Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-08-24 - AGENDA REPORTS - LACO PRE ZONE SC PRE ZONE (2)PUBLIC HEARING DATE: August 24, 1993 AGENDA REPORT f City Item to be presented by: J Lynn M. Harris -M SUBJECT: A request to pre -zone a total of 47.4 acres of property from Los Angeles County zoning to City of Santa Clarita zoning. Approximately 27 acres of this area Is within the 117 acre Valley Gateway Project site, with the remaining acreage comprised of Caltransproperty (SR 14 - portions adjacent to the Valley Gateway Project), another parcel owned by Hondo Oil, and the portions of Sierra Highway .adjacent to the project. The Valley Gateway Project is located at 27674 Clampitt Road, approximately .6 miles southeast of the intersection of Sierra Highway and San Fernando Road, Project Applicant: Valley Gateway Company (Hondo Oil and Gas Company) DEPARTMENT: Community Development BACKGROUND On June 15,1993, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P93.18, approving Tentative Tract Map 51044, Conditional Use Permit 92-001, Oak Tree Permit 92-002 and recommended approval of Pre -Zone 92-001 to the City Council. The Commission also certified the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project. The Commission's approval allowed for the subdividing of the 117 acre parcel into 26 industrial/commercial lots (totaling 858,500 square feet of floor area) and seven open space lots and an oak tree permit to allow for the removal of a maximum of 245 non -heritage size oak trees. There are 1,114 oak trees located on-site. The project proposes the pre -zoning of the southern 27 acres of the project site, Caltrans property, portions of Sierra Highway, and another property owned by Hondo Oil from Los Angeles County A-2.1 (Heavy Agriculture - one acre minimum lot size) zoning to the City of Santa Clarita RE (Residential Estate) zoning. The total area being pre -zoned is approximately 47.4 acres. This acreage is located adjacent to the City's boundary, within an unincorporated area of Los Angeles County. The area located on the project site (27 -acres) proposed for pre -zoning Is a portion of a lot conditioned to be dedicated to the City. The lot contains "Beale's Cut", an Identified State Historical Landmark. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The project was heard by the Planning Commission on May 12, May 18, and June 15, 1993. The first meeting was held to allow the Commission the opportunity to tour the project site. No testimony was taken at this meeting. At the meeting of May 18 the Commission conceptually approved the project (re -designed from the original proposal), directing staff and the applicant to: obtain a letter from the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy clarifying their position on the adequacy of the wildlife corridors provided with the project; further analyze the visual impacts of two of the corporate office buildings; and submit a conceptual pedestrian access plan. The 93 >'/y S s aq'Agenda Item 1y : -�- �/ ✓zPaC(� C>10 9 -.y Commission also directed staff to return at the meeting of June 15, 1993, with conditions and a resolution granting final approval of the project (excluding the pre -zone). At the meeting of June 15, the Planning Commission received the Information required by them at the meeting of May 18. The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy submitted a letter to staff requesting that certain conditions be added to the project to ensure the adequacy of the wildlife corridors crossing the site. These conditions were added to the final conditions of approval for the project, resolving Commission concerns with the .adequacy of the corridors proposed In conjunction with the project (Lots 28, 30, 31, and 32 represent the primary and secondary wildlife corridors). The Commission also reviewed avlsual analysis (specifically focusing on the corporate office buildings) and a conceptual pedestrian access plan. Both the analysis and access plan resolved concerns cited by the Commission at the previous meeting. Following the hearing, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to grant final approval of the project and certify the final EIR. Significant amenities of the project Include: 1) The dedication, preservation and enhancement of wildlife corridors crossing the property: the corridors are Identified by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy as regionally significant. 2) The dedication of lot 33 to the City: lot 33 Is approximately 36 acres in size and contains "Beale's Cut". 3) The remediation of hydrocarbon contamination present on-site and the redevelopment of a blighted property. 4) The eventual provision of 2,500 jobs to the City. A total of four people spoke In favor of the project, one in opposition of the project, and five offered general comments related to the project. Excluding comment letters contained within the final EIR, staff has received one letter from SCOPE generally supporting the project and a letter from the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy specifically related to the wildlife corridors.. Both letters have been attached. A copy of the final EIR is available on file with the City Clerk. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council: 1) Adopt Ordinance No. 93-14, approving Pre -Zone 92.001. 2) Adopt Resolution No. 93.114, certifying the final EIR as It pertains to Pre -Zone 92-001. ATTACHMENTS Ordinance No. 93-14 Resolution No. 93.114 Planning Commission Minutes Planning Commission Resolution P93-18 Planning Commission Staff Reports Final EIR Correspondence GAC:RAH:GEA counclAar92-012.gea ,m ORDINANCE NO.,6.14 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARfIA, CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP (PREZONE 92-001) FOR THE AREA LOCATED SOUTH OF THE EXISTING Ir CITY LIMITS, WEST OF THE CENTERLINE OF STATE HIGHWAY 14, AND ADJACENT TO SIERRA HIGHWAY, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SECTION 1. The CIty.Councll does hereby make the following findings of fact: a. An application for Master Case No. 92-012 was filed by the Valley Gateway Company, a division of Hondo 011 and Gas Company, (the applicant) with the City of Santa Clarlta on January 16, 1992. The application proposed the following: The prezone of a total of 47.4 acres of land (Including the southern 27 acres of the project site, a 5.8 acre parcel owned by the applicant west of Sierra Highway, and 14A acres of land which Is owned by Cahrans) from the existing County of Los Angeles A-2-1 (Heavy Agriculture—two acre minimum lot size) zoning to City of Santa Clarita RE (Residential Estate) zoning for annexation purposes; a tentative tract map to subdivide the 117 acre property Into 33 IndustriaUcommerclal lots and one multiple family lot containing 12 units and six open space lots; a conditional use permit to Implement the BP -PD (Business Park—Planned Development) zoning and to allow for the constriction of five structures exceeding 35 feet In height; and an oak tree permit to allow for the removal of up to 348 non -heritage oak trees (of the 1,114 oak trees) located on the site and encroachment within the protected zones of 61 oak trees. The site Is located at 27674 Clampitt Road, approximately .6 miles southeast of the Intersection of Sierra Highway and San Fernando Road. The assessor parcel numbers for the project are 2827.09.08, 2827-10-07,-G8,-09,_11,-12,- 827.11-07,-08,-09,-11; 12,- 13, 13, and 2827-02-01,-02. b. The City of Santa Clarlta prepared an Initial Study for the project on March 11, 1993, which determined that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and that an environmental Impact report must be prepared. C An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the proposed project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Ouality Act. d. The Environmental Impact Report has been circulated for review and comment by the affected governmental agencies and all comments received have been considered.- The review period was from February 5, 1993 to March 22,1993. e. -The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee met and supplied the applicant with draft conditions of approval. f. The project has since been redesigned to subdivide the 117 acre parcel Into 26 Industrtallcommerclal lots (allowing for a mexlmurn of 858,500 square feet of floor area), and seven open space lots; and 348 oak trees proposed for removal was reduced to a maximum of 245 non -heritage size oak trees. The area being proposed for annexation and prezoning was not affected by the re -design. g. The she was previously developed with an oil extraction and refinery facility which closed In 1989. The site also contains an Identified regional wildlife migratory ORDINANCE NO. 93-14 Page 2 h. corridor, which connects the San Gabriel Mountains to the Santa Susana Mount which In turn provides a link to the Sarna Monica Mountains. The site contains Beale's Cut, a registered state hlstoriCal landmark Beale's Cut Is located within a lot being proposed for dedication to the City of. Santa Clartta. Approximately 89.8 acres of the project site Is. located within the City of Santa Clarita and is zoned BP -PD (Business Park—Planned Development Overlay) by the City's Unified Development Code. This acreage Is the portion of the project she where development is proposed. J. A duty noticed pubic hearing was held by the Planning Commission on May 12, 1993, at 5:00 P.M. at the project site, 27674 Clamp.It Road, Santa Clarita. The Planning Commission toured the project site, taking no testlmony at this meeting. k. A duty notice public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on May 18;1993, at 7:00 pm. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. The Planning Commission conceptually approved the project (as re -designed) and directed staff to return to the Commission with a resolution and conditions of approval on June 15,1993. I. A duty noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 15, 1993, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarits. At this meeting the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P93-18 which !� approved Tentative Tract Map 51044, Oak Tree Permit 92-002, Conditional Use permit 92-001, recommended approval to the City Council of Prezone 92.001; and certified Final Environmental Impact Report SC 92041141. M. A duty noticed pubic hearing was held by the City Council on August 24,1993, at 6:30 P.M. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence, If any, received at the public hearing, and upon studies and Investigations made by the Planning Commission and the City Council and on their behalf, the City Council further finds and deternlnes that the prezoning of the Project site is consistent with the General Plan and complies with all other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance. SECTION 3. In acting on the prezone application, the Clty Council has considered certain principles and standards, and finds and determines as follows: a. That a need for the prezone classification of RE exists within the project area. b. That the subject property Is a proper location for the RE zoning designation. C. That public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning practice Justify the prezoning of the affected properties. �� 5 rtJm ✓. �r L ORDINANCE N0.9314 Page 3 d. That the proposed prezoning designation of RE is consistent with existing land uses In the area and would not result in a substantive change to the existing zoning of the subject she. e. That the proposed annexation/prazone area consists of 47.4 acres of land located south of the existing City limits, west of the centerline of State Highway 14, and adjacent to Sierra Highway, as Identified In Exhibit A. SECTION 4. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council does hereby ordain that the application for a prezone Is approved, and that the Official Zoning Map of the City of Santa Clarha Is hereby amended to designate the subject property, as depicted In the attached Exhibit W, RE (Residential Estate). SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first day after adoption, or upon the effective date of the Valley Gateway Annexation (MC 92-012) to the City of Santa Ciarha, whichever occurs last. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage of this Ordinance and cause It to be published In the manner prescribed by law: ATTEST: City Clerk PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED thls day of 1993. Mayor CITY OF SANTA CLARITA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING MASTER CASE 92-012, (PRE- ZONE 92-001) LOCATED AT 27674 CLAMPITT ROAD, APPROXIMATELY .6 MILES SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF SIERRA HIGHWAY AND SAN FERNANDO ROAD IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA. THE PROJECT PROPONENT IS THE VALLEY GATEWAY COMPANY (HONDO OIL AND GAS COMPANY). PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN: A Public Hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita regarding Master Case 92-012, Pre -Zone 92-001, located at 27674 Clampitt Road, approximately .6 miles southeast of the intersection of Sierra Highway and San Fernando Road in the City of Santa Clarita. The project proponent is the Valley Gateway Company (Hondo Oil and Gas Company). The request proposes the prezoning of 47.4 acres of the site from Los Angeles County A-2-1 (Heavy Agriculture -one acre minimum lot size) zoning to City of Santa Clarita RE (Residential Estate) zoning, which, if approved, would provide for the final approval of the project which creates 26 commercial/light industrial lots, and seven open space lots on a 117 acre property, . allows for a maximum of 858,500 square feet of office and business park floor space, and removes a total of 245 non -heritage size oak trees. The hearing will be held by the City Council in the City Hall Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Blvd., lst Floor, Santa Clarita, the 24th day of August, 1993, at or after 6:30 p.m. Proponents, opponents, and any interested persons may appear and.be heard on this matter at that time. Further, information may be obtained by contacting the City Clerk's office, Santa Clarita City Hall, 23920 Valencia Blvd., 3rd Floor, Santa Clarita. If you wish to challenge this order in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in thisnotice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council, at, or prior to, the public hearing. Dated: July 27, 1993 Donna M. Grindey, CMC City Clerk Publish Date: August 13, 1993 RESOLUTION NO. 93-114 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AS IT PERTAINS TO PREZONE NO. 92-001 WHEREAS, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby make the following findings of fact: A. The City of Santa Clarita proposes to prezone approximately 47.4 acres of vacant land (located adjacent to and outside the City limits, south of San Fernando Road, west of the center line of SR 14, and adjacent to Sierra Highway, from Los Angeles County A-2-1 (Heavy Agriculture - one acre minimum lot size) zoning to City of Santa Clarita RE (Residential Estate) zoning to bring the project area Into conformance with the appropriate zoning designations of the City of Santa Clarita's Unified Development Code, which became effective December 24, 1992. B. This proposal Is determined to be a project per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has been reviewed pursuant to its provisions. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the project based on the findings of the Initial Study. SECTION 2. Based upon the above findings of fact, and upon studies and Investigations made on behalf of the City Council, the City Council further finds as follows: A. Based on the EIR, the prezone does not have the potential to adversely effect the environment or resources under the protection of the California Department of Fish and Game, and no significant Impacts are anticipated to result from the prezone. B. A proposed final EIR was prepared for the project. Based on the EIR, the City determines that the prezone would not have a significant effect on the environment. SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council hereby determines that: A. The prezone is compatible with existing development in the area, consistent with the RE zone, and consistent with the land use designations and policies of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. B. The prezone will not have a significant impact on the environment or on resources under the protection of the California Department of Fish and Game. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita, California, as follows: A. The City Council hereby certifies the final EIR prepared for the project as it pertains to the prezone. Resolution No. 93-114 Page 2 B. The City Council hereby directs that a Notice of Determination that an EIR was prepared pursuant to the applicable provisions of CEQA be filed with the County of Los Angeles. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 1993. Mayor ATTEST. City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, . DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of 1993 by the following vote of Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk mVmiNes93-114kgm RESOLUTION NO. P93-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA APPROVING MASTER CASE 92-012, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51044, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-001 OAK TREE PERMIT 92-002 AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PRE -ZONE 92-001 TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 117 ACRE PROPERTY WITH A TOTAL OF 858,500 SQUARE FEET OF BUSINESS PARK/OFFICE FLOOR SPACE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN THE ANTELOPE VALLEY FREEWAY AND SIERRA HIGHWAY, NORTH OF INTERSTATE 5 AND SOUTH SAN FERNANDO ROAD THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: of fact: SECTION 1. The Planning Commission does hereby make the following findings a. An application for Master Case 92-012 was filed by Valley Gateway Company, a division of Hondo Oil and Gas company (the applicant) with the City of Santa Clarita on January 16,1992. The application proposed: a prezone to allow for the prezoning of unincorporated portions of the site from the existing County of Los Angeles A-2-1 (Heavy Agriculture -two acre minimum lot size) zoning to City of Santa Clarita RE (Residential Estate) zoning; a tentative tract map to subdivide the 117 acre property Into 331ndustrial/commercial lots, one multiple family lot containing 12 units and six open space lots; a conditional use permit to Implement the BP(PD) zoning and to allow for the construction of five structures exceeding 35 feet In height; and an oak tree permit to allow for the removal of up to 348 non -heritage oak trees and encroachment within the protected zones of 61 oak trees. The site Is located between the Antelope Valley Freeway and Sierra Highway and south of San Fernando Road and north of Interstate 5. The assessor parcel numbers for the project are 2827-09-08, 2827-10-07,-08,-09,41,-12,43, and 2827-32-01,-02. b. The City of Santa Clarita prepared an Initial Study for the project on March 11, 1993 which determined that the project may have a significant effect on the environment and that an environmental Impact report must be prepared. C. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the proposed project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. d. The Environmental Impact Report has been circulated for review and comment by the affected governmental agencies and all comments received have been considered. The review period was from February 5, 1993 to March 22, 1993. e. The City of Santa Clarita Development Review Committee met and supplied the applicant with draft conditions of approval. The project has since been redesigned to Include the subdivision of the 117 acre parcel Into 26 Industrial/commerclal lots, totaling 858,500 square feet of floor area, and seven open space lots and an oak tree permit to allow for the removal of a maximum of 245 non -heritage size oak trees of the 1,114 oak trees located on-site. RESO NO. P93.13 Page 2 g. The she was previously developed with an oil extraction and refinery facility. The facility closed Its operations in 1989. The she also contains an Identified regional wildlife migratory corridor, which connects the San Gabriel Mountains to the Santa Susana Mountains, which in tum provides a link to the Sarna Monica Mountains. h. The project proposes the extension of water and sewer service to the project she. I. The site contains Beale's Cut, a registered state historical landmark. Beale's Cut is located within an open space lot being proposed for dedication to the City of Santa Clarita. Hydrocarbon contamination, related to the property's past use, has been Identified on-site. A remedial action plan has been prepared and approved by the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and will be undertaken and completed by the project applicant in conjunction with project grading. k. The design of the project concentrates development within areas disturbed by the previous oil extraction and refinery uses. The project proposes grading on approximately 64.5 acres of the project she. The total amount of grading Involves approximately 274,000 cubic yards of cut and 346,000 cubic yards of fill, balanced on-site. I. Approximately 89.8 acres of the project site is located within the City of Santa Clarita and is zoned BP -PD (Business Park - Planned Development Overlay) by the City's Unified Development Code. The remaining 27.13 acres of the project site is located within the unincorporated area of the County of Los Angeles and Is designated by the City's General Plan as RE (Residential Estate). M. The project proposes dedication of Clampitt Road and Remsen Street to the City of Santa Clarita. All other roadways Included within the project are proposed to be private. n. Corporate headquarter uses are proposed to be located on four lots within the development.. The four structures range in height from 50' to 95' (3.5 to seven stories).. o. A duty noticed pubic hearing was held by the Planning Commission on May 18, 1993, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Ctartta. The Planning Commission conceptually approved a redesigned project and directed staff to return to the Commission with a resolution and conditions of approval on June 15,1993. p. A duty noticed public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 15, 1993, at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. SECTION 2. Based upon the above findings of fact, oral and writtentestimonyand other evidence received at the public hearing held for the project, and upon studies and Investigations made by the Planning Commission and on Its behalf, the Planning Commission further finds as follows: RESO NO. P93-13 Page 3 a. At the hearings of May 18, and June 15, 1993, the Planning Commission considered the staff reports and Final EIR prepared for the project and received testimony on the proposal. b. At the meeting of May 18, 1993, the Planning Commission directed the applicant to redesign the proposal to reflect the Implementation of option 3 and additional roadway requirements both contained within the staff report of May 18, 1993 (as summarized, Including the widening the wildlife corridors, reducing the number of lots, reducing the number of oak tree removals, and providing satisfactory access to certain lots). C. The applicant Is dedicating Clampitt Road and Remssn Street to the City of Santa Clarlta. The remaining roads will be designated as private drives. The applicant proposes dedication of lots 31, 32, and 33 to the City of Santa Clarlta or its designee. The remaining open space lots shall.be under the ownership of the property owner of a future property owners association. A deed restriction prohibiting future development shall be recorded on the open space lots. d. The Idenfi led primarywildlife corridor on the site (lots 31 and 32) Is to be enhanced per the recommendations of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy to ensure afl adequate wildlife migratory corridor. e. The design of the subdivision and the type of Improvements will not cause serious public health problems, since water, sewage disposal, fire protection and hazardous material cleanup are addressed in the Conditions of Approval. f. The project complies with the City's Unified Development Code and the City's Hillside Ordinance. The project is consistent with the Intent of the Planned Development Overlay which was created to: facilitate development of certain areas by permitting greater flexibility and consequently, more creative and Imaginative designs; promote more economical and efficient use of land while providing a harmonious variety of choices, higher level of amenities, and preservation of natural and scenic quallUes of open space; and, ensure that development substantially conforms to the approved plans. g. The project Is consistent with the City's General Plan. The City's General Plan designation for the site is Business Park (BP) and the zoning category for the she Is Business Park, Planned Development (BP -PD). The project's floor area ratio for the site Is .25:1 which Is below the maximum floor area ratio of 1:1. h. The Final Environmental Impact Report Identifies certain significant environmental effects. The Final Environmental Impact Report Identifies feasible mltigatlon measures for each of these Impacts with the exclusion of cumulative air quality and noise impacts which cannot be avoided through mitigation. The Identified mitigation measures have been Incorporated Into the conditions of approval. SECTION 3. The City of Santa Clarha Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the environmental information contained In the Final Environmental Impact Report, and determines that it Is In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon the findings stated, the Planning Commission hereby certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report RESO NO. P93.13 Page 4 for Master Case 92-012. The Planning Commission finds that the unavoidable environmental Impacts (cumulative air quality and noise) of the project are acceptable when balanced against the benefits of the project. This determination Is made based upon the following factors and public benefits Identified In the Final EIR. The factors are as follows: a. The dedication of lot 33 to the City of Santa Clarlta results In the preservation of BeaWs Cut, a registered state historical landmark. b. The dedication of lots 30, 31, and 32 to the City of Santa Clarlta enables the perpetual preservation of an Identified regional wildlife migratory corridor. C. Development of the she will provide for the extension of public sewer and water to an area of the City which lacks these services. d. The project results In the remedlation of a contaminated site. e. The project results In the redevelopment of a dilapidated site. f. The annexation of a portion of the site will benefit the City of Santa Clailta by extending local government and control. J g. The project provides jobs, benefiting the City's existing jobsRrousing balance. SECTION 4. The Planning Commission hereby approves Tentative Tract Map 51044, Conditional Use Permit 92.001 and Oak Tree Permit 92.002 subject to the attached conditions of approval, certitles the Final EIR prepared for the project and recommends approval of Pre -Zone 92- 001 to the City Council. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of June .1993. Z/'. &W, Jack Woodrow, Chairman Planning Commission ATTEST: Lyq". Harris DI or of Community Development RESO NO. P93.13 Page 5 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ') § CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Donna M. Grindey, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duty adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarlta at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 15th day of June . 1993 by the following vote of the Planning Commission: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Woodrov, Commissioners Modugno, Brathvaite, and Cierrington. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Vice -Chairman Doug - C Clerk pYipcaw,..ostsy.. MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Tuesday June 15, 1993 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarlta was called to order by Chairman Woodrow at 7:00 p.m. In the Council Chambers at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, First Floor, Santa Clartta, California. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Modugno led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag ROLL CALL The secretary called the roll. Those present were Chairman Woodrow, and Commissioners Brathwaite, Cherrington, and Modugno. Vice -Chairman Doughman's absence was excused. Al sr� present were Lynn M. Harris, Director of Community Development; Rich Henderson, City Planner; Tim McOsker, Assistant City Attorney; Fred Foilstad, Associate Planner; Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner; Kristl Klmbrough, Assistant Planner; Hannah Brondial, Assistant Planner; Sarona Becker.' Planning Technician; Brad Therrien, Supervising Clvll Engineer; Robert Newman, Associate Engineer; Terri Maus, Administrative Assistant with the City Manager's Office; Amelia Hutchinson, Administrative Assistant with Community Development; and Lucy Lancaster, Commission Secretary. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 6: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51044, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-001, ANNEXATION 92.001, PRE -ZONE 92.001, AND OAK TREE PERMIT 92.002 (MASTER CASE 92.012) - Located at 27674 Clampitt Road. Mr. Henderson Introduced the Item which was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of May 18, 1993. Mr. Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner, gave a staff report and slide presentation of a request to allow.for a Pre -Zone of the southern 26 acres of the she from the existing Los Angeles County A-2.1 (Heavy Agriculture, one acre minimum lot size). zoning to the City of Santa Clarita RE (Residential Estate) designation; a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the 117 acre site Into 26 Industrial/commerclal lots and seven open space lots; a Conditional Use Permit to Implement the BP (PD) zoning and to allow for the construction of five structures that exceed 35 feet In height; an Oak Tree Permit to allow for the removal of up to 245 native oak trees and encroachment into the protected zones of approximately 61 oak trees; and review and certification of the EIR prepared for this project. Commissioner Brathwalte asked about the preservation of the pedestrian trials within the wildlife corridor and about the continuation of.the trails onto the adjacent properties. Commissioner Cherrington asked about the conditions of approval that address the wildlife corridor. Commissioner Modugno stated, for the record, that although he was not present at the meeting of May 18th, for the purposes of participating this evening, he read the material presented for that meeting, listened to the tape of the meeting, and participated In the she visit on May 12th. Chairman Woodrow opened the public hearing at 7:52 p.m.. The following persons spoke: Mr. Dave Armanetti, Envicom Corporation, 28328 Agoura Road, Agoura Hills, CA. Mr. Annanetti, agent for the applicant, spoke in favor of the project and stated that he belleves.that they have made all of the revisions requested by the Planning Commission at the meeting of May 18, 1993. Mr. Arrnanettl stated that they have some concerns with Condition No. 212, and respectfully requested that the Commission remove the condition. Mr. Blaine Hess, Hondo Oil and Gas Company, 410 E. College Boulevard, Roswell, NM. Mr. Hess, the applicant, stated that they have some concerns with the conditions of approval which Involve other outside agencies, and also requested that Condition No. 212 be removed by the Commission. Commissioner Cherrington asked questions of Mr. Hess regarding his concerns of the conditions of approval. Commissioner Brathwaite asked Mr. Hess to clarify which conditions he has a problem with. Mr. Hess stated that he has a problem with the Biotic Conditions, Conditions Nos. 88 through 101, but that he Is willing to accept them. Director Harris expressed some staff concerns et the conflicting testimony given by the applicant's agent and by the property owner In that they feel some of the conditions are infeasible. Director Harris stated that staff regularly meets with applicants in order to build a consensus prior to presenting conditions to the Commission. Director Halls apologized to the Commission If the conditions were late getting to the applicant and added that It would be with great reservation that staff would recommend approval without the consensus between staff and the applicant In place. Mr. Armanetti apologized for the misunderstanding of the testimony given by Mr. Hess. Mr. Armanettl clarified that the only conditions which were presented late were the additional 3 conditions suggested in the Santa Monica Mountains Concervancy letter dated June 8th, which were also presented to the Commission late. Mr. Aneanettl stated that they want to make it clear that they are willing to accept all of the conditions, with the exception of the hotel condition, Condition No. 212. Commissioner Modugno suggested that, since the hem is important to the applicant and to the City as well, the item be postponed In order to allow the applicant to clear up their concerns. Mr. Hess once again stated that they are satlsfled with'all of the conditions with the exception of Condition No. 212, and that they are looking forward to receiving approval this evening from the Commission. Mr. Annanettl continued his testimony relating to the hotel condition. Commissioner Cherrington stated that as long as the applicants are willing to accept, In good faith, what the City Is Imposing on the property to make It attractive forever, then he doesn't feel there is a problem. Mr. Hess responded by stating that they agree with Commissioner Cherrington's statement one hundred percent. Mr. Paul Edelman, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, 3700 Solstice Canyon Road, Malibu, CA. Mr. Edelman, Staff Ecologist for the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, spoke regarding the Conservancy's concerns with the wildlife corridor. Mr. Edelman urged the Commission to adopt all of the conditions the Conservancy outlined In their letter. Mr. Edelman suggested that maybe, with the Commission's consensus, the applicant can take some of the money.from the oak tree mitigation and transfer it to purchase some additional land for the wildlife corridor. Ms. Karen Pearson, Gariian, Sarna Clartta, CA. Ms. Pearson, Chairperson for the Sierra Club, spoke about some concerns regarding the wildlife corridor stating that the corridor could potentially be an Issue In the anticipated Elsmere Canyon lawsuit. t: Commissioner Cherrington stated that, since the Commission has previously agreed to refrain from discussing the Elsmere Canyon Issue until they are asked to do so by the City Council, the other Commissioners should Ignore the comments made regarding the Elsmere Canyon Issue at this time and treat this as a land use Issue alone. Mr. Amlanettl gave a brief rebuttal stating that the lawsuit Ms. Pearson referred to would not Involve their property but the nearby Elsmere Canyon property Instead. Chairman Woodrow closed the public hearing at 8:32 p.m.. Commissioner Modugno stated that he finds the site to be a very undesirable location for a hotel. Commissioner Modugno added that he would be In favor of the elimination of Condition No. 212. Commissioner Cherrington made a motion to certify Final EIR 92-041041 for the project and adopt Resolution No. 93-18, approving Tentative Tract Map 51044, Conditional Use Penult 92.001, and Oak Tree Permit 92-002, and recommending approval of Pro -Zone 92.001 to the City Council, subject to the Conditions of Approval with the elimination of Condition No. 212, Commissioner Modugno seconded the motion, and It passed by a vote of 4-0. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT The Commission had nothing to report on. PUBLIC BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR There was no one wishing to speak before the Commission. ADJOURNMENT At 11:55 p.m. Commissioner Modugno motioned, Commissioner Brathwaite seconded, and it was carried by a vote of 40, to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled meeting of July 6, 1993. ATTEST: e Lyn . Harris, De uty City Manager Community Development p1ngcomWIn8.1541 10 ti/k/ oo Jack drow, Chairman Planning Commission MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Tuesday. May 18, 1993 7:OO.p.m. CALL TO ORDER The meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarlta was called to order by Chairman Woodrow at 7:03 p.m. In the Council Chambers at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, First Floor, Santa Clartta; California. FLAG SALUTE Commissioner Brathwaite led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. ROLL CALL The secretary called the roll. Those present were Chairman Woodrow, Vice -Chairman Doughman and Commissioners Brethwa@e, and Cherrington. Commissioner Modugno .had an excused absence. Also present were Lynn M. Harris, Deputy City Manager, Community Developmentg Richard Henderson; City Planner; Tim McOsker, Assistant City Attorney; Glenn Adamick, Assistant: Planner; Alex Vasquez, Assistant Planner, and Linda Leonard, Commission Secretary. ITEM 4 - MASTER CASE NO. 92.012, TENTATIVE TRACT.MAP 51044, ZONE CHANGE 92.001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-001, ANNEXATION 92.001, PRE -ZONE 92-001, OAK TREE PERMIT 92.002 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 92.001 - located at 27674 Clampitt Road, approximately .6 Mlles southeast of Sierra Highway and San Fernando Road City Planner Henderson introduced the Item. Glenn Adamick, the case Planner, gave a slide presentation and staff report. Mr. Adamlck Introduced Mr. Dean Brown of the Planning Consortium, the City's consultants on the Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Brown was hired by the City to prepare an objective analysis and environmental documentation on the proposed project and gave a presentation. An Initial Study and Environmental Checklist waq prepared by the City In March 1992 which determined that the proposed project may have ti significant effect on the environment and that an EIR was required. The document analyzes existing conditions, impacts and mitigation measures for each Impact area as well as Includes a statement related to the significance of those Impacts after mitigation measures have been applied to the project. Housing was the only major Initial study category that the project did not result in a potential significant Impact. Numerous significant Impacts are anticipated by the proposed project (Option 1). Significant Impacts have been reduced through mitigation measures and conditions of approval to a level less than significant for all but two Impact areas, air quality and biotic resources. Since all of the Impacts cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant, the original project proposal (option 1) would requirea statement of overriding considerations for those Impacts If R were to.be approved by the City. If Option 2 is approved, a statement of overriding considerations would not be required for Impacts to wildlife corridors and oak tree Impacts. H Option 3 Is approved, a statement of overriding considerations probably would not be required. However, because there is no clear-cut standard or specific: threshold for determining levels of significance for the number of oak trees to be removed or to the specific width of a wildlife corridor, staff and the Planning Consortium are looking for some direction from the Commission on the level of significance that Is appropriate for those particular Impacts, In relation to this option. The EIR analyzes seven different alternatives to the proposed project. Cumulative effects were also analyzed In the document. Potential development located In the County of Los Angeles within the surrounding area to the east and south of the project were also analyzed. Agencies consulted during this process Included all local city departments, (Community Development, Traffic, Engineering, Public; Works and Parks and Recreation, and the City's Oak Tree Consultant), the County of Los Angeles Fire and Sheriff's Department, County Sanitation District, Regional Planning, State of California Office of Planning and Resources, the Department of Water Resources, Caltrans; Department of Fish and Game, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Federal Government Army Corp of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, local special districts Including two water districts, William S. Hart High School District, and the Newhall School District. The Notice of Completion for the draft EIR was Issued in late January 1993. -5. Commissioner Brathwalte asked Mr. Brown to analyze the option of no project. Mr. Brown stated that the no project is a requirement by CEQA that requires you to analyze what would occur if no project were pursued or no project were pursued at this time. The no project alternative, unless there was a General Plan amendment associated with it to remove the Business Park PD land use designation, would put off any decision on the ultimate land use on this particular piece of property. The project as proposed Is consistent with the General Plan land use designations for the property. The no project alternative would only delay consideration of a potential future use of the property, unless It was rezoned to some use that would preclude development. Commissioner Cherrington asked Mr. Brown what differences there are between the final EIR and the draft EIR. Mr. Brown said the only other changes that have occurred are in the Air Quality section where they found a small mistake in one of the figures, and had theirair quality subconsultant reanalyze the actual pollutant emissions that would occur from the ultimate vehicle miles traveled. Additional changes Included numerous typographical errors, and the change from the draft that Indicated that there were no Impacts that could not be mitigated to a level of less than significant. Commissioner Cherrington also asked If the Option 3 was Included In the EIR. Mr. Brown said no, It Is not addressed In the environmental documentation. Commissioner Doughman asked what kind of wildlife would be crossing this corridor. Mr. Brown said the type of wildlife could be deer, coyote, skunk, raccoon, possum and other larger size mammals. Commissioner Doughman also asked If there were any heritage size oak trees on the site. Mr. Brown stated that the City's Oak Tree Consultant has confirmed that there are no herhagg size oak trees on the site. Commissioner Cherrington had questions of staff regarding sewers, bike trails, annexation, and asked who owned the strip along the Antelope Valley Freeway. Chairman Woodrow opened the public hearing at 9:50 p.m. Dave Armanetti, Envlcom Corporation, 28328 Agoura Road, Agoura Hills, California 91301 Is the consultant for the appllcant. Mr. Armanettl thanked the staff and other agencies and groups Involved on the project. Mr. Armanettl gave an overview of the project. He feels that If this project Is approved and developed It will significantly help the City to become a balanced and multi -faceted community; will significantly Improve the jobsthousing ratio in the valley; will provide taxes and economic benefits to the City; provide enhanced open space and natural resources on the property; Improve the overall regional traffic and air quality conditions; and revitalize the Industrial corridor along Sierra Highway. Blaine Hess, Hondo Oil and Gas Company (applicant), 410 East College Boulevard, Roswell, New Mexico 88201 re -confirmed Mr. Armanettl's presentation. Commissioner Cherrington expressed appreciation to Mr. Armanettl and Mr. Hess for their hospitality In providing an opportunity for all five members of the Commission and members of the community to make the site visit. He also asked what could be said to make him believe that this Is not Hondo Oil's field of dreams and what reason Is there to believe that the people will come when this Is built, and what can they tell him of construction plans if this project were approved. Mr: Armanettl said that they did a number of marketing and economic studies. He feels they will have a completely different product and location that would not be available anywhere else In the LA. basin. The attractiveness of this City combined with the attractiveness of the site will allow them to attract people when It's built. He also stated that they have a smaller product (building size) than the Industrial Center tends to have. So the small business, the local business, the true generator of jobs and benefits can come to their project, rent, occupy and own an entire building and have their own piece of the rock. Mr. Hess stated that they have several phases of this project, -6- and that they have started a marketing strategy. The next step Is an envlronmental strategic plan as well as the entitlement strategic plan. Michael Kotch, 28701 W. Sloan Canyon Road, Castaic, California 91384 spoke on behalf of SCOPE In favor of the project. Mr. Kotch spoke regarding design provisions for wildlife corridors, the general subject of anticipating Elsmere Canyon and other design Items. Robert C. Vogt, 18919 Tenderfoot Trail Road, Newhall, California 91321 spoke in favor of the project. Marsha McLean, 24519 Breckenridge Place, Newhall, Callfomla 91321 spoke In favor of the project. Ms. McLean feels that the property can only be Improved by building on it. Ms. McLean also spoke for Mr. Lee Schramling stating that he is also in favor of the project. Keefe Ferrandini,18925 Tenderfoot Trail, Newhall, California spoke in favor of the project. She feels that over the years Placenta Canyon has been the recipient of unwanted developments; oil fields, refineries and even a proposed landfill. Ms. Ferrandinl welcomes the Valley Gateway project. Ms. Ferrandlni also spoke for Mr. Rick Chavez stating that he Is also In favor of the project. Lynne Plambeck, 23149 Oakbndge, Newhall, California 91321 spoke on behalf of the Sarna Monica Mountains Conservancy. Ms. Plambeck asked that before this project Is approved, both the public and the Commission should hear from a biologist about their concerns regarding the wildlife corridor. Karen Pearson, 26617 Gavilan Drive, Santa Clarlta, California 91350 spoke on behalf of the Sant} Clarita Valley Sierra Club. Ms. Pearson thanked Dave Armanettl and Hondo Oil for the efforts they have made to create a development which harmonizes with this particular ecosystem. Ms. Pearsori wants to see an approval in writing from a wildlife corridor expert before approval of this project. Chairman Woodrow asked staff to make a note of Ms. Pearson's comment regarding an approval In writing from a wildlife corridor expert. Mike Lyons, 27362 Garza Drive, Saugus, California 91350, Treasurer of the Santa Clarita Oaks Conservancy. Mr. Lyons would like to see a 3 to 1 replacement ratio of oak trees. Jan Hinkston, 8657 Valley Flores Drive, West Hills, Callfomia 91304 spoke on behalf of the Santa Susan Mountain Park Association. She spoke In opposition of the project. Ms. Hinkston had concerns regarding the height of the proposed buildings. David Ewart, 25487 Via Escovar, Valencia, Callfomla 91355 urged the Commisslon to approve the project. Mr. Dave Armanettl gave a rebuttal regarding parking structures, design concerns, wildlife corridor Issues and oak tree removals. Chairman Woodrow closed the public hearing at 10:52 p.m. The Commission gave their comments regarding the project. Commissioner Cherrington made a motion to conceptually approve Option 3 of the project and to continue the Item to the meeting of June '15, 1993, directing staff to return at that meeting with Conditions of Approval for the project; Commissioner Doughman seconded the motion; it was passed by a vote of 4-0. -7- DIRECTOR'S REPORT City Planner Henderson commented on the materials that were distributed to the Commission at the meeting: 1)The population estimates; and an organization called Eco Cities who are a volunteer organization made up of architects and planners. They make presentations on what they feel they can do for a community. They will be making a presentation to the City Council most likely at the Council's next meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT Commissioner Cherrington had three Items to discuss: 1) He commented to staff that Chi Chi's on Soledad Canyon Road has expanded their area and wondered If that expansion Is In conformance with setback requirements. Staff commented that the expansion was reviewed under the previous City Code prior to the adoption of the UDC. The previous Code did not have a building setback In a commercial zone; 2) regarding the Bouquet Canyon Trail, Commissioner Cherrington wondered If the Commission was Interested In having It agendized for their discussion next week. The Commission all agreed. The Commission directed staff to agendize a presentation Hem regarding the Bouquet Canyon Trail; and 3) Commissioner Cherrington commented on the packet given to the Commission regarding social responsibility. Commissioner Cherrington asked If staff would be receiving any additional information on the subject and when the topic would be agendized for a Commission meeting. Mr. Henderson stated that staff does not expect to get any additional Information and that the topic would be agendized In the near future. ADJOURNMENT r At 11:46 p.m. Commissioner Doughman motioned, Commissioner Cherrington seconded, and was Passed by a vote of 4-0, to adjourn the meeting to June 1, 1993. ATTEST: Z7 aO� Ly M. Harris, De uty City Manager munity Development . P0000mvAba-law Jack Woodrow, Chairman Planning Commission .a. MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Adjourned Meeting Wednesday May 12, 1993 5:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Clarlta was called to order by Chairman Woodrow at 5:03 p.m. at the proposed Valley Gateway project site located at Remsen Street and Sierra Highway, Santa Clarita, California. ROLL CALL Those present were Chairman Woodrow, Vice-Chalrman Doughman and Commissioners Brathwaite, Cherrington, and Modugno. Also present were Rich Henderson, City Planner; Kay Werle, Oak Tree Consultant; Robert Newman, Associate Engineer; Jeff Chaffin, Assistant Planner; Fred Follstad, Associate Planner; and, Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner. Members of the public and the press were also present. NEW BUSINESS ITEM 1: PRESENTATION AND TOUR OF THE PROPOSED VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT SITE The Commission received a presentation from staff and toured the site. PUBLIC BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR There was no one wishing to speak. ADJOURNMENT At 6:45 p.m. Commissioner Cherrington motioned, Commissioner Brathwalte seconded, and it was carried by a vote of 5-0, to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled meeting of May 18, 1993. I . tl& U X7T, Ww- Jack Woodrow, Chairman Planning Commission ATTEST: Harris, Deputy City Manager 1hy Development p1ngcom\m1nS12.11 Q■ LOCAL SETTING & VICINITY MAP VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT SITE . BOUNDARY BETWEEN .^ CITY OF SANTA CLARITAI.: AND UNINCORPORATED PORTION 'OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY - •^.-.-�. rKWCL I Figure 2 THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TDLANNING CONSORTIUM MASTER CAW NO 07-nll �. HiQ{— — L_ r w 17 1w1A�',rM L__1 • _. r , BLw ! YA LtStC� I - r^ CIVIC:�F CENTER N CLARTTA G .< a OC��P��� -*YON ROAD `.. �QO q VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT SITE . BOUNDARY BETWEEN .^ CITY OF SANTA CLARITAI.: AND UNINCORPORATED PORTION 'OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY - •^.-.-�. rKWCL I Figure 2 THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT TDLANNING CONSORTIUM MASTER CAW NO 07-nll �. Existing City of Santa Clarita Municipal Boundary NORTH / Southern line of Tract / 2703 (MB 26 20-26) Lot 18 t'iti<�e w`a���♦ R,�\����i c��4 \ :. kaz\�=1Y �=a Rt 3 \: Annexation to the � �• • \ � 3 s: ` \ \ Deed recorded 3.18-09 in Book D4310. page 315 All. v Z ft 1 8 N C E ¢ Soufhernly line of the N Mtf the o \ r SE 1/4 of section 13, T3N, R16W, S.B.M. \ Deed recorded 8.24-88 as instrument No.88-1341965 Centerline of Sierra Highway (APN #8727-032-003) (formerly San Fernando Road) County Surveyoes Fled Map No. 11261.1,Sheet 'A1' NOT TO SCALE NOTE: See accompanying legal description PREPARED BY: for additional detail on proposed annexation area Ron KranZer and associates •,rte' tet= 9nFw9R51=i1 VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT: PROPOSED ANNEXATION PLAT MASTER CASE 92-012 — iCC, 11 1 Sp a CIM1 Y J f . i / a o _ 3o. t l�� ; �" < `.n^: a i�)h' ���(; y i .�f� iu n "�� _ \•sem �� i� - - _ , �'-, n rWl— "���`�\\\. \"C � t� _y _•'.�''^+l> �'t i rl��n�� sir ao� � — _ ._._ X � J \ IUbq 0.5 bu Valley Gateway Project TENTATIVETR 51044 QIrP�LW11 City of Santa Clarita, California © Hondo Oil & Gas Company 7t i• {, E .L .��. fnM�lr7777 r! y4y��54 • i M i f Valley Gateway Project City of Santa Clarita, California © Hondo Oil & Gas Company /.0 Acres 0.5 Acres TENTATIVE TRACT _51044 ._.—. essunAcuarc�eW ,�YM e?r�r1 �/.Lrt�. CapMM rrx�` \e PROPOSED ANNEXATION MAP Legend l%] Valley Gateway Project Site Boundary .� Existing City of Santa Clarita Municipal Boundary Proposed Annexation Area Boundary Key to Proposed Annexation Area (1) Hondo Oil & Gas Company (Owner) open space parcel across (west of) Sierra Highway, not part of Valley Gateway Site (5.83 Acres). (2) Hondo Oil & Gas Company (owner) part of Parcel #33 open space area within Valley Gateway Site (Includes portion of Beale's Cut Stagecoach Pass) (27,13 Acres). (3) State of Califomia Department of Transportation -Caltrans (owner) roadway shoulder and right of way between eastern boundary of Valley Gateway Project Site and centerline of Antelope Valley Freeway (14.39 Acres). Note: Total Proposed Annexation Area equals 47.36 Acres, Valley Gateway Project City of Santa Clarita, California L Hondo Oil & Gas Company Prepared by: it \: ENVICOM CORPORATION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. The approval of this project shall expire If not put Into use within two years from the date of conditional approval, unless It is extended in accordance with the terms and provisions of the State of California Subdivision Map -Section 66452.6 and the City's Unified Development Code, or unless It Is modified and extended by the terms and provisions of an approved development agreement. 2. The applicant may file for an extension of the conditionally approved project prior to the date of expiration. If such an extension Is requested, It must be filed no later than 60 days prior to expiration. 3. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying the Department of Community Development, In writing, of any change in ownership, designation of a new engineer, or a change in the status of the developer, within 30 days of said change. 4. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "applicant" shall include the applicant and any other persons, corporation, or other entity making use of this grant. The applicant shall defend, Indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Santa Clarita, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Project by the City, which action Is provided for In Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the City becomes aware of any such claim, action, or proceeding, the City shall promptly notify the applicant, or If the City fails to cooperate fully In the defense, the applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, Indemnify, or hold harmless the City. Nothing contained In this Condition prohibits the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, if both the following occur: 1) The City bears Its own attorneys' fees and costs; and 2) the City defends the action in good faith. The applicant shall not be required to pay or perform any settlement unless the settlement Is approved by the. applicant. 5. Details shown on the Tentative Map are not necessarily approved. Any details which are Inconsistent with requirements of ordinances, general conditions of approval, or City policies must be specifically approved. 6. The Applicant Is hereby advised that this project Is subject to fees at the time of building permit Issuance which may Include, but not limited to, the following as applicable: 1) Los Angeles County Residential Sewer Connection Fee; 2) Interim School Facilities Financing Fee; 3) Installation or Upgrade of Traffic Signals Fees and/or Road Improvement Fees; and, 4) Planned Local Drainage Facilities Fees. 7. At any point In the development process, a stop -work order shall be considered in effect upon the discovery of any historic artifacts and/or remains, at which time the City shall be notified. 8. In lieu of establishing the final specific locations of structures on each lot at this time, the owner, at the time of Issuance of a building permit, agrees to develop the property in conformance with the City Code and other appropriate ordinances such as the Building Code, Plumbing Code, Grading Ordinance, Highway Penult Ordinance, Mechanical Code, Zoning Ordinance, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance, Water Ordinance, Oak Tree Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code, Department of Oil and Gas, South Coast Quality Air Management District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineering, and Fire Code. Improvements and otherrequirements may be Imposed pursuant to such codes and ordinances. 9. The property shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approvals granted by the City. Any.modifications shall be subject to further review by the City: Modifications, Include, but are not limited to, lot consolidations, changes in building locations, and changes in lot configurations. MITIGATION MEASURES (FINAL EIR) Topography and Landform 10. Prior to the Issuance of a Site Development Permit, the Community Development Department shall review the site plans and detailed architectural plans and elevations to Insure full compliance with all standards and guidelines set forth within the City's Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. 11. Priorto the Issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall submit a final grading plan that demonstrates balanced grading for cut and fill, and for remedial grading of contaminated soil. The grading plan shall Include a detailed plan (V= 40') for the large cut slope adjacent to Sierra Highway. The grading detail shall attempt to minimize the height of the cut slope, and maximize the natural appearance of this finger ridgellne. 12. No graded or cut embankment with a slope greater than two feet horizontal to one foot vertical shall be located adjacent to a publicly -maintained right-of-way. Major public roads such as those Identified In the General Plan Circulation Element, may require slopes steeper than 2:1. In such an event, slopes steeper than 2:1 may be allowed, provided that a geotechnical study is prepared verifying the feasibility and gross stability of such slopes. 13. The applicant shall provide suitable guarantees for the perpetual maintenance of all manufactured slopes, irrigation Improvements and landscaping located both Inside and outside the public right-of-way, at no cost to the City until such time that City accepts the open space lots. Where any cut of fill slope exceeds 100 feet In horizontal length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be developed to appear similar to the existing natural contours. 14. The overall shape, height or grade of any cut or fill slope shall be developed to appear similar to the existing natural contours and in scale with the natural terrain of the subject site. 15. Where any cut or fill slopes intersect the natural grade, the intersection of each slope shall be vertically and/or horizontally rounded and blended with the natural contour so as to present a natural slope appearance. This shall be shown on the grading plan. 16. Grading shall be phased so that prompt revegetation or construction will control erosion. Where possible, only those areas which will be immediately developed, resurfaced or landscaped shall be disturbed. 17. No excavation or other earth disturbance shall be permitted on any hillside area prior to the Issuance of a grading permit, with the exception of drill holes and exploratory trenches for the collection of geologic and soil data. These trenches are to be properly backfilled, to City requirements. 18. The.applicant shall provide erosion treatment on slopes Identified in the geotechnical report, per the recommendations of the City. Geologic, Seismicity, and Soils 19. The exposed tilted beds of the Pico Formation In the southern portion of the project site shall be left undisturbed within a parcel designated as permanent open space (this mitigation measure Is already Incorporated Into the proposed project, lot 33). 20. The applicant shall Implement the approved State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region Remedial Action Plan to remediate contaminants from the project site (this mitigation measure Is already Incorporated Into the proposed project). 21. Prior to recordation of a final map, the City Engineer shall approve a final grading plan for the project which complies with and/or contains all the conditions of approval set forth in the Conditional Use Permit and Final EIR for the project. 22. Prior to the approval of a grading plan, the City Engineer shall review and approve a detailed engineering, geotechnical and soil remedlation report, prepared and approved by a registered geologist and/or soils engineer which documents all recommendations, and complies with all related conditions of approval set forth in the Conditional Use Permit and Final EIR for the project. 23. The applicant shall eliminate geologic hazards associated with this proposed development, or delineate a restricted use area approved by the consultant geologist to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the erection of buildings andlor other structures within the restricted use areas. 24. Specific recommendations will be required from the consultant(s) regarding the suitability fordevelopment of all lots/parcels designed essentially as upgraded site lots. The applicant shall file a report with the State Real Estate Commission indicating that additional geologic and/or soils engineering studies may be required for upgraded site lots/parcels by the Geology and Soils Section. 25. Fill -above -cut slopes and fill slopes above natural ground may be constructed provided construction is in accordance with both the Code requirements of the City of Santa Clarita and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. 26. In order to limit the effects of the differential settlement and provide for a uniform bearing surface for support of structures, the cut portion of the cut -fill transition pads shall be overexcavated to sufficient depth and to a sufficient lateral distance as recommended by the project geotechnical consultant. 27. Subdrains shall be placed In accordance with both the applicable Code requirements and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. 28. Oil -wells and water -wells must be abandoned in accordance with the Title 14 of the California Code Regulations set forth by the State Department of Oil and Gas requirements and/or as recommended by the applicant's environmental consultants, and approved by the State. 29. If encountered, cesspools or septic tanks shall be removed as specified by the geotechnlcal consultant, to the satisfaction of the City. 30. Grading shall be performed under the observation and testing of the project soils engineer and the engineering geologist. 31. Precautions shall be taken during the performance of all site clearing, earthwork and grading to protect the work site from flooding, ponding, or inundation by poor or Improper surface drainage. Temporary provisions shall be made at all times to adequately direct surface drainage from all sources away from and off the work site. 32. Prlor to grading, the area within the subject site proposed for development shall be stripped and cleared of all existing debris, vegetation.and other materials as directed by the soils engineer. These materials shall be removed from the site and/or the environmental and geotechnical consultants shall confirm the appropriateness of treated contaminated material for Incorporation Into compacted fill materials. 33. Prior to grading, existing slopes, within the project site, Including the remainder parcel, shall be examined by the engineering geologist and soils engineer to determine stability and proposed remedial measures as necessary. Such remedial actions shall be performed by the applicant. 34. Recent alluvium, all uncertified fill, loose older alluvium and highly weathered bedrock In areas to be graded shall be removed to competent materials, or firm natural ground as determined by the project geotechnical consultant. 35. Cut slopes shall be examined by the engineering geologist as they are excavated so that, If remedial measures are necessary, recommendations can be made expeditiously. Additionally, the keyway excavations for stabilization fills and fill -over -cuts shall be inspected and approved by the project soils engineer and/or engineering geologist prior to any fill placement. 36. All soils and geology mitigation measures must be approved by the City prior to Implementation In the field. Mitigation measures relating directly to site remediation shall be approved by the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region and reviewed by the City, prior to Implementation In the field. 37. Haul routes for construction purposes shall be denoted on the grading plan priorto starting construction. They need not be shown on the approved grading plan. Also, prior approval must be obtained from the City if haul routes are to be placed In areas to be designated as "undisturbed natural:" 38. Priorto placement of compacted fill (after removals, clearing, stripping and overexcavation, etc.) the approved ground surface shall be processed, watered as needed, and compacted to the applicable. code requirements. 39. All fill shall be spread in thin lifts, the moisture content shall be adjusted to optimum or 4 slightly above and the materials compacted to either the minimum Code requirements or per the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant, subject to the approval of the City's Engineer. 40. FIII shall be benched Into firm bedrock or firm alluvium as directed by the geologist and/or soils engineer during grading. Care shall be taken to avoid benching above the proposed finished pad surface. 41. Proposed grading and fill slope construction shall be performed in a manner which will minimize surflclal slumps on compacted fill slopes. 42. Fill shall be tested at the time of placement to ascertain that the required compaction Is achieved. The minimum basis of testing shall be one test per two feet of depth or each 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. At least one-half the required tests shall be made at the location of the final fill slope, except that not more than one such test need be made for each 50 horizontal feet of slope In each two foot vertical lift. 43. Shearstrength parameter and expansive so!] characteristics shall be verlf led during grading. 44. The results of the Inspection and testing of all earthwork shall be presented In a geologic and soils engineering report following the completion of earthwork and grading. 45. All graded slopes shall be designed and constructed In accordance with the City of Santa Clarita Grading Ordinance and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. 46. Interceptor drains (brow ditches) shall be programmed at the top of cut slopes where the superjacent natural slope ascends. This condition may exist in the southerly and westerly portion of the development. These improvements shall be shown on the grading plan, prior to approval. 47. Verification of expansive soli conditions shall be made as final grades are achieved. Footing and slab configuration and reinforcement recommendations shall be provided by the geotechnical consultant at the conclusion of grading operations. 48. Retaining walls and other structures or facilities constructed to retain compacted fill or natural earth materials shall be designed in accordance with Code and structural requirements. , 49. All roof, pad and slope drainage shall be collected and directed away from the proposed structures to approved disposal areas. It is Important that the drainage be directed away from foundations. The recommended drainage patterns shall be established at the time of fine grading and maintained throughout the life of the structure. Pad drainage shall not be allowed to flow over slopes. 50. Wherever utility trenches are excavated parallel or adjacent to footings and located within a distance subtended by a 45 degree angle (1:1 ratio) taken from ground surface at the footings, all utility trenches shall be compacted. Compaction shall be accomplished with a mechanical compaction device. If the backfill soils have dried out, they shall be thoroughly moisture -conditioned prior to placement in trenches. 51. In view of the varied geotechnical conditions on-site, field observations by qualified personnel will be necessary In order to achieve a well engineered and designed development. This Includes continuous observation and periodic testing by field soil technicians and periodic observations by the project geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist (geotechnical consultants) during project construction. 52. To mitigate unavoidable seismic effects to the greatest extent possible, the proposed structures shall be designed as per the Uniform Building Code using the design parameters developed in the geotechnical reports and any additional study that is required to finalize the design parameters. The potential for ground rupture, landslides or liquefaction on the site is considered very low so mitigation measures beyond those described In this section are not required. Hydrology and Flood Control 53. If applicable, the applicant shall provide drainage facilities to remove the flood hazard and dedicate and show necessary easements and/or rights-of-way prior to recordation of the final map. 54. If applicable, the applicant shall place a note of flood hazard on the final map and delineate the areas subject to flood hazard and dedicate to the City the right to restrict the erection of buildings In the flood hazard areas in the final map. 55. If applicable, the applicant shall execute and record a covenant agreement regarding the Issuance of building permits In an area subject to flood hazard if the applicant is allowed to obtain building permits prior to the completion of storm drain construction. 56. The applicant shall show on the final map the City's/Flood Control District's right-of-way for storm drains. A permit will be required for any construction affecting the right-of-way or facilities. 57. The applicant shall show and label all natural drainage courses on lots where a note of flood hazard Is required. 58. The applicant shall adjust, relocate; and/or eliminate lot lines, lots, streets, easements, grading, geotechnical protective devices, and/or physical Improvements to comply with ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the date the City determined the application to be complete to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. 59. Prior to Issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall obtain approval of a final hydrology report which demonstrates that project improvements are not located In a flood hazard area subject toinundation by a 100 -year storm, as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the City of Santa Clarlta. 60. Prior. to Issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall obtain approval of a final storm drainage facilities plan by the City of Santa Clarita. 61. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall obtain a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board, and a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 62. All manufactured slopes on the property shall be landscaped with drought -resistant plant species approved by a licensed landscape architect to minimize the potential for erosion and surficial slumping. 63. Prior to the Issuance of a Grading Permit, the City shall review drainage control plans to ensure that they Include oil and sediment traps for all parking lot drainage areas. 64. Prior to the Issuance of a Grading Permit, the City shall review final grading plans and a hydrology report that demonstrates that project grading will not result In diversions of flows that will significantly Increase flood levels on adjacent properties. Climate and Air Quality 65. The applicant shall use low emission mobile construction equipment where feasible. 66. The applicant shall develop a trip reduction plan to achieve a 1.5 average vehicle ridership (AVR) for construction employees. - 67. The applicant shall water the site per SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements and clean construction equipment in the morning and evening. 68. The applicant shall spread soil binders on site, unpaved roads and parking areas. 69. The applicant shall apply chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturer's specifications to all Inactive construction areas (previously graded areas which remain - inactive for 96 hours). 70. The applicant shall reestablish ground cover on construction site through seeding and watering on portions of the site that will not be disturbed for lengthy periods (such as two months or more). 71. The applicant shall reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces to 15 miles per hour or less during construction periods. 72. The applicant shall suspend grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts. 73. The applicant shall suspend all grading operations when wind speeds (as Instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. 74. The applicant shall maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned. 75. The applicant shall use low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment. 76. The applicant shall provide on-site power sources during the early stages of site development. 77. 'During construction the applicant shall utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators. 78. During construction the applicant shall use low emisslon on-site stationary equipment (e.g., clean fuels). 7 79. The applicant shall configure construction parking to minimize traffic Interference. 