -than -significant impacts with mitigation incorporated for air quality and would reduce less -than -significant impacts for energy, greenhouse gas emissions, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems. 3. Alternative 5 would result in similar impacts for aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. Facts in Support of Findings: In comparison to the project, Alternative 5 would result in similar impacts relative to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. Alternative 5 would have reduced impacts relative to air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities and service systems due to the reduced scale of the proposed development compared to the project. Alternative 5 would still require mitigation measures associated with air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. Alternative 5 would meet all project objectives, as shown below in Table 6. September 2025 45 Packet Pg. 73 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Table 6 Applicability of Project Objectives for Alternative 5 Alternative 5: Mixed Use Project Objective Alternative Create a new mixed -use community that allows for residential, retail/commercial, and senior Meets housing while preserving and enhancing natural resources. Provide a sensitive and protective interface with the adjacent Wiley Canyon Creek by utilizing Meets appropriate setback, grading, landscape, buried bank stabilization and water quality treatments. Provide development and transitional land use patterns that are compatible with surrounding Meets communities and land uses and are consistent with the City's General Plan. Arrange land uses and add amenities to reduce vehicle miles traveled and to encourage the Meets use of transit. Design neighborhoods to locate residential and non-residential land uses in close proximity to Meets each other and major road corridors, transit and trails. Provide public spaces, including plazas, private and public recreational areas and trails. Meets Implement waste reduction, drought -tolerant landscaping, and use of water efficiency Meets measures. Provide a meandering trail with public access along Wiley Canyon Road and within the project Meets site along Wiley Canyon Creek. Provide a landscape design emphasizing a pleasant neighborhood character and inviting Meets streetscapes. Enhance and augment the City's housing market by providing a variety of housing product to Meets meet the needs of future residents. Maintain and enhance the use of Wiley Canyon Creek with native revegetation as a to serve as Meets a natural channel to be utilized by wildlife. Incorporate new oak trees into the project design, including public spaces. Meets Incorporate vehicle and pedestrian circulation improvements on Wiley Canyon Road and Meets Calgrove Boulevard through the widening of the roadways where needed, as well as the addition of appropriate traffic controls at various intersections. Provide a Class I trail and sidewalks along the roadways. Meets Provide publicly accessible passive and active recreational opportunities for prospective Meets residents and existing residents in proximity to the project site. Include amenities to specifically support senior residents requiring senior services including Meets memory care, supporting amenities for basic -needs nursing care, and housekeeping service. Include recreational amenities to improve quality of life of prospective on -site residents and Meets existing off -site residents and encourage senior living tenants to socialize and maintain active lifestyles. September 2025 46 Packet Pg. 74 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report 6.0 CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR The Planning Commission finds that no new significant information as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 was received by the Planning Commission after circulation of the Draft EIR that would require recirculation of the Draft EIR. The Planning Commission certifies the Final EIR based on the following findings and conclusions. 6.1 FINDINGS The project would have the potential for creating significant adverse impacts. These significant adverse environmental impacts are identified in the Draft EIR and require mitigation as set forth in the Findings. Significant adverse impacts which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance after mitigation include noise impacts during project construction. 6.2 CONCLUSIONS 1. All significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the project are identified in the Draft EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to less -than -significant levels, with the exception of construction noise and cumulative construction noise. 2. Alternatives to the project, which could potentially achieve the basic objectives of the project, have been considered. The project and Alternatives 1 through 4 have been rejected in favor of Alternative 5. 3. Environmental, economic, social, and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the proposed project, as further discussed in Section 7.0, override and make infeasible any alternatives to the project or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the project. September 2025 47 Packet Pg. 75 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. September 2025 48 Packet Pg. 76 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report 7.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 INTRODUCTION The City of Santa Clarita is the Lead Agency under CEQA for preparation, review, and certification of the Final EIR for the Wiley Canyon Project. As the Lead Agency, the City is also responsible for determining the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action and which of those impacts are significant, and which can be mitigated through imposition of mitigation measures to avoid or minimize those impacts to a level of less than significant. CEQA then requires the Lead Agency to balance the benefits of a proposed action against its significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts in determining whether or not to approve the project. In making this determination, the City is guided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, which provides as follows: a) CEQA requires the decision -making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the Final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. In addition, PRC Section 21081(b) requires that where a public agency finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in an EIR and thereby leave significant unavoidable effects, the public agency must also find that overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects of Alternative 5. Pursuant to PRC Section 21081(b) and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of the Alternative 5 against the one unavoidable adverse impact associated with the Alternative 5 and has adopted all feasible mitigation measures with respect to this impact. The Planning Commission, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Wiley Canyon Draft EIR, the Final EIR, including responses to comments, and the public record in its entirety, hereby adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations, which balances the benefits of Alternative 5 against the one unavoidable adverse impact in reaching a decision on this project. 7.2 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS September 2025 49 Packet Pg. 77 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Although all potential project impacts have been substantially avoided or mitigated as described in the preceding findings, there is no complete mitigation for project impact related to construction noise and cumulative construction noise. Details of this significant unavoidable adverse impact were discussed in the EIR and are summarized or were otherwise provided in the Statement of Facts and Findings (above). 7.3 OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The Planning Commission finds that each of the specific economic, legal, social, technological, environmental, and other considerations, and the benefits of the project separately and independently outweigh the remaining significant, adverse impact related to noise impacts associated with construction and is an overriding consideration independently warranting approval of the project. The remaining significant adverse impact identified in Section 7.2, above, is acceptable in light of each of these overriding considerations, and the substantial evidence that supports the enumerated benefits of Alternative 5 can be found in the Statement of Facts and Findings herein, the Final EIR, Alternative 5 itself, and the record of all proceedings in connection with the approval of Alternative 5. In the event that any court decision or regulatory action results in a determination that there are additional remaining significant impacts resulting from the City's approval of the project that cannot be avoided even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures into the project, the Statement of Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations herein shall be deemed to apply to such additional remaining significant impacts. After examining the proposed project in light of its alternatives, the City determined that adoption and implementation of one of the alternatives (Alternative 5) is the most desirable, feasible, and appropriate action. The City finds and determines that (1) all significant environmental effects of Alternative 5 are substantially lessened where feasible; (2) Alternative 5 will result in certain significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided or reduced to a less -than -significant level even with incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures; and (3) there are no other feasible mitigation measures or feasible project alternatives that will further mitigate, avoid, or reduce the remaining significant environmental effects to a less -than -significant level. The City finds that the adoption and implementation of Alternative 5 will have the economic, social, legal, and other considerable benefits listed below. The City finds that each of the separate benefits listed below is determined to be unto itself an overriding consideration, independent of other benefits, that warrants approval of Alternative 5 and outweighs and overrides the significant unavoidable impacts related to construction noise and cumulative construction noise described in Section 5.4, and thereby justifies approval of Alternative 5. The specific economic, legal, social, technological, environmental, and other considerations, and the benefits of Alternative 5 that outweigh the significant unavoidable impact of the project are: 1. Alternative 5 would create a new mixed -use community that allows for residential, retail/commercial, and senior housing while preserving and enhancing natural resources. 2. Alternative 5 would provide a sensitive and protective interface with the adjacent Wiley Canyon Creek by utilizing appropriate setback, grading, landscape, buried bank stabilization and water quality treatments. September 2025 50 Packet Pg. 78 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report 3. Alternative 5 would provide development and transitional land use patterns that are compatible with surrounding communities and land uses and are consistent with the City's General Plan. 4. Alternative 5 would arrange land uses and add amenities to reduce vehicle miles traveled and to encourage the use of transit. 5. Alternative 5 would provide designs and neighborhoods to locate residential and non- residential land uses in close proximity to each other and major road corridors, transit and trails. 6. Alternative 5 would provide public spaces, including plazas, private and public recreational areas and trails. 7. Alternative 5 would implement waste reduction, drought -tolerant landscaping, and use of water efficiency measures. 8. Alternative 5 would provide a meandering trail with public access along Wiley Canyon Road and within the project site along Wiley Canyon Creek. 9. Alternative 5 would provide a landscape design emphasizing a pleasant neighborhood character and inviting streetscapes. 10. Alternative 5 would enhance and augment the City's housing market by providing a variety of housing product to meet the needs of future residents. 11. Alternative 5 would maintain and enhance the use of Wiley Canyon Creek with native revegetation as a to serve as a natural channel to be utilized by wildlife. 12. Alternative 5 would incorporate new oak trees into the project design, including public spaces. 13. Alternative 5 would incorporate vehicle and pedestrian circulation improvements on Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard through the widening of the roadways where needed, as well as the addition of appropriate traffic controls at various intersections. 14. Alternative 5 would provide a Class I trail and sidewalks along the roadways. 15. Alternative 5 would provide publicly accessible passive and active recreational opportunities for prospective residents and existing residents in proximity to the project site. 16. Alternative 5 would include amenities to specifically support senior residents requiring senior services including memory care, supporting amenities for basic -needs nursing care, and housekeeping service. 17. Alternative 5 would include recreational amenities to improve quality of life of prospective on -site residents and existing off -site residents and encourage senior living tenants to socialize and maintain active lifestyles. Therefore, the Planning Commission, having reviewed and considered all of the information contained in the Draft EIR, Final EIR, and the public record, adopts the Statement of Overriding September 2025 51 Packet Pg. 79 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report Considerations, which balances the benefits of Alternative 5 against the unavoidable adverse impact related to operational air quality in reaching a decision on this project. September 2025 52 Packet Pg. 80 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. September 2025 53 Packet Pg. 81 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report 8.0 STATEMENT OF LOCATION AND CUSTODIAN OF DOCUMENTS Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e), the City of Santa Clarita, as the Lead Agency, specifies that copy of the FEIR and all supporting documents are available at the City Clerk's Office, located in the City Hall Building at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 120, Santa Clarita, California, 91355. September 2025 54 Packet Pg. 82 1.b Planning Commission Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report This page intentionally left blank. September 2025 55 Packet Pg. 83 1.c PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION No. P25-13 EXHIBIT B Final EIR; and Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project SCH No. 2022030626 Incorporated by Reference Document can be found at https://santaclarita. _gov/planning/environmental-impact-reports-under-review/wile,,/planning/environmental-impact-reports-under-review/wileann- mixed-use-project/ Packet Pg. 84 1.d RESOLUTION P25-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING MASTER CASE 20- 238, CONSISTING OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 20-023, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 20-005, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 20-017, MINOR USE PERMIT 20-013, OAK TREE PERMIT 425-004, AND TENTATIVE MAP 83295, FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 24924 HAWKBRYN AVENUE (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS: 2825-012-007, 2825-007-010, 2825-012-011, 2825-012- 901, AND 2825-012-902), IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, SUBJECT TO THE ATTACHED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (EXHIBIT A). THE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS FOR MASTER CASE 20-238. The Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact and conclusions: A. On October 28, 2020, the applicant (Community Multihousing, Inc.) filed Master Case 20- 238, consisting of Architectural Design Review (ADR) 20-023, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 20-005, Development Review (DR) 20-017, Minor Use Permit (MUP) 20-013, Oak Tree Permit (OTP) 425-004, and Tentative Map (TM) 83295. The properties affected by the application are Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN) 2825-012-007, 2825-007-010, 2825-012- 011, 2825-012-901, and 2825-012-902; B. The approximately 31-acre Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project (Project) site is located at 24924 Hawbryn Avenue, and has a General Plan land use and zoning designation of Mixed Use Neighborhood (MXN). The Project site is also located within the area designated by the General Plan as the Calgrove Corridor/Smiser Ranch Special Development Area (Smiser Ranch Area), and located within the Planned Development Overlay (PD) zone; C. The project includes the proposed development of 45 two-story detached, single-family condominium units, eight of which would include an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU); 179 two-story townhome units; a four-story, 120-unit assisted -living facility; and 9,000 square feet of commercial floor area, including the merger and subdivision into seven lots; D. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"; Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq.), including the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15000, et seq.) the City of Santa Clarita (City) is the lead agency and the Planning Commission is the decision -making body for the Project. The findings, conclusions, and actions set forth in Resolution No. P25-14 are incorporated by reference; and E. 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 public hearings, including the staff report. SECTION 2. GENERAL FINDINGS FOR MASTER CASE 20-238. Based on the foregoing facts and findings for Master Case 20-238, the Planning Commission determines as follows: Page 1 of 7 Packet Pg. 85 1.d Resolution P25-14 Master Case 20-238 September 16, 2025 A. That the proposal is consistent with the General Plan; The Project site is designated as Mixed -Use Neighborhood (MXN) under the Santa Clarita General Plan (Land Use Element), which is intended for mixed -use development "in order to create neighborhoods that integrate residential uses with complementary commercial services, including retail and office uses." In addition, the Project site is located within an approximately 38-acre area that is specifically identified in the General Plan as the Calgrove Corridor/Smiser Ranch Special Development Area (Smiser Ranch area). The General Plan establishes a limitation on the overall allowable floor area of 830,000 square feet of total residential and commercial combined development (excluding parking facilities) in the Smiser Ranch area. The proposed Project would develop an underutilized site with a mixed -use development, inclusive of new residential units, assisted -living units, and commercial floor area for neighborhood -serving commercial uses. The proposed development is within the allowable floor area established by the General Plan for the Smiser Ranch area. In addition, the proposed Project would be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, including, without limitation. The proposed Project is consistent with the following Land Use goals, and their associated objectives and policies: Goal LUE 1; Objective LU 1.2; Policy LU 1.2.1; Goal LU 2; Objective LU 2.1; Objective LU 2.3; Goal LU 3; Objective LU 3.1; and Policy LU 3.1.2. The development proposal is consistent with the intent and goals of the General Plan. The Project would provide new housing opportunities in a variety of housing types, and new commercial floor area to provide neighborhood serving commercial retail and office uses, helping to meet the housing and business needs of both current and future residents. B. The proposal is allowed within the applicable underlying zone and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code (SCMC); The proposed Project is a mixed -use development, located in the MXN zone, which is intended for mixed -use development. Multifamily and single-family residential units are permitted by right in the MXN zone. The assisted -living facility is permitted with the approval of a CUP. In addition, commercial development is permitted in the MXN zone, subject to the objective development standards in SCMC Chapters 17.51 and 17.55. Any future commercial uses will be subject to the requirements of SCMC Section 17.35.020(B), the permitted use chart for the MXN zone. The MXN zone establishes minimum and maximum density for residential units, and establishes minimum and maximum floor area ratios (FAR) for commercial uses. The FAR for commercial uses is 0.2, and the maximum FAR is 0.5. Based on the 31-acre Project site, the commercial uses should provide between 270,072 and 675,180 square feet of floor area. The required residential density is a minimum of six units per acre and a maximum of 18 Page 2 of 7 Packet Pg. 86 1.d Resolution P25-14 Master Case 20-238 September 16, 2025 units per acre. Based on the Project site area, the Project should provide between 186 to 558 units. The Project includes 232 residential units, meeting the minimum and maximum residential density of the MXN zone. The Project request includes an MUP to provide a commercial FAR that is less than that required by the MXN zone. The applicant proposes a 149,000 square feet of commercial floor area, inclusive of the assisted -living and commercial floor area. The proposed Project is within the allowable building height of 50 feet in the MXN zone. In general, the residential units are two stories, with a maximum height of 35 feet. The assisted living facility is four stories with a maximum height of 50 feet. The architecture was reviewed for conformance with the Community Character and Design Guidelines (CCDG) for the community of Newhall. The Project complies with the objective development standards for the MXN zone, and with approval of the CUP and MUP, the Project would be consistent with the underlying zoning requirements. 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 permittee is required to comply with all applicable laws, including, without limitation, the California Building Standards Code and Fire Code. Sufficient access for firefighting purposes is provided and verified by the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County (LACFD), and the permittee must comply with all LACFD requirements. As described above, the Project complies with the zoning regulations for the MXN zone and would not create a hazard to the public health, safety, and welfare. The Project complies with all applicable law. There is no evidence demonstrating that the Project, if constructed, would endanger public health and safety. D. The proposal is physically suitable for the site. The factors related to the proposal's physical suitability for the site shall include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. The design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics are suitable for the proposed use; The Project complies with the City's objective standards for mixed -use development, including, without limitation, setbacks, building height, drive aisle width, outdoor space, and landscaping, and sufficient parking is provided for both the commercial and residential components as required by the SCMC. As described in the above findings, with approval of the CUP and MUP, the Project would be consistent with the underlying Page 3 of 7 Packet Pg. 87 1.d Resolution P25-14 Master Case 20-238 September 16, 2025 zoning requirements. 