HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-11-25 - RESOLUTIONS - DENYING APPEAL 25-002 AND CERTIFYING FEIR MC20-238.� RESOLUTION NO.25-55
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARFIA,
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 (MXI). The Project site is also located within the area designated by the
General Plan as the Calgrove Corridor/Smiser Ranch Special Development Area (Smiler
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
Department of Fish and Wildlife, South Coast Air Quality Management District, law
enforcement agencies, school districts, water agencies, and utility companies serving the 17
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 NOP. The Draft FIR was circulated for review and n
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 puking 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; n
Page 2 of 9
.. 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, puking 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
Clarim. 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
SECTION 2. CEOA 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) "[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) "[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 n
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
r� 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
A. The objectives of the Project are specified in the Draft Final FIR and Section 2.2 of Exhibit A. These objectives are used as the basis for comparing the Project alternatives and 1
determining the extent that the objectives would be achieved relative to the proposed Project.
B. Alternative 1— No Proiect/No Develonment 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. n
Page 6 of 9
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
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 Clarim, 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 FIR and
otherwise, upon studies and investigation made by the City Council, and upon reports and other
transmittals from City staff to the City Council, the City Council 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. n
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
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
ff 251h day of November, 2025.
,l
MAYOR
ATTEST:
uvullla Olt
CITY CLERK T
Date:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Mary Cusick, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarks, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 25-55 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa
Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 25' day of November, 2025, by the following
vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Weste, McLean, Ayala, Gibbs, Miranda
None
None
CITYCLERK
Page 9 of 9
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
.r
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
w
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
City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings
for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
November 2025
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 Fads 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.
r� 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. Speck 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
(September2025)
November 2025
City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings
for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
November 2025
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 Clarke (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-sRe 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
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 n.
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. '1
• Certification of the EIR prepared for the project. i
November 2025 5
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 Califomia 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 Califomia 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
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.
n
November 2025 7
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 shouldbeaddressed 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
City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings
for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
November 2025
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, andwrittenevidence 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
City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings
for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
This page intentionally left blank.
November 2025 ��
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, 4A 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
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, 4.6, 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?
^1
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
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
Oak 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 114
City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings
for the Whey 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;
November 2026 is
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?
r�
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 groundbome 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
to
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 providerwhich
serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project's
projected demand in addition to the providers 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
Wildflre
November 2025 17
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 Cfarita City Council 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)(1) and CEa4 Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), that
changes of alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which would
avoid of 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 Clanta City
Councillnds thatbased on substantialewdence in the record, the impacts discussedbelow,
to the extent theyresultfrom the project, wouldbe less than significantafterimplementation
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
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
Mill 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 penmittee must
provide evidence to the Director that the proposed replacement equipment was
evaluated using California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) 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
City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings
for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
,.., MM-13I0-1 through MM-BIO-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-BI04 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-BIO.4, 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 CDf W 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$1O-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-BIOS
would reduce permanent impacts to protected waters to a less -than -significant level. Therefore,
implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-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 META 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-BIO-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-BIO-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-BIOS, 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
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-BIO-1 through
MM-BIO3, 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.
Mitigation Measures
MM-BIO-1: Crotch Bumble Bee. Surveys for Crotch bumble bee must be conducted within one
yearof 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 60" 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
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 qualificationstresumes 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 nesttcolony 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-BIO-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
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 ads. 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-BIO-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-BIO.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
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-BIO-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 1502 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/RWQC13 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
Novo. ber 2025 24
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 hatted, 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
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 chart 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. Historio-period materials might include stone or
concrete footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass,
November 2025 26
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 CEOA, 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 7050.6. The City's
Project Manager must also be noted. 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
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-GE04, 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.
Mitigation Measures
MMGEO-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.
MMGEO-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-GEO3: 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.
.. MMGEO-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
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.
November2025 29
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.
Mitioation 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 Califomia 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-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-S, 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.
Mitioation Measures
November 2025 30
City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings
for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
See MM-AQ-1, MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-5, MM-HYD-1, MM-NOI-1 through MM-NOI-2, and
MM-FIRE-1 through MM-FIRE-3.
RECREATION
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-BIO-1 through MM-8I0-4,
MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-5, MM-GEO-1 through MM-GEO-4, MM-NOI-I 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-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-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
November2025 31
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.
Mitication Measures
MM-FIREA: 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
n.r 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
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 Cladta 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 rinds,
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.