1 80. During construction the applicant shall minimize obstruction of through -traffic lanes. 81. The applicant shall provide a flagperson to properly guide traffic and ensure safety at construction sites. 82. The applicant shall schedule construction operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours, where feasible. 83. The applicant shall develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow, Interference from construction activities (the plan may Include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service). 84. The applicant shall provide bicycle lanes, bicycle storage areas, and amenities, and ensure efficient parking managements, consistent with the City's TDM ordinance standards. 85. The applicant shall synchronize traffic signals. The only areas where this measure would be applicable are at the Remsen/Slerra Highway, Clampitt/Sierra Highway and San Fernando/Slerra Highway Intersections. 86. The applicant shall Improve the thermal Integrity of the buildings and reduce the thermal load with automated time clocks or occupant sensors. 87. The applicant shall provide adequate Ingress and egress at all entrances to public facilities to minimize vehicle Idling at curbside. Biotic Resources 88. Nighttime lighting and nighttime activities shall be minimized to lessen nocturnal disturbance. Prior to site plan permit, a lighting plan, reflecting this requirement, shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. 89. To Isolate the east -west portion of the wildlife corridor from development to the north, a earthen berm shall be constructed along the northern boundary of lots 17,18, and 19. The berm shall be at least seven feet in height to screen large mammals. The berm shall be planted with native shrub and ground cover plant species to provide vegetative cover. This vegetation shall be the lowest and northernmost portion of a convex vegetation pattern along this edge of the east -west portion of the corridor. Larger trees and other plant species shall be planted southward from the berm to enhance the presently denuded corridor area with vegetative cover. This area shall also provide a reception area for transplanted coast live oaks removed on other portions of the project site. The applicant shall be required to reflect the above on the "Corridor landscape plan. 90. The applicant shall transplant oak trees within two Identified areas within the wildlife corridor. One area would be the denuded portions of proposed open space lot 32 and the Southern California Edison transmission corridor ground area. A second area would be within the open.space lot 30. 91. To facilitate the safe movement of wildlife between the project site and the property to the west, the applicant shall construct two, l2' diameter undercrossings beneath Sierra Highway connecting open space Lot 32 with the property to the west. No fencing shall be Installed along Sierra Highway adjacent to the undercrossings. Prior to the Issuance of project grading permits, the applicant shall submit plans to the Community Development Department which detail the design and location for the two wildlife corridor undercrossings beneath Sierra Highway. These plans.must correspond to the full range of utility and drainage restrictions presented by the Sierra Highway corridor. The Director of Community Development shall consult a minimum of two terrestrial biologists and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy as to the adequacy of the plans and shall either deny or approve such plans. In all cases, the applicant shall be responsible for all of the costs associated with the consultation of the two terrestrial biologists. 92. Fencing of any type shall be prohibited on or adjacent to these open space parcels to avoid the constriction of wildlife movements on and off-site. 93. All existing asphalt, structures, foundations and other improvements within the lots slated for open space shall be cleared to allow for transplanted oak trees and new native vegetation cover. 94. Night lighting shall be restricted immediately adjacent to the open space corridor lots where possible. If such lighting Is needed or required by the City codes (such as along Remsen Street), the lighting shall be directed away from the corridor/open space lots. 95. "No disturbance" signs that explain the significance of the wildlife corridor/open space lots shall be posted along their perimeter at appropriate locations. This is to avoid daytime disturbance of Wildlife In receptor areas waiting for nightfall from occupants of the future uses on the property. 96. The on-site portion of Newhall Creek which crosses open space lots 28 and 30 shall be cleaned of debris and restored where needed to ensure Its viability as a wildlife movement corridor. The bridge (for Anderson Drive) shall be designed to allow large mammal movement through the stream bed and approved under 1603 and 404 permits. 97. Prior to the Issuance of building permits on lots 17, 18, and 19, the applicant shall be required to submit to the Community Development Department Information demonstrating that the proposed buildings and subsequent uses forthe buildings wilt not negatively affect or disrupt usage of the primary wildlife corridor. The review shall Include information relating to the amount of noise, vibration, light, glare and traffic produced by the building and/or use. The Director of Community Development shall either approve or deny the use I based on said Information. 98. The wildlife reception area just to the west of the Los Pinetos underpass at the southern end of the on-site portion of Newhall Creek shall be revegetated with native riparian species to provide cover for wildlife. The applicant shall be required to submit a native landscape plan for the wildlife corridor (lots 28, 30, 31, and 32) to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the Issuance of project grading permits. This review shall Include review by two terrestrial biologists and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy with subsequent approval by the Director of Community Development. 99. Prior to the Issuance of project grading permits, the applicant shall post a sufficient bond to the City to ensure that the landscape plans approved by the Director of Community Development for all Identified portions of lots 28, 30, 31, and 32 are completed to the specifications of the approved landscape plan. A minimum one third of the performance bond shall be withheld for five years following the completion and approval of the landscape plan for lots 28, 30, 31, and 32. 100. The on-site wildlife movement staging/reception areas within open space lots 28 and 31 shall be enhanced by construction and maintaining water guzzler systems to provide a dependable water source for wildlife. 101. The on-site Improvements discussed above shall be coordinated to the greatest extent possible with the applicants for the proposed development to the west of the project site. With this coordination, which shall Include Input from governmental biological resource ..agencies, the above mitigation measures/conditions may be altered or enhanced as necessary. Unless stated otherwise, the above Identified Biotic Resources conditions shall be Initiated In conjunction with project grading and shall be completed prior to occupancy of the first building. Archaeological, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources 102. To mitigate potential Impacts to undetected archaeological resources within onslte areas that could not be surveyed, a qualified archaeological monitor shall be present during grading activities within these areas. If buried archaeological/cultural resources are encountered during grading, the archaeological monitor shall be empowered to halt grading activities to assessthe significance of the resources and make recommendations as to their disposition at that time. 103. Due to the low (but possible) potential for paleontological resources to be present on-site, grading activities shall be closely monitored for larger fossils. Some of the matrix shall also be screened for smaller fossils. The monitoring does not need to be full-time and shall be conducted on a twenty -percent basis (one day per week). During grading activities, a qualified paleontological field monitor shall work under the supervision of a certified paleontologist. The monitor shall be empowered to halt grading operation if fossils are found to allow the removal of significant specimens. All fossils collected shall be cleaned, prepared, identified and catalogued. All fossils shall be donated to the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History. Traffic and Circulation 104. The applicant's street and grading plans and all construction permitted by such plans shall comply with the requirements of the approved oak tree permit dated June 15, 1993. 105. The applicant shall design Intersections with a tangent section from Intersection to "end of curb return"( ECR). 106. Where applicable, the applicant shall pay fees for signing and striping of street as determined by the City Traffic Engineer or shall prepare signing and striping pians for all multl-lane highways within or abutting the subdivision to be approved by the Engineering Department: 107. The applicant is required to Install distribution lines and individual services lines within, or adjacent to, the street right-of-way for community antenna television service (CATV) for all new development. ' 10 108. The applicant shall place above ground utilities including, but not limited to, fire hydrants, Junction boxes, and street lights outside sidewalks. 109. The applicant shall not grant or record easements within areas proposed to be granted, dedicated, or offered for dedication for public streets or highways, access rights, building restrictions rights, or other easements until after the final map is filed with the County Recorder unless such easements are subordinated to the proposed grant or dedication. If easements are granted after the date of tentative approval, a subordination must be executed. by the easement holder prior to the filing of the final parcel map. 110. The applicant, by agreement with the City Engineer, may guarantee Installation of Improvements as determined by the City Engineer through faithful performance bonds, letters of credit or any other acceptable means. 111. The applicant shall provide a horizontal and vertical alignments to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Traffic Engineer. The applicant shall provide for sight distance along extreme slopes or curves to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 112. The applicant shall design the Intersections of local streets with General Plan Highways to provide adequate sight distance from the local street. Additional right-of-way dedication and/or grading may be required. The applicant shall also design the minimum centerline radius on a local street with a intersecting street on the concave side to comply with design speeds per Department of Public Works "Requirements for Street Plans" and sight distances per the current AASHTO. 113. The applicant shall offer easements needed for street drainage or slopes and agree to construct drainage Improvements prior to the recordation of the final map. 114. No driveways shall be constructed within 25 feet upstream of any catch basins when street grades exceed 6%. Driveways shall be constructed using the APWA alley Intersection design Standard Plan 100.0. Applicant shall obtain approval from the City's Traffic Engineer for the location of all driveways. 115. The applicant shall construct sidewalks per plans approved by the Engineering Department. Sidewalks shall be constructed on the west side of Remsen Street and on both sides of Clampitt Road. Adjustments could be made to the sidewalk locations to eliminate oak tree removals. 1116. The applicant shall repair any broken or damaged curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement on streets within or abutting the subdivision. 117. The applicant shall provide and install street name sighs prior to occupancy of building(s). 118. Whenever there is an offer of Private and Future Rlght-of-Way, the applicant shall provide a Drainage Letter. 119. The applicant shall offer for dedication vehicular access rights to Sierra Highway along the entire property frontage prior to recordation of the final map. 120. The applicant is granted permission for street grades up to 8% on Clampitt and Remsen Street and up to 15% on private cul-de-sac streets as shown on tentative tract map no. 11 51044. At all Intersections of the proposed private drives with public street, a maximum of a 3% landing shall be provided a minimum distance of 200'. from the Intersection. 121. Applicant shall replace existing corrugated metal pipe (CMP) under Sierra Highway or shall line existing CMP with concrete prior to the Issuance of the first certificate of use.and occupancy permit for buildings constructed within the project. 122. Applicant shall construct and landscape medians on Sierra Highway along the property frontage, to the satisfaction of the City. 123. The area Included within the project shall be annexed to an existing landscape district or a new district must be formed to finance the cost of annual maintenance of the median landscape. 124. The proposed private drives shown on the tentative map do not meet public street standards and therefore will not be accepted by the City into the public street system. 125. The applicant shall designate all proposed private drives as "private drive and fire lane" on the final map. The applicant shall place a note on the final map stating that Ingress and egress and public utility easement shall be reserved. 126. The applicant shall provide for pedestrian access on all private drives to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. 127. The private drives shall be constructed to a minimum width (from top of curb to top of curb) to accommodate the required turning movement of the anticipated traffic. 128. Prior to Issuance of a Site Development Permit for each individual lot, the applicant shall obtain approvals of a Specific Circulation Plan. The Plan shall be reviewed and commented on by the City's Fire Department, Police Department, Traffic Engineering, Oak Tree Specialist, and Community Development Department, prior to consideration by the Director of Community Development. This plan shall be evaluated for conformity with the approved project. 129. Prior to final map approval, the applicant shall pay the applicable bridge and thoroughfare fees. The project Is located within the Via Princessa Bridge and Thoroughfare District. Noise 130. Construction hours shall be limited to those days and hours permitted by the City's Noise Ordinance. The current construction hours are lam to 7pm Monday through Friday, Sam to 6pm on Saturday and no operations on Sundays and Holidays. 131. Prior to the Issuance of a building permit for the respective individual buildings, an acoustical report shall be approved by the City of Santa Clarita that demonstrates the Indoor noise levels within the subject structure can be attenuated from outside noises to 50 CNEL or less. Infrastructure, Utilities and Energy Conservation 132.. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant shall file a statement from the water purveyor with the City Engineer that states that the water system will be operated by that 12 purveyor, and that under normal operating conditions, the necessary quantities of the water will be available, the system will meet the requirements for the land division, and that water service will be provided to each lot. The statement shall also verify that there is adequate water storage capacity in the area to meet.all fire flow requirements. 133. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant shall obtain approval from the Fire Department and the City Engineer of a water infrastructure plan that demonstrates all lots will be served with adequately sized water system facilities,- including fire hydrants, of sufficient size to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows required for the land division. Domestic flow requirements shall be determined by the City Engineer or water agency. Fire Flow requirements shall be determined by the Fire Chief. 134. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant shall obtain approval of a final water infrastructure plan by the Newhall County Water District (NCWD). The plan shall Include private funding of the required water facilities to be constructed to the specifications of Newhall County Water District and then dedicated to the District as facilities to be owned, operated and maintained by the District. 135. The water Infrastructure plan shall provide for a supply line and series of storage tanks and booster stations. A separate water line shall be constructed that will allow for the use of reclaimed water for landscape irrigation purposes. Reclaimed water shall be utilized for landscape Irrigation as soon as It is made available by NCWD to the project site. 136. The project applicant shall pay all water connection fees to NCWD per the District's requirements. 137. Water conservation measures required to be Incorporated within the project Include: 1) Low -flush toilets (see Section 17921 of the Health and Safety Code). 2) Low -flow showers and faucets (California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 6, Article 1, T20 -1406F). 3) Insulation of hot water lines In water recirculating systems (California Energy Commission regulations). 138. Prior to the Issuance of a Site Development Permit, the applicant shall accomplish one of the following options: 1) Obtain permission from LADWP to construct structures above, and In close proximity to the aqueduct easement. 2) Obtain permission from LADWP to relocate the aqueduct and easement to the new required alignment of Remsen Street. 3) Redesign the proposed site plan for Lots 24, 25 and 26 to avoid the placement of structures on, or close to the aqueduct system. 1139. Prior to map recordation, the applicant shall obtain approval of a final sanitary sewer Infrastructure plan by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District No. 32 and the City of Santa Clarita. This plan shall Include private funding of the required sewer facilities to be constructed to the specifications of the City of Santa Clarita and then dedicated to the City. 140. The sanitary sewer plan shall provide for an off-site eight Inch or 10 inch sewer line, running south down Sierra Highway from the existing connection point under the Intersection of 13 Sierra Highway and San Fernando Road. A connection line will run along Remsen Street and Clampitt Road, to serve the Individual parcels on site. 141. The project applicant shall pay all sewer connection fees to the Los Angeles County Sanitation District No. 32 per District requirements. 142. The applicant shall Install and dedicate main line sewers and serve each lot with a separate house lateral or have approved and bonded sewer plans on file with the City Engineer. The applicant shall pay ordinance frontage charges before filing this land division map. The applicant shall pay sewer reimbursement charges as determined by the City Engineer or the County of Los Angeles before the recording of this map. 143. The applicant shall send a print of the land division map to the Country Sanitation District, with the request for annexation. Prior to the issuance of a project grading permit, the applicant shall obtain approval of annexation to County Sanitation District No. 32. If applicable, such annexation must be assured in writing. 144. The applicant shall grant easements to the City, appropriate agency or entity for the purpose of Ingress, egress, construction and maintenance of all Infrastructure constructed for this land division to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Easements are tentatively required over private streets, subject to review by the City Engineer to determine the final locations and requirements. 145. All trash shall be stored within enclosed facilities, screened from view from surrounding land uses and from adjacent streets and freeways. 146. A waste management plan shall be required prior to the Issuance of a Site Development Permit to minimize the amount of solid waste generated. This plan shall identify measures which reduce refuse and encourage or facilitate recycling. This may include larger trash enclosures to accommodate recycling containers, or other measures. 147. Project design shall meet State Title 24 requirements to minimize electricity consumption. All electric services and facilities, with the exception of the existing transmission lines within the right-of-way, shall be underground and shall be built in accordance with the Southern California Edison Company's policies and extension rules, as regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Design plans shall show the location of all existing buried and overhead utilities in the vicinity of the project site. 148. Prior to the issuance of a Site Development Permit, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department a detailed analysis of measured electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emanating from Southern California Edison's overhead high-power electrical transmission lines, their underground power substations, and all other sources of electromagnetic radiation. The study shall Identify the exposure levels In relation to the proposed development and focuspotentialadverse biological effects that could result from those levels. The study shall demonstrate exposure levels meet all American National Standards Institute (ANSI) recommendations for safe exposure levels of EMR, prior to the Issuance of a Site Development Penult. 149. Prior to the Issuance of a Grading Penult, an Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from Southern California Edison Company that allows grading on SCE property adjacent to the proposed development area. 14 150. Project design shall meet State Title 24 requirements to minimize natural gas consumption. All natural gas facilities shall be built in accordance with the Southern California Gas Company's policies and extension rules, as regulated by the California PUC and other Federal regulatory agencies. 151. All telephone service and facilities shall be underground; and shall be built In accordance with the Pacific Bell Company's policies and extension rules, as regulated by the California PUC. Public Services. and Facilities 152. The project shall obtain approval of a security plan and lighting plan from the City of Santa Clarita and Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department prior to the Issuance of building permits, to minimize the potential for vandalism and burglary. 153. Prior to the Issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay all fire facilities fees to the satisfaction of the City of Santa Clarita and Los Angeles County Fire District. 154. Prior to Issuance of any building permits, all underground piping for automatic fire extinguisher systemsshall be approved. Plans for an automatic fire extinguishing system shall be approved by the Fire Chief prior to Installation. Such systems shall be operational prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy. 155. Prior to the Issuance of any certificates of use and occupancy, all street(s) having a curb width of less than 36' shall be red -curbed and posted "No Parking - Fire Lane" as per the 1988 Uniform Fire Code Section 10.207 In a manner meeting the approval of the County Fire Chief, orshail be widened to provide 36' of traveiway, curb to curb, within a 48' right-of-way, In a manner meeting the approval of the Community Development Director. 156. Prior to the Issuance of any certificates of use and occupancy,. all fire hydrants shall have a "Blue Reflective Pavement Marker" Indicating its location on the street or drive per Los Angeles County Fire Department standards. 157. The project shall comply with all Uniform Fire Code requirements related to hazardous materials. 158. Prior to the Issuance of the first Site Development Permit, the Santa Clarita Transit Transportation Manager shall approve a Transportation Management Agreement (TMA) for extending public bus transportation to the project site. The TMA shall contain a commitment for extending public transportation services to the project site through one of the following options: a. The owners, and ultimately the project's Transportation Management Authority, shall provide funding to Santa Clarita Transit to acquire one bus and annual funding to support 3,100 hours of additional transit service per year. b. The owners shall enter into a multi-year contract with Santa Clarita Transit for extending public bus transportation service to the project site. c. The owners shall establish private bus shuttle service acceptable to Santa Clarita Transit and the City of Santa Clarita prior to occupancy of the first building. 15 159: Prior to the Issuance of a Site Development Permit, the Santa Clarlta Transit Transportation Manager shall review and approve all circulation plans to ensure project design allows for efficient transit routing and good pedestrian access. The applicant shall also Install local and regional transit Infrastructure (bus stops; benches, turnouts, signage, and shelters) to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 160. Prior to Issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay,the required capital facilities Improvement fee to the Newhall School District and the William S. Hart High School District. Land Use 161. The applicant shall file a map which shall be prepared by or under the direction of a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer. The map shall be processed through the City Engineer prior to being filed with the County Recorder. The applicant shall note all offers of dedication by certificate on the final map. 162. The applicant shall remove existing structures prior to.the approval of the final map. 163. The applicant shall quitclaim or relocate easements running through proposed. structures prior to final map approval. 164. The boundaries of the unit final map shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the Planning Department. 165. The applicant shall show the ownership lines of the proposed lots to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 166. If signatures of record title appear on the map, the applicant shall submit a preliminary guarantee. If said signatures do not appear on the map, a title report/final guarantee is needed showing all fee owners and Interest holders. 167. The applicant shall pay a deposit as required to review documents and plans for final map clearance in accordance with Section 21.36.010(c) of the Subdivision Ordinance. 168. The applicant shall comply with land use standards and development regulations established by the Community Development Department through the Site Development Permit process. 169. Prior to the approval of a Site Development Permit, the Community Development Department shall approve a roof -equipment screening plan that effectively screens all roof -mounted mechanical equipment from adjacent highways and upslope areas. 170. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the property owner shall Irrevocably offer for dedication parcels 31, 32, and 33 of Tentative Tract Map 51044 to the City of Santa Clarita or the City's designee for the preservation of historic, biotic, aesthetic and open spaces resources within the City and area proposed for annexation. The remaining open space lots (27, 28, 29 and 30) shall be maintained as permanent open space under the ownership of the applicant or a property owners association. 171. Prior to the Issuance of a Site Development Permit, the Community Development Department shall approve a preliminary lighting plan which demonstrates that all exterior lighting has been designed to confine direct rays to the premises by including shielded lamp boxes that direct the light toward the ground. 16 ,� sari ,� • /:/ -ar. ,, r),1 ^mac ">_• ���1a,• �` "_� -. t- i. a+c .,.,�.;,., \.C' ..«� 1✓.3i ► .tee.. APPROVED LAND USE PLAN AND MASTER SITE DESIGN PLAN Valley Gateway Project City of Santa Clarita, California © Hondo Oil & Gas Company SUMMARY OF PROJECT CHARAMRiSMS T«xr.,r..e..ilel.to...w..« •ww w.m Nw TpW plenlb A�u 4lNffAp •P%fNR MIw J1owM TaW heHnM M4ltx4ne•W •2N ba0. of wt+0 iRYl�.�wtl One,yu. A,r-NA ow W0. dNW •wrv.unq r�w�•Y�wr•.•n. rN.l wnenw Cm+Aw Ma . aA riw m R a a W ANNEXATION LEGEND Existing City of Santa Clarita Municipal Boundary Proposed Annexation Area (Totaling 47.36 Acres) IV MI, u.. tnAm USE r�rmru'crA�u 61151NE"6PgRR SIRQC,URE9 OCOReURATRHFAQQUARTERS 6TRU ns OACr29 os Anes TENTATIVE TRACT 57044 C"OFSAMACLAM �,�,_...=tee �•�_- wa�.wm.Rwwn� ,anwHwvr ♦•a... Bn , { 2Q A 1; 28., • a 22. 0 " 2�� M 'h'• D ....+'�`'���./ li iii - . •� ' � 'i SUMMARY OF PROJECT CHARAMRiSMS T«xr.,r..e..ilel.to...w..« •ww w.m Nw TpW plenlb A�u 4lNffAp •P%fNR MIw J1owM TaW heHnM M4ltx4ne•W •2N ba0. of wt+0 iRYl�.�wtl One,yu. A,r-NA ow W0. dNW •wrv.unq r�w�•Y�wr•.•n. rN.l wnenw Cm+Aw Ma . aA riw m R a a W ANNEXATION LEGEND Existing City of Santa Clarita Municipal Boundary Proposed Annexation Area (Totaling 47.36 Acres) IV MI, u.. tnAm USE r�rmru'crA�u 61151NE"6PgRR SIRQC,URE9 OCOReURATRHFAQQUARTERS 6TRU ns OACr29 os Anes TENTATIVE TRACT 57044 C"OFSAMACLAM �,�,_...=tee �•�_- wa�.wm.Rwwn� ,anwHwvr 172. All non -security, exterior lighting of buildings and parking lots shall be turned off between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. 173.Prior to the approval of a Site Development Permit, the Community Development Department shall approve a signage plan that meets all adopted signage regulations and development standards set forth in the Unified Development Code. PARKS AND RECREATION 174. The applicant shall provide final landscape and irrigation plans to the satisfaction of the Parks and Recreation Department. Drought resistant plant material and water efficient Irrigation systems should be utilized in the design. 175. The applicant, at the building permit stage for each building, shall recreation are to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Rec picnic tables, benches and trash containers. 176. The applicant shall provide Class II and III bicycle trails throughoi satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation. All public trails using the City's adopted trail standards to the satisfaction of the [ Recreation. The trails shall be constructed In conjunction with the ro: 177. The applicant shall provide bicycle facilities such as bike lockers, rac centers within the project. This shall be completed to. the satisfai Parks and Recreation. TRAFFIC DIVISION Prior to map recordation, the applicant shall complete the following Improvements: 178. Sierra Highway and Pfacerita Canyon Road Add a third northbound and southbound through lane. This will require the restriping of the existing roadway (within existing traffic signal modification, and the establishment of a "No Stopping Zo In the vicinity of Placerlta Canyon Road. 179. Newhall Avenue and Lyons Avenue Add an eastbound right -turn lane. This will require restriping the existing roadway, a minor traffic signal establishment of a "No Stopping Zone" on Newhall Avenue west of L! 180. San Fernando Road and Lyons Avenue Add a second eastbound left -turn lane, and a southbound right -turn a passive, outdoor which may Include the project to the call be constructed actor of Parks and vay Improvements. at major destination n of the Director of Intersection t -of -way), a minor on Sierra Highway Avenue. and the This will require restriping, some median reconstruction, establishing a "No Stopping Zone" on the west leg, also the widening and right-of-way acquisition of the northwest corner, and 17 the establishment of a "No Stopping Zone" on the north leg. The traffic signal at this Intersection shall be modified also. 181. San Fernando Road and Newhall Avenue Convert eastbound through lane to be shared as a through right lane, and provide northbound protected/permitted phasing. This will require restrlping within the existing roadway (right-of-way) on the west leg, and traffic signal modification of this Intersection. 182. San Fernando Road and Pine Street Add a third westbound through lane. This will require restrlping, some road widening within the existing right-of-way, and the establishment of a "No Stopping Zone" along the north side of San Fernando Road. 183. Sierra Highwav and San Fernando Road Add a third northbound through lane, a north, south, and westbound.right-turn lane, a second north and southbound left -turn lane, convert east and westbound through lanes to a shared through left lane (City does not approve of this since It would cause split phasing of the traffic signal which causes delay. This requires an additional second left -turn lane for east and westbound traffic), and add an east and westbound through lane. This will require restrlping, road widening, right-of-way acquisition, and the establishment of a "No Stopping Zone" on all legs. Major traffic signal modification shall be required at this Intersection. 184. State Route 14 (southbound) and San Fernando Road Add a third westbound through lane. This will require restrlping within the existing roadway and right-of-way, and the establishment of a"No Stopping Zone" along the north side of San Fernando Road. 185. Sierra Highway at Interstate 5 Northbound/State Route 14 Northbound On Ramps Add a southbound left turn lane, and a second northbound through lane. This will require restrlping, street widening, right-of-way acquisition, and the establishment of a "No Stopping Zone" on Sierra Highway. A traffic signal shall be required at this Intersection. 186. Sierra Highway and Remsen Full improvement will be required at this Intersection which includes three north and southbound through lanes and southbound left -turn lane and slgnalization. (In addition to the above, the City requires exclusive northbound right -turn also.) 18 187. Sierra Highway and Clampltt Full improvement will be required at this Intersection which Includes three .north and sothbound through lanes and southbound left -turn lane which Includes signalization. (In addition to the above, the City requires exclusive northbound right -turn also.) OAK TREE CONDITIONS 188. During the grading plan design process, the applicant shall analyze potential direct Impacts for each oak tree to determine whether encroachment Into the protected zone can be avoided through redesign, construction of retaining walls or other measures. Also, drainage patterns will be designed to avoid conditions which may create direct impacts. The City Oak Tree Consultant shall review all proposed plans. 189. Oak trees designated for removal shall be evaluated to determine whether relocation Is possible. To the extent possible, trees shall be transplanted to locations which serve to enhance the quality of the designated open space areas, including the wildlife corridors. If there Is an excess of candidates for relocation, oak trees shall be considered for Integration Into site landscaping. A qualified arborist shall be utilized to prepare a transplantation plan, to include detailed specifications for boxing, pruning, pesticide treatment; relocation, transplanting and follow-up maintenance and monitoring. The plan shall be reviewed by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, two terrestrial biologists and City's Oak Tree Consultant prior to final approval of the plan by the Director of Community Development. 190. The value of each oak tree to be removed or relocated shall be established in accordance with the most current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal, by the Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers. Prior to the Issuance of the oak tree permit, the applicant shall deposit a refundable security deposit In an amount equal to the value of the oak trees with the City of Santa Clarita. The City Oak Tree Consultant shall review and approve the value of each oak tree. 191. The applicant shall notify the Department of Community Development in writing within five (5) days of any changes of their oak tree consultant of record. 192. Any work that is approved to be performed within the protected zone of an oak tree shall be performed in the presence of the applicant's oak tree consultant. 193. The .applicant shall provide a forty-eight (48) hour notice to the applicant's oak tree consultant and to the Department of Community Development before beginning any work within the protected zone of an oak tree. 194. Unless otherwise approved by the applicant's oak tree consultant and the Department of Community Development, all work conducted within the protected zone of an oak tree shalt be accomplished with the use of hand tools. The use of tractors, backhoes and other equipment is prohibited. 195. Within ten (10) days of the completion of work, the applicant's oak tree consultant shall submit a certification letter to the Department of Community Development, stating whether or not all work was performed In accordance with this permit and the Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines. 19 196. The City Oak Tree Consultant shall review the proposed landscape plans for the project. No planting or irrigation shall be placed within the protected zone of any oak tree. The area within the protected zone shall be covered with a three (3) inch layer of organic mulch. 197. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit a proposed fencing plan for review by the City Oak Tree Consultant. The plan shall be prepared In accordance with the Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines. 198. Unless otherwise approved, all activities shall be performed in accordance with the Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines. ENGINEERING 199. The proposed annexation shall be completed prior to map approval. 200. The applicant shall Install mailboxes and posts per City standards. Secure approval of U. S. Postal Service prior to Installation. 201. The applicant shall construct full -width sidewalk at all walk returns. 202. The applicant shall dedicate and construct the following required road Improvements: Street R/W Curb & Base & Street Street 510" Name Width Gutter Paving Lights Trees Sidewalk Clampitt/Remsen 84 FT X X X X X Public Cul-de-sacs 66 FT X X X X X. Sierra Highway 104 FT X X X X X Grading, Drainage; and Geology 203. Applicant shall acquire permits from the Army Corps of Engineers and the Fish & Game Department prior to map approval or Issuance of grading permits or the commencement of any work within any natural drainage course. 204. The applicant shall either construct or bond for the required public Improvements prior to recordation of the final map. The improvement plans, shall be approved prior to the approval of the final map. ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONS 205. Prior to map recordation, the applicant shall record a deed restriction on lots 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 dedicating the right to prohibit development of these parcels to the City of Santa Clarita. Furthermore, the applicant shall place a note reflecting this restriction on the final map. Both actions shall be to the satisfaction of the City. 206. Future buildings on lots 1, 2, and 3 shall be restricted to office use only. 207. The number of parking spaces proposed in conjunction with each building within the project are considered to be the minimum number of spaces required. All buildings designated as office shall be parked at a minimum ratio of one parking space per 250 square feet of 20 building area. All buildings designated for light industrial/manufacturing use shall be parked at a minimum ratio of one parking space per 500 square feet of building area. 208. Prior to map recordation the applicant shall provide to the City an Ingress and egress easement for vehicular access on South Gateway Drive to provide pubic access to Beale's Cut. Additionally, the applicant shall provide an unimproved parking area for the public at the terminus of South Gateway Drive. These actions shall be to the satisfaction of the City. 209. This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and the owner of the property Involved have filed with the Director of Community Development their affidavit stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all of the conditions of approval. 210. Prior to occupancy, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program is required to be implemented by the proposed project In an effort to reduce peak hour trips generated by the project, and to reduce air quality Impacts and shall Include the following: a. Carpooling shall be encouraged by providing preferential parking and ride- matching/sharing services. Rldematching shall require an on-site Commuter Transportation Coordinator at a centralized location to oversee, manage, and assist In the attainment of employee participation In this commute alternative. Rlde-sharing services are offered free through the MTA commuter network. Employer Incentives for utilizing Metrolink shall also be required. b. Convenient bike racks, Information klosks with local bus schedules, and subsidized bus passes shall be provided to encourage alternate commute modes. Alternative work schedules may be selectively Implemented to encourage transit ridership and to attract new high -occupancy commuters. C. - In addition to these TDM measures, the South Coast Air Quality Management District sets forth additional measures as a part of their Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), aimed at reducing overall vehicle miles travelled. These measures shall be included in the required Transportation Demand Management Program. 211. The Director of Community Development shall have full design review authority (fighting, building materials, roof equipment, lighting standards) of each building to ensure a project unified development theme and compatibility of the project buildings with surrounding area development In accordance with Goal 3.1 and Policies 3.1 through 3.7 of the Community Design Element of the City's General Plan. 212. The applicant shall fully disclose to all subsequent property owners that an approved conditional use permit exists on the site and that this permit establishes regulations for building height, maximum square footage, and architectural design for each Individual lot within the project. Additionally, the conditional use permit created conditions of approval that relate to the development of each lot. Modifications of these regulations and/or conditions may require the filing of a revised conditional use permit. 213. A mitigation monitioring plan shall be approved and In place prior to recordation of the map. ementme82.012.cun 21 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 PREZONE 92-001 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51044 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92.001 OAK TREE PERMIT 92.002 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SC 92041041 DATE: June 15, 1993 TO: Chairman Woodrow and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Lynn M. Harris, Deputy City Manager, Community Development!% YT[`• CASE PLANNER: Fred.Follstad, Associate Planner Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner II APPLICANT: Valley Gateway Company, a division of Hondo Oil and Gas Company LOCATION: Located between the Antelope Valley Freeway (SR 14) and Sierra Highway, north of Interstate 5 and south of San Fernando Road REQUEST: A prezone to allow for the prezoning of the southern 26 acres of the site from the existing Los Angeles County A-2-1 (Heavy Agriculture -one acre minimum lot size) zoning to City of Santa Clartta RE (Residential Estate), and; A tentative tract map to subdivide the 117 acre site Into 26 Industrial/commercial lots and seven open space lots, and; A conditional use permit to Implement the BP (PD) zoning and to allow for the constructlon of five structures that exceed 35 feet In height, and; An oak tree permit to allow for the removal of up to 245 native Oak trees and encroachment Into the protected zones of approximately 61 oak trees. Review and certification of the EIR prepared for this project. BACKGROUND At the meeting of May 18, 1993, the Planning Commission conceptually approved the above project directing staff to return to the Commission meeting of June 15, 1993, with conditions and a resolution granting final approval of the project. Additionally, the Commission directed staff to obtain a letter from the Sarna Monica Mountains Conservancy (to resolve Issues associated with the wildlife corridors), further analyze the visual Impacts of lots 11 and 12 ( the proposed corporate office buildings adjacent to SierraHighway), and directed the applicant to submit a conceptual pedestrian access plan. The applicant submitted revised Tract Map 51044, reflecting the revisions conceptually approved by the Commission. The revised map reduces the number of light Industrial/commercial lots from 33 to 26, widens the primary wildlife corridor (lots 31 and 32) by an average of 187', reduces oak Agenda Item: tree removals from 348 to 245, Implements option 3 described within the previous staff report (re- designing original lots 19-29, reducing the total number of lots In this area from 11 to five), and provides an acceptable access to lot 9 (formally lot 10) via Snow Drive. ANALYSIS Staff has received a letter from the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (attached), commenting on the project conceptually approved by the Commission. Their comments are specifically related to the wildlife corridors. The letter reaffirms the Conservancy's previous recommendation that the widest primary wildlife corridor option be Implemented Into the project to ensure an adequate exchange of animals between mountain ranges. Their recommendation corresponds to Option 2 within the May 18, 1993, staff report and the Enhanced Corridor Alternative contained within the EIR. The Conservancy letter also states that If final approval of the conceptually approved primary wildlife corridor configuration is granted by the City, additional conditions should be required to compensate for the loss of width to ensure an adequate corridor. Staff has included these recommended requirements within the attached conditions of approval, with the exception of one. This requirement is related to a dedication to the Conservancy of the "not -a -part" parcel of the project, located west of Sierra Highway. This parcel is not proposed for development and Is located within the County of Los Angeles. "The applicant has indicated a willingness to dedicate this parcel to the City or an appropriate agency, but would prefer to complete this action In conjunction wito the approval of a development agreement for the project. Otherwise, the applicant has agreed to the remaining Conservancy recommended requirements. These requirements are intended to maximize the qualitative habitat value of the primary wildlife corridor in Ileu of additional corridor' width to ensure a satisfactory corridor. The applicant has submitted a separate visual analysis, locating conceptual buildings on lots 11 and 12 (directly adjacent to Sierra Highway). The building locations correspond to the footprints shown on the tentative map. The visual analysis prepared by the City's Consultant and included within the environmental Impact report presented a worst case scenario depicting the corporate office buildings In a bright blue color, block forth. Staff believes that the analysis prepared by the applicant further supports the conclusions of the EIR (that the project, including the corporate office buildings would not have a significant visual Impact), as It shows that the Introduction of a concepttial building with typical materials, providing horizontal and vertical setbacks, and landscaping softens the buildings' visual impacts to Sierra Highway and surrounding view areas. The applicant Is also preparing a conceptual pedestrian access plan which will be presented to the Commission at the meeting of June 15, 1993. The plan will show sidewalk locations, bike paths, pedestrian trails, scenic overlooks, and potential passive recreation areas. The Intent of the plan Is to show a cohesive project site with pedestrian access being provided between development areas. Formal approval of the project and certification of the final EIR will require the Planning Commission to adopt a statement of overriding considerations for cumulative air quality and noise. Both significant Impacts are related to the project's effects In conjunction with the cumulative development and are not created by the project Itself. Staff will return at a later date with a mitigation monitoring plan. The mitigation monitoring plan will provide a detailed schedule for Implementation of the mitigation measures and Is required by State.Law. The plan will be prepared by staff for consideration by the Planning Commission. 15 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1) Certify the Final EIR prepared for the project, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations for cumulative noise and air quality Impacts; and, 2) Adopt Resolution P93-18, granting final approval of Master Case 92.012 (as revised and conceptually approved by the Commission) subject to the attached conditions of approval and recommending approval of Pre -Zone 92-001 to the City Council. PM9--510N39a 3 CITY OF SANTA CLARITA STAFF REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 PREZONE 92.001 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 51044 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92.001 OAK TREE PERMIT 92-002 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SC 92041041 DATE: May 18, 1993 TO: Chairman Woodrow and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Lynn M. Harris; Deputy City Manager, Community Development/At CASE PLANNER: Glenn Adamlck, Assistant Planner II Fred Follstad, Associate Planner APPLICANT: . - Valley Gateway Company, a division of Hondo Oil and Gas Company LOCATION: Located between the Antelope Valley Freeway (SR 14) and Sierra Highway, north of Interstate 5 and south of San Fernando Road REQUEST: A prezone to allow for the prezoning of the southern 26 acres of the site from the existing Los Angeles County A-2.1 (Heavy Agrlcutture-one acre minimum lot size) zoning to City of Santa Clarita RE (Residential Estate), and; A tentative tract map to subdivide the 117 acre site Into 33 IndustrlaUcommerclal lots, one multiple residential lot containing 12 multiple family units and six open space lots, and; A conditional use permit to Implement the BP (PD) zoning and to allow for the construction of five structures that exceed 35 feet in height, and; An oak Vee permit to allow for the removal of up to 348 native Oak trees and encroachment Into the protected zones of 61 oak trees. Review and certlfkation of the EIR prepared for this project BACKGROUND The site was previously developed with an oil extraction and refinery faciltty. The Newhall Refinery was constructed on -she In 1928, and began petroleum extraction and refinery operations in 1930. The facility closed its commercial operations In 1989. Most of the buildings associated with the refinery use have been removed. Roadways and pad areas used by the refinery remain mostly Intact. The site contains "Beale's Cut" a registered state historical landmark. Late In 1862, Surveyor - General Edward Beale constructed a 90 -foot cut through a major hillside separating the San Fernando and Santa Clartta Valleys. The cut and road served as a major transportation corridor 2/ Staff Report Master Case 92.012 Page 2 for approximately 50 years. A gas station and motel also occupied a portion of the site near the Intersection of Remsen Street and Sierra Highway and were removed from the site In the 1970's. Hydrocarbon contamination has been detected on -she, specifically In the areas occupied by the Previous refinery operations. A remedial action plan has been prepared and approved by the State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and will be undertaken and completed by the project applicant In conjunction with the grading of the she. Some Initial remediation has already been conducted by the applicant. In summary, contaminated dirt will be treated on-site and utilized for road base. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Valley Gateway project proposes the reuse of a 117 acre site. Approximately 44 acres of the Project site has been previously disturbed by the refinery use. The project proposes to create a total of 40 lots: 29 lots are Intended for business park/Ilght Industrial uses, four are intended for corporate office uses, one lot was originally Intended for multiple family residential (12 units) and six open space lots. Beale's Cut and a regional wildlife corridor are located within the open spa4e parcels. The applicant Is proposing to dedicate the six open space lots to the City of Santa Clarity. The applicant Is proposing to develop the site with a total of 931,650 square feet of business- park/corporate office floor space. This total Includes 575,150 square feet of business park use and 356,500 square feet of corporate headquarters use. Business park uses are generally located In the 33, two to three story structures within the north -central portion of the site. Corporate headquarter uses are proposed to be located on lots 7,12, 13, and 14, In four strictures that range from 3.5 to seven stories (50' to 95' tall). The design of the project concentrates development within the areas disturbed by the previous oil extraction and refinery uses. J The project proposes the dedication of Ciempltt Road and Remsen Street to the City of Santa Clarita. Right-of-way widths for both streets are proposed at 66'. The street sections propose 64' of pavement, with one foot of curb and gutter on both skies of the roadway. This design has no Provisions for sidewalks. All other roadways Included with the project are proposed to be private. Snow Drive, Remsen Drive, Zenith Drive, and York Drive are shown as being 26' In width. Gateway Circle, South Gateway Drive, North Gateway Drive, and Beale's Way are shown as being 36' In light - of -way width. South Gateway Drive (accessing Beale's Cut), Remsen Drive, and Snow Drive have roadway grades of up to 15% These roadways exceed the normal standards for gradient under the City's Unified Development Code. The maximum slope gradient allowed by the Code for public roadways Is 10%, unless a modification is made. The project proposes grading on approximately 64.5 acres of the project site. The total amount of grading Involves approximately 274,000 cubic yards of art and 346,000 cubic yards .of fill. Additional material excavated on-site for the excavation of the subterranean parking and as a part of the remedlation treatment will generate the additional fill dirt necessary to balance the project site. The project proposes a maximum cut slope height of 100' on a finger ridgeline located adjacent to Sierra Highway on lot 3. The maximum depth of proposed fill Is approximately 30' and Is located near the cut slope on lot 2. This material obtained from this finger rldgellne Is necessary to balance grading on the site. Additionally, most of the areas proposed for grading need to be excavated as part of the remediation of the project site. All of the remedlatlon efforts will take place on the site, with the contaminated dirt being treated and then used for road base for the project. 37 Staff Report Master Case 92-012 Page 3 The project proposes the removal of 348 non -heritage size oak trees and the encroachment within the protected zone of 61 additional trees. The site contains a total of 1,114 oak trees. None of the trees located on the site are of the. heritage size. The site also contains an Identified regional wildlife migratory corridor, which connects the San Gabriel Mountains to the Santa Susana Mountains, which in turn provides a link to the Sarna Monica Mountains. This corridor corresponds to the Los Plnetos Underpass and Is one of the few remaining feasible migratory corridors through the Santa Clarita Valley. Wildlife species possibly using the corridor Include: deer, mountain Iron, fox, bobcat, badger, raccoon and skunk. The project proposes the extension of water and sewer service to the project site. The she presently utilizes private sewage disposal In lieu of a public system. The costs associated with the extension of the above services are proposed to be shared with other property owners In the vicinity, as the Improvements will benefit all of the properties In the surrounding area. The applicant, within the application, has Indicated that the area property owners will be establishing a private funding district to provide these Improvements. The site is bisected by a 150' wide transmission right-of-way owned in fee by Southern Celilom Edison Company. Other easements or ownerships that affect the site include the Four Comers OII Pipeline, the Los Angeles Aqueduct, and access easements to propertles east of State Route 14. Buildout of the project will result In the addition of 2,500 jobs In the City, or a 6.4% Increase of the of the existing job base, which will Improve the City's Job/Housing Balance. Additionally, buildout Of the project will resuh to an Increased revenue through property taxation. The property Is located directly across State Route 14 from the proposed Elsmere Canyon landfill. Direct impacts from the Elsmere Canyon landfill on the project and wildlife corridor have not been disclosed as the EIR/EIS being prepared for the landfill Is not completed. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION SURROUNDING LAND USE ZONING The site Is presently zoned BP -PD (Business Park - Planned Development). The following table sets forth Information as It pertains to the project site and surrounding areas, including planning categories, zoning, and land use designations: General Plan Zoning Land Use Project BP BP -PD Abandoned Oil Refinery North CC CCPD Auto Repair South RE A-2.1 Vacant West IC, OS . - IC -PD, OS Vacant East RE A-2.1 Freeway, Vacant ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS As part of the project review, an environmental assessment was made to evaluate the Impacts of the project: It was determined that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, and that an environmental Impact report be prepared. An environmental Impact report was prepared for the project and Identified numerous Impacts associated with the development. The Staff Report Master Case 92-012 Page 4 final environmental Impact report Identifies unavoidable potentially significant Impacts to biotic resources (pgs. 114-118), cumulative air quality (pgs. 88.92), and cumulative noise (pg. 252). INTERDEPARTMENTANTERAGENCY REVIEW The project has been distributed to the affected City Departments and agencies, and the Community Development Department has received recommended requirements and comments. Requirements and comments have been specifically addressed and evaluated. Certain requirements and comments have been Included as mitigation measures to environmental Impacts. Additional requirements not associated with mitigation could be added as conditions of approval for the Project, If the project Is approved. ANALYSIS Approxlmateiy 89.8 acres of the project site Is located within the City and Is zoned BP -PD (Business Park - Planned Development Overlay) by the ctty's Unified Development Code. The remaining 27.13 acres of the project site Is located within the unincorporated area of the County of Los Angeles add Is designated by the City's General Plan as RE (Residential Estate). The site contains numeroas development constraints which are as follows, a significant rldgellne, utility easements and ownership areas, Beale's Cut - a state historic landmark, 1,114 oak trees, a bluellne stream, a regional wildlife migratory corridor, existing graded pads and roadways, and soil contamination. GENERAL PLAN/DEVELOPMENT CODE CONSISTENCY The site Is. designated Business Park and Residential Estate by the City's General Plan. The area being developed with the business parklcorporate office uses corresponds to the area designated by the plan as BP and zoned by the City's Unified Development Code as BP -PD. The remaining Property Is located In the County of Los Angeles and Is designated RE by the City's General Plan and Is proposed to be zoned RE by the City upon annexation. The applicant's original submittal Proposed to develop lot 1 with 12 multiple family attached units. The RE zone Is Intended to for large custom single family homes on lots with a minimum size of two acres. The placing of multiple family units within this zone Is both Inconsistent with the General Plan and does not comply with the City's Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has agreed to eliminate this parcel, combining it with lot 40 and dedicating the entire lot to the City. Approximately 89.8 acres of the project site Is zoned BP -PD. The Planned Development Overlay, as summarized, was created to: facilitate development of certain areas by permitting greater flexibility and consequently, more creative and Imaginative designs; promote more economical and efficient use of land while providing a harmonious variety of choices, higher level of amenities, and preservation of natural and scenic qualities of open space; and, ensure that development substantially conforms to approved plans. The PD overlay also allows the approving authority to modify or delete certain requirements where it can be shown that the alternative achieves a similar purpose. The City's Unified Development Code requires that all streets within a subdivision be constructed to City standards and dedicated to the City. This Is a standard that Is also required with any development In a PD Overlay, unless the alternative achieves a similar purpose. Staff believes that the roadway design proposed Is consistent with the DP zone provided that certain modifications and/or redesigns are required. These are listed below within the Roads Section of the report. Additionally, the environmental Impact report analyzed the consistency of the project with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The EIR found the project to be consistent with 39 Staff Report Master Case 92-012 Page 5 the General Plan'and Zoning Ordinance with the Inclusion of mitigation measures which are listed on page 218 of the EIR. ON-SITE ROADS If conceptual approval of the project Is considered, staff would recommend that the applicant be required to re -design the project to Illustrate the following: 1) Dedicate additional right-of-way on Clampitt Road and Remsen Street to achieve a total right-of-way width of 849. This would be consistent with the City standards for an Industrial collector. 2) Require that a sidewalk be built on the west side of Remsen Street and on both sides of Clampttt Road. Adjustments could be made to the sidewalk locations to eliminate any additional oak tree removals. 3) Designate the remaining streets as private driveways with the understanding that they be maintained by a property owners association. r 4) Direct the applicant to re -design Remsen Drive, taking access from Beale's Way near the southerly property fine of lot 9 and extending to lot 10. Additionally, require the width of this driveway to be a minimum of 36'. This modification results In a driveway which would have a maximum grade of 11%. 5) Increase the . pavement width of Zenith and York Drive to 26' to meet minimum City standards for a commerclallindustrlal aisle width. 6) Designate lots 2, 3, and 4 for office use. South Gateway Drive, which Is the access for these lots, is proposed to be constructed at a width of 36, with a maximum slope of 15%. As proposed, these buildings are Intended to be for business park/Industrial uses. These uses typically need to be accessible to large truck traffic. The City's Unified Development Code requires that 12' by 50' loading spaces be provided for manufacturing buildings exceeding 15,000 square feet. The expected truck traffic could not access these specific; lots due to the grade and street width. In contrast, office space typically does not generate truck traffic and would be required to provide only delivery van loading spaces which would be able to access the lots. The redesign would result In the necessity for additional parking which would reduce the square footage of each building. 7) Pedestrian access to/from all development areas of the site With the above suggested modlficatlonsi staff believes the project would be consistent with the City's General Plan and comply with the requirements of the BP -PD zoning. The applicant Is aware of these modifications and Is willing to redesign the project to Include these. Additional off-site Improvements Identified as mitigation measures to the project Involve the Improvement of eight area Intersections. The applicant has agreed to complete the mitigation as outlined within the EIR. rN Staff Report Master Case. 92-012 Page 6 HILLSIDES AND GRADING The project design attempts to utilize a majority of the previously disturbed areas of the site for development. Grading associated with the project Is necessary to "fill up" lower tying portions of the project site along and south of Clampitt Road. The EIR states that this Is necessary to develop a consistent base for the central portion of the site and bring roadway grades In those areas Into conformance with development standards. The project proposes • to grade and remove approximately two acres of steep, natural slopes adjacent to Sierra Highway. This grading could be justified as It creates additional development pads as well as needed IIII material to balance the project site. The site contains an identified significant ridgellne which is not proposed to be developed. A majority of the northern side of the ridgellne would remain visible If the project were constructed. Visibility of the southern side of the ridgellne would not be affected by the project. This is documented by the Visual Analysis Section of the EIR, specifically on page 229. Pages 56 - 59 of the Environmental Impact Report discuss at length the project's consistency with the Hillside Ordinance. The floor area ratio (FAR) of the project site Is .28:1. This Is below the 1:1 FAR permitted In the EtP zone. The project application was submitted prior to the adoption of the Hillside Ordinance by tfie City Councll. Typically, City policy would exempt this project from the ordinance. In conjunction. with the preparation of the environmental impact report, staff directed the environmental consultants to evaluate the project for Its consistency with the Hillside Ordinance. For purposes of calculating the average cross slope, the site was broken Into ten sub -areas. Open space areas were excluded from the calculation, as were the corporate headquarters lots which have an average cross slope of 65%, below the 10% threshold Identified by the ordinance. The remaining area proposed for Industrial land uses had an average cross slope of approximately 175%. Per the ordinance, a site area with a 17.75 average cross slope would be allowed to develop at a.40:1 floor area ratio. The project FAR of .28:1 Is well below the maximum FAR allowed by the City's Hillside Ordinance. Overall, staff believes the project Is consistent with the Intent of the Hillside Ordinance with the addition of the mitigation measures discussed within the EIR. WILDLIFE CORRIDOR AND OAK TREE HABITAT The project site contains a regionally significant migratory wildlife corridor which provides a corridor for animal movement from -the San Gabriel Mountains to the Santa Susana Mountains and eventually to the Santa Monica Mountains. The EIR states that the project slte.00cuples a strategic geographic .and functional position relative to the natural movement patterns and resultant biological evolution of the regional wildlife community. The EIR Identifies the project site's critical Importance as a wildlife corridor because other corridors In the surrounding area have been substantially degraded by development and other factors. Staff received a comment letter on the project's draft environmental Impact report from the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy during the circulation period of the document. This letter, as well as a letter from the County of Los Angeles, were critical of the adequacy of the corridor proposed with the project. Concerns Included: the proposed corridor width, loss of an oak tree habitat, and the ability of certain animals to use the proposed corridor due to difficult topography. In an attempt to resolve these Issues, staff scheduled a meeting with the Conservency. The County did not participate in these meetings as their concerns mirrored those of the Conservancy. Additionally, / the Conservency is considered the most knowledgeable agency in the area of wildlife corridors. Staff Report Master Case 92.012 Page 7 Participants In attendance at this meeting Included: City staff, the Planning Consortium (the City's Environmental Consultant), a representative from the Conservancy, and the applicant's representative. The meeting resulted In an agreement to add an additional alternative within the EIR. This alternative Is Included within the final EIR and Is designated as .the "Enhanced Wildlife Corridor Development Alternative". Additionally, the Issues brought forth by the Conservancy and County of Los Angeles prompted staff and the City's consultant to reconsider the report's analysis of the corridor. After extensive review of these comments, staff and the City's Consultant re -stated the project's Impact to the corridor and oak trees as an unavoidable significant Impact that could not be reduced to a level less than significant. Potential mitigation of the biotic resources Impacts then were Included to re -design the project to reflect the "Enhanced Corridor Alternative", which Is Identified within the EIR as the environmentally superior alternative. The applicant cited a concern with the economic feasibility of this alternative, wishing to present an alternative that proposed re -design of the building areas adjacent to the corridor. This resulted In a development proposal that was considered "acceptable" by all parties, though the Conservancy strongly prefers the "Enhanced Corridor Alternative". For purposes of comparison, staff Is Providing a matrix and will summarize the three development alternatives as follows: OPTION 1 This Is the project submitted to the City with the addition of the recommended requirements cited In the ROADS SECTION Of the staff report and the elimination of lot 1. This project proposes to develop the site with a total of 931,650 square feet of business park/corporate office floor space. The primary wildlife corridor (lots 38 and 39) would remain as proposed at an average width of 310 linear feeL The secondary corridor would correspond to lot 36, with the applicant rehabilitating the blueilne stream within lots 19 and 29 to encourage the use of lot 36 as a secondary corridor. The project would remove a total of 348 non•herttage size oak trees (31% of the trees on-site) with an ISA value of approximately 1.4 million dollars. This project would require the City to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the biotic resources impacts, specifically related to the wildlife corridor and oak tree habitat. Staff has significant concerns with this option, and specifically with the number of oak trees proposed for removal and adequacy of the wildlife corridor. The EIR reconfirms these concerns. Additional concerns include the roadway pattern accessing lots 19 through 29 as well as the possible encroachment within and the altering of the blueilne stream located on-site. Ia MATRIX Options Comparison Oak Tree Commercial Primary/Corridor SOC/Biotic Removals. Lots Average Wldth Resources OPTION 1348 33 310' Yes OPTION 2 298 29 560' No OPTION 3 245 27 497' Probably Not OPTION 1 This Is the project submitted to the City with the addition of the recommended requirements cited In the ROADS SECTION Of the staff report and the elimination of lot 1. This project proposes to develop the site with a total of 931,650 square feet of business park/corporate office floor space. The primary wildlife corridor (lots 38 and 39) would remain as proposed at an average width of 310 linear feeL The secondary corridor would correspond to lot 36, with the applicant rehabilitating the blueilne stream within lots 19 and 29 to encourage the use of lot 36 as a secondary corridor. The project would remove a total of 348 non•herttage size oak trees (31% of the trees on-site) with an ISA value of approximately 1.4 million dollars. This project would require the City to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the biotic resources impacts, specifically related to the wildlife corridor and oak tree habitat. Staff has significant concerns with this option, and specifically with the number of oak trees proposed for removal and adequacy of the wildlife corridor. The EIR reconfirms these concerns. Additional concerns include the roadway pattern accessing lots 19 through 29 as well as the possible encroachment within and the altering of the blueilne stream located on-site. Ia Staff Report Master Case 92-012 Page 8 OPTION 2 This option Is described In detail on pages 240.243 and Is the environmentally superior alternative. The "Enhanced Wildlife Corridor Development Alternative". in summary, retains the function of the on-site wildlife corridor, offers coordinated Interaction with off-site portions of the corridor, and avoids Impacts to southern coast oak woodland habitat within the previously affected corridor area. This attemative .eliminates lots 19, 20, 21, and 29 from the project, combining them with the contiguous open space lots to create a wider primary and secondary wildlife corridor. Figure 48 on page 243 of the EIR depicts this alternative. Additionally, development on lot 28 would be limited on the southern portion of the lot. Additional mitigation related to the enhancement of the corridor, the transplanting of oak trees, and lighting restrictions are Included within the alternative. This option would result In the elimination of 50 oak tree removals, reducing the total number of oak tree removals to 298. The average primary corridor width would Increase by approximately 250'. Additionally, the Conservancy cited a concern with the original primary corridor's unfavorable topography, as It was too steep to be used by certain animals. The additional land provided for the corridor by this option Is relatively flat and would eliminate the topographical concerns associated with the original design. The option would reduce the number of Industrial lots proposed wlth[A the area between lots 36 and 38 from 11 to 7. The total number of buildings and correspondind square footage In this portion of the project site would be reduced from 11 to seven buildings and from 153,750 to 86,750 square feet. The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy strongly encourages the Implementation of this alternative Into the project, because it resolves a majority of the Conservancy's Issues with the development. Staff believes this alternative Is superior to the original design and if Implemented would not require the City to adopt a statement of overriding considerations In the area of blotic resources. OPTION 3 In response to the Conservancy's and staff's concerns with the original project, the applicant Is proposing a re -design of the area containing lots 19-29, by reducing the number of lots from 11 to five. A colored plan Illustrating this option Is Included within the Commission packet. This option would result in a significant modification to the original design. A total of five buildings would be placed within the area. The buildings would contain approximately 116,000 square feet of total floor area. This option would Increase the average width of the primary wildlife corridor by approximately 187'. The option's proposed secondary corridor would be substantially consistent with the secondary corridor recommended by option 2 (as a majority of lots 19, 26, and 29 are eliminated). Option 3 would include a modifled roadway which would be a cul-de-sac, 36' In width. This design is preferred by staff to the original loop design because it eliminates concerns associated with the street being able to successfully accommodate the anticipated Indusrlal traffic. This option also results In the further reduction of oak tree removals from 348 to 245. This number represents a reduction of 53 removals from option 2, which Is designated as the environmentally superior alternative. Staff prefers this option as it provides the Conservancy with a majority of the corridor required by option 2 (less an average width of 63') and reduces the number of oak tree removals a total of 103 from the original project and 53 from option 2. The applicant has also Indicated that this option is feasible whereas option 2 Is not because It proposes a roadway configuration which is not preferred by City staff. In recommending this option, staff believes the q3 preservation of the additional 53 trees outweighs the Increased width of the wildlife corridor. The Staff Report Master Case 92-012 Page 9 applicant has also agreed to implement all of the additional mitigation measures outlined within the "Enhanced Wildlife Corridor Alternative'. The Conservancy has reviewed the applicant's proposal and finds It to be satisfactory, though they strongly prefer the additional corridor width provided by option 2 ("Enhanced Wildlife Corridor Development Altemative). LAND DEDICATIONS In conjunction with project approval, the applicant Is proposing to dedicate all of the open space lots to the City of Santa Clarha or its designee. The Parks and Recreation Department has reviewed this request and recommends that the City accept lot 40 (with the addition of lot 1) which contains Beale's Cut, a state historical landmark. The Clry would retain the parcel as an open space lot, with some minimal improvements (trails, and visitor center) expected In the future. Dedication of this area to the City would result In the City assuming maintenance and liability responsibilities. These details would be worked out In the recordation phase of the project with the City possibly establishing a district to assume these responsibilities. The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy has Informed staff that the agency would accept dedication of the Primary Corridor to ensure its preservation In perpetuity. The remaining okn space lots would remain under the property owner's ownership with a deed restriction placed on the lots prohibiting future development of the parcels. This restriction would also be placed on the primary wildlife corridor lots to provide additional assurances guaranteeing that the land would never be developed. Additionally, the project would provide bike trails and pedestrian access within the project site. VISUAL The project proposes to develop four lots (7,12,13, and 14) with mid -rise corporate office buildings. The buildings would range In height from 5o to 95' (3.5 to seven stories). The remaining buildings would be two story structures (30' high), excepting one building which will be three stories (45' high). The EIR Includes an Aesthetics and View Analysis Section (pga 223 - 232) which analyzes the visual Impacts of the proposed project. Included within this section is a computer-aided visual analysis that creates a photo simulation of the building masses on photographs of the project site. Buildings are shown In blue and represent a worst case (building mass) scenario. The EIR concluded that the visual Impacts caused by the project and specifically the mld•rise buildings, could be reduced to a level less than significant with the application of mitigation measures: These measures would Include the City establishing conditions related to building material requirements, sign restrictions, and screening and landscaping requirements. Additionally, the EIR stated that the Intervening ridgellnes located on the project site would limit the views of the project to the Immediate area, and there would be no visibility from the lower areas of Newhall. The project, Including the mid -rise structures, would be visible from SR 14 and Sierra Highway. This could be softened through the application of the mitigation measures described In the EIR. Staff also believes the project Is similar to the Valencia Corporate Center, both In design and proximity to the freeway, and as In the case of the Corporate Center will be viewed as an attractive asset to the City of Santa Clarlta. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The project Includes the submittal of a development agreement application. The Planning Commission and City Council have approved a resolution establishing guidelines for review of U� Staff Report Master Case 92-012 Page 10 development agreements. The resolution requires that the development agreement request be considered at a later date, following the project approval. Staff recommends that the.Commisslon remove this application from the project, with the understanding that it will be considered at a later date if the project is approved. Due to the benefits and complexity of this project, the Commission may wish to consider whether to gram a conceptual time frame for the agreement, without formally approving an agreement. The applicant is proposing a 12 year term for the development agreement. The Development Agreement Resolution requires that a development agreement not exceed a maximum term of seven years, unless substantial community benefit Is obtained. The Commission may find that the dedication of open space, the provision of a wildlife corridor, and the significant extension of water and sewer service to the area as being of substantial benefit to the City and therefore worthy of a time frame beyond the seven years. The applicant is also willing to be conditioned to reserve a parcel for a hotel use. Staff believes a business park proposal of this size should have lodging facilities. This hotel use would also be of benefit to the City, which currently has a shortage of hotel facilities.' RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: Z. 1) Conceptually approve project option 3, continuing the Rem to the June 15, 1993 Commission meeting. 2) Direct the applicant to submit a final proposal reflecting the approval. 3) Direct staff to return with a resolution and final conditions of approval, with -the understanding that the environmental Impact report will be certified in conjunction with the project approval. wwe«nws,aam 7O +urW—a»� a��vc rrcu•I TO 18052598125 P.02 STATe OF CALIFORNIA—TMe RESOURCES AGENCY I'm WILSON. Go", ' SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY OLSTICE CANYON PARR 3700 SOLSTICE CANTON ROAD+► MAURU. CA 90263 (310) 06.50" PAX (310) ua1042 - June 8; 1993 f►!4 Planning Commission City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Re: Valley Gateway/Hondo Oil Commercial Project Dear Members of the Commission: The Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy staff remains concerned about the longterm viability of the wildlife corridor approved in concept for the above -referenced project on May 18, 1993. As configured, and presumably enhanced, under the current set of conditions, the wildlife corridor cannot ensure an adequate exchange of animals between mountain ranges. All of our concerns relate to the width, and the proposed level of enhancement, of the primary (southern) branch of the wildlife corridor. The configuration of the secondary, or more northern, corridor is acceptable per the plan approved in concept. In regards to this secondary corridor, we urge the City to provide for an adequate, longterm connection on the opposing side of Sierra Highway, otherwise its critical contribution would be lost. The basic limits of development for the "Functional Wildlife Corridor Development Alternative" in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) would, however, ensure a functional primary wildlife corridor. Because this FEIR alternative simply chopped off a portion of the original project, and involved no reconfiguration of buildings to avoid oak trees, it should be noted that marry additional oak trees could be saved. We recommend that the City approve this alternative or any plan which includes a wider corridor than that which has been approved in concept. If the Commission chooses to approve the wildlife corridor configuration already approved in concept on May 18, 1993, our staff urges the incorporation of the following modifications to the conditions of approval. These additional conditions serve to maximize the qualitative habitat value of the proposed wildlife corridor to compensate for the absence of the approximately 100 feet of extra width needed to ensure an adequate corridor. 1. The berm to be constructed along the northern boundary of lots 17, 18 and 19 shall be a minimum of seven feet tall (no. 90). 2. The Valley Gateway developer should be responsible for the construction and completion of both the minimum 12 -foot diameter wildlife crossings under Sierra Highway prior to 31 AN -06-1993 19.4[ rK)M TO . 18052598125 P.03 Santa Clarity Planning Commission Valley Gateway Project June 8, 1993 - Page 2 . project occupancy (no. 92). If either of these two crossing can be expanded in dimension, they should be. 3. Prior to the issuance of grading permits. the developer shall submit plans to the Community Development Department which detail the design and location for two wildlife undercrossings beneath Sierra Highway. Thcse plans must correspond to the full range of utility and drainage restrictions presented by the Sierra Highway corridor. The Director of the department shall consult a minimum of two terrestrial biologists and the Santa. Monica Mountains Conservancy as to the adequacy of the plans and shall either deny or approve them (no. 92). 4. Condition number 98 should require the submission and approval of building designs. which minimize adverse impacts to wildlife, prior to the issuance of building permits (prior to occupancy is coo late). 1 S. The developer should be required to submit a native plant landscape plan for the wildlife corridor [lots 28,30,31 and 321 to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. This review should include both two tetnstriai biologists and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy with subsequent approval by the Director. The current conditions of approval do not specifically address the undetstory and shrub cover needs of (a) the proposed wildlife corridor, (b) Newhall Creek, (c) the northern berm or (d) the "wildlife reception area" just west of the Los Pintos undenz sing. The wording for all existing conditions regarding planting and landscape enhancement are too vague to implement (including condition no. 99). Plans, corresponding performance standards, monitoring methods and schedules, and performance bonds should all be in writing with the City prior to the issuance of permits. 6. Prior the issuance of any permits, the developer should post an adequate bond to ensure that the landscape plan(s) approved by the Director for all identified portions of lou 28,30,31 and 32 shall be completed to the specifications of the plan. A minimum of one third of the performance bond amount should be withheld for a minimum period of five years which would begin following of the whole landscape plan for lots 28,30,31 and 32.. 7. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the developer should submit a comprehensive oak tree relocation and planting plan to .the Community Development Department. This plan should be reviewed by a minimum of two terrestrial biologists and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy with subsequent approval by the Director. The City should also 301 �uv-ao-177..) 17•`.� rrtU'� lu 16052598125 P.04 Santa Clarita Planning Commission Valley Gateway Project June 8, 1993 Page 3 require corresponding performance standards, monitoring methods and schedules, and performance bonds for this oak ase relocation and planting plan. S. The. conditions of approval should requite the applicant or developer to provide an irrevocable offer to dedicate open. space lou 31 and 32 to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (or designee). It is probable that such an offer would be refused by the Conservancy pending the completion of mitigation measure implementation or the provision of adequate funding for the Conservancy to implement the mitigation. 9. The conditions of approval should require the applicant or developer. to provide an Irrevocable offer to dedicate to the City or the Conservancy (or designee) the "not a part" portion of the tentative tract map shown at the southwest comer of the site on the opposing side of Sierra Highway. This small piece of property is important to the ecological function of the overall habitat area between Highways 5 and 14. Now i a critical time for the City to obtain this land. Our staff appreciates your consideration of these comments. If we can answer any questions please contact me at (310) 456-7807 ext. 121. Sincerely, Paul Edelman Conservancy Project Analyst Staff Ecologist cc: Honorable Mike Antonovich, Supervisor CDPG, L.A. County Unit Biologist SCOPE Siena Club, Santa Clarita Valley Group Santa Susana Mountains Park Association Envicom Corporation. Dave Armancti 33 SCOPE Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the Environment 'O pQOMOtE. PQOTECT ANO aaESEavE 'HE ENVIRONMENT ECOLOGY ANO OUAL:rY OF LIFE N THE SANTA CLARITA VALLEY POST OFFICE BOX 1'82. CANYON COUNTRY, Ca 9135 City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission 23920 West Valencia Boulevard Santa Clarita, California 91355 Ref: Tentative Tract 51044 (Hondo Oil Company) Honorable Commissioners: 28701 West Sloan Canyon Road Castaic. California 91384-2557 24 May 1993 RECEIVEo JUIN i 1993 CoM,.�... .. ,. CITY LF 5:.:' : ; _:%'„ The enclosed testimony expands on the oral testimony which we presented for our organization at your meeting of' 18 May 1993. We trust it will be useful in understanding our position and in formulating conditions of approval for this project SCOPE generally is in favor of the project, but feels that project modifications and conditions of approval - t in three areas will enhance the design. These areas are the design provisions for wildlife corridors, project actions in anticipation of the proposed Elsmere Canyon landfill, and other miscellaneous design enhancements. With regard to the wildlife corridor, we note that this project presents a rare opportunity to reptan an old industrial area in a manner which competently manages wildlife migration. At the same time, the City has an increased responsibility and obligation to address wildlife concerns because of the increasing encroachment which development has imposed on wildlife in the Santa Clarita Valley and throughout the entire Southern California region. Wildlife corridor chokepoints are of particular concern, and the site in question represents a particularly important and valuable wildlife migration path between the San Gabriel and Santa Susana mountains. Because of the importance of this corridor, we M the planning agencies should err on the side of caution in making provisions for wildlife on the project site. We recognize that designing for wildlife movement is not an exact science in which, for example, every foot of corridor width can accommodate 500 animals/bour. The design guidelines are much more inexact and subject to argument and interpretation However, then; would be less adverse impact on the natural environment if more than ample provisions for wildlife are made in the approvals at this time, with potential easing of these requirements at a later date, than would be the case if a greater amount of Cuban use is permitted today, only to subsequently find at some time in the future that the wildlife corridor provisions are inadequate in practice. One important design feature for wildlife- movement which we would like to see emphasized is the provision for redundancy and flexibility in managing wildlife movement through the subject property and onto adjoining properties. If multiple paths are available, the overall utilization of the corridor will likely be greater, and there is some capacity to accommodate unforeseen changes on this or adjoining properties. Within the project site. our principal recommendation is that the project provide mon; parking structures in lieu of parking lots and/or the City accept other means to decrease the footprint of the packing lots, with the recovered space dedicated to improving the wildlife corridors. We note that the site features a cluster Concept. which would support the concept of a few centralized parking structures. Our greatest concern is with the parking in proposed Lot 11 and the impacts of this lot on movement to the South end of the site. 'here could be similar improvements for the corridor width through Lots 19.26 and 29. M1 We feel there should be provisions for corridor undercrossings on Clampitt Road, to minimize road kill. In a similar vein we feel there should be speed humps on Remsea near the Los Pintos underorossing and a stop sign for Remsen at Los Pintos, even if such is not indicated by traffic warrants. These provisions would reduce the chance of road kill in these areas. At the site boundaries, we feel that several crossings under Sierra Highway are better than one, again to maximize wildlife movement offroad. With regard to Elsmere Canyon, we are of the opinion that this project plays a minor strategic role in the potential use of Elsmere as a landfill site, simply because a portion of the site property may need to be acquired as an accessway to Elsmere. Given this potential dependency and the City's demonstrated resistance to the Elsmere landfill, we think it would be only prudent for the City - and not some other agency - to take dedications of all open spaces on the project site, at least until the Elsmere issue is resolved. Once Elsmere is settled, it could thea be appropriate for the City to transfer open space rights to some other agency, such as the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. We also suggest the City should include language in the Conditions of Approval, written in a legally - defendable manner, which would give the City control over any improvements arti/or changes on the site, without adversely affecting the approval for the proposed project concept. We realize that this may be adversely affected by the provisoes for Vesting Tract rights within the Subdivision Code, but feel that some attention to this matter may be useful in assembling a pre-emptive defense against Elsmere. Frilly, with regard to miscellaneous design issues, we recommend that the impacts of this project on freeway circulation on Highway 14 be addressed, as would only be proper in assessing circulation impacts from a project of this magnitude. We recommend that a bikeway/walkway be designed into the project as - a Class I off-street trail network. This could integrate well with provisions for centralized parldng.-t Finally, to munimivisual and biotic impacts we recommend that building lighting in the project be r minimired, especially after 10 p.m. S' ly, chael A Kotch President 3S FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VALLEY GATEWAY PROTECT Valley Gateway Company, a subsidiary of Z Hondo Oil & Gas Company City of Santa Clarita, California' I7LANNING` CONSORTIUM uwu. cenvmauw�T�usrvnrts - II ' Draft EIR Circulation Period: February 5, 1993 to March 22, 1993 Applicant: VALLEY GATEWAY COMPANY (HONDO OIL & GAS COMPANY) Post Office Box 2208 Roswell, New Mexico 88201 Contact Person: David J. Armanetti, Envicom Corporation May, 1993 II FINAL ' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ON CITY OF SANTA CLARITA THE VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 92041041 Applicant: VALLEY GATEWAY COMPANY (HONDO OIL & GAS COMPANY) Post Office Box 2208 Roswell, New Mexico 88201 Contact Person: David J. Armanetti, Envicom Corporation May, 1993 II Prepared For: ' CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 ' Santa Clarita, California 91355 Contact Person: Jeff Cham (805) 255-4330 ' Prepared By: THE PLANNING CONSORTIUM 1111 Town and Country Road, Suite 37 1 Orange, California 92668 Contact Person: W. Dean Brown r (714) 569-0616 Applicant: VALLEY GATEWAY COMPANY (HONDO OIL & GAS COMPANY) Post Office Box 2208 Roswell, New Mexico 88201 Contact Person: David J. Armanetti, Envicom Corporation May, 1993 II II ' CITY OF SANTA CLARITA EIR ON MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS eSection EM 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Authority and Procedures I 1 1.2 Agencies and Organizations Expected to Use this EIR 1 1.3 Contents of the Technical Appendix 3 I' 2.0 SUMMARY ' 2.1 Project Location 2.2 Jurisdiction 5 5 2.3 Land Use Designations 5 2.4 Land Use History 8 ' 2.5 Project Development Objectives 8 2.6 Initial Study of Identification of Potential Environmental Effects 10 ' 2.7 Summary of Adverse Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance after Mitigation 12 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1 3.1 Natural Environmental Setting 45 3.2 Man -Made Environmental Setting 47 3.3 Project Site Setting 49 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT: EXISTING CONDITIONS, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1 Topography and Landform 51 ' 4.2 Geology, Seismicity and Soils 61 4.3 Hydrology and Flood Control 78 4.4 Climate and Air Quality 81 ' 4.5 Biotic Resources 97 4.6 Archaeological, Cultural and Paleontological Resources 125 ' 4.7 Traffic and Circulation 4.8 Noise 131 172 4.9 Infrastructure, Utilities and Energy Conservation 184 4.10 Public Services and Facilities 194 4.11 Land Use - General Plan, Zoning and Other Ordinances 199 4.12 Aesthetics and View Analysis 223 _ 4.13 Light and Glare 223 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS cont. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT b) Remedial Action Plan 5.1 No Project 235 d) 5.2 Code Compliance 235 Oak Tree Study 5.3 Business Park 236 g) 5.4 Higher Intensity Corporate Office 237 Noise Analysis 5.5 Office Cluster 237 5.6 Regional Retail Outlet Center 238 5.7 Enhanced Wildlife Corridor Development 240 6.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 6.1 Potential Development within the City of Santa Clarita 245 6.2 Potential Development within the County of Los Angeles 248 6.3 Potential Significant Impacts 251 7.0 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 252 8.0 GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS 253 9.0 SHORT-TERM USE VS. LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 254 10.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS 255 11.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 256 12.0 QUALIFICATIONS OF THE PERSONS PREPARING THE EIR 258 13.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 259 14.0 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST, NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION 261 15.0 NOTICE OF COMPLETION, COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR CONTENTS OF THE TECHNICAL APPENDIX The separate Technical Appendix document is available for review at the Santa Clarita City Hall, Community Development Department 28592 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 a) Geotechnical Study b) Remedial Action Plan c) Traffic Study d) Biotic Study e) Oak Tree Study f) Archaeological Study g) Paleontological Study h) Noise Analysis i) Air Quality Analysis iii LIST OF FIGURES Page 1. Regional Location Map 6 2. Local Setting Vicinity Map 7 3. Proposed Site Plan and Tentative Tract Map 9 4. Elevations in Project Vicinity 53 5. Project Site Topography 54 6. Site Slope Conditions 55 7. Cross Slope Analysis 57 S. Geologic Map 63 9. Project Site Vegetation Communities 99 10. Oak Tree Locations 101 11. Potential Wildlife Migration Corridors 111 12. Project Site Access and Circulation 133 13. Existing AM Peak Hour Counts 134 14. Existing PM Peak Hour Counts 135 15. Existing Lane Configuration 136 16. Existing Plus Ambient AM Peak Hour Volumes 138 17. Existing Plus Ambient PM Peak Hour Volumes 139 18. Cumulative Projects Locations 141 19. Cumulative Project -Generated AM Peak Hour Trips 143 20. Cumulative Project -Generated PM Peak Hour Trips 144 21. Existing -Plus -Ambient -Plus -Cumulative AM Peak Hour Volumes 145 22. Existing -Plus -Ambient -Plus -Cumulative PM Peak Hour Volumes 146 23. Project Trip Generation 149 24. Project -Generated AM Peak Hour Trips 150 25. Project -Generated PM Peak Hour Trips 151 26. Existing -Plus -Ambient -Plus -Project AM Peak Hour Volumes 153 27. Existing -Plus -Ambient -Plus -Project PM Peak Hour Volumes 154 28. Existing -Plus -Ambient -Plus -Cumulative -Plus -Project AM Peak Hour Volumes 155 29. Existing -Plus -Ambient -Plus -Cumulative -Plus -Project PM Peak Hour Volumes 156 30. Remsen Street Peak Hour Signal Warrant 158 31. Clampitt Road Peak Hour Signal Warrant 158 32. Proposed Street Standards - Valley Gateway Project 160 33. Municipal Code Street Standards - City of Santa Clarita 160 34. Required Land Improvements 164 35. Examples of Typical Sound Levels 173 36. Typical Outdoor Noise Levels 175 37. Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines - City of Santa Clarita 176 38. Construction Equipment Noise 179 39. On -Site CNEL Noise Contours 182 40. Project Site Magnetic Radiation Characteristics 188 41. Santa Clarita General Plan Land Use 201 42. Surrounding Land Use 207 iv LIST OF FIGURES (continued) Number Page 43. Development Suitability 217 44. Project Site Visibility 225 45. Computer Visualization Analysis, Views 1, 2 and 3 228 46. Computer Visualization Analysis, Views 4, 5, 6 and 7 229 47. Computer Visualization Analysis, Views 8 and 9 230 48. Enhanced Wildlife Corridor Development Alternative 243 49. Location of Potential Cumulative Development within the City of Santa Clari47 225 50. Location of Potential Cumulative Development within the County of Los Angel50 228 LIST OF TABLES Number Page 1. Slope Classification Summary 56 2. Historic Earthquake Epicenters 68 3. Maximum Probable Earthquake and Peak Ground Acceleration 69 4. Air Quality Levels Measured at the Santa Clarita Ambient Air Monitoring Station 85 5. Remediation/Construction Grading Emissions 88 6. Vehicular Emissions 88 7. Natural Gas Consumption Emissions 89 S. Electrical Usage Emissions 89 9. Comparison of Total Emissions 90 10.' Carbon Monoxide Generated from Future Traffic (Year 2000) 91 11. Sensitive Biotic Species 110 12.. Existing Intersection Capacity Utilization Summary 137 13. Existing -Plus -Ambient ICU Summary 140 14. Cumulative Projects Trip Generation Summary 142 15. Existing -Plus -Ambient -Plus -Cumulative ICU Summary 147 16. Project Trip Generation Summary 148 17. Existing -Plus -Ambient -Plus -Project ICU Summary 152 18. Existing -Plus -Ambient -Plus -Cumulative -Plus -Project ICU Summary 157 19. Signal Warrant Analysis Summary 159 20. Required Intersection Improvements 163 21. Mitigated ICU Summary 165 22. Existing -Plus -Ambient -Plus -Cumulative -Plus -Project with Improvements ICU Summary 170 23. Existing Noise Levels (dBA) 177 24. Increased Noise Levels (dBA) 180 25. Future Noise Levels (dBA) 181 26. Fire Protection Services 194 27. Summary of Cumulative Development within the City of Santa Clarita 246 28. Summary of Cumulative Development within the County of Los Angeles 249 v CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ' EIR 91-012 VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 AUTHORITY AND PROCEDURES ' This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ("CEQA") and the "Guidelines for the ' Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act" (State CEQA Guidelines), as amended to date. ' The determination that the City of Santa Clarita is the "Lead Agency" is made in accordance with Section 15065 (b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, which states "If the project is to be carried out by a non-governmental person, the Lead Agency shall be the public agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole." The City of Santa Clarita has determined that it is the public agency with the greatest responsibility related to the development of the project site. The City of Santa Clarita, in accordance with Section 15081, 15082 (a) and (b) and 15161 (b) (5) of the State CEQA Guidelines; completed an Initial Study March 11, 1992 which determined that the currently proposed project may have a significant effect on certain ' aspects of the environment. The City of Santa Clarita therefore determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be required to document the actual environmental effects of the proposed project and to examine possible measures to mitigate identified adverse and/or _significant impacts to a less than significant level. The Notice of Preparation for this EIR was issued on April 8, 1992 by the Lead Agency. An advertised public scoping meeting was held at Santa Clarita City Hall on July 16, 1992 to solicit ' public input into the initial preparation of this environmental documentation. Responsible agencies, other affected agencies, organizations and persons who may have an interest in this project were contacted during the preparation of this EIR. Information, data and observations from these contacts have been included and considered in the EIR preparation process. Agencies and interested persons have had an opportunity to comment during the 45 -day Draft EIR review period and during the public hearing process. Written comments received by the City of Santa Clarita on the Draft EIR, together with written responses to those comments have been included in the Final EIR, in accordance with State 1 CEQA Guidelines. 1.2 AGENCIES EXPECTED TO USE THIS EIR ' The following public agencies will utilize this EIR in their decision-making process on the project: ' a) City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission - The Planning Commission will -utilize this EIR to formulate their recommendation to the City Council on the proposed project, which involves an annexation application, a zone change, conditional use permit, tentative tract map, oak tree permit, and development agreement. b) C) City Council - The City Council will utilize this EIR to formulate their final action on the proposed project, which includes the development agreement, the annexation application, the subdivision of the property, the zone change and the conditional use permit. Community Development Department - The City's Community Development Department will utilize this EIR for consideration of the proposed project's conditions of approval to ensure that the proposed project mitigates potential significant adverse environmental impacts to the greatest extent feasible, and to monitor compliance with the mitigation measures and conditions of approval set forth in this EIR, if the project is approved. The Engineering Department will utilize this EIR for consideration of the proposed project's drainage improvements, access and circulation improvements and the extension of utilities to serve the project, if the project is approved. State of California CalTrans- CalTrans will utilize this EIR for their evaluation of the project's impact to the regional State highway system, and more specifically, to State Route 14 (Antelope Valley Freeway), and the freeway interchanges close to the project site. Department of Fish and Game - DFG will utilize this EIR to evaluate the project's potential impact to biotic resources, and their consideration and decision on the issuance of a Streambed Alteration Permit required by Section 1603 of the State Code. California Integrated Waste Management Board - CIWMB will focus on solid waste generation and disposal, and ways to maximize recycling, and to minimize the amount of solid waste being sent to landfills. California Department of Conservation Division of Oil and Gas - The State's Conservation Department, Division of Oil and Gas is the responsible agency to ensure compliance with Section 3208.1 of the Public Resources Code, related to the abandonment of oil and gas wells. State Regional Water Quality Control Board - The RWQCB will utilize this EIR to evaluate project impacts and ensure compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements for storm runoff. The RWQCB is also the responsible agency who has reviewed and approved the remedial action plan necessary to mitigate hydrocarbon contamination that exists from the previous oil extraction and refinery operations. Federal Agencies U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - This federal agency will utilize this EIR to evaluate the project's potential to impact biotic resources listed.by the federal government as rare, endangered or threatened species. U.S. Army Cors of Engineers - The Army Corps of Engineers will utilize this EIR as background information for their consideration and decision on the issuance of a "Section 404 Permit" required by the Federal Clean Water Act. d) Regional Agencies Southern California Association of Governments - SCAG will utilize this EIR in assisting the City of Santa Clarita's evaluation of project consistency with regional plans, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), the Regional Mobility Plan (RMP), the Growth Management Plan (GMP), and Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), all of which are a part of the overall State Implementation Plan (SIP). e) County of Los Angeles Local Agency Formation Commission - LAFCO will utilize this EIR for their consideration of the applicant's and the City of Santa Clarita's request to annex a portion of the project site from unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita. County of Los Angeles Fire Department -The County Fire Department will utilize this EIR to evaluate the project's impacts on fire protection and paramedic services, and the potential need for additional manpower and equipment. County Department of Public Works - The Department of Public Works will utilize this EIR to evaluate the project's traffic and circulation impacts on County roadways and intersections, and on waste management services and facilities operated by the County. County Sanitation District -The Los Angeles County Sanitation District will utilize this EIR to evaluate project impacts on their sewer system and treatment plant facilities, and on solid waste facilities. f) City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. City of Los Angeles - The City's Department of Water and Power will utilize this EIR to evaluate the project's potential impacts on DWP water infrastructure that currently exists within the project site. g) Other Public Agencies Newhall County Water District -The Newhall County Water District will utilize this EIR to evaluate the project's request to annex into the boundaries of the water district, and to evaluate project impacts on the district's ability to provide domestic water service to the project. Newhall School District - The Newhall School District will utilize this EIR to evaluate the project's impact on district facilities and school developer fees. 1.3 CONTENTS OF THE TECHNICAL APPENDIX This EIR incorporates or references information from a number of site specific technical studies related to the property and the proposed project. The following studies and documents have been used in the preparation of this EIR and are included in the Technical Appendix: Background and Existing Condition Report, Valley Gateway Project, Envicom Corp., February, 1991. Interim Conceptual Development Plan Report, Valley Gateway Project, Envicom Corp., May, 1992. Tentative Tract Map No. 51044, Valley Gateway Project, VTN West Engineers, January, 15, 1992. Development Agreement Application (with proposed agreement), Valley Gateway Company (Hondo Oil and Gas Co.), January 15, 1992. Petition for Change of Zone, Valley Gateway Company (Hondo Oil and Gas Co.), January 15, 1992. Annexation Supplement Application, Valley Gateway Company (Hondo Oil and Gas Co.), January 15, 1992. Application for Oak Tree Permit, Valley Gateway Company, Envicom Corporation, January 15, 1992. Environmental Questionnaire (Initial Study Form A), Valley Gateway Project Development Plan, Hondo Oil and Gas Co., Envicom Corp., January 15, 1992. Title Report, Chicago Title Company, December 7, 1991. Fault Investigation Studies and Geologic Mapping for.the Valley Gateway Project, Kenneth Wilson Engineering and Environmental Geology, August, 1991. Phase I Archaeological Investigation of the Proposed Valley Gateway Project, McKenna et. al., Jeannette A. McKenna, Author and Principal Investigator, January 30, 1991. Preliminary Oak Tree Report, Valley Gateway , Lee Newman & Associates, Inc., January 9, 1991. Valley Gateway Traffic Study, Kunzman Associates, December, 1991. Remedial Action Plan, Valley Gateway Project, Santa Clarita, CA., Mittelhauser Corp., August, 1992. Newhall Refinery Site Assessment, Volumes Nos. 1 and 2, EMCON Associates, October, 1990. Preliminary Site Assessment: Newhall Refinery North 40 Parcel and Additional Hydrocarbon Characterization: Lower Tank Farm, Dump and Sump, Newhall Refinery, Newhall, California, EMCON Associates, July, 1991. Air Quality Assessment for the Valley Gateway Development, Mestre Greve Associates, April 26,1993. Noise Assessment for the Valley Gateway Project, Mestre Greve Associates, November 23, 1993. Valley Gateway Traffic Analysis, Austin Foust Associates, January 4, 1993. These documents remain available for review by the. public at the Santa Clarita City Hall, Community Development, located at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, during normal business hours. 4 2.0 SUMMARY 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION The City of Santa Clarita is located in the north/central portion of Los Angeles County, approximately 35 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles (Figure 1). The Valley Gateway project site is generally located in the southeastern corner of Santa Clarita, within the Newhall portion of the City (Figure 2). The project site is located 0.5 miles north of the Interstate 5 (Golden State Freeway) and State Route 14 (Antelope Valley Freeway) interchange. These are regional and subregional transportation routes that connect Southern California to surrounding metropolitan areas to the south, north, and east. The site is located approximately three miles southeast of the Santa Clarita Civic Center area and the City's major commercial corridors. The 116.9 acre Valley Gateway property is generally bounded by the Antelope Valley Freeway to the east, San Fernando Road to .the north, Sierra Highway to.the west, and the 115 and SR14 interchange to the south. Much of the property adjacent to and surrounding the project site is currently vacant, but proposed for potential future development. ' 2.2 JURISDICTION The northern, 95 acres of the project site are located within the incorporated boundary of ' the City of Santa Clarita. The remaining 26 acres occupying the southern portion of the site are located in unincorporated Los Angeles County. ' The City of Santa Clarita is a relatively new municipality which officially incorporated as a General Law City on December 15, 1987. The land area within the City's municipal boundary totals approximately 27,000 acres, or 42 square miles. The portion of the project ' site located within the City Boundary equals approximately 0.005 percent of the City's overall land area. ' 2.3 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS The newly adopted Santa Clarita General Plan designates the northern portion of the project ' site (94.5 acres) as Business Park (BP) District. This land use designation allows for a varied mix of industrial and commercial uses. The City's Zoning Code has the same overall land use designation and requirements as the General Plan, with additional detail related to density, design and development standards/regulations. The unincorporated, Los Angeles County portion of the project site (26.2 acres) is under the jurisdiction of the updated 1990 Santa Clarita Valley Areawide Plan. This County plan sets forth two different land use designations for this portion of the property. A 6.5 acre, triangular shaped portion is designated "M", Industry, allowing light, medium and heavy industrial uses with supporting commercial uses. The remaining 19.7 acres is designated "HM", Hillside Management, because of the steep, rugged terrain located on this portion of the project site. This land use designation allows up to one dwelling unit for every two acres of gross land area. The City of Santa Clarita General Plan includes this unincorporated County area within its planning area, and designates this portion of the project site as RE, Residential Estate. 11 VENTURA COUNTY SANTA MONK REGIONAL LOCATION LANCASTER PALMDALE VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT SITE PASADENA O z 0 2 G w m z a U) ORANGE COUNTY cww SO 100 13.0 erNftOm CORPORMUM VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT Figure 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PLANNING MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 CONM SORTIU uw nrrmc cxwoa¢vru snorts 6 VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT SITE BOUNDARY BETWEEN /N CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AND UNINCORPORATED PORTION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT Figure 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MASTER CARR. NO 91-00 r^� PRTILANNIN G"' CONSOUM vo n.wao . vrv.amv,.u..u.., LOCAL SETTING & VICINITY MAP VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT SITE BOUNDARY BETWEEN /N CITY OF SANTA CLARITA AND UNINCORPORATED PORTION OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT Figure 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MASTER CARR. NO 91-00 r^� PRTILANNIN G"' CONSOUM vo n.wao . vrv.amv,.u..u.., 2.4 2.5 LAND USE HISTORY Because of the site's strategic location as the low point between the San Fernando and Santa Clarita Valleys and because of the need for direct wagon traffic between Los Angles, Fort Tejon and San Francisco beyond, a crude road known.as the Fremont, or San Fernando Pass, was constructed in the mid -1850's. The Butterfield Overland Mail Service began to use the pass in 1855, while stagecoach service began in 1861. The initial wagon trail involved crude cuts through high rock out-croppings and narrow gorges. Flooding in 1862 washed out the trail and closed the pass. Late in 1862, Surveyor -General Edward Fitzgerald Beale undertook the construction of a 90 -foot cut through the last major hillside/obstacle, which became known as "Beale's Cut." The cut and road served as the primary means of transit through the area, operating as a toll road for close to 50 years, until it was bypassed by completion of the Newhall Tunnel in 1910. The Newhall Refinery (contained within the project site) was constructed in 1928, and began petroleum extraction and refinery operations in 1930. These operations, peaking at a maximum refining capacity of approximately 19,000 barrels per day, continued on site for almost sixty years, until the facility closed its commercial operations in 1989. Products produced and stored on the refinery site included leaded and unleaded gasoline, kerosene, naphtha, jet fuel, diesel fuel, gas oil, low sulfur oil, road oil and related asphalt products. A gas station and motel was once located at the intersection of Remsen Street and Sierra Highway. After the completion of the Antelope Valley Freeway in the 1960s, these businesses failed because of the reduced traffic on Sierra Highway. They were removed by the property owner in the early 1970s. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES The property owner, Hondo Oil & Gas Company has filed applications with the City of Santa Clarita and other responsible agencies to obtain approval of a Comprehensive Development Plan for re -use of the approximate 117 acre project site. The Valley Gateway Project incudes the removal and clean up of the remaining oil extraction facilities located on the property, and the development of 931,650 square feet of business park/corporate headquarters, and 16,500 square feet (12 units) of multi -family residential land use. This incudes 575,150 square feet of industrial business park use, and 356,500 square feet of corporate headquarters use. Business park uses are generally located in thirty-two (32), two-story structures within the north -central portion of the site. Corporate headquarters uses are located in four (4) structures that range from 3.5 up to 7 stories tall (95 feet), close to the intersection of Sierra Highway and Clampitt Road. Figure 3 shows the proposed site plan and tentative tract map. The project also contains 52.4 acres of common open space and natural areas that.preserve 45% of the entire site. Open space areas are located in 8 lots and include the rugged, southern portion of the property, as well as other hillside property, allowing for up to 705 of the site's 1,114 native coast live oak trees to be left undisturbed (63 percent). Sixty-one (61) oak trees will experience dripline encroachment, resulting in a total of 766 oak trees possibly being preserved on site (69 percent). The general design scheme preserves the predominant natural landform features of the property, and concentrates development primarily within areas disturbed by the previous oil 8 FIE to ua V'! Np.f '. WICANTv . jY ,rr n arm e, Z� SIIHiSB.'IYM6 YGl51W.M w II VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT 'ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MASTER CASE NO.. 92-012 PROPOSED SITE PLAN & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP w VACANT NM VACANT Figure 3 yNp UAP m VMANT 9 PLANNING CONSORTIUM ..+•� $IERfiA W{li�iy ktl.iC �L»T ..a.y T.. +..��_ ------- — and Yp1en b e.rayN 31 L.I N.+w.Ea.E,tsrwE ��IEuaaaer �'� CC UTANT 26 Y MCAW ANiE�pQE 1.o noes 0.5 Acres TENTATIVE TRACT 51044 C" Or sacro CWlffA REVISIONS a y�� v^�„•"�y�a ,�VYIYaO.Yxvfq. 'G EnNm�uGxpentlen YlNWW�k 9 PLANNING CONSORTIUM 2.6 extraction and refinery uses. The plan proposes to retain the existing circulation system, Clampitt Road and Remsen Street, and improve the existing intersections with Sierra Highway. Substandard width interior roadways and steeper than normal grades are primarily being proposed to minimize impacts on the site's oak tree resource. The proposed grading concept balances cut and fill, and requires no off-site import or export of graded material. Proposed disturbed, graded area avoid a large portion of the site's steep hillsides and biologically sensitive areas. A significant portion of the grading is necessary to repair or remediate prior grading activities and to achieve the soil remediation necessary to clean-up the hydrocarbon contamination that resulted from the previous oil extraction and refinery use. The development will improve the City's jobs/housing balance by creating approximately 2,500 jobs, and will help achieve General Plan Goal and Polices aimed at generating additional employment opportunities within the boundaries of the city. A total of ten separate preliminary discretionary applications or actions related to the proposed Valley Gateway Project Development Plan are currently approved, pending or will be pending before the City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles, or State of California. The ten discretionary application request approvals of the following: 1) Subdivision Application for a Tentative Tract Map (City of Santa Clarita) 2) Development Agreement Application (City of Santa Clarita) 3) Conditional Use Permit Application (City of Santa Clarita) 4) Annexation Application (City of Santa Clarita/Local Agency Formation Commission) 5) Petition for Change of Zone [for purpose of Annexation Prezone] (City of Santa Clarita) 6) Oak Tree Permit Application [Removal and Encroachment] (City of Santa Clarita) 7) Environmental Review [Environmental Impact Report] (City of Santa Clarita) 8) Sewer District Annexation Application (County of Los Angeles Sanitation District) 9) Historic Landmark Registration Application (State Historical Resources Commission) 10) Remedial Action Plan Approval (Regional Water Quality Control Board) The Historical Landmark Registration application and the Remedial Action Plan have recently been approved by the responsible State agencies. INITIAL STUDY IDENTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The City of Santa Clarita prepared an Initial Study for the proposed Valley Gateway project 10 II ' on March 11, 1992. This preliminary environmental assessment determined that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, and required the preparation of this Environmental Impact Report. The Initial Study identifies whether the project will result in environmental effects for the following categories: 1. Earth 11. Population 2. Air 12. Housing ' 3. Water 13. Transportation/Circulation 4. Plant Life 14. Public Service 5. Animal Life 15. Energy ' 6. Noise 16. Utilities 7. Light and Glare 17. Human Health ' 8. Land Use 18. Aesthetics 9. Natural Resources 19. Recreation 10. Risk of Upset/Man-Made Hazards 20. Cultural Resources Please refer to Section 14.0 of this EIR for the Initial Study Checklist and Discussion of Impacts prepared pursuant to Section 15060 of the CEQA Guidelines. 11 I I II II II " 2.7 Toyic/Tssu SUMMARY OF IMPACTS, MITIGATION MEASURES AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION 1. Topography and 4ndform Mitigation Measures Level of Significance The project's conceptual grading plan a) Floor to the issuance of a Site Development Leu than significant impacts 64.5 acres (55%) of the 116.9 Permit, the Community Development Department with mitigation acre site, and includes grading for the shall review site plans and detailed architectural measures business park (44.0 acres), for the plans and elevations to insure full compliance with corporate offices p.8 sons), for the all standards and guidelines set forth within the multi -family residential (2.4 acres), and City's Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside for streets and roadways (10.4 acres). DevelopmentOfdinanco. 43.9 acres of this area has-been graded and disturbed by the previous oil b) Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, the extraction and refinery uses, and by the project shall submit a final grading plan that roadway improvements for Remsen Street demonstrates balanced grading for cut and fill, and Clampitt Road (68%). and for temedial grading of contaminated wil. The grading plan shall also include a detailed plan The total amount of project grading (1' - 407 for the large cut slope adjacent to involves approximately 274,000 cubic Siem Highway. The grading detail shall attempt yards of cul and 346,000 cubic yards of to minimize the height of the cut slope, and fill. Additional material excavated on-site v,xIn%Izc the natural appearance of this finger as a part of the remediation treatment of ridgeline. the hydrocarbon contaminated wil left by the oil refinery use will generate the c) No graded or cut embankment with a slope additional fill necessary to balance grading greater than two feet horizontal to one foot with the project site, without the need for vertical shall be located adjacent to a publicly - imported material. maintained rightof way. Major public roads such as those identified in the General Plan Circulation Proposed grading is concentrated in the Element, may require slope* steeper then 2:1. In central portion of the site, primarily in the such an event, slope* steeper than 2:1 may be area most disturbed by the previous allowed, provided that a geotechnical study is petroleum related uses, and within the prepared verifying the feasibility and gross flatter portions of the northern part of the stability of such slopes. site. d) The applicant shall provide suitable guaranteesfor Project grading proposes a maximum cut the perpetual maintenance of all slopes, irrigation slope height of close to 100 feet on a improvements and landscaping located both inside finger ridgeline located adjacent to Siem and outside the public right-of-way, at no cost to Highway, just south of Clampitt Road. the City. The maximum depth of proposed fill is approximately 30 feet, located close to the e) The overall shape, height or grade of any cut or large cut area, along Clampitt Road. fill slope shall be developed to appear similar to the existing natural contours in wale with the The vast majority of the proposed grading natural terrain of the subject site. is necessary to fill the lower -lying areas of the site along and south of the Clampirt f) When any cut or fill slope* intersect the natural Road right-of-way. This is necessary to grade, the intersection of each slope shall be develop a consistent base for the central vertically and/orhorizonWly rounded and blended portion of the site and bring roadway with the natural contour so as to present a natural grades proposed in those anal of the slope appearance. project site into conformance with existing engineering and construction standard*. g) Where any cut or fill slope exceeds 100 feet in horizontal length, the horizontal contours of the The material necessary to 'fill up- this dope shall be developed to appear similar to the lower lying arca of the site is being existing natural contours. obtained through the grading of i hillside portion of the site immediately west of the h) Grading shall be balanced on site to avoid "fill' area and due southeast of the excessive cut and fill and to avoid import or intersection of.Clampin Road and Siem export. Highway. This portion of the site had experienced previous grading -activities i) Grading shall be phased so that prompt related to the construction of the existing revegetation or construction will control erosion. 12 II Torictissu II II Mitigation Measures When possible, only those areas which will be immediately developed, resurfaced or landwsped shall be disturbed. J) No excavation or other earth disturbance shall be permitted on any hillside area prior to the issuance of a grading permit, with the exception of drill holes and exploratory trenches for the collection of geologic and soil data. These trenches arc to be properly backfilled, to City requirements. k) Erosion treatment shall be provided where slopes exceed 20%. 1) The project's proposed floor -to -ams ratio it 0.27. This is approximately 68% of the maximum gross square footage allowed band on the City's Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance, avenge cross slope analysis. Geologic Formation Mitigation a) The exposed tilted beds of the Pico Formation in the southern portion of the project site shall be left undisturbed within a parcel designated as permanent open space (this mitigation measure is already incorporated into the proposed project). Soil Mitigation a) The applicant shall implement the approved soil mmediation plan to remove hydrocarbons and other contaminants from the project site (this mitigation measure is already incorporated into the proposed project). 13 Levet of Significance Less than significant with mitigation measures fire reservoir on the site and the construction of Siem Highway. The average crow slope of the auras i' proposed for corporate office use is 6.5 %, and is exempt from the calculation for density allowance. The avenge ores slope of the area proposed for business ' park land uses equals 173%, which t would be allowed to be developed to 40% of the 'ban' maximum allotted industrial ' floor -to -area ratio (presently met at 1.00 under the City of Santa Clarity General Plan and accompanying Zoning Code). The area proposed for residential use is a previously graded water well injection pad ' that is currently Oat. Translated to re0ect the Valley Gateway Project property, this requirement ' generates a maximum allowed business park floor -to -area ratio of 0.40, or 860,920 gross square feet for the 49.41 acres within the site proposed for industrial development. The Valley Gateway Project, as proposed, incudes a total of 575,150 gross square feet of industrial development on the 49.41 acres ' of land area (2,152,300 square feet), yielding a proposed floor -to -am ratio of 0.27. II II Mitigation Measures When possible, only those areas which will be immediately developed, resurfaced or landwsped shall be disturbed. J) No excavation or other earth disturbance shall be permitted on any hillside area prior to the issuance of a grading permit, with the exception of drill holes and exploratory trenches for the collection of geologic and soil data. These trenches arc to be properly backfilled, to City requirements. k) Erosion treatment shall be provided where slopes exceed 20%. 1) The project's proposed floor -to -ams ratio it 0.27. This is approximately 68% of the maximum gross square footage allowed band on the City's Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance, avenge cross slope analysis. Geologic Formation Mitigation a) The exposed tilted beds of the Pico Formation in the southern portion of the project site shall be left undisturbed within a parcel designated as permanent open space (this mitigation measure is already incorporated into the proposed project). Soil Mitigation a) The applicant shall implement the approved soil mmediation plan to remove hydrocarbons and other contaminants from the project site (this mitigation measure is already incorporated into the proposed project). 13 Levet of Significance Less than significant with mitigation measures 2. Geology, Seismicity and Soils Ground Motion: Although no major historical epicenters an known within the immediate vicinity of the property, the proximity of several active faults indicates the likelihood that the site may at soma time be subjected to at least moderate ' ground motion. Ground Rupture: Ground rupture u a result of fault activity of the afore- ' mentioned faults is not expected within the limits of the proposed development. Liquefaction: Liquefaction occurs when dynamic loading or a saturated send or milt causes pore -water pressures to increase to levels where grain -to -grain contacts are ' lost and the material temporarily behaves as a viscous fluid. This phenomena should post no stability problems in the bedrock that underlies the proposed development. ' II II Mitigation Measures When possible, only those areas which will be immediately developed, resurfaced or landwsped shall be disturbed. J) No excavation or other earth disturbance shall be permitted on any hillside area prior to the issuance of a grading permit, with the exception of drill holes and exploratory trenches for the collection of geologic and soil data. These trenches arc to be properly backfilled, to City requirements. k) Erosion treatment shall be provided where slopes exceed 20%. 1) The project's proposed floor -to -ams ratio it 0.27. This is approximately 68% of the maximum gross square footage allowed band on the City's Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance, avenge cross slope analysis. Geologic Formation Mitigation a) The exposed tilted beds of the Pico Formation in the southern portion of the project site shall be left undisturbed within a parcel designated as permanent open space (this mitigation measure is already incorporated into the proposed project). Soil Mitigation a) The applicant shall implement the approved soil mmediation plan to remove hydrocarbons and other contaminants from the project site (this mitigation measure is already incorporated into the proposed project). 13 Levet of Significance Less than significant with mitigation measures Level of Tooic/lssue Mitigation Measures Significance Geotechnical Considerations General Geotechnical Considerations a. Surficial materials observed on-site consist a) Prior to the recordation of the final map, the City of older alluvium, alluvium, alopewash, Engineer shall approve a final grading plan for the soil and fill. Surficial materials including project which complies with acrd/or contains all loose recent alluvium and older alluvium, conditions of approval tet forth in the Conditional fill, dumped fill and rubble fill are Use Permit and Final EM for the project. generally poor quality and not suitable for support of structures or compacted fill. b) Prior to the approval of a foul grading plan, the City Engineer shall review and approve a detailed b. Bedding structure within the Pico engineering, geotechnical and soil remediation Formation is poorly developed or report, prepared and approved by a registered obscured by gradational contacts, cross- geologist and/or soils engineer which documents bedding and weathering. When all recommendations, and complies with all discernible within the project area, the related conditions of approval act forth within the bedding structure strikes northwest to Conditional Use Permit and Final EIR for the southeast and is inclined westerly at project. shallow to moderate angles (14 to 35 dagreea). This prevailing structure e) The applicant shall eliminate all geologic hanrda imparts favorable bedding conditions to associated with this proposed development, or easterly and northerly -lacing cut slopes delineate a restricted use area approved by the which may expose bedrock (cut slopes consultant geologist to the satisfaction of the City along the westerly and southerly site Engineer and dedicate to the City the right to limits). Conversely, westerly facing cut prohibit the erection of buildings or other slopes will most likely require Mobilization structures within the restricted use areas. with designed buttress fills. d) Specific recommendations will be required from c. Building pads exposing both compacted the consuhant(s) regarding the suitability for fill and bedrock at the finished pad grade development . of all IoWparcels designed possess the potential for differential essentially as upgraded site Iota. The applicant settlement. shall file a report with the State Real Estate Commissioner indicating that additional geologic and/or soils engineering studies may be required for upgraded site lots/parcels by the Geology and Soils Section. e) Unsuitable material shall be removed to competent bedrock or firm older alluvium prior to placing compacted fill. Q Fill -above -cut slopes and fill slopes above natural ground may be constructed provided construction Is In accordance with both the Code requirements of the City of Santa Clarity and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. g) In order to limit the effects of differential settlement and provide for a uniform bearing surface for support of structures, the cut portion of the cut -till transition pads shall be overexcavated to a mfficient depth and to a sufficient lateral distance as recommended by the project geotechnical consultant. h). Canyon subdraine shall be placed along the alignment of the existing stream beds in canyons to receive fills. Emplacement must be in accordance with both the applicable Code requirements and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. 14 II deleterious materials as directed by the soils engineer. Tree roots must be removed. The" materials shall be. removed from the site. Included a deleterious materials ars fills ' containing trash, soft or viscous petroleum residue, excessivelybroken AC and possible sump debris associated with past oil well drilling and refinsryoperatiom. The environmental consultant ' shall confirm theappropriateness of treated contaminated material for incorporation into compacted fill materials. ' d) Recent alluvium, all uncertified fill, loox older alluvium and highly weathered bedrock in areas to be graded shall be removed to competent materials, or firm natural ground as determined by ' Level of ' Tooicflssu Mitigation Measures Significance Oil -wells and water -wells must be abandoned in accordance with the Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations set forth by she State excavations for stabilivtion fills and fill -over -cuts Department of Oil and Gas requirements and/or as shall be inspected and approved by the project recommended by the applicant's environmental f) All will and geology mitigation measures must be consultants, and approved by the State. A If encountered, cesspools or septic tanks shall be ' removed as specified by the geotechnical consultant. Site Preparation and Excavation Mitigations a) Grading shall be performed underthe observation and testing of the project will. engineer and the engineering geologist. This procedure of continued observation is very important to continually gain information relative to potential unforeseen geotechnical constraints and their mitigation as grading proceeds. ' b) Precautions shall be taken during the performance of all site clearing, earthwork and grading to protect the work site from flooding, ponding, or inundation by poor or improper surface drainage, Temporary provisions shall be made at all times to adequately direct surface drainage from all sources away from and off the work site. c) Prior to grading, the arca within the subject site proposed for development shall be stripped and cleared of all existing debris, vegetation and other deleterious materials as directed by the soils engineer. Tree roots must be removed. The" materials shall be. removed from the site. Included a deleterious materials ars fills ' containing trash, soft or viscous petroleum residue, excessivelybroken AC and possible sump debris associated with past oil well drilling and refinsryoperatiom. The environmental consultant ' shall confirm theappropriateness of treated contaminated material for incorporation into compacted fill materials. ' d) Recent alluvium, all uncertified fill, loox older alluvium and highly weathered bedrock in areas to be graded shall be removed to competent materials, or firm natural ground as determined by ' the project geotechnical consultant. e) Cut slopes shall be examined by the engineering geologist as they are excavated w that, if remedial mearnms arc necessary, recommendations can be nude expeditiously. Additionally, the keyway excavations for stabilivtion fills and fill -over -cuts shall be inspected and approved by the project wilt engineer and/or engineering geologist prior to any fill placement. f) All will and geology mitigation measures must be II15 Level of Tonic/Issue Mitigation Messums Significance approved by the City prior to implementation in the field. g) Haul routes for construction purposes shall be removed prior to placement of fill. Also, prior approval must be obtained from the City if haul routes are to be placed in areas to be designated as 'undisturbed natural'. Compacted Fill Mitigations a) Prior to placemen of compacted fill (after removals, clearing, stripping and ovemxcavation, etc.) the approved ground surface shall be processed, watered as needed, and compacted to the applicable code nquimmcnts. b) Excavated on -aim materials which an approved by the geotechnical and environmental consultants may be utilized as compacted fill provided that all tush; vegetation and other deleterious materials am removed prior to placement. c) All fill shall be spread in thin lifts, the moisture content shall be adjusted to optimum or slightly above and the materials compacted to either the minimum Code- requirements or per the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant, whichever is mom restrictive unless prior written approval is obtained. Each lift shall be treated in a like manner until the desired finish grades am achieved. The contactor shall have suitable and sufficient compaction equipment in operation to handle the amount of fill being placed,. d) fill shall be benched into firm bedrock or firm alluvium as directed by the geologist and/or wile engineer during grading. Can shall be taken to avoid benching above the proposed finished pad surface. e) Proposed Smiling and fill slope construction shall be performed in a manner which will minimize surficial slumps on compacted fill dopes. Fill shall be tested at the time of placement to ascertain that the required compaction is achieved. The minimum basis of testing shall be one test per two feet of depth or each 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. At least one-half the required tests shall be made at the location of the final fill slope, except that not more than one such test need be made for each 50 horizontal feet of slope in each two foot vertical lift. S) Shear strength penmeten and expansive wil characteristics shell be verified during grading. b) The results of the inspection and testing of all earthwork shall be presented in a geologic and 16 II ' Tooicllssue Mitigation Measures c) verification of expansive wit conditions shall be made as final grades are achieved. Footing and slab configuration and reinforcement recommendations shall be provided by the wile engineering report following the completion of earthwork and grading. Design Mitigations a) All graded slopes shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of Santa Clarits Grading Ordinances and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. b) Interceptor drains (brow ditches) shell be programmed at the top of cut slope■ where the supedwent natural slope ascends. Thu condition my exist in the southerly and westerly portion of the development. c) verification of expansive wit conditions shall be made as final grades are achieved. Footing and slab configuration and reinforcement recommendations shall be provided by the I) wherever utility trenches are excavated parallel or adjacent to footings and located within a distance ' subtended by a 45 degree angle (1:1 ratio) taken from ground surface at the footings, all utility trenches a hall be compacted. Compaction shall be accomplished with a mechanical compaction i' device. If the backfill wile have dried out, they shall be thoroughly moiswm-conditioned prior to placement in trenches. g) In view of the varied geoecbnical conditions on- site, field observation by qualified personnel will be necessary in order to achieve a well engineered and designed development. This includes continuous observation and periodic testing by field wil technician and periodic observation by the project geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist (geotechnical consultants). ' Seismic Haard Mitigation a) To mitigate unavoidable seismic effects to the II 17 Level of Sienifianee geotechnical consultant at the conclusion of grading operations. d) Retaining walla and other structures or facilities constructed to retain compacted fill or natural earth materials shall be designed in accordance with Code and structural requirements. e) All roof, pad and slope drainage shall be collected and directed away from the proposed structures to approved disposal areas. It is important that the drainage be directed away from foundation. The recommended drainage patterns shall be established at the time of fine grading and maintained throughout the fife of the structure. Pad drainage shall not be allowed to flow over slopes. I) wherever utility trenches are excavated parallel or adjacent to footings and located within a distance ' subtended by a 45 degree angle (1:1 ratio) taken from ground surface at the footings, all utility trenches a hall be compacted. Compaction shall be accomplished with a mechanical compaction i' device. If the backfill wile have dried out, they shall be thoroughly moiswm-conditioned prior to placement in trenches. g) In view of the varied geoecbnical conditions on- site, field observation by qualified personnel will be necessary in order to achieve a well engineered and designed development. This includes continuous observation and periodic testing by field wil technician and periodic observation by the project geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist (geotechnical consultants). ' Seismic Haard Mitigation a) To mitigate unavoidable seismic effects to the II 17 Level of Sienifianee Level of Topic/Issue Mitieltion Measures Sienificanct greatest extent possible, the proposed structures shall be designed as per the Uniform Building Code using the design parameters developed in the geotechnical reports and any additional wady that is required to finalize the designparemeten. The potential for ground rupture, landslides or liquefaction on the site is considered very low w m)tigation measures beyond thou described in this section arc not required. 3. Hydrology and Flood Control a. Development of the site will require a a) The applicant shall provide drainage facilities to Less than significant complete redesign and the construction of remove the flood hazard and dedicate and show with mitigation a new, comprehenaive storm drainage necessary easements and/or rights-of-way prior to measures system. Specific dminage requirement the recordation of the final map. and facilities to be provided on site will be determined through additional b) The applicant shall place a note of flood hazard on hydrological analysis. They will likely final map and delineate the areas subject to flood include catch basins and atom drainage hazard and dedicate to the City the right to restrict linea running from south to north on the the erection of buildings in the flood hazard areas site into the tributary of Newhall Creek, in the final map. and into existing norm drainage collectors located east of the property adjacent to the c) Applicant shall execute and record a covenant and freeway. agreement regarding the issuance of building permits in an area subject to flood hazard if b. Localized areas ofsurficial instability may applicant is allowed to'obain building permits develop if natural or manufactured -slopes prior to completion of norm drain construction. on the project site become saturated. d) - The applicant shall show on the map the C. New norm drainage facilities will be City's/Flood Control District's right-of-way for constructed to the specifications of the Storm Drains. A permit will be required for any City of Santa Clarita and the Los Angeles construction effecting the rigbtof-way or County Flood Control District, and will, facilities, after completion, be deeded or granted via easement to the City or District for e) The applicant shall show and label all natural continued long-term operations and drainage courses on lots where a note of flood maintenance. hazard is allowed. Q The applicant shall adjust, relocate, and/or eliminate lot lines, lots, streets, essements, grading, geotechnical proactive devices, and/or physical improvementsto complywith ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the date the City determined the application to be complete all to the satisfaction of this Department. Z) Prior to issuance of ■ Grading Permit, the applicant shall obtain approval of a final hydrology report which demonstrates that project improvements are not located in a flood hazard &me subject to inundationby a 100 -year storm, as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the City of Santa Clarita. h) Prior to issuance of a Greding Permit, the applicant shall obtain approval of a final atom drainage facilities plan by the City of Santa Clariu. 