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 of trafc such proposal would generate; The Project would include several off -site roadway improvements along Wiley Canyon Road. Wiley Canyon Road is currently a two-lane roadway along the Project frontage to Calgrove Boulevard. The are no signalized intersections along this stretch of Wiley Canyon Road. The roadway improvements for the Project include the installation of three new roundabout intersections: 1) at the Project entrance on Wiley Canyon Road; 2) at Canerwell and Wiley Canyon Road; and 3) at Calgrove Boulevard and Wiley Canyon Road. In addition, a Class I trail (two-lane bicycle path and separated, five-foot wide pedestrian path) would be installed along the Project frontage on Wiley Canyon Road from the Project entrance to Calgrove Boulevard. As discussed throughout the public hearing process, the Project trips do not necessitate the build out of 4 lanes, however, the Wiley Canyon Road right-of-way could accommodate four lanes if needed in the future. The Project would also improve bicycle trail connections in the vicinity of the Project along Wiley Canyon Road from Lyons Avenue to Calgrove Boulevard. A Class III bicycle lane (signage to indicate a shared bicycle lane in the traffic lane) would be installed on Wiley Canyon Road from Lyons Avenue to Wabuska Street. This would transition to a Class II bicycle lane (striped bicycle lane in the traffic lane right-of-way) at Wabuska Street to the Project entrance. A Class II trail would be installed on Calgrove Boulevard from Wiley Canyon Road to The Old Road. Ultimately, these improvements would make bicycle path connections from existing bicycle trails at the north side of Lyons Avenue to The Old Road. This would provide for a future trail connection to the Towsley Canyon Open Space, on the south side of the intersection of Calgrove Boulevard and The Old Road. 3. Public protection services (e.g., Fire protection and Sheriprotection) are readily available; and The Project site is located in an established, urban environment that is serviced by existing public protection services provided by both the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD) and LACFD, and will not require any significant additional resources or services from those organizations as a result of its operation. The proposal must comply with all applicable requirements of the LACFD and LASD. In addition, the developer will be required to 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) is adequate to serve the site. Page 4 of 7 Packet Pg. 88 1.d Resolution P25-14 Master Case 20-238 September 16, 2025 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. Additionally, the Conditions of Approval require necessary utility connections to support the Project. SECTION 3: ADDITIONAL FINDINGS FOR THE OAK TREE PERMIT. Based on foregoing facts and findings for OTP 425-004, the Planning Commission finds as follows: A. It is necessary to remove, relocate, prune, cut or encroach into the protected zone of an oak tree to enable reasonable use of the subject property which is otherwise prevented by the presence of the tree and no reasonable alternative can be accomodated due to the unique physical development constraints on the property. A total of 36 oak trees are located on the Project site and/or adjacent to planned roadway improvements associated with the Project. The Project would remove four, non -heritage oak trees that are located on the Project site. In addition, there are encroachment impacts identified for 19 oak trees, including encroachment into the dripline of two heritage oak trees. Removing oak trees requires mitigation in accordance with the City's Oak Tree regulations The Conditions of Approval require the permittee to prepare a mitigation plan that is equal to the full appraisal value of the oak trees proposed to be removed. The mitigation plan could include on -site planting of oak trees, payment of a fee to the City's oak tree fund, or donation of land for planting of oak trees. SECTION 4: FINDINGS FOR TENTATIVE MAP 83295. Pursuant to SCMC § 16.25.110, the Planning Commission finds that there is no basis for denying TM 83295 under Government Code § 66474 and further finds, determines, and declares that: A. The proposed Tentative Map is consistent with the General Plan as required in Government Code § 65451. 1. As set forth in Section 3, this Project meets the goals and objectives of the General Plan. B. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development; C. The design of the Project and the proposed improvements are unlikely to cause substantial damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed type of improvements are unlikely to cause serious public health problems. There is no evidence demonstrating that the approval of a tentative map is likely to cause any serious public health problems; and E. The design of the Project or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed Project. The on -site roadways necessary for the Project will be installed and accessible for Page 5 of 7 Packet Pg. 89 1.d Resolution P25-14 Master Case 20-238 September 16, 2025 the future residents, law enforcement, and emergency services. SECTION 5: APPROVALS. The Planning Commission takes following actions: Approves Master Case 20-238 consisting of ADR 20-023, CUP 20-005, DR 20-017, MUP 20-013, OTP 425-004, and TM 83295, for the construction of a mixed -use development consisting of 232 residential units, inclusive of eight ADUs; a 120-unit assisted -living facility; and 9,000 square feet of commercial, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A). SECTION 6: RELIANCE ON RECORD. Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this Resolution 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 Planning Commission 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 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 finding is not based in part on that fact. SECTION 8: NOTICE. The Secretary is directed to provide a copy of this Resolution to the Planning Commission and any other person requesting a copy. SECTION 9: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution becomes effective immediately upon adoption and memorializes the Planning Commission's final decision made on September 16, 2025. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of September, 2025. ATTEST: RACHEL CLARK, SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES LISA EICHMAN, CHAIRPERSON PLANNING COMMISSION Page 6 of 7 Packet Pg. 90 1.d Resolution P25-14 Master Case 20-238 September 16, 2025 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 16th day of September, 2025, by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY Page 7 of 7 Packet Pg. 91 1.e EXHIBIT A DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RESOLUTION P25-14 MASTER CASE 20-238: ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW 20-023, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 20-005, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 20-017, MINOR USE PERMIT 20-013, OAK TREE PERMIT 425- 004, AND TENTATIVE MAP 83295 In addition to all applicable provisions of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code (SCMC), Wiley Canyon, LLC (permittee) agrees to comply with the following provisions as conditions for the City of Santa Clarita's (City) approval of Master Case 20-238 (MC20-238). GENERAL CONDITIONS GC1. The approval of this project will expire 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 SCMC. GC2. To the extent the use approved with this project is a different use than previously approved for the property, the prior approval is 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 terminates the approval of this use, along with any associated vested rights to such use. The use may not be re-established or resumed after the two-year period. Discontinuation includes cessation of a use regardless of intent to resume. GC3. The permittee may file for an extension 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 becomes 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. GCS. The permittee and property owner must comply with all inspections requirements as deemed necessary by the Director. Packet Pg. 92 Master Case 20-238, Conditions of Approval September 16, 2025 Page 2 of 21 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 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 Exhibits, 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 SCMC. This condition serves as notice, pursuant to Government Code § 66020(d), that the City is imposing development impact fees (DIFs) upon the project in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code § 66000, et seq.) and the SCMC. The permittee is informed that it may protest DIFs in accordance with Government Code § 66020. GC 12. 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 Planning Commission. 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 the 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. 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 1.e Packet Pg. 93 Master Case 20-238, Conditions of Approval September 16, 2025 Page 3 of 21 requirements of this approval are complied with. Development entitlements may be withheld until violations of the SCMC are abated. GC16. The Building Official 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 granted approval for the subdivision and construction of the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project (Project), with up to 232 two-story residential units, inclusive of a maximum of eight attached Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs); a 120-unit, four- story assisted -living facility; and up to 9,000 square feet of commercial floor area. The construction of the Project must be consistent with the approved plans on file with the Planning Division under MC20-238. Any modification to the approved plans is subject to further review and approval of the Director. PL2. Attached ADUs are not permitted to be sold separately from the primary residential unit, unless otherwise permitted under state law. PL3. The final map submitted to the City Engineer for approval and subsequent recordation must substantially comply with Alternative 5, as approved by the Planning Commission PL4. Before the City Engineer issues a precise grading permit, the permittee must submit an Architectural Design Review (ADR) and a Development Review (DR) for review and approval by the Director. An ADR and a DR are required for each development phase of the Project. The ADR and DR can be submitted for the entire Project or by individual planning phase. PL5. Parking must be provided in accordance with the parking plan shown on Alternative 5, on file with the Director under MC20-238. PL6. All walls and fencing must be shown on the development plans. A minimum six -foot -tall block wall must be installed along the northerly property line. A minimum 10-foot combination of berm and block wall must be installed along the west property line in any area that is not separated from the Interstate-5 freeway by the Metro sound wall. PL7. Before the Building Official issues a Certificate of Occupancy for the assisted -living facility, the permittee must provide the Director with a copy of the Emergency and Disaster Plan approved by the California Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), or other state agency as may be referred to by DHHS. PL8. All construction -related staging, construction equipment, and construction worker parking must be provided on the Project site. No off -site construction parking or staging 1.e Packet Pg. 94 Master Case 20-238, Conditions of Approval September 16, 2025 Page 4 of 21 is permitted. PL9. Heavy earthwork construction is limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development upon written formal notification. PL10. No signage is approved by this permit. All future signage requires a sign permit application in accordance with the SCMC. PL11. The permittee must comply with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) as identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Project, which is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth. Landscaping Conditions LR1. Before the City Engineer issues a grading permit, the permittee must provide final landscape, lighting and irrigation plans (Landscape Document Package) for Director review and approval. The plan must be prepared by a California -registered landscape architect and must be designed with the plant palette suitable for Santa Clarita (Sunset Western Garden Book Zone 18, minimum winter night temperatures typically 20' to 30' F; maximum summer high temperatures typically 105' F to 110' F). The landscape design plan must meet the design criteria of the State Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance and the SCMC. LR2. Before the Building Official issues a final Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must install all proposed irrigation and landscaping, including irrigation controllers, staking, mulching, etc., to the satisfaction of the Director. The Director may impose inspection fees for more than one landscape installation inspection. LR3. Before the Building Official issues a final Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must submit to the Director a letter from the Project landscape architect certifying that all landscape materials and irrigation were installed and function according to the approved landscape plans. ENGINEERING SERVICES DIVISION General Requirements EN1. Before the Building Official issues first Certificate of Occupancy, all new and existing power lines and overhead cables less than 34 KV within or fronting the Project site must be installed underground. EN2. Before the City Engineer, or designee, issues grading permit or approves Final Map, whichever occurs first, the permittee must cooperate, at permittee's expense, with the City to acquire Los Angeles County properties (Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 2825- 001-904, portion of APN: 2825-013-913, and portion of APN: 2825-013-914) for the proposed improvements shown on their properties per Tentative Map (TM) 83295. 1.e Packet Pg. 95 Master Case 20-238, Conditions of Approval September 16, 2025 Page 5 of 21 EN3. Before the City Engineer, or designee approves grading plan, the permittee must obtain a notarized Letter of Permission for access and grading outside the property lines/tract boundary from all affected adjacent property owner(s), including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). EN4. Before Street Plan approval, the permittee must obtain a notarized Letter of Permission from the affected property owner(s) for the proposed driveway closure with the installation of a roundabout at the intersection of Wiley Canyon Road and Canerwell Street. ENS. Before the City Engineer issues grading permit, the permittee must acquire the necessary right of way from each property owner for the construction of proposed roundabouts at the intersection of Wiley Canyon Road/Calgrove Boulevard and Wiley Canyon Road/Canerwell Street, and the proposed Class I Trail from the north side of the Project to Rivendale Park. The permittee must acknowledge and agree with the requirements of EN9. Subdivision Requirements EN6. Before the Building Official issues first building permit, a Tract Map prepared by or under the direction of a person licensed to practice land surveying in the State of California must be filed in the Office of the County Recorder, in compliance with applicable City, County, and State Subdivision Map Act. EN7. This tentative map approval is subject to the permittee's acceptance of the following conditions for acquisition of easements/right-of-way: A. The permittee must secure, at the permittee's expense, sufficient title, or interest in land to permit construction of any required off -site improvements. B. If the permittee is unable to acquire sufficient title or interest to permit construction of the required off -site improvements, the permittee must notify the City of this inability not less than six months prior to approval of the Tract Map. In such case, the City may thereafter acquire sufficient interest in the land, which will permit construction of the off -site improvements by the permittee. C. The permittee must pay all of the City's costs of acquiring said off -site property interests pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5. Permittee must pay such costs irrespective of whether the Tract Map is recorded or whether a reversion occurs. The cost of acquisition may include, but is not limited to, acquisition prices, damages, engineering services, expert fees, title examination, appraisal costs, acquisition services, relocation assistance services and payments, legal services and fees, mapping services, document preparation, expenses, and/or damages as provided under Code of Civil Procedures Sections 1268.510-.620 and overhead. D. The permittee agrees that the City will have satisfied the 120-day limitation of Government Code Section 66462.5 and the foregoing conditions relating thereto when it files its eminent domain action in superior court within said time. E. At the time the permittee notifies the City as provided in "B" hereinabove, the permittee must simultaneously submit to the City in a form acceptable to the City all appropriate appraisals, engineering specifications, legal land descriptions, plans, 1.e Packet Pg. 96 Master Case 20-238, Conditions of Approval September 16, 2025 Page 6 of 21 pleadings, and other documents deemed necessary by the City to commence its acquisition proceedings. Said documents must be submitted to the City for preliminary review and comment at least 30 days prior to the permittee's notice described hereinabove at "B" F. The permittee agrees to deposit with the City, within five days of request by the City, such sums of money as the City estimates to be required for the costs of acquisition. The City may require additional deposits from time -to -time. G. The permittee must not sell any lot/parcel/unit shown on the Tract/Parcel Map until the City has acquired said sufficient land interest. H. If the superior court thereafter rules in a final judgment that the City may not acquire said sufficient land interest, the permittee agrees that the City may initiate proceedings for reversion to acreage. I. The permittee must execute any agreements mutually agreeable prior to approval of the Tract Map as may be necessary to assure compliance with the foregoing conditions. J. Failure by the permittee to notify the City as required by "B" hereinabove, or simultaneously submit the required and approved documents specified in "E" hereinabove, or make the deposits specified in "F" hereinabove, must constitute permittee's waiver of the requirements otherwise imposed upon the City to acquire necessary interests in land pursuant to Section 66462.5. In such event, subdivider must meet all conditions for installing or constructing off -site improvements notwithstanding Section 66462.5. EN8. Before the Tentative Map being recorded with the County Recorder, the permittee must not grant or record easements within areas proposed to be granted, dedicated, or offered for dedication for public streets or highways, access rights, building restriction rights, or other easements; unless subordinated to the proposed grant or dedication. If easements are granted after the date of tentative map approval, subordination must be executed by the easement holder prior to the filing of the Tentative Map. EN9. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must label driveways as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" on the map, as directed by the City Engineer. EN10. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must dedicate any necessary easements or rights -of -ways for public improvements (such as sewer, storm drain, sidewalk and roadway), to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN11. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must remove existing structures. EN12. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must vacate and/or relocate easements running through proposed structures or other improvements, as directed by the City Engineer. EN13. At map check submittal, the permittee must provide a preliminary subdivision report. A final subdivision guarantee is required prior to Tract Map approval. EN14. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must provide a Will Serve Letter stating that Community Antenna Television service (CATV) will be provided to this project. 1.e Packet Pg. 97 Master Case 20-238, Conditions of Approval September 16, 2025 Page 7 of 21 EN15. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must provide a Will Serve Letter from all necessary utilities, stating that service will be provided to this property. EN16. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the erection of building(s) and other structures within open space lots. EN17. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must adjust, relocate, and/or eliminate lot lines, lots, streets, easements, grading, geotechnical protective devices, and/or physical improvements to comply with ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the date the City determined the application to be complete, all, as directed by the City Engineer. EN18. Before Tract Map approval, the permittee must show on the map all Los Angeles County Flood Control District Easements. A permit will be required for any construction affecting the right-of-way or facilities. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions Requirements EN19. Before a Final Map is approved, the permittee must obtain approval from the City Engineer and the City Attorney for Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for this development. The permittee must reimburse the City for the City Attorney's review and approval fee. The CC&Rs must include a disclosure to comply with the Geologist's recommendations in the Geology Report concerning restrictions on watering, irrigation, and recommend plant types. The CC&Rs must grant the City the authority to review and approve/disapprove amendments (including dissolution) of the CC&Rs/association. The CC&Rs must grant the City the right (though not the obligation) to enforce the CC&Rs (at a minimum those provisions related to City -required items). EN20. Before the Building Official issues first building permit, the permittee must record the approved CC&Rs with the Los Angeles County Recorder's office. EN21. Before the Building Official issues first Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must establish a Property Owners' Association (POA), or similar entity, to ensure the continued maintenance of all shared/common lots and drainage devices are not transferable to the County Flood Control District. EN22. Before the Building Official issues first Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must transfer ownership of open space lots to the POA. The grant deed must be submitted to Engineering Services for review and approval by the City Engineer before a Final Map is approved. Access Requirements EN23. Before the Building Official issues building permits, the permittee must record a covenant for easement of all shared driveways and drive aisles, and common landscaping/slope maintenance areas, as directed by the City Engineer. This condition may be satisfied by incorporating the appropriate provisions into the CC&Rs. Condominium/Lease Requirements (for residential only) EN24. Before final map approval, the permittee must submit a notarized affidavit to the City Engineer, signed by all owners of record at the time of filing of the map with the City, stating that any proposed condominium building have not been constructed or that all buildings have not been occupied or rented and that said building will not be occupied 1.e Packet Pg. 98 Master Case 20-238, Conditions of Approval September 16, 2025 Page 8 of 21 or rented until after the recording of the map with the Los Angeles County (County) Recorder. Grading and Geology Requirements EN25. Before the City Engineer, or designee, issues a grading permit, the permittee must submit a grading plan consistent with the approved Plan, oak tree report, and Conditions of Approval. The grading plan must be based on a detailed engineering geotechnical report specifically approved by the geologist and/or soils engineer that addresses all submitted recommendations, including seismic hazards associated with landslide and liquefaction. EN26. Before the Building Official issues building permit, the permittee must construct all grading and drainage facilities within the Project site, obtain rough grade certifications, and a compaction report approved by the City Engineer. EN27. The Preliminary Grading Plan shows an import of 85,000 Cubic Yards of dirt to the Project. A. Before the City Engineer, or designee, issues a grading permit for this Project, the permittee must submit a copy of the grading permit for the export/receiving site and an exhibit of the proposed haul route. The permittee is responsible to obtain approval from all applicable agencies for the dirt hauling operation. B. The permittee must comply with the following requirements for the dirt hauling operation: 1. Obtain an encroachment permit for the work. 2. The hours of operation is between 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. 