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
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] L, [Equivalent Continuous Sound Pressure Level]) plus 5 dBA (62.7 to 77 dBA L,)
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 L., 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.
Mitication 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 L� 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. CEOA 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
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. r�
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.
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS IN THE EIR
Alternatives that were considered but rejected during the scoping process for detailed evaluation
in the EIR are discussed below.
Alternative Site
Pursuant to CEOA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2), the City considered the potential for
alternative locations to the project. As stated in CEOA 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 not 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
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 t
No
Project/No
Build
Alternative 2
Affordable
Housing
Zoning
Alternative 3
Private
Recreational
Facility
Altemative 4
Construction
Noise
Setback
Alternatives
Mixed Use
Aesthetics
LTS
Less/NI
Similar/LTS
Greater/LTS
Similar/LTS
Similar/LTS
Air Quality
LTSM
Less/NI
Similar/LTSM
Less/LTSM
Lass/LTSM
Less/LTSM
Biological Resources
LTSM
Less/NI
Similar/LTSM
Similar/LTSM
Similar/LTSM
Similar/LTSM
Cultural Resources
LTSM
Less/NI
Slmllar/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
LessILTS
Less/LTS
Hazards and
Hazardous Matenals
LTSM
Less/NI
Similar/LTSM
Similar/LTSM
Similar/LTSM
Similar/LTSM
Hydrology and Water
Quality
LTSM
LessINI
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
LessINI
Similar/SU
Similar/SU
Less/LTSM
Similar/SU
Population and
Housing
LTS
LessMl
Greater/[
LessILTS
Les SILTS
Less/LTS
Public Services
LTS
LessINI
GreaterILTS
Lesa/LT$
I Less/LTS
Less/LTS
November 2025 36
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
Grester/LTS
Less/LTS
Less/LTS
Less/LTS
Tribal Cultural
LTSM
Less/NI
Similar/LTSM
Similar/LTSM
Similar/LTSM
SlmllarILTSN1
Resources
Utilities and Service
LTS
Less/NI
GreaterILTS
Less/LTS
Less/LTS
Lesa/LTS
Systems
Wildfire
LTSM
LessMl
Similar/LTSM
Similar/LTSM
Similar/LTSM
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 ofthe 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 ProjecUNo Build Altemative, assumes that no development would occur on
the project site. The project site would continue to be vacant.
n
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. Altemative 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
nn
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 dose 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-tolerem 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
streetacapee.
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
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. Altemative 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, Altemative 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 = 2577.96 or 2,578 (rounded to the nearest whole person)
November 2025 39
City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings
for the whey 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, retail1commercial, 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 dose proximity to
Meets
each other and major road condors, transit and trails.
Provide public spaces, including plazas, private and public recreational areas and trails.
Partially Meets
Implement waste reduction, drougMdolerant 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 antl 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
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 revegefation 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 Wley Canyon Road and
Meets
Calgrme 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
n
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
.-e
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
1. 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
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, Altemative 3 would not meet some project objectives, as identified below in Table 4.
Table 4
Applicability of Project Objectives for Alternative 3
a•�
Alternative 3:
Private
Recreational
Facility
Project Objective
Alternative
Create a new mired -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 dose proximity to
Meets
each other and major road comidore, 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
Meet.
streetscapes.
Enhance and augment the City's housing market by providing a vanety 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
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
Calgnwe 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 she.
Include amenities to specifically support senior residents requiring senior services including
Does Not Meet
memory care, supporting amenities for basicneeds 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
7
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
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
r.n
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 dose proximity to
Meets
each other and major road condom, 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.
Inaxporate 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.
November2025 44
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 prospecW o��sident:,:,dMeets
existing off -site residents and encourage senior living tenants to socialize
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 townhomelcondominium 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 S.
November 2025 45
City Council Recommended Statement of Facts and Findings
for the Wiley Canyon Project Final Environmental Impact Report
i0sk Table 6
Applicability of Project Objectives for Alternative 5
w
00sa
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 interhace with the adjacent Wiley Canyon Creek by utilizing
Meets
appropriate setback, grading, landscape, burled bank stabilization and water quality treatments.
Provide development and transitional land use patterns that are compatible with surrounding
Meets
cemmunities 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 dose 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 revegefation 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 opportunilies 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
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
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. Altemativesto 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
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
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 Clanta 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
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
Fads 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 altematives 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.
November 2025 50
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. Altemative 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
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
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
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
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
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
httMs:Hsantaclarita eovPolann nglenvironmental-impact reports under review/wley-canyon
mixed-use-proiecU
=7