1H Level of ic/Issu MitieAllon Measures Significance ) Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant &hall obtain a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit from the Suit Water Resources Consul Board, and a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Conavuction Permit from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. J) Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the City and the County shall review site drainage plans to ensue that runofr is directed away from slopen, walls, buildings, and foundation, and towards approved drainage receptacles. k) All manufactured dopes on the property shall be landwsped with drought -resistant plant species approved by a licensed landscape architect to minimize the potential for erosion and surficial dumping. ) Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, the City shall review drainage control plans to ensure that they include oil and sediment traps for all partying lot drainage areas. m) Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, the City shall review final grading plana and a hydrology report that demonstrates thatproject grading will not result in diversions of flows that will significantly increase flood levels on adjacent properties. 4. Climate and Air Quality Short Term Impacts a) Use low emission mobile construction equipment, Mitigation measures when feasible. 'nit measure is recommended, can reduce air quality ' Temporary impacts will result from the project although quantification of the measure's benefits impacts to a less than mmcdiation and construction grading activities, is not really possible. Emission nus an necessary significant level. Air pollutants will be emitted by construction to determine the emissions of any vehicle. At Incremental increases equipment and dust will be generated during present, the most reliable rates that arc available in County regional I' grading and site preparation. Construction for construction equipment aro thou provided by emissions range from activities for large development projects are the SCAQMD in the 1992 Final Draft CEQA Air 0.005 %up to 0.102% estimated to add 1.2 tons of fugitive dud per Quality Handbook. Emissions from construction for the five pollutants acts of soil disturbed per month of activity. If equipment can only be quantified by use of these measured by the ' water or other soil stabilizers aro used to emission rates. Because no emission nus for AQMD. Although not control dust, the emissions can be reduced by 'low emission' mobile construction vehicles are considered individual - 50 percent. available, the air quality benefit of the uta of such ly significant, the equipment cannot be quantified. project represents an ' Applying then factors to the approximately 10 incremental increase acres of the project remediation and the 64.5 b) Develop a trip reduction plan to achieve a 1.5 in pollutant emissions acres of the project site that will be graded, and avenge vehicle ridership (AVR) for construction in the &me, and a 6 month remediation1gading process, results employees. The reductions that would occur in contributes to cumuls- ' in a lots[ of approximately 4,117 pounds per the emissions of construction employees traveling live air quality day (total of 2.1 tons per day) of particulate to the construction site if the 1.5 avenge vehicle impacts throughout emissions released due to the ridership(AVR) target is achieved will be 33% the region. On ■ remediationtgradingprocessofthe project. The (1+1.5-67%). Under this assumption, the cumulative basis, particulate emissions from the remediation emissions reduction per day that would occur incremental increases process arc estimated to be 14% of the miler the word case traffic Stunted by in air pollutant emis- constroction grading process. construction activities would be 8.1 pounds of sions contribute to the CO, 1.5 pounds of ROG, 20.4 pounds of NOx, impediment of basin - Worse Case mmediationtconnruction Smiling 1,257 pounds of PM 10, and 2.1 pounds of SOx. wide attainment of emissions result in the following estimated total clean air standards, 1 19 Level of Tooicllssue Mitigation Measures Significance emissions in pounds per day: c) Water site per SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements and arc, therefore CO=24.69 and clean equipment morning and evening. As this considered a signlfl- ROO - 4.50 is not an optional mitigation measure, but ■ cam impact within the NOx = 61.91 SCAQMD requirement, this reduction &hall be, context of on-going sox 6.59 and is, already included in the particulate emission regional growth. projection& in this report. Long Term Impacts - Regional Air Quality Cleaning the construction equipment is The main source of regional emissions recommended despite the fact that emissions generated by the project will be from motor reductions from this activity cannot be quantified. vehicles. Other emissions will be generated The 1992 CEQA Air Quality Handbook states that from the combustion of nsmnl gas for space washing construction vehicles before they leave heating and the generation of electricity, the site will control particulate emissions from Emissions will also be generated by the use of dust blown off trucks and other equipment by natural gas and oil for the -generation of 40% to 70%, but emissions from them sources electricity off-site. am not determinable to begin with. Vehicular Emissions d) Spread wil binders on site, unpaved roads and parking areas. Thia is not an optional mitigation The traffic report for the project forecasts 9451 measure. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that vehicle trips per day. It was assumed the trips 'every reasonable precaution (s taken) to will be an avenge of 20 miles long. This minimize fugitive dust emissions' from grading results in 189,020 vehicle miles traveled per operations to control particulate emissions. The day due to the project. An average vehicle emissions reduction afforded by this measure is speed of 35 miles per hour was assumed for the already included in the particulate emission projections. The emissions projected for the projections in this report. year 2000 in pounds per day are: CO - 2,948 e) Apply chemical soil stabilizers according to ROG — 104 manufacturer's specifications to all inactive Nox - 431 construction areas (previously graded areas which SOx = 30 remain inactive for 96 houra). Chemical soil Part — 78 stabilizers will result in a 40% to 85% reduction in particular emissions from wind erosion. The Stationary Sources quantity of fugitive dust emissions from inactive portions of the construction site, however, is not Emissions will be generated on-site by the quantifiable. Therefore, the specific quantities of combustion of natural gas for space beating and emissions reductions cannot be quantified. water heating. Emission factors were obtained from the Air Quality Handbook referenced t) Reestablish ground cover on construction site previously. Projections of nsmnl gas emissions through seeding and watering on portions of the arc summarized in pounds per day: site that will not be disturbed for lengthy periods CO = 1.25 (such as two months of more). This measure ROG - 0.33 would reduce particulate emissions by 20% to Nox - 7.46 65%. The quantity of fugitive dust emissions SOx — 0.01 from inactive portions of the construction site, Part. _ <0.01 however is not quantifiable. Therefore, the specific quantities of emissions mductioa cannot Onsite emissions will be generated due to be quantified. electrical usage. The generation of electrical - energy by the Combustion of fossil fuels results g) Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces in additional emissions off-site. Emissions to 15 miles, per hour or leas. Data to estimate generated by this means arc also summarized in emissions from vehicles traveling upon unpaved pounds per day: roads is unavailable, an, there Is no way to CO = 8.76 specifically quantify the amount of emission ROO - 0.44 reductions from this measure. A reduction in NOx — 50.39 travel speeds to 15 miles per hour on unpaved SOx = 5.26 rad surfaces will reduce particulate emissions Part. - 1.75 from this activity by approximately 40% to 70%. The total emissions generated by the project arc summarized in tons per day: CO = 1.11 Level of Tonic/Issue Mitigation Measures Significance ROG - 0.06 NOx - 0.19 Stix - 0.01 Pan. - 0.03 The total emission generated by the pmjcct have been compared to Los Angeles County emission which identify the following incremental overall increases in pollutant emission (tonsiday)-in 2010: CO - 0.102% ROO a 0.013% NOx = 0.048% SOx - 0.020% Pen. - 0.005% Local Air Quality Wont can carbon monoxide concentrations for the local arca were estimated for year 2000 condition along Sierra Highway and State Route 14 adjacent to the project site. Incremental cumulative project increases in carbon monoxide (CO) range from 0.1 IS up to 3.1% for maximum ]-hour concentrations (ppm). Incremental cumulative project increases in CO range from 0.1 % up to 1.9% for maximum 8 -hour concentrations (ppm). b) Suspend grading operations during first and second stage smog al". This mown would, of course, almost entirely eliminate emissions from the heavy equipment used in grading activities. This measure would rcsuh in emissions reductions of 25 pounds of CO, S pounds of ROG, 62 pounds of NOx, 3,809 pounds of PM 10, and 7 pounds of SOx. If the water truck continued to operate on the mile,, the -emissions reduction would be slightly less. Suspend all grading operation when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. This naasure Is very similar to the previous measure. This measure, however, is specifically intended to minimize particulate emissions rather than reduce the broad range of pollutant emissions. This messing-wouldresult in emissions reduction of 25 pounds of CO, S pounds of ROG, 72 pounds of NOx, 3,809 pounds of PMIO, and 7 pounds of SOX. If the water truck continued to operate on the site, the emissions reductions would be slightly less. Note that while the particulate emissions from grading activities would be reduced by a large factor due to the suspension of grading operations, the high winds would act to increase the amount of PM 10 emissions. There is not data for particulate emissions when the wind is blowing at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour. 3) Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tumd. This measure does not really mitigate an impact. Its purpose is to ensure that the air quality impacts that arc generated by construction activities associated with the projects are comment with the impacts that aro projected in the air quality report. The emissions data in the air quality report ars baud upon emission rates for equipment that has been properly maintained. if she actual equipment used during the project's construction is not properly maintained, the emission produced by that equipment will exceed the projected emissions. This measure, when it is complied with, merely helps to ensure that emissions during the project's construction- will not exceed the projected ern asioni. k) Use low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment. This is already required by SCAQMI) Rules 431.1 and 431.2. Unfortunately, no means of calculating the benefits of web a meamm currently exist. The use of low sulfur fuel would reduce emiesiom of pollutants (particularly sulfur oxides) in the vicinity of the projee6 but by a unquantifiable amount. 1) Provide on-site power sources during the early stages of the project. This measure is 21 Level of Toeictlssue Mitiaetion Measures Significance recommended although its benefits are not quantifiable without specific information so to how it would be implemented.- The intent of this measure is to minimize or eliminate the use of portable generators. m) Utilize existing power sources (C.S.i power poles) or clean fuel genamtom rather than temporary powergenarators. This measure overlaps with the immediately preceding and following measures. In order to quantify these measures, specific information is required, including, but not limited to, how much power would be needed, how it would be supplied in the absence of this measure, and how it would be supplied with the implementation of this measure. Without such information, quantification of the air quality benefits of these measures is not possible. n) Use low emission o"ite stationary equipment (e.g., clean fuels). As stated above, this measure overlaps with the previous measure. Information that is required to quantify the air quality benefit of this messum is not available. o) Configure coatmctionparking to minimize traffic interference. This measure is recommended as it appears to have been borne out of good common sense. If completely effective, this practice would entirely avoid the disruption of traffic flow. no measure seems to have been designed to avoid creating an impact rather than mitigating an impact and is, therefore, unquantifiable. p) Minimize obstruction of thmugh•traffc lanes. As with the above measure, the measure seems to have been designed to avoid creating an impact rater than mitigating an impact. It is recommended to follow such a guideline, where feasible, but to quantification of the air quality benefits is not possible. q) provide a flsgpemn to properly guide traffic and ensure safety at construction sites. This measure is recommended, but is related to air quality in only a very indirect way. Its air quality benefits an Indeterminable. r) Schedule operations affecting traffio for off-peak hours, whom feasible. The air quality benefits are unquantifiable for to reason that quantification would require a determination of emissions increases from traffic congestion that might occur in to absence of such a measure over conditions where there is no traffic congestion (.e., to successful implementation of this measure). a) Develop a tnffc plan to minimize traffic flow, interference from construction activities (the plan my include advance public notice of routing, use 22 Tooic/issue Mitieation Measures of public transportation and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service). This is another measure aimed at avoiding the creation of an impact in the first place and is, therefore, recommended. The air quality benefits art unquantifiable. Local And Regional Air Quality The most significant reductions in regional and local air pollutant emissions aro attainable through programs which reduce the vehicular travel associated with the project. Support and compliance with the AQMP is the moat important measure to achieve this goal. t) Provide local shuttle and regional transit systems and transit shelters. u) Provide bicycles lanes, bicycle storage areas, and amenities, and ensure efficient parking management, consistent with the City's proposed TDM ordinance standards. v) Synchronize traffic signals. The only areas where this measure would be applicable are at the Remsen/Siern Highway, Clampitt/Sierra Highway and San Femando/Siem Highway intersections. w) Improve the thermal integrity of the buildings and reduce the thermal load with automated time clocks or occupant sensors. x) Provide adequate ingress and egress at all entrances to public facilities to minimize vehicle idling at curbside. 5. Biotic Resources Level of Sienificance 1 I123 The proposed project will disturb 44± teres of Concentration of pmject disturbance in previously- Unavoidable previously -disturbed areas and 20+- acres of disturbed areas of the. project site fasces the loss of significant impact native biotic habitat (primarily oak woodland). undisturbed native biotic habitat. The proposed project lessened by mitigation 1 will preserve 54± acres of natural biotic habitat in permanent open space, primarily on the southern end of measures, but not to a less than significant the project site.75 % of the proposed landscaping shall level. be comprised of native species. The proposed project will result in the lose or impacts can be lessened through project modification Unavoidable disturbance of 409 coat live oaks ercua (avoidance), transplantation, replacement and monetary significant impact e rifolia-, approsimately37% of the total 1,114 compensation as per the City's Oak Tree Ordinance. lessened by mitigation ' oak trees. Unless the project is redesigned, significant impacts will still occur. measures, but not to a less than significant level. Wildlife movement corridors across the project The project will primarily utilize existing disturbed Unavoidable site (important remnant portions of a previously areas and avoid wildlife corridor linkages. Nighttime significant impact open arca that was significantly impacted by the lighting and nighttime activities shall be minimized to lessened by mitigation construction of the Antelope Valley Freeway) lessen nocturnal disturbance. Unless the project is re- measures, but not to a could be constrained by the proposed project. designed as per the enhanced wildlife corridor less than significant development alternative in Section 5.7, significant level. ' impacts will still occur. 1 I123 Level of Topicllssue Mitigation Measures Significance 6. Archaeological, Cultural and Due to the low (but possible) potential for Paleontological Resources collected to date is small, possibly due to the Archaeological and Cultural Resources Archaeological and Cultural Resources No archaeological/prehistoric resources were To mitigate potential impacts to undetected Less than significant found in the on-site arae that could be archaeological resources within on-site areas that could with mitigation surveyed and it is unlikely that such resources not be surveyed, a qualified archaeological monitor measures will occur in these areas. Due to heavy shall be present during grading activities within them vegetation cover that severely limited ground areas. Because the chance of discovering subsurface visibility on the terraces along Newhall Creek, historical resources within the refinery arca is high there is the potential for smbmu- according to the paleontological investigation report, a logical/prehistoric resources to occur in this qualified archaeological monitor shall be present during unsurveyed area. If the proposed project grading in the refinery area. If buried archmo- disturbs this arca there is the potential for logical/cultural resources aro encountered during adverse impacts to archaeological resources if grading, the archaeological monitor shall be empowered they arc present. to halt grading activities to assets the significame of the significant paleontological resources that could resources and make mcommendations as to their Beale's Cut, a significant cultural resources and disposition at that time. State Historical Landmark, is present on the southern portion of the project site. It will not significant specimens. All fossils collected dull be be adversely impacted by the proposed project. The applicant proposes to preserve Beale's Cut and its southern approach road within the stall be donated to the Los Angeles County Museum of Project's large southern open space parcel. The majority of the structures, wells, tanks and other improvements, associated with the on-site oil extraction and processing have been removed and there are no surface indications of historic resources associated with this previous activity. However, the cultural Maritimes survey states that the potential for buried historical resources is high. Grading activities within the area of the dismantled refinery could result in adverse impacts to potential buried historical resources. Peleontoloeical Resources Peleontoloeical Resources The number of paleontological resources Due to the low (but possible) potential for Less, than significant collected to date is small, possibly due to the paleontological resources to be present on-site, grading with mitigation poor potential of the coarse grained sediments activities shall be closely monitored for larger fossils. measures found in the Pico and Towsley Formations to Some of the matrix shall also be screened for smaller preserve organic remains as fossils. However, fossils. The monitoring does not wed to be full-time fossils do occur in them formation and any and shall be conducted on a twenty- percent basis (ow discovery of vertebrae fossils to existing day per week). This time could be decreased or collections would significantly add to [mal increased depending upon whether or not fossils are paleontological knowledge. The proposed found. A qualified paleontological field monitor shall grading activities could adversely impact work under the supervision of a certified paleontologist. significant paleontological resources that could The monitor shall be empowered to Balt grading be present on-site. operations if fossils arc found to allow the removal of significant specimens. All fossils collected dull be clesned, prepared, identified and catalogued. All fossils stall be donated to the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History. 7. Traffic and Circulation Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip Intersection Improvements Less than significant generation rates indicate the project will with mitigation generate 9,451 daily trips, of which 1,451 will Inprovements have been developed for specific measures be generated during the AM peak hour, and intersections projected to operate at an unacceptable 1,283 will be generated during the PM peak level of service which arc signif cantly impacted by the 24 Level of Toviclissue Mitigation Meamms Significance hour. The project will significantly impact eight Intersections in the AM and PM peak hours. A significant impact is defined as an increase equal to or greater than .02 for an intersection with a final ICU less than .90. The eight intersections where significant traffic Impacts will occur arc: a) Siem Hwy and Placenta Cyn Rd b) Newhall A Lyons Ave. c) Sao Fernando Rd. Br. Newhall Ave. d) Pine and San Fernando Rd. e) San Fernando Rd and Lyons Ave 1) Siem Hwy and San Fernando Rd S) SR -14 and San Fernando Rd e) Siem Hwy and 1-5 NB/SR-14 NB Cumulative Project Impacts Existing-plus-proj eci-plus-cumulative-p 1 us - project ICUs without and with the proposed improvements arc not sufficient to achieve acceptable levels of service. Additional intersection improvements by the cumulative projects and improvements to the roadway network arc necessary to achieve acceptable levels of service under existing-plus-ambient- plu"umulative-plus-project conditions. The project would generate over 2,500 employees and is required by the City. and the South Coast Air Quality Management District to implement a trip reduction plan. proposed project. The requited improvements for Year 2000 background conditions involve eight intersections. At every intersection the project impacts, requirements arc act forth to provide mitigation which will result in the existing level of service, regardless ofwhatthe existing-plus-ambicnt level of service is. Rightot Way Improvements The project will be responsible for completing ultimate West improvenxms along the project frontage on Siem Highway. Traffic signals ars warranted under background conditions with the addition of project ttsffte at the intersections of Siem Highway at Remsen Street and Siem Highway at Clampitt Road, and ata required to be installed and functional prior to the issuance of the fust certificate of use and occupancy permit. Applicant's street and grading plans and all construction permitted by such plans shall comply with the requirements of the approved oak tree report. The applies= shall design intersections with a tangent section from intersection to 'end of curb return' ECR. When applicable, the applicant shall pay fees for signing and striping of street as determined by the City Traffic Engineer or shall prepare signing and striping plans for all multi -lane highways within or abutting the subdivision to be approved by the Engineering Department. The subdivider is required to install distribution lines and individual services fines within, or adjacent to, the street rightof-wary for community antenna television service (CATV) for all new development. The applicant shall place above ground utilities including, but out limited to, fire hydrants, junction boxes, and street lights outside sidewalks. Prior to the. approval of the final landscape plan, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Department of Parks and Recreation for street tree location, species, and approved method of installation and irrigation. The applicant shall not grant or record easements within area proposed to be granted, dedicated, or offered for dedication for public streets or highways, access rights, building restrietion rights, or other easements until after the final trap is filed with the County Recorder unless such easements are subordinated to the proposed grant or dedication. If easements arc granted after the date of tentative approval, a subordination must be executed by the easement holder prior to the filing of the fuel parcel map. The subdivider, by agreement with the City Engineer, shay guarantee installation of improvements as determined by the City Engineer through faithful performance bonds, letters of credit or any other acceptable mean. 25 Less than significant with mitigation measures Level of Topic/Issue Mitiestion Measures Significance The applicant shall provide a horizontal and vertical alignments to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Traffic Engineer. Tha applicant shall provide for sight distance along extreme slopes or curves to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. The applicant shall design the intersections of local streets with General Plan Highways to provide adequate eight distance from the local street. Additional right-of- way dedication and/or grading may be required. The applicant shall also design the minimum centerline radius on a local street with an intersecting street on the concave aide to comply with design speeds per Department of Public Works 'Requirements for Street Plain' and tight distances per the current AASHTO. The applicant shall offer casements needed for street drainage or slopes and agree to construct drainage impmvementr prior to the recordation of the foul map. No driveways shall be constructed within 25 feet upstream of any catch basins when street grades exceed 6%. The applicant shall constmet full -width sidewalks per plans approved by the Engineering Department. The applicant shall repair any broken or damaged curb, butter, sidewalk and pavement on streets within or abutting the subdivision. The applicant shall provide and install street maw signs prior to Occupancy of building(s). Whenever there is an offer of Private and Future Right - of -Way, the applicant shall provide a Drainage Latter. The applicant shall offer for dedication vehicular access rights to Sierra Highway along the entire property frontage prior to recordation of the final map. The applicant is granted permission for street grades up to 8% on Clampitt and Remsen Street and up to 15% on public cul-de-sac streets as shown on tentative tract map no. 51044. The applicant shall dedicate and construct the following required road improvements on Clampin/Remsen Street, public cul-de-sacs, and Siem Highway: Curbs and Gutters, base and paving, street lights, street trots, 5'-0' sidewalks. ClampittMemsen Street shall have an 84' R/W width; public cut -0e -sacs shall have 66' R/W width; and Siem Highway sball have a 64' R/W width. Applicant shall replace existing CMP under Sierra Highway or shall line existing CMP with concrete prior to the issuance of the first certificate of use and Occupancy permit for buildings constructed within the project. Applicant shall construct and landscape medians on Siem Highway along the property frontage. 26 Prior to issuance of a Site Development Permit, the applicant shall obtain approvals of a Specific Circulation Plan. The Plan shall be reviewed and commented on by the City's Fire Department, Police Department,Traffic Engineering Department, Oak Tree Specialist, and Community Development Department, prior to consideration by Santa Clarita Planning Commission. Driveways shall be constructed using the APWA-alley intersection design Standard Plan 100.0. Applicant Tooic/Issue Mitieation Measures The asst included within the project %hall be annexed to an existing landscape district or a new district must be ' formed to finance the cost of annual maintenance of the median landscape. The proposed private drives shown on the tentative nap do not meet public street sundsrds and therefore will I' not be -accepted by the City into the public street system. The applicant shall designate all proposed private drives s private drive and fire lana on the 0ral map. The applicant shall place a rate on the final map stating that ingress and egress; and public utility easement shall be reserved. The proposed grades for the private drives shall not exceed 10%. At all intersections of the proposed private drives with public street, a maximum of a 3% I' landing (hall he provided a minim distance of 200' from the intersection. Permission is granted for private grades to exceed 10% up to a maximum of IS% for (name of street). The applicant shall provide for pedestrian access on all private drives. The private drives shall be constructed to a minimum width (from top of curb to top of curb) to accommodate the required turning movenumtof the anticipated traffic. ' I"al (Interior) Street Improvements Prior to issuance of a Site Development Permit, the applicant shall obtain approvals of a Specific Circulation Plan. The Plan shall be reviewed and commented on by the City's Fire Department, Police Department,Traffic Engineering Department, Oak Tree Specialist, and Community Development Department, prior to consideration by Santa Clarita Planning Commission. Carpooling shall be encouraged by providing ' preferential parking and ride-matching/sharing services. Ridem itching will require an on-site Commuter Level of Sienificence Less than significant with mitigation measures Less than significant with mitigation measures Driveways shall be constructed using the APWA-alley intersection design Standard Plan 100.0. Applicant shall obtain approval from the traffic engineer for the location of all driveways. Transportation Demand Management A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program is required to be implemented by the proposed project in an effort to reduce peak hour trips generated by the project, and to reduce air quality impacts. The majority of project -generated trips will be made by employees of the business park. Several programscan be offered to encourage the use of carpools, transit, and alternative work boura by the project's employee&. The TDM program *hall be approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a site Development Permit. Carpooling shall be encouraged by providing ' preferential parking and ride-matching/sharing services. Ridem itching will require an on-site Commuter Level of Sienificence Less than significant with mitigation measures Less than significant with mitigation measures Level of Tooic/lssue Mitigation Measures Significance 8. Noise Short-term construction noir and long -tem increased noise levels will be generated by the proposed project. In addition, the completed project will be exposed to noise generated by adjacent roadways. Construction Noise Construction Noise represents a short -tern impact on ambient noise levels on the project site, and on land surrounding the site. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators can reach high levels. Construction noise and remedial grading noise is projected to be generated over a 12 -month period. Impacts on Surrounding Lnd Uses The development of the proposed project will Transportation Coordinator (CPC) at a centralized location to oversee, manage, and assist in the attainment of employee participation in this commute alternative. Ride -sharing services am. offered free through Los Angeles County's Rapid Transit District's (RTD) Commuter Network. Employer incentives for utilizing Metrolink shall also be required. Com'eniem bike racks, information kiosks with local bus schedules, and subsidized bus passes shall be provided to encourage alternate commute modes. Alternative work schedules may be selectively implemented to encourage transit ridership and to attract new high -occupancy commuters. Transit riders could use this option to schedule their work trips to coincide with the most ideal scheduled transit service. Carpool commuters may participate in compressed work weeks, or staggered work hours to shift trips outside of the peak traffic periods. In addition to these TDM measures, the South Coast Air Quality Management District sets forth additional measures as a part of their Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), aimed at reducing overall vehicle miles travelled. There measures shall be included in the required Trsnspotution Demand Management Program. The applicant shall pay the applicable bridge and thoroughfare feet in effect at the time of map recordation. The project is located within the Via Princessa Bridge and Thoroughfare District. The factors for development units are as follows: Development Unit EW9 Single Family per unit 1.0 Commercial per acre 5.0 Industry per acre 3.0 Construction hours shall be limited to 7 AM to 8 PM, Leu than significant on Monday through Friday and 8:30 AM to 8 PM on with mitigation Saturday and shall otherwise comply with City noise matures regulations. Construction shall not be permitted on Sundays or Federal holidays. Construction noise will not impact any nearby existing residential area. Potential new homes could be located as close as one-half mile to the northeast. Therefore, construction noise associated with the proposed project is rad considered to be a significant noise impact. 28 Level of Tooicllsm Milisation Measures Sienificence generate traffic which may alter rsoim levels in the surrounding areas. Noise levels will increase on the site and adjacent to the surrounding circulation system, including Siem Highway, San Fernando Road, Placerita Canyon Road and the Antelope Valley Freeway (SR -14). Estimated noisy increases at 100 feet from the centerline of these highways resulting from the project indicates it will contribute slightly to noise levels in these areas. The largest noise increase of 1.6 dBA occurs on Siem Highway between San Fernando Road and Clampitt Road. All other estimated noise increases due to the project arc 0.5 dBA or less. The major wise generator in this arca is the Antelope Valley Freeway, adjacent to the sat side of she project site for approximately 1.3 miles.. This currently creates raise levels in excess of 70 CNEL on a large portion of the site. Due to other planed development in the area, there will be an incremental increase in traffic noise in the surrounding area with, or without the proposed project. The project by itself will contribute slightly to the existing and fume traffic noise in this arca. 9. Infrastructure, Utilities and Energy Conservation Infrastructure and Utilities Prior to the Issuance of a grading permit, an acoustical report shall be approved by the City of Santa Clarita that demomUates the indoor noise levels for all business park and corporate office buildings can be attenuated from outside noises to 50 CNEL or feu. Prior to the imance of a grading permit, as acoustical report shall be approved by the City of Santa Clariu that demonstrate, the indoor poise levels for all residential dwelling units arc less than, or can be attenuated to less than 45 CNEL. All outdoor noise levels shall be demonstratedtobe len than 65 CNEL for residential areas. Infnttructure and Utilities Water - The Newhall County Water District Water ' (NCWD) has indicated that although it maintains adequate supplies to serve the a) Prior to the recordation of the final map, the property, that a simple connection to existing applicant shall file a statement from the water lines in the area will not provide sufficient purveyor with the City Engineer that states the water supplies to the project due to a shortage water system will be operated by that purveyor, of water pressure. and that under normal operating conditions, the necessary quantities of water will be available, the The project could consume approximately system will meet the requirements for land ' 140,000 gallons of water per day, or 157 acre division, and that water service will be provided feet per year. This is based upon the estimated to each lot. ne-statement shall also very there is number of employees within the proposed adequate water atorage capacity in the arca to project and the area of irrigated landscaping.. meet all fire flow mquircments. ' Water consumption could ineream significantly if specific,water-consuming uses aro allowed in b) Prior to the recordation of the final trap, the the commercial buildings. Water consumption applicant shall obtain approval from the Fire for irrigation could be reduced if drought- Department and the City Engineer of a water ' tolerant plants and tree species are used, or if infrastructure plan that demonstrates all lou will reclaimed water is used for irrigation. be served with adequately sized water system facilities, including fin hydrants, of sufficient size Business park buildings at the northern lip of to accommodate the total domestic and fn flows i' the project site (Lots 32, 33 and 34) lies either required for the land subdivision. Domestic flow on, or directly adjacent to the easement for the requiem ole shall be determined by the City Los Angeles Aqueduct No. 2. Existing Los Engineer or water agency. Fre now Angeles Department of Water and Power requirements shall be determined by the lar* ' (LADWP) regulations prevent the construction Chief. of structures above or in clow proximity to the Los Angeles Aqueduct easement. This will c) The applicant shall obtain approval of a final II 1 29 Less than significant with mitigation measures Tooiclissue Mitieation Measures limit construction proposed in and around the easement. d) e) 0 8) water infastruchtre plan by the Newhall County Water District (NCWD). The plan shall include establishment of a private 'assessment district', the members of which shall bear the cost of the system construction and installation. The water infnstmeture plan shall provide for a supply line and aeries of storage tanks and booster stations. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Fm Department shall approve a final water infrastructure plan that adequately provides required fire flow and foe hydrants within the project site. The fire flow system shall be operational prior to any combustible construction. The. project applicant shall pay all water connection fees to NCWD per the District's current requirements. Water conservation measures required to be incorporated within the project include: 1) Low -flush toilets (see Section 17921 of the Health and Safety Code). 2) Low -flow showers and faucets (California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 6, Article 1, T20 -1406h). 3) Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems (California Energy Commission regulations). h) Prior to the issuance of a Site Development Permit, the applicant shall accomplish one of the following options: 1) Obtain permission from LADWP to construct structures above, and in close proximity to the aqueduct easement. 2) Obtain permission from LADWP to relocate the aqueduct and comment to the new required alignment of Remsen Street. 3) Redesign the proposed site plan for Lou 32, 33 and 34 to avoid the placement of structures on, or close to the aqueduct system. Sewer -The proposed project could generate Sewer approximately 66,800 gallons per day in sewer flows. This information is baud on estimated a) The applicant shall obtain approval of a foal employees and could vary significantly if unitary sewer infrastructure plan by the Los specific water -consuming uses aro included Angeles County Sanitation District No. 32 and the within the prejccl City of Santa Clarita. This plan shall include establishment of a private 'assessment district', An 8 -inch to 10.imh line running south down the members of which shall bear the cost of Siem Highway from the existing connection system construction and installation. All sower point under the intersection of Sierra Highway pipe sizes shall be based upon Sewer Arca Study and San Fernando Road is required to service approved by LACSD 32 and the City. the project. A connection line along Remsen Street and Clampits Road, to service the b) The unitary ower plan shall provide for an off. T Level of Sir nificance Less than significant with mitigation measures Level of Tooicflsiue Mitigation Measures Sienificatice individual parcels within the project is alw required. Solid Waste - The project will generate approximately 3.4 tons of solid waste per day.. Blue Barrel Disposal ham indicated they have adequate equipment and personnel to serve the. ' proposed project. Thera is also adequate capacity in the Chiquita Canyon Landfill to serve the proposed project through the year 2012. 1 site 84nch or l0.inch line running south down Siem Highway from the existing comactionpoint under the intersection of Siem Highway and San Fernando Rud. A connection line will run along Remsen Street. and Clampitt Rud, to serve the individual parcels on site. c) The project applicant shall pay all sewer connection feet to the Los Angeles County Sanitation District No. 32 per District requirements. Should annexation into Sanitation District No. 32 be approved, them is currently adequate sewer capacity in the District's train sewer line, and within the sewer treatment plant and outfall line for the additional Bows generated by the proposed project. d) The subdivider shall install and dedicate mainline sewers and serve each lot with a separate house lateral or have approved and bonded sewer plane on file with the City Engineer. The applicant shall.pay ordinance frontage charges before filing this land division map. The applicant shall pay sewer reimbursement charges as determined by the City Engineer or the County of Loa Angeles prior to the recordation of the final map. e) Prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant shall offer for dedication easements to the City, appropriate agency or entity for the purpose of ingmss, egress, construction and maintenance of all infrastructure constructed for this land division to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Easementaare tentatively required over private streeta, subject to review by the City Engineer to determine the foal locations and requirements. 1) The discharge of sewage from this land division into the public sewer system shall not violate the requirements of the California regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code. g) Prior to issuance of the first grading permit, the applicant shall obtain approval of annexation to County Sanitation District No. 32. Solid Waste Use than significant with mitigation a) All trash &hall be stored within enclosed facilities, measures screened from view from surrounding land uses and from adjacent streets and freeways. b) A wane management plan shall be required prior to the issuance of a Site Development Permit to minimize the amount of solid waste generated. This plan shall identify measures which reduce refuse and encourage or facilitate recycling. This 31 Level of Toric/issue Mitigation Measures Significance Electricity - Southern California Edison reports that the capacity and physical condition of the poles, linea, and underground electrical substation located on the site an excellent, and will easily provide sufficient power to the project site, regardless of the amount of type of development that trey occur on site in the future. It is estimated that the project could consume approximately 54,600 WH of electricity each month. No adverse impacts aro anticipated. Results of an analysis of electromagnetic fields associated with overhead power lines indicate that the project could expose employees to long- term electromagnetic radiation levels that may be hazardous to health. Project grading encroaches into property owned in fee by Southern California Edison. Natural Gas - The Southern California Gas Company report that the physical condition and capacity of their facilities in the area arc adequate to serve any development that may occur on the project site, with the addition of small, 4 -inch or 6 -inch distribution lines to individual structures within the project. It is estimated that the project could consume approximately 79,400 cubic feet of natural gas a day, or close to 29 million cubic feet annually. The availability of natural gas service is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the may include larger trash enclosures to accommodate recycling containem, or other Meamms. Electrics - Project design must meet State Title 24 requirements to minimize electricity consumption. All electric services and facilities, with the exception of the existing transmission linea within the right -0f --way, shall be underground and shall be built in accordance with the Southern California Edison Company's policies and extension rules, as regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission(CPUC). Designplans shall show the location of all existing buried and overhead utilities in the vicinity of the project site. Contract specifications shall require coordination with SCE prior to the commencement of construction to ensure existing underground and overhead electrical facilities are not affected. Prior to the issuance of a Site Development Permit, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department a detailed analysis of measured electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emanating from Southern California Edimn's overhead high-power electrical transmission lines, their underground power substations, and all other sources of electromagnetic radiation. The study shell identify the exposure levels in relation to the proposed development and focus potential adverse biological effects that could result from those levels. The study shall demonstrate exposure levels meet all American National Standards Institute (ANSO recommendations for ufc exposure levels of EMR, prior to the issuance of a Site Development Permit. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, an Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from Southern California Edison Company that allows grading on SCE propeny adjacent to the proposed development arca. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, an encroachment permit shall be obtained from Southern California Edison that allows grading on SCE property adjacent to the proposed development area. Natural Gas - Project design must meet State Title 24 requirements to minimize natural gas consumption. All natural gas facilities shall be built in accordance.with the Southern California Gas Company's policies and extension rules, as regulated by the California PUC and other Federal regulatory agencies. Contract specifications shall require coordination with Southern California Gas Company prior to the commencement of construction to ensure existing underground natural gas lines arc not affected. 32 Leu than significant With mitigation measures Less than significant with mitigation meamms Level of Topic/Issue Mitigation Measure sirnificam Y Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of federal sad sate regulatory agencies. Should these Age its take any action which affects gas supply or the conditions under which Service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions; however, rso adverse impacts ars anticipated. II Teleyhon - All telephone service and facilities shall be underground, and shell be built in accordance with the Pacific Bell Company's policies and extension rules, as regulated by the - California PUC.. Contract Specifications Shall require coordination with Pacific Bell prior to the commencement of construction to ensure existing overhead and underground telephone lima arc not affected. Less than significant with mitigation measures Police Protection -The project shall obtain approval of Less than significant a Security plan and lighting plan from the Los Angeles with mitigation County Sheriffs Department prior to the issuance of measures building permits, to minimize the potential for vandalism and burglary. Fire Protection - a) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Less than significant applicant shall pay all Fire Station hes required with mitigation by the County of Los Angeles and the City of measures Santa Clarita. 33 els hone - Pacific Bell hats indicated that they expect to be able to provide telephone service to ' the site in accordance with the requirements of the California Public lhi hies Commission (CPUC), and at rates and charges specified in its tariffs with the CPUC). The existing telephone Cine infnstmeture is ' located adjacent to the project site and can be extended into the proposed development without significant improvements. Pacific Bell has adequate facilities and Services to provide ' telephone Service to the proposed development. There is adequate cellular telephom Service provided by PacTel Cellular and LA Cellular, ' approved by the CPUC in the vicinity of the Project site. the construction of an additional fire ' 10. Public Services and Facilities II Teleyhon - All telephone service and facilities shall be underground, and shell be built in accordance with the Pacific Bell Company's policies and extension rules, as regulated by the - California PUC.. Contract Specifications Shall require coordination with Pacific Bell prior to the commencement of construction to ensure existing overhead and underground telephone lima arc not affected. Less than significant with mitigation measures Police Protection -The project shall obtain approval of Less than significant a Security plan and lighting plan from the Los Angeles with mitigation County Sheriffs Department prior to the issuance of measures building permits, to minimize the potential for vandalism and burglary. Fire Protection - a) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Less than significant applicant shall pay all Fire Station hes required with mitigation by the County of Los Angeles and the City of measures Santa Clarita. 33 Police Pmtection - The proposed project will immmentally impact law enforcement Services. ' An estimated 2,576 permanent full-time jobs arc forecasted to be created by the project (based on an industry Standard generation ratio of one permanent job for each 500 gross square feet of ' developed business park Space *rid one permanent job for each 250 gross square feet of developed corporate headquarters space). This will result in an increased residential population ' in the surrounding arca, as well as additional traffic and the potential for new emergency and nonemergency responses to the development. ' Fire Protection - A. The proposed project will not necessitate the construction of an additional fire ' nation, or require the acquisition of special fire fighting equipment. However, the project could incrementally immase the number of incidents responded to by ' the fire department and paramedic personnel. The project will contribute to the cumulative Dead for additional manpower and equipment to maintain t adequate urvice levels. The possibility of simultaneous and greater alarm incidents is also increased incrementally. 1 II Teleyhon - All telephone service and facilities shall be underground, and shell be built in accordance with the Pacific Bell Company's policies and extension rules, as regulated by the - California PUC.. Contract Specifications Shall require coordination with Pacific Bell prior to the commencement of construction to ensure existing overhead and underground telephone lima arc not affected. Less than significant with mitigation measures Police Protection -The project shall obtain approval of Less than significant a Security plan and lighting plan from the Los Angeles with mitigation County Sheriffs Department prior to the issuance of measures building permits, to minimize the potential for vandalism and burglary. Fire Protection - a) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Less than significant applicant shall pay all Fire Station hes required with mitigation by the County of Los Angeles and the City of measures Santa Clarita. 33 Level of Tooic!lssue Mitigation Measures Significance Is. The project will require water infrastructure improvements that meet all fire flow requirements. b) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, water improvement plane shall be submitted to, and approved by the Fire Chief for adequate fire protection, and fwncial security posted for the installation. The adequacy and reliability of water system design, location of valves, and the distribution of fire hydrants shall be evaluated and approved by the Fire Chief. C. Combustible construction prior to the e) Prior to The issuance of any building permits for water infrastructure being completed could combustible conslnaction, evidence that a water create significant fire safety hazards. supply for fire protection is available shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Chief. Firc hydrants shall be in place and operational to meet requirements and fire flow prior to commencing construction with combustible materials. d. Underground water piping for automatic d) Prior to issuance of any building permits, all fire sprinkler systems must meet Uniform undergroundpiping for automatic fire extinguisher Fire Code Requirements. systems shall be approved. Plans for an automatic fire extinguishing system shall be approved by the Fie Chief prior to installation. Such systems shall be operational prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy. e. Proposed roadway widths less than 36 feel on site could restrict emergency fire equipment access if curb parking is allowed. e) Prior to the issuance of any certificates of use and occupancy, all streets) having a curb width of less than 36' shall be red -curbed and posted "No Parking - Fin Uric" as per the 1988 Uniform Fire Code Section 10.207 in a manner meeting the approval of the County Fire Chief, or shall be widened to provide 36' of travelway, curb to curb, within a 48' right-of-way, in a manner meeting the approval of the Community Development Director. f. Uniform Fire Code regulations require f) Prior to the issuance of any certificates of use and "blue reflective pavement markers at fire occupancy, all fire hydrants shall have a "Blue hydrant locations for improved visual Reflective Pavement Marker' indicating its access to them facilities at night. location on the street or drive per Los Angeles County. Fire Department standards. S. Hazardous materials that might be contained within the proposed project could create additional health risks for fire fighters and others surrounding the project site. Public Transportation - Implementation of the proposed project will create the need for Santa Clerits Transit to extend public transportation services to the project site. The closest bus stop is currently located at the intersection of Siem Highway and San Fernando Road, approximately 0.6 miles north of the project. Dial -A -Ride service is available to union and the disabled in this area. Because of the project's location in the extreme Z) The project shall comply with all Uniform Firc Code requirements related to hazardous materials. Public Transportation - Prior to the issuance of a Site Development Permit, the Santa Clarits Transit Transportation Manager shall approve a Transportation Management Agreement (TMA) for extending public bus transportation to the project site. The TMA shall contain a commitment for extending public transportation services to the project site through one of the following options: a) The owners, and ultimately the project's Transportation Management Authority shall 34 Less than significant with mitigation measures Level of TopiclIssir Mitigation Measures Significance southern part of the City, and limited Ponding for public transportation, Santa Clarke does not have the financial resources to expend public transportation bus service to the project site. Schools - Any new development within the boundaries of the Newhall School District (NSD) and William S. Han High School District (WHSD) creates an incremental need for classrooms and other school facilities. Although the project does not directly generate additional students, Sure law allows school districts to assesscapital facility improvement fees for new development. WHSD collects all fees and distributes them as applicable to the elementary school district. WHSD's current impact fees are 27 cents per square foot for commercial development, and 52.58 per square foot for residential. Baud on the current fee schedule, the proposed project would be wbject to a school impact fee of $251,545 for its commercial component and $42,725 for its residential portion. provide funding to Santa Clarity Transit to acquire one bus and annual funding to support 3,100 hours of additional Imran service per year. b) The owners atoll enter into a multi-year contract with Santa Clariu Transit for extending public bus transportation service to the project site. e) The owners shall establish private btu shuttle service acceptable to Santa Clariu Transit and the City of Santa Clariu. Prior to the iwueoce of a Site Development Permit, the Santa Clariu Transit Transportation Manager shall review and approve all circulation plana to costars project design allows for efficient transit routing and good pedestrian access. School s - Prior to ismance of building permits, the Use than significant applicant shall pay the required capital facilities with mitigation improvement fee to the Newhall School District end the measures William S. Han High School District. II 35 'breries - the Los Angeles County Library system has not adopted facility impact fees for Librarics - No mitigation manures are required. Non-significant development.The project site will be adequately served by existing facilities in the Santa Clariu ' Valley. Medical Facilities - Implementation of the Medical Facilities - No mitigation measures arc Non-significant proposed project will not adversely impact the required. 1 existing medical facilities in the wrrounding Santa Clariu area. There are adequate emergency medical facilities and ambulance tnnspotution systems in the immediate vicinity should a medical emergency arise within the project. 11. Land Uta . General Plan, Zoning and ' Other Ordinances Consistency with the City General Plan Consistency with the City General Plan Less than significant with mitigation a. The proposed business park project is a) The project's proposed land use is consistent with measures ' consistent with those land uses allowed the Land Use Blement of the City of Santa Clarke within the Business Park classification of General Plan. Annexation of the unincorporated II 35 level of Tovicflssu Miti2ation Measures Significance the General Plan. Specific use categories County portion of the site into the City and are proposed as follows: approval of the requested Zone Change and Conditional Use Permit aro required to allow 1) A total of $2.4 acres, or 45% of the consistency with all proposed land uses. entire land arca of the site, is proposed exclusively for common open space b) The proposed site design is consistent with desired and natural areas; objectives for business park uses. Proposed stmaures aro arranged in a "campus -like' or 2) A total of 44.0 acres, or 37% of she 'park -like' setting to ensure compatibility with entire land arca of she she, is proposed existing topographic festurcs. for business park uses (Muding open space and landscaping arcs& within the c) The location of the proposed project is consistent Individual parcels or lots proposed for with the City's intention to establish business park business park development); uses near major traffic corridors. The City is conditioning the project to provide transportation - 3) A total of 10.4 acres, or 9% of the related improvements to minimize potential traffic entire land arc& of the site, is proposed impacts. Air streets and roadways; d) The project's anticipated economic benefits 4) A total of 7.8 acres, or 7% of the include the creation of major employment entire land area of the site, is proposed opportunities to the City and the Valley, for corporate headquarters commercial substantial generation of salaries of which a large office land uses (including open space portion will be spent in the local area, and related and landscaping areas within individual additional sales tax revenues to she City, parcels of lots proposed for corporate inproving its ability to provide public services. headquarters development); and The increase in local jobs will improve the City's 5) A total of 2.4 acres, or 2% of the jobs -to -housing ratio and could benefit the overall entire land arca of the site, is proposed environment by helping to reduce the number and for single family attached residential intensity of long vehicular trips (and resultant air land uses. emissions) created by lengthy job commutes. The residential land use proposedwithine) The proposed development density is consistent the County (southern) portion of the with allowable floor arca ratios established by the project site is currently zoned 'HM', General Plan. Hillside Management, 'M', Industrial, and 'A-2-1', Heavy Agriculture. The applicant has filed a preannexation zone change request to designate the property 'RE' Residential Estate, that allows up to one unit per 2 acres after it is annexed to the City. The applicant is also requesting to cluster the gross density allowed for the 27.13 are portion of the site on an existing disturbed area that was previously used as a water injection well. This 2.4 sett disturbed area is proposed to contain 12 multi -family dwelling units in two, six- plex structures. Because of the location and other development constraints related to the previous water injection well site, alternative land uses may be appropriate for this limited portion of the project site. Other land uses that nay be more appropriate include: 1) Undeveloped open space. 36 1 37 Level of Toricllssu Miti¢ation Measures Sienificance ' 2) MuseumfInterpretive Center for the San Fernando Pau, Beale's Cut and other historic places in the area. ' 3) Fire Station. 4) Public utility facility (electrical substation, water pump station, etc.) ' 5) Business administrative offices. park b. The project design is consistent with that anticipated for business perk uses. The ' structures proposed underthe development plan arc basically centered, arranged, and nestled in 'campus-like' or 'park-like' settings and patterns around and within the ' areas of the site which presented themselves most easily for development. c. The proposed project is strategically ' located near two major traffic corridors: the Interstate 5 Freeway which runs north and south, connecting the Los Angeles metropolitan area to the City of Bakers- akewfield fieldand points north; and the Antelope Valley (14) Freeway running southwest to northeast, connecting Los Angles to its major northern and northeastern suburbs (the City of Palmdale and the City of Lancaster), and continuing northeast into the Mojave Desert. - ' d. The proposed project will provide major employment opportunities to the City and the Santa Clarita Valley. ' e. The proposed development density is consistent with allowable floor area ratios established by the General Plan. The project proposes to develop 931,650gross ' square feet of commercial development on the 3,315,575 square feet of land zoned for business park/commereial use. This results in a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.28, ' well below the range of 0.5 to 1.5:1 set forth in the General Plan, and below that allowed by the avenge cross slope analysis (0.40). ' Less than significant Consistency with the Unified Develooment Consistency with the Unified Development with mitigation Code code meesurea ' jonine Zonin a. The proposed project is consistent with the a) The project's proposed land use and site design ' Business Park zoned portion of the property located within the City of Santa an consistent with the development standards of the Business Park and Planned Development (PD) Clarita.. overlay zone. The City can modify these standards through the Site Development Permit 1 37 Level of TooicRssue Mitigation Measures Significance b. A request has been submined to formally arms: this portion of the project site into the City of Santa Clarita. Approval of this requested action would transfer zoning control of the entire site to the City of Santa Clariu, and would necessitate the creation of new zoning designations for the lbrmer'County' portion of the site. The proposed open space is consistent with the existing County Hillside Management Zoning. The proposed residential on Lot 1 is out consistent with the heavy manufacturing County land use designation for that portion of the site. e. The proposed business park structures arc consistent with the development standards of the Business Park and Planned Development (PD) overlay zone,as designed under 'Existing Conditions" in this section. The proposed development includes a total of 32 two-story structures (approximately 30 feet in height), and 1 three-story structure (approximately 45 feet in height). The proposed corporate headquarters structures include one 3.5 -story structure (approximately 60 feet in height), one 5.5 - story strucrurc (approximately 80 feet), one 6 -story structure (approximately SO feet in height), and one 7 -story structure (approximately 95 feet in height). The corporate headquarters buildings are consistent with the BP and PD overlay zones, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Pcrmit for structures exceeding three stories in height. The proposed 7 -story, 95 -toot tall structure would be the tallest office building in the City. Currently the tallest existing buildings arc 4 -stories; the tallest approved building is 6 stories. Other 5 and 6 story once buildings arc being considered in other portions of the City. Subdivision The project development plan proposes to subdivide the existing nine lot site into a total of forty individual parcels. A total of 34 of the .parcels arc proposed as development parcels, while the remaining 6 parcels arc proposed for permanent open space. Of the 34 development parcels, a total of 29 parcels contain business park lard uses, 4 parcels contain corporate headquarters land uses, and 1 parcel process, if necessary, to minimize potential land use conflicts. b) Annexation of the unincorporated County portion of the site into the City and approval of zoning to residential is required to establish consistency with all proposed land uses. Formal designationof this portion of the site into the City's Residential Esau (RE) zone will be required to establish eoruiatency with all proposed land uses. c) A Conditional Use Permit shall be approved by the City of Sante Clariu to allow construction of the corporate headgnartersbuddings which exceed three stories in height. ubdivision a) Prior to the approval of a tentative tract map, the applicant shall satisfy all City requirements for physical suitability, density, environmental sensitivity, health and safety, and access imposed by the Planning Commission. and City Council. b) The owner, at the time of issuance of permits or other grants of approval agrees to develop the property in accordance with City Codes and other appropriate ordinances such as the Building Code, 38 [ass than significant with mitigation measures - Level of Topic/Issue Mitieation Measure Sienificance contains a residential land use. Gradina The proposed grading plan is generally consistent with the standards established by the City Development Code. The proposed plan concentrates the vast majority of its proposed development within previously developed and graded arca$ of the property, and away from any of the topographically and biologically sensitive areas of the site. The project U Plumbing Code, Grading Code, Highway Permit Ordinance, Mechanical Code, Zoning Ordinance, Undergrounding of Utilities Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Wane Ordinance, Electrical Code and Fre Code. e) The applicant shall file a map which shall be prepared by or under the direction of a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer. The map shall be processed through the City Engineer prior to being filed with the County Recorder. The applicant shall nae all offers of dedication by certificate on the face of the map. d) The applicant shall label driveways as 'Private Driveway and Fin Lane' and delineate on the map to the sstisfaction of the Department. c) The applicant shall remove existing structures prior to approval of the foul map. I) The applicant shall quitclaim or relocate easements running through proposed structures prior to flu] map approval. g) If the subdivider intends to file multiple final maps, he must inform the Advisory Agency at the time the tentative nap is filed. The boundaries of the unit final map shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the Planning Department. h) The applicant shall extend lot fines to the center of private street$. i) If signatures of record tide interests appear on the map, the applicant shall submit a preliminary guarantee. If said signatures do not appear on the map, a tide report/final guarantee is needed showing all fee owners and interest holden. j) The applicant shall pay a deposit as required to review documents an plans for final map clearance in accordance with Section 21.36.010(c) of the Subdivision Ordinance. k) Annexation shall be completed prior to, approval and recordation of the final subdivision map. Gradin a) The applicant dull satisfy, all Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements for wil remediation to clean up the hydrocarbon contamination identified on the site. b) Prior to the issuance of a Site Development Permit, the applicant shall submit a grading plan that minimizes encroachment into existing natural slopes, and demonstrates balanced grading on site. 39 Less than significant with mitigation measures Level of ToricBssue Mitigation Measures Significance does propose grading on one finger ridgeline below the San Fernando Pass ridgeline adjacent to Siem Highway,and involves a I00 -foot high cut slope in order to provide for additional development area and balance grading on site. A significant amount of the proposed grading activity is necessary to repair or remediate the prior grading activities undertaken on the site, and/or to execute the proposed soil remediation activities to clean up the hydrocarbon contamination left from the prior use of the site. Consistency with the City Rid¢eline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance The proposed project is gencrally consistent with the site design, open space and landscaping, grading and architectural objectives established by the City Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Guidelines. Site Design The proposed project attempts to capitalize upon, use and preserve the predominant geographic form and natural topographic features of the property. The development plan emphasizes a 'campus - like' or 'park -like' setting, which makcs maximum use of the various natural features of the site, such as hills and ridges, oak trees, related vegetation and natural creek features. The corporate headquarters structures are proposed to be located in the higher elevated, and most prominent areas of the project site. This maximizes their visibility to passers by on the Antelope Valley (SR 14) Freeway and Siem Highway. With the exception of the singular six -story corporate headquarters structure, all other corporate buildings are concentrated in a cluster for their particular land use on the site. Open Space and Landscaping The City may approve this plan as proposed, or modify it as necessary to mintimize potential land use, grading and aesthetic impacts. Consistency with the City Ridgeline and Hillside Development Ordinance Site Design a) See grading mitigation measures. Open Space and Landscaping A major portion of the entire project site a) The applicant has proposed to retain 52.4 acres, (approximately 52.4 acres, or 45% of the or 45% of the total land area, as exclusive total land area) is proposed to be permanent open space and natural areas. preserved and maintained as exclusive Additional open space and landscaping of permanenl open space and natural areas. approximately 20 acres will be provided within Additional open space and landscaping the individual parcels and lots proposed for area, totalling approximately 20 acres, developmem. The City may approve this plan as 40 Lass than significant with mitigation measures Less than significant with mitigation measures II The majority of these higher slopes arc located in areas of natural hill features on the northern portion of the site, the large hill in the central portion of the site, and the majority of the large, natural hill that dominates the southern half of the project site. Because of the grading previously undertaken on the project site to accommodate its prior refinery use, a portion of the site is characterized by little or no slope. The proposed plan concentrates the majority of its development within these previously graded areas, and away from the topo- graphically and biologically sensitive areas of the site. Proposed building pads feature rounded comers, and have been shaped to conform with the existing topographic character of the site. Architecture ' 1) Proposed building setbacks and heights maynot be consistent with the hillside character of the site. Mid -rise ' buildings will tend to dominate the site visually. This impact is proposed to be mitigated partially .through varied building and lot orientations in a II Architecture Less than significant with mitigation a) See General Plan and Zoning mitigation measures. measures. 