3. Provide non-stop street sweeping service on all City streets along the haul route during all hours of work to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 4. Provide traffic control and flagging personnel along the haul route to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. C. Before the City Engineer, or designee, issues a grading permit, the permittee must pay a Haul Route Pavement Repair Security Cash Deposit (Deposit) of $100,000, which may be increased or decreased based upon an estimated cost to complete the repairs of streets damaged during the dirt hauling operation. The limits and scope of the repairs must be determined by the City Engineer. To receive a refund of the Deposit, the permittee or subsequent property owners must complete the pavement repairs to the satisfaction of the City Engineer within one year from the completion of the dirt hauling operation. If the pavement repairs are not completed within one year, the City may use the Deposit to complete the repairs. Any funds remaining at the completion of the repairs will be refunded to the permittee. If the Deposit is insufficient to complete the repairs, the City will seek additional funds from the permittee. D. Before the Building Official issues building permits, the permittee must repair any pavement damaged by the dirt hauling operation to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The limits of the road repairs must be consistent with the approved haul route. 1.e Packet Pg. 99 Master Case 20-238, Conditions of Approval September 16, 2025 Page 9 of 21 EN28. Before the City Engineer, or designee issues a grading permit, the permittee must obtain a notarized Letter of Permission for grading and/or improvements over all easements, including the California Department of Transportation. Drainage Requirements EN29. Before the City Engineer, or designee issues a grading permit, the permittee must obtain approval and connection permit from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Land Development Division/Construction Division as appropriate to connect on - site drainage system to the County -maintained drainage channel. EN30. Before the soil -cement bank protection and retaining wall plans approval, the permittee must obtain approval from Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD) for the proposed improvement on their property. EN31. Before the City Engineer issues the first building permit, the permittee must form a maintenance district, such as DBAA, to fund the ongoing maintenance of natural channel (Lot 5) and other associated improvements that are not transferable to the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) but required to be maintained by the City. EN32. Before the storm drain plan approval, all existing and proposed storm drain inlets/catch basins within or adjacent to the property along with all new storm drain inlets/catch basins constructed as part of the Project must be provided with filter inserts and/or screen covers, as directed by the City Engineer. EN33. Specific drainage requirements for the site will be established at building permit application. Before Building Official issues a building permit, the permittee must submit a precise grading plan. FEMA Flood Zone Reauirements EN34. The Project is located in FEMA Flood Zone (A, AO) in accordance with the Federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). A. For the proposed improvements within the Floodway, the permittee is required to comply with FEMA requirements to revise the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRMs) Before the Building Official issues Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must complete a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). B. For the proposed improvements within the Flood fringe, the permittee must comply with FEMA requirements to revise the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRMs). Prior to issuance of grading permit, the permittee must complete a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and prior to first building final, the permittee must complete a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). Water Quality Requirements EN35. This Project will disturb one acre or more of land. Therefore, the permittee must obtain coverage under a statewide General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit (General Permit). In accordance with the General Permit, the permittee must file with the State a Notice of Intent (NOI) for the proposed Project. Before the City Engineer, or designee issues a grading permit, the permittee must have approved by the City Engineer a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must include a copy of the 1.e Packet Pg. 100 Master Case 20-238, Conditions of Approval September 16, 2025 Page 10 of 21 NOI and shall reference the corresponding Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number issued by the state upon receipt of the NOI. EN36. This Project is a development planning priority Project under the City's NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit as a development with equal to one acre or greater of disturbed area that adds more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. Before the City Engineer, or designee issues a grading permit, the permittee must have approved by the City Engineer, an Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (USMP) that incorporates appropriate post construction Best Management Practices (BMPs), maximizes pervious surfaces, and includes infiltration into the design of the Project. Refer to the Low Impact Development ordinance and the County of Los Angeles Low Impact Development manual for details. EN37. Before the final map recordation, the permittee must establish a POA to maintain all SUSMP devices/systems identified on the latest approved Drainage Concept/Storm drain plan. SUSMP devices/systems shall include, but are not limited to, catch basin inserts, debris excluders, biotreatment basins, vortex separation type systems, and other devices/systems for stormwater quality. The permittee must be responsible for the maintenance of all SUSMP devices/systems until the POA has been established. Street Light Requirements EN38. Before street plan approval, the permittee must submit a Street Light Plan to the City Engineer, or designee, for review and approval. Street -lighting systems must be designed as City -owned and maintained on the LS-3 rate schedule, using LED fixtures approved by the City's Streetlight Maintenance District Division. EN39. Before the Building Official issues a final Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must install street lights per the approved plans, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Street Improvement Requirements EN40. Before any construction (including, without limitation, drive approaches, sidewalks, sewer laterals, curb and gutter, etc.), trenching or grading within public street right-of- way, the permittee must submit a street improvement plan consistent with the approved Plan, Oak Tree Report, and Conditions of Approval; and obtain encroachment permits from the City Engineer, or designee. EN41. The property boundaries of the site abut the Caltrans jurisdiction. Encroachments into Caltrans jurisdiction must be permitted by Caltrans before the Director considers issuing any permit(s). EN42. Before street plan approval, the permittee must submit a street tree location plan to the City's Urban Forestry Division for review and approval by the Director. The location of the street trees shall not conflict with sewer or storm drain infrastructure. The plan must include proposed sewer lateral locations and storm drain infrastructure for reference. EN43. Before final map approval or grading permit, whichever occurs first, the permittee must dedicate to the City the right-of-way required for off -site street improvements (roundabout at Calgrove & Wiley Canyon Road, at Canerwell Street & Wiley Canyon Road, and other locations shown on the TM 83295) 1.e Packet Pg. 101 Master Case 20-238, Conditions of Approval September 16, 2025 Page 11 of 21 EN44. Before final map approval, the permittee must dedicate sidewalk easements sufficient to encompass ADA requirements for sidewalks installed with drive approaches per the current City standard APWA 110-2, Type C, or equivalent. EN45. Before Building Official issues first Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must construct the following street improvements within the Project site, on Wiley Canyon Road from Wabuska Street to Calgrove Blvd, and on Calgrove Boulevard from Wiley Canyon Road to Old Road, as directed by the City Engineer: Street Name Inverted Curb & Base & Street Street Sidewalk Landscaped Shoulder Gutter Paving Lights Trees (5'min) Median Wiley Canyon Road (including roundabouts) x x x x x x Calgrove Boulevard * x x x x x Private driveways/Fire Lanes x x Hawkbryn Avenue x x * Improvements include trail connection to Rivendale Park, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN46. Before the Building Official issues first Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must construct wheelchair ramps at the roundabouts and various intersections along Wiley Canyon Road between the roundabouts, as directed by the City Engineer. EN47. Before final map approval, the permittee must pay an in -lieu fee for landscaping and irrigation of the medians on Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard per plans, at the discretion of the City Engineer. The in -lieu fee must be based on a cost estimate calculated by the permittee and approved by the City Engineer. EN48. Before the Building Official issues Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must repair any broken or damaged curb, gutter, and sidewalk and refurbish the half section of pavement on streets abutting the Project, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A revised street plan and encroachment permit is required. Sewer Improvement Requirements EN49. Before final map approval, the permittee must dedicate all necessary sewer easements. The sewer plans must be reviewed and approved by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (Sewer Maintenance Division), Los Angeles County Sanitation District, and the City Engineer. EN50. Before Building Official issues a building permit, the permittee must annex the property into the County Sanitation District. The permittee must provide the City's Building & Safety Division with written confirmation from the Sanitation District that the property has been annexed. EN51. The on -site sewer must be a publicly maintained sewer. The public sewer plan must be reviewed and approved by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (Sewer Maintenance Division), Los Angeles County Sanitation District, and the City Engineer; 1.e Packet Pg. 102 Master Case 20-238, Conditions of Approval September 16, 2025 Page 12 of 21 and all necessary easement for maintenance of the sewer must be dedicated to the City of Santa Clarita. EN52. Before the Building Official issues building permits, the on -site sewer main with building laterals must be connected to existing public sewer in Wiley Canyon Road (per PC 7599). Before the Building Official issues building permits, the permittee must coordinate with the Building Official, or designee, regarding payment of additional annexation fees, if required, to annex the property into the Los Angeles County Sanitation District. EN53. Before the Building Official issues Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must construct all sewer upgrades per the approved sewer area study, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Bonds, Fees and Miscellaneous Requirements EN54. Before City Engineer, or designee issue encroachment permits for public improvements (Street, Sanitary Sewer, Storm Drain, and Street Lights), the permittee, by agreement with the City Engineer, must guarantee installation of the improvements through faithful performance bonds, letters of credit or any other acceptable means. Certificate of Occupancy/Occupancies must be withheld if the improvements are not completed. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TEL Before final map approval, the permittee must acquire and dedicate to the City the right- of-way required for all street improvements as identified in the traffic study, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. TE2. Before the Building Official issues the first Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must construct all street improvements as identified in the traffic study required to adequately serve this development. TE3. Project access along Wiley Canyon Road must be designed and constructed as a roundabout. The roundabout must be designed according to appropriate design standards including radius, deflection, and design speed. The City Engineer may require permittee to pay for the submitted design being peer reviewed by a third -party consultant. This must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issuing the first building permit. TE4. The Project must construct a roundabout at the intersection of Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard. The roundabout must be designed according to appropriate design standards, including radius, deflection, and design speed. The City Engineer may require permittee to pay for the submitted design being peer reviewed by a third -party consultant. This must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issuing the first building permit. TES. The Project must construct a roundabout at the intersection of Wiley Canyon Road and Canerwell Street and close/relocate the existing driveway on the west side of the intersection. The roundabout must be designed according to appropriate design standards, including radius, deflection, and design speed. The City Engineer may require permittee to pay for the submitted design being peer reviewed by a third -party consultant. This 1.e Packet Pg. 103 Master Case 20-238, Conditions of Approval September 16, 2025 Page 13 of 21 must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issuing the first building permit. TE6. The permittee must install a median at the intersection of Wiley Canyon Road and Fourl Road to prohibit westbound left -turns exiting Fourl Road. This must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issues the first building permit. TE7. Before the Building Official issues the first Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must provide a Class I trail on the west side of Wiley Canyon Road between Calgrove Boulevard and the terminus of Old Wiley Canyon Road. The trail must be 11 feet wide at a minimum and include an adjacent walking path of at least 5 feet wide. On the east side of Wiley Canyon Road, the permittee must install Class 11 bicycle lanes between the same aforementioned limits. TE8. Before the Building Official issues the first Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must extend existing Class II bicycle lanes along both sides of Calgrove Boulevard from Wiley Canyon Road to the intersection of The Old Road and Calgrove Boulevard. Crosswalks must be provided on both the western and southern legs of the intersection. All necessary intersection improvements to ensure ADA compliance will be the responsibility of the permittee. TE9. Before the Building Official issues the first Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must install Class 11 bike lanes on both sides of Wiley Canyon Road from the northern terminus of the Class I trail to Wabuska Street. TE10. Before the Building Official issues the first Certificate of Occupancy, the permittee must design and install bicycle facilities on Wiley Canyon Road between Wabuska Street and 200-feet north of Lyons Avenue, subject to approval by the City Engineer. TE11. The permittee must install new conduit for the installation or future installation of fiberoptic cable due to street improvements associated with the Project. This must be shown on all applicable plans and installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This interconnect conduit and cable is required along new frontage improvements. All improvement plans for the above interconnect must be approved by the City Engineer. The interconnect conduit and cable must be installed at the time of the respective traffic signal and/or frontage improvements. TE12. Sidewalks must be provided on all internal roadways that are not alley -type driveways This must be shown on all appropriate cross sections. TE13. Before the Building Official issues the first building occupancy permit, the permittee must obtain approval from the LACFD for any private driveway sections. TE14. Before the Building Official issues the first building occupancy permit for each phase, the permittee must post "No Parking— Fire Lane" signs along all driveways with a curb -to - curb width of less than 34 feet. This must be shown on all applicable plans prior to issuance of first building permit. TE15. All dead-end driveways must extend five feet beyond the last parking stall or garage to provide back-up area. This must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issuing the first building permit. 1.e Packet Pg. 104 Master Case 20-238, Conditions of Approval September 16, 2025 Page 14 of 21 TE16. Provide access gates for vehicles and bikes/pedestrians at the northerly terminus of the trail (roundabout). Provide vehicle terminus and turnaround at the southerly terminus of the trail. The trail must be designed to meet ADA requirements. Fencing material and design to be decorative, not galvanized chain link. This must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issues the first building permit. TE17. The permittee must provide a connection from the southerly end of the trail to Wiley Canyon Road. This must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issues the first building permit. TE18. The permittee must provide a trail around the westerly perimeter of the site as a continuation of the on -site trail/maintenance road. This must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issues the first building permit. TE19. The permittee must provide a trail connection to Rivendale Park and Open Space. This must be shown on all applicable plans before the Building Official issues the first building permit. TE20. Before the City Engineer issues a grading permit, the permittee must conduct vehicle counts on Canerwell Street, Ebelden Avenue, Fambrough Street, and Kalmar Avenue (Oak Ridge Estates neighborhood) and submit the counts to the City Engineer. Within one year of full occupancy of the project, if requested by the City Engineer, the permittee must conduct new vehicle counts in Oak Ridge Estates neighborhood. If the new vehicle counts demonstrate a significant diversion of vehicles, as determined by the City Engineer, into the Oak Ridge Estates neighborhood, the permittee will be required to implement appropriate traffic calming measures that must be approved by the City Engineer to discourage such diversion. TE21. Before the Building Official issues building permits, the permittee must pay the applicable Bridge and Thoroughfare (B&T) District Fee to implement the Circulation Element of the General Plan as a means of mitigating the traffic impact of this Project. This Project is located in the Via Princessa B&T District. The current rate for this District is $23,170. The B&T rate is subject to change and is based on the rate at the time of payment. Standard B&T Fee Calculation: Townhomes = number of units (232) x the district rate ($23,170) x 0.8 = $4,300,352 Commercial = gross acreage (3.5) x the district rate ($23,170) x 5 = $405,475 SPECIAL DISTRICTS Urban Forestry UF1. The Conditions of Approval herein are based on the arborist report dated February 2024. Oak tree removals are limited to trees numbers 450, 452, 455, and 456, as described and proposed in the arborist report. 1.e Packet Pg. 105 Master Case 20-238, Conditions of Approval September 16, 2025 Page 15 of 21 UF2. Permittee must mitigate for the loss of trees 450, 452, 455, and 456. The mitigation value is the International Society of Arboriculture appraised value: a. Oak tree number 450 (Quercus agrifolia) — ISA appraised value $26,000 b. Oak tree number 452 (Quercus agrifolia) — ISA appraised value $15,600 c. Oak tree number 455 (Quercus agrifolia) — ISA appraised value $170,200 d. Oak tree number 456 (Quercus agrifolia) — ISA appraised value $91,600 UF3. Before the City Engineer issues a grading permit, permittee must submit a comprehensive oak tree mitigation plan to Urban Forestry for review and approval by the Director. The oak tree mitigation plan shall include, without limitation: a map identifying the proposed location of replacement mitigation oak trees and the quantities. The mitigation plan must equal no less than $303,400. UF4. Before the City Engineer issues a grading permit, permittee must submit International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) tree appraisal values for all oak trees in the arborist report identified to be encroached on: tree numbers 451, 453, 454, 457, 459, QA4, QA5, QA6, QA8, QA9, QA 10, QA 11, QL 12, QL 13, QL 15, QL 16, QL 17, QL 18, and 463. UF5. Before the City Engineer issues a grading permit, and before removal or encroachment of any oak trees, permittee must secure a Bond equal to 1) the full appraised value for all the oak trees proposed for removal, and 2) the full appraised value of all oak trees proposed for encroachment. The Bond shall be exonerated 24 months after the conclusion of all phases of construction if all conditions of the oak tree permit have been met to the satisfaction of the Director of Administrative Services or their designee. UF6. Before the City Engineer issues a grading permit, permittee must submit a maintenance and care program to Urban Forestry, prepared by the Project's oak tree consultant. The program shall be initiated to ensure the continued health and care of oak trees being preserved, throughout all phases of construction. UF7. Two years after the conclusion of all phases of grading and construction activities, the permittee must submit and affidavit by a qualified oak tree consultant to the Director. Such affidavit shall certify compliance with the conditions of the oak tree permit and the health of all replacement mitigation oak trees. UF8. Permittee must adhere to all oak tree preservation and protection recommendations prescribed in the arborist report. In addition, permittee must adhere to the City's Oak Tree Preservation Guidelines, for the protection of all oak trees being preserved. Street Light Maintenance District SD1. The permittee must annex all parcels into the Santa Clarita Landscaping and Lighting District, Streetlighting Zone B. The annexation fee will be based on the current maximum assessment rate per Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU) for each parcel. There is a one-time annexation fee of $500.00 plus $100.00 per EBU. A minimum of 120 days is required to process the annexation, which must be completed before final map approval, grading, or the issuance of a building permit, whichever occurs first. 1.e Packet Pg. 106 Master Case 20-238, Conditions of Approval September 16, 2025 Page 16 of 21 SD2. Existing streetlights must be protected, preserved, and remain in operation during any modification. Any existing streetlight proposed for removal and/or relocation must be approved by Special Districts, Streetlight Maintenance Districts (SMD). SD3. Within the public right-of-way fronting the Project site or as required by Engineering, the permittee must replace existing streetlights with the City's standard streetlight pole. Before street plan approval, the permittee must obtain approval from SMD on the Light Emitting Diode (LED) fixtures to be installed on public streets and whether the new streetlights will be metered (LS-3 rate) or unmetered. SD4. All new streetlights installed on public streets, per the approved plans, will be owned by the City. A Geographic Information Systems file mapping the underground facilities is required before streetlight acceptance by the City. Landscape Maintenance District SD5. This parcel is located within Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) Areawide Zone 2008-1, which was established to fund the construction and maintenance of landscaped medians on major thoroughfares throughout the City of Santa Clarita. Before the Building Official issues a certificate of occupancy, the applicant must financially contribute to the Areawide Zone in a manner reflective of this LMD zone's assessment methodology. SD6. All medians and turnabouts must be landscaped to the satisfaction of the Director. SD7. Landscape must include, without limitation, installation of concrete pavers, irrigation, trees, shrubs, groundcover, and mulch. SD8. All landscape proposed within the medians and turnabouts must be installed according to the LMD "Design Standards, Notes, Details & Specifications for Median Landscaping in Santa Clarita. " SD9. No on -site landscaping will be maintained by the LMD. SD10. The permittee must be required to install a separate water meter, electric meter, and pedestal specifically for medians and parkways. Upon successful completion of all required landscape establishment and maintenance period, both meters will be turned over to the City. SDI 1. The applicant is required to install an approved irrigation controller to be used for all landscape located within both the medians and parkways. Applicant shall contact Special Districts for the approved controller and model number. Typically, the controller is a 48 station WeatherTrak® Pro 3. SD12. Upon completion of the Project and after the final walk for acceptance, the permittee must submit a completed turnover sheet with all the required information and materials to the Director. Street Trees SD13. Before the City Engineer issues a grading permit, the permittee is required to submit a site plan which indicates existing parkway tree location and includes a Tree Preservation 1.e Packet Pg. 107 Master Case 20-238, Conditions of Approval September 16, 2025 Page 17 of 21 and Protection Plan to the City's Urban Forestry Division for review and approval by the Director. SD 14. Prior to street tree plan approval and issuance of the building permit, the permittee is required to submit a street tree location plan for proposed parkway tree installations to the City's Urban Forestry Division for review and approval. Location of tree wells and parkway trees must be shown to scale on all required sets of site plans including grading and construction plans. Landscape plans must be prepared by a California licensed landscape architect and comply with the latest edition of the LMD landscape guidelines. Permittee must install parkway trees within the public right of way fronting the Project site along Wiley Canyon Road and Calgrove Boulevard before the Building Official issues a final Certificate of Occupancy. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION ES1. Before building permit issuance, permittee must submit a Construction and Demolition Materials Management Plan (CDMMP) and receive approval from the Environmental Services Manager or Designee if the project meets the parameters below (SCMC§15.46.300): ES2. All demolition projects (regardless of valuation), all commercial projects of new construction or additions over 1,000 square feet and all tenant improvements, alterations or new construction valued greater than $200,000, all new residential construction projects and all residential additions and improvements that increase building area, volume, or size must comply with the City's Construction and Demolition Materials (C&D) Recycling Ordinance. SCMC§15.46.200. ES3. A minimum of 65% of the entire Project's inert (dirt, rock, bricks, etc.) waste and 65% of the remaining C&D waste must be recycled or reused rather than disposing in a landfill. SCMC§15.46.610 and CALGreen sections 4.408, 5.408, 301.1.1 and 301.3. ES4. For renovation or tenant improvement projects and new construction projects, a deposit of 2% of the estimated total project cost or $15,000, whichever is less, is required. For demolition projects, a deposit of 10% of the estimated total project cost or $15,000, whichever is less, is required. The full deposit will be returned to the permittee upon proving that 65% of the inert and remaining C&D waste was recycled or reused. SCMC § 15.46.400. ES5. All projects within the City that are not self -hauling waste materials must use one of the City's franchised haulers for temporary and roll -off bin collection services. SCMC § 15.44.220. PARKS PLANNING PP 1. Prior to issuance of building permit, the permittee must pay the required Park Dedication Fee equal to the value of the amount of land established per the City's General Plan, "Parks and Recreation Element." The permittee may be required to provide a certified 1.e Packet Pg. 108 Master Case 20-238, Conditions of Approval September 16, 2025 Page 18 of 21 MAI real estate appraisal to establish the fair market value (FMV) of an acre of land within this Project. Final Parkland dedication obligation calculation to be based on current density per dwelling and FMV rates at time of payment. PP2. Prior to issuance of building permit, permittee must dedicate in fee public park parcel to the City, to the satisfaction of the Director of Neighborhood Services. TRANSIT DIVISION TD1. A bus stop is required on the Project's frontage just past the entrance. Additionally, a bus stop is required opposite the Project on Wiley Canyon Road with a pedestrian crossing for access. Bus stops require ROW, and turnout. The bus stop(s) must comply with all ADA regulations as specified in the most recent version of the California Disabled Accessibility Guidebook (Ca1Dag). Proposed disabled access must be drawn on all plans. TD2. Permittee must construct a pedestrian path from the bus stop to the development. TD3. The bus stop must consist of a 10-foot by 25-foot concrete passenger waiting pad placed behind the sidewalk and include a stylized shelter, a stylized bench, and a trash receptacle. Proposed amenities must be approved by the City Engineer, or designee, before installation. Bench and trash receptacle specifications and all appropriate paperwork for the bus stop(s) must be supplied to the City Engineer, or designee, before installation. TD4. The bus stop(s) location must be a minimum of 100 feet from the curb return or as specified by the Director. TDS. Permittee must provide a site plan showing amenities within a 100-foot radius of the bus stop(s). This plan must show the locations of all utility meters, utility structures, landscaping, buildings, pedestrian walkways, and parking spaces. This plan must also show all other items not listed above located within a 100-foot radius of the bus stop(s). TD6. Before the Building Official issues a certificate of occupancy for the first building, the bus stop must be installed to the satisfaction of the Director. TD7. Permittee must construct an in -street concrete pad pursuant to the current City standard APWA 131-2. TDB. Due to the proposed assisted -living, senior apartment, and skilled nursing components of the Project, the permittee must provide a dedicated passenger loading and un-loading area on -site capable of accommodating a van with the approximate dimensions of: 9 feet (height) by 8 feet (width) by 23 feet (length) at each of these locations. In addition, there should be an eight -foot free and clear area for wheelchair access to the front door of the van. CONSOLIDATED FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY ("FIRE DEPARTMENT") 1.e Packet Pg. 109 Master Case 20-238, Conditions of Approval September 16, 2025 Page 19 of 21 FD L A digital copy of the Final Map must be submitted to the Fire Department's Land Development Unit for review before approval. Submittal must be provided through EPIC -LA using the following Plan Type: Fire Land Development —City Request —Final Map (Tract). FD2. The driveways required for Fire Apparatus Access Roads must be indicated on the Final Map as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" with the widths clearly depicted. FD3. A common access agreement is required for the private driveway since multiple units are sharing the same access. FD5. A digital copy of the Water Plans for the required public fire hydrants shall be submitted to the Fire Department's Land Development Unit for review and approval. Compliance is required prior to Project construction. Submittal shall be provided through EPIC -LA using the following Plan Type: Fire Land Development —City Request —Water Plan & System Review. FD7. All on -site Fire Apparatus Access Roads must be labeled as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" on the site plan, along with the widths clearly depicted on the plan. FD8. The designation allows for appropriate signage prohibiting parking. Fire Apparatus Access Roads must be installed and maintained in a serviceable manner before and during the time of construction in accordance with County of Los Angeles Fire Code (Fire Code) Section 501.4. FD 10. The Fire Apparatus Access Roads and designated fire lanes must be measured from flow line to flow line. FD 11. For buildings where the vertical distance between the access roadway and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet from the lowest level of the Fire Apparatus Access Road, provide a minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet, exclusive of shoulders and an unobstructed vertical clearance "clear to sky" Fire Apparatus Access Roads to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. At least one required access route meeting this condition must be located such that the edge of the Fire Apparatus Access Roadway, not including shoulders, that is closest to the building being served, is between 10 feet and 30 feet from the building, as determined by the Fire Code official, and must be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. The side of the building on which the Fire Apparatus Access Road is positioned must be approved by the Fire Code official. Fire Code 503.1.1; 503.2.1.2; 503.2.1.2.2 & 503.2.1.2.2.1. FD 12. When the Fire Apparatus Access Road is separated by a divided roadway, the width must be not less than 15 feet for residential use and 20 feet for commercial/industrial uses. Fire Code 503.1.1 & 503.6. FD 13. The dimensions of the approved Fire Apparatus Access Roads must be maintained as originally approved by the Fire Code official. Fire Code 503.2.2.1. FD 14. Fire Apparatus Access Roads must be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing 75,000 pounds and shall be surfaced so as to provide all- weather driving capabilities. Fire Code 503.2.3. 1.e Packet Pg. 110 Master Case 20-238, Conditions of Approval September 16, 2025 Page 20 of 21 FD 15. The Fire Apparatus Access Roads must be provided with a minimum of a 32-foot centerline turning radius. Fire Code 503.2.4. FD 16. Provide approved signs or other approved notices or markings that include the words "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE" must be provided for Fire Apparatus Access Roads. Signs must have a minimum dimension of 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and have red letters on a white reflective background. Signs must be provided for fire apparatus access roads to clearly indicate the entrance to such road or prohibit the obstruction thereof, and at intervals, as required by the Fire Inspector. A no -parking designation must meet the requirements of California Vehicle Code Section 22500.1 and be approved by the Fire Code official. Fire Code 503.3. FD17. The method of gate control is subject to review by the Fire Code official. Where security gates are installed, they must have an approved means of emergency operation, and be in compliance with following criteria: (a) Gates must be of the swinging or sliding type; (b) Construction of gates must be of materials that allow manual operation by one person; (c) Gate components must be always maintained in an operative condition and replaced or repaired when defective; (d) Electric gates must be equipped with a means of opening the gate by fire department personnel for emergency access. Emergency opening devices must be approved by the Fire Code official; (e) Methods of locking must be submitted for approval by the Fire Code official. All locking devices must comply with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department Regulation 5, Compliance for Installation of Emergency Access Devices; (f) An approved key box, listed in accordance with UL 1037, must be provided as required by Fire Code 506. The location of each key box must be determined by the Fire Inspector. Fire Code Sections 503.5; 503.5.1; 503.2; 503.6; (g) Where a single gate is provided, the gate width may not be less than 28 feet, clear -to -sky, with all gate hardware is clear of the access way; (h) he keypad location must be located a minimum of 50 feet from the public right-of-way. FD 18. A minimum 5-foot-wide approved firefighter access walkway leading from the Fire Department Access Road to all required openings in the building's exterior walls must be provided for firefighting and rescue purposes. Fire Code 504.1. FD 19. Security barriers, visual screen barriers, or other obstructions may not be installed on the roof of any building in such a manner as to obstruct firefighter access or egress in the event of fire or other emergency. Parapets cannot exceed 36 inches from the top of the parapet to the roof surface on more than two sides. These sides should face an access roadway or yard sufficient to accommodate ladder operations. Fire Code 504.5. FD20. Approved building address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification must be provided and maintained so as to be plainly visible and legible from the street fronting the property. The numbers must contrast with their background, be Arabic numerals or alphabet letters, and be a minimum of 4 inches high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inches. Fire Code 505.1. FD21. Multiple residential and commercial buildings having entrances to individual units not visible from the street or road must have unit numbers displayed in groups for all units within each structure. Such numbers may be grouped on the wall of the structure or mounted on a post independent of the structure and shall be positioned to be plainly 1.e Packet Pg. 111 Master Case 20-238, Conditions of Approval September 16, 2025 Page 21 of 21 visible from the street or road as required by Fire Code 505.3 and in accordance with Fire Code 505. L FD22. All fire hydrants must measure 6"x 4N 2-1/2" brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA standard C503 or approved equal, and shall be installed in accordance with the Fire Code. FD23. The required fire flow for the public fire hydrants for this Project is 2375 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure for two hours. Two public fire hydrants flowing simultaneously may be used to achieve the required fire flow. Fire Code 507.3 & Appendix B. FD24. For Building 1-Senior Living Facility to comply with the public fire flow requirement, the building shall be separated into 5 zones as "approved" by the Fire Prevention Engineering Section -Building Plan Check Unit on 07/22/2022. FD25. The permittee must install 10 public fire hydrants as noted by the Fire Department. All required public fire hydrants must be installed, tested, and accepted before beginning construction. All fire hydrants must measure 6"x 4N 2-1/2" brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA standard C503 or approved equal, and be installed in accordance with the County of Los Angeles Fire Code. Fire Code 501.4. FD26. Planning Area 2 multi -family residential buildings must be constructed to R-3 Standards to comply for NFPA 13D Standards. FD27. Planning Area 3 multi -family residential buildings must be constructed to R-3 Standards to comply for NFPA 13D Standards. FD28. The required fire flow for more than one on -site fire hydrant is 2500 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure for 2 hours. Two on -site fire hydrants flowing simultaneously may be used to achieve the required fire flow, with one being located the furthest from the public fire hydrant. Fire Code C 106.1. FD29. Install 8 private on -site fire hydrants as noted by the Fire Department. All required private fire hydrants must be installed, tested, and approved before the Building Official issues a certificate of occupancy for any building. Fire Code 901.5.1. FD30. All private fire hydrants must be installed a minimum of 25 feet from a structure or protected by a two (2) hour -rated firewall. For fully sprinkled multi -family structures, private fire hydrants may be installed a minimum of 10 feet from the structure. Fire Code Appendix C 106.1. FD31. Plans showing underground piping for private on -site fire hydrants must be submitted to the Sprinkler Plan Check Unit for review and approval prior to installation. Fire Code 901.2 & County of Los Angeles Fire Department Regulation 7. FD32. This property is located within the area described by the Fire Department as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone. A "Fuel Modification Plan" must be submitted to the Fuel Modification Unit before building plan approval. 1.e Packet Pg. 112 H N N E i- w�= w 0 J 0 t Y N M 2 co J 0 L C L n J z = 0 � Z WQ c� o � U LU J_ RECEIVED 1'g PLANNING DIVISION To: City Clerk, City of Santa Clarita AUG 21 2025 Members of the Santa Clarita City Council CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Dear City Clerk and Members of the City Council, I am submitting this formal complaint for the record regarding the conduct of the Planning Commission Chair during the August 19, 2025, hearing on Master Case No. 20-238 (Wiley Canyon Project). At that hearing, I rose to present a timely and legally supported objection concerning defective public notice signage, citing both Santa Clarita Municipal Code §17.06.110(B)(3) and relevant case law. After the first sentence of my objection, the Chair denied it without consideration and instructed me to sit down, repeating that I would not be permitted to continue. This occurred despite my written submission of objections and supporting evidence, which were properly delivered to the Commission. The Chair's actions denied me the opportunity to fully present my objection on the record and thereby restricted my right to be heard under the Brown Act (Gov. Code §54954.3), which guarantees members of the public the right to address legislative bodies on agenda items before or during their consideration. 00 I respectfully request that the City Council and City Clerk: Nc N U 1. Acknowledge this denial of public input as inconsistent with the Brown Act and the City's own procedural requirements. a) 2. Direct the Planning Commission Chair and members to ensure that public speakers raising timely and relevant objections are M permitted to complete their remarks within the allotted time. -6 0 x_ 3. Include this complaint and supporting documentation in the permanent administrative record for Master Case No. 20-238. c 0 It is vital that the City upholds both the legal requirements of public notice and the public's right to meaningful participation in hearings. Denying these rights not only undermines the integrity of the process but exposes the City to potential legal challenge. U m Respectfully submitted, R. Weston Monroe N Packet Pg. 114 1.g August 21, 2025 R EEC E II V PNING a D Planning Commission AUG 21 2025 City of Santa Clarita — Planning Division 23920 Valencia Blvd Santa Clarita, CA 91355 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Re: Request for Recusal — Master Case 20-238 Dear Planning Commissioners and Staff, I am submitting this formal request that the Chair of the Planning Commission recuse herself from participation in Master Case 20- 238 on the grounds of a conflict of interest. The Chair currently serves as my personal tax accountant and financial advisor for both my personal finances and my two businesses While I have no financial interest in the proposed Wiley Canyon development itself, this ongoing professional relationship creates a potential conflict and an appearance of bias under California law. A reasonable observer could conclude that the Chair's professional obligations to me as a client could influence her judgment, either consciously or unconsciously, in matters affecting my N interests as a citizen participating in this public hearing. c N U Additionally, there is a risk that the Chair may overcompensate in her objections to my testimony in order to avoid the appearance of 2 bias, which could further compromise the fairness and impartiality of the proceedings. This "reverse bias" is a recognized concern in N professional and legal ethics. d Given these circumstances, it is appropriate and consistent with ethical standards that the Chair recuse herself from all hearings, x discussions, and votes related to Master Case 20-238. This ensures that the Commission's deliberations remain impartial and that 2 c public confidence in the integrity of the process is preserved. 0 c c� I respectfully request that this letter be entered into the official record for Master Case 20-238 and that the recusal be formally U acknowledged prior to the September 16, 202S hearing. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Respectfully, R. Weston Monroe Packet Pg. 115 City of SANTA GLARITA 23920 Valencia Boulevard • Suite 300 • Santa Clarita, California 91355-2196 Phone: (661) 259-2489 • FAX: (661) 259-8125 www. santa-clarita. corn August 22, 2025 R. Weston Monroe 25418 Avenida Escalera Valencia, CA 91355 Re: Letters received August 21, 2025 Dear Mr. Monroe: Your letters (received by the City on August 21, 2025) were forwarded to my attention Thank you for your correspondence. In one letter, you assert that the Planning Commission denied your request to speak during the meeting and expresses your ongoing complaint that notice regarding Master Case No. 20-238 was defective ("Letter 1 "). The other letter asks that the Chairperson recuse herself because of your business relationship with her ("Letter 2"). As to Letter 1, the video and written record show that you were allowed to voice your objection at the beginning of the public hearing; were recalcitrant in following the instructions of the Chair during your disruption of a legal meeting; and then spoke again during the public hearing for this item. Contrary to your assertions in Letter 1, therefore, you were permitted more time than other members of the public when lodging your objections to the proceedings. The actions by the Chair were obviously intended to help facilitate a legal meeting and allow additional public comment regarding the matter. Your continuing allegation that Master Case No. 20-238 may not be heard by the Planning Commission because of defective notice is unfounded. Relevant to your complaint, Santa Clarita Municipal Code (SCMC) § 17.06.110(B)(3) requires an applicant to (1) post a sign 14 days before a scheduled public hearing; (2) ensure that the size adheres with the dimensions in the SCMC and include content required by the City; (3) erect the sign on public road frontage to be legible and accessible; (4) provide a photograph confirming the posting; and (5) maintain the signs "in satisfactory condition" and ensure continuous display. Failure to comply may result in the "postponement" of the public hearing (not cancellation). Packet Pg. 116 1.g R. Weston Monroe August 22, 2025 Here, as reported by the Planning Manager during the meeting on August 19, 2025, the applicant complied with these requirements. While you provided photographs to the Planning Commission depicting instances where the posted sign was illegible or on the ground, neither California law nor the SCMC demand perfection, only reasonableness. Based upon the information available to the City, it appears that the applicant was diligent in its attempts to maintain the sign in accordance with the SCMC. Noticing requirements are intended to provide interested persons with sufficient information to decide whether to participate in the decision -making process regarding an item. Given the robust public comment — during three public hearings that has now been continued to a fourth — regarding this project (including multiple press articles), it is apparent that the noticing met both the legal requirements of California law and the SCMC. Note that even if an individual did not receive notice, however, that does not invalidate decisions rendered by the Planning Commission: SCMC § 17.06.110(C) states "[t] he failure of any person or entity to receive notice provided in compliance with this section, or with the State Government Code, shall not invalidate the actions of the review authority." There are individuals who spoke during public comment stating that they did not receive personal notice. Yet they appeared and spoke during the meeting. That is exactly what noticing requirements are intended to accomplish. For Letter 2, there does not appear to be a legal or common law conflict of interest requiring Chairperson Eichman to recuse herself. Indeed, contrary to your suggestions in Letter 2, Chair Eichman provided you additional time to voice your objections. No further action will be taken in response to Letter 2. Please note that you are certainly welcome and encouraged to provide input for the Planning Commission's consideration. Disrupting legal meetings, however, denies and delays the right of other members of the public to participate in such meetings. I encourage you to adhere to the rules of decorum for these meetings and respect your fellow neighbors who wish to speak on this matter. Very ly . r� arl H. Ber r Assistant Oit Attorney cc: Planning Commission Joe Montes, City Attorney Jason Crawford, Community Development Director Page 2 Packet Pg. 117 1.g SCOPE Santa Clarita Organization for Planning and the Environment TO PROMOTE, PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENT, ECOLOGY AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE SANTA CLARITA VALLEY POST OFFICE BOX 1182, SANTA CLARITA, CA 91386 www.scope.org September 9t'', 2025 Erica Iverson, Staff and Santa Clarita Planning Commission 23i20 Valencia Blvd. Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Sent via email to eiverson@ santa-clarita.com Please copy to all Commissioners Commissioners and Ms. Iverson: This letter will register our continued concern with this project regarding wildfire evacuation through an existing community, fire evacuation and the height of the buildings. We understand that the developer is going to present new information on the road width at this meeting. We believe such a presentation violates CEQA as the public will have had no opportunity to review or comment on this material before the Commission takes action. Last, we ask that the new commissioner recuse himself from a vote on this ProJet, since he did not attend prior hearings on the matter. Thank you in advance for your consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, President Packet Pg. 118 1.g From: Annette Lucas To: Erika Iverson; Ken Striolin; Jason Crawford; Joel Barena; Patrick Leclair; Rachel A. Clark; PLANNING Subject: September 9,2015 submitted letter Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 2:21:51 PM CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. To: City Clerk, City of Santa Clarita CC:kstriplin@santa-clarita.com,jcrawford(asanta- clarita.com,eiverson@santa-clarita.com,jbareng(a,santa-clarita.com, placlair@santa-clarita.com,raclark(a,santa-clarita.com,planning(a,santa- clarita.com Re: Objection to Late Disclosure of Four -Lane Wiley Canyon Exhibits — and lack of Los Angeles Fire Department exhibits showing the roundabout usage for the Wiley Canyon Project (4th Hearing) Dear Commissioners, I hereby submit this written objection to the introduction of any new four -lane roadway future expansion for Wiley Canyon at tonight's hearing and the lack of any representation from the LAFD to show how they will handle the roundabouts. We only have your say, no factual information or exhibits. Basis for Objection 1. Late Disclosure Violates CEQA Public Review Requirements 1. CEQA requires that the Draft EIR include all relevant project information for public review and comment. 2. Presenting four -lane proposed future widening for the very first time at the final hearing deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to review and comment. 2. Significant New Information Requires Recirculation 1. CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5 require recirculation of an EIR if significant added information that changes the project's impacts or analysis. 2. A new four -lane roadway exhibit forms significant added information because it affects traffic, circulation, noise, right-of-way needs, and neighborhood impacts. 3. Denial of Fair Participation Packet Pg. 119 1.g 1. The late introduction of these exhibits undermines the public's ability to prepare informed comments. 2. Forcing the public and commissioners to evaluate new material in real time is procedurally unfair and inconsistent with CEQA's intent. Concerns Regarding Roundabouts and Fire Department Usage 1. Emergency Response Times 1. Roundabouts can potentially delay emergency response times due to their design, which may not be suitable for large emergency vehicles. 2. The lack of exhibits showing how the LAFD will navigate these roundabouts raises concerns about the efficiency and safety of emergency responses. 2. Operational Challenges 1. Roundabouts require specific maneuvering techniques that may not be feasible for fire trucks and other emergency vehicles, especially in high -traffic situations. 2. Without clear representation from the LAFD, it is unclear how these operational challenges will be addressed. 3. Safety and Accessibility 1. The introduction of roundabouts without proper analysis and visuals from the LAFD could compromise the safety and accessibility of the area for emergency services. 2. It is essential to have detailed information on how the LAFD plans to handle these roundabouts to ensure the safety of residents and the effectiveness of emergency responses. Community Feedback on Roundabouts - Many community members have expressed concerns about the potential impact of roundabouts on emergency response times and overall traffic flow. - Residents have highlighted the need for clear and detailed information on how the LAFD will navigate these roundabouts to ensure their safety and well- being. - The community's feedback underscores the importance of transparency and thorough analysis in the planning process. Packet Pg. 120 1.g Requested Action I respectfully ask that the Planning Commission: 1. Continue this hearing to a 5th meeting so that the public has adequate time to review the newly introduced four -lane exhibits. 2. Alternatively, require recirculation of the EIR to include the four -lane roadway exhibits and analysis before any certification or project approval. 3. Request testimony from the Los Angeles Fire Department about their ability to navigate and use the roundabouts in emergency situations. Conclusion If the Commission continues tonight without allowing proper public review of the four -lane exhibits, the approval will be vulnerable to appeal. I ask that this objection letter be entered into the public record for the Wiley Canyon project. Sincerely Annette Lucas 24618 Fourl Road, Newhall, CA. 91321 661-904-5208 Sent from the all new AOL 012 for iOS Packet Pg. 121 1.g From: Annette Lucas To: Ken Striolin; Jason Crawford; Patrick Leclair; PLANNING; Erika Iverson Subject: For Planning Commission Review Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 2:19:26 PM CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. I will be delivering 2 hard copy letters from Santa Monica Mountain Conservancy to be delivered to the Planning Commissioners to review for the September 16,2025 meeting. Respectfully Annette Lucas 24618 Fourl Road Newhall, CA 91321 661-904-5208 Sent from the all new AOL W12 for iOS Packet Pg. 122 1.g STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY LOS ANGELES RIVER CENTER & GARDENS - 570 WEST AVENUE TWENTY-SIX, SUITE 100 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90065 PHONE (323) 221-8900 FAX (323) 221-9001 WWW.SMMC.CA.GOV August 15, 2022 Erika Iverson, Associate Planner City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Notice of Preparation Comments Wiley Canyon Project Master Case 20-238 Dear Ms. Iverson: The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy offers the following comments on the proposed Wiley Canyon project on 31.8 acres. With the subject property containing a rare, ecologically intact reach of the Santa Clara River south fork, any development on the property should maintain the full ecological value of that riparian community. To maintain that ecological value, the riparian community must remain undisturbed to the maximum extent possible. In addition, there must be a substantial spatial buffer between the proposed multi -story buildings and associated project lighting including for parking areas. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) must include a Riparian Corridor Minimum Channel Disturbance — Adequate Building/Lighting Setback Alternative or it shall remain deficient. Wildlife crossing opportunities over or under Interstate 5 (15) that connect the San Gabriel Mountains with the Santa Susana Mountains are limited and none have one hundred percent protected land on both sides of the freeway. No such existing crossings are even close to being optimal, and all existing crossings are threatened by both private development and public infrastructure development. Conservation biology dictates that multiple linkages between large habitat areas are critical to compensate for multi - species needs, stochastic events, global warming, and future development. The subject property contributes to two such wildlife movement routes under 15 that are described below. Both the importance of maintaining multiple cross -freeway connections with various levels of quality and characteristics, and the ongoing threat to all remaining crossing options, warrant the consideration of protecting every remaining potential route that provides some degree of cross- 15 connectivity between the San Packet Pg. 123 1.g Erika Iverson, Associate Planner Master Case 20-238 Wiley Canyon Project August 15, 2022 Page 2 Gabriel Mountains and the Santa Susana Mountains for key species such as bobcats, mountain lions, grey fox, and long-tailed weasels. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) must analyze these two routes or it will remain deficient. The DEIR must also include at least one feasible alternative that provides for substantial permanently - protected wildlife movement corridors in both these routes or it shall remain deficient, The subject property currently provides inter -mountain range wildlife movement pathways at both its southern and northern ends. At the southern end, wildlife can travel to and from the subject property via under both Interstate 5 and Calgrove Boulevard using the south fork of the Santa Clara River channel and culvert that is over thirty feet in width. Wildlife could also travel on road shoulders and streets to reach the Calgrove interchange undercrossing, but that route is experiencing substantial commercial development and increased traffic such that its value to wildlife deteriorates daily. From the above -described culvert opening on the east side of I5, wildlife can cross Calgrove Boulevard and travel south along the freeway rights -of -ways to reach the core habitat wedge located between I5 and State Route 14. From that culvert opening they can also move northward through the site to reach high quality open space that abuts the east side of Wiley Canyon Road. The existing riparian corridor basically defines this route. Both routes have their own favorable ecological characteristics and must be analyzed in the DEIR. At the northern end of the property, wildlife can use the Lyons Creek culvert that goes under both the Old Road and I5 to get onto Hawkbryn Avenue. The distance from the culvert entrance to open space abutting the subject property is approximately 100 feet on a narrow, dead end, public road protected by a tall freeway sound wall. Bobcats, grey fox, and long-tailed weasels can navigate periodical within these constraints. Only a four -foot -tall fence slightly impedes such movement between the culvert and the open space. The Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) owns protected land at the western Lyons Creek culvert entrance. The open space at the southern terminus of Hawkbryn Avenue is wholly integrated into the subject Wiley Canyon project property. The 75-foot-wide east -west strip of open space that abuts the northern project boundary is owned by the abutting Mulberry Mobile Home Park. For an animal to travel from the east Lyons Creek culvert opening to the aforementioned open space opposite the subject property on the east side of Wiley Canyon Road, some permanent open space is required in the northeast corner of the subject property. That open space must connect the east -west mobile home open Packet Pg. 124 1.g Erika Iverson, Associate Planner Master Case 20-238 Wiley Canyon Project August 15, 2022 Page 3 space to an unfenced, unchannelized section of the south fork of the Santa Clara River. The MRCA also owns land in this east of Wiley Canyon Road habitat block. However, because neither the City or the applicant can compel the mobile home park to dedicate that east -west strip of land to permanent open space purposes, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide an unfenced (except post and rail type), unlit, 50-foot- wide habitat linkage strip along the entire northern border of the subject property and a 500-foot-long by 25-foot-wide connected, unfenced, unlit habitat linkage strip along the now channelized section of the south fork to reach an unchannelized, natural creek reach. The proposed project is doing everything wrong to maintain adequately buffered riparian habitat and maximum ground water infiltration in the Santa Clarita Valley. Too begin with, a project that needs to import 100,000 cubic yards of dirt to get out of a major flood plain is a red flag. A project that needs to excavate and compact almost million cubic yards of alluvium in a flood plain is another red flag. The proposed project retention basins and recreation areas would just be a token band aid patched onto the huge cumulative low groundwater level and riparian habitat loss wound that is occurring throughout the valley. The DEIR must include an alternative that includes no dirt import or it shall remain deficient. To raise buildable area out of the flood zone, soil should be excavated from directly adjacent to the riparian corridor. The flood channel would be widened and the new bank could be armored with ungrouted rock rip -rap. The result is less buildable area but that reduction would be greatly, if not entirely, monetarily offset by less permitting, construction, and mitigation costs. That approach results in less greenhouse gas emissions, greater greenhouse gas sequestration (riparian woodland), and greater groundwater recharge. Plus, the wildlife and aesthetic benefits are obvious. The project as proposed essentially would provide no intact habitat and would result in unavoidable significant biological impacts to wildlife movement and riparian habitat. Please direct any future documents and correspondence to Paul Edelman of our staff at edelman0)smmc.ca.gov and 310-589-3200 ext. 128. Sincerely, LINDA PARKS Chairperson Packet Pg. 125 STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY LOS ANGELES RIVER CENTER AND GARDENS 570 WEST AVENUE TWENTY-SIX, SUITE 100 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90065 PHONE (323) 221-8900 FAX (323) 221.9001 WWW.SMMC.CA.GOV July 15, 2024 Planning Commission City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 140 Santa Clarita, California 90012 Additional Draft Environmental Impact Report Comments Wiley Canyon Project Master Case 20-238 Tentative Tract Map No. 83295 — SCH No. 2022030626 Dear Commissioners: 1.g GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor `r The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, a CEQA trustee agency, commented on the Wiley Canyon project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) in a March 2024 letter within the prescribed comment period. At the June 18, 2024 Planning Commission hearing, minor project changes were introduced. Those project changes do nothing to address that the DEIR is still fatally flawed because of a total lack of both onsite and local analysis of wildlife movement and habitat connectivity potential. The DEIR is further deficient for its absence of alternative design efforts to avoid riparian and riparian buffer habitat. The iconic valley project site is fundamental to the southern viewshed entrance both to the City of Santa Clarita and the Santa Clarita Valley. Interstate 5 descends out of the scenic, wild Newhall Pass with the freeway viewshed transitioning into lower elevation hills with some dispersed low-rise development. The proposed project, and all its DEIR alternatives, would transform a pivotable property in this unique viewshed into a multi- story, near -monolith of development with hundreds of lighted windows and token, tiny open space patches. The proposed project fails both to mitigate this significant adverse viewshed impact and retain an adequate onsite amount of biologically fully functional riparian habitat for its own value and for its ability to facilitate wildlife movement between habitat blocks described in the Conservancy's two comment letters to date and shown on the attached figure. Why is the City moving forward with a project that would ruin these existing public resources when there are multiple ways to shape a better, similar, more compact project? Why is the City on board with a project that requires over 1,000,000 cubic yards of flood plain soil re -compaction and the import of 100,000 cubic yards of earth. Why does the DEIR fail to mention the 1,000,000 cubic yards of alluvium and the greenhouse gases and water necessary to re -compact it? Why is the City quietly standing by for a project that Packet Pg. 126 1.g Planning Commission Wiley Canyon Project Additional DEIR Comments July 15, 2024 Page 3 transforms a signature Santa Clarita Valley open space area with ten unique plant communities into a property with wall-to-wall lighted parking lots, multi -story buildings, berms, concrete retention basins, and a greatly channelized south fork of the Santa Clara River? Why not instead allow for a wider, lusher, and hydrologically freer river channel to benefit all citizens, wildlife, ground water recharge, and the occupants of the proposed project? Why not require a 100-foot-wide one -hundred -percent natural area (onsite) along the northern project boundary to complement the adjacent low-income community's directly adjacent open space? That 100-foot-wide buffer (onsite) could be planted with native trees and perennial grasses both for their amenity, green house gas reduction, and wildlife values. It could have private pathways and be full of wildlife. Why would the City miss this opportunity for more nature, views, and higher neighborhood amenity values? Clearly from the public hearing testimony, local community members strongly object to the proposed monolithic — traffic inducing development. Who then wants it? What pressures do staff and decision makers feel to support it? The project shows no sensitivity or innovation to achieve the added above -described public viewshed and ecological benefits. As proposed it just offers miniature -scale benefits for unknown future project occupants. DEIR Alternative 4 includes a mostly 200-foot-wide onsite open space buffer between the low-income community to the north and the project's proposed development elements. It also pulls back some building footprints (but not channelization) from a portion of the project's river interface. We agree with the DEIR findings that Alternative 4 is the environmentally superior project. It avoids and reduces significant impacts. And, importantly, per the DEIR findings, it meets all the project objectives. The public, however, deserves an even better project. No portion of the existing riparian, or riparian buffer, habitat (including at the key upstream end by the freeway) should be further constricted from its current condition until such constriction is physically vital to connect with the downstream flood control infrastructure. In addition, no project building should be over two stories in height to preserve adequate elements of current significant viewshed. There is no evidence in the record that requires the City to approve a project of the magnitude of the proposed project or that of any of the DEIR alternatives. The project requires a broad set of discretionary approvals. There is no disclosure or analysis in the DEIR about how new State right -to -build laws are impacting the project footprint, design, and density. The City legally is unconstrained to approve a significantly reduced project footprint. Packet Pg. 127 1.g Planning Commission Wiley Canyon Project Additional DEIR Comments July 15, 2024 Page 3 The Conservancy urges the Commission not to recommend certification of the DEIR and to require circulation of a Supplemental EIR with some project alternatives that collectively combine both the project objectives and the public visual and ecological values of the property. The project objectives are qualitative not quantitative. A reduced footprint project can meet all the project objectives by providing lesser spatial area for each of the objectives. Of course, the applicant will say such public environmentally superior alternative projects are economically infeasible. But, without the provision of a highly transparent and detailed economic analysis provided to the City addressing specific reduced footprint N alternatives, such assertions are only as good as hearsay given the profit motive of the CD 04 developer. The City is not required to only approve a project that a developer claims is profitable without support of such a claim. y Why should the public and the environment shoulder the permanent impacts of a project X by a developer who bought a property that needs to recompact 1,000,000 cubic yards of flood plain soils and bring in 10,000 — yes 10,000 10-cubic yard dump trucks — of extra 0, topping to make a project work? We can all do better for the environment. cc U The Conservancy, as the area's chief State planning agency, urges the Commission to do what is best for this regionally significant viewshed and pivotal regionally significant habitat linkage section of river adjacent to Interstate 5 wildlife undercrossings, and listen to the locals who understand the importance of this land. E E 0 Please address any correspondence to Paul Edelman, Deputy Director of Natural Resources and Planning, of our staff at the above letterhead address or via edelman@smmc.ca.gov. a r c Sincerely, E AWN AN 0) r a STEVE VERES Chairperson Packet Pg. 128 1.g From: Weston Monroe To: Erika Iverson Subject: Master Case 20-238 Wiley Canyon Project 09-16-2025 Agenda Packet Letter Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 4:41:30 PM CITY WARNING: This email was sent from an external server. Use caution clicking links or opening attachments. Master Case 20-238 Wiley Canyon Project Letter for the record for September 16th , 2025, Agenda Packet 1. Introduction and Purpose My name is R. Weston Monroe, a resident of Santa Clarita, and I respectfully submit this letter for the permanent record in connection with Master Case No. 20-238, the proposed Wiley Canyon Project. This submission is directed to the Planning Commission, the City Attorney, City staff, and the public at large, including any newly appointed commissioners who may not have had the benefit of reviewing prior hearings, written objections, or public comments. The purpose of this letter is threefold. First, to document procedural defects that have occurred throughout the review of this project, including violations of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code ("SCMC"), the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and the Ralph M. Brown Act ("Brown Act"). These defects are not minor or technical; they strike at the heart of due process and public participation. Under California law, they undermine the validity of any action taken to approve the project. Second, to highlight substantive inconsistencies between the proposed project and the City's adopted General Plan, particularly with respect to circulation, roadway capacity, and public safety standards. The General Plan is, in the words of the California Supreme Court, the "constitution for all future development" within a jurisdiction. (Lecher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 540). No project may lawfully be approved that is inconsistent with its provisions. The proposed Wiley Canyon Project, as currently configured, is in direct conflict with these mandates. Third, to ensure that a complete and accurate record is created for both the Planning Commission and any reviewing court. Given that my lawful attempts to rise and object during prior hearings were cut off or dismissed, it is all the more essential that this letter preserves in writing all relevant facts, statutory requirements, case law precedent, and evidentiary materials. Should the City proceed to approve this project despite the defects outlined herein, this record will provide the necessary foundation for administrative appeal and judicial review. This submission is therefore more than a public comment. It is a formal legal objection, intended to preserve rights under the Brown Act, CEQA, and the Santa Clarita Municipal Code. It is also intended to inform the commissioners, particularly those newly appointed, of the full procedural history and substantive requirements before casting a vote. The public deserves nothing less than transparency, accountability, and fidelity to the law. This letter seeks to ensure that outcome, or, if denied, to preserve the record for higher review. 