41 Level of ' Topic/Issue Mitiretion Measures Sienificance will be provided within the individual proposed, or modify as necessary to provide a parcels and lots proposed for desired level of open spaces. development. The primary futures of the proposed open ' space plan include: (1) preserving the historic Beet's Cut stagecoach pan; (2) preserving potential wildlife migration and movement corridors that erose the site; (3) preserving and revegetating a portion of the blighted tributary of Newhall Creek; (4) preserving a number of.large open space areas on the site; and (5) preserving ' approximately 705 (69%) of the 1,114 Coast Live Oak trees which presently exist on the site. ' SlooesMillsides SlooeslHillsides Less than significant with mitigation A total of 72.42 acres of the project site a) See grading mitigation measures. measures (60% of the site) has existing slope ' percentage or 11 % or greater, qualifying as 'Hillside' areas under the Ordinance, and being subject to the terns and provisions of the City Ordinance and Guidelines. The majority of these higher slopes arc located in areas of natural hill features on the northern portion of the site, the large hill in the central portion of the site, and the majority of the large, natural hill that dominates the southern half of the project site. Because of the grading previously undertaken on the project site to accommodate its prior refinery use, a portion of the site is characterized by little or no slope. The proposed plan concentrates the majority of its development within these previously graded areas, and away from the topo- graphically and biologically sensitive areas of the site. Proposed building pads feature rounded comers, and have been shaped to conform with the existing topographic character of the site. Architecture ' 1) Proposed building setbacks and heights maynot be consistent with the hillside character of the site. Mid -rise ' buildings will tend to dominate the site visually. This impact is proposed to be mitigated partially .through varied building and lot orientations in a II Architecture Less than significant with mitigation a) See General Plan and Zoning mitigation measures. measures. 41 level of T_po ie9ssue Mitigation Measures Significance 'tempus -like' or 'park -like' setting as well as different building heights for each of the four corporate headquarters structures. 2) Building style, materials and color will be designed and reviewed through a Site Development Permit process to ensure compatibility with surrounding land flus, and wtten the visual impacts of the development on the surrounding natural environment. Comontibility with Adiscem and Surroundine Compatibility with Adiscent and Surrounding land Leas than significant Land Use Uses annexation of the County portion of the with mitigation project site into the City of Santa Clariu. Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clariu, Santa Claris currently identifies the measures a. The proposed project is consistent with the a) Specific land use designations and site General Plan and compatible with development standards have been proposed by the surrounding land uses. Future applicant. The City of Santa Clarita can adopt development of the County property thew designations and standards as proposed, or located cast of the Antelope Valley (SR modify them to minimize any potential land use 14) Freeway could create an incompatible and aesthetic impacts. land use, depending on the nature of proposed land uses on the site. b. Development of the project site as proposed will affect surrounding land uses through increased levels of traffic, noise, light and glare, and air pollution, as well as alteration of existing views on the site. Compatibility of the Proiect's Intemal Land Compatibility of the Proiect's Internal Land Less than significant Uses - uses with mitigation measures The proposed 575,150gross square feet of a) The project's proposed permitted land uses an business perk land uses and 356,500 gross business park and corporate headquarters oriented square feet of corporate headquarters land to business park centers, and do not create uses arc the primary uses occupying the incompatible internal land uses. The proposed pmject site. The remaining 16,560 gross residential taw is isolated from the proposed square feet of residential on is generally business park and corporate office uses. The City compatible because it is set apart from the can consider alternative land uses for the business park and corporate once portion residential portion of the site that arc more of the site. However, the residential use compatible with the adjacent open apace and may not be compatible with the adjacent historic resources. open space. and historic resources preserved on the southern portion of the site. Proiect impacts on Surrounding Jurisdictions Proiect Impacts on Surrounding Jurisdictions Less than significant with mitigation The property owner . has requested LAFCO must consider and approve an application to measures annexation of the County portion of the annex a portion of the property from unincorporated project site into the City of Santa Clariu. Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clariu, Santa Claris currently identifies the prior to implementation of the southem portion of the project site .within its General Plan project. Planning Arca, and designates this area for RE, Residential Estate land use.. 42 II ' Level of o icQssue Mitigation Mearums sienificance ' 12. Aesthetics and View Analysis The project proposes development on approximately 44 acres of the 117 sets ' site. The project consists of 40 buildings on 34 development parcels, concentrated primarily on existing disturbed or flaaer portions of the project site. Proposed grading would alter a finger ridgeline close to Siem Highway and Clampin Road, and would create a ' manufactured2:1 slope approximately 100 feet high, at an elevation of 1740' up to 1840'. Proposed buildings range from 30 feet (two stories) up to 95 feet (seven stories) in height.. Thirty-two (32) of the thirty. three (33) proposed industrial buildings ' arc two -stories (30 feel). One industrial building is proposed at thee -stories (45 feet), and is located close to the Antelope Valley Freeway (Parcel 11). Four (4) I corporate headquartenkomrtercial office buildings are proposed in the southern portion of the development area. Thew buildings range from 3.5 stories (50 feet) ' up to 7 stories (95 feet) toll. The 7 -story building is currently the tallest proposed building in the City of Santa Clarits. a) The applicant shall comply with land use Len than significant standards and development regulations established with mitigation by the Community Development Department measures through the Site Development Permit process. b) Prior to the approval of the Site Development Permit, the Community Development Department shall approve a final site plan, and grading plan that has been found to be consistent with adopted standards and development regulations established for Business Park land uses within the Santa Clariu General Plan. c)., Prior to the approval of a Site Development Permit, the Community Development Department shall approve a preliminary landscape plan that meets all landscaping and screening requirements for Business Park Site Development Standards, or approved variations to thou standards. d) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit final landscape plans for City approval. Said final plans shall be consistent with preliminary plans approved by the Community Development Department. e) Prior to the approval of a Site Development permit, the Community Development Department shall approve a roofequipment screening plan that effectively screens all roof -mounted mechanical equipment from adjacent highways and upslope areas. 1) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Community Development Department shall approve a signage plan that meets the requirements of the City's sign ordinance. g) Prior to the issuance of a building permit; the property owner shall irrevocably offer for dedication parcels 1, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40 to the Tentative Tact Map 51044 to the City of Santa Clariu or the City's designee for the pnwrvationof historic, biotic, aesthetic and open spaces resources within the City and area proposed for annexation. 13. light and Glare Devclopment of the proposed business 1. Prior to the issuance of a Site Development park/corponteheadquartersprojectwould Permit, the Community Development Department emote new light and Slam on the project shall approve a preliminary lighting plan that site, and in the vicinity surrounding the demonstrates all exterior lighting has been property. New sources of exterior designed to confine direct rays to the premises by lighting associated with the buildings, including shielded lamp boxes that direct the light 1 43 Less than significant with mitigation measures Level of Tooicllssue Mitigation Measures Significance streets, and parking lou include wall mounted fixtures, ground mounted fixtures, parking lot light standards, and street lights. Project signage would also create lighting impacts. Glare associated primarily with the proposed multi -story corporate headquarters/office buildings and low-rise business park building would be generated by reflective window surfaces on the buildings, and from reflective window and chrome surfaces on vehicles within the parking lots and on project succu. toward the ground. 2. All non -security, exterior lighting of buildings and parking lots shall be turned off between the hours of 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM. 3. Prior to the approval of a Site Development Permit, the Community Development Department shall approve a signage plan that meets all adopted signage regulations and development standards set forth in the Unified Development Code. 4. Prior to approval of a Site Development Permit, the Community Development Department &hall approve a preliminary landscape plan that effectively reduces glare from the proposed parking lou as viewed from the Antelope Valley Freeway and Sierra Highway. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit final landscape plans for City approval. Final plans shall be consistent with preliminary plans approved by the Community Development Department. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 3.1 NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Regional Setting - The City of Santa Clarita is located in the Santa Clarita Valley, approximately 30.miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles (Figure 1). The Santa Clarita Valley is surrounded by the Santa Susana Mountains to the south and west, by the San Gabriel Mountains to the east and the Sierra Pelona Range to the north. The natural pass between these two ranges in the long established route taken by Interstate 5 through the mountains. The Santa Clara River is the major drainage course that flows west towards Ventura out of the northwest portion of the valley. Elevations in the valley range from 1,100 feet above mean sea level along the Santa Clara River up to over 2,000 feet at the foot of the San Gabriel Mountains in the eastern portion of the city. The San Gabriel Mountains rise to an elevation of 4;000 feet immediately southeast of the city, and continue to rise to over 6,000 feet two miles to the east. The Santa Susana Mountains rise to an elevation of approximately 3,700 feet just southwest of the city. The valley is surrounded by significant amounts of mountainous open space within the Angeles National Forest and the Los Padres National Forest. Temperatures in the valley range from 25 to 30 degrees F during winter to over 100 degrees F during the summer. However, these extremes typically occur fewer than 20 days out of the year. Temperatures typically range between 45 to 85 degrees the vast majority of the year. The Santa Clarita Valley. typically has approximately 16 inches of rainfall each year.- Ovet the last 4 years, the valley has experienced significantly less than normal rainfall amounts, creating a drought condition. Prevailing winds are from the direction of the Pacific Ocean inland to the east and north at 5 to 10 miles an hour. Wind patterns change, however, from day to night with coastal to inland flows prevailing in the daytime as temperatures increase, to the opposite at night. ' High velocity winds from the east (Santa Ana conditions) often create hot, dry winds of 40 to 60 miles per hour, mostly occurring in the fall. ' Wildland fire hazards exist throughout the Santa Clarita Valley, especially within the foothills and mountains surrounding the project site. Moderate to extreme earthquake hazards also exist throughout the region. ' Local Setting - The 117 acre project site is located in the foothills between the San Gabriel and Santa Susana Mountains, in the area generally known as the San Fernando Pass, in the ' extreme southeastern part of the Santa Clarita Valley (Figure 2). Elevations on the property range from approximately 1,520 feet at the northern end of the site, up to 1,940 feet at the south-central portion of the site, for an overall elevation change of 420 feet. The property's ' primary land form feature is the steep hillside slopes concentrated on the southern part of the site. Three smaller hill features exist on the northern half of the project site. Over 50 percent of the property consists of steep hillsides, or rugged mountain land. The Valley Gateway project site is located between two major ridgelines trending north/south, one to the east of State Route 14, and another to the west of Sierra Highway. Another major ridgeline trending east/west, that forms the San Fernando Pass, bisects the southern portion of the site. These primary ridgelines, and a secondary ridgeline to the north visually isolate this area from the rest of the Santa Clarita Valley. The site, however, is visually prominent from Sierra Highway and the Antelope Valley Freeway, which serve as two of the three major "gateways" into the southern part of the Santa Clarita Valley. The project site straddles the Weldon Divide, separating the Santa Clara River drainage basin to the north, from the Los Angeles River drainage basin to the south. Minor headwater tributary drainage courses traverse the site. Primary drainage within the northern two-thirds of the project site is within an intermittent tributary of Newhall Creek, which generally flows south to north, ultimately into the South Fork of the Santa Clara River. Portions of this drainage course have been disturbed by the previous oil refinery operations and by the construction of the Antelope Valley Freeway. An unnamed tributary provides drainage within the southern one-third of the property, along Sierra Highway. This drainage course was originally disturbed by Beale's Cut. The proximity of the drainage course to Sierra Highway has also resulted in illegal dumping activities within the streambed over a long period of time. The underlying geological formations consist of sandstone and conglomerates cemented by caliche over time. The surface rock units are specifically known as the Pico formations. The rock units stratigraphically below the Pico formations, which consist of similar, but finer sandstone and conglomerate materials are known as Towsley Formations. At one time, the Saugus Formation existed on top of the Pico Formation, but has been eroded away. Tectonic forces have caused these. formations to be folded, faulted and elevated to their present topography. Sandstone surface materials are susceptible to water and wind erosion over time. Two types of similar soil overlay the Pico Formation. The Aqua Dulce Association occupies the site's northern 20 acres, while the Ballom-Castaic-Saugus Association occupies the southern 100 acres.. Natural vegetation common to these soil types include annual grasses, forbs, chaparral, heavier sage and shrub brush and oak trees, with scattered occurrences of California juniper, chamise, and manzanita. The project is traversed by two identified faults. The Beacon Fault is a thrust that bisects the south-central portion of the site, from east -to -west. An unnamed fault passes through the northeast part of the site, closet to the Antelope Valley Freeway. Both faults are considered inactive, with little potential for movement. Plant communities present on the project site generally include oak woodland, brushland, scrubland and herbaceous grasslands. Oak woodlands and individual coast live oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) are concentrated in the central and northern portion of the project site. The site contains over 1,100 mature oak trees. Brushland and scrubland communities include primarily chaparral and coastal sage scrub, with small amounts of Great Basin sagebrush and mulefat scrub concentrated along the Newhall Creek tributary. Herbaceous communities consist primarily of annual grassland and weed covered disturbed areas. The relatively large size and undeveloped condition of a majority of the project site, combined with a diverse and healthy range of natural vegetation including oak woodlands, coastal sage scrub and riparian communities, suggests the property supports a variety of animal species. In addition, because of its strategic location between the San Gabriel and Santa Susana Mountain ranges, the site and surrounding properties once provided natural 0 r I migration corridors, prior to the construction of the surrounding regional freeway system. However, some limited animal movement across the project site is still suspected to occur. 3.2 MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Regional Setting - The City of Santa Clarita currently encompasses approximately 26,880 1 acres, or 42 square miles. Approximately 46 percent of this land area is undeveloped, 38 percent is devoted to residential land uses, just over 8 percent is occupied by public and institutional uses, while close to 8 percent is occupied by industrial and commercial development. Santa. Clarita's 1990 State Department of Finance estimated population is approximately 121,200. The City's population represents approximately 1.4 percent of Los Angeles County's estimated 8.8 million resident population and approximately 0.4 percent of the State of California's estimated 1990 population of 29.5 million residents. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) estimates that in 1987, there were approximately 29,000 jobs available within the entire Santa Clarita Valley. The City of Santa Clarita has been subject to rapid and intensive population growth over the last decade. In 1980 the City's estimated population totaled 79,015. The City's population increased a total of 42,148 between 1980 and 1990, representing an increase of approximately 53.3 percent over a ten year period, an average of approximately 5.3 percent or 4,215 per annum. This 53.3 percent growth rate was approximately 27 percent greater than the growth rate of Los Angeles County as a whole over the same period of time. The number of existing housing units within the City of Santa Clarita totaled 39,280 units in 1990. This total, averaged by the 121,200 total residents living in the City, translates to an average population ratio of approximately 3.1 persons per household. This average is approximately 11 percent higher than the Los Angeles county -wide average of 2.8 persons per household. Approximately 75 percent of the total dwelling units located in the City are single-family dwellings; with 7 percent comprised of two to four dwelling units; and 19 percent comprised of five or more dwelling units. In terms of age, approximately 72 percent of the dwelling units were constructed after 1970, while about 45 percent of the units were constructed after. 1980. A total of 73 percent of the total dwelling units in the City were owner -occupied, while only 27 percent were renter -occupied. The most recent information relative to the local ratio of existing jobs to existing housing units in the Santa Clarita area is for the year 1984. At that time, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) estimated that the Santa Clarita Valley contained a total employment base of approximately 23,400, with 29,200 housing units. These figures translate into an overall ratio of 0.80 jobs being available in the area for every available housing unit. This ratio reflects the "bedroom community" nature of the community, and accents the City's priority for achieving a better local balance of jobs to housing units. The City's "housing rich" jobs to housing ratio of 0.80 contrasts radically with the Los 47 Angeles county -wide "job -rich" jobs to housing ratio average of 1.39 (4,053,000 jobs to 2,923,600 housing units). Regional public facilities and utilities influencing and affecting the project site include the adjacent freeway and highway, high power overhead electric power lines, the underground Los Angeles Aqueduct, and underground petroleum pipelines. The project site is surrounded by regional freeways and highways that provide convenient access south to the San Fernando Valley and to Los Angeles, northeast to Lancaster and Palmdale and the high desert, and north to Bakersfield and the Bay Area. The site is highly visible from the Antelope Valley Freeway (State Route 14), and Sierra Highway. The southern portion of the site is visible from a small portion of the Golden State Freeway (Interstate 5). These three regional transportation routes accommodate approximately 250,000 average trips per day, and 28,300 average trips during the morning and evening peak hours. The project site and adjacent properties are bisected northwest to southeast by a 150 foot wide corridor containing one parallel pair of Southern California Edison Company elevated 220 kilovolt electric transmission lines. The transmission corridor consists of nine lines total, arrayed three lines to one set of 100 foot high towers and six lines to the other set of 120 -foot high steel towers. The second Los Angeles Aqueduct, carrying water from northern to southern California, runs underground, across the site, from northwest to southeast. The steel and concrete -lined pipe measures 78 inches in diameter, and carries an average annual water flow of 210 cubic feet per second. Water flows through the 177 mile aqueduct entirely by gravity to the upper Van Norman Reservoir, two miles south of the project site. It is located at a relatively shallow depth across the northern two-thirds of the site. The southern one-third is tunneled beneath the steep hillsides that comprise this portion of the site, to a depth of 100 feet below the crest of the hill. In addition to the regional electricity and water infrastructure traversing the property, a number of active and abandoned petroleum pipelines enter, cross, and exit the site at different points, that deliver petroleum products throughout the surrounding region. Local Setting - Properties contiguous to, and surrounding the project site are generally undeveloped, with few man-made disturbances. However, the Santa Clarita General Plan ultimately anticipates development of portions of these properties. Existing and potential, or proposed land uses for these properties are summarized as follows: North - A small vacant parcel is located immediately north of the project site. Uses further north of the property to San Fernando Road include an automobile repair facility, vacant land, a gasoline station, and a fast food restaurant. East - Elsmere Canyon lies east of the Antelope Valley Freeway, and an intervening .ridgeline, which is located within unincorporated Los Angeles County. This area is located in the City of Santa Clarita's General Plan Planning Area, and is designated for an Estate Residential land use of one unit per two acres or less, because of steep topography, 48 L1 extensive oak woodland resources, and other significant environmental constraints. The property owner and the County of Los Angeles propose to construct a regional landfill facility in Elsmere Canyon, and 1 a new freeway interchange contiguous to the project site. South - A vacant parcel lying within unincorporated Los Angeles County borders 1 the project site to the south. This lot is bounded by both Sierra Highway and the SR 14 Freeway, and will likely remain undeveloped due to its steep topography. 1 1 49 West - Sierra Highway bounds the property immediately to the west. Land uses on the west side of Sierra Highway include undeveloped open space, the Eternal Valley mortuary, and miscellaneous light manufacturing 1 facilities. This area is characterized by steep slopes and is therefore subject to substantial development restriction. A portion of this area is also designated for Business Park land use by the Santa Clarita General 1 Plan, and could support approximately 3,500,000 square feet of light industrial and business park uses (Gates Properties). 1 3.3 PROJECT SITE SETTING 1 Approximately 44 acres of the 117 acre project site, or 38 percent has been disturbed by the previous oil extraction and refinery use, by the two internal streets (Remsen Street and Clampitt Road), and by other utility improvements within the property. Most of the ' previous oil extraction and refinery improvements have been removed. The Newhall Refinery (contained within the project site) was constructed in 1928, and began 1 petroleum extraction and refinery operations in 1930. These operations, peaking at a maximum refining capacity of approximately 19,000 barrels per day, continued on site for almost sixty years, until the facility closed for commercial purposes and began formal decommissioning in 1989. Products produced and stored on the refinery site included 1 leaded and unleaded gasoline, kerosene, naphtha, heat fuel, diesel fuel, gas oil, low sulfur oil, road oil and related asphalt products. Existing records indicated 22 wells were drilled on the property to depths ranging from 640 to 2,100 feet deep., Seventeen of these are oil 1 wells, four water monitoring/injection wells, and one well of unknown purpose. All of these wells have been, or are in the process of being abandoned, capped and decommissioned in accordance with State of California Department Oil and Gas requirements. 1 With the presence of petroleum and water monitoring/injection wells on a recently decommissioned complex, certain portions of the site contain environmental contamination due to spillage, seepage, and storage of petroleum and petroleum -related products extracted 1 or used in the former extraction/refining processes. The historically significant Beale's Cut is located within the southern portion of the project site. One other small disturbed area lies just west of Beale's Cut, with dirt road access to 1 Sierra Highway. 1 1 49 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT: EXISTING CONDITIONS, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1 TOPOGRAPHY AND LANDFORM 4.1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS The Santa Clarita Valley is a diverse geographical area that covers over 40 square miles, 35 miles northwest of downtown Los Angeles. The Valley's dominant topographical features are the Santa Clara River and its abundance of canyons, foothills and hillsides that transition into mountains that rise thousands of feet in elevation above the Valley floor. The Valley is framed by numerous ridgelines that visually dominate the surrounding Valley landscape. Lower elevations along the Santa Clara River are approximately 1,150 feet above sea level in the Civic Center area of the city. The San Gabriel Mountains surround the Valley to the north and east, and rise dramatically to an elevation of over 5,000 feet, just a few miles east of the city. The Santa Susana Mountains rise to an elevation of over 3,000 feet and separate the Santa Clarita Valley from Simi Valley and San Fernando Valley to the south and southwest. Most of these large, mountainous open space areas are located in the Angeles and Los Padres National Forests, and under Federal Forestry Service control. The General Plan has indicated that the transition and interface between new development and adjacent forest lands is vital in preserving the country feel of the area. Minimizing impacts to natural landforms and topography throughout the Valley is a key element in preserving natural visual and biotic resources and enhancing the rural character of the area. ' The "San Fernando Pass" ridgeline forms the southern side of Elsmere Canyon in the San Gabriel Mountains, and reaches elevations up to 2,600 feet just east of the project site. It then drops down and crosses the southern portion of the project site at an elevation of approximately 1,800 to 1,900 feet. The ridgeline continues into the Santa Susana Mountains and reaches elevations over 2,200 feet just west of the project site. The City of Santa Clarita's Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance and its ' Significant Ridgelines Map designates this landform as a "primary" ridgeline that cannot be altered by grading or improvements except as approved through a Hillside Plan Review Permit. ' Two other north -south trending ridgelines frame the project site to the east and west. Approximately one-quarter mile to the east, the project site is paralleled by the e51 The project site contains a portion of unique, locational topography within the Santa ' Clarita Valley that has served as one of the most significant gateways into and out of the Valley over the last 150 years. The southern portion of the site contains a portion of what ' is known as the "San Fernando Pass". Its 1,800 -foot elevation made it the lowest pass into the San Fernando Valley from the Santa Clarita Valley, and has long been the primary access for regional travel through the valleys. A steep wagon trail was pioneered through the pass in 1854. That trail was significantly improved in 1863 by Beale's Cut, a 90 -foot ' deep, 20 -foot wide cut through the pass that made wagon travel.much easier over the pass. The pass remained a functional regional transportation route for close to 50 years, until the Newhall Tunnel was completed in 1910. U.S. Highway 6 (Sierra Highway) was cut ' through the pass in 1939, and State Route 14 (Antelope Valley Freeway) with its 275 -foot cut through the pass was completed in the 1960's. ' The "San Fernando Pass" ridgeline forms the southern side of Elsmere Canyon in the San Gabriel Mountains, and reaches elevations up to 2,600 feet just east of the project site. It then drops down and crosses the southern portion of the project site at an elevation of approximately 1,800 to 1,900 feet. The ridgeline continues into the Santa Susana Mountains and reaches elevations over 2,200 feet just west of the project site. The City of Santa Clarita's Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance and its ' Significant Ridgelines Map designates this landform as a "primary" ridgeline that cannot be altered by grading or improvements except as approved through a Hillside Plan Review Permit. ' Two other north -south trending ridgelines frame the project site to the east and west. Approximately one-quarter mile to the east, the project site is paralleled by the e51 westernmost ridge of Elsmere Canyon, just beyond the Antelope Valley Freeway, and reaches heights of 1,900' up to 2,300' in elevation. Approximately one-fifth of a mile west of the site, another north -south trending ridgeline parallels the project, and reaches heights of 1,700' up to 2,200'. Approximately three-quarters of a mile to the north, between San Fernando Road and Placerita Canyon Road, the project site is framed by a southern ridgeline along Placerita Canyon. This ridgeline trends east -to -west across the northern viewshed of the site and generally has an elevation of 1,500' to 1,650'. It has been designated as a "secondary" ridgeline by the City's Ridgeline Preservation Ordinance. Elevations of these prominent landforms located within the surrounding territory are shown on Figure 4. Additional information is presented in Section 4.12 of this EIR related to visual and aesthetic impacts of the proposed project. The project site is located at the extreme southeastern end of the Santa Clarita Valley, and is framed by the previously described primary and secondary ridgelines. Elevations on the 117 acre site range between 1,520' at the northern end of the property, up to 1,950' at the southern part of the site. Figure 5 shows the specific elevations on the project site. The southern half of the property contains the most rugged hillside terrain with the steepest slopes. There are also three, smaller, distinct hillside landforms with gentle to moderate slopes located on the northern half of the project site. The term "slope" is both a technical (mathematical) and qualitative measurement which reflects the steepness of portions or entireties of land surfaces. Slope is an expression of the relationship between the measurements of actual change in elevation (vertical distance) over some surface area of a land form (horizontal distance). The measurement yields a qualitative sense of the steepness of the land (or portions of the land) which have direct impacts on the ability, complexity, overall feasibility and costs of access and development on any given site. For example, a portion of a landform that rises one (1) foot vertically over a two (2) foot horizontal distance has a fifty percent (50%) slope or 2:1 slope. Slopes range from zero percent (0%) (which represents totally flat land) to one hundred percent (100%) which represents a steep 45 degree angle slope. Figure 6 documents existing slope conditions over the project site, and identifies six separate slope classifications, which are also summarized in Table 1. 52 m m m m m= m= m w m m m = w=== � l� � � lijA� 'I�Q�HieJ1 _���-�M. Z r1 ;�.� nun 1 aFnlmi [' Irl. �o�;�- _ S�1•e '2 luu I.: l ..'�' I' L ,.I�,_ j'( rY•J6 j -.• Ily7 V- � D 1-i��-iy i -,' •`� 'InC@p Eos-ri 1 ' •C] � •�{mac I�'••!I I I. 111' �ti'% �•- �i, NIilV11A1.1. .. ���•ti'''i'` 4" 1 � 7'1r i S 11E 04 ILI� ♦ � 1 /O/Lt, . I �'•,� � 9 1 � r ��1�f>A� ll • i� •• !b'•. o� . 41 II I` n r� J -N �• U �% ELEVATION IN FEET 1900 1800 1700 1600 1500 1300 1200 ME ELEVATIONS IN PROJECT VICINITY VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 City of Santa Clarita, California Figure 4 53 PROJECT SITE BOUNDARY DOMINANT LOCAL RIDGELINES PLANNING CONSORTIUM o ,aoo 2000. t uxp lrwwxo. svvlwpwMwwru.muaws �� PROJECT SITE TOPO( VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 City of Santa Clarita, California PLANNING' CONSORTIUM uxo Iwo wvmw:nrcuru srwms i%' 1950' Vp4�EY OPE NtEt 1900' ELEVATION IN FEETABOVE 1850' SEA LEVEL 1800' 1750' 1700' 650 1625' 1600 1575' 1550' 1525' VERTICAL SCALE EXAGGERATED 3X 1500' Envicom Corporation `NORTH' 0Acres o { z{{w_ sao ecec. Land Planning • Emironmental Assessment • Regulatory Compliance �fi1L— _:- 0.5 Acres 54 Figure 5 EXISTING SLOPE CONDITIONS I VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 City of Santa Clarita, California SLOPE STEEPNESS CATEGORIES Steep Cliffs 50%+ Rugged Mountains 31-50% Mountainous 16-30% Steep Hillside I1-15% Hillside 6-10% Gently Rolling 0-5% Flat P 1TE Envicom Corporation r NORTH H- IA 08 r i CONSORTIUM o r xso soor�.n uwri.wn�nvuvmomumu. sivnis Land Planning •Environmental Assessment •Regulatory Compliance `-�- 55 Figure 6 4.1.2 TABLE 1 VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT SLOPE CLASSIFICATION SUMMARY Slope Classification Flat Land (0 to 5 percent slope) Gentle, Rolling Land (6 to 10 percent slope) Hillside Land (11 to 15 percent slope) Steep Hillside Land (16 to 30 percent slope) Mountainous Land (31 to 50 percent slope) Rugged Mountain Land (51+ percent slope) Project Site Totals * Includes SCE fee owned property Acres Percent of Parcel of Parcel 28.96 24.0% 19.31 16.0% 7/24 6.0% 8.45 7.0% 20.52 17.0% 36.21 30.0% 120.69 acres *100% This information shows that 47% of the site contains mountainous lands with over 30 percent slope. Approximately 13% of the site has hillside slopes between 10 to 30 percent. The remaining 40% of the property is either flat, or gentle rolling land with less than 10 percent slope. Approximately 44 acres, or 38% of the project site have been disturbed by the former petroleum extraction and refining facilities that occurred on the property between 1925 and 1989. Portions of the property have been subject to significant landform alteration to support the oil extraction/refinery operations, including a number of substantial man-made pads, slopes and asphalt paved areas. Most of the previous petroleum related structures have been removed, leaving large manufactured pads and slopes, located primarily in the central portion of the site. Remsen Street and Clampitt Road have also disturbed approximately 3 acres of the site. The historic Beale's Cut.has also disturbed a small portion of the San Fernando Pass ridgeline on the southern portion of the project site. IMPACTS The project's conceptual grading plan impacts 64.5 acres (55%) of the 116.9 acre site, and includes grading for the business park (44.0 acres), for the corporate offices (7.8 acres), for the multi -family residential (2.4 acres), and for streets and roadways (10.4 acres). Much of this area has been graded and disturbed by the previous oil extraction and refinery uses, and by the roadway improvements for Remsen Street and Clampitt Road. The total amount of project grading involves approximately 274,000 cubic yards of cut and 346,000 cubic yards of fill. Additional material excavated on-site for excavation of subterranean parking, and as a part of the remediation treatment of the hydrocarbon contaminated soil left by the oil refinery use will generate the additional fill necessary to balance grading with the project site, without the need for imported or exported material. Z61 •-MIN I 11A Jill AVERAGE CROSS SLOPE ANALYSIS VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 City of Santa Clarita, California APPUI noN O6 AV MGE CROSS SLOPE MOYM TION illGAL(U nMAXIMUMAI.LOWASLEFUHDNGDENSM nvu �eeumx span«ucuewu«n� w_��.o® _ HGINIn]pH ICPOGSR..WOW.VA2 N.%R weuw''w`e �wn`�"mrv'�v`�'«v iv.H.m.vwu we.. w.wo:savniuxoun :w�w� SVlAMA ABFn¢ Nart Ql 47.49A 65.6% -- O2 11S5A 2&7% 10A0fes Q3 683A 245% o zso wEF 9O &43A 148% CONSORTIUM OS 6.93A 573%= © 10.12A 123% Q 1089A 9.4% OB 1033A 36.7% 1Oi4"0i0—® 20A $51% 1O"m'•®' Tm'u 120.69A 40.7% 57 Figure 7 ye.w.�..�A�fuYm�m.ik'^]Wtl1YAtAMILpLiIO]R •� p44 vTn�Pue/n�Rus«flYYed.�4U�tl'asO.a �M.mtl.uw�6YeYmYmleetbb�•I bY.Ntle C'�l O.�Y W(dmePsee/bnmG1411a4�0A�rn WHMP...rrnwb4WysMw. WNo'e K1.U. THE Envicom NORTH Corporation �r—�-� 10A0fes PLANNING o zso wEF °.s CONSORTIUM Ades unD nwNNiNcEimaoNMsrrrM.s�DDIEs Land Planning •Environmental Assessment •Regulatory Compliance �� 57 Figure 7 Proposed grading is concentrated in the central portion of the site, primarily in the area most disturbed by the previous petroleum related uses, and, farther north within the flatter portion of the site. Project grading proposes a maximum cut slope height of close to 100 feet on a finger ridgeline located adjacent to Sierra Highway, just south of Clampitt Road. The maximum depth of proposed fill is approximately 30 feet, and is located close to the large cut area in the central portion of the site. The vast majority of the proposed grading is necessary to fill the lower -lying areas of the site along and south of the Clampitt Road right-of-way. This is necessary to develop a consistent base for the central portion of the site and bring roadway grades proposed in those areas of the project site into conformance with existing engineering and construction standards. The material necessary to "fill.up" this lower lying area of the site is being obtained through the grading of a hillside portion of the site immediately west of the "fill" area and due southeast of the intersection of Clampitt Road and Sierra Highway. Portions of the site in this area have experienced previous grading activities related to the construction of the existing fire reservoir on the site and the construction of Sierra Highway. However, the project proposes to grade and remove approximately 2 acres of steep, natural slopes adjacent to Sierra Highway. Proposed grading will remove approximately 400 feet of this finger ridgeline, much of which is over 50% slope. The benefits of proposing this portion of the site for a majority of the grading activity include having the major cut area directly adjacent to the fill area, and, concentrating grading disturbances between the two major landforms, primarily on the disturbed portions of the site. This is also the area that needs to be excavated in order to achieve the soil remediation necessary to clean up the hydrocarbon contamination on the property. Development standards set forth in the City's Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance, and in the accompanying guidelines, set forth specific requirements and design guidelines for earthwork, landscaping and architecture in hillside areas. It also sets forth maximum density standards based on average slope calculations. A detailed analysis of the project's average cross slope was completed in conformance with the criteria set forth in the ordinance, and is shown on Figure 7. The site was broken into ten subareas. Four proposed open space areas, with an average cross slope of approximately 60% were excluded from the analysis of the calculation for density allowance, per ordinance methodology. The average cross slope of the areas proposed for corporate headquarters uses is 6.5 %, and is exempt from the calculation for density allowance because it is below 10%. The average cross slope of the area proposed for industrial land uses equals 17.5%. The area proposed for residential use is a previously graded water well injection pad, and is currently flat. As detailed within the City of Santa Clarita Ridgeline and Hillside Development Ordinance, a site area with a 17.75 average cross slope would be allowed to be developed to 40% of the "base" maximum allotted industrial floor -to -area ratio (presently set at 1.00 under the City of Santa Clarita General Plan and accompanying Zoning Code). 58 II Translated to reflect the Valley Gateway Project property, this requirement generates a maximum allowed industrial floor -to -area ratio of 0.40, or 860,920 gross square feet for the 49.41 acres within the site proposed for industrial development. The Valley Gateway Project, as proposed, incudes a total of 575,150 gross square feet of industrial development on the 49.41 acres of land area (2,152,300 square feet), yielding a proposed floor -to -area ratio of 0.27. The 0.27 floor -to -area ratio and 575,150 gross square foot total is 32.0% or 285,770 gross square feet below the maximum development density of the 0.40 floor -to -area ratio or ' 860,920 gross square footage development total that is allowed under the Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. 4.1.3 MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Prior to the issuance of a Site Development Permit, the Planning Commission or City Council shall review site plans and detailed architectural plans and elevations to insure full compliance with all standards and guidelines set forth within the City's Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. 2. Prior to the issuance of a Site Development Permit, the project shall submit a final grading plan that demonstrates balanced grading for cut and fill, and for remedial grading of contaminated soil. The grading plan shall also include a detailed plan (1" = 40') for the large cut slope adjacent to Sierra Highway. The grading detail shall attempt to minimize the height of the cut slope, and maximize the natural appearance of this finger ridge. 3. No graded or cut embankment with a slope greater than two feet horizontal to one foot vertical shall be located adjacent to a publicly -maintained right-of-way. Major ' public roads such as those identified in the General Plan Circulation Element, may require slopes steeper than 2:1. In such an event, slopes steeper than 2:1 may be allowed, provided that a geotechnical study is prepared verifying the feasibility and ' gross stability of such slopes. 4. The applicant shall provide suitable guarantees for the perpetual maintenance of all ' slopes, irrigation improvements and landscaping located both inside and outside the public right-of-way, at no cost to the City. S. The overall shape, height or grade of any cut or fill slope shall be developed to appear similar to the existing natural contours in scale with the natural terrain of the subject site. ' 6. Where any cut or fill slopes intersect the natural grade, the intersection of each slope shall be vertically and/or horizontally rounded and blended with the natural i' contour so as to present a natural slope appearance. 7. Where any cut or fill slope exceeds 100 feet in horizontal length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall be developed to appear similar to the existing natural ' contours. 8. Grading shall be balanced on site to avoid import or export. 1 59 9. Grading shall be phased erosion. Where possible, resurfaced or landscaped so that prompt revegetation only those areas which will shall be disturbed. or construction will control be immediately developed, 10. No excavation or other earth disturbance shall be permitted on any hillside area prior to the issuance of a grading permit, with the exception of drill holes and exploratory trenches for the collection of geologic and soil data. These trenches are to be properly backfilled to City code requirements. 11. Erosion treatment shall be provided where slopes exceed 20%. 4.1.4 ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE The proposed site plan and grading plan have been designed to be in substantial compliance with the standards of the Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance and supporting guidelines. Grading is proposed on natural slopes of 50% or greater on one small portion of the site. This 2:1 cut slope is tiered, and is approximately 100 feet high overall. It is being proposed in this one location to balance site grading and provide a pad area for additional business park development. The site plan and grading plan have been designed to cluster development in existing disturbed areas, and primarily in slope areas of 25% or less. No grading is proposed on the protected "primary" ridgeline south of the development area. However, grading is proposed on a 2 -acre portion of a finger ridgeline, just below the protected (San Fernando Pass) ridgeline. Development and grading avoids three other natural landforms and hillsides on the northern half of the project site. The project is well below the maximum development intensity allowed by the average cross slope analysis for development areas subject to the Ridgeline and Hillside Ordinance. With the implementation of the mitigation measures set forth in Section 4.1.3, the grading and landform alteration impacts of the proposed project can be reduced to a level less than significant. of, II ' 4.2 GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY AND SOILS 4.2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS ' This section is based on information found in the following source documents provided by the applicant. These documents address geology, seismicity and soil contamination ' conditions and impacts related to the project site and the proposed project: 1) EMCON Associates, 1990, Newhall Refinery Site Assessment, Volumes Nos. 1 and 2, Project C48-01.04: Unpublished Consultants Report, October 1990, Burbank, California. 2) EMCON Associates, 1991, and Sump. Newhall Refinery, Newhall. California, Project C48-01.08: Unpublished Consultants Report, July 0, 1991, Burbank, California. 3) Mittelhauser Corporation, 1992, Remedial Action Plan for the Valley Gateway Proiect Site. Santa Clarita. California; Project Number 1798.04: Unpublished Consultants Report, March 1992, Laguna Hills, California. (Final update, approved August, 1992). 4) Wilson, K., 1991, Fault Investigation Studies and Geologic Mappine for the Valley Gateway Project, Santa Clarita, California: Unpublished Consultants Report, August 1991, Altadena, California. 5) Envicom Corp., 1991, Background and Existing Conditions ReportValley Gateway Pro'ec . The information in the above documents was independently reviewed and verified by Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. in their report Review of Available Geotechnical Documents for Environmental Impact Report, Valley Gateway, dated August 17, 1992. That report also provided additional information on the regional seismic setting and its effect on the proposed project. These documents are included in this EIR's Technical Appendix, available at City Hall. Geologic Setting The project site is located within the central portion of the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province, one of the large tectonic plates comprising much of Southern California. The geologic bedrock features of the area are dominated by "soft" sedimentary rocks that have been folded and faulted as a result of tectonic activity. The activity of these forces is indicated by the number of both active and inactive faults that have been identified within the region. The underlying bedrock geologic formations of the project site consist of sandstone and conglomerates cemented and held together by caliche. The specific formations, underlying the entire site, are known as the Pico Formations. These formations were deposited in a near -shore and off -shore environment, during the transition from the Pliocene to the early Pleistocene period approximately three million years ago (refer to Figure 8). The rock units stratigraphically below the Pico Formations are known as the Towsley Formations, which consist of similar but finer sandstone and conglomerate materials. On the surface of the Pico Formations are recent alluvial materials derived from local Pico sediments. The Saugus formation at one time rested above the Pico Formation, but has long since been eroded away. Tectonic forces have caused the underlying formations to be folded, faulted and elevated to their present position. Unprotected surface materials of this formation tend to be susceptible to erosion. The following surficial deposits are present on the project site and overlay the Pico Formation bedrock at the locations shown in Figure 8: artificial fill, Quaternary colluvium and Quaternary alluvium. Artificial fill is present on the project site in areas that were previously disturbed by the old refinery operations. It consists of sand, silty sand and gravelly sand and is characterized as brown, gray -brown and gray with scattered gravel, concrete chunks, wood fragments, asphalt and metal pipe. Artificial fill has been found to contain the highest levels of hydrocarbons and contaminants on the project site. Quaternary colluvium is the relatively thin surficial deposit that has been laid down on slopes over the last one million years on the project site. It is comprised of sand and silty sand and characterized as brown, fine-grained to coarse-grained with silt and scattered gravel. Its upper contact with artificial fill is gradational but its basal contact with bedrock is fairly sharp. Two Quaternary alluvium units are present on-site: "Qal" is exposed only in local areas of the active stream channels and "Qalo" is located beneath the major, broad alluvial valley areas and covered at the surface by thin soils and colluvium. Soil Characteristics The project site contains two separate, but relatively similar, soil types or soil "associations" overlaying the Pico Formation: 1) The Aqua Dulce Association, totaling approximately 20 acres at.the northern one-third of the site; and 2) the Balcom-Castaic- Saugus Association, totaling approximately 100 acres and covering the southern two-thirds of the site. The Aqua Dulce Association occurs on foothill slopes between the elevations of approximately 1,300 feet above sea level to approximately 2,700 feet above sea level. Natural vegetation common to this soil type primarily include annual grasses, forbs, and oak trees, but also include scattered occurrences of California juniper, chamise, and manzanita. The agricultural fertility and capacity of this soil association are moderate to poor. The Balcom-Castaic-Saugus Association occurs on moderately steep slopes ranging in elevation from approximately 100 feet above sea level to approximately 2,250 feet above sea level. Natural vegetation common to this soil type generally includes annual grasses and forbs in finer grains and heavier brush and chaparral in more coarse material. The agricultural fertility and capacity of this soil association are moderate to poor. According to reports prepared by EMCON Associates and Mittelhauser Corporation, some 62 - // autt� HIGHWAY ---- — — -. - ,.. — — --_ — .: / /. /. / i_ , 1 ,a y_,. Tp. , \�.. __ __ L'I,. /�, .25 _af \ _. - % i /. ._ - �... it ,,. t--�I �. ,� �''.<../ .Y" 1 _ j, ..\,�— i. ^\\�_ \ 1 // 1 Qato .� �' "•Tn,y, �����• I = ' ' . . �., -� c--•✓�.% _ �✓I-� +. ./� lw0P , ( -•� ti. - 7"' -.' .,: ,.� `.. _, --�... \ ... `�; :�• � P yUcoi - =1` t � _-------- —�� - :..�.__ .,�'.. .. ..,_1,1 .,1. •v.._ r 26.. .: '✓i '� 6% 2.�_ Qalo l 4z 4.f 1 - - i „' - — .r ��� 1 at, .:._.- \,_...� -; .. •. _-,. .'.. ,,. ,_. � r, :,zsc� a unto(�g !ate 1 12 - _. �--.- .��. �, ����` •. �%.i,�� :: ,.... .- -,rte a,TpK F'4tcFW \� `30 �za' z 9Y \\\ ,27 T fit` ..t_ �� \ \ at s _ y � EWpY ,. �.-,�'F- at t /-- , c Y i OPF E X P L A N A T I O N _ SUFFICI AL DEPOSITS < � \\ 6•••e Rr caLuvaw: ..P nsos+Yo a,..an«,.: ewo,� 117 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 City of Santa Clarita, California . Oalo �.'sa�ORavEL arD�mDgav¢lYwsaxD- �.ae a.:..idw'"•+•.:m w,:. BEDROCK TP a FaRuAn oRE axP eoxeLawERare . s..m. a w, n t+ ^.,n�avM<n�'n"�i,w'O n^^suMtiawwn's'^'^••v,a.S �n MAP SYDSOLS rrREKw: Lwm,aa...Pvm,Ya.wn ;; zona-. DE StKaPFcrED a>DRo�E°vuL+m.c aL�oxc nE eE R F.au: M SCALE IN FEET 1.0 Acres 0 100 200 300 400 500 1000 THE PLANNIN '' Kenneth Wilson CONSORTIUM LAND PLANNING - ENVIRONMENTALSTtm1Ss. Engineering and Environmental Geology 63 Figure 8 of the soil present on the site, particularly the artificial fill areas associated with the previous refinery operations, has been contaminated by hydrocarbons and other by-product contaminants from the refinery operations. A remediation plan prepared by the applicant's consultants has been approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and will be undertaken and completed by the project applicant in conjunction with the grading and site preparation phase of the project. On -Site Faulting The project site is traversed by two identified faults (refer to Figure S): 1) The Beacon Fault bisects the project site from east to west into two approximately equal halves. The fault is named for its location near the site of an old airway beacon that was used prior to the 1960's for aeronautical navigation purposes in the San Fernando Pass. The Beacon Fault is a thrust fault that dips approximately 23 degrees southward into the bedrock of the project site. Evidence of the fault can best be observed on the west side of the Antelope Valley Freeway road cut, where the tilted beds of the Pico Formation sandstone and conglomerate meet nearly horizontal beds of Pico Sandstone. From this point, the fault cuts westward through the project site and exits the property near the intersection of Clampitt Road and Sierra Highway. This fault is considered to be inactive. 2) An unnamed fault passing through the northeastern center of the project site, trending north -south, has also been detected. Movement along this fault has been minimal and there is no evidence of movement within recent times so it is considered to be inactive. Three other mappable faults are located nearby the project site, but appear to be inactive, with little potential for movement or impact upon the project site. These faults include: 1) the Whitney Canyon fault, located approximately two miles east of the project site; 2) the Legion thrust fault, located approximately two miles southeast of the project site; and 3) the Weldon thrust fault, located approximately two miles southwest of the project site. The site is not within a currently defined Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. Regional Active Faults The project site is located within seismically -active Southern California and is thus subject to moderate to severe ground motion resulting from moderate to severe regional earthquakes. Several significant active faults are near enough to the project site so that any future movements would affect structures on the property during their lifetime. An "active fault" as defined by the California Council on Intergovernmental Relations in the General Plans Guidelines, 1974, is: A fault that has moved in recent geologic time and which is likely to move again in the relatively near future. For geologic purposes, there are not precise limits to recency of movement or probable future movement that define an "active fault". Definitions for planning purposes extend on the order of 10,000 years or more back and 100 years or more forward. The exact M1 I1 1 time limits for planing purposes are usually defined in relation to uses and structures. " Known active faults along which any future movement most likely could affect the site are as follows: ' 1) San Fernando Fault: The "San Fernando" Earthquake of February 9, 1971 (magnitude 6.4) was generated along an east -west trending, northerly dipping reverse fault. Its closest trace to the site is approximately 9 miles to the south. 2) Santa Susana Fault: In general, this east -west trending fault zone is characterized by low -angle thrusting, dipping northward along its sinuous trace from the Santa Susana Mountains into the San Gabriel Mountains. The closest trace of this fault zone lies approximately 3 miles south of the site. 3) San Andreas Fault Zone: The San Andreas fault zone can be traced continuously for 620 miles from Point Arena in northern California to the eastern side of the Salton Sea where its trace is concealed by alluvium. Earthquake epicenters from the Salton Sea south suggest that the fault zone continues into the Gulf of California (Richter, 1958), making the fault zone over 700 miles long. The site is approximately 22 miles southwest of the trace of the fault. The total amount of horizontal displacement on the fault appears to be 160-175 miles since the Oligocene (Crowell, 1962). The potential level of seismic activity along the entire fault system from Hollister to the Mexican border is high except for the fault segment from the Carrizo Plain to the vicinity of Cajon Pass (Allen and other, 1965; Bolt and others, 1968; Bolt and Miller, 1971). However, the magnitude 8.0+ 1857 Fort Tejon earthquake ruptured the ground surface from the vicinity of Cholame to somewhere between Cajon Pass and San Gorgonio Pass (Wood, 1955; Allen, 1968). Offset stream channels in the Carrizo Plain indicates that horizontal offset associated with this break may have been as much as 33 feet (Wallace, 1968). This segment of the fault is "locked" and it is possible that the next great earthquake in California may occur along this section (Allen, 1968). Allen (1968) also suggests that activity on the fault within the Transverse ranges occurs by large infrequent earthquakes rather than small earthquakes and/or creep. 4) Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone: This active structural zone has undergone major right -lateral slip and separates continental rocks from Franciscan basement beneath the ground surface. From a point about 25 miles southeast of the site it extends southeastward for about 45 miles across the Los Angeles Basin and continues for an unknown distance beneath the Pacific Ocean. The Newport -Inglewood fault is considered the source of the magnitude 6.3 1933 Long Beach earthquake. 5) Malibu -Santa Monica Fault: This north -dipping fault zone forms part of the south margin of the Transverse Ranges structural province. The Malibu -Santa Monica fault extends westward for 30 miles from the Newport -Inglewood zone along the south margin of the Santa Monica Mountains. Segments of this zone have been traced westward along the southern flank of the Santa Monica Mountains into the Santa Barbara Channel and eastward to the Griffith Park -Eagle Rock area. The Port Hueneme Earthquake (magnitude 6.0) of February, 1973 may have been generated along a westerly segment of this fault. Thus, at least the western portion of the 65 fault is active. Geologists conclude that there is a minimum possibility of a large magnitude earthquake occurring on this fault within the next 50 years. The active portion of the fault is about 26 miles south-southwest of the property. 6) Red Mountain -San Cayetano Fault: This fault system, approximately 20 miles west of the property, consists of north -dipping thrust faults that extend from Santa Barbara County into Ventura County. The system is associated with an intense zone of folded and faulted bedrock. Geologic evidence that the fault system should be considered active is shown by location of earthquake epicenters, ground water barriers, and displaced alluvial sediments. The epicenter of an earthquake of magnitude 4.0 to 4.9 (Rogers, 1974) is located along the San Cayetano fault between Fillmore and Piru. Also, the unusually high fluid pressures in the Ventura and San Miguelito oil fields indicate that tectonic stress has accumulated along the Section of the fault system between the Red Mountain and San Cayetano faults. 7) Oak Ridge Fault: The Oak Ridge fault which is about 8.5 miles west of the property, is a steeply southerly -dipping reverse fault which extends from the Santa Susana Mountains where it is overridden by the north -dipping Santa Susana thrust, westward along the southerly side of Santa Clara River Valley and into the Oxnard Plain. The system is over 50 miles long on shore and could extend an equal or greater distance offshore. The steep rugged terrain of the north slope of South Mountain suggests that at least this portion of the Oak Ridge fault is active. The lack of surface evidence of fault displacement in the Oxnard Plain does not preclude past activity in recent geologic time as fault features at the surface could have been obscured by water erosion processes. Several recorded earthquake epicenters off -shore as well as on land during historic time could be associated with the Oak Ridge. fault or with other faults in close proximity. 8) San Gabriel Fault Zone: Weber (1979, 1982) has generally divided the northerly half of the San Gabriel fault zone into six segments commencing from its northwesterly terminus where it is overlain by the Frazier Mountain Thrust: Palomas, Honor Rancho, Newhall, Dillon and DeMille faults, Big Tujunga and San Gabriel River. The Newhall segment of this fault zone lies approximately 3 miles to the northeast of the site. The seismicity of the right -lateral San Gabriel fault zone is equivocal relative to its potential for causing damaging earthquakes. The zone apparently has no instrumentally measured record of seismic activity since instruments were installed in 1932 (Weber, 1979, 1982). The magnitude 6.0 Pico Canyon earthquake of 1893 may be related to movement along the San Gabriel fault zone but more probably because the epicenter would appear to be in the Santa Susana Mountains. Data are not available at present to determine recurrence intervals, rates of movement or the magnitudes of past earthquakes. Thus, assignment of a magnitude for a maximum credible earthquake event on this fault is not now possible. However, because the fault did not break the surface, it is felt that an assignment of magnitude 6 would be prudent. According to Cotton and Seward (1984), there is a low to moderate risk of surface faulting along the trace of this fault. Based on .c ri ' the foregoing, the County of Los Angeles now considers this portion of the San Gabriel fault to be active and should be treated accordingly. ' Regionally Potentially Active Faults A potentially active fault as defined in the California Council on Intergovernmental Relations in the General Plan Guidelines, 1973, is as follows: "These faults are those based on available data along which no ' known historical ground surface ruptures or earthquakes have occurred. These faults, however, show strong indications of geologically recent activity. " Known potentially active faults along which any future movement most likely could affect the site are as follows: 1) Northridge Hills Fault: This fault trends northwestward for 12 miles along the south margin of the Northridge Hills into Cretaceous and lower Tertiary rocks to the northwest (Jennings and Strand, 1969). Barnhart and Slosson (1973) suggest that this fault should be considered potentially active as evidenced by geologically recent ground water barriers, aligned hillocks and proximity of major aftershocks of the 1971 San Fernando event. The fault is about 6 miles south-southwest of the site. 2) Chatsworth Fault Zone: Essentially defined on the basis of gravity and ground water data, the northwesterly -trending faults extend across the west end of the San Fernando Valley. This zone is about 9.5 miles southerly of the site. Structural relations along the fault are not well known. 3) Santa Ynez Fault: The Santa Ynez fault is an east -west trending feature about 82 miles long along the north margin of the Transverse Ranges. The fault was undoubtedly active in the. Pleistocene and possibly in the Holocene (Dibblee, 1966). Left -lateral displacement of streams that cross this fault is cited for evidence of Quaternary movement. Several epicenters of magnitude 4.0 to 4.9 are located along its trace. The 1927 earthquake centered offshore west of Point Conception may have originated on the seaward extension of this fault. The Santa Ynez fault is about 24 miles northwest of the property. Earthquake Epicenters Historic earthquake epicenters of 6.0 or greater within 100 miles of the project site are listed below in Table 2. 67 Approximate Epicentral Loc. Magic Mountain Port Hueneme Fort Tejon Long Beach Pico Canyon Wheeler Ridge Hemet Box Springs Manix TABLE 2 HISTORIC EARTHQUAKE EPICENTERS MAGNITUDE 6.0 OR GREATER Approximate Magni- Distance u e Date From Sit 6.4 1971 8 miles 6.0 1973 40 miles Acceleration Data 8.0± 6.3 6.0 7.7 & 6.4 6.8 6.3 6.2 1857 1933 1893 1952 1918 1923 1947 43 miles 64 miles 5 miles 49 miles 100 miles 82 miles 79 miles Fault System San Fernando Malibu -Santa Monica San Andreas Newport -Inglewood Santa Susana White Wolf San Jacinto San Jacinto Manix Prediction of location, time, magnitude, and local ground response of seismic events is tenuous and subjective. Only probabilities and/or possibilities can be discussed on the basis of the existing geologic data, limited historical seismic records and empirical relationships of fault length, distance from epicenters and ground response. However, enough seismic events of magnitude 6.0 or greater have occurred in Kern -Los Angeles - San Bernardino Counties to indicate that such events could recur within the life of the proposed project. Presented in Table 3 are general guides for maximum credible and maximum probably earthquakes and maximum expectable peak ground acceleration for some of the previously described fault systems. The definition of a maximum credible earthquake is "the maximum earthquake that appears to be reasonably capable of occurring under the conditions of the presently known geological framework. A maximum probable earthquake is the maximum earthquake that appears to be reasonably expectable within a 100 year period" (Greensfelder, 1974). Maximum peak accelerations in bedrock (Schnabel and Seed, 1972) are based on either the maximum credible or probable earthquake that could occur along each causative fault at its point nearest the subject site. It is emphasized that these figures are general, 68 particularly in the higher ranges due to lack of data points. As noted by Ploessel and Slosson (1974), "Although the maximum (peak) ground or bedrock acceleration is one of the factors for computing ground response at a site, it generally is not the same as design accelerations. Thus, the maximum acceleration should not necessarily be utilized in empirical engineering formulas currently in use to determine earthquake -resistant structural design." Page and others (1972) have noted that a single peak of intense motion (maximum or peak acceleration) may contribute less to cumulative damage potential than several cycles of less intense shaking. Therefore, repeated high ground acceleration should be of greater concern in structural design than the single peak of maximum acceleration. Typically, the repeatable high ground acceleration averages 65 percent of the peak ground acceleration for sites within 20+ miles of the epicenter. TABLE 3 MAXIMUM PROBABLE EARTHQUAKE AND PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION Max. Credible Earthquake Max, Probable Earthquake Miles Poss. Peak Poss. Peak from Accel. at Accel. at Fault System &g Magnitud $itg Ma ni d 11. San Fernando 9 6.6 .34 6.4* .32 Newport 25 7.1 1.7 6.3* .11 -Inglewood San Andreas 22 8.25 Malibu 26 7.7 -Santa Monica .12 Santa Susana 3 6.5 San Gabriel*** 3 6.0 Red Mountain 20 6.75 -San Cayetano 6.0 Oak Ridge 8 7.5 * actual magnitude .35 ** estimated magnitude (1857) *** Cotton & Seward, 1984 .32 8.0** .30 .23 6.5 .12 .55 6.3 .52 .50 5.6 .37 .20 6.0 .13 .47 6.5 .35 Local subsurface conditions at the site and the nature of alluvium and rock depth of basement between the site and the fault systems may induce variations. Structural design of future buildings should be based on current design practices for similar types of buildings in the area. 4.2.2 Summary In summary, the project site is underlain by the Pico Formation, a sandstone sedimentary bedrock. Surficial deposits found on the project site include artificial fill associated with previous oil refinery activities, Quaternary colluvium on the slopes and Quaternary alluvium found in the drainage channels and the broad alluvial valley areas. The soils found on-site are only moderately to poorly suitable for agricultural purposes and in some on-site areas the soil has been contaminated by hydrocarbons and other by-products associated with the previous oil refinery. A remediation plan to clean up the contamination on the site has been prepared by the applicant's consultants and approved by the State Regional Water Quality Control Board. There are two inactive faults that are present on the project site and they do not pose any impacts with regards to primary or secondary earthquake hazards. However, there are many regional faults that currently have the potential to subject the project site, as well as the entire Southern California area, to severe groundshaking hazards. IMPACTS The proposed project involves developing the approximately 117.0 acre project site with a mix of four basic land uses: 1) low-density, low-rise (1-2 story) business park commercial land use; 2) moderate density, mid -rise (4-7 story) corporate headquarter commercial office land use; 3) medium -density multi -family residential land use (12 units of condominiums or rental housing); and 4) common open space and natural areas. The proposed project will involve approximately 64.5 acres, or approximately 55% of the approximately 117.0 acre project site. This disturbed area includes the approximately 44.1 acres of previously disturbed ground surface and approximately 20.4 acres of natural undisturbed areas (approximately 68% of previously disturbed ground and 32% of undisturbed ground). The following is a discussion of potential significant impacts to geologic resources found on the project. site due to the implementation of the proposed project: a) The proposed project will not result in significant adverse impacts to the geologic features of the project site. Approximately 68% of the project's area of disturbance is ground surface that has previously been disturbed by the refinery operations. The remaining undisturbed natural areas of the project site are underlain by Pico Formation sandstone bedrock, colluvium on the slopes and alluvium in stream channels and across the broad alluvial valley. All of these natural areas to be disturbed are generally adjacent to the existing disturbed areas to limit the overall spatial disturbance of the site's natural.areas and concentrate the development in the existing disturbed areas. The alterations to these geological features are not significant, particularly since the features to be disturbed are not significant or unique. The most significant geological features are the exposed tilted Pico Formation sandstone bedding on the southern end of the project site. These features will be retained without adverse impact under the proposed project within the approximately 52.4 acre common open space and natural areas. By concentrating the proposed development in currently disturbed areas and retaining the general topography of the project site, the proposed project lessens and minimizes impacts to the project site's geologic resources. The implementation of the proposed project will not result in significant adverse impacts to the project site's geologic resources. fill With the mitigation measures discussed in the next section, the grading that is proposed to implement the project will not result in increased erosion, unstable cut slopes or unstable fill areas. Some of the grading is necessary to stabilize overcut slopes associated with the previous refinery operations. b) Due to their moderate to poor agricultural value and their sparse, scattered placement on the project site, the loss of the soils within the proposed project's area of disturbance will not be a significant adverse impact. Some of the soil within the existing area of disturbance associated with the removed refinery is contaminated with hydrocarbons and other by-products of the refinery. The applicant has prepared a remediation plan to remove the contaminants from the affected soil and this plan has been approved by the State Regional Water Quality Control Board. As a component of the overall proposed project, the remediation plan represents a positive effect associated with the proposed project. Remediation of the soil contamination will be initiated in conjunction with the project grading. c) The two faults present on-site are both considered inactive and will not adversely impact the proposed project. Given the intense seismic activity within the Southern California area, the implemented project will be subject to primary and, perhaps, secondary earthquake hazards generated by faults that are miles away from the project site. The two inactive faults present on the project site will not affect the proposed project. d) The proposed project will be exposed to the following earthquake -related hazards associated with active fault zones within the region: Ground Motion: Although no major historical epicenters are known within the immediate vicinity of the property, the proximity of several active faults indicates the likelihood that. the site at some time will be subjected to at least moderate ground motion. Spectral characteristics of strong seismic surface motion display a dependence on many factors including possible subsoil effects, seismogenic mechanism, the wave propagation pattern, nature and geometry of geological discontinuities along the propagation. path, surface topography, and subsurface geometry. A general guide for possible ground acceleration is based on plots of maximum acceleration versus distance from the potential causative fault. Derived values are tabulated in Table 3. In this tabulation, hypothetical expectable events are considered at the nearest portion of the fault. These magnitudes have been selected primarily from literature values of either real events or those calculated from empirical formula and curves relating fault length and magnitude. Sets of empirical data have certain validity in the far -field, but knowledge of near -field effects is so slender that it is difficult in preliminary format to evaluate the potential for ground acceleration. Ground Rupture: Ground rupture as a result of fault activity of the identified active faults is not expected within the limits of the proposed development as per the site specific study by Wilson (1991). Liquefaction: Liquefaction occurs when dynamic loading or a saturated sand or silt 71 4.2.3 causes pore -water pressures to increase to levels where grain -to -grain contacts are lost and the material temporarily behaves as a viscous fluid. Liquefaction can cause settlement of the ground surface, settlement and tilting of engineering structures, flotation of buoyant buried structures and fissuring of the ground surface. A common manifestation of liquefaction is the formation of sand boils which are short-lived fountains of soil and water that emerge from fissures or vents and leave freshly -deposited, conical mounds of sand or silt on the ground surface. This phenomena should not occur on-site or pose stability problems in the bedrock that underlies the proposed project site. In summary, the proposed project will not impact any significant geologic resources present on the project site and existing soil contamination will be remediated under the proposed project. While there is the potential for increased erosion, unstable cut slopes and unstable fill areas under the proposed project, this can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant with the mitigation measures recommended in the next section of this document. The implemented project and its occupants would unavoidably be exposed to severe primary earthquake hazards (groundmotion) typical to Southern California. MITIGATION MEASURES The following are mitigation measures that shall be incorporated into -the proposed project to lessen any significant adverse impacts associated with geology and soils to a level of less than significant. In addition, even though the implemented project and its occupants will be unavoidably exposed to severe primary earthquake hazards (groundshaking), mitigation measures will be presented to lessen this adverse impact to the greatest extent possible. Geologic Formation Mitigation a) The exposed tilted beds of the Pico Formation in the southern portion of the project site shall be left undisturbed within a parcel designated as permanent open space (this mitigation measure is already incorporated into the proposed project). Soil Mitigation a) The. applicant shall implement the approved soil remediation plan to remove hydrocarbons and other contaminants from the project site (this mitigation measure is already incorporated into the proposed project). General Geotechnical Considerations a) Prior to the recordation of the final map, the City Engineer shall approve a final grading plan for the project which complies with and/or contains all conditions of approval set forth in the Conditional Use Permit and Final EIR for the project. b) Prior to the approval of a final grading plan, the City Engineer shall review and approve a detailed engineering, geotechnical and soil remediation report, prepared and approved by a registered geologist and/or soils engineer which documents all recommendations, and complies with all related conditions of approval set forth within the Conditional Use Permit and Final EIR for the project. 