2. Defective Public Notice The public notice requirements of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code ("SCMC") are not optional. They are Packet Pg. 130 1.g jurisdictional prerequisites to any lawful public hearing. If they are not satisfied, the hearing itself is procedurally defective and cannot stand. Under SCMC §17.06.110(B)(3), notice signs must: • Be posted at least fourteen (14) calendar days before the scheduled hearing. • Be located on each public road frontage adjoining the subject property. • Be "legible and accessible by foot from said public road(s)." • Be verified by photograph and affidavit of posting. • Be maintained "in satisfactory condition" and "continuously displayed" until the close of the hearing. Evidence of Noncompliance My photographic evidence, submitted in writing and in 10 copies prior to the third hearing, demonstrates beyond dispute that these requirements were not met. • First sign: Found face down on the ground. Photographs show it remained in that condition for months. Additional evidence from another resident shows this sign was face down as early as May 2025, predating my own photographs taken in July 2025. • Second sign: Completely obstructed by trash and overgrown branches. With no sidewalks in the area, the sign was invisible and inaccessible to the public. • Now since the hearing on August 19th , 2025, the First sign face down has been reposted on September 2nd 2025, The Second sign remains the same, no corrective measure taken, is still overgrown with branches and trash. Obstructed from view. See new attached photographic evidence. These conditions persisted even though the Code explicitly requires continuous display and maintenance in "satisfactory condition." A notice lying face down for months or blocked from view does not meet even a minimal standard of compliance. See attached photographs of past and present-day noncompliance. Legal Authority California courts have consistently invalidated proceedings where notice was defective, misleading, or not reasonably calculated to inform the public. • Cohan v. City of Thousand Oaks (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 348 — Held that defective signage, including signs that were not properly posted or maintained, invalidated subsequent public actions. • Scott v. City of Indian Wells (1972) 6 Cal.3d 541—The California Supreme Court confirmed that public notice must be meaningful and reasonably calculated to inform, not perfunctory. • Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. East Bay MUD (1980) 26 Cal.3d 183 — Reinforced that procedural defects in notice undermine the fairness and legality of the entire proceeding. Together, these cases establish that attendance at a hearing cannot cure defective notice. The City Attorney's suggestion that public participation "proves" adequacy of notice is a legal fallacy. Proper posting is a separate jurisdictional requirement. Nor does SCMC §17.06.110(C) provide an escape. That section excuses non -receipt of notice by individuals if Packet Pg. 131 1.g proper notice was actually given. It does not excuse situations where notice signs were missing, obstructed, or illegible. Consequence for the Third Hearing The third hearing on Master Case No. 20-238 should never have been called to order. My objections were raised in advance and included in the City's own agenda packet (p. 17). My prehearing letter gave the City notice that the signs were defective. Yet, the hearing was convened and proceeded despite this fatal jurisdictional defect. Because it was agenda -noticed and convened, the hearing must still be counted for purposes of the statutory timeline. However, it should not have lawfully proceeded. Allowing it to continue deprived the public of fair notice and procedural due process. The City's failure to cure this defect despite timely objections, photographic evidence, and legal citations leaves a permanent procedural flaw in the record. This defect alone is sufficient to invalidate the proceedings and any subsequent approval tied to them. 3. Right to Rise and Object Under the Brown Act The Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov. Code §54950 et seq.) is the bedrock of California's open government law. It guarantees the public the right to participate meaningfully in legislative decision -making. That right is not a courtesy extended at the discretion of the chair — it is a statutory obligation that agencies must honor. Statutory Authority Government Code §54954.3(a) provides: "Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest... before or during the legislative body's consideration of the item." The Legislature's intent is explicit: public objections must be heard before or during consideration of the item in question — not relegated to general comment periods when the decision is already framed. Case Law Affirming the Right California courts have consistently reinforced this principle: • Galbiso v. Orosi Public Utility District (2010) 182 Cal.AppAth 652 — Held that denying public comment at the proper time was a Brown Act violation. The right to speak is tied to meaningful influence on decision - making. • McKee v. Los Angeles Interagency Metropolitan Police Apprehension Crime Task Force (2005) 134 Cal.AppAth 354 — Confirmed that input must be received before a decision is "baked in." Public comment that comes after the decision has effectively been made is legally insufficient. • Olson v. Hornbrook Community Services Dist. (2019) 33 Cal.App.Sth 502 — Reaffirmed that the Brown Act is to be liberally construed in favor of public participation. Attempts to narrow or restrict that participation are contrary to the statute's purpose. These authorities make clear that a member of the public has the legal right to rise and object when a procedural defect is occurring or imminent. Application to Master Case No. 20-238 Packet Pg. 132 1.g At the August 19, 2025, hearing, I rose calmly, cited case law, and objected to defective notice. I was briefly recognized but cut off before finishing my objection. I stated, for the record, that denying my objection preserved my standing to appeal, and then I sat down. This conduct was lawful, timely, and within my rights. It was not "disruptive" under the Brown Act. A disruption occurs only when conduct actually prevents the body from conducting its business. Simply rising to state an objection with statutory authority is not disruption; it is participation as guaranteed by law. Further, my objection was procedurally necessary. By raising notice defects before deliberation, I ensured that commissioners were aware of the jurisdictional defect before voting. Cutting me off not only violated the Brown Act but also deprived the Commission of critical information. Request for Acknowledgment again request acknowledgment that my actions at the hearing were legal, timely, and within my rights under the Brown Act and SCMC. This acknowledgment must be made at or before the next hearing to cure the ongoing procedural defect in the record. Failure to provide this acknowledgment perpetuates a Brown Act violation, exposes the City to litigation under Gov. Code §54960.1 and risks judicial invalidation of any project approval. 4. Recusal Request —Chairperson Eichmann Legal Standard for Recusal This section disheartens me, as I had sent two polite requests to the City Attorney and Planning Department, both refused. With advice I sent a lone copy of this section again for better understanding of why it is important, with an offer to redact this section of recusal request and information contained in it. That third request offer was met with silence and no response in a timely manner that would not have allowed it into this letter by the given deadline. Sadly, compelling me to include it. California law requires decisionmakers to avoid even the appearance of bias. A fair hearing is guaranteed by the Due Process Clauses of the state and federal Constitutions, as well as by common law principles of impartiality. • Nasha v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 125 Cal.AppAth 470 — Held that a commissioner's personal involvement created an appearance of bias requiring disqualification, even absent proof of actual prejudice. e Woody's Group, Inc. v. City of Newport Beach (2015) 233 Cal.AppAth 1012 — Reaffirmed that recusal is required where there is a "probability of actual bias," not only proven bias. Break Zone Billiards v. City of Torrance (2000) 81 Cal.AppAth 1205 — Due process requires a decisionmaker to be impartial, and participation by a biased commissioner invalidates the action. These cases make clear that the integrity of the process is compromised when a commissioner with significant personal or professional entanglements participates in a matter affecting those relationships. Basis for Recusal Chairperson Eichmann has served as my accountant, tax preparer, and financial advisor since the 1990s. Since 2003, she has also served in this same capacity for both me and my business partner through our jointly held company. This relationship extended beyond professional services — at one time it was social as well. In recent years, and particularly in the past twelve months, this relationship has deteriorated sharply. Chair Eichmann has: Packet Pg. 133 1.g • Refused to include my business partner in communications, even on joint financial matters, breaking with past practice. • Required me to obtain financial documents on a flash drive to share with my partner, rather than sending them directly as she once did. • Snapped at both me and my partner on multiple occasions, often invoking "I am a professional" when challenged, including snapping at me by name in public session to sit down when I calmly rose to object. The breakdown has reached the point where my partner and I have begun interviewing alternative accountants and financial advisors, and documentation of these interviews exists. The deterioration is not just interpersonal but professional. At one point when my partner and I considered dividing our co -owned business, Chair Eichmann's husband and my partner worked closely while I was told to "find my own attorney." This raised questions of fiduciary duties and conflict of interest at that time. Though we ultimately did not divide the company, the imbalance in treatment and divided loyalties has never been fully resolved. Current Compromising Position These strained and adversarial circumstances create a compromising position for both Chair Eichmann and me. By continuing to preside over this case, she places me in the position of being compelled to disclose in the public record details of our now -deteriorated business and personal dealings — something I had hoped to avoid out of respect for all involved. I have already politely and professionally requested that Chair Eichmann recuse herself. That request was denied. I now state plainly that if she does not voluntarily step aside, I will be forced to fully disclose the facts outlined above, and additional details of the breakdown between her and my business partner, including the involvement of his family members. Once disclosed, it will be unmistakably clear why her recusal was necessary. Legal and Ethical Imperative Recusal in this case is not optional. Given her long-standing financial advisory role, her recent adversarial conduct, and the appearance of bias it creates, participation by Chair Eichmann violates both due process and the principles of fairness that underlie administrative hearings. The law does not require proof of actual bias — only a probability of bias or an appearance of unfairness. By any reasonable measure, that standard is met here. Requested Action I respectfully request that: • Chair Eichmann voluntarily recuse herself from Master Case No. 20-238 to preserve the integrity of the Commission's proceedings. If she refuses, the record will reflect that my objection was timely raised, documented, and supported by factual evidence and case law. The Commission acknowledges that continued participation by Chair Eichmann may compromise the legality of any approval and render the City vulnerable to appeal and judicial reversal. 5. Substantive General Plan Conflicts— Roadway Width and Circulation The General Plan as Controlling Law Packet Pg. 134 1.g California law is clear: a city's General Plan is the "constitution for future development." e Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531—A project inconsistent with the General Plan is invalid and cannot be approved. Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176 — Local agencies must show actual consistency with adopted circulation policies; speculative or "word salad" reasoning is insufficient. The Santa Clarita General Plan's Circulation Element explicitly designates Wiley Canyon Road as a four -lane secondary highway. This designation is not advisory; it is binding. It connects directly to the Via Princessa six - lane major highway corridor, which itself is a critical east -west cross -valley connector. The circulation element further confirms this corridor runs from the SR-14 freeway at Via Princessa, across to Lyons Avenue, and ultimately west to Calgrove Boulevard and the 1-5 freeway. This is not speculative future development —it is expressly adopted policy. Historical Right -of -Way Standards Before incorporation, Los Angeles County's master plan for the same corridor designated an 80-foot right-of- way. This was imposed on prior developments both north and south of the current project. Historic right-of-way dedications in those areas confirm this standard. The current project, however, attempts to reduce this to 40-46 feet of paved roadway for a two-lane configuration, with vague assurances that four lanes could be "accommodated in the future." This is directly inconsistent with both: 1. The General Plan's current 84-foot requirement, and 2. The historic 80-foot requirement imposed under the County prior to incorporation. Physical Constraints — Retaining Wall and Culvert Even if the City were to argue that "future accommodation" is possible, physical reality says otherwise. personally measured the constrained segment adjacent to the giant retaining wall and flood control culvert. Measurements taken from the edge of the existing 7' sidewalk to the culvert and retaining wall demonstrate Narrowest widths as small as 35.66 feet, e Other points at 39'9", 42.91', 44.5', and 45.5'. These figures fall short of the 40-46 feet the City staff now claim are sufficient, and far short of the required 84 feet. No combination of striping or reduced shoulders could legally or safely transform these dimensions into a four -lane arterial with sidewalks, bike lanes and ADA compliant pathways. This constraint was well known to both City staff and the developer. Indeed, the original LA County plan placed the ultimate four -lane roadway west of the creek, where sufficient land was secured through prior right-of-way dedications. The City even acquired land north of the project from the Mulberry Mobile Home Park under eminent domain for this purpose. To now abandon that plan would waste taxpayer funds and strand the acquired land as an unused triangle of landscaping. Word Salad and Evasion At hearings and in correspondence, staff have claimed that no future development "is anticipated" that would Packet Pg. 135 1.g necessitate four lanes. Yet in the same breath, they admit that if four lanes are ever required, "it can be done." This is word salad semantics — it avoids the clear requirement of the General Plan by pretending that growth projections are speculative. The facts prove otherwise: • Over 750 acres of undeveloped land lies between Via Princessa and Whites Canyon. • The Old Saugus Speedway site has already begun development. • The General Plan designates this corridor as a 6-lane east -west cross -valley connector, with Wiley Canyon as a critical four -lane secondary link. • Caltrans has already built improved ramps at Calgrove Boulevard on the 1-5 freeway, anticipating increased traffic from this corridor. To claim ignorance of foreseeable development is not only misleading but also contradicted by the City's own adopted planning documents. Legal Consequences of Inconsistency Courts have repeatedly invalidated approvals where projects undermine circulation elements: • Endangered Habitats League v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777 — County violated General Plan by failing to maintain required roadway capacity. • Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. Bd. of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332 — Project approval reversed where circulation element was ignored. Approving a project based on 40-46 feet of pavement, while the General Plan requires 84 feet, would expose the City to the same vulnerability. Requested Action I respectfully request that the Commission: • Acknowledge that the proposed two-lane configuration is inconsistent with the General Plan. • Recognize that physical constraints (retaining wall, culvert) make future widening infeasible in the current alignment. • Require the project to conform to the historic and current four -lane designation, utilizing the west -of -creek alignment preserved for this purpose. • Deny approval until such conformity is established, consistent with Lesher and related case law. 6. Deferred Roadway Construction — Requirement of Plans and Performance Bonds Legal Framework for Deferred Improvements When a city permits a developer to defer construction of required infrastructure — such as a roadway expansion mandated by the General Plan — it must ensure that the deferred improvements are both feasible and secured. California law makes clear that local governments cannot approve speculative promises of future improvements without concrete, enforceable mechanisms. • Concerned Citizens of Calaveras County v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 90—The court Packet Pg. 136 1.g invalidated approval where roadway mitigation was deferred without binding performance measures. Deferral must be accompanied by specific plans and guarantees. Endangered Habitats League v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777 —Agencies cannot simply "promise" to address circulation deficiencies later; mitigation must be tied to enforceable conditions. Gov. Code §65300.5 —All land use decisions must be consistent with the General Plan. Deferral without enforceable guarantees creates inconsistency by leaving circulation policies unmet. Thus, if Wiley Canyon Road is designated as a four -lane secondary highway, the City cannot lawfully approve a project that provides only two lanes while deferring the remainder without a full plan and financial assurance. Requirements for Deferred Road Plans For a deferral to be valid, the following conditions must be satisfied: 1. A complete engineering plan must be prepared showing how the ultimate four -lane cross-section will be constructed, including precise right-of-way, grading, and utility relocation. 2. Demonstration of feasibility must be made, including physical constraints (such as retaining walls and culverts) and available right-of-way. Mere statements that "it can be done in the future" are insufficient. 3. Performance bonds or equivalent financial guarantees must be secured to ensure that the improvement will occur when required, even if the developer has sold the property or dissolved its business entity. 4. Timing triggers must be specified — for example, roadway expansion must occur upon buildout of adjacent developments or when traffic volumes reach certain thresholds. Without these elements, a deferral is meaningless and leaves taxpayers or future developers to bear the costs. Current Failures in Master Case No. 20-238 The Wiley Canyon Project fails each of these requirements: • No plan exists for the full four -lane roadway. The current project materials show only the interim two-lane configuration, with vague assurances about "future accommodation." • No feasibility analysis has been provided. My personal measurements and photographic evidence show that in constrained areas near the retaining wall and culvert, available space is as little as 35.66 feet, far below what is required. Without relocating the road west of the creek — as shown in the historic LA County alignment plan — widening is physically impossible. • No performance bond or financial assurance has been offered. If this project is approved as -is, future taxpayers will inevitably shoulder the enormous cost of condemnation, grading, and reconstruction when the four -lane becomes necessary. • No timing mechanism has been proposed. Instead, staff rely on empty language that expansion "may occur someday if needed." This evasion violates both CEQA (as an improper deferral of mitigation) and the General Plan (as an inconsistency). Wasted Public Resources Further compounding this failure, the City previously acquired right-of-way land north of the project from Mulberry Mobile Home Park through eminent domain. That land was intended to preserve the alignment for the four -lane roadway west of the creek. If the current project is approved as a two-lane roadway on the east Packet Pg. 137 1.g side, that acquisition becomes a wasted public expenditure — leaving a triangular parcel stranded as mere landscaping rather than fulfilling its intended transportation purpose. Legal and Fiscal Risks Approval under these conditions exposes the City to both legal challenge and financial liability: • Courts have invalidated approvals where mitigation was improperly deferred (Concerned Citizens of Calaveras; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296). • Taxpayers may be forced to fund future condemnation and construction costs that should lawfully be borne by the developer. • The City risks creating a precedent whereby any developer can promise to "address problems later" without enforceable commitments. Requested Action I respectfully request that the Commission: Require submission of a complete four -lane roadway plan consistent with the General Plan and historic LA County alignment. • Require that a performance bond or equivalent financial guarantee be secured before any approval is granted, ensuring that the four -lane expansion will occur when needed. • Reject approval of Master Case No. 20-238 unless and until such plans and assurances are submitted in compliance with Gov. Code §65300.5, CEQA, and controlling case law. 7. Late Disclosure of Four -Lane Exhibits — CEQA Recirculation Requirement Legal Framework The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") requires that all significant information relevant to a project's environmental impacts be made available for meaningful public review and comment before a decision is made. CEQA Guidelines §15087(a): The Draft EIR must be circulated for a minimum of 45 days to allow public scrutiny of all relevant data. CEQA Guidelines §15088.5(a): When "significant new information" is added to an EIR after public review, the document must be recirculated. Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376: The California Supreme Court held that meaningful public participation requires circulation of all substantial project revisions; failure to recirculate invalidates certification. • Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296: Agencies may not defer essential environmental studies or analyses until after project approval. • Vermont Citizens for Responsible Gov't v. City of Montclair (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1389: Deficiencies in circulation and disclosure require recirculation of environmental documents. Together, these rules and precedents make clear that the late disclosure of critical roadway exhibits is a material violation of CEQA. Packet Pg. 138 1.g Late Disclosure of Roadway Exhibits Throughout the first three hearings, both City staff and the developer defended the proposed two-lane roadway design. Public comments were consistently dismissed with assurances that "future expansion to four lanes" was possible if needed. Only at or just before the fourth hearing have four -lane roadway exhibits been introduced. These materials were never made available during the Draft EIR circulation period and were withheld from earlier hearings. This disclosure is not a minor clarification. The cross-section of Wiley Canyon Road is central to the projects: • Traffic and circulation analysis, • Air quality and greenhouse gas impacts, • Noise studies, • Right-of-way acquisition (including past eminent domain actions), and • Growth -inducing impacts along the Via Princessa corridor. By withholding these exhibits until late in the process, the City has denied both the public and independent experts the opportunity to review and comment meaningfully. Commissioners themselves are now forced to evaluate new, complex information "on the fly," which courts have consistently found to be procedurally unfair. Why This is "Significant New Information" CEQA Guidelines §15088.5(b) identify three scenarios requiring recirculation, all of which apply here: 1. A new or substantially more severe significant impact —A four -lane cross-section creates fundamentally different traffic, noise, and air quality impacts compared to a two-lane road. 2. A new feasible mitigation or alternative —A properly designed four -lane roadway west of the creek (as shown in historic LA County plans) constitutes a feasible alternative that was never considered in the Draft EIR. 3. A fundamentally different project design — Introducing a four -lane design after certifying a two-lane "interim" road is not a minor adjustment; it is a change in project description that undermines the validity of the environmental review. Because each of these conditions is satisfied, recirculation of the EIR is mandatory. Case Law Precedent California courts have repeatedly invalidated project approvals where agencies attempted to "ambush" the public with late -submitted information: • Laurel Heights (1988): Held that significant new information requires recirculation to preserve the public's right of participation. • Sundstrom (1988): Struck down approvals where agencies deferred essential analyses to future dates, reasoning that CEQA does not permit "approve now, study later." • Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 859: Found that late disclosure of circulation changes undermined the adequacy of the EIR. Packet Pg. 139 1.g Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502: Reiterated that an EIR must provide sufficient detail to allow informed public review and agency decision -making. These cases demonstrate that the City's current handling of roadway exhibits cannot withstand judicial review. Combined CEQA and Brown Act Failures The harm is compounded by the City's refusal to allow timely objections under the Brown Act (Gov. Code §54950 et seq.). Not only has the City introduced significant new information too late for CEQA compliance, but it has also constrained the public's ability to object when it matters most. This combination of CEQA and Brown Act violations deprives the public of both the information necessary for informed participation and the procedural opportunity to influence decision -making Requested Action Because of these violations, the Planning Commission cannot lawfully proceed with certification or approval of Master Case No. 20-238 at the fourth hearing. The only legally defensible remedies are: Continue the hearing and circulate the new four -lane roadway exhibits for at least 30 days of public review, or • Recirculate the Draft EIR under CEQA §15088.5 to include the four -lane roadway exhibits and updated traffic, air quality, and noise analyses. 8. Fire Protection and Response Times Legal Framework Adequate fire protection is a mandatory element of public health and safety under CEQA and California law. When approving a project, an agency must ensure that fire response times and emergency services are sufficient to protect both new and existing residents. • Los Angeles County Fire Department Standard: Emergency response times must be 8 minutes or less for travel to all neighborhoods served. CEQA Appendix G (Environmental Checklist): A project has a significant impact if it results in "substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the need for new or expanded fire protection facilities, the maintenance of acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives." • Pub. Res. Code §21083(b): Agencies must adopt thresholds of significance to identify substantial effects on public services such as fire protection. California courts have repeatedly struck down projects where agencies ignored or understated deficiencies in fire protection and emergency response: • Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099 —Agencies may not gloss over service deficiencies when those deficiencies create new safety risks. • City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (2006) 39 Cal.4th 341—Agencies cannot simply defer or disclaim responsibility for public service impacts; they must mitigate them or identify enforceable funding mechanisms. Napa Citizens for Honest Gov't v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342 — CEQA requires full disclosure and analysis of whether emergency services will be degraded below established standards. Packet Pg. 140 1.g Project -Specific Deficiencies In the case of the Wiley Canyon Project (Master Case No. 20-238), the Draft EIR addressed only the proposed development's internal emergency plan but ignored the broader regional service impacts. This is a fundamental flaw. Existing Service Levels: LA County Fire response times already exceed the 8-minute standard, with neighborhoods south and east of the project experiencing delays approaching or exceeding 9 minutes. Impact of Additional Growth: Adding hundreds of new residential units and associated traffic congestion will only increase travel times for emergency vehicles attempting to access both the new development and existing neighborhoods beyond it. • Lack of Fire Department Exhibits: Despite CEQA's clear requirements, the record contains no Fire Department exhibits, correspondence, or response -time studies addressing this impact. This omission is not an oversight; it is a fatal defect in the environmental analysis. Requirement for a New Fire Station Under Los Angeles County Fire Department planning policies, when response times exceed the 8-minute threshold, a new fire station or equivalent facility must be established before additional development is approved. This is not discretionary — it is a precondition of adequate service. The City's failure to identify or condition approval of this project on a new fire station (or equivalent mitigation such as expanded staffing, equipment, or relocation of resources) violates CEQA Appendix G and undermines public safety. Why the EIR is Defective By limiting its analysis to the project's own on -site emergency plan, the Draft EIR: • Failed to analyze the impact on existing residents in outlying neighborhoods already underserved by current response times. e Failed to identify mitigation such as requiring a new fire station, enhanced staffing, or funding mechanisms. • Failed to disclose whether LA County Fire even reviewed or approved the project's impacts on response times. As the California Supreme Court held in City of Marina (2006), an agency cannot disclaim responsibility by stating that "other entities" (here, LA County Fire) are responsible. The City must ensure impacts are identified and mitigated before approval. Legal Consequences Proceeding without addressing fire response deficiencies exposes the City to litigation risk: • A court could find the EIR legally inadequate for failing to disclose and mitigate a significant public safety impact. e Under Pub. Res. Code §21168.9, a court may issue a writ of mandate setting aside project approvals until fire service deficiencies are corrected. Packet Pg. 141 1.g The City may also be ordered to identify and secure enforceable funding or bonding mechanisms to provide the necessary fire protection facilities. Requested Action I respectfully request that the Planning Commission: 1. Require the City to obtain and disclose formal input from LA County Fire Department regarding response times for the Wiley Canyon Project and surrounding neighborhoods. 2. Reopen the environmental record to analyze whether response times exceed the 8-minute standard, including impacts on existing communities beyond the project boundary. 3. Condition any approval of the construction or funding of a new fire station or equivalent facility to restore response times to acceptable levels. 4. If these actions cannot be taken, the Commission must continue the hearing or require recirculation of the EIR to cure these defects. 9. Anticipated Litigation Risk and Remedies Heightened Litigation Exposure The cumulative defects in this proceeding —defective notice, violations of the Brown Act, inconsistencies with the General Plan, late disclosure of critical roadway exhibits, and failure to address fire protection standards —create extraordinary litigation risk for the City of Santa Clarita. Each of these defects, standing alone, would be sufficient to invalidate approval of Master Case No. 20-238. Taken together, they create a textbook case forjudicial intervention Courts across California have consistently found agency approvals unlawful where statutory safeguards of due process, transparency, and consistency with planning law are disregarded The City's exposure is not hypothetical. Any approval under these circumstances would be immediately vulnerable to both administrative appeal and judicial review under California Code of Civil Procedure §1094.5 (administrative mandamus) and Public Resources Code §21168.5 (CEQA enforcement). Such litigation would not only halt the project but would likely expose the City to significant attorney's fees under Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5 for prevailing parties enforcing important public rights. CEQA Litigation Risks CEQA litigation is particularly likely here. Courts have held repeatedly that failure to recirculate an EIR when significant new information emerges renders the approval invalid. The late disclosure of four -lane roadway exhibits is precisely the kind of "significant new information" contemplated by CEQA Guidelines §15088.5. Furthermore, the omission of fire department response time analysis leaves a gaping hole in the environmental review. In Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, the court struck down an approval where agencies improperly deferred essential studies until after project approval. Similarly, Laurel Heights Improvement Assn v. Regents of Univ. of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376 held that public review must include all significant information before approval. Failure to cure these deficiencies ensures CEQA litigation will succeed. Brown Act Litigation Risks Brown Act exposure is equally grave. Government Code §54960.1 authorizes courts to invalidate actions taken in violation of the Act. Courts interpret the Brown Act liberally in favor of public participation. In Galbiso v. Orosi Public Utility Dist. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 652, a failure to allow timely public comment rendered agency action unlawful. In Olson v. Hornbrook CSD (2019) 33 Cal.App.Sth 502, procedural shortcuts were struck down because they deprived the public of meaningful opportunity to be heard. The City's practice of cutting off lawful objections Packet Pg. 142 1.g and relegating public concerns to compressed three -minute slots after decisions have already been framed directly contravenes these precedents. Litigation risk is magnified by the video record, now publicly available, which contradicts the City's prior characterization of my conduct and affirms my lawful exercise of rights under the Brown Act. General Plan Consistency Litigation Risks California law is unequivocal: all land use approvals must be consistent with the General Plan. Government Code §65300.5 and Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531 make clear that a project inconsistent with the General Plan is invalid. Here, Wiley Canyon is designated as a four -lane secondary highway directly tied into the Via Princessa six -lane cross -valley connector. Approval of a two-lane configuration, absent a binding plan and performance bond for the required four -lane buildout, would be flatly inconsistent with the General Plan. This inconsistency alone would be sufficient for a court to set aside project approval. Remedies Likely to be Ordered by a Court If litigation is pursued, a court could order multiple remedies, including: • Writ of Mandate: Setting aside any project approval until the City cures CEQA, Brown Act, and General Plan inconsistencies. • Injunctions: Prohibiting further construction activity until a legally adequate review and approval process is completed. e Recirculation of the EIR: Mandated recirculation under CEQA Guidelines §15088.5 with full public review of four -lane roadway exhibits and fire protection analysis. Performance Bond or Equivalent Guarantees: Court -ordered requirement that the developer secure enforceable assurances for the full four -lane buildout prior to any phased approval. Attorney's Fees: Under CCP §1021.5, the City would be exposed to substantial fee awards for prevailing parties, as enforcement of transparency and General Plan consistency are quintessential public rights. Precedent -Setting Potential Finally, the City should be mindful that proceeding under these circumstances' risks creating a new statewide precedent. Courts are increasingly attentive to agency practices that erode transparency and public participation. Should this case advance to litigation, it may result in published opinions that further strengthen public rights to object, to meaningful notice, to enforce General Plan consistency, and to demand that CEQA analysis be complete before approval. What is now a local dispute could, through appeal, become a landmark case shaping public rights across California. Requested Action To avoid the substantial litigation risk outlined above, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission and City Attorney take the following actions: Do not approve Master Case No. 20-238 at the September 16, 2025, hearing. e Require recirculation of the Draft EIR with full disclosure of four -lane roadway exhibits and fire department response time analysis. Acknowledge the validity of objections lawfully raised under the Brown Act and include them in the record. e Require Chair Eichmann's recusal to avoid even the appearance of bias or partiality. Packet Pg. 143 1.g • Secure enforceable plans and performance guarantees for the four -lane roadway as required by the General Plan and CEQA mitigation standards Absent these actions, approval of this project would not only invite litigation but would virtually guarantee judicial invalidation of the City's actions. 10. New Commissioner Issue and Due Process Concerns Appointment of a New Commissioner The September 16, 2025, hearing on Master Case No. 20-238 will be the very first hearing for a newly appointed Planning Commissioner. By definition, this commissioner did not participate in any of the three prior hearings and has not personally heard the testimony, objections, or evidentiary submissions made part of the record. This circumstance raises serious questions of fairness, due process, and legal validity of any decision in which the commissioner participates. Legal Requirement of an Informed Decision California law requires quasi-judicial decision -makers such as planning commissioners to base their determinations on the full administrative record. Due process is violated when a commissioner votes without adequate exposure to the evidence. In Break Zone Billiards v. City of Torrance (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1205, the court emphasized that decision - makers must base their actions on the record and cannot lawfully participate without review. • In Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1152, the court explained that failure to provide a fair hearing, including consideration of all relevant evidence, constitutes a due process violation If the new commissioner has not thoroughly reviewed prior testimony, public objections, and all submitted exhibits, then his vote would be procedurally defective. Importance of Prior Hearings and Evidence The first hearing on March 19, 2024, introduced the project and initial public concerns, but it did not include evidence of defective notice signs. That evidence arose later, with the first known photograph of the fallen face- down sign in May 2025, followed by my own photographs in July 2025. At the same time, the second notice sign had become obstructed by overgrown branches and discarded trash, rendering it illegible and inaccessible. These defects were central to my later objections and were formally submitted with supporting case law. The second and third hearings also addressed critical issues of roadway configuration, General Plan consistency, and procedural rights under the Brown Act. My lawful objection at the third hearing was improperly curtailed, itself becoming part of the evidentiary and procedural record. The new commissioner, having not been present for any of this, must review the complete video recordings, written submissions, and exhibits to even begin to fulfill the due process obligation to consider the "whole record." Accountability Through Questions One safeguard against this defect would be to require the new commissioner to answer on the record specific questions regarding evidence already submitted. For example: • Has the commissioner reviewed the photographs and affidavits of defective notice signs? • Has the commissioner read the legal authorities submitted, including Cohan v. Thousand Oaks and related Packet Pg. 144 1.g case law? • Has the commissioner reviewed the circulation element of the General Plan and compared it with staff's representations about roadway widths? e They could be asked an obscure but relevant question about a critical detail, statement or document. If the commissioner cannot answer such questions knowledgeably, it would show that he lacks the necessary understanding of the record and should not vote. Danger of an Uninformed Vote Allowing a commissioner to vote without full review of the record is tantamount to rubber-stamping the decision. Courts have repeatedly invalidated actions taken in such circumstances. Moreover, the appearance of fairness is just as critical as actual fairness. As noted in Nasha v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 470, even the appearance of bias or lack of informed participation is grounds for disqualification. Requested Safeguards To preserve the legality of this proceeding: e The new commissioner must review in full all video, transcripts, and written submissions from the three prior hearings. He must affirm on the record that he has done so. e He should be prepared to demonstrate familiarity with the evidence through specific questioning if necessary. If these steps cannot be met, he must recuse himself from voting. Litigation Risk Any vote involving a commissioner who has not meaningfully reviewed the record would be vulnerable to appeal and judicial reversal. This risk compounds the already substantial CEQA, Brown Act, and General Plan defects surrounding Master Case No. 20-238. Conclusion The participation of a new commissioner at this late stage creates a serious due process problem. Unless he can demonstrate full familiarity with the record, his vote will taint the proceedings and further jeopardize the legality of any decision reached on September 16, 2025. 11. Contradictory Staff and Developer Statements Recorded Statements from Staff In a recorded meeting attended by me, Annette Lucas, and three City planning staff members — Ian Pari, Patrick LeClair, and Erika Iverson — we directly questioned whether City staff guide or instruct developers on the form of their submissions. Since this was following the first hearing and a plan obviously different from the General Plan had been presented and different from a diagram of a known historic plan I presented. After the hearing I had approach Tom Clark and asked why two lanes? His answer was the same "The City planning staff told me it was okay and not necessary" Each staff member unequivocally stated that "we never tell developers what to do." Their position was that developers submit their own designs, which the City then reviews for adequacy and compliance. This is one of the reasons a meeting was requested and questions asked in that meeting. To understand the contradictions. Packet Pg. 145 1.g This assurance was significant. It established the expectation that all project proposals are the independent work of the developer, not shaped or directed by City staff. Developer's Public Admissions Yet, in direct contradiction, developer Tom Clark has repeatedly stated in public forums that City staff did instruct him. At two separate community " Barn Meetings" hosted by the developer, and another small gathering at the Stevenson Ranch Public library, when asked who decided that Wiley Canyon Road would remain a two-lane road with roundabouts rather than be designed for four lanes, Mr. Clark answered: "The City planning staff told me it was okay and not necessary". When pressed, he identified by name staff members Ian Pari, Patrick LeClair, and Ericka Iverson, and later, Jason Crawford, the City's Director of Community Development. At a later small meeting I posed the questions again, same answers and when I asked about the round abouts and whose idea they were, He said the planning staff, he could not state an individual's name, just the planning department. This is no minor misstatement. Mr. Clark has never explained who, if anyone, suggested or required the inclusion of three roundabouts — only that "the planning staff told him." Legal Implications of Contradictions These conflicting statements create an unstable and inaccurate project description, which is fatal under CEQA. California courts have been clear: County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185: An unstable project description renders CEQA review inadequate. The public cannot evaluate a moving target. Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502: Agencies must provide accurate, consistent, and understandable descriptions of projects. Contradictions or omissions prevent informed decision -making and violate CEQA. Here, the contradiction is direct and material: City staff claim they never give instructions; the developer claims City staff explicitly did. This undermines the integrity of the administrative record. If City staff truly gave direction, then the project's independence and the neutrality of review are compromised. If not, then the developer has misrepresented City actions in a way that misled the public. Impact on Credibility and Legality These contradictions strike at the heart of transparency and credibility. Either: 1. City staff improperly influenced the project by directing a two-lane submission, or 2. The developer misled the public by attributing responsibility to City staff. Both possibilities taint the record. The public cannot have confidence in a process clouded by contradictory accounts from the very people charged with proposing and reviewing the project. Requested Action To cure this defect, the Commission must: Investigate and clarify on the record whether City staff instructed the developer to submit a two-lane plan. e Identify which statements are accurate — the staff's denials or the developer's admissions. • Ensure the administrative record reflects a consistent, stable project description before proceeding. Packet Pg. 146 1.g Absent such clarity, the project remains legally vulnerable to challenge under CEQA and due process law 12. Conclusion and Requests The record now before the Planning Commission demonstrates a project riddled with procedural and substantive defects. From defective public notice and Brown Act violations to fundamental inconsistencies with the General Plan, late disclosure of critical roadway exhibits, inadequate fire protection, and contradictory statements between staff and the developer, every stage of this process has been compromised. Each defect alone would warrant denial, continuation, or recirculation; together, they create a record so deficient that any approval would not withstand judicial review. The law is not ambiguous here. The Santa Clarita Municipal Code requires continuous, unobstructed notice; it was not provided. The General Plan requires Wiley Canyon to function as part of an 84-foot secondary highway corridor connected to a six -lane regional cross -valley connector; the project proposes far less, constrained by physical barriers of walls and culverts. CEQA requires recirculation when significant new information —such as late - introduced four -lane exhibits —appears; that has not occurred. The Brown Act requires timely, meaningful participation; my lawful right to rise and object was denied. Case law from Cohan, Scott, Galbiso, McKee, Laurel Heights, Sundstrom, County of Inyo, and others make clear that such failures cannot be ignored or excused. The appearance of bias stemming from Chair Eichmann's longstanding personal and professional relationship with myself and my business partner only compounds these issues. Recusal is not optional when impartiality is reasonably in doubt; it is required to preserve public trust in the process. The City must now make a choice: to proceed unlawfully and risk certain appeal and litigation, or to pause, cure these defects, and restore credibility to the review process. Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission and City staff: Deny approval of Master Case No. 20-238 as currently presented. • Alternatively, continue the hearing to allow proper notice, CEQA recirculation, and submission of required plans, including roadway buildout and fire protection. • Require Chair Eichmann's recusal from all further proceedings in this matter. • Acknowledge formally that my prior actions —rising, objecting, submitting written evidence, and citing case law —were lawful and consistent with statutory rights. • Provide in writing the case law and statutory authority the City relies upon to reject these objections, without deferring such disclosure into a Public Records Act request. Failure to take these steps will not only invite appeal but may also result in judicial rulings that create precedent, further strengthening public rights statewide in similar situations. That outcome, while perhaps beneficial for future citizens, would represent an avoidable failure by the City of Santa Clarita to follow its own laws and the laws of the State of California today. A man who plants a tree who's shade he may never rest or lie under, is a good man. I did not plant this seed or tree; I just spoke out for the citizens of Santa Clarita Valley and the future ones yet to arrive. I merely watered and fertilized the preservation of a good traffic pattern designed by smart men and woman traffic engineers of the past. Their layout vision of the city, with laws, rules, and plans created and recorded into law by them. Some of these same experts now speak against it yet having been on the same committee that created it (OVOV and the General Plan) and have reviewed the General Plan amendments two times. Never seeing a need for any change on this corridor. If they felt it was needed then, and in each subsequential review and the requirements in that recorded lawful document, why do they speak out against their own work now? For over 50 years this design has survived Packet Pg. 147 1.g each review and upgrading of documents and laws. Which are clear and leave no room for interpretation. Why now? What Changed? Not the projected growth or topography of the Santa Clarita Valley. For these reasons, I again urge the Commission to act lawfully, transparently, and impartially in this matter and VOTE NO Respectfully submitted, R. Weston Monroe 25418 Avenida Escalera Valencia, CA 91355 gazeboman62@hotmail.com (661) 478-4186 Packet Pg. 148 May 12th Wiley sign sent to me. r_ 0 Packet Pg. 149 at 6:20:25 Hawkbr�l% Uri ed'Sfatf t Aug 24,E2025af.'84 25001.-25V49.11 k 3w Santa C t Ila Aug 24 20-76-at 8:44:55 e* wi Edwo "T --g 1.g Packet Pg. 151 a 00 C") N CD C4 U) -6 x(1) 0 a U) a 4) E E 0 a. E u I Packet Pg. 152 1 'w �9� • ^ Irt .4 Sep 1 .: Y _ j w9. OF rr' f', Sep 4. 2Q25 at - 49.46 A Sep 4, 24d►5'al tii$ AN 24924 Hawkbryh Ave Sahta '! � f, 25000-25048 H.� abry �`. ,i►VE tee. E9; -' a Clar-ita CA 91«321 `g ifed States • ash-pexiw uoAue-I tm o C U \J �a �M caa c vi-_y Y Q) 0 \ Q Q) c O N Q) p 0 O _1 .z CE -V• Q) C O O O -0 E U N) E� c � � 0O - U CZ m m c c6 -0 Q c o m o � 3 uu Q�ci W O !�1 U E O O � 7 Q7 O no 0E 0 co a)a> ) \- V 0 c O � Q N oU o U� 0zfoO ts"D tz ca a) 2 m Q i Ael!M) s;uawwoo oilgnd :;u8uay3e44V H z E U 41 w Cr 3 o c O � U O c U y ��L Z N y Q E _ - a� o w ai 0 = :) O N7 NIr H — c 00 cc9 U E) °a -" a O a m o O c. y � IM c L !d E � E O U r Ocr tf OL C co y > "0 = _,. L a a L - D C O c Y N E ^ - v -oo U Q d W (D c Q) _ d E IL z cn 3: C C Q) N a a) I 3 ash-paxiw uoAueo Aoi!m) s;uawwoo oilgnd :4u8uay3e44V Q) > En aU . _ � n T 41 a) ro y U � o m U L C r 3 E o �E>. n OU O 5) O O O L O U O =5 O c O- o E <o U O cn ro i E 0 E o 0 -o ro o O Q) ca C O U a) 0 ro Ea U O O cm � o ro a� i *= c O ro ro U O U) O c ro U 0 a o ro E 0 ST .? o .t _o C Q Ln a> E c 0 o m E O O o w C '0 0 > « N U T N N O ro a E -O 0) CC N p N J Q 0 0 � � T U d C Y E o E o (L U L ro c o >_ C � ro C U C C ro 7 c E a) E O ro C L C O O V) c .0 O U U ro U L U 73 c o a c U � O c L N o E 0 07 U C � C_ U_ _> C U E E U � C C o ro c .N N L ro N O � C O ro ro 2)-o C cd O � O O 'O o a 0 U C C O O O N O O ro ro Z 5 L Na) _ 7 0 Q o 3 ash-paxlw uoAueo tm <. .0 U _7 O- ii ° U) C ro ro -2 IL c � a a� N a) C O O O O L c w a� o o -0 O c co3 mco - Q •E C c a) ff ro - Q � N r 0 O L C H E aN �jE 0 E U E C O U � a) C � 0 ro o ro Ea o ?� Z o U U (f)o cn T /1 a' E V1 N E a c O v O U7 z a) � _ N o a a a) Ca) L Aelm) 7 a) Z 71 c 0 71 s;uawwoo ollgnd :;uauayoellV I d_ C N C E Z E 2 o 0 U +� co Uc N t W 3 0 0 N � CD Z Lu N N_ i- A U, 0.0 Z r+ 0 O coo c7 Y 0. W i p O LL rr m � � y E W E g cm U o w C C CD cu 2 a a o r 3 71 y C� 7 ash-paxiw uoAueo Aoi!m) s;uawwoo oilgnd :;uauayoe;;br ti LO C7 T d ) O o C d !l Y T L C D 3 E o Y � ' v a U o U i 6 O E U J C E U O L o Y .(1) m 15 0 3 LD 0 co C O t 1 -- O u0i m c=n f} a E o o o S Y U cu O O Y Q j, C .L U > ,---- I - E a� E _ 0. o m o C o o o o co C C � .T � U Ccz-0 (l5 N O \' I -0 ( _o o > C Cocz c � [] r T — C ,� L CU ro .m +, a� 0 0 m a Fn O p y cz E a C 0- <: rn 0 w o c ro -00 N J Q O O Q o 3 ash-paxlW uoAue-, o ca L) ,C U C L � Q a-+ N O : Ca C Caro(1) m d C � Y C77 ro a� C O 0 c°)i p 0 0 L V5 aa) Q T) — E C U E d O O 0 O co a)'O o� �1•� E 0 c ■� E E 'E i� U co °' C Q 0) c� ca � •� E c a) N a � (D U U — 3 E o E U E c 0 a1 U � N r � U 3 O (. ID a) ro O E aa) ? o U O U5 T /1 VE 21 � E Q EU D�1SA U c N C O z o a) N IL ° aa) -o a) U U N '0 0 ro a) .0 O Y U a) 0 O ro c m Q C 0 ro C a) E E O U a) a) 0 Q Q O 0 O a a) E ro Z ;uawwoo ollgnd :;uauayDBPV e. (n y c c E c . �• c m U LU 3 NO � ^ _ O> v U i -0 ++ y Q U J W, '0) o w�i U) N_ N C C fn O) co LO a a Y U cC a L .c m O E 0 croi 0 U cu �O m a) ca m U ro c ro U) 0 _T U a) .ft. �3 .T O a a) .m ro ro O N L U a) .0 U a) cn ro a) a J ash-paxiw uoAueo Aoi!m) s;uawwoo oilgnd :4u8uay3e44V U +>-. O Q W � Q a) m j tt • - U L «o c� a) a U � O CD3E o 00 4 G �Ca) O O ;C- m O - f W O c ar a c C 2 E '� O U N _ ca - E Qi w o E co 0 _ a) O y aD v ar E �0E p U y cz(5� c o y U m - ca ate. c 0 �' O U% o (4 U �aot° E a) () t O O a) + T j o Qin a) E C_ O a) E `O o (M m ca CD N U C "•�•- - = C >. ro O CM U m a) U T Cca y a) O ca •o aa)) EL CL 3 I Co J `0 Q 0 cu o m .c ro .c U c c ca 7 E ...7 E a) E U El is E a) Q)co .c C C) - O `- O O o } O U U N U L � U O) h c 0 o •O c o U N o c a) — Q o E O) o C Q7 C U ,> C a) � U E U c c c O cc '+• c M cc O T M N L �•S O O ca ca C cII O 2 L a) 0 o .O j O o O C U Q ca o ~O ca Z cm o Q o 3 ash-paxiw uoAueo tm Y .- =N n C L Y M cu (1) �a C � O C N � Ia� m O m o Cc) J 0 to a — C o o � C 'E .L a M D_ L N � �' C N cti � Q � U L 0 .a C E 0 O E U C EO U i C O, 3 N O) c 1 O 2 q_ E� � C N o Y (n E �E O- O EU O U C co O '� a U) a a � N U) N T a a w O U Qi N `O N Co C w Q m E O U O O O a a • VIA 1-1 ' 1 O Y N .0 n d N co d a N E z a;uawwoo oilgnd :4u8uay3e44V Vr \ J � C C O ` O \ p ` w I rmCW r C C O �p i 01 O O C � o a N 3 .5 0 d C 3 0 > N_ 'a E C oma) U 0 C C N C O m a a F O t 3 T Z_ O U w O U_ W _ H Q H W W gn 71 M .1 ash-pexiw uoAue:D Aeum) s;uawwo:D oilgnd :;uauayoeUV J IT i �1 v U d O °' 7 Q Y c U � o U m L C y 3 E o E > ti O �O O -0 c m o Ca O C U E Y O E V7 _0 O T Q7 o CM ro C O ai a� a m Ea U O O � U N C p ros U � � (n O ro U Q7 a O ro y E ° O N N O O Ec C ? O Q7 E O O o o oro.N Vf N m cn E 70 CC c y 9 p 47 .0 Q m ° Q O O T cc ro m d C C N E o o U d � o � U c c ro = -E c E m E ° o E a= E ° y C ro O � (Ul�l C = O O U U Co U L LF U _ En O CU co N C I U a O E O � U C � C_ U > = i E U CO 'D C C O ro C .0 N O T N N 0 0 O ro ro C O N ro 0 0 � � = C > O O O � CL ro n _ ° O O �roz L tm N cm 0 Q o 3 asn.pa |w uoAue0 Aeim muaw w00 m m nd:} aw q,q; q 9 (D_ lie \_ a \ _ _ CL � -0� � \� ƒ � =w ƒ \ ` _U) E § ( - } §§ ƒ \ \0- ca ® \ ® L) . f \ ' \ E 00 / A \\ / t f G \ - c 2 y _ : o §•► E % \ k0 < k c �} \ »y{: �\ / v ƒ 7 \ ] _\ E k \ cu � \ ƒ § 7 \ — ` } § E c 7 \ /\ 0 = b » 5 k 22 O ) j » \� } § / \ �® a)E\ ^ �cn E \ 0E §./ / %2 ,# 9 $§ 7 / /-0 R E£ / 2 j\ ® § §° \ \\ a k tm m I F c co k k 2{ \ }, 2 Ea ± Q E 2 2 g ® m£ _ _ 2LD 2 / °\ �\ k �2 m f CD / � °y ± I E / § f Eo b V / / G •.� S 7 \ 2 b e E \ 5 . \ S E = / 0 \ / o n c c /• e < c / _§ � \ m E } a) CL \ 10 ƒ < a k $ / i 71 Ni ash-paxiw uoAueo Aeim s;uawwoo oilgnd :;uauayoe;;br ° > u°i U Y O w a0i a 0 V) a Q) ro i U y o Y 3 w L C 3 E o �E>, o a in U O 07 O Q O 0 L � � o E m a CT aci 0- O L E '�, O O U @ i E o n ; O (D U Q L CD � O cm ro C O U U L .O U '- a) ro E _a U O O C U � O -p a) ro Q) i C O ro � U U) GoC O O ro U a�aoro E ro ° ° O > O O O r0 C Cl U) EC_ oo°'E ° ro O .� m � U T CD M E a CC_ +..'� c c �+ O_ O C' C a — ro ._ 0 Q O O M �D � w T C L ai U� a c a) ° he E o t> E ° a U L ro C :3 O >_ C � ro C U C C ro � c E a) E ° o ro a° E � c L C .. ro 0 0 � c O O U U ro U L m U) c L O a c >, O U N U C L N o E O O) U C U> UC_ > Q) E U OC C C O ro N 0 L c m ro N O 2 C O ro ro C m ro O L a� o a) a Fn a) 7 C >, O O O aroma a) O O m czz D D O Q O 3: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Minutes 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER Chair Eichman called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. OATH OF OFFICE City Council Chambers Amanda Santos, PTS Deputy City Clerk, conducted the swearing in of new Planning Commissioner, Daniel Faina. ROLL CALL Chair Eichman, Commissioner Burkhart, Commissioner Faina, Commissioner Keith, and Commissioner Verner were all present. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Faina led the flag salute. COMMISSION SECRETARY ANNOUNCEMENT Kelly Zelaya gave the Secretary Announcement. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Keith and seconded by Commissioner Verner to approve the minutes from the August 19, 2025, regular meeting. Said motion was carried by a 5-0 voice vote. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 1 WILEY CANYON MIXED -USE PROJECT (MASTER CASE 20-238) A continuation of the public hearing for the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project Master Case 20- 238. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Planning Commission: 1. Receive the staff presentation in response to Planning Commission direction; 2. Open the continued public hearing; Based upon the evidence from the public hearing, consider adopting Resolution P25-13, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2202030626) prepared for the project; 4. Consider adopting Resolution P25-14, approving the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project under Master Case 20-238, including Architectural Design Review 20-023; Conditional Use Permit 20-005; Development Review 20-017; Minor Use Permit 20-013; Oak Tree Permit (Class 4) 425-004; and Tentative Tract Map 83295, subject to the conditions of approval; and 5. Take such additional, related action that may be desirable. Erika Iverson, Senior Planner, presented on the item. The public comment portion of the continued public hearing was opened at 6:16 p.m. Tom Clark, the applicant, and his team presented on the item. Commissioner Keith asked about the timing of a Lot Line Adjustment for the parcel with a developed parking lot for the neighboring fitness gym. Glenn Adamick, of the applicant team, responded that it would be initiated if the Planning Commission approves the project. A potential Condition of Approval to have a Lot Line Adjustment completed prior to Certificate of Occupancy was discussed. Chair Eichman asked how the park would be accessed. Mr. Adamick stated that there would be a Class I trail and a driveway that would provide access. There were 12 speakers, two in support, seven in opposition, and three that were neutral or did not disclose their position. Additionally, there were two written comments in support and three in opposition. The applicant team exercised their right to rebuttal, responding to the public comments. Commissioner Eichman asked how many elevators would be in the assisted living facility. Mr. Adamick stated that the building has not been designed yet, but it would comply with state requirements. The public comment portion of the continued public hearing was closed at 6:53 p.m. Commissioner Keith asked if an exemption as part of Mitigation Measure AQ1 is consistent with other projects within the City. Ms. Iverson stated that it is consistent. Commissioner Keith asked for clarification on whether the project is consistent with the General Plan for commercial uses to be neighborhood -serving. Ms. Iverson noted that the proposed project is consistent, and the commercial uses would be neighborhood -serving. Page 2 Commissioner Keith commended the applicant for listening to feedback, providing responses, and reducing the project with the proposed alternative while working with the City's Planning team. A motion was made by Commissioner Verner and seconded by Commissioner Burkhart to adopt Resolution P25-13, certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2202030626) prepared for the project; and to adopt Resolution P25-14, approving the Wiley Canyon Mixed Use Project under Master Case 20-238, including Architectural Design Review, 20-023, Conditional Use Permit 20-005, Development Review 20-017, Minor Use Permit 20-013, Oak Tree Permit (Class 4) 425-004, and Tentative Map 83295, subject to the Conditions of Approval. Said motion was carried by a roll -call vote of 4-0, with Commissioner Fama ab RESULT: APPROVED [4 TO 01 MOVER: Pamela Verner, Commissioner SECONDER: Timothy Burkhart, Commissioner AYES: Lisa Eichman, Timothy Burkhart, Nathan Keith, Pamela Verner ABSTAIN: Dan Faina PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM 2 CROSS STREET TWO -LOT SUBDIVISION (MASTER CASE 23-031) A request for a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 83780 to subdivide the subject site and create two single-family residential lots located at 24123 Cross Street (Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 2827-049-020) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Planning Commission: 1. Conduct the public hearing; 2. Determine that the project is exempt from additional review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 as a Class 15 Categorical Exemption; Adopt Resolution P25-12 Approving Master Case 23-031, including Tentative Parcel Map 83780 to allow for the subdivision of an existing 1.72-acre lot into two lots for the proposed project located at 24123 Cross Street (Assessor's Parcel Number 2827-049- 020) in the City of Santa Clarita, California, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A); and 4. Take additional, related action that may be desirable. Jasmine Almora, Associate Planner, presented on the item. The public comment portion of the public hearing was opened at 7:04 p.m. Page 3 There were two public speakers, one in opposition and one who was neutral or did not disclose their position. Additionally, there was one written comment in support and one that was neutral or did not disclose their position. The applicant spoke on behalf of the item. The public comment portion of the public hearing was closed at 7:12 p.m. A motion was made by Commissioner Burkhart and seconded by Commissioner Keith to determine that the project is exempt from additional review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 as a Class 15 Categorical Exemption and adopting Resolution P25-12, approving Master Case 23-031, including Tentative Parcel Map 83780 to allow for the subdivision of an existing 1.72-acre lot into two lots for the proposed project located at 24123 Cross Street (Assessor's Parcel Number 2827-049-020) in the City of Santa Clarita, CA, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, Exhibit A. Said notion carried by a roll -call vote of 5-U. RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Timothy Burkhart, Commissioner SECONDER: Nathan Keith, Commissioner AYES: Eichman, Burkhart, Keith, Verner, Faina ITEM 3 HASA, INC. INDUSTRIAL RENOVATION PROJECT (MASTER CASE 25-082) Partial demolition and renovation of two existing buildings to accommodate the relocation of Hasa, Inc.'s bottling operations and warehousing of pool and water treatment products to a new facility. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Planning Commission 1. Conduct the public hearing; 2. Determine that Master Case 25-082 is exempt from additional review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15000, et seq.) Section 15302 as a Class 2 Categorical Exemption; Adopt Resolution P25-11 approving Master Case 25-082, consisting of Conditional Use Permit 25-008 to operate a new heavy manufacturing use, and Development Review 25- 007 and Architectural Design Review 25-006 to partially demolish and remodel two existing, one-story metal industrial buildings at 25710 and 25750 Springbrook Avenue (Assessor's Parcel Number 2836-007-042) to accommodate the relocation of Hasa, Inc.'s one -gallon bottling operations to the new facility, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A); and Page 4 4. Take other action as determined by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Verner recused herself to avoid any potential economic conflict. Commissioner Keith asked if the conditioned annual inspections would be outsourced. David Peterson, Senior Planner, responded. The public comment portion of the public hearing was opened at 7:31 p.m. Hunt Braly and Angela Tran, of the applicant team, presented on the item. Mr. Braly noted that there are two requests to revise Conditions of Approval PL7 and PL3 per the submitted letter by the applicant team, prior to the public hearing. Commissioner Faina asked to confirm if the one -gallon bottling at the Drayton Street facility would discontinue, and asked if the expansion is truly about safety and not about increasing production. Ms. Tran responded, confirming that the one -gallon bottling at the Drayton Street facility would discontinue and that safety and efficiency are the focus of the project. Commissioner Faina also for the reasoning behind having two phases, when the chemicals would still be housed together in Phase 1, if safety were the concern. The applicant responded, noting that they are seeking proof of concept before moving forward with Phase 2. Commissioner Faina asked about the implications of a mass failure or large-scale chlorine gas event. Dave Johnson, the applicant's Senior Vice President of Compliance and Engineering, responded that the potential risk exists and is riskier at the current site, but the move would be to improve the safety and reduce the risk. Commissioner Burkhart asked to confirm that if either chemical were spilled individually, it would not be a big issue and would be contained. The concern would be if both of the chemicals were to be combined. The applicant team confirmed. Chair Eichman thanked the applicant team for keeping the business in California. The public comment portion of the public hearing was closed at 7:51 p.m. Commissioner Keith asked if the public notice was sent to the 1000-foot radius. Ms. Eber confirmed. Commissioner Keith also asked to confirm that the applicant would need to obtain approval from other agencies prior to moving forward with the project. He also asked what the process would be if they wanted to increase production. Ms. Eber confirmed that the public notices were sent to the 1000-foot radius of the project and that any modification to production would require either a Minor Use Permit or Conditional Use permit, dependent upon the request. A motion was made by Commissioner Burkhart and seconded by Commissioner Keith, determining that Master Case 25-082 is exempt from additional review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15000, et seq.) Section 15302 as a Class 2 Categorical Exemption and adopting Resolution P25- Page 5 11, approving Master Case 25-082 consisting of Conditional Use Permit 25-008 to operate a new heavy manufacturing use, and Development Review 25-007 and Architectural Design Review 25-006 to partially demolish and remodel two existing, on -story metal industrial buildings at 25710 and 25750 Springbrook Avenue (Assessor's Parcel Number 2836-007-042) to accommodate the relocation of Hasa, Inc.'s one -gallon bottling operations to the new facility, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A), with amendments to PL3 and PL7, er the applicant's written request. Said motion was carried by a roll -call vote of 3-1. RESULT: APPROVED AS AMENDED [3 TO 11 MOVER: Timothy Burkhart, Commissioner SECONDER: Nathan Keith, Commissioner AYES: Lisa Eichman, Timothy Burkhart, Nathan Keith NAYS: Dan Faina RECUSED: Pamela Verner PLANNING MANAGER'S REPORT Commission Verner returned to the Chambers. Patrick Leclair, Planning Manager, gave a forecast of the upcoming Planning Commission meetings. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' REPORT There were no reports made by the Planning Commission. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Robert Patrick, of Harley Davidson Santa Clarita, announced that the 34th Anniversary event for the Love Ride will be in Castaic on November 9, 2025. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Burkhart and seconded by Commissioner Verner to adjourn the meeting at 7:59 p.m. Said motion carried by a voice vote of 5-0. ATTEST: PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR Page 6