72 c) The applicant shall eliminate all geologic hazards associated with this proposed development, or delineate a restricted use area approved by the consultant geologist to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the erection of buildings or other structures within the restricted use areas. d) Specific recommendations will be required from the consultant(s) regarding the suitability for development of all lots/parcels designed essentially as upgraded site lots. The applicant shall file a report with the State Real Estate Commissioner indicating that additional geologic and/or soils engineering studies may be required for upgraded site lots/parcels by the Geology and Soils Section. e) Surficial materials observed on-site consist of older alluvium, alluvium, slopewash, soil and fill. Surficial materials, including loose recent alluvium and older alluvium, fill, dumped fill and rubble fill are generally poor quality and not suitable for support of structures or compacted fill. Unsuitable material shall be removed to competent bedrock or firm older alluvium prior to placing compacted fill. f) Bedding structure within the Pico Formation is poorly developed or obscured by gradational contacts, cross -bedding and weathering. Where discernible within the project area, the bedding structure strikes northwest to southeast and is inclined westerly at shallow to moderate angles (14 to 35 degrees). This prevailing structure imparts favorable bedding conditions to easterly and northerly -facing cut slopes which may expose bedrock (cut slopes along the westerly and southerly site limits). Conversely, westerly facing cut slopes will most likely require stabilization with designed buttress fills. During future geotechnical investigations/analysis/review, the possible effects of the existing 290 foot high south -facing cut slope between the proposed project and Highway 14 shall be evaluated. ' g) Fill -above -cut slopes may be constructed provided construction is in accordance with both the Code requirements of the City of Santa Clarita and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. ih) Fill slopes above natural ground shall be constructed in accordance with both the Code requirements of the City of Santa Clarita and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. i) Building pads exposing both compacted fill and bedrock at the finished pad grade possess the potential for differential settlement. In order to limit the effects of this phenomenon and provide for a uniform bearing surface for support of structures, the cut portion of the cut -fill transition pads shall be overexcavated to a sufficient ' depth and to a sufficient lateral distance as recommended by the project geotechnical consultant. j) Canyon subdrains shall be placed along the alignment of the existing stream beds in canyons to receive fills. Emplacement must be in accordance with both the applicable Code requirements and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. k) Oil -wells and water -wells must be abandoned in accordance with the Title 14 of the Code of Regulations set forth by State Department of Oil and Gas requirements 1 73 and/or as recommended by the applicant's environmental consultants and approved by the State. 1) If encountered, cesspools or septic tanks shall be removed as specified by the geotechnical consultant. Site Preparation and Excavation Mitigations a) Grading shall be performed under the observation and testing of the project soils engineer and the engineering geologist. This procedure of continued observation is very important to continually gain information relative to potential unforeseen geotechnical constraints and their mitigation as grading proceeds. b) Precautions shall be taken during the performance of all site clearing, earthwork and grading to protect the work site from flooding, ponding, or inundation by poor or improper surface drainage. Temporary provisions shall be made at all times to adequately direct surface drainage from all sources away from and off the work site. c) Prior to grading, the area within the subject site proposed for development shall be stripped and cleared of all existing debris, vegetation and other deleterious materials as directed by the soils engineer. Tree roots must be removed. These materials shall be removed from the site. Included as deleterious materials are fills containing trash, soft or viscous petroleum residue, excessively broken AC and possible sump debris associated with past oil well drilling and refinery operations. The environmental consultant shall confirm the appropriateness of treated contaminated material for incorporation into compacted fill materials. d) Recent alluvium, all uncertified fill, loose older alluvium and highly weathered bedrock in areas to be graded shall be removed to competent materials, or firm natural ground as determined by the project geotechnical consultant. e) Cut slopes shall be examined by the engineering geologist as they are excavated so that, if remedial measures are necessary, recommendations can be made expeditiously. Additionally, the keyway excavations for stabilization fills and fill - over -cuts shall be inspected and approved by the project soils engineer and/or engineering geologist prior to any fill placement. f) All mitigation measures must be approved by the City prior to implementation in , the field. g) Haul routes for construction purposes shall be removed prior to placement of fill. ' Also, prior approval from must be obtained from the City if haul routes are to be placed in areas to be designated as "undisturbed natural". Compacted Fill Mitigations a) Prior to placement of compacted fill (after removals, clearing, stripping and ' overexcavation, etc.) the approved ground surface shall be processed, watered as needed, and compacted to the applicable code requirements. 74 1 b) Excavated on-site materials which are approved by the geotechnical and environmental consultants may be utilized as compacted fill provided that all trash, vegetation and other deleterious materials are removed prior to placement. c) All fill shall be spread in thin lifts, the moisture content shall be adjusted to optimum or slightly above and the materials compacted to either the minimum Code requirements or per the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant, whichever is more restrictive unless prior written approval is obtained. Each lift shall be treated in a like manner until the desired finish grades are achieved. The contractor shall have suitable and sufficient compaction equipment in operation to handle the amount of fill being placed. d) Fill shall be benched into firm bedrock or firm alluvium as directed by the geologist and/or soils engineer during grading. Care shall be taken to avoid benching above the proposed finished pad surface. e) Proposed grading and fill slope construction shall be performed in a manner which will minimize surficial slumps on compacted fill slopes. 1) Compacted fill slopes shall be backrolled during placement at intervals specified by the project geotechnical consultant. Care shall be taken to construct the slope in a workmanlike manner so that it is positioned at its designed orientation and slope ratio. Achieving a uniform slope surface by subsequent thin wedge filling must be avoided. Any add-on correction to a fill slope shall be conducted by overfilling the affected area in horizontal, compacted lifts which must be benched into the existing fill prism. The overfilled slope may then be trimmed to the design gradient. All work must be in accordance with the Code and the requirements of the geotechnical consultant. 2) The contractor shall be aware that care must be taken to avoid spillage of loose.material down the face of the slopes during grading and during drainage terrace and downdrain construction. Fine grading operations for benches and downdrains shall not deposit loose trimmed soils on the finished slope surfaces. These materials shall be removed from cut and fill slope areas. ' 3) Seeding and planting of the slopes shall be planned to achieve as rapidly as possible a well established and deep-rooted vegetation requiring minimal watering. The type of vegetation and watering schedule shall be established by a landscape architect familiar with hillside maintenance. The watering requirement shall be reviewed by the project geotechnical consultant. ' f) Fill shall be tested at the time of placement to ascertain that the required compaction is achieved. The minimum basis of testing shall be one test per two feet of depth or each 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. At least one-half the required tests shall be made at the location of the final. fill slope, except that not more than one such test need be made for each 50 horizontal feet of slope in each two foot vertical lift. g) Shear strength parameters and expansive soil characteristics shall be verified during grading. 1 75 h) The results of the inspection and testing of all earthwork shall be presented in a ' geologic and soils engineering report following the completion of earthwork and grading. ' Design Mitigations a) All graded slopes shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City of ' Santa Clarita Grading Ordinances and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. b) Interceptor drains (brow ditches) shall be programmed at the top of cut slopes where the superjacent natural slope ascends. This condition may exist in the southerly and westerly portion of the development. ' c) Verification of expansive soil conditions shall be made as final grades are achieved. Footing and slab configuration and reinforcement recommendations shall be provided by the geotechnical consultant at the conclusion of grading operations. ' d) Retaining walls and other structures or facilities constructed to retain compacted fill or natural earth materials shall be designed in accordance with Code and structural , requirements. e) All roof, pad and slope drainage shall be collected and directed away from the proposed structures to approved disposal areas. It is important that the drainage be directed away from foundations. The recommended drainage patterns shall be established at time of fine grading and maintained throughout the life of the structure. Pad drainage shall not be allowed to flow over slopes. f) Wherever utility trenches are excavated parallel or adjacent to footings and located within a distance subtended by a 45 degree angle (1:9 ratio) taken from ground surface at the footings, all utility trenches shall be compacted. Compaction shall be accomplished with a mechanical compaction device. If the backfill soils have dried out, they shall be thoroughly moisture -conditioned prior to placement in trenches. g) In view of the varied geotechnical conditions on-site, field observations by qualified personnel will be necessary in order to achieve a well engineered and designed development. This includes continuous observation and periodic testing by field soil technicians and.periodic observations by the project geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist(geotechnical consultants). Seismic Hazard Mitigation a) To mitigate unavoidable seismic effects to the greatest extent possible, the proposed structures shall be designed as per the Uniform Building Code using the design parameters developed in the geotechnical reports and any additional study that is required to finalize the design parameters. The potential for ground rupture, landslides or liquefaction on the site is considered very low so mitigation measures beyond those described in this section are not required. ffl II ' 4.2.4 ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE 1 E Based on the above mitigation measures, the effects of the proposed project involving geology and soils can be lessened to a level less than significant. While the project will unavoidably result in the exposure. of persons and property to severe earthquake groundshaking_hazards common to the general area, the effects will be minimized to the greatest extent possible through compliance with City code design requirements. 77 4.3 4.3.1 HYDROLOGY AND FLOOD CONTROL EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site straddles the Weldon Divide, separating the Los Angeles River drainage area to the south, from the Santa Clara River drainage area to the north. Two principal streambeds cut through the project site and drain precipitation -generated water, fed by a number of smaller, on-site tributaries. Slopes on the project site rise to an elevation of 1,450 feet above sea level at the northeastern end of the property, and to a high of approximately 1,950 feet in the southeastern portion of the property. Primary drainage within the northern half of the project site is provided by a tributary of Newhall Creek, which drains northward into the south fork of the Santa Clara River. The Santa Clara River then drains southwest to the Pacific Ocean. An unnamed stream provides drainage for the southern portion of the project site, along its border with Sierra Highway. Man-made storm drainage facilities on-site are currently limited to privately owned facilities operated and maintained by the Hondo Oil & Gas Company, constructed during the former use of the site as an active refinery. This system, consisting of small retaining walls and concrete channels within portions of the streams, continues to operate in order to keep the potentially contaminated storm run-off water from draining off the property into the natural drainage network in and around the site. Once the contaminated soil on- site is considered properly remediated, storm run-off water may revert to draining into and through natural site drainage patterns in the Newhall Creek tributary/Santa Clara River drainage system. Additional drainage facilities_ include several culverts, catch basins, and cement channels along the northeastern boundary of the site located within the State of California Department of Transportation (Cal Trans) property. These facilities serve as part of the system draining the Antelope Valley (SR 14) Freeway as it passes by the site. There are currently no other publicly owned, operated, or maintained storm drainage facilities (either City or County) existing on the project site. Storm water run-off generated on site presently runs from the higher central western portion of the property (the former center of the refinery complex) along the Clampitt Road right-of-way, to the lower -lying central eastern portion of the site (near the intersection of Clampitt Road and Remsen Street). The water is.then gathered in catch basins, pumped back via below -ground piping, and stored in the 2.3 million gallon capacity former asphalt storage tank located at the center of the property. After temporary storage in this tank, the water is then intermittently pumped through pipes into the existing "Fire Pond" located in the western center of the project site, where it is allowed to evaporate naturally into the atmosphere. Well monitoring onsite has indicated the current level of groundwater under the central and northern portions of the property range from approximately 89 feet below grade to 127 feet below grade. No evidence has indicated a shallow groundwater table. Additional information is expected to be determined and made available with future soil hydrocarbon contamination analysis and excavations. 78 ' The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) identifies all flood hazard areas through the United States on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). The FIRM Map that covers this portion of the Santa Clarita Valley indicates that the project site is located within "Zone C" under the FEMA range of flood zones. Zone C is the "lowest" or "best" possible flooding category established, indicating that the property is subject to minimal ' flooding. This favorable rating is due primarily to the site's elevation ,relative to surrounding topography, as well as its abundance of unimproved land, which allows for extremely effective natural drainage, percolation, and evaporation of storm water run-off. ' 4.3.2 IMPACTS i. Development of the site will require a complete redesign and the construction of a new, comprehensive storm drainage system. Specific drainage requirements and facilities to be provided on site will be determined through additional hydrological analysis. However, they will likely include catch basins and storm drainage lines ' running from south to north on the site into the tributary of Newhall Creek, and into existing storm drainage collectors located east of the property adjacent to the freeway. ' 2. Localized areas of surficial instability may develop if natural or manufactured slopes on the project site become saturated. 3. New storm drainage facilities will be constructed to the specifications of the City of Santa Clarita and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, and will, after ' completion, be deeded or granted via easement to the City or District for continued long-term operations and maintenance. ' 4. The State Water Resources Control Board requires all construction projects greater than five acres to obtain a "General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit" to minimize pollutant discharges resulting from construction activity. The California ' Regional Water Quality Control Board also requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit. ' 5. Storm water runoff from the project's parking lou carries oil and other sediment pollutants that can adversely effect water quality in the site upper tributary of Newhall Creek. 4.3.3 MITIGATION MEASURES 1. The applicant shall provide drainage facilities to remove the flood hazard and ' dedicate and show necessary easements and/or rights-of-way prior to the recordation of the final map. ' 2. The applicant shall place a note of flood hazard on final map and delineate the areas subject to flood hazard and dedicate to the City the right to restrict the erection of buildings in the flood hazard areas in the final map. 3. Applicant shall execute and record a covenant and agreement regarding the issuance of building permits in an area subject to flood hazard if applicant is allowed to I' obtain building permits prior to completion of storm drain construction. 1 79 4.3.4 4. The applicant shall show on the map the City's/Flood Control District's right-of- way for Storm Drains. A permit will be required for any construction affecting the right-of-way or facilities. 5. The applicant shall show and label all natural drainage courses on lots where a note of flood hazard is allowed. 6. The applicant shall adjust, relocate, and/or eliminate lot lines, lots, streets, easements, grading, geotechnical protective devices, and/or physical improvements to comply with ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the date the City determined the application to be complete all to the satisfaction of this Department. 7. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall obtain approval of a final hydrology report which demonstrates that project improvements are not located in a flood hazard area subject to inundation by a 100 -year storm, as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the City of Santa Clarita. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall obtain approval of a final storm drainage facilities plan by the City of Santa Clarita. Plan specifications shall be supported by additional hydrological analysis. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall obtain a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board, and a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 10. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the City shall review site drainage plans to ensure that runoff is directed away from slopes, walls, buildings, and foundations, and towards approved drainage receptacles. 11. All manufactured slopes on the property shall be landscaped with drought -resistant plant species approved by a licensed landscape architect to minimize the potential for erosion and surficial slumping. 12. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, the City shall review drainage control plans to ensure that they include oil and sediment traps for all parking lot drainage areas. 13. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, the City shall review final grading plans and a hydrology report that demonstrates that project grading will not result in diversions of flows that will significantly increase flood levels on adjacent properties. ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE Development of the proposed project will incrementally contribute to the increases in urban runoff and potential adverse impacts related to surface water quality. Implementation of mitigation measures identified in Section 4.3.3. can reduce project - related hydrology and water quality impacts to a less than significant level. Incremental impacts to the hydrology and water quality impacts within the Newhall Creek and Santa Clara River are also considered less than significant on a cumulative basis. pill 4.4 4.4.1 CLIMATEANDAIR QUALITY EXISTING CONDITIONS The following air quality assessment for the Valley Gateway project was prepared by Mestre Greve Associates. The study was completed November 30, 1992, revised on April 20, 1993, and is included as a part of the Technical Appendix, available for review at Santa Clarita City Hall, Community Development Department, Room 302. Climate The Climate around the City of Santa Clarita, as with all of Southern California, is controlled largely by a strength and position of the subtropical high pressure cell over the Pacific Ocean. It maintains moderate temperatures and comfortable humidities, and limits precipitation to a few storms during the winter "wet" season. Santa Clarites climate is relatively mild. Annual average'daytime temperatures range from 89.7 degrees Fahrenheit (F) in summer to 63.6 degrees F in winter. Low temperatures average 58.9 degrees F in summer and 41.3 degrees F in winter. Freezing temperatures usually occur a few times a year in late fall, winter and early spring. Winds in the project area are almost always driven by the dominant land/sea breeze circulation system. Regional wind patterns are dominated by daytime on -shore breezes. At night, the wind generally slows and reverses direction traveling towards the sea. Wind direction will be altered by local canyons, with wind tending to flow parallel to the canyons. -During the transition period ftom one wind pattern to the other, the dominant wind direction rotates into the south and causes a minor wind direction maximum from the south.. The frequency of calm winds (less than 2 miles per hour) is less than 10 percent. Therefore, there is little stagnation in the project vicinity, especially during busy daytime traffic hours. Southern California frequently has temperature inversions which inhibit the dispersion of pollutants. Inversions may be either ground based or elevated. Ground based inversions, sometimes referred as radiation inversions, are most severe during clear cold early winter mornings. Under conditions of a ground based inversion, very little mixing or turbulence occurs, and high concentrations of primary pollutants may occur local to major roadways. Elevated inversions can be generated by a variety of meteorological phenomena. Elevated inversions act as a lid or upper boundary and restrict vertical mixing. Below the elevated inversion dispersion is not restricted. Mixing heights for elevated inversions are lower in the summer and more persistent. This low summer inversion puts a lid over the South Coast Air Basin and is responsible for the high levels of ozone observed during summer months in the air basin. Air Quality Management The proposed project is located in the South Coast Air Basin and, jurisdictionally, is the responsibility of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARS). The SCAQMD sets and enforces regulations for stationary sources in the basin. The CARB is charged with controlling motor vehicle emissions. 81 In 1987, Senate Bill 151 was approved which gives SCAQMD significant new powers. The law instructs the SCAQMD to develop new transportation control measures and to develop rules for indirect sources which attract a large number of vehicles. The District is also required to develop further programs and regulations that would increase ridesharing and limit heavy-duty truck traffic on. freeways during rush hours. The SCAQMD in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has developed an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the air basin. The South Coast Air Basin has been designated a non -attainment area for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and suspended particulates. Attainment of all federal and state ozone and PMIO health standards as adopted by the District Board is to occur no later than December 31, 2007. For nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide the deadlines are December 31, 1996 and December 31, 1997, respectively. However, these attainment dates have recently been updated in the most recent draft of the AQMP ("Draft Air Quality Management Plan% December 1990). According to the 1991 Draft AQMP, attainment of all federal health standards is to occur no later than 2000 (for carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide), 2006 (for PM10 and 2010 (for ozone). This 1991 Plan calls for the attainment of all state health standards no later than 2000 (for nitrogen dioxide) and 2010 (for carbon monoxide) and after 2010 (for ozone and PM10). The 1989 AQMP actually consists of three plans:.The Growth Management Plan, Regional Mobility Plan, and Air Quality Management Plan. The Air Quality Management Plan contains transportation, land use, and energy conservation measures. The 1989 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD, by SCAG and by the California Air Resources Board in 1989. Once approved by the U.S. EPA, the plan will be included in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). It will then serve as the.framework for all future air pollution control efforts in the South Coast Air Basin. It must now be reviewed and approved by the U.S. EPA. Meanwhile, the SCAQMD is authorized to implement the first stage, or tier, of the plan, involving 67 of the 123 rules. The state and the SCAQMD are proceeding with rulemaking that will accomplish the bulk of emission reductions expected in Tier 1. The AQMP has been submitted to the U.S. EPA and they are expected to respond soon. The Growth Management Plan aims at local governments directing the locations of some future housing and future employment to bring about a more beneficial balance of jobs and shelter within subregional areas. No existing housing or employment would be affected. The plan would affect only 4.2% of new homes and 9.5% of new jobs. Development of job opportunities in San Bernardino, Riverside, and Ventura Counties would be encouraged. Housing opportunities are encouraged for the Los Angeles Central Business District, the vicinity of Los Angeles International Airport, and Orange County. The Santa Clarita General Plan has a basic goal to balance jobs and housing. The most recent information analyzed indicates the Santa Clarita Valley has a jobs -to -housing ratio of approximately 0.80, which means the City is "housing -rich". This contrasts significantly with the Los Angeles County -wide "jobs -rich" ratio of 1.39. The proposed project could generate from 2,000 to 2,500 jobs at ultimate buildout, and improve the City's overall jobs -to -housing ratio. In developing the 1989 AQMP, all the potential measures that could be available by the 82 'I ' year 2007 were identified and, to the greatest extent possible, their emission reductions were quantified. These control measures were categorized into three tiers, based upon their readiness for implementation. The short-term, or Tier I,.wmponent of the 1989 AQMP is action -oriented. It identifies specific control measures for.which control technology exists now. For the most part, these measures can be adopted within the next five years, prior the next AQMP update. They consist mainly of stationary source controls that will be the subject of district rules and CARB-adopted tailpipe emissions standards and performance requirements for motor vehicles. Transportation and land use controls and energy conservation measures are also included in Tier I of the plan, to the extent that technology is available to accomplish the emissions reduction targets. Tier I control measures are expected to be implemented by 1993 except for facility construction which may continue up to 2007. Tier II measures include already -demonstrated control technologies, but require advancements that can reasonably be expected to occur in the near future. When necessary, these advancements are promoted .through regulatory action, such as setting standards at levels that force the advancement of existing technology, or establishing a ' system of emission charges that provide an economic incentive to reduce emissions. Tier II measures focus mainly on transportation sources and the use of coatings and solvents. Tier III goals depend on substantial technological advancements and breakthroughs that are expected to occur throughout the next two decades. This requires an aggressive expansion of Tier II research and development efforts. After achieving Tier II goals, Tier III measures must be implemented on an accelerated schedule to achieve ' attainment by 2007. At the time the 1989 AQMP was adopted, the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) was ' passed by the California Legislature requiring non attainment air basins to develop new attainment plans to meet federal and state air quality standards. Therefore SCAQMD and SCAG joined forces in updating the 1989 AQMP resulting in the Draft 1991 AQMP. The Draft 1991 AQMP is designed to meet the requirements of the CCAA and has the same "three tier" structure as the 1989 AQMP. The Draft 1991 AQMP incudes additional ' Tier I, II and III control measures as well as marketing incentive -based strategies to meet targets for emission reduction. The 1991 AQMP control measures are scheduled for adoption based on cost-effectiveness as well as eight other emission reduction criteria specified by the CCAA. All Tier I measures are scheduled for adoption by 1996. The land -use and transportation measures presented in the 1991 AQMP are basically the ' same as for the 1989 AQMP. However, the energy conservation measures as well as the Growth Management measure have been revised. The 1991 AQMP growth management measures focus on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) targets as opposed to only the ' jobs/housing balance performance goals. The plan also includes market incentive strategies based on economic incentives for meeting individual measure objectives. The 1991 AQMP measures exceed the emission reduction requirements of the CCAA in t terms of pollution exposure per capita, but will not meet the 5 percent per year emission reduction target required in the CCAA. The CCAA requires that per capita exposure to unhealthful pollutant levels be reduced by 25 percent in 1994, 40 percent in 1997 and 50 1 83 percent in 2000. The plan measures exceed these requirements for ozone, carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide (PM10 is not subject to the CCAA). Although the plan does not meet the CCAA target for a 5 percent emissions reduction per year, the plan achieves the CCAA alternate target for emissions reductions to the "maximum extent feasible." The 1991 AQMP calls for the attainment of both federal and state standards by 2010 for carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide and by some time after 2010 for PM10 and ozone. Monitored Air Quality Air quality at any site is dependent on the regional air quality and local pollutant sources. Regional air quality is determined by the release of pollutants throughout the air basin. Estimates for the South Coast Air Basin have been made for existing emissions ("Final Air Quality Management Plan, 1982 Revision," October 1982). The data indicate that mobile sources are the major source of regional emissions. Motor vehicles (i.e., on -road mobile sources) account for 50 percent of reactive hydrocarbon emissions, 58 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions, and 85 percent of carbon monoxide emissions. The ambient air quality in the City of Santa Clarita is characterized by readings taken at the Santa Clarita monitoring station (formerly known as the Newhall station). The project site is in the SCAQMD Source Receptor Area 13. Air quality data for 1986 through 1989 for the Santa Clarita station is taken from the Air Quality Element of the Santa Clarita General Plan dated June 25, 1991. Air quality data for 1990 and 1991 is taken from the SCAQMD Source Receptor Area 13. The air quality data is also provided in Table 4. 84 TABLE 4 AIR QUALITY LEVELS MEASURED AT THE SANTA CLARITA AMBIENT AIR MONITORING STATION NOTE: 1. Particulates, Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Dioxide were not monitored until 1989 and the data for 1989 does not include a full 12 months of monitoring and may not be representative. The air quality data indicate that ozone is the air pollutant of primary concern in the project area. The ozone standard is exceeded almost 1 out of every 2 days. Ozone is a secondary pollutant; it is not directly emitted. Ozone is the result of the chemical reactions of other pollutants, most importantly hydrocarbons and nitrogen dioxide, in the presence of bright sunlight. Pollutants emitted from upwind cities react during transport downwind to produce the oxidant concentrations experienced in Santa Clarita. All areas of the South Coast Air Basin contribute to the ozone levels experienced at Santa Clarita, with the more significant areas being those directly upwind in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. The ozone levels at Santa Clarita, according to the information contained in the City of ' Santa Clarita Air Quality Element, has decreased slightly over the ten year period between 1978 and 1988. The decrease was small, averaging about 1.0123 ppm. ' Pollutants from emission sources outside of Santa Clarita Valley have traditionally been the major source of the area's high ozone concentrations. However, with growth in population and increase in automobile traffic in the Santa Clarita area over the past ' decades, local pollutant emissions have increased. During 1989, monitoring for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide, in ' 85 California National Maximum Days State Pollutant Standard Standard Year Level Std. Exceeded Ozone 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm 1986 .24 128 for 1 hr. for 1 hr. 1987 .21 129 1988 .30 152 1989 .25 120 1990 .23 115 1991 .24 118 Particulate 50 ug/m3 150 ug/m3 1989(l) 100 47.9% Matter for 24 hr. for 24 hr. (PM 10) CO 20 ppm 35 ppm 1989(l) 12 0 for I hour for 1 hour 1990 11 0 1991 9 0 CO 9 ppm 9 ppm 1989(l) 5.4 0 for 8 hour for -8 hour 1990 4.6 0 1991 5.1 0 NO2 .25 ppm 0.05 ppm 1989(l) 13 0 for I hour annual average NOTE: 1. Particulates, Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Dioxide were not monitored until 1989 and the data for 1989 does not include a full 12 months of monitoring and may not be representative. The air quality data indicate that ozone is the air pollutant of primary concern in the project area. The ozone standard is exceeded almost 1 out of every 2 days. Ozone is a secondary pollutant; it is not directly emitted. Ozone is the result of the chemical reactions of other pollutants, most importantly hydrocarbons and nitrogen dioxide, in the presence of bright sunlight. Pollutants emitted from upwind cities react during transport downwind to produce the oxidant concentrations experienced in Santa Clarita. All areas of the South Coast Air Basin contribute to the ozone levels experienced at Santa Clarita, with the more significant areas being those directly upwind in Los Angeles and Orange Counties. The ozone levels at Santa Clarita, according to the information contained in the City of ' Santa Clarita Air Quality Element, has decreased slightly over the ten year period between 1978 and 1988. The decrease was small, averaging about 1.0123 ppm. ' Pollutants from emission sources outside of Santa Clarita Valley have traditionally been the major source of the area's high ozone concentrations. However, with growth in population and increase in automobile traffic in the Santa Clarita area over the past ' decades, local pollutant emissions have increased. During 1989, monitoring for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide, in ' 85 4.4.2 addition to ozone was initiated. The SCAQMD conducted special sampling studies at two locations in Santa Clarita to determine the most representative location. The study found that ozone readings at the Newhall and Canyon County sites were consistent. However, carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide readings were consistently, higher at the Newhall site. The sources of carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions are primarily due to motor vehicles. Therefore, the higher carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide emission at the Newhall site is indicative of the local emissions. Particulate matter readings were higher at the Canyon Country site than at the Newhall site. Particulate matter levels in the area are typically due to natural sources, grading operations, and motor vehicles. The particulate matter standards are commonly exceeded in the project area. The levels that are exceeded are suspected to be primarily caused by natural sources in the area. According to the Santa Clarita Air Quality Element, air quality trends in the South Coast Air Basin have greatly improved since the 1950s, despite the drastic increase in population growth. The SCAQMD projects this trend to continue to the year 2000, even with no new emission control programs. After 2000, increased growth will reverse this trend without additional controls. IMPACTS Air quality impacts are usually divided into short term and long term. Short term impacts are usually the result of construction or grading operations. Long term impacts are associated with the built out condition. Short Term Impacts The project site formerly was a petroleum extraction and refining facility. Therefore, a number of major areas on the site had previously been significantly altered. The Valley Gateway Development Plan concentrates the vast majority of its proposed development within these previously developed and graded areas. It is assumed that approximately 64.5 acres of the 116.9 acre site will be disturbed by grading activities (55%). According to supplemental grading plan information for the Valley Gateway Project Development Plan, the proposed project is anticipated to consist of a maximum 12 month site remediation process, and a 6 month construction grading process. (The site remediation basically removes oil contaminated soils on the project site. The soils will be treated to use as on-site road base material). It is anticipated that a maximum 10 acres will be implemented in the site remediation process. The grading process is anticipated to initiate "during the final half" of the 12 month remediation process. The 12 month site remediation period is expected to begin in June 1993, with the 6 month construction grading period beginning in January 1994. No extended phasing for the construction grading is expected. It should be noted that the estimates of the remediation and grading emissions utilize the worst case scenario. This is when both processes take place at the same time during the final 6 months. Typically, the grading for one or two phases of construction will occur, followed by several months of non -grading construction activity until the next construction phase is initiated. For this project, however, it is assumed that grading activities will occur almost every working day. It was assumed that up to 4 pieces of construction equipment will be required during the remediation/grading phase with up to 6 construction workers. 86 ' Temporary impacts will result from the project remediation and construction grading activities. Air pollutants will be emitted by construction equipment and dust will be generated during grading and site preparation. Construction activities for large ' development projects are estimated by the .U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors") to add 1.2 tons of fugitive dust per acre of soil disturbed per month of activity. If water or other soil stabilizers are used to 1 control dust as required by SCAQMD Rule 403, the emissions can be reduced by 50 percent. ' Applying the above factors to the approximately 10 acres of the project remediation and the 64.5 acres of the project site that will be graded, and a 6 month remediation/grading process, results in a total of approximately 4,117 pounds per day (total of 2.1 tons per day) of particulate emissions released due to the remediation/grading process of the ' project. This is a small amount compared to the 283 tons per day of particulate matter currently released in Los Angeles County. (The particulate emissions from the remediation process are estimated to be only.a fraction (14%) of the construction grading process). It should be noted that the impact due to remediation/grading process is very localized. Additionally, the material emitted is inert silicates, rather than the complex -organic particulate matter released from combustion sources which are more harmful to health. In some cases, grading may be near existing development. Care should be taken to minimize the generation of dust. Common practice for minimizing dust generation is watering prior to and during grading. Without watering, dust generation would be double the amount mentioned previously. The 50% reduction factor due to watering is incorporated in the impact portion of the analysis and not in the mitigation section because watering of the site is required by SCAQMD Rule 403, which states that the developer must, "Take every reasonable precaution to minimize fugitive dust emissions from wrecking, excavation, grading, clearing of land and solid waste disposal operations." Watering of the site is clearly called for under this requirement. Heavy duty equipment emissions are difficult to quantify because of day to day variability in construction activities and equipment used. Typical emission rates for a diesel powered scraper is provided in Table 5, and were obtained from the SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook. A diesel powered scraper is the most common equipment used for grading operations. For this type of project, 2 pieces of heavy equipment may be expected to operate at one time. It is assumed that all of the equipment is operated for 8 hours per day. Table 5 summarizes the remediation/grading emissions. 97 TABLE 5 WORST CASE REMEDIATION/CONSTRUCTION GRADING EMISSIONS (POUNDS/DAY) Emissions(pounds/Day) Grading Employee Activities Equipment Total SCAQMD Pollutant Travel (PM10onlv) Emissions _Emissions Thresholds Carbon Monoxide 4.69 — 20.00 24.69 274 Hydrocarbons 0.18 — 4.32 4.50 55 Nitrogen Oxides 0.47 — 61.44 61.91 55 Particulates (PM10) 0.06 4109 7.36 4116.64 150 Sulfur Oxide 0.03 — 6.56 6.59 150 Long Term Impacts - Regional Air Quality The main source of regional emissions generated by the project will be from motor vehicles. Other emissions will be generated from the combustion of natural gas for space heating and the generation of electricity. Emissions will also be generated by the use of natural gas and oil for the generation of electricity off-site. Vehicular Emissions Estimate of the vehicular emissions generated by the proposed project were made. Emission factors are based on the EMFAC7E Program. The traffic report for the project forecasts 9451 vehicle trips per day. It was assumed the trips will be an average of 20 miles long. This results in 189,020 vehicle miles traveled per day due to the project. An average vehicle speed of 35 miles per hour was assumed for the projections. The emissions are projected for the year 2000. The projected emissions are presented in Table 6. TABLE 6 VEHICULAR EMISSIONS Pollutant Emissions (Lbs/Day Carbon Monoxide 2948 Nitrogen Oxides 431 Sulfur Oxides 30 Particulates 78 Hydrocarbons 164 Stationary Sources Emissions will be generated on-site by the combustion of natural gas for space heating and water heating. Emission factors were obtained from the Air Quality Handbook referenced previously. Projections of emissions are presented in Table 7. The square footages and emission factors utilized are provided in the Technical Appendix - Project Emissions. 88 Offsite emissions will be generated due to electrical usage. The generation of electrical energy by the combustion of fossil fuels results in additional emissions off-site. Emissions generated by this means are presented in Table 8. Electrical usage rates and emission factors are documented in the Technical Appendix, and are from the Air Quality � Handbook. ' TABLES ELECTRICAL USAGE EMISSIONS ' Pollutant Emissions (LbsfDay) Carbon Monoxide 8.76 TABLE 7 ' NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION EMISSIONS ' Pollutant Emissions (LbsfDav) Carbon Monoxide 1.25 Nitrogen Oxides 7.46 ' Sulfur Oxides <0.01 Particulates 0.01 W Hydrocarbons 0.33 Offsite emissions will be generated due to electrical usage. The generation of electrical energy by the combustion of fossil fuels results in additional emissions off-site. Emissions generated by this means are presented in Table 8. Electrical usage rates and emission factors are documented in the Technical Appendix, and are from the Air Quality � Handbook. ' TABLES ELECTRICAL USAGE EMISSIONS ' Pollutant Emissions (LbsfDay) Carbon Monoxide 8.76 ' Nitrogen Oxides 50.39 Sulfur Oxides 5.26 ' Particulates 1.75 Hydrocarbons 0.44 Total Emissions The total emissions generated by the project are compared to emissions for Los Angeles County in Table 9. The total emissions generated by the project are presented in the first line of Table 9. The Los Angeles County emissions for 2010 are estimated based on the base line emissions projections from the 1991 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). For comparison purposes of this project, the 2010 Los Angeles County Emissions are assumed to be the same as 2000. The difference between the proposed project and the approved land use plan are compared to the County emissions. The increases in all pollutants when compared to Los Angeles County emissions are all less than 0.0190. 89 TABLE 9 COMPARISON OF TOTAL EMISSIONS (PPM) PROJECT EMISSIONS AS A PERCENT OF REGIONAL EMISSIONS Percent of County Emissions 0.102% 0.048% 0.020% 0.005% 0.013% Note that project emissions exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance for CO, ROG and NOx. Note also that these thresholds are not necessarily an appropriate reference to determine the significance of project emissions. These thresholds are taken from the Final Draft 1991 CEQA Air Quality Handbook, which states that the criteria "are consistent with the federal Clean Air Act definition of a significant source in an area classified as extreme for ozone." While it is correct that the thresholds are consistent as such, the SCAQMD does not recognize the fact that such criteria were developed initially by the U.S. EPA to be applied to point source emissions, such as an industrial. smokestack. Comparisons between emissions from an extreme point source and emissions from the Valley Gateway project are clearly inappropriate in this context. Emissions from the Valley Gateway project are primarily from motor vehicles traveling in an area within an average radius of 20 miles. Emissions from the Valley Gateway project bear no resemblance to emissions from industrial point sources. It is also very important to note that, while the SCAQMD states that all projects with emissions exceeding the thresholds are to be considered significant, the final decision as to whether a project is declared to have significant adverse environmental impacts lies, by law, with the lead agency. Local Air Quality Carbon monoxide concentrations for the local area were estimated for future conditions using the CALINE4 dispersion model. A worst case meteorological condition was modeled for the project. Data were input for the main roadways in the project vicinity, receptors and worst case meteorological conditions as were investigated in the existing air quality modeling effort. Vehicle projections in terms of peak hour for the roadways were obtained from the Valley Gateway Traffic Analysis, November 1992. Carbon monoxide emission factors for the year 2000 were modelled based on EMFACE7E. The existing carbon monoxide (CO) ambient background level was utilized based on the Q CO NO„ s0.. PART ROG 2000 Proposed Project 1.48 0.24 0.02 0.04 0.08 Emissions (tons/day) 2000 Los Angeles County 1455 507 90 773 650 Emissions (tons/day) SCAQMD Threshold of 274 55 150 150 55 Significance (lbs/day) PROJECT EMISSIONS AS A PERCENT OF REGIONAL EMISSIONS Percent of County Emissions 0.102% 0.048% 0.020% 0.005% 0.013% Note that project emissions exceed the SCAQMD thresholds of significance for CO, ROG and NOx. Note also that these thresholds are not necessarily an appropriate reference to determine the significance of project emissions. These thresholds are taken from the Final Draft 1991 CEQA Air Quality Handbook, which states that the criteria "are consistent with the federal Clean Air Act definition of a significant source in an area classified as extreme for ozone." While it is correct that the thresholds are consistent as such, the SCAQMD does not recognize the fact that such criteria were developed initially by the U.S. EPA to be applied to point source emissions, such as an industrial. smokestack. Comparisons between emissions from an extreme point source and emissions from the Valley Gateway project are clearly inappropriate in this context. Emissions from the Valley Gateway project are primarily from motor vehicles traveling in an area within an average radius of 20 miles. Emissions from the Valley Gateway project bear no resemblance to emissions from industrial point sources. It is also very important to note that, while the SCAQMD states that all projects with emissions exceeding the thresholds are to be considered significant, the final decision as to whether a project is declared to have significant adverse environmental impacts lies, by law, with the lead agency. Local Air Quality Carbon monoxide concentrations for the local area were estimated for future conditions using the CALINE4 dispersion model. A worst case meteorological condition was modeled for the project. Data were input for the main roadways in the project vicinity, receptors and worst case meteorological conditions as were investigated in the existing air quality modeling effort. Vehicle projections in terms of peak hour for the roadways were obtained from the Valley Gateway Traffic Analysis, November 1992. Carbon monoxide emission factors for the year 2000 were modelled based on EMFACE7E. The existing carbon monoxide (CO) ambient background level was utilized based on the Q ' 1991 maximum I -hour level of 9 ppm, and 8 -hour level of 5.4 ppm (Table 4). (Based on the best available data, it was assumed that the maximum CO level is the same as the ambient level). The future regional air quality trend for CO emissions was projected to reduce by about half by the year 2000. This projection was obtained from the Projection of Future Air Quality in the South Coast Air Basin taken from the 1991 Santa Clarita Air Quality Element.. Therefore, it is reasonable to estimate a future background concentration ' of 4.5 ppm for the 1 -hour concentrations, and 3 ppm for the 8 -hour concentration. (The 8 -hour concentrations were estimated using a persistent factor of 0.6). The worst case results of the modeling for existing, future without project, future with project, are shown in Table 10. These represent worst case I -hour and 8 -hour concentrations. Column 1 displays the existing 1991 CO levels. Columns 2 and 3 display ' the future CO levels in the local area. The future CO concentrations represent the total levels due to cumulative plus background levels with and without project. The last column of Table 10 presents the increase of CO emissions due solely to the project. TABLE 10 CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) GENERATED FROM FUTURE TRAFFIC (YEAR 2000) Existing Cumulative Cumulative Increase due Receptor Location (1991) w/o Proiect w/ Project to Proiect Maximum 1 -hour Concentrations (PPM) 1 Sierra Highway 11.2 2 Sierra Highway 10.8 3 Sierra Highway 12.2 4 Sierra Highway 12.1 5 Sierra Highway 10.1 6 State Route 14 15.5 7 State Route 14 13.9 8 State Route 14 13.4 9 State Route 14 10.7 Maximum 8 -hour Concentrations (PPM) 1 Sierra Highway 6.7 2 Sierra Highway 6.5 3 Sierra Highway 7.3 4 Sierra Highway 7.3 5 Sierra Highway 6.1 6 State Route 14 9.3 7 State Route 14 8.3 8 State Route 14 8.0 9 State Route 14 6.4 10.5 10.6 0.1 7.7 8.2 0.5 11.1 11.8 0.7 9.0 12.1 3.1 7.5 7.5 0.0 25.9 26.1 0.2 21.3 21.7 0.3 18.9 19.1 0.2 6.5 6.5 0.00 6.6 6.7 0.1 4.9 5.2 0.3 7.0 7.4 0.4 5.7 7.6 1.9 4.8 4.8 0.0 15.8 16.0 0.1 13.1 13.3 0.2 11.6 11.8 0.1 4.2 4.2 0.0 1 -bout Standards - (Federal - 35 ppm, State - 20 ppm) 8 -hour Standards - (Federal - 9 ppm, State - 9 ppm) NOTE: Worst case (future) concentrations include background level of 4.5 ppm for ]-hour concentrations, and 3 ppm for 8 -hour concentrations 91 4.4.3 CO concentrations for the year 2000 are projected to increase above existing levels for both future cumulative with project and with no project case. The CO emission projections include the anticipated decrease in background carbon monoxide levels in future years, however, offsetting the total increase in traffic. The Future CO contribution of the local roadways will increase considerably over existing levels specifically near local freeways where the level of traffic will increase significantly. The greatest CO increases due to cumulative (with project) emissions, specifically near SR -14, are estimated to be 10.6 ppm for 1 -hour, and 6.7 ppm for 8 -hour. These increases are attributed mainly to the rapid growth of all the cumulative proposed developments in the areas. The average cumulative difference over existing, however, are estimated to increase by about 1.7 ppm for 1 -hour, and 1.3 ppm for 8 -hour concentration. The difference in maximum concentrations between the project and the no project case are very small, with the no project case resulting in slightly lower concentrations. The average difference is 0.5 ppm for I -hour, and 0.3 ppm for 8 -hour. The greatest difference in maximum concentration due Yo the project occurs near the Sierra Highway/SR-14 intersection with an increase of 3.1 ppm. Comparison of the data in Table 10 to California and Federal carbon monoxide standards indicates that under worst case meteorological conditions, the emissions projected will exceed the 1 -hour State standard. A maximum I -hour concentration of about 26.1 ppm carbon monoxide is estimated to occur. The I -hour Federal standard however was not exceeded. It is important to note that locations most likely to exceed the standards are next to the Antelope Valley Freeway. The 8 -hour State and Federal standards are also projected to be exceeded for locations next to the freeway SR -14). A maximum 8 -hour concentration is estimated to be about 16.0 ppm. The high CO emissions near the major freeway are mainly contributed by the cumulative traffic in the area. Note that it is not uncommon for the 8 -hour standard to be exceeded at locations near a major freeway. The maximum CO concentrations due to the proposed project are projected to be 7.6 ppm for 1 -hour and 4.9 ppm for 8 -hour, which are below both state and national standards. (Note that the bulk of the concentrations are due to background levels of 4.5 ppm for 1 - hour and 3 ppm for 8 -hour). As a result, the 1 -hour and 8 -hour standards are not anticipated to be exceeded due to the proposed project. MITIGATION MEASURES Construction Impacts The following are mitigation measures recommended by the SCAQMD and are intended to reduce pollutant emissions from construction activities. The measures are presented below with a quantification of the measure, if such a quantification is possible. Use low emission mobile construction equipment, where feasible. This measure is recommended, although quantification of the measure's benefits is not really possible. Emission rates are necessary to determine the emissions of any vehicle. At present, the most reliable rates that are available for construction equipment are those provided by the SCAQMD in the 1992 Final Draft CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Emissions from construction equipment can only be quantified by use 92 II of these emission rates. Because no emission rates for 'low emission" mobile construction vehicles are available, the air quality benefit of the use of such equipment cannot be quantified. 2. Develop a trip reduction plan to achieve a 1.5 average vehicle ridership (AVR) for construction employees. The reductions that would occur in the emissions of ' construction employees traveling to the construction site if the 1.5 average vehicle ridership (AVR) target is achieved will be 33% (1+1.5=67%). Under this assumption, the emissions reduction per day that would occur under the worst case traffic generated by construction activities would be 8.1 pounds of CO, 1.5 pounds of ROG, 20.4 pounds of NOx, 1,257 pounds of PM10, and 2.1 pounds of SOx. ' 3. Water site and clean equipment morning and evening. As this is not an optional mitigation measure, but a SCAQMD requirement, this reduction should be, and is, already included in the particulate emission projections in this report. ' Cleaning the construction equipment is recommended despite the fact that emissions reductions from this activity cannot be quantified. The 1992 CEQA Air Quality Handbook states that washing construction vehicles before they leave the site will control particulate emissions from dust blown off trucks and other equipment by 40% to 70%, but emissions from these sources are not determinable to begin with. 4. Spread soil binders on site, unpaved roads and parking areas. This is not an optional mitigation measure. SCAQMD Rule 403 requires that "every reasonable precaution (is taken) to minimize fugitive dust emissions" from grading operations ' to control particulate emissions. The emissions reduction afforded by this measure is already included in the particulate emission projections in this report. 5. Apply chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturer's specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas which remain inactive for 96 hours). Chemical soil stabilizers will result in a 40% to 85% reduction in particular emissions from wind erosion. The quantity of fugitive dust emissions from inactive portions of the construction site, however, is not quantifiable. Therefore, the specific quantities of emissions reductions cannot be quantified. 6. Reestablish ground cover on construction site through seeding and watering on portions of the site that will not be disturbed for lengthy periods (such as two months of more). This measure would reduce particulate emissions by 20% to 65%. The quantity of fugitive dust emissions from inactive portions of the construction site, however is not quantifiable. Therefore, the specific quantities of emissions reductions cannot be quantified. 7. Reduce traffic speeds on all unpaved road surfaces to 15 miles per hour or less. Data to estimate emissions from vehicles traveling upon unpaved roads is unavailable, so there is no way to specifically quantify the amount of emissions reductions from this measure. A reduction in travel speeds to 15 miles per hour on unpaved road surfaces will reduce particulate emissions .from this activity by approximately 40% to 70%. 93 8. Suspend grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts. This measure would, of course, almost, entirely eliminate emissions from the heavy equipment used in grading activities. This measure would result in emissions reductions of 25 pounds of CO, 5 pounds of ROG, 62 pounds of NOx, 3,809 pounds of PM 10, and 7 pounds of SOx. If the water truck continued to operate on the site, the emissions reductions would be slightly less. 9. Suspend all grading operations when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour. This measure is very similar to the previous measure. This measure, however, is specifically intended to minimise particulate emissions rather than reduce the broad range of pollutant emissions. This measure would result in emissions reductions of 25 pounds of CO, 5 pounds of ROG, 62 pounds of NOx, 3,809 pounds of PM10, and 7 pounds of SOx. If the water truck continued to operate on the site, the emissions reductions would be slightly less. Note that while the particulate emissions from grading activities would be reduced by a large factor due to the suspension of grading operations, the high winds would act to increase the amount of PMIO emissions. There is not data for particulate emissions when the wind is blowing at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour. 10. Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them tuned. This measure does not really mitigate an impact. Its purpose is to ensure that the air quality impacts that are generated by construction activities associated with the projects are consistent with the impacts that are projected in the air quality report. The emissions data in the air quality report are based upon emission rates for equipment that has been properly maintained. if the actual equipment used during the project's construction is not properly maintained, the emissions produced by that equipment will exceed the projected emissions. This measure, when it is complied with, merely helps to ensure that emissions during theproject's construction will not exceed the projected emissions. 11. Use low sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment. This is already required by SCAQMD Rules 431.1 and 431.2. Unfortunately, no means of calculating the benefits of such a measure currently exist. The use of low sulfur fuel would reduce emissions of pollutants (particularly sulfur oxides) in the vicinity of the project, but by a unquantifiable amount. 12. Provide on-site power sources during the early stages of the project. This measure is recommended although its benefits are not quantifiable without specific information as to how it would be implemented. The intent of this measure is to minimize or eliminate the use of portable generators. 13. Utilize existing power sources (e.g., power poles) or clean fuel generators rather than temporary power generators. This measure overlaps with the immediately preceding and following measures. In order to quantify these measures, specific information is required, including, but not limited to, how much power would be needed, how it would be supplied in the absence of this measure, and how it would be supplied with the implementation of this measure. Without such information, quantification of the air quality benefits of these measures is not possible. Vill 14. Use low emission on-site stationary equipment (e.g., clean fuels). As stated above, this measure overlaps with the previous measure. Information that is required to quantify the air quality benefit of this measure is not available. 15. Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. This measure is recommended as it appears to have been home out of good common sense. If completely effective, this practice would entirely avoid the disruption of traffic flow. The measure seems to have been designed to avoid creating an impact rather than mitigating an impact and is, therefore, unquantifiable. 16. Minimize obstruction of through -traffic lanes. As with the above measure, the measure seems to have been designed to avoid creating an impact rather than ' mitigating an impact. It is recommended to follow such a guideline, where feasible, but the quantification of the air quality benefits is not possible. ' 17. Provide a flagperson to properly guide traffic and ensure safety at construction sites. This measure is recommended, but is related to air quality in only a very indirect way. Its air quality benefits are indeterminable. 18. Schedule operations affecting traffic for off-peak hours, where feasible. The air quality benefits are unquantifiable for the reason that quantification would require a determination of emissions increases from traffic congestion that might occur in ' the absence of such a measure over conditions where there is no traffic congestion (i.e., the successful implementation of this measure). 19. Develop a traffic plan to minimize traffic flow, interference from construction activities (the plan may include advance public notice of routing, use of public transportation and satellite parking areas with a shuttle service). This is another measure aimed at avoiding the creation of an impact in the first place and is, therefore, recommended.' The air quality benefits are unquantifiable. Local And Regional Air Quality The most significant reductions in regional and local air pollutant emissions are attainable through programs which reduce the vehicular travel associated with the project. Support and compliance with the AQMP is the most important measure to achieve this goal. The AQMP incudes improvement of mass transit facilities and implementation of vehicular usage reduction programs. Additionally, energy conservation measures are included. In order to reduce the total project trips, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program should be developed. This program is to be designed to reduce project trips, to reduce the traffic congestion and the project emissions. 20. Provide local shuttle and regional transit systems and transit shelters. This measure is recommended, but no information is available regarding its effectiveness in improving air quality. Such a program might reduce the VMT associated with the project. No evidence is available that VMT will be reduced by any significant amount, however. 21. Provide bicycles lanes, bicycle storage areas, and amenities, and ensure efficient parking management which is consistent with the City's proposed TDM ordinance 95 4.4.4 standards. This measure is recommended, but no data is available regarding the effectiveness of this package of measures. Quantification of air quality benefits is not possible because of this fact. 22. Synchronize traffic signals. The areas where this measure would be applicable are at the San Fernando/Sierra Highway, Clampitt/Sierra Highway and Remsen/Sierra Highway intersections access to the site. Synchronization of these three intersections is required prior to the issuance of the first certificate of use and occupancy, and will be verified by the City's Traffic Engineer. The air quality benefits are incalculable because more specific data is required. 23. Improve the thermal integrity of the buildings and reduce the thermal load with automated time clocks or occupant sensors. Reducing the need to heat or cool structures by improving thermal integrity will result in a reduced expenditure of energy and a reduction in pollutant emissions. The installation of automated time clocks and occupant sensors is not applicable to this project. The air quality benefit depends upon the extent. of the reduction of energy expenditure which is unknown in this case. Therefore, the air quality benefit is unknown. 24. Provide adequate ingress and egress at all entrances to public facilities to minimize vehicle idling at curbside. Presumably, this measure would improve traffic flow into and out of the parking lot. The air quality benefits are incalculable because more specific data is required. ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE Development of the proposed project will result in fugitive dust during grading operations, and exhaust emissions during equipment operations. Motor vehicles driving to and from the project site are the main source of pollutant emissions. The combustion of natural gas and the generation of electricity also create emissions that affect air quality. Mitigation measures identified in Section 4.4.3 can reduce air quality impacts to a less than significant level. Incremental increases in County regional emissions range from 0.009 percent up to 0.076 percent for the five pollutants measured by the AQMD. Although not considered individually significant, the project represents an incremental increase in pollutant emissions in the area, and contributes to cumulative air quality impacts throughout the region. On a cumulative basis, incremental increases in air pollutant emissions contribute to the impediment of basin -wide attainment of clean air standards, and are, therefore considered a significant impact within the context of on-going regional growth. 4.5 BIOTIC RESOURCES 4.5.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS This section is based for the most part on information provided in the Valley Gateway Proiect Backeround and Existing Conditions Report, the Preliminary Oak Tree Report, other background material provided in the project application, and Santa Clarita Wildlife Corridor prepared for the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. The accuracy of this information was confirmed in field surveys conducted by the City's independent Oak Tree Consultant and Planning Consortium personnel between June, 1992 and April, 1993. The following section describes the biotic resources found on the site with particular focus on the health and integrity of those resources, as well as resources of special significance. The rare, threatened, endangered or sensitive status of plant and animal species was determined from information provided by the California Native Plant Society, State Department of Fish and Game (Natural Diversity Data Base) and U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. This section describes the biotic resources found on- site, identifies anticipated impacts due to the implementation of the proposed project and recommends mitigation measures to lessen potential significant effects. Vegetation The approximately 117.0 acre project site is located in the westernmost foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains where they meet the Santa Susana Mountains by Weldon Canyon (refer to Figure 2). Approximately 62% of the project site supports relatively undisturbed native vegetation while the remaining approximately 38% of the site has been previously ' disturbed by oil extraction operations. Classification of the vegetation is based on the California Department of Fish and Game's official classification system. The spatial distribution of these vegetation communities are shown in Figure 9. On-site vegetation ' communities include Southern Coast Live Oak Woodland, Chaparral, Coastal Sage Scrub, Great Basin Sagebrush Scrub, Mule Fat Scrub, Non -Native Grasslands and disturbed areas. ' The factors controlling the composition and distribution of vegetation on the project site include substantial physical disturbances associated with installation, operation and I' demolition of the oil -refinery, as well as other past activities and occurrences such as grazing, fire, and introductions of exotic species. Additionally, there are limiting constraints placed upon the potential vegetation of the site as a result of geomorphology, hydrology, soils and climate (including air quality). As such, the plant communities present on the project site generally include woodland, brushland and scrubland habitats over the majority of the site, with a limited amount of grassland cover. Substantial acreages of herbaceous vegetation are found over areas that are recovering from recent ' physical disturbances. In some cases, the disturbance is so recent, or so severe (such as contaminated soil) that plant life is currently not supported at all. ' Southern Coast Live Oak Woodland There are moist canyon bottoms, ravines, mesic north -facing slopes, and other favorable areas on the project site which support open- to densely -wooded southern coast live oak woodland. These woodland areas are dominated by coast live oak (Quercus aerifolia). Southern coast live oak woodlands occur throughout the coastal ranges of California from Mendocino County (approximately 450 miles north of the site), to Baja California (approximately 200 miles south of the site). On the project site, these oaks tend to cluster in stands, however, there are individual trees scattered on mesic upper slopes and surrounded by scrublands or brushlands. The most concentrated oak woodlands are found in the lowlands of the central and northern portion of the project site, where they occupy an old alluvial terrace and the colluvial soils of the bordering foothills. These areas have received repeated disturbance in the form of roads, brush clearance, vehicle and equipment storage, debris dumping, and structures. Oak trees in the southernmost portion of the property (south of the main divide) occupy small groves, or occur as scattered individuals, and are primarily associated with coastal sage scrub vegetation, which dominates these predominantly south -facing, steep slopes with highly erodible soils found here. In the extreme north end of the site, the understory of oak woodland consists of non-native grassland vegetation on steep, south -facing slopes. No scrub oaks (Quercus dumosa) exist on the site. Two separate and independent oak tree inventories have been completed for the site by local arborists (one covering a portion of the site by Eichenberger, Fennell & Associates in March, 1989, and one covering the entire site by Lee Newman & Associates, Incorporated in December, 1990). These studies included thorough inventories and indexing (through metal trunk tags) of all individual trees on site with a trunk size of at least 6 inches in circumference (measured at 4.5 feet above grade), and also included some information relative to qualitative horticultural conditions (health, aesthetic, and economic values) of the trees. The data in the Lee Newman & Associates, Inc. oak tree report was independently reviewed and confirmed by the City's Oak Tree Consultant in her memorandum of August 20, 1992. Review of the two studies indicates that a total of 1,114 individual oak trees exist on site; a total of 813 of the trees (or approximately 73 percent) are located on the portion of the site north of Clampitt Road, while a total of 301 of the trees (or approximately 27 percent) are located on the portion of the site south of Clampitt Road (refer to Figure 10). The oak trees on site average approximately 18-20 feet in height and approximately 15-18 inches in diameter or approximately 45-54 inches in circumference measured at 4.5 feet above grade.- No heritage oaks exist within the project site. In general, the oak trees on-site are of average health and aesthetic value according to the applicant's oak tree report. However, a number of factors have combined over time to slightly impact the overall health and vigor of these trees. These include 1) a high level of soil compaction in and around a number of the trees; 2) lowered air quality and atmospheric conditions on site related to petroleum and chemical emissions generated from the long-term operation of refining facilities on-site; 3) lower air quality and atmospheric conditions on-site related to hydrocarbon emissions generated by vehicles passing by the site on the heavily travelled Antelope Valley Freeway (State Highway 14); and. 4) overcrowding of individual trees within intensive stands or woodland areas. In order to quantify the value of oak trees (for calculating replacement values, etc.) all trees on the site have been given estimated economic values (in accordance with standards established by the International Society of Arboraculture (ISA) in their Guide to Establishing Values for Trees and Shrubs). Based on the average values established for 98 BEALE'S CUT (Stagecoach Pass, Circa 1863) '. Ha;HVFA , .. (EXISTING VEGETATION COMMUNITIES VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 City of Santa Clarita, California �--- .QIERRA HIGHWAY BRUSHLAND/SCRUBLAND EDCHAPAP.RAL (Chamise and/or hoary leaf ceanothus) COASTAL SAGE SCRUB (Coastal sage and/or California buckwheat) GREAT BASIN SAGEBRUSI 1 SCRUB (Great Basin Sagebrush) WOODLANDS/INDIVIDUAL TREES tiIULEFATSCRUB (Mulefat-degrader condition) COAST LIVE OAK (Quercus agriAaia) HERBACEOUS COMMUNITIES til SYCAMORE (Platinus racemosa) F-1 ANNUAL GRASSLAND BLACK LOCUST (Robinia Pseudocacia/introduced) a OLDER DISTURBED Weed covered CA:NARI'ISLAND DATE PALM(Phck nis eanariensis/intmduad) RECENTLY DISTURBED Asphalt mrered/nun-vegetated/ oiled dirt/roadways/roadcuts/recently cleared Envicom Corporation r NORTH r --j 7AC]el u so Sao F.. Land 1'I;umin;; • 4:nvironmmntal A.+.�csmint • R.•�ulntnry Cumpli:mev EI Figure 9 1 trees on the project site, the project site contains oak trees with a value of approximately $4.62 million. Native trees other than oak trees are generally absent on the site, except for a relatively few sycamores (Platanus racemosa). Aside from oak and sycamore, other trees on the site are limited to a single, individual Canary Island date palm (Phoenix canariensis), and several individuals of black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia); both are introduced species. A number of native shrubs occurring here occasionally approach arborescent form; notably, toyon, Mexican elderberry, and redberry. The understory vegetation is highly modified or virtually absent in the flat areas that were actively used during operation of the refinery. Where vegetation has been allowed to recover, species are largely herbaceous, weedy species such as sand -bur Ambrosia acanthica[p , and short -pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana). Elsewhere, on low -slopes where understory vegetation has not been recently cleared or burned, a more representative woodland understory is present and consisting of small to arborescent shrubs including toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), Mexican elderberry (Sanbucus mexicanus), poison -oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), and wooly -leaf redberry (Rhamnus ilicifolia, and little -leaf redberry R. crocea . On drier, upland slopes that support oak in the central and northern part of the site, the understory is composed of shrubs including chamise (,Adenostoma fasciculate) and hoary - leaf ceanothus (Ceanothus crassifolius), which are typical of chaparral habitats. This association is again repeated on the steep north -facing slopes located south of the former refinery and north of the main divide. However, elements of coastal sage scrub such as coastal sagebrush (Artemisia californica), and purple sage (Salvia leucoohylla) are also present along with the chaparral elements mentioned above. Chaparral Chaparral communities are concentrated on the upland slopes in the northern portion of the site, north of the main divide. Here are found well-developed stands of Chamise chaparral and hoary -leaf ceanothus chaparral. Chamise chaparral ranges from the interior slopes of the Klamath Mountains and the North Coast Ranges, the coastal and interior slopes of the Central and South Coast Ranges, the western foothills of the Sierra Nevada, and throughout the Transverse and Peninsular Ranges of southern California. Hoary -leaf ceanothus chaparral occurs along the coastal side of the Transverse and Peninsular ranges from Santa Barbara County south to Baja California. At any given location within the chaparral on the project site, either chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) or hoary -leaf ceanothus (Ceanothus crassifolius) can form a dense cover of impenetrable brush by themselves, or they are mixed in varying proportion. Separation of the two types in the field is arbitrary and was not undertaken. In general, pure stands of chamise tend to occupy more xeric sites than does hoary -leaf ceanothus, however, they integrate in a complex manner that is often reflective of the most recent brush -fire burning patterns. Since these species in the mature stages form a virtually complete cover, few understory species are associated. The exception occurs in the few years following a fire, in which an astonishing diversity of annual species and successional shrubs appear. Eventually, these become over -shadowed by chamise, which is a stump-sprouter, or by hoary -leaf ceanothus, which is an obligate seed -reproducing species. 1'1 ;'� ,��} •�� 0'°' ', �� � it ', � � :' ate-.- t � q ��\\�."1��] �`u� \ � �!� �v.�� J� �i i '• r ,v-'V�„ .cif,.' i .r i , , y� ., Y� \��-1 \ +✓i%Y 6. t/yam r. e i s � Y� .. Bey. �.y', �,� t g �t z,. r r� ��`:�" ✓ ✓��,�' 111(110% M . gym... OAK TREE LOCATIONS VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 City of Santa Clarita, California %.rill; �, _. �'•- �- r . FREEWAY i -\� - � • �VALLEY � — — 4 ANtE�oPE En V lcom Corporation NORTH 1.0 Acres 0 250 500 Feel 0-5 Land Planning • Environmental Assessment •Regulatory Compliance Acres 101 Figure 10 Coastal Sage Scrub Coastal sage scrub is an association of soft, semi -woody, often aromatic shrubs that occurs on relatively dry sites, often with poor soils, along the coast and inland as far as fog is able to penetrate along South Coastal, Transverse, and Peninsular Ranges into Baja California. Species of Coastal Sage Scrub are generally low -growing and do not form tall, dense and impenetrable stands as does chaparral. For these reasons, a great variety of species are found that include grasses and herbaceous species, as well as numerous shrubs. Coastal sage scrub as it occurs on the project site is largely limited to that portion of the project site located on and south of the main divide, where relatively steep, south -facing slopes and highly erodible sandy substrates predominate. Dominant species of the coastal sage scrub community here are coastal sagebrush (Artemisia californica) and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum). Several other species found here in moderate frequency include yucca (Yucca whioolei intermedia}, chamise, toyon, and redberries. Coast live oak is also found associated with coastal sage scrub, with mostly scattered individuals found on mesic slopes and in ravines. Great Basin Sagebrush Scrub Great Basin sagebrush scrub is a soft -woody association dominated by an aromatic shrub, the Great Basin sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata). This vegetation type is distributed extensively east of the Cascade -Sierra Nevada crest, throughout the Great Basin and intermountain west, extending north to Canada, and east beyond the Rocky Mountains. In Southern California, it occurs in scattered locations within and on the margins of the Mojave and Sonora Deserts, and interior cismontaine slopes, southward to Baja California. The occurrence of Great Basin sagebrush scrub on this project site may represent the western limit of distribution of the local subspecies (Parish's) of Great Basin sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata narishii) at this latitude, being rather disjunct from the western edge of the Mojave desert, and not known to occur further west of this site (i.e. cismontaine slopes in the Santa Susana Mountains, Simi Hills, or Santa Monica Mountains). On the project site,. Great Basin sagebrush forms a dense brush cover up to eight -feet tall over relatively flat areas of recent, well -drained alluvium along the primary stream channel, as well as a disturbed site adjacent to this. Only one other desert element, Mojave rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus mohavensis), occurs associated with this habitat, in small numbers. Adjacent habitats include mule fat scrub and southern coast live oak woodlands that are also associated with the stream course. Mule Fat Scrub Associated with the primary drainage course which traverses the site (i.e., the tributary of the Newhall Creek running along the eastern border of the northern half of the site) is a riparian habitat type known as mule fat scrub. This community is widely scattered along intermittent streams and rivers from Tehama County south through the Coast Ranges and Siena Nevada, Transverse and Peninsular Ranges to northwestern Baja California: This on-site plant community is dominated by mule fat (Bacccharis salicifolia). 102 ' The stream course as it flows across the northern half of the property has been partially degraded, within the former refinery area proper, and therefore subjects the downstream reaches to impacts that include pollution and bigh-velocity scouring flows converging from ' the impervious areas in the upstream watershed. Additional degradation has occurred in the form of attempts to stabilize the banks, or channelize the flow, and from indiscriminate debris dumping. Despite these activities, the stream channel retains patches of Mule Fat ' Scrub, and would potentially recover to this vegetation type in the absence of further human (anthropogenic) disturbances. Non -Native Grassland Non-native grasslands are found at the project site and throughout the valleys and foothills of California, except for the north coastal and desert regions. Most of the native grasses of low altitude in California have been replaced by introduced species. Factors contributing to these changes include pressure of over -grazing (often coupled with drought), agriculture and perhaps accompanying changes in the types and numbers of grazing animals. Although few native grass species are present on-site, the introduced grasslands are nonetheless the functional equivalent of the pristine native grasslands, providing resources to numerous animals which are adapted to this environment. On the project site, non-native grasslands are limited to small patches along ridges, and occasionally as the understory of oak woodlands, especially at the extreme north end of the parcel. These grasslands are dominated by annual grasses including rip -gut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft chessm ilis), red brome (B. rubens), and slender wild oat (Avenda barbata). A number of herbs are generally present including native annuals such as fiddleneck (Arinsinckia intermedia) and slender eriogonum (Erioeonum gracile). Disturbed Areas The project site contains several types of herbaceous communities that are associated with old and more -recent disturbances. The types of disturbances include grading for unpaved and asphalt roads, structural pads, storage, parking areas, brush clearance (sometimes coupled with oiling) and fire. The refinery structures have been demolished and the resulting bare earth is devoid of vegetation. Other less recent disturbed areas are in most cases undergoing succession to old fields and to a lesser extent to non-native grassland vegetation. Throughout the northern and central portion of the project site, there are areas of disturbance that have been abandoned and allowed to recover to herbaceous vegetation. Much of the area has experienced repeated grading and vehicle traffic, used for storage of vehicles, equipment and debris, and in some cases paved. The vegetation that occurs in these areas has no counterpart in the California Department of Fish and Game's classification. The most characteristic plants are annual grasses and herbs including sand - bur (Ambrosia acanthicaroa), short -pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), telegraph weed (Heterotheca crandiflora), and cudweed=aster (Corothro¢vne filaing ifolia). A few shrubs are present including Mojave rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus mohavensisl, and Parish's Great Basin sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata oarishii). 103 Wildlife Habitats The relatively large size and undeveloped condition of the project site and adjacent lands to the south and west, coupled with the presence of a diverse vegetation, which includes oak woodland and riparian (stream -side) communities, suggests that the project site can support a wide variety of invertebrate and vertebrate animal species. Assessment of wildlife populations is ideally based on extensive research over a long period of time, especially for reclusive or difficult to observe species such as mountain lion, bobcat, grey fox, American badger, most species of bats, golden eagle and migratory birds. Except for occasional day -time and night-time surveys, intensive field observation has not been conducted on the project site, and many species (especially birds) are expected to occur, even if only seasonally. It is known from observation and from commercial trapping data that the area does support populations of large carnivores and birds of prey, which is indicative of an abundant and diverse prey base. Two general categories of environmental factors operate to determine the variety and abundance of animal species on a given site. These include 1) vegetation, physical factors of climate, topography and natural barriers; and 2) the intrinsic qualities of the animals themselves such as fecundity, dispersal ability, home range and habitat requirements. Because vegetation reflects physical parameters to great degree, the vegetation types, discussed earlier provide a suitable framework to discuss wildlife habitats. Southern Coast Live Oak Woodland -Southern coast live oak woodland occurs extensively on the project site. For this reason, the contribution to the faunal (animal) diversity of the site by this vegetative community is representative of these habitats in the region, and furthermore, augments that of the other habitat types present. Normally high soil -moisture and proximity to seasonal water allows for the presence of several amphibians such as Pacific and black -bellied slender salamanders, Monterey ensatina, arboreal salamander, California toad and Pacific treefrog. Reptile species include western skink, southern alligator lizard, Great Basin fence lizard, silvery legless lizard, San Bernardino ring-necked snake, western yellow -bellied racer, California kingsnake, San Diego gopher snake, California redsided garter snake, and southern Pacific rattlesnake. Bird species that forage in the trees include several species of woodpecker, northern flicker, plain titmouse, nuthatches, brown creeper, northern oriole, western bluebird, several warblers and vireos, gnatcatchers, flycatchers and kinglets. The trees also provide elevated nesting, resting and hunting perches for raptors such as red -shouldered hawk, red- tailed hawk, Cooper's hawk, and several species of owl. The cover and forage provided by the trees is especially attractive to mammal species such as Virginia opossum, raccoon, striped skunk, and several species of mouse, vale, and woodrat. These trees may also provide day roosts for any of the several species of bats that occur in the region. Coastal Sage Scrub - The low -stature and open canopy of the coastal sage scrub on the project site is in distinct contrast with the dense, impenetrable brush of chaparral, and the oaks of the woodlands. As mentioned, the vegetation type is limited to the southern portion of the site, although it is a prevalent vegetation type of the region. Its presence helps to augment the local homogeneity, both spatially and structurally. The area dominated by coastal sage scrub is of sufficient size to support a vertebrate fauna typical of such habitats in the region, and in most areas, species characteristic of the adjacent habitats will also utilize the scrub. SiT riparian habitat causes it to integrate closely with most of the other habitats. For these reasons, the abundance and diversity of animal life in these habitats is perhaps not exceeded by any of the others. Amphibian species that are dependent upon an aquatic environment such as California toad and Pacific treefrog. are typically present in this habitat. Most of the lizard and snake species will, as mentioned above, frequent the cool riparian habitat, particularly the Hammond two -striped garter snake, western blind snake and southern Pacific rattlesnake. A large variety of resident and migratory bird species find riparian scrub habitats attractive. Migrants and wintering birds include many species of small passerines such as swallows, warblers, kinglets, vireos and sparrows, as well as raptors such as red - shoulders, Cooper's and sharp -shinned hawks. The number of species are further enhanced since there are nearby woodlands. Resident and summer -only nesting species include a variety of warblers, vireos, flycatchers, hummingbirds, bushtit, plain titmouse, as well as accipiters, kites, owls and hawks. Mammals of the riparian habitat include those from adjacent habitats as well, for reasons discussed above. A few very characteristic ones such as striped spunk, raccoon, Virginia opossum, and woodrat prefer riparian habitats. Non -Native Grassland - Although limited in extent, introduced annual . (non-native) grassland on the project site provide spatial and structural heterogeneity to the area, thereby increasing the site's animal diversity and providing habitat to a number of animals that depend on the low -growing aspect of the grassland vegetation. Owing to the low - growing nature of grassland and the short growing season, many resident species live underground or in the adjacent woodlands part of the time. Species that use grassland often migrate to other habitats on a daily or seasonal basis. ■ Reptile species of grassland vegetation depend largely on mammal burrows for cover. ' Among these species are the California side -blotched lizard and the San Diego gopher snake. Amphibians are generally absent from this habitat except in areas immediately adjacent to wooded areas. ' Examples of ground -nesting bird species are the western meadowlark, burrowing owl, and lark sparrow. The burrowing owl is completely dependent on the burrows of the California ground. squirrel. Several birds that nest in trees (of adjacent habitat) forage for seeds, ' insects, and small mammals in grassland, while using other habitats for shade, resting, and water. Examples of these species include the mourning dove, red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, northern harrier, barn owl, Brewer's blackbird, and house finch. Bird populations ' are at a peak during the winter and spring seasons, when wintering and migrating species are present. These species include the white -crowned sparrow, western bluebird, and rough -legged hawk. Common mammal species in the. grassland include the herbivorous species such as California ground squirrel, Audubon's cottontail, black -tailed hare, and mule deer. Predatory mammals that use grasslands of the project site include coyote, grey fox, bobcat, American badger, and long-tailed weasel, which feed on the smaller mammals of the grassland habitat. 1 105 Wildlife Movement Corridors Because of its regional location and the relatively -undisturbed condition of portions of the site and surrounding properties, the project site occupies a strategic -geographic and functional position relative to the natural movement patterns and resultant biological evolution of the regional wildlife community. The site is one of the larger parcels of land that is located in a "transition" zone linking the two major regional mountain ranges in the area: the San Gabriel Mountain Range, located due east and northeast of the property and the Santa Susana Mountain Range, located due west and southwest. The animal movements across the property must not be viewed as seasonal land migrations by masses of individual animal species (such as the migrations of elks or reindeer), but as a general on-going exchange of genetic material through individuals' movements between the genetic pools of the mountains surrounding the project site. The.site also serves as an "island" of natural habitat between two of the most high - travelled major roadways in the vicinity: the Antelope Valley Freeway (State Highway 14) to the east and Sierra Highway to the west of the project site. These roadways (particularly the freeway, with its raised elevation and its four -foot high cement median wall) serve as major physical barriers and all too often become fatally hazardous obstacles in animals' attempts to undertake and complete movements between mountain areas. The existing.Los Pinetos Road underpass which provides a level and open pass under the freeway is a particularly important component of this linkage. Due to the construction and use of the Antelope Valley Freeway along the site's eastern boundary since the early 1970's, the wildlife migration corridor across the property is currently significantly impacted. Approximately 97 % of the eastern boundary is closed to animal movements by the freeway with only approximately 3% open under the freeway at Los Pinetos Road. The limited number of feasible corridors and crossing points north and south of the project site make the location and function of the Los Pinetos Road underpass an even more critical and more valuable route relative to the viability of future movement patterns. The intense level of human and vehicular activity and exaggerated terrain conditions at the multi-level freeway interchange, between the Golden State (Interstate 5) Freeway, Antelope Valley Freeway, and Sierra Highway, located approximately 0.5 miles south of the site.has significantly impeded animal movements. The similarly intense (and increasing) rate of human/vehicular activity and development at the intersection of Sierra Highway and San Fernando Road, located approximately 0.5 miles north of the site has somewhat degraded its viability as a crossing point. Because of these factors, the project site serves as one of the few remaining effective links and "stepping stones" or "resting points" for wildlife attempting to move between the San Gabriel and Santa Susana mountain ranges. This pattern extends and continues further, in a "domino -like effect" allowing animal species to move over time to the far ends of the Transverse Mountains province which extend westward to the Santa. Monica Mountains and eastward to the San Bernardino Mountains. This is a regional movement corridor critical in maintaining necessary biological diversity and preventing "inbreeding" and genetic weakening over time of a number of different wildlife species. The major wildlife species possibly using this corridor include: mule deer, mountain lion, gray fox, bobcat, badger, long-tailed weasel, raccoon, and skunk. W Great Basin Saeebrush Scrub - This habitat type is limited to small areas of well -drained alluvial soils associated with the outwash of the primary stream as it traverses the project site. Furthermore, the occurrence of this habitat type here is somewhat disjunct from the main center of distribution in the Mojave Desert and eastward. Therefore, the typical complement of animals normally associated with the interior sagebrush habitats are believed to be absent, and replaced here by species from the adjacent, zonal communities, especially woodland, chaparral and mule fat scrub. Chaparral - Chaparral within the study area is similar to coastal sage scrub, however, it forms a taller, more dense canopy. As with coastal sage scrub, amphibians generally do not use this habitat because of its dry nature. These habitats are, however, similar in their capacity to support reptile populations. Lizards include the Great Basin (western) fence lizard, San Diego (southern) alligator lizard, and others that commonly occur in coastal sage scrub, as described previously. Snakes likely in chaparral include the chaparral (California) whipsnake (striped racer), which is commonly associated with this habitat type. The San Diego night snake, a nocturnal species is common in chaparral habitats. Similarly, the component of mammals in chaparral is not unlike that described for coastal sage scrub. Birds of chaparral include scrub jay, California towhee, California thrasher, wrentit, and numerous other graniverous species found in the adjacent grass and scrub habitats. Predatory birds such as Cooper's hawk and sharp -shinned hawk forage regularly in chaparral. Others such as golden eagle and prairie falcon prefer to nest only in rocky areas with chaparral. Mule Fat Scrub - The presence of seasonal surface and sub -surface water provides for a moderated microclimate with high levels of primary productivity. This in turn serves as an abundant food base for invertebrates, especially insects, and ultimately, vertebrate animals. Virtually all species associated with any of the other habitats on-site will at one time or another utilize the local riparian (stream -side) habitat for the added attractions of 107 No amphibians are typically associated with coastal sage scrub, however, reptiles are abundant and include Great Basin (western) fence lizard, California side -blotched lizard, Skilton (western) skink, coastal whiptail, San Diego (southern) alligator lizard, San Diego horned lizard, coast (western) patch -nosed snake, California (common) kingsnake, red coachwhip (red racer) , chaparral (California) whipsnake (striped racer), San Diego gopher ' snake, and southern Pacific (western) rattlesnake. A specimen of the San Diego homed lizard, recognized as a "species of special concern" by the California Department of Fish and Game, was found on the southern portion of the project site within this vegetation ' type. Bird species typical of coastal sage scrub include California quail, wrentit, California ' thrasher, California towhee, loggerhead shrike, and many others that are resident to or breeding in this habitat. Numerous migratory species such as white -crowned sparrow, lesser goldfinch, ash -throated flycatcher, western kingbird, dark -eyed junco and others also utilize this habitat. Resident and migratory birds of prey include golden eagle, northern ' harrier, red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, Cooper's hawk, sharp -shinned hawk, and rough -legged hawk. ' Small mammals typical of coastal sage scrub include brush rabbit, Audubon's cottontail, California ground squirrel, Pacific kangaroo rat, brush mouse, and woodrat. These in ' tum serve as prey to carnivores including coyote, grey fox, bobcat, American badger, and long-tailed weasel. Great Basin Saeebrush Scrub - This habitat type is limited to small areas of well -drained alluvial soils associated with the outwash of the primary stream as it traverses the project site. Furthermore, the occurrence of this habitat type here is somewhat disjunct from the main center of distribution in the Mojave Desert and eastward. Therefore, the typical complement of animals normally associated with the interior sagebrush habitats are believed to be absent, and replaced here by species from the adjacent, zonal communities, especially woodland, chaparral and mule fat scrub. Chaparral - Chaparral within the study area is similar to coastal sage scrub, however, it forms a taller, more dense canopy. As with coastal sage scrub, amphibians generally do not use this habitat because of its dry nature. These habitats are, however, similar in their capacity to support reptile populations. Lizards include the Great Basin (western) fence lizard, San Diego (southern) alligator lizard, and others that commonly occur in coastal sage scrub, as described previously. Snakes likely in chaparral include the chaparral (California) whipsnake (striped racer), which is commonly associated with this habitat type. The San Diego night snake, a nocturnal species is common in chaparral habitats. Similarly, the component of mammals in chaparral is not unlike that described for coastal sage scrub. Birds of chaparral include scrub jay, California towhee, California thrasher, wrentit, and numerous other graniverous species found in the adjacent grass and scrub habitats. Predatory birds such as Cooper's hawk and sharp -shinned hawk forage regularly in chaparral. Others such as golden eagle and prairie falcon prefer to nest only in rocky areas with chaparral. Mule Fat Scrub - The presence of seasonal surface and sub -surface water provides for a moderated microclimate with high levels of primary productivity. This in turn serves as an abundant food base for invertebrates, especially insects, and ultimately, vertebrate animals. Virtually all species associated with any of the other habitats on-site will at one time or another utilize the local riparian (stream -side) habitat for the added attractions of 107 food, water, cover, or temperature moderation. In addition, the generally linear shape of riparian habitat causes it to integrate closely with most of the other habitats. For these reasons, the abundance and diversity of animal life in these habitats is perhaps not exceeded by any of the others. Amphibian species that are dependent upon an aquatic environment such as California toad and Pacific treefrog are typically present in this habitat. Most of the lizard and snake species will, as mentioned above, frequent the cool riparian habitat, particularly the Hammond two -striped garter snake, western blind snake and southern Pacific rattlesnake. A large variety of resident and migratory bird species find riparian scrub habitats attractive. Migrants and wintering birds include many species of small passerines such as swallows, warblers, kinglets, vireos and sparrows, as well as raptors such as red - shoulders, Cooper's and sharp -shinned hawks. The number of species are further enhanced since there are nearby woodlands. Resident and summer -only nesting species include a variety of warblers, vireos, flycatchers, hummingbirds, bushtit, plain titmouse, as well as accipiters, kites, owls. and hawks. Mammals of the riparian habitat include those from adjacent habitats as well, for reasons discussed above. A few very characteristic ones such as striped skunk, raccoon, Virginia opossum, and woodrat prefer riparian habitats. Non -Native Grassland - Although limited in extent, introduced annual (non-native) grassland on the project site provide spatial and structural heterogeneity to the area, thereby increasing the site's animal diversity and providing habitat to a number of animals that depend on the low -growing aspect of the grassland vegetation. Owing to the low - growing nature of grassland and the short growing season, many resident species live underground or in the adjacent woodlands part of the time. Species that use grassland often migrate to other habitats on a daily or seasonal basis. Reptile species of grassland vegetation depend largely on mammal burrows for cover. Among these species are the California side -blotched lizard and the San Diego gopher snake. Amphibians are generally absent from this habitat except in areas immediately adjacent to wooded areas. Examples of ground -nesting bird species are the western meadowlark, burrowing owl, and lark sparrow. The burrowing owl is completely dependent on the burrows of the California ground squirrel. Several birds that nest in trees (of adjacent habitat) forage for seeds, insects, and small mammals in grassland, while using other habitats for shade, resting, and water. Examples of these species include the mourning dove, red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, northern harrier, barn owl, Brewer's blackbird, and house finch. Bird populations are at a peak during the winter and spring seasons, when wintering and migrating species are present. These species include the white -crowned sparrow, western bluebird, and rough -legged hawk. Common mammal species in the grassland include the herbivorous species such as California ground squirrel, Audubon's cottontail, black -tailed hare, and mule deer. Predatory mammals that use grasslands of the project site include coyote, grey fox, bobcat, American badger, and long-tailed weasel, which feed on the smaller mammals of the grassland habitat. 108 [l If these movement corridors are not maintained into the future, fewer and fewer of these wildlife species will move between the two areas divided by the freeway, resulting at the least in a significant limitation in existing and. future breeding pools necessitating inbreeding and potentially causing genetic aberrations and at the worst potentially endangering and/or eliminating some of these wildlife species in the region. ' Because there is little human activity on the project site, there are a wide range of natural and/or undisturbed sheltered and quiet areas that can be effectively used by the wildlife as movement corridors, resting points, or temporary habitats. There are three basic existing movement corridor paths that are currently used for these purposes, all of which branch off from the western end of the existing Los Pinetos Road underpass which runs east -to -west under the Antelope Valley Freeway (refer to Figure 11). (1) A distinct corridor path that generally "runs straight" across Remsen Street and the existing creekbed, running due west across the undisturbed and highly -vegetated north -facing slope at the northern face of the Southern California Edison Company right of way, and exiting the property to the west across Sierra Highway; (2) A distinct corridor path that generally "takes a sharp right turn" and runs north along the eastern boundary of the project site, essentially running along the existing creekbed (due west of Remsen Street), taking a turn west across the existing highly -vegetated internal hill and ridge that occupies the center of the northern half of the site, exiting the property to the west across Siena Highway; (3) A general corridor path that generally "takes a sharp left turn" and runs south along the eastern boundary of the project site, essentially running along and across the path of the internal roadways winding up around the former refinery offices and administration offices, turning to the west and crossing the areas of steep slope and highly -vegetated, natural/undisturbed areas in the southern one-third of the site, and exiting the property to the west across Sierra Highway. ' It is essential that these existing corridors, particularly the first two listed, be integrated into the design of any proposed development and that the role and function of the property as an important regional wildlife movement corridor be retained and preserved. ' Sensitive Biotic Resources ' A number of rare, threatened, endangered or sensitive plant and animal species are known to exist within this area between the San Gabriel and Santa Susana Mountains. The on-site biotic surveys specifically surveyed areas to be further disturbed by the proposed project (as well as other areas of the project site) for the sensitive plant and animal species shown ' on Table 11. Specimens of these species were not found within the project's area of disturbance during the field surveys. The plant and animal species shown in Table 11 are considered rare, endangered, threatened or sensitive by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), State Department ' of Fish and Game (DFG) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). This ' 109 information on sensitive species was generated by the State's National Diversity Data Base on August 26, 1992 for the four USGS topographic quadrangles that include the project site and the surrounding area: Mint Canyon, San Fernando, Newhall and Oat Mountain (the project site is located by the intersection of these four maps). Legally, the disturbing of these plants and animals (either single specimens, functioning populations or their habitat) constitutes a mandatory finding of significant adverse environmental impact under CEQA. The following is a listing of the local sensitive plants an animal species and a discussion of the likelihood of the species' occurrence within the proposed- area of disturbance on the project site: TABLE 11 SENSITIVE BIOTIC SPECIES Occurrence Species Status• Probabilit Astragalus brauntonii 1) C2 Low (not detected Braunton's milk vetch 2) List IB during survey) RED: 3-2-3 Calystegia peirsonn 1) C2 Could be present on Peirson's morning-glory 2) List 4 southern portion of site RED: 1-1-3 Centrostegia leptoceras 1) FE Does not occur Slender -horned spineflower 2) CE pack of habitat) 3) List IB RED: 3-3-3 Chorizanthe parryi var. fernandin 1) Cl Does not occur San Fernando spineflower 2) List IA (presumed extinct) RED: last seen 1940 Hemizonia minthornii 1) C2 Does not occur Santa Susana tarplant 2) CE (out of range) 3) List 1B RED: 2-2-3 Mahonia nevinii 1) C1 Unlikely to occur Nevin's barberry 2) CE (not detected on site) 3) List 1B RED: 3-3-3 Qpuntia basilaris var, brachyclad 1) C2 Could be present Shortjoint beavertail 2) List 1B adjacent to disturbed RED: 3-1-3 areas 110 a 0 r—D O Q V F Q \•�l-2 SiERRA © ' < Q D HIGHWAY SIERRA —�—_ { i t CZY AiyTF�OpF �D�DG r,- ,m •—'l•f � ♦ �-r.=.. ea„°.� FRFFIN i t " t �•' `'SEE' �' �. E SAY /"'� F E ,PN1E TARGET SPECIES: OQa Q O Q O Q V/✓sJ Mountain Lion, Gray Fox, Bobcat, American Badger, Longtailed POTENTIAL WILDLIFE,. Weasel, Racoon, Skunk Q OO CHAPARRAL/COASTAL MIGRATION CORRIDORS EGETATIV COM UNITIES VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT � DISTURBED AREAS/DEGRADED HABITAT CONDITIONS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 PLANNING Envicom Corporation ( NORTH �-4' "Ar'65 Cit of Santa Clarit California05 `"" m CONSORTIUM °((((( ALB$ Y a, wroruxRwc•rrweem exnu snroies land Pl+mnin • Pn%ironme-wal A seesment • Rep [lamp Compliance Figure II Catostomus santaanae 1) CSC Not present Santa Ana sucker (lack of habitat) Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni 1) FE Not present Unarmored threespine stickleback 2) CE f: (lack of habitat) Ph[ynosoma coronatum blainvillei 1) C2 Observed; present on San Diego horned lizard southern portion of site Macrotus californicus 1) C2 Not present California leaf nosed bat 2) CSC (extirpated from area) Vireo bellii pusillus 1) FE Not present Lease Bell's vireo 2) CE (lack of habitat) Clemmys maymorata oallida 1) C2 Not present Southern pond turtle 2) CSC (lack of habitat) * See following page for explanation of status ratings. 112 IJ EXPLANATION OF STATUS RATINGS• 1) FEDERAL DESIGNATIONS FE = Federally listed, endangered ' C1 = Category 1 candidate species; enough data on file to support federal listing C2 = Category 2 candidate species; data is insufficient to support federal listing 2) STATE DESIGNATIONS CE = State listed, endangered CR = State listed, rare CSC = DFG "species of special concern" 3) CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY List IA Plants presumed extinct in California List 1B Plants rare and endangered in California and elsewhere RED Code; R = Rarity 1 - Rare, but found in sufficient numbers and distributed widely enough to avoid extinction 2 - Occurrence confined to several populations or one extended population 3 - Occurrence limited to one or a few restricted population or unreported small numbers E = Endangerment I - Not endangered 2 - Endangered in a portion of its range 3 - Endangered throughout its range D = Distribution I - More or less widespread outside of California 2 - Rare outside California 3 - Endemic to California Information sources of status descriptions are derived from the California Natural Diversity Data Base and CNPS. CNPS listings and Data Base ratings were developed for use by the California Department of Fish and Game as a ranking system with respect to the status of sensitive biological elements. These codes are not intended to imply protection under the law. The Federal and. State Endangered Species Acts provide legal protection for listed species only. In summary, the approximately 117 acre project site supports the following vegetative associations: southern coast live oak woodland, chaparral, coastal sage scrub, Great Basin sagebrush scrub, mulefat scrub, annual grasslands and areas that have been previously disturbed by the refinery operation. Approximately 44.1 acres (or approximately 38%) of the project site has been previously disturbed. According to a field survey that has been independently confirmed by the City's Oak Tree Consultant, there are approximately 1,114 coast live oaks (Quercus aerifolia) present on the project site, mostly on its northern half. 113 4.5.2 The wildlife movement corridor present on the project site is a critical remnant of the unrestricted wildlife movement across the project site prior to the construction of the Antelope Valley Freeway. The construction of the freeway in the early 1970's has effectively cut off the major movement corridors with only approximately 3% of the project's site's eastern boundary open to wildlife movement at the Los Pinetos Road underpass. No sensitive, rare, threatened or endangered plant or animal species were detected within the project's area of disturbance. A specimen of the San Diego horned lizards Thyrnosoma coronatum blainvillei), a Level 2 candidate for Federal listing, was observed on the southern portion of the project site. IMPACTS The proposed project involves developing the approximately 117.0 acre project site with a mix of four basic land uses: 1) low-density, low-rise (1-2 story) business park industrial and commercial land uses; 2) moderate density, mid -rise (4-7 story) corporate headquarter commercial office land use; 3) medium -density multi -family residential land use (12 units of condominiums or rental housing); and 4) common open space and natural areas. The proposed project will involve approximately 64.5 acres, or approximately 55% of the approximately 117.0 acre project site. This figure includes the area for structures, parking lots, landscaping, roadways, fuel modification and any other disturbance associated with the proposed project. This approximately 64.5 acres includes the approximately 44.1 acres of previously disturbed ground surface and approximately 20.4 acres of natural, native biotic communities (approximately 68% of previously disturbed ground and 32% of undisturbed ground). The following is a discussion of potential significant impacts to biotic resources found on the project site due to the implementation of the proposed project: a) The project as proposed will result in significant adverse impacts to the existing wildlife corridor that crosses the property and provides an important regional link between the San Gabriel and Santa Susana Mountains. While some native habitat and movements corridors are retained on the property under the proposed project, it would still significantly restrict free wildlife movements through the placement of buildings and other improvements and through the removal of a significant amount of southern coast oak woodland habitat. To mitigate adverse impacts to the on-site corridors to a lessthan significant level, the proposed project would have to be modified. b) The implementation of the proposed project will result in the disturbance of at least 409 (or approximately 37%) of the approximately 1,114 coast live oaks found on the project site. Of these 409 coast live oaks to be disturbed, 348 will be removed (31 % of the total on-site oak trees) and 61 will experience encroachment into their driplines (5% of the total on-site oak trees). Approximately 705 coast live oaks (63% of the total on-site oak trees) will be retained in their natural condition under the proposed project. The dripline encroachments will occur for the most part to oak trees on the edge of the development disturbance area and in some areas slated for parking lots. The impacts to the oaks on the edge of the development that will have only a portion of their dripline affected can be avoided and would not be as severe as impacts to oaks to be retained in proposed parking areas that will have all of their driplines affected by changes in drainage conditions and ground levels. 114 �1 1 Fourteen of the 40 proposed lots do not involve the removal of oak trees. Of those 14 lots, the driplines of at least 3 trees will be impacted (the numbers of impacted oak trees described as follows are reliable estimates; since the locations of the identified oak 1 trees have not been fixed through engineering calculations, actual counts cannot be established at this time). The proposed widening and realignment of Remsen and Clampitt Roads will result in the loss of at least 18 oak trees and disturbance within the 1 dripline of at least 13 oak trees. The total of 31 oak trees removed or disturbed by the improvements to Remsen/Clampitt Roads represent approximately 7.6% of the total oak trees to be disturbed and approximately 2.8% of the total on-site oak trees. The 1 widening of this primary project roadway is required under the City's Zoning Ordinance to serve the amount of development under the proposed project. 1 115 The construction of Gateway Circle, a loop road serving Lots 20 through 28, will dripline 1 result in the removal of at least 31 oak trees and disturbance within the of at least 3 trees. These total 34 oak trees represent approximately 7.6% of the total oak trees to be disturbed and approximately 2.8% of the total on-site oak trees. Combined, 1 these roadways would impact approximately. 15.2% of the total oak trees to be disturbed and approximately 5.6% of the total on-site oak trees. 1 Of the 40 proposed lots, development of sixteen lots would involve both the removal of oak trees and disturbances within driplines. Eight of these sixteen lots remove or disturb 20 or more oak trees. 1 The majority of the impacts to oak trees which would result under the implementation of the proposed project occur in three main areas (refer to Figure 10): 1 1) The natural ridgeline to the east of Sierra Highway just south of its intersection with Clampitt Road is one, of these areas and supports several oak trees. Under the proposed project, this ridgeline is proposed to be graded down in 1 elevation to accommodate office structures and to generate the additional fill material needed to balance the grading on-site. This area corresponds to the proposed Lots 2 through 6, with the greatest impacts to oaks occurring on Lots 1 2, 3 and 6. Between these three lots, at least 51 oaks trees would be removed. This represents approximately 12.5% of the total oak trees to be removed and 1 approximately 4.5 % of the total on-site oak trees. 2) A second area of main oak tree impacts are the proposed lots around Gateway Circle. Lots 19'through 29 would result in the removal of 158 oak trees and 1 disturbance within the dripline of another 29 oak trees. The total 187 oak trees to be disturbed by these lots represents approximately 45.7% of the total impacted oak trees and approximately 16.8% of the total on-site oak trees. 1 3) The third area of main oak tree impacts occurs near the intersection of Remsen Road and Sierra Highway on Lots 30 and 31. The 48 oak trees to be disturbed 1 or removed on these lou represent approximately 11.7% of the total oak trees to be impacted and approximately 4.3% of the total on-site oak trees. 1 Overall, the approximately 286 oak trees to be removed or disturbed within their driplines within these three main impact areas alone represent approximately 70% of the total oak trees to be disturbed and approximately 25.7% of the total on-site oak 1 trees. 1 115 The implementation of the approved Remediation Action Plan to reverse any contamination left as a result of the previous on-site oil extraction and refinery operations could impact up to five oak trees. The removal or disturbance of these five oak trees Is also associated with grading for proposed Lots 17 and 18. c) The proposed project's area of disturbance will cover approximately 64.5 acres of the approximately 117.0 acre project site (55%). Of that area of disturbance, approximately 44.1 acres (or 68%) will be previously disturbed by the refinery operations and approximately 20.4 acres (or 32%) will be undisturbed native biotic habitat. Most of this native habitat to be disturbed is southern coast live oak woodland with some disturbance in chaparral, coastal sage scrub and Great Basin sagebrush scrub. While the loss of previously -disturbed habitat due to the proposed project's implementation is not significant, the loss of approximately 20.4 acres of undisturbed native habitat (for the most part southern oak woodland) is an unavoidable significant adverse impact associated with the project as proposed. d) With the loss of approximately 20.4 acres of undisturbed native habitat and the removal at least 348 coast live oaks, the associated wildlife will be either eliminated or displaced to other natural areas both on and off-site. Displaced wildlife will move to undisturbed portions of the project site or to areas off-site and increase the competition for limited forage and shelter among other animals. A number of individuals can be expected to be eliminated through the forced competition, representing adverse indirect effects to on-site and off-site wildlife. e) No sensitive (rare, threatened or endangered) plant or animal species were detected within the proposed project's area of disturbance during the on-site biotic surveys and, as such, significant adverse effects to such resources are not anticipated. A specimen of a San Diego homed lizard (a species that is considered a Level 2 candidate for Federal listing and is not currently considered rare, threatened or endangered) was observed on the southern portion of the project site, an area that supports its habitat. This southern area of the site, as well as the on-site habitat for the San Diego horned lizard, will be retained undisturbed as permanent open space under the proposed project. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated to occur to the on-site habitat or specimens of the San Diego horned lizard due to the proposed project's implementation. In the comments on the Draft EIR_ received from a County of Los Angeles staff biologist, the potential presence of a number of other "sensitive" wildlife species was raised. These species are known to be present within the San Gabriel Mountains, Santa Susana Mountains, Santa Clara River drainage and Antelope Valley, as well as possibly being present on the project site. The -following is a discussion of the possible presence of and impacts to these species: 1) Amphibians - The California red -legged frog, Arroyo toad and western spadefoot toad are not present on the project site due to a lack of habitat. Even if these species were present within the on-site portion of Newhall Creek, they would not be impacted since the creek will be preserved under the proposed project. 116 2) Reptiles - The following reptiles could potentially be residents of the project site coastal western whiptail, silvery legless lizard, coastal rosy boa, coast patch -nosed snake, San Bernardino ringneck snake and San Diego mountain kingsnake. With some of these species, the project site is on the edge of their range or lacks prime habitat for the species. Under the proposed and recommended mitigation measures, the most -likely habitat for these species found on-site will be preserved through avoidance within open space parcels. 3) Birds - The following sensitive bird species are either occasional visitors, transients, summer residents, winter residents or not present on the project site due to lack of habitat or being out of range: golden eagle, sharp -shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, ferruginous hawk, Swainson's hawk, northern harrier, merlin, prairie falcon, burrowing owl, long-eared owl, western yellow -billed cuckoo, southwestem willow flycatcher, California homed lark, purple martin, loggerhead shrike, yellow warbler, yellow -breasted chat, Bell's sage sparrow, Southern California rufous -crowned sparrow and tricolored blackbird. The vast majority of the above species will not be significantly impacted by the proposed project. Those that could be affected by the proposed project would be associated as transients or seasonal residents of the on-site oak woodland habitat. The project site does not offer prime habitat for these sensitive species and impacts to the majority of the site is avoided through the project design. If the recommended mitigation measures in this document are incorporated into the approved project, any adverse impacts will be considerably lessened to a less than significant level. 4) Mammals- The following sensitive mammal species could be residents of the project site: southern grasshopper mouse, San Diego desert woodrat, San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit, California mastiff bat, pallid bat and Townsend's big -eared bat. The project site does not offer prime or critical habitat to these species and any impacts to these species on-site would be limited to development edge effects since the proposed project, particularly with the incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures, will avoid most of the on-site undisturbed habitat. Overall, since the project site does not represent prime or critical habitat for these sensitive species and since the proposed project, particularly with the incorporation of the mitigation measures in this document, avoids direct impacts to the currently undisturbed on-site habitat. It is anticipated that the proposed project will not result in significant adverse impacts to the sensitive wildlife species discussed above. f) The project could result in the introduction of alien plant species in landscaping which could invade and dominate native vegetation associations adjacent to the developed area. I' g) The on-site portion of Newhall Creek has been impacted in the past through refinery activities. These impacts include grading, roadway crossings, petroleum wastes and the dumping of concrete and other materials. The mulefat scrub association along the bottom of the drainage course has been impacted to the extent that in some locations the habitat values have been significantly reduced. II 1 117 4.5.3 The proposed project incudes a roadway crossing of Newhall Creek; the removal of oak trees and other vegetation along the creek side; and some grading along the creek banks. With both the existing degraded condition of the creek bed/babitat and the proposed improvements, the proposed project will result in cumulative impacts to the creek bed and riparian habitat on Newhall Creek. MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures are recommended to lessen the anticipated project impacts on the biotic resources present on-site: a) The project as proposed will result in significant adverse impacts to the existing wildlife corridor that crosses the property and provides a regional link between the San Gabriel and Santa Susana Mountains. While some native habitat and movement corridors are retained on the property under the proposed project, it would still significantly restrict free wildlife movements through the placement of buildings and other improvements and through the removal of a significant amount of southern coast oak woodland habitat. To mitigate adverse impacts to the on-site corridor to a less than significant level, the proposed project would have to be modified as follows: Suitable project modifications that would reduce impacts to a less than significant level are reflected in an "Enhanced Wildlife Corridor Development Alternative" that has been incorporated into this Final EIR in section 5.7 and Figure 48. This environmentally -superior development alternative retains the function of the on-site wildlife corridor, offers coordinated interaction with off-site portion of the corridor and avoids impacts to southern coast oak woodland habitat within the previously -affected corridor area. The following are the details of this enhanced wildlife corridor development alternative as depicted in Figure 48 which must be incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level: 1) Proposed Lots 19, 20, 21 and 29 shall be eliminated and development shall not be allowed within the areas of these lots. Development shall also be limited on the southern portion of Lot 28. These new open space areas would relate to the proposed open space Lots 36,38 and 39 as well as the open space within the Southern California Edison easement. 2) To isolate the east -west portion of the corridor in the currently -proposed Lots 20 and 21 from development to the north, a berm shall be constructed along the northern boundary of those lots. The berm shall be at least four to five feet in height to screen large mammals. The berm shall be planted with native shrub and ground cover plant species to provide vegetative cover. This vegetation would be the lowest and northernmost portion of a convex vegetation pattern along this edge of the east -west portion of the corridor. Larger trees and other plant species shall be planted southward from the berm to enhance the presently denuded corridor area with vegetative cover. This area would also provide a reception area for transplanted coast live oaks removed on other portions of the project site. 3) While there are many smaller opportunity areas for transplanting individual oak trees, this functional wildlife corridor development alternative shall include 118 three main areas of transplanted oak trees. One area would be the denuded portions of proposed open space Lot 39 and the Southern California Edison easement ground area. A second area would be within the eliminated Lots 20 and 21. The third area would be on Lot 19 and the easternmost area of open space Lot 38. While all of these three transplant areas are important to the wildlife corridor, the latter area is especially important because it would offer vegetative cover in the area immediately adjacent to the Los Pinos underpass where wildlife would first enter the site from the east. Along with the transplanted oak trees, native vegetative plant species shall be utilized for additional, varied wildlife cover. In addition, existing oak trees within these additional open space lots shall not be disturbed. By retaining these four additional development lots is open space, the disturbance to approximately 54 coast live oaks under the proposed project will be avoided. 4) To facilitate the safe movement of wildlife between this property and the Gates property to the west, two 12' diameter undercrossings beneath Sierra Highway connecting open space Lot 39 with the Gates property to the west shall be constructed. The cost of these undercrossings would be shared by the applicants for the proposed project and the applicants for the future development on the Gates property. This placement of the proposed underpasses relates to the wildlife reception/staging area to the west on the Gates property. 5) Fencing of any type shall not be allowed on or adjacent to these open space parcels to avoid the constriction of wildlife movements on and off-site. 6) All existing asphalt, structures, foundations and other improvements within the lots slated for open space under this alternative shall be cleared to allow for transplanted oak trees and new vegetation cover. 7) Night lighting shall be restricted immediately adjacent to the open space corridor lots where possible. If such lighting is needed or required by the City codes (such as along Remsen Street), the lighting shall be directed away from the corridor/open space lots. 8) "No disturbance" signs that explain the significance of the corridor/open space lots shall be posted along their perimeters at appropriate locations. This is to avoid the daytime disturbance of wildlife from occupants of the future uses on the property. 9) The on-site portion of Newhall Creek which crosses the currently -proposed development Lots 19 and 29 would be cleaned of debris and restored where needed to ensure its viability as a wildlife movement corridor. If a roadway crossing is still a part of the redesigned project under this alternative, the bridge shall be designed to allow large mammal movement through the stream bed and approved under State 1603 and Federal 404 permits. 10) Restrictions would be placed on land uses adjacent to -the corridor/open space lots to avoid nighttime disruptions that could adversely affect wildlife. While this would not apply to office uses, such restrictions would apply to light 1 119 industrial or commercial uses that have the potential to generate excessive amounts of noise and disturbance. These restrictions could be set and enforced through the Conditional Use Permit procedure. 11) As per the discussion above on the three oak tree transplant areas, the wildlife reception area just to the west of the Los Pinos underpass at the southern end of the on-site portion of Newhall Creek would be revegetated with native riparian species to provide cover for wildlife. 12) . The on-site wildlife movement staging/reception areas within open space lots 36 and 38 would be enhanced by constructing and maintaining water guzzler systems to provide a dependable water source for wildlife. 13) The on-site improvements discussed above would be coordinated to the greatest extent possible with the applicants for the proposed development on the Gates property to the west of the project site. With this coordination, which would include input from governmental biological resource agencies, the above mitigation measure may be altered or enhanced as necessary. 14) The corridor/open space lots discussed under this development alternative and presented as mitigation measures above would be offered for dedication to the City of Santa Clarita or their designee. As noted, the project as proposed would result in significant adverse impacts to the regional wildlife corridor between the San Gabriel and Santa Susan Mountains by placing structures, improvements and human activities within the critical on-site areas of the corridor. To mitigate these impacts to a less than significant level, the project redesign mitigation measures discussed in the above alternative should be incorporated into the proposed project. b) The loss of up to 348 coast live oaks (31.2% of the total on-site oaks) and the intrusion into the driplines of 61 (54%) other coast live oaks due to the proposed project shall be mitigated as per the requirements of the City's Oak Tree Ordinance. The following measures shall be incorporated into the proposed project: Avoidance with Project Redesign - Under Specific Project Design Review, the currently -proposed area of disturbance shall be analyzed for changes that can be incorporated into the proposed project to lessen the number of the oaks (as well as areas of oak woodland habitat) slated for removal. Considerations for minimizing oak tree impacts should concentrate on three main areas of the proposed project. Lots 2 through 6 in the vicinity of the intersection of Clampitt Road and Sierra .Highway would remove at least 59 oak trees with 51 slated to. be removed for Lots 2, 3 and 6 specifically. The area of these.lots is a ridgeline that is proposed to be graded. down in elevation for structures and to provide fill material to balance the on-site grading. While balanced on-site grading would avoid numerous truck trips to import or export earth materials, the loss of naturally -occurring native oak trees would not be offset by avoiding short-term truck traffic increases in the area 120 L1 1 due to the project's implementation. To avoid impacts in this area, the proposed area of development could be minimized to lessen impacts to the oak trees on this natural ridgeline. A second main area of oak tree impacts would occur in the Gateway Circle area. Between the proposed construction of the Gateway Circle loop road and Lots 19 li 1 through 29, at least 221 oak trees would be impacted (approximately 189 oak trees removed and 32 disturbed within the dripline). The majority of these impacts occur within the Gateway Circle roadway and Lots 20, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 29. As an 1 alternative to the proposed lot configuration in this area, the roadway could be reconfigured, some lou could be combined, and the overall development area lessened to minimize impacts to the oak trees. The wildlife corridor mitigation measures l recommended above for this area of the project site would also result in the retention of approximately 54 oak trees currently proposed for removal. The third main area of oak tree impacts would occur on Lots 30 and 31 near the 1 intersection of Remsen Road and Sierra Highway. impacts to oak trees in this area can be minimized by combining the two lots and lessening the development area. ' By avoiding oak trees in these three main areas of impacts through redesigning these portions of the proposed project, the overall impacts to on-site oak trees can be considerably lessened. Avoidance of oak trees through project redesign shall be the ' primary method of mitigating project impacts to oak woodland habitat and individual trees. 1 Minimize Impacts to Driplines - The impacts to the driplines of certain oak trees on the edge of the development shall be avoided through project redesign. Project redesign to avoid dripline intrusions shall occur during the Specific Project Design Review 1 phase. This would include finalizing plans for some of the surface parking areas where oak trees are proposed to be retained by grading around individual specimens to insure that these trees can be retained, even with minor intrusion to their driplines. 1 Transplanting - Where removal of a notable oak tree cannot be avoided, efforts shall be made to the greatest extent to relocate and transplant the removed tree to another location within the project site. The transplanting of oak trees shall be carefully reviewed and monitored during the grading/construction phase to insure proper procedures and the greatest level of success. Transplanting of oaks shall be performed 1 by a qualified biologist/arborist/forester approved by the City. Locations that are suitable for the reception of transplanted oak trees have been identified under mitigation measures "a" above. 1 Replacement - The loss of oak trees shall be replaced when necessary as per the requirements of the City's Oak Tree Ordinance. Replacement shall be equal to the International Society of Arboraculture (ISA) in their Guide to Establishing.Values.for 1 Trees and Shrubs: Payment of Fees - As allowed by the City's Oak Tree Ordinance, the loss of those oak ' trees that cannot be replaced, transplanted or avoided as described above can be mitigated through the payment of fees to the City. The fees are determined by using the estimated economic values in accordance with the standards established by the ISA. 1 121 In addition to the above mitigation measures, the following are recommended by the City's Oak Tree Consultant for the proposed project: 1) During the grading plan design process, the applicant shall analyze potential direct impacts for each. oak tree to determine whether encroachment into the protected zone can be avoided through redesign, construction of retaining walls or other measures. Also drainage patterns will be designed to avoid conditions which may create direct impacts. The City Oak Tree Consultant shall review all proposed plans. 2) Oak trees designated for removal shall be evaluated to determine whether relocation is possible. To the extent possible, trees shall be transplanted in locations which serve to enhance the quality of the designated open space areas. If there is an excess of candidates for relocation, oak trees shall be considered for integration into.site landscaping. A qualified arborist shall be utilized to prepare a transplantation plan, to include detailed specifications for boxing, pruning, pesticide treatment, relocation, transplanting and follow-up maintenance and monitoring. The City Oak Tree Consultant shall review and approve the transplantation plan. 3) The value of each. oak tree to be removed or relocated shall be established in accordance with the most current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal, by the Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers. Prior to the issuance of the oak tree permit, the applicant shall deposit a refundable security deposit in an amount equal to the value of the oak trees with the City of Santa Clarita. The City Oak Tree Consultant shall review and approve the value of each oak tree. 4) The applicant shall writing within five record. notify the Department of Community Development in (5) days of any changes of their oak tree consultant or ' 5) Any work that is approved to be performed within the protected zone of an oak tree shall be performed in the presence of the applicant's oak tree consultant. 6) The applicant shall provide a forty-eight (48) hour notice to the applicant's oak tree consultant and to the Department of Community Development before beginning any work within the protected zone of an oak tree. 7) Unless otherwise approved by the applicant's oak tree consultant and the Department of Community Development, all work conducted within the protected zone of an oak tree shall be accomplished with the use of hand tools. The use of tractors, backhoes and other equipment is prohibited. 8) Within ten (10) days of the completion of work, the applicant's oak tree consultant shall submit a certification letter to the Department of Community Development, stating whether or not all work was performed in accordance with this permit and the Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines. 9) The City Oak Tree Consultant shall review the proposed landscape plans for the project. No planting or irrigation shall be placed within the protected zone 122 II ' of any oak tree. The area within the protected zone shall be covered with a three (3) inch layer of organic, mulch. ' 10) Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit a proposed fencing plan for review by the City Oak Tree Consultant. The plan shall be prepared in accordance with the Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines. ' 11) Unless otherwise approved, all activities shall be performed in accordance with the Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines. ' Unless the proposed project is redesigned as described above, and the number of oak trees to be impacted is significantly reduced, the proposed project will result in ' unavoidable significant adverse impact to oak woodland habitat and individual oak trees. The incorporation of the above mitigation measures will lessen the impacts to a less than significant level. c) The disturbance of up to 20.4 acres of the project's site's remaining undisturbed native vegetation by the implementation of the proposed project is irreversible and unavoidable. The removal of 20.4 acres of native vegetation (most of it oak woodland) represents the loss of 27 % of the project site's remaining undisturbed vegetation. Loss of native habitat is allowed under the City's Hillside Development Ordinance, however, the loss of habitat shall be minimized and mitigated to the greatest extent possible. To lessen the impact the project landscape plan shall incorporate to the greatest extent possible native oak woodland, coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitat plant species. To further lessen the degree of impact under the proposed project, the landscape plan shall include at least 75% native xeric (low water needs) and fire -retardant plant species wherever possible. The landscape plan shall include species recommended in the publication from the Los Angeles County Arboretum entitled green Belts for Brush Fire Protection and Soil ErosionControl in Hillside Residential Areas and other available publications. To the greatest extent possible, drought -resistant native plant species shall be utilized in the landscaping of the structures and slope cover. To minimize the erosion of graded slopes, drainage paths shall be maintained away from foundations and slope faces. At the time of occupancy, all cut and fill slopes shall be planted with deeply -rooted lightweight drought -resistant native groundcovers. The use of native trees, shrubs and wildflowers will replace some of the disturbed wildlife habitat, provide new forage materials and help prevent erosion. Native plant materials have low water and maintenance requirements and would blend with the undisturbed native vegetation. If automatic sprinklers are used for landscaping they shall be disconnected during seasonal wet periods. Irrigation shall be lightly controlled to avoid overwatering and resultant unsightly surf icial slumping. For slope plantings, extremely deep rooted varieties with minimal water requirements shall be incorporated into the approved landscape plan. A landscape maintenance program shall be established with the City to ensure the continued effectiveness of erosion control. d) Impacts to wildlife due to the loss of habitat cannot be avoided under the proposed project. While this impact is not significant in and of itself, it does commensurately contribute to the cumulative loss of wildlife habitat throughout the project's vicinity and the region. 123 4.5.4 e) The on-site habitat of the San Diego horned lizard shall be retained in its current undisturbed state within an open space parcel on the southern end of the property under the proposed project. t) To avoid the invasion and dominance of alien plant species used in landscaping into native habitats, non -evasive landscaping plant species shall be used for the 25% of the landscaping that will be allowed to be non-native. At least 75% of the landscaping material will be required to be native plant species. With these measures, impacts due to alien landscaping plant species will be mitigated to a less than significant level. g) The restoration of the on-site portion of Newhall Creek (removal of foreign materials and replanting) and the construction of a roadway crossing (if still proposed under a redesigned project) shall require streambed alteration permits from the California Department of Fish and Game under Code Section 1603 and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE In summary, the project as proposed will result in unavoidable significant adverse impacts to the regionally -significant wildlife corridor that crosses the property and to the on-site southern oak woodland habitat, including impacts to individual oak trees. At least 409 (or 37%) of the approximately 1,114 coast live oaks found on the project site will either be removed outright or have their driplines disturbed by the project as proposed. Directly related to the impacts to oak trees, the proposed project would result in impacts to approximately 20.4 acres of undisturbed native habitat, mostly southern oak woodland habitat. With the incorporation of the above mitigation measures, most notably project redesign to preserve the regional wildlife corridor and avoid significant removals or disturbances to oak trees, a redesigned project would mitigate adverse biological impacts to a less than significant level. 124 4.6 ARCHAEOLOGICAL, CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4.6.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS The information and analysis in the following section is taken from four primary source documents included in the Technical Appendix of this EIR: A Cultural Resources Assessment Conducted for the Valley Gateway Proiect, 1992; Phase 1 Archaeological Investigations of the proposed Valley Gateway Proiect, 1991; Historical Landmark Registration Application for Beale's Cut Stagecoach Pass, 1992; and Paleontological Assessment of the Valley Gateway Proiect, 1992. For a more detailed explanation of the existing conditions and cultural setting, please refer to these documents. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES The archaeological field survey was conducted by personnel from Archaeological Resource Management Corporation in July, 1992, using a methodology described in their archaeological resource assessment which is included in the Technical Appendix. No prehistoric cultural materials were observed during the field survey. Beale's Cut, a registered Historical Landmark, is located on the southern portion of the project site. 0 Ethnographic Setting The project site is located in a region where tribal affiliations are unclear, possibly being occupied or influenced variously by the Venturno Chumas, the Gabrielino, the Serrano, or an independent group called the Tataviam. According to authors, the project site lies within the territory of the Tataviam, enigmatic Takic speakers who, inhabited the upper reaches of the Santa Clara River drainage. The little that is known about the Tataviam is based on archaeological and limited ethnohistoric data. Living in villages which varied in size, their population at the time of contact was probably less than 1,000 individuals. They subsisted on vegetable foods, including yucca hearts, acorns, sage seeds, juniper berries and islay berries, and hunted game animals including small mammals and deer. ' While little is known about the social organization of the Tataviam, archaeological and ethnohistorical data suggest ritual similarities to both the Chumas and the Gabrielino. ' Historic Setting The Portola Expedition of 1769 was the first group of Europeans to visit and describe the area around the project site. With the establishing of the San Gabriel Mission in 1771 and the San Fernando Mission in 1779, native inhabitants in the region quickly died or were assimilated into the mission system, though a small number remained in villages or ' rancherias.. EI Pueblo de Nuestra Senora de La Riena de Los Angeles was founded in 1781 and the .region grew rapidly as the pueblo became more established and the surrounding land was granted to Spanish soldiers for grazing purposes. Although the ' project site does not appear to have been within any of the original Spanish land grants, ranchos were instrumental in the development of the Los Angeles basin and San Fernando Valley. The ranchos remained a powerful and active voice in California throughout the Spanish Rancho Period and (after 1822) the Mexican Period. Following secularization of the mission system in 1834,. Governor Alvarado granted a large parcel containing most of the San Fernando Mission land (including the project site) to Antonio del Valle, a Mexican solider. With Rancho San Francisco, the del Valle family became quite successful and 1 125 well-respected among both the rancheros and the growing population of the Los Angeles pueblo. In 1855, General Andreas Pico set up an oil distillery at some brew (native tar seepages near Newhall to the north of the project site, possibly on Rancho San Francisco property. In 1842, the discovery of gold in Placerita Canyon to the northeast of the project site brought a sudden influx of miners seeking instant wealth to Los Angeles. Until the land booms in the 1870s and 1880s, the Santa Clarita area was relatively quiet. The smaller ranches did not tum much of.a profit, and the whole area was somewhat isolated from the rest of California. However, the.discovery of gold in Soledad Canyon, increasing use of the petroleum pools in Santa Clarita Valley, and finally the Civil War created the need for more efficient access to the San Fernando Valley. One result of this increased need for transportation was the construction of Phineas Banning's New Road, which required the creation of Beale's Cut, a narrow man-made pass on the southern portion of the project area. Activity in the San Fernando Valley picked up considerably in the 1870s. A rail line from Los Angeles to San Francisco required the construction of what was then the longest railway tunnel in the world, which passed through the hills approximately a quarter mile west of the project site. The 1870s also saw the first large-scale exploitation of the petroleum resources in the Santa Clarita Valley. Drilling and refining operations were concentrated around the Newhall region originally but quickly spread throughout the valley and California in general. Petroleum based operations continued throughout the early twentieth century, with a number of wells being drilled in and around the project site as early as 1900. Twenty-two documented wells (oil and water -injection), constructed since approximately 1905, and the Newhall Refinery complex, which began operation in 1928, are located on the project site. Beale's Cut was trafficked, although not heavily, until 1910, when the Los Angeles County Highway Commission constructed the Newhall Tunnel, a new route to Santa Clarita that completely bypassed Beale's Cut. While petroleum processing continued just over the San Fernando Pass, Beale's Cut enjoyed some success as a film locale in the early twentieth century before it was abandoned. The Newhall Tunnel remained an important transportation route, which probably passed through the southwestern corner of the project site until it was reportedly partiallydestroyed during the construction of La Sierra Highway in 1939. The San Fernando and Santa Clarita Valleys continued to grow as the major water aqueduct systems were constructed through the area. The Newhall Refinery operated continuously for approximately 60 years until it was decommissioned in 1989. At the present time, all of the documented wells on the project.site have been capped and abandoned and most of the associated tanks and structures have been removed. Records Search and Results The records search performed by the UCLA Archaeological Information Center indicated that, in addition to two small surveys on the parcel (UCLA REF# L-1409 and L-2174), most of the northern portion of the Valley Gateway project area had been surveyed previously by McKenna in 1991. The records search revealed that while no cultural resources had been previously recorded for the project area itself, one prehistoric site, CA- LA4-816, and seven historic sites, CA -LAN -1963H to 1943H, were located within a one II 1 mile radius of the parcel. Additionally, an examination of the Santa Susana 1903 and 1941, and the Fernando 1900 USGS 15' series maps revealed the presence of precursors to what is now La Sierra Highway. An Historical Landmark Registration Application addressed the presence of Beale's Cut, a small hand -cut pass constructed on the project site in the 1860s. There is a great deal of historical information available on Beale's cut, largely due to the efforts of the Santa Clarita Historical Society. Beale's Cut was registered as a State Historical Landmark in 1992. ' In 1851, Henry Clay Wiley first installed a windlass system that could lift and lower wagons new what is now known as Beale's Cut, located in the southern portion of the ' project area. Prior to the Civil War, Phineas Banning and the Butterfield Overland stage line had improved the pass by constructing a thirty foot notch at the top, which became part of the Butterfield Overland stage route. The outbreak of the Civil War prompted the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to improve the road further in order to facilitate transportation of gold and oil, and in late 1861, they contracted "Don Andres Pico" (probably Gen. Andreas Pico) and two others to perform the task. The trio was discouraged by heavy rains though, and by 1863, Gen. Edward F. Beale purchased the contract and begun construction of a toll road that would involve deepening Banning's original cut and eventually asphalting the road with Brea from nearby sources. A.A. Hudson and Oliver Robbins, as partners of Beale, constructed a toll house at the southern ' base of the pass and dug the Cut to 100 feet deep and 15 feet wide, mostly by hand. Beale's Cut and Banning's New Road became part of the major highway system between Los Angeles, Ft. Tejon, and San Francisco, and remained so until the completion of the ' Southern Pacific Railroad reduced traffic and caused the toll road to become unprofitable. In 1887, Beale relinquished his franchise and the Cut became part of the county road. Beale's Cut was still trafficked, although not heavily, until 1910, when the Los Angeles ' County Highway Commission constructed the Newhall Tunnel, a new route to Santa Clarita that completely bypassed Beale's Cut. ' Even though its career as a toll road was finished, the Cut and surrounding rugged western landscape, strewn with chaparral and sandstone outcrops, caught the collective eye of early twentieth century Hollywood and was seen in such films as David Wark Griffith's Ramona ' (Biograph, 1910) and Goddess of Sagebrush Gulch (Biograph, 1910), Thomas Ince and Francis Ford's The Deserter (1912), and John Ford's Straight Shooting (Universal, 1917) and Stagecoach (UA, 1939), starring John Wayne. Arguably the most dramatic use of the ' Cut was a scene in Three Jumps Ahead (Fox, 1923) where Tom Mix and Tony the Wonder Horse appear to leap across the chasm, an early example of Hollywood's fascination with special effects. ' Today, Beale's Cut is largely unvisited save for Scout troop cleanups, tourists, and occasional visits from the Santa Clarita Historical Society. Field Survey. and Results No prehistoric cultural materials were observed during the field survey. ' Beale's Cut, found in the southern portion of the property, was located and examined. U 1 127 :lrxA This feature is still in generally good condition, aside from modern graffiti carved into the sidewalls and some natural erosion. Some portion of the southern approach and fragments of asphalt are still present, but there is no evidence whatsoever of the old Toll House, Wiley's windlass system, or the northern approach to the Cut, which has been destroyed by refinery activity. The road identified by the.UCLA Information Center may have corresponded to The New Road constructed by Banning and the Butterfield Overland stage lines or to some road that preceded La Sierra Highway, but the highways and freeways in the area have obliterated any trace of any previous road or Banning's New Road. Other than a landmark plaque alongside La Sierra Highway, there was no indication of the Newhall Tunnel. Aside from Beale's Cut, the only potentially historic resources noted were a number of capped wells of indeterminate age that could date as early as the turn of the century. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project site is underlain bymarine sedimentary rocks of the Late.Pliocene Pico Formation. The subsurface geology may contain marine sedimentary rocks of the underlying Late Miocene to Early Pliocene Towsley Formation. The Pico consists of sandy siltstone, conglomerate, and sandstone. The Towsley crops out within one mile to the east of the project site. The Towsley includes siltstone, mudstone, sandstone, and conglomerate. Literature and records search produced no recorded.fossil localities within the boundaries of the study area. According to McLeod (1992), the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History has collections of vertebrate fossils from both the Pico and Towsley formations. They include mostly fragmentary specimens of baleen whale and the rare right whale from the Pico Formation. The LACMNH also has remains of two sea cows from the Towsley Formation. Field Survey The Pico Formation within the study area is present in large exposures, some of which are over 100 meters long and 50 meters high. Such exposures make it possible to observe many sedimentary structures. The most prominent structures in the study area include well-developed large-scale cross -bedding, erosional surfaces; channels, fining -upward sequences, and horizons of large boulders. The presence of these structures suggests a high-energy, near -shore depositional environment with shifting channels. The potential of sediments, deposited in such an environment to preserve organic remains as fossils is, in general, very low. The extensive field walkover survey produced no body fossils and only a few questionable trace fossils, possibly worm burrows. IMPACTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES No archaeologicallprehistoric resources were found in the on-site areas that could be surveyed and it is unlikely that such resources will occur in these areas. Due to heavy vegetation cover that severely limited ground visibility on the terraces along Newhall 128 Creek, there is the potential for archaeological/prehistoric resources to occur in this ' unsurveyed area. If the proposed project disturbs this area there is the potential for adverse impacts to archaeological resources if they are present. Beale's Cut, a significant cultural resources and State Historical Landmark, is present on the southern portion of the project site. It will not be adversely impacted by the proposed project. The applicant proposes to preserve Beale's Cut and its southern approach road within the project's large southern open space parcel. The majority of the structures, wells, tanks and other improvements associated with the on-site oil extraction and processing have been removed and there are no surface indications of historic resources associated with this previous activity. However, the cultural resources survey states that the potential for buried historical resources is high. Grading activities within the area of the dismantled refinery could result in adverse impacts !, to potential buried historical resources. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ■ The number of paleontological resources collected to date is small, possibly due to the poor potential of the coarse grained sediments found in the Pico and Towsley Formations I' to preserve organic remains as fossils. However, fossils do occur in these formation and any discovery of vertebrae fossils to existing collections would significantly add to local paleontological knowledge. The proposed grading activities could adversely impact ' significant paleontological resources that could be present on-site. 4.6.3 MITIGATION MEASURES ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES ' To mitigate potential impacts to undetected archaeological resources within on-site areas that could not be surveyed, a qualified archaeological monitor shall be present during grading activities within these areas. Because the chance of discovering subsurface historical resources within the refinery area is high according to the paleontological investigation report, a qualified archaeological monitor shall be present during grading in the refinery area. If buried archaeologicallcultural resources are encountered during ' grading, the archaeological monitor shall be empowered to halt grading activities to assess the significance of the resources and make recommendations as to their disposition at that time. ' PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ' Due to the low (but possible) potential for paleontological resources to be present on-site, grading activities shall be closely monitored for larger fossils. Some of the matrix shall also be screened for smaller fossils. The monitoring does not need to be full-time and shall be conducted on a twenty -percent basis (one day per week). This time could be decreased or increased depending upon whether or not fossils are found. A qualified paleontological field monitor shall work under the supervision of a certified paleontologist. The monitor shall be empowered to halt grading operations if fossils are found to allow ' the removal of significant specimens. All fossils collected shall be cleaned, prepared, identified and catalogued. All fossils shall be donated to the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History. '1 129 4.6.4 ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE With the incorporation of the above mitigation measures into the proposed project, , significant adverse impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources will not occur due to the project's implementation. , I I I I I 130 1 II 4.7 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Portions of the following information were obtained from Austin Foust Associates "Valley ' Gateway Traffic Analysis". The study was completed November 20, 1992, and is included as a part of the Technical Appendix, available at Santa Clarita City Hall. 4.7.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing Transportation System The project site is located one-half mile northwest of the confluence of a primary interstate freeway and major state route freeway. The eight -lane Golden State Freeway (Interstate 5) generally runs north and south, connecting and running through San Diego, Santa Ana, Los Angeles, south of the site, and Bakersfield, San Francisco, Sacramento and beyond, north of the site. In 1991, this freeway had a total of approximately 132,000 vehicles per day, and 11,200 vehicles during peak hours of travel. The project site is also located directly adjacent to the six -lane Antelope Valley Freeway (State Route 14) to the east. This major regional transportation corridor generally runs southwest to northeast, connecting the Los Angeles metropolitan area with Palmdale, Lancaster and the Mojave Desert. In 1991, a total of 124,000 vehicles per day and 11,200 vehicles per peak hour pass directly by the project site. The project site is also directly adjacent to Siena Highway, a major sub -regional and local thoroughfare located on the west side of the site. Sierra Highway is designated as a "major highway" in the City of Santa Clarita's Circulation Element of the General Plan. It begins near the 1-5/SR-14 interchange and trends northeast toward Agua Dulce. The 1990.traffic volumes on Sierra Highway adjacent to the site are approximately 7,900 trips per day, and 890 trips per peak hour. In the vicinity of the site, it is a four -lane divided road north of Remsen Street, and four -lane undivided road south of Remsen Street. This major highway has been designated as a future six -lane arterial, adjacent to the project site, requiring a 104 -foot overall right-of-way width. Three existing roadway rights -0f --way traverse or connect to the project site, two are public and one is private, and form a connected, founded "L" shape that travels through the northern two-thirds of the property. 1) Remsen Street, a two lane, 64 linear foot wide, undivided (asphalt paved), public and private roadway, partially under the jurisdiction of the City of Santa Clarita. This roadway enters the project site in the northwest corner of the property from Sierra Highway, approximately 3,500 linear feet (0.66 linear miles) south of its intersection with San Fernando Road. The. street then runs in generally a south/southeasterly direction for approximately 2,600 linear feet (0.5 linear miles) to its intersection with Clampitt Road at the western center of the property; and 2) Clampitt Road, a two lane, 64 linear feet wide, undivided (partially asphalt paved, partially dirt obscured) private roadway. This roadway enters the project site in the southwestern center of the property from Sierra Highway, approximately 3,000 linear feet (0.57 linear miles) south of the intersection of Remsen Street and Sierra Highway and approximately 6,500 linear feet (1.14 linear miles) south of the 131 ,intersection of Sierra Highway and San Fernando Road. The street then runs in generally a northeasterly direction for approximately 1,600 linear feet (0.3 linear miles) to its intersection with Remsen Street at the western center of the property. 3) Los Pinetos Road, a two lane 60 linear feet wide, undivided (asphalt paved), public roadway, under the jurisdiction of the City of Santa Clarita. This roadway intersects with Remsen Street at a point in the northwestern center of the project site, approximately 350 linear feet due north of the intersection of Remsen Street and Clampitt Road. The road then runs due east, following through an underpass below the Antelope Valley (14) Freeway, and continues for approximately 30 linear feet before terminating into a private unpaved road that leads up into Elsmere Canyon, located to the east of the project site. The project site is also traversed by a series of small (10-12 linear feet wide) (asphalt paved and unpaved dirt) interior refinery access and service roadways that cross the former areas of the refinery facility in the northern portion of the site and portions of the site south of Clampitt Road. A number of these access and service roadways are terraced and built along the edges of steeper slopes and hillsides on the site including several small level ledges and parking or observation areas. All of these roads, particularly Los Pinetos Road and the interior access/service roadway segments currently handle very little daily or peak hour traffic, basically having served only the internal (employee and delivery traffic) access and circulation needs of the former Newhall Refinery. Figure 12 summarizes traffic, access and utility rights-of-way adjacent, and within the project site. Existing Traffic Conditions Existing AM and PM peak hour intersection counts were conducted in June 1992. Figure 13 illustrates existing AM peak hour intersection volumes and Figure 14 illustrates existing PM peak hour volumes. Existing intersection lane configurations are illustrated in Figure 15 and corresponding intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values are presented in Table 12. The ICU values are a means of representing peak hour volume/capacity ratios, with a value of .80 representing the City's upper threshold capacity for level of service (LOS) "D". The ICU analysis assumes signalization of the intersections analyzed. Several of the study intersections are stop -controlled, however, for simplicity, signalization is assumed at each intersection. As Table 12 indicates, several intersections are currently operating above Level of Service "C" in the AM and PM peak hours. Two of these intersections are currently controlled by stop signs. 132 GOLDEN STATE FWY (5) NORTH OF ANTELOPE VALLEY FWY (14) 122,000 ADT 15,800 PEAK HOUR 44.5 MILLION PER YEAR _t' SIERRA HIGHWAY SOUTH OF CLAMPITT ROAD 7,932 ADT 886 PEAK HOUR 2.9 MILLION PER YEAR 11® 111 —�M �� PROJECT SITE ACCESS & CIRCULATION VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 City of Santa Clarita, California cJ, SIERRA HIGHWAY . AT SAN FERNANDO ROAD 25,777 ADT 2,351 PEAK HOUR 9.4 MILLION PER YEAR I OQ tai.. �•�.� (f s• Ay is; ee i� vp<<Ey ANTELOPE VALLEY FWY (14) PNTe��PE NORTH OF GOLDEN STATE FWY (5) 118,000 ADT 11,600 PEAK HOUR 43.1 MILLION PER YEAR 133 Figure 12 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION ROUTE D LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ROUTE 0o PROJECT SITE ACCESS/ SERVICE ROAD D 2ND LOS ANGELES AQUEDUCT EASEMENT SO. CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (FEE SIMPLE) SO. CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY RIGHT OF WAY (EASEMENT) THE Envicom Corporation r NORTH x-41 PLANNING COI�TSORTIUM "Nn PLNN G srmaoonummmsnrores Land Planning • Environmental Assessment • Regulatory Compliance "r r r r �� �°`� 17GAcres 133 Figure 12 �•,C6o�'o��R'bo� 4- 4", RFA me: AMEX 1249.92 EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR COUNTS (JUNE 1992) Valley Gateway Traffic Analysis Figure 13 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 134 o � SqN h •O l , ✓! >>90 °so \\ Qh 4", RFA me: AMEX 1249.92 EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR COUNTS (JUNE 1992) Valley Gateway Traffic Analysis Figure 13 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 134 � SqN �w \ gNq�oo l , ✓! >>90 °so 4", RFA me: AMEX 1249.92 EXISTING AM PEAK HOUR COUNTS (JUNE 1992) Valley Gateway Traffic Analysis Figure 13 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 134 tp yo qo `' i, �1 h�yiRtJ3°- ° IWA Me: PMEa 12 29.92 \\y— r I EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR COUNTS (JUNE 1992) Valley Gateway Traffic Analysis Figure 14 Austin -Foust Associates. Inc. 135 F Io? eR"4 l yo qo `' i, �1 h�yiRtJ3°- ° IWA Me: PMEa 12 29.92 \\y— r I EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR COUNTS (JUNE 1992) Valley Gateway Traffic Analysis Figure 14 Austin -Foust Associates. Inc. 135 EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATION Valley Gateway Trat<c Analysis Figure 15 Austin -Foust Associates. Inc. 136 I II F 1 1 4.7.2 I TABLE 12 EXISTING INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION SUMMARY Intersection Existing AM PM 1. Sierra Hwy & SR -14 SB' 1.24* .66 2. Siena Hwy & Placerita Cyn .81 •74 3. SR -14 NB & Placerita Cyn' .29 .38 4. Newhall & Lyons .72 .98* 5. San Fernando & Lyons .76 .99* 6. San Fernando & Newhall .66 .79 7. Pine & San Fernando' .63 .72 8. Sierra Hwy & San Fernando 1.20* 1.09* 9. SR -14 SB & San Fernando' .36 .78 10. SR -14 NB & San Fernando' .28 .51 13. Sierra Hwy & Foothill/SR-14/1-5' .69* .95* 14. Sierra Hwy & The Old Road' .59 .52 * Exceeds Level of Service "C" Level of service ranges: .00 - .60 A .61 -.70 B .71 - .80 C .81 - .90 D .91 - 1.00 E Above 1.00 F Note: 1. East/west stop -controlled intersection 2. North/south stop -controlled intersection I137I7sI"l Background (Ambient) Traffic Background traffic volumes are determined by applying a growth factor to existing counts. The year 2000 has been chosen as the analysis year to determine future traffic impacts of the proposed project. The city utilizes an annual growth factor of three percent to reflect ambient growth. The three percent per year growth factor was applied to the existing peak hour traffic for eight years to obtain year 2000 background volumes. The three percent per year growth rate for the period 1992-2000 does not reflect the increase in traffic from other future development. Existing -plus -ambient peak hour volumes are illustrated in Figures 16 and 17. Existing -plus -ambient ICU values assuming existing lane configurations are summarized in Table 13. As this ICU table indicates, under background conditions San Fernando. at Newhall, Pine at San Fernando, and SR -14 SB at San Fernando will be operating at an unacceptable level of service in the PM peak hour, in addition to the six intersections identified under existing conditions. 137 EXISTING + AMBIENT AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES I Valley Gateway TtatBc Analysis Figure 16 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 138 'n 7a0/e /° $ EXISTING + AMBIENT PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Valley Gateway Traffic Analysis Figure 17 Austin -Foust Associates. Inc. 139 TABLE 13 EXISTING -PLUS -AMBIENT ICU SUMMARY Existing Existing + Ambient Intersection AM PM AM PM__ 1. Sierra Hwy & SR -14 SB 1.24* .66 1.51* .79 2. Sierra Hwy & Placerita Cyn .81* .74 .96* .89* 3. SR -14 NB & Placerita Cyn .29 .38 .33 .45 4. Newhall & Lyons .72 .98* .85* 1.14* 5. . San Fernando & Lyons .77 .99* .91* 1.23* 6. San Fernando & Newhall .66 .79 .79 .90* 7. Pine & San Fernando' .63 .72 .72 .84* 8. Sierra Hwy & San Fernando 1.20* 1.09* 1.45* 1:32* 9. SR -14 SB & San Fernando2 .36 .78 .43 .94* 10. SR -14 NB & San Fernando2 .28 .51 .31 .61 13. Sierra Hwy & Foothill/SR-14/1-5' .69 .95* .83* 1.15* 14. Sierra Hwy & The Old Road .59 .52 .72 .62 * Exceeds Level of Service "C" Level of service ranges: .00 - .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .81 - .90 D .91 - 1.00 E Above 1.00 F Note: 1. East/west stop -controlled intersection 2. North/south stop -controlled intersection Cumulative Projects Traffic generated by known development in the project vicinity was included in the analysis. Seventeen known projects were identified to be included in the analysis of the proposed project. Table 14 summarizes the cumulative projects and their trip generation. Figure 18 illustrates the general locations of the 17 cumulative projects within one to two miles of the site. The cumulative project list includes development of the Gates Property to the west of the proposed project, the Elsmere Canyon Landfill to the east of the proposed project, -and development within Whitney Canyon northeast of the proposed project. The Gates development is assumed to extend Pine Street south and east to intersect with Sierra H ighway south of Remsen. The Elsmere Canyon Landfill is assumed to construct a freeway interchange to directly serve the landfill site, which will result in an insignificant amount of Elsmere Canyon traffic utilizing the arterial roadway network. The Whitney Canyon development will access San Fernando east of the SR -14 ramps. Otherwise, no additional roadway improvements have been assumed to be constructed as a result of these cumulative projects. It has been presumed that each of these projects will be required to provide suitable traffic mitigation such that each mitigates its own impacts to satisfy City requirements. 140 O Refer to Table II -3 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LOCATIONS Valley Gateway Traffic Analysis Figure 18 Austin -Foust Associates. Inc. 141 TABLE 14 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS TRIP GENERATIONSUMMARY Project —AM Peak Hour— —PM Peak Hour— Land Use Units In Out Total In Out Total ADT 1. Industrial Park' 3,668.4 TSF 2,788 624 3,412 734 2,825 3,559 . 25,569 2. Community Comm 66.0 TSF 81 34 115 201 210 411 4,904 3. Community Comm 313.0 TSF 247 106 353 567 639 1,206 15,121 4. Community Comm 39.5 TSF 49 21 70 120 126 246 2,935 5. Community Comm 289.8 TSF 229 99 328 525 591 1,116 14,000 6. Res - Estate 85 DU 17 59 76 59 34 93 1,020 7. Res - Low 70 DU 14 39 53 44 26 70 700 S. Res - Low 15 DU 3 8 11 9 6 IS 150 9. Res - Low 10 DU 2 6 8 6 4 10 10 10. Res - Medium 1,009 DU 61 484 545 474 262 736 _ 8,072 11, Res- Lows 219 DU 44 . 120 164 138 81 219 2,190 Res - highs 266 DU 27 114 141 122 56 178 1,623 Community Comm= 196.0 TSF 180 78 258 414 466 880 11,548 12. .Landfills 90 90 I80 90 90 180 3,600 13. RV Storage 5.0 ACRE 8 7 15 10 10 20 200 14. Industrial Park 159.0 TSF 121 27 148 32 122 154 1,108 15. Travel Trailer Park 247 Space 20 20 40 40 39 79 988 16. Res - Low 4 DU 1 2 3 3 1 4 40 17. Res - Low 68 DU 14 37 51 43 25 68 680 TOTAL 3,996 1,975 5,971 3,631 5,613 9,244 94,458 Notes: 'Gates Property =Whitney Canyon sElsmere Canyon Landfill Trip Rale Source: "Trip Generation, Fourth Edition", Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1987. Traffic generated by the cumulative projects was distributed using the same general distribution as the proposed project which is discussed in the following section, Figure 19 illustrates the cumulative project -generated AM peak hour volumes, and Figure 20 illustrates the cumulative project -generated PM peak hour volumes. The cumulative project -generated traffic was added to the existing -plus -ambient traffic to obtain existing - plus -ambient -plus -cumulative traffic. Figure 21 illustrates existing -plus -ambient -plus - cumulative AM peak hour volumes and Figure 22 summarizes existing -plus -ambient -plus - cumulative PM peak hour -volumes. Table 15 summarizes existing -plus -ambient -plus - cumulative ICUs assuming existing lane configurations. As this ICU table indicates, development of the cumulative projects will require significant improvements to the roadway network to achieve acceptable levels of service. 142 ,1L jtiR� ` • ygpi. 00��� O% vo• 4- i —. 1.rA ftp "ML 12,28 92 CUMULATIVE PROJECT—GENERATED AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS Valley Gateway Traffic Analysis Figure 19 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 143 moo .'� x'10 •` $p i —. 1.rA ftp "ML 12,28 92 CUMULATIVE PROJECT—GENERATED AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS Valley Gateway Traffic Analysis Figure 19 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 143 N 4e me Pucu� Valley Gateway Traffic Analysis eon ^ iy z 0 . rn %• I' �ti ftiZ eJ . o CUMULATIVE PROJECT—GENERATED PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS Figure 20 Austin -Foust Associates. Inc. 144 =-- N 4e me Pucu� Valley Gateway Traffic Analysis eon ^ iy z 0 . rn %• I' �ti ftiZ eJ . o CUMULATIVE PROJECT—GENERATED PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS Figure 20 Austin -Foust Associates. Inc. 144 m ryeo<oR 10 N- � r t ~ o°j i A fie: "AMC 13.78.92 EXISTING + AMBIENT + CUMULATIVE AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Vallry Gateway Traffic Anahsis Figure 21 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 145 ' h� hhryp ryeo<oR 10 N- � r t ~ o°j i A fie: "AMC 13.78.92 EXISTING + AMBIENT + CUMULATIVE AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Vallry Gateway Traffic Anahsis Figure 21 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 145 �' ItiJhR� r 1%'i. v4 '"y cryo � R AFR 11�5,00 i�w?s eOl AL 0 I 1 �t'640;��30Ci J �I bio 1 ry. — � b0 1yoyp \ i N oyF t, WA me: PUNK 12.]a.92 —� EXISTING + AMBIENT + CUMULATIVE PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Valley Gateway Tra1t-ic Analysis Figure 22 Austin -Foust Associates. Inc. 146 tiyd'o a e . �� J�o°e0y%rfht'�sO - v4 '"y cryo � R AFR 11�5,00 i�w?s eOl AL 0 I 1 �t'640;��30Ci J �I bio 1 ry. — � b0 1yoyp \ i N oyF t, WA me: PUNK 12.]a.92 —� EXISTING + AMBIENT + CUMULATIVE PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Valley Gateway Tra1t-ic Analysis Figure 22 Austin -Foust Associates. Inc. 146 TABLE 15 EXISTING -PLUS -AMBIENT -PLUS -CUMULATIVE ICU SUMMARY Intersection Existing AM PM Existing + Ambient AM PM Existing + Ambient + Cumulative AM _ PM 1. Sierra Hwy & SR -14 SB 1.24* .66 1.51* .79 1.52* .97* 2. Sierra Hwy & Placerita Cyn .81* .74 .96* .89* 1.26* 1.21* 3. SR -14 & Placcrita Cyn .29 .38 .33 .45 .41 .64 4. Newhall & Lyons .72 .98* .85* 1.14* .92* 1.18* 5. San Fernando & Lyons .76 .99* .91* 1.23* 1.17* 1.55* 6. San Fernando & Newhall .66 .79 .79 .90* 1.06* 1.08* 7. Pine & San Fernandor .63 .72 .72 .84* 1.07* 1.36* S. Sierra Hwy & San Fernando 1.20* 1.09* 1.45* 1.32* 2.58* 2.20* 9. SR -14 SB & San Fernando .36 .78 .43 .94* 1.12* 1.43* 10. SR -14 NB & San Fernando .28 .51 .31 .61 .45 .97* 13. Sierra Hwy & Foothill/SR-14/1-5' .69 .95* .83* 1.15* 1.44* 1.61* 14.. Sierra Hwy & The Old Road .59 .52 .72 .62 .82* 1.02* * Exceeds Level of Service "C" Level of services ranges -.00 - .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 -.90 C .81 - .90 D .91 - 1.00 E Above 1.00 F Note: 1. East/west stop -controlled intersection 2. North/south stop -controlled intersection 4.7.2 IMPACTS This section describes the potential impacts of the proposed Valley Gateway project upon the surrounding arterial network. Traffic generated by development of the proposed project is added to the background and cumulative volumes presented in the previous text, and the resulting capacity impacts are assessed. Trip Generation As discussed in the project description, the proposed project consists of approximately 117 acres which will be developed with 356,500 square feet of corporate office space, 575,150 square feet of business park, and 12 multiple family residential units. Trip generation rates were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) "Trip Generation Manual, Fourth Edition" for the business park and the apartments, and from the ITE "Trip Generation Manual, Fifth Edition" for the corporate office space. Table 16 summarizes the trip generation for the proposed project. As this table indicates, the proposed project will generate 9,451 daily drips, of which, 1,415 will be generated during the AM peak hour and 1,283 will be generated during the PM peak hour. 147 TABLE 16 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Project —AM Peak Hour— —PM Peak Hour— Land Use Units In Out Total in Out Total ADT Trip Rates Corporate Officer TSF, 1.37 .10 1.47 .15 1.25 1.40 6.27 Business Park' TSF, 1.31 .23 1.54 .28 1.07 1.35 12.42 Apartments' DU4 .10 .43 .53 .46 .21 .67 6.10 Trip Generation Corporate Office 356.50 TSF 488 36 524 53 446 499 2.235 Business Park 575.15 TSF 753 132 885 161 615 776 7,143 Apartments 12.0 DU 1 5 6 6 2 8 73 TOTAL 1,242 173 1,415 220 1,063 1,283 9,451 Notes: 'Trip Generation, Fourth Edition, ITE 'Trip Generation, Fifth Edition, ITE ,TSF = Thousand Square Feet 'DU = Dwelling Units Trip Distribution Distribution of project -generated traffic was derived from observed travel patterns in the vicinity of the project site as well as from location and levels of development in relation to the project site. Figure 23 illustrates the project distribution. Project -generated AM and PM peak hour trips based on the distribution patterns presented here are illustrated in Figure 24 and Figure 25, respectively. Circulation and Traffic Impacts Existing -plus -ambient -plus -project volumes were generated by adding the project -related intersection volumes to the existing -plus -ambient volumes presented in the previous chapter. AM and PM peak hour existing -plus -ambient -plus -project volumes are illustrated in Figure 26 and Figure 27, respectively, and corresponding ICUs based on existing lane configurations are summarized in Table 17. 148 PROJECT DISTRIBUTION Valley Gateway Traffic Analysis Figure 23 Austin -Foust Assoeistes. Inc. 149 PROJECT—GENERATED AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS Valley Gateway Traffic Analysis Figure 24 Austin -Foust Associates. Inc. 150 yf PROJECT— GENERATED PM PEAK HOUR _ TRIPS Valley Gateway Traffic Analysis Figure 25 Austin -Foust Acsociatcs, Inc. 151 TABLE 17 EXISTING -PLUS -AMBIENT -PLUS -PROJECT ICU SUMMARY Existing Existing + Ambient +. Ambient + Project Intersection AM PM AM PM 1. Sierra Hwy & SR -14 SB 1.51* .79 1.51* .80 2. Sierra Hwy & Placerita Cyn .96* .89* 1.01* .92* 3. SR -14 NB & Placerita Cyn .33 .45 .35 .46 4. Newhall & Lyons .85* 1.14* .88* 1.14* 5. San Fernando & Lyons .91* 1.23* .97* 1.28* 6. San Fernando & Newhall .79 .90* .87* .91* 7. Pine & San Fernando .72 .84* .80 .90* 8. Sierra Hwy & San Fernando 1.45* 1.32* 1.90* 1.50* 9. SR -14 SB & San Fernando .43 .94* .66 .98* 10. SR -14 NB & San Fernando .31 .61 .32 .66 11. Sierra Hwy & Remsen - .60 .61 12. Sierra Hwy & Clampitt - - .69 .73 13. Sierra Hwy & Foothill/SR-1411-5 .83* 1.15* 1.03* 1.21* 14. Sierra Hwy & The Old Road .72 .62 .73 .68 * Exceeds Level of Service "C" Level of service ranges: .00 - .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 -.80 C .81 -.90 D .91 - 1.00 E Above 1.00 F As the ICU table indicates, the proposed project will significantly impact eight intersections in the AM and PM peak hours. A significant impact is defined as an increase greater than .02 for an intersection with an existing -plus -ambient -plus -project ICU greater than .90. Eight intersections are significantly impacted by the project and require mitigation. Proposed improvements to mitigate project impacts are identified in the following section. Project -generated volumes were added to existing -plus -ambient -plus -cumulative volumes to determine the level of traffic after buildout of all known projects in the area. Existing - plus -ambient -plus -cumulative -plus -project AM and PM peak hour volumes are illustrated in Figures 28 and 29, respectively. Table 18 summarizes existing -plus -project -plus - cumulative -plus -project ICU values assuming the existing arterial network and existing lane configurations. As this table indicates, the existing roadway network and existing lane configurations cannot accommodate the projected traffic volumes. 152 iib QRZ '� I i sopa �ag'Sj' !! {L,p✓,, X00 �. p'•bb,L� hRZ I yp 4- m.! au.aa uzs.az r i .0.r - i4s- 10 pe ��m Ab EXISTING + AMBIENT + PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Valley Gateway Traffic Analysis Figure 26 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 153 - ryM1^q - O 'ate° no 1��o �o�. r i .0.r - i4s- 10 pe ��m Ab EXISTING + AMBIENT + PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Valley Gateway Traffic Analysis Figure 26 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 153 R no 1��o �o�. r i .0.r - i4s- 10 pe ��m Ab EXISTING + AMBIENT + PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Valley Gateway Traffic Analysis Figure 26 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 153 I •. " o IIJ3'00 v r Tai°1 •� ,jos �.� .; .,. 1 7p J1 � 1 h I •. o;q IIJ3'00 v r Tai°1 •� ,jos �.� .; .,. 1 7p J1 � 1 h ryS0 ab • t 240 V- 4�.� e01 t} PN / 1`I j`i 5601 ✓r i °t /0�0 RO4 l RSx io I N g °P.! WA Mr. PMAPa 12.2a.92 EXISTING + AMBIENT + PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Valley Gateway Traffic Analysis Figure 27 Austin -Foust Associates. Inc. 154 '1ti� hRt '•. 'NPS � 1001 ' $e o i" L 90 r- 30 30 �pO .N N .1 ~ 11000) 4iA ale! "APC 12.28.92 `- EXISTING + AMBIENT+ CUMULATIVE + PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Valley Gateway Tral<c Analysis Figure 28 Austin -Foust As ociata. Inc. 155 M1^ iso Ds '- , _ -• _ - } ♦ rye/ f ' $e o i" L 90 r- 30 30 �pO .N N .1 ~ 11000) 4iA ale! "APC 12.28.92 `- EXISTING + AMBIENT+ CUMULATIVE + PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Valley Gateway Tral<c Analysis Figure 28 Austin -Foust As ociata. Inc. 155 • o Zti�ti�t Op `. ay - 1680 a n le°°t ,\ I\ sgti o �iGG11 4y�O ]Jo p0` so i ' \moi 45P J 1 EXISTING + AMBIENT + CUMULATIVE + PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES Valley Gateway Traffic Analysis Figure 29 Austin -Foust Associates, Ing 156 II ' TABLE 18 EXISTING -PLUS -AMBIENT -PLUS -CUMULATIVE -PLUS -PROJECT ICU SUMMARY ' Existing Existing + Ambient + Ambient + Cumulative + Cumulative + Project Intersection AM PM AM PM ' Above 1.00 F Signal Warrant Analysis The intersections of Remsen Street at Sierra Highway and Clampitt Road at Sierra Highway are currently unsignalized. Caltrans Traffic Signal Warrant I I was utilized to determine the need for traffic signals at these intersections under existing -plus -ambient - plus -project conditions. Figures 30 and 31 illustrate the Caltrans peak hour signal warrant for Remsen at Sierra Highway and Clampitt at Sierra Highway, respectively. As these figures show, the major street volume is plotted along the horizontal axis, and the minor street volume is plotted along the vertical axis. If the plotted point falls above the curve representing the number of lanes at the intersection in question, then a traffic signal is warranted at the intersection. As the signal warrant shows, signalization of both intersections is warranted under existing -plus -ambient -plus -project conditions. 157 1. Sierra Hwy & SR -14 SB 1.52* .97* 1.53* .98* 2. Sierra Hwy & Placerita Cyn 1.26* 1.21* 1.32* 1.25* 3. SR -14 NB & Placerita Cyn .41 .64 .43 .65 4. Newhall & Lyons .92* 1.18* .95* 1.19* 5. San Fernando & Lyons 1.17* 1.55* 1.27* 1.60* 6. San Fernando & Newhall 1.06* 1.08* 1.14* 1.10* 7. Pine & San Fernando 1.07* 1.36* 1.15* 1.42* 8. Sierra Hwy & San Fernando 2.58* 2.20* 3.07* 2.34* 9. SR -14 SB & San Fernando 1:12* 1.43* 1.35* 1.47* 10. SR -14 NB & San Fernando .45 97* .45 1.02* 11. Sierra Hwy & Remsen .95* 1.01* 12. Sierra Hwy & Clampitt .85* .86* 13. 14. Sierra Hwy & Foothill/SR-14/1-5 Sierra Hwy & The Old Road 1.44* 1.61* 1.02* 1.64* 1.71* 1.10* .82* .83* * Exceeds Level of Service "C" ' Level of service ranges: .00 - .60 A .61 - .70 B ' .71 - .80 C .81 - .90 D .91 - 1.00 E ' Above 1.00 F Signal Warrant Analysis The intersections of Remsen Street at Sierra Highway and Clampitt Road at Sierra Highway are currently unsignalized. Caltrans Traffic Signal Warrant I I was utilized to determine the need for traffic signals at these intersections under existing -plus -ambient - plus -project conditions. Figures 30 and 31 illustrate the Caltrans peak hour signal warrant for Remsen at Sierra Highway and Clampitt at Sierra Highway, respectively. As these figures show, the major street volume is plotted along the horizontal axis, and the minor street volume is plotted along the vertical axis. If the plotted point falls above the curve representing the number of lanes at the intersection in question, then a traffic signal is warranted at the intersection. As the signal warrant shows, signalization of both intersections is warranted under existing -plus -ambient -plus -project conditions. 157 Figure 30 SIERRA HWY & REMSEN STREET PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT Figure 31 SIERRA HWY & CLAMPITT ROAD PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT 500 - (MINOR iR` (MIF.OR = 400 = MORE UtE$ ANE (MAJOR) ,MAJOR) @ 1i LANE A ' OR MORE LANLLLLLL- o g Z a ,.,. to w a 300 1 LANE (MAJOR) @ 1 LAAE (MINOR) — _ < 1 LINE N W > K N � 3oD O O 200 2 a � S U J , % o .DO 100 U Z> 300 400 `_00 600 700 BCO '900 1000 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET VPH (TOTAL 0( BOTH .APPROACHES) 100 SIERRA HWY # NOTE: 100 VFH APPLIES AS ]HE LOWER THRESHOLD VOLUME FOR A MINOR STREET AP�PC=Cr WITH -WO OR MORE LANES AND 7S VP -,i APPLIES AS THE LOWER T-7PESHOCD VCL.:VE FOR A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH ONE LANE. u�o. N.a5 1111"7 F Figure 31 SIERRA HWY & CLAMPITT ROAD PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT 2 CR MORE VNES (A/A IOR) d CN7 M 22 0� lAl1Ei (M aJ(IR) 8 1 OR 1 ANE (MAJOR) i : OR MORE E UNE LANE LRNES (MINOR iR` (MIF.OR (MINOR 2 017 OR 7 MORE UtE$ ANE (MAJOR) ,MAJOR) @ 1i LANE A ' OR MORE LANLLLLLL- (MINOR _ X00 1 LANE (MAJOR) @ 1 LAAE (MINOR) — _ < Figure 31 SIERRA HWY & CLAMPITT ROAD PEAK HOUR VOLUME WARRANT 1 EGEU Q AM Peak Hour VoLLme . PIl Peak Hour volume 158 2 CR MORE LINES (11AJOR) @ OR M7itE LANE (MINOR 2 017 OR 7 MORE UtE$ ANE (MAJOR) ,MAJOR) @ 1i LANE A ' OR MORE LANLLLLLL- (MINOR _ X00 _ < 1 LINE (MAJOR) 8 1 LANE (MINOR) > K 3oD a J , % o .DO U Z> 100 F I I I 300 400 _�00 600 700 SCO 900 1DOD 1100 1200 1300 MAJOR STREET VPH (TOTAL OF 8CTr7 APPROACHES) SIERRA HWY *NOTE: LOU VF -H APPLIES AS THE LOWER THRESHOLD VOIUME FOR A MINOR SiPi-T AP'ROACH WITH -WO OR MORE LANES AND 7: VPH APPLIES AS THE LONER T-{RESHOIU VOLUME FC•R.A MINOR STREET APPROACH WITH ONE LANE :nuaz 1 EGEU Q AM Peak Hour VoLLme . PIl Peak Hour volume 158 2 CR MORE LINES (11AJOR) @ OR M7itE LANE (MINOR 2 017 OR 7 MORE UtE$ ANE (MAJOR) ,MAJOR) @ 1i LANE A ' OR MORE LANLLLLLL- (MINOR 1 LINE (MAJOR) 8 1 LANE (MINOR) 1 EGEU Q AM Peak Hour VoLLme . PIl Peak Hour volume 158 The intersections of Siena Highway at SR -14, Sierra Highway at Foothill/I-5 NB/SR14 NB, and Sierra Highway at The Old Road were also analyzed for satisfaction of signal warrants. Table 19 summarizes the results of this signal warrant analysis. As this table indicates, Sierra Highway at SR -14 SB does not satisfy the signal warrant under existing -plus -ambient or existing -plus -ambient -plus -project conditions. Siena Highway at Foothill/I-5 NB/SR-14 NB and Sierra Highway at The Old Road satisfy the signal warrant under existing -plus -ambient conditions. Although a signal is warranted at both these locations, the project does not create the need for signalization. TABLE 19 SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS SUMMARY —Existing + Ambient— —Existing + Ambient + Project— Major Minor Major Minor Street Street Street Street Intersection Volume Volume Satisfied Volume Volume Satisfied Sierra Hwy & SR -14 SB AM Peak Hour 4520 20 N 4600 20 N PM Peak Hour 2300 80 N 2350 So N 13. Sierra Hwy & 15/SR-14 NB AM Peak Hour 1670 120 Y 2030 120 Y PM Peak Hour 1810 590 Y 2130 590 Y 14. Sierra Hwy & The Old Road AM Peak Hour 1100 380 Y 1220 400 Y PM Peak Hour 2420 120 Y 2440 220 Y Interior Project Circulation The existing alignment of Remsen Street and Clampitt Road is generally followed by the projects proposed alignment of those roadways. Remsen Street is also the alignment for the No. 2 LA Aqueduct on the northern portion of the property. The northern intersection of Remsen Street with Sierra Highway is proposed to be realigned approximately 250 feet south of its current location to create a safer, 90 degree intersection. Figure 32 shows a street cross section of the public and private streets proposed for internal circulation within the Valley Gateway Project. Currently, Remsen Street is the only public street within the project site. Clampitt Road is currently a private street. Both of these streets are proposed as public streets, with 64 feet of paved width within a 66 -foot right-of-way. No sidewalks are proposed. The maximum street grade on these two streets is approximately 8 percent, and the smallest curve radius is 350 feet. In addition to the proposed two public streets, the project proposes a number of private streets that would take access from Remsen and Clampitt. Gateway Circle, South Gateway Drive, North Gateway Drive and Beale's Way are proposed at 34 feet of paved width within a 36 -foot right-of-way. No sidewalks are proposed. Remsen Drive, Zenith Drive and York Drive are proposed at 24 feet of paved width within a 26 -foot right-of-way. 159 Figure 32 PROPOSED.STREET STANDARDS - VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT (Not to Scale) Remsen Street & Clampitt Road (Public Streets) Snow Drive, Remsen Drive, Zenith Drive & York Drive (Private Streets) Gateway Circle, S. Gateway Drive, N. Gateway Drive & Beale s Way (Private Streets) Figure 33 MUNICIPAL CODE STREET STANDARDS - CITY OF SANTA CLARITA (Not to Scale) Industrial and.Commercial Streets -- Collector or Loop 84' 9 L 64 t' t' Industrial and Commercial Streets — Cul-de-sac 66' ` 9-41 460, .t' t fGir] I ' One private street, Snow Drive, is proposed to serve the 12 units of residential, and would take access directly on to Sierra Highway. It is also proposed to have a 24 -foot paved ' width within a 26 -foot right-of-way. The maximum private street grade is 15 percent, and the smallest curve radius is 50 feet. Cul-de-sacs at the end of private streets are proposed to have a diameter of 66 feet. ' Figure 33 shows street cross sections for public industrial and commercial streets as required by the Santa Clarita Municipal Code. Industrial and commercial collector street standards set forth a 6440ot paved width within an 84 -foot right-of-way. Internal industrial and commercial public street standards set forth a 46 -foot paved width within a 66 -foot right -0f --way. The City's Municipal Code indicates that sidewalks are optional, and necessary only when where future pedestrian traffic warrants their use. However, Policy 2.5 of the General Plan's Land Use Element states; 2.5 "Encourage the development of business park areas for ' industrial/manufacturing land uses, with landscaping, employee recreation, pedestrian walkways, and other unified design standards." The Land Use Element also encourages business park development in "campus -like" settings, with amenities for workers. This policy encourages pedestrian walkways and sidewalks to enjoy those amenities and provide for some internal circulation for walkers, joggers and others using on-site commercial services. The project is proposing adequate paved width (66') for the local collector roadways (Remsen and Clampitt), as well as adequate grades and.curve radii that meet Municipal Code requirements. However, the project is proposing substandard rights -0f --way and no ' sidewalks on Remsen Street and Clampitt Road. The project is also proposing private street improvements for interior circulation that do not meet Municipal Code standards for dedication as public streets. The City Code can require 46 feet of paved width within a 66 -foot right-of-way for interior industrial and commercial streets. The project is proposing 24 to 34 feet of paved width within a 26 to 36 -foot right-of-way, with no sidewalks. They are proposed to remain as private streets, ' to be owned and maintained by the project. Potential issues related to ongoing ownership and responsibility for maintenance, emergency access, enforcement of no parking provision can be created by private streets. Proposed private street grades have slopes. up to 15%, and curve radii that range from 50 feet up to 250 feet. These street grades and curve radii also exceed allowable standards under the City's Municipal. Code. The maximum slope gradient is 10%, and the minimum curve radius is 100 feet. However the City's Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance, and the Condition Use Permit process allow for alternative development standards. In order to balance the achievement of the City's General Plan Land Use Goals, and to encourage ' innovation and creativity for projects, although they do not meet all the precise requirements of all codes and ordinances, planned developments or Conditional Use Permits can individually tailor design standards to suit a given site. �I I 161 4.7.3 The applicant is proposing to minimize the width of the right-of-way improvements to minimize impacts primarily to the oak tree resources on the property, and to the site's natural topography. If all internal streets were constructed to Municipal Code standards for public streets including sidewalks, a significant number of additional coast live oak trees would be removed or have their driplines impacted, over what is currently proposed. For these reasons, the project is proposing public and private streets with minimum rights- of-way and street widths, and no sidewalks within the project. Transportation Demand Management The City of Santa Clarita requires all non-residential developments that generate 100 or more employees on a site during a given shift to submit a Trip Reduction/TDM Strategy Plan in the form of a Site Development Permit to the City prior to project approval. The plan is required to identify programs and strategies designed to increase average vehicle ridership (AVR) by employees during morning peak hour traffic volumes. Through the permit process,. the City may require a number of site improvements and programs, including a preferred parking for carpool vehicles, bicycle parking and shower facilities, vanpool vehicle accessibility, information on transportation alternatives, monetary incentives, flex time and other staggered hour schedules designed to minimize peak hour traffic. The proposed project consists of approximately 930,000 square feet of light industrial and corporate office use, and is expected to generate over 2,500 employees daily. Therefore, the project is subject to the requirements of the Trip Reduction/TDM Strategy Plan. MITIGATION MEASURES Intersection Improvements Improvements have been developed for specific intersections projected to operate at an unacceptable level of service which are significantly impacted by the proposed project. The required intersection improvements for Year 2000 background conditions involve eight intersections. 162 TABLE 20 REQUIRED INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Intersection Improvement 2. Sierra Hwy & Placerita Cyn Add third NB & SB thru lane Restripe within existing right-of-way 4. Newhall & Lyons Add EB right -tum lane Restripe within existing rightof-way 5. San Fernando & Lyons Add 513 left -tum lane, Restripe west leg within existing Add SB right -turn lane right-of-way with minor median reconstruction, right-of-way acquisition and widening of northwest comcr 6. San Fernando & Newhall Covert EB thru lane to shared Restripe within existing right-of-way thru-right lane, provide north- bound protected/permitted phasing 7. Pine & San Fernando Add third WB thru lane Restripe within existing right-of-way 8. Sierra Hwy & San Fernando Add third NB thru lane, Add Restripe east, west legs within NB, SB, and WB right -tum existing right-of-way, right-of-way lane, add second NB & SB acquisition and widening of northwest lane, convert EB & WB thru and southeast comers (vacant) lane to shared thru-left lane, add EB and WB thru lane 9. SR -14 & San Fernando Add third WB thru lane Restripe within existing right-of-way 13. Sierra Hwy & 1-5NBI Add second NB and SB left- Rightof way acquisition and widening SR -14 NB tum lane, add second NB of Foothill thru lane At every intersection the project impacts, the project is required to provide mitigation which will result in the existing level of service, regardless of what the existing -plus - ambient level of service is. If the intersection is currently operating above .90, then the mitigation measures shall result in an ICU less than or equal to the existing ICU plus .01. If the existing ICU is above .80 but below .91, then the project mitigation shall result in an ICU equal to or less than the existing ICU plus .02. If the existing ICU is equal to or less than .80, then the project shall provide mitigation which will result in an ICU equal to or less than .80. Required improvements to the eight intersections impacted by the proposed project are listed below and illustrated in Figure 34. Mitigation for San Fernando at Newhall includes modification to the signal phasing to provide northbound protected/permitted left -turn phasing. By providing protected/ permitted left -turn phasing, at least two or three more left -turning vehicles can make the left -turn movement per cycle than with protected left -turn phasing. The northbound left - turn volume at San Fernando at Newhall has been reduced by 113 vehicles (assuming an 80 -second cycle length) under existing -plus -ambient -plus project with mitigation conditions to reflect the protected/permitted left -turn phasing. The improvements at Sierra Highway and Foothill/I-5 NB/SR 14 -NB include providing dual southbound left -turn lanes. Currently, Foothill Boulevard has only one lane for the southbound left -turn vehicles to turn into. If dual southbound left -turn lanes are installed, Foothill will be widened to provide two thru lanes at the intersection for the left -turn vehicles to turn into. 163 z H Ter UM-ANES 12.29,92 LEGEND -a*— Existing lane I Proposed improvement LANE IMPROVEMENTS Valley Gateway Traffic Analysis Figure 34 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 164 U ' Table 21 shows the existing-plus-ambient-plus-projectICUs for these intersections without and with the proposed improvements. As this table indicates, four intersections will continue to operate at LOS "D" and two intersections will continue to operate at LOS "E" ' or worse. Although six intersection will continue to operate above LOS "C", the improvements recommended mitigate the project's impacts to existing levels. TABLE 21 MITIGATED ICU SUMMARY Existing Existing + Ambient +Ambient + Project + Project w/ Mitigation Intersection AM PM AM PM 2. Sierra Hwy & Placerita Cyn 1.01 .92 .81 .76 4. Newhall & Lyons .88 1.14 .78 1.04 5. San Fernando & Lyons .97 1.28 .79 .87 6. San Fernando & Newhall .87 .91 .78 .83 7. Pine & San Fernando .80 .90 .80 .68 8. Sierra Hwy & San Fernando 1.90 1.50 1.16 1.07 9. SR -14 SB & San Fernando .66 .98 .57 .73 13. Sierra Hwy & SR -14 NB/I-5 NB 1.03 1.21 .61 .90 Level of service ranges: .00 - .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .81 - .90 D .91 - 1.00 E Above 1.00 F The required improvements to bring these eight intersections to existing levels of service are as follows: 2. Sierra Highway and Placerita Canyon: Add a third northbound and southbound through lane. This would require the restriping of the existing roadway (within existing right-of-way), a minor traffic signal modification, and the establishment of a "No Stopping Zone" on Sierra Highway in the vicinity of Placerita Canyon Road. 4. Newhall Avenue and Lyons Avenue: Add an eastbound right -turn lane. This would require restriping the existing roadway, a minor traffic signal modification, and the establishment of a "No Stopping Zone" on Newhall Avenue west of Lyons Avenue. 5. San Fernando Road and Lyons Avenue: Add a second eastbound left -tum land, and a southbound right -turn lane. This would require restriping, some median reconstruction, establishing a "No Stopping Zone" on the west leg, also the widening and right-of-way acquisition of the northwest corner, and the establishment of a "No Stopping Zone" on the north leg. The traffic signal at this intersection should be modified also. 6. San Fernando Road and Newhall Avenue: Covert eastbound through lane to be shared 165 as a through right lane, and provide northbound protected/permitted phasing. This would require restriping within the existing roadway (right-of-way_ on the west leg, and traffic signal modification of this intersection. 7. Pine Street and San Fernando Road: Add a third westbound through lane. This would require restriping, some road widening within the existing right-of-way, and the establishment of a "No Stopping Zone" along the north side of San Fernando Road. B. Siena Highway and San Fernando Road: Add a third northbound through lane, a north, south, and westbound right -turn lane, a second north and southbound left -turn lane, convert east and westbound through lanes to a shared through left lane (City does not approve of this since it would cause split phasing of the traffic signal which causes delay). This requires an additional second left -turn lane for east and westbound traffic), and add an east and westbound through lane. This would require restriping, road widening, right-of-way acquisition, and the establishment of a "No Stopping Zone" on all legs. Major traffic signal modification would be required at this intersection. 9. State Route 14 (southbound) and San Fernando Road: Add a third westbound through lane. This would require restriping within the existing roadway and right-of- way, and the establishment of a "No Stopping Zone" along the north side of San Fernando Road. 13. Sierra Highway and Interstate 5 Northbound/State Route 14 Northbound: Add a second north and southbound left turn lane, and a second northbound through lane. This would require restriping, street widening, right-of-way acquisition, and the establishment of a "No Stopping Zone" on Sierra Highway. A traffic signal would be required at this intersection. In addition to the above, the developer will be required to install the following two traffic signals and to interconnect them with San Fernando Road and Sierra Highway intersection: 1. Sierra Highway and Remsen: Full improvement will be required at this intersection which includes three north and southbound through lanes and southbound left -turn lane. (in addition to the above, the City requires exclusive northbound right -turn also). 2. Sierra Highway and Clampitt: Full improvement will be required at this intersection which incudes three north and southboutid through lanes and southbound left -turn lane. (In addition to the above, the City requires exclusive northbound right -turn also.) No left turn will be allowed to and from Snow Road (Private Road). This will require the installation of a median island along Sierra Highway. Right -of -Way Improvements The project shall be responsible for completing ultimate street improvements along the project frontage on Sierra Highway. Traffic signals are warranted under background M conditions with the addition of project traffic at the intersections of Sierra Highway at Remsen and Sierra Highway at Clampitt Road, and are required to be installed and functional prior to the issuance of the first certificate of use and occupancy permit for buildings constructed within the project. Applicant's street and grading plans and all construction permitted by such plans shall comply with the requirements of the approved oak tree report. The applicant shall design intersections with a tangent section from intersection to "end of curb return" ECR. Where applicable, the applicant shall pay fees for signing and striping of streets as determined by the City Traffic Engineer or shall prepare signing and striping plans for all multi -lane highways within or abutting the subdivision to be approved by the Engineering Department. The subdivider is required to install distribution lines and individual services lines within, or adjacent to, the street right -0f --way for community antenna. television service (CATV) for all new development. The applicant shall place above ground utilities including, but not limited to, fire hydrants, junction boxes, and street lights outside sidewalks. Prior to the approval of the final landscape plan, the applicant shall obtain approval from the City Department of Parks and Recreation for street tree location, species, and approved method of installation and irrigation. The applicant shall not grant or record easements within areas proposed to be granted, dedicated, or offered for dedication for public streets or highways, access rights, building restriction rights, or other easements until after the final map is filed with the County Recorder unless such easements are subordinated to the proposed grant or dedication. If easements are granted after the date of tentative approval, a subordination must be executed by the easement holder prior to the filing of the final parcel map. ' The subdivider, by agreement with the City Engineer, may guarantee installation of improvements as determined by the City Engineer through faithful performance bonds, letters of credit or any other acceptable means. The applicant shall provide horizontal and vertical alignments to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Traffic Engineer. The applicant shall provide for sight distance along ' extreme slopes or curves to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. The applicant shall design the intersections of local streets with General Plan Highways ' to provide adequate sight distance from the local street. Additional right-of-way dedication and/or grading may be required. The applicant shall also design the minimum centerline radius on a local street with an intersecting street on the concave side to comply with ' design speeds per Department of Public Works "Requirements for Street Plans." and sight distances per the current AASHTO. The applicant shall offer easements needed for street drainage or slopes and agree to construct drainage improvements prior to the recordation of the final map. 167 No driveways shall be constructed within 25 feet upstream of any catch basins when street grades exceed 6%. The applicant shall construct full -width sidewalks per plans approved by the Engineering Department. The applicant shall repair any broken or damaged curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement on streets within or abutting the subdivision. The applicant shall provide and install street name signs prior to occupancy of building(s). Whenever there is an offer of Private and Future Right -of -Way, the applicant shall provide a Drainage Letter. The applicant shall offer for dedication vehicular access rights to Siena Highway along the entire property frontage prior to recordation of the final map. The applicant is granted permission for street grades up to 8% on Clampitt and Remsen Street and up to 15% on private cul-de-sac driveways as shown on tentative tract map no.51044. The applicant shall dedicate and construct the following required road improvements on Clarnpitt/Remsen Street, public cul-de-sacs, and Siena Highway: Curbs and Gutters, base and paving, street lights, street trees, 5'-0" sidewalks. Clampitt/Remsen Street shall have an 84' R/W width; public cul-de-sacs shall have 66' R/W width; and Sierra Highway shall have a 64' R/W width. Applicant shall replace existing CMP under Sierra Highway or shall line existing CMP with concrete prior to the issuance of the first certificate of use and occupancy permit for buildings constructed within the project. Applicant shall construct and landscape medians on Sierra Highway along the property frontage. The area included within the project shall be annexed to an existing landscape district or a new district must be formed to finance the cost of annual maintenance of the median landscape. If within 5 years the City Does not form an area -wide landscape maintenance district for median improvements, the district will be abandoned and the project will no longer be responsible for financing and the annual maintenance of the median landscaping. The proposed private drives shown on the tentative map do not meet public street standards and therefore will not be accepted by the City into public street system. The applicant shall designate all proposed private drives as private drive and fire lane on the final map. The applicant shall place a note on the final map stating that ingress and egress and public utility easement shall be reserved. The proposed grades for the private drives shall not exceed 10%., At all intersections of the proposed private drives with public street, a maximum of a 3% landing shall be provided a minimum distance of 200' from the intersection. Permission is granted for private grades to exceed 10% up to a maximum of 15% for South Gateway Drive. 168 The applicant shall provide for pedestrian access on all private drives. The private drives shall be constructed to a minimum width (from top of curb to top of curb) to accommodate the required turning movement of the anticipated traffic. Local (Interior) Street Improvements Prior to the issuance of a Site Development Permit, the applicant shall obtain City approval of a Specific Circulation Plan. The plan shall be reviewed and commented on by the City's Fire Department, Police Department, Traffic Engineering Department, Oak Tree Specialist, and Planning Department. The Circulation Plan shall satisfy all City requirements related to required right-of-way, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, ownership, emergency access, ongoing maintenance, enforcement of no parking provisions and private gates. Driveways shall be constructed using the APWA alley intersection design. Applicant shall obtain approval from the traffic engineer for the location of all driveways. Transportation Demand Management A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program is required to be implemented by the proposed project in an effort to reduce peak hour trips generated by the project, and to reduce air quality impacts. The majority of project -generated trips will be made by employees of the business park. Several programs can be offered to encourage the use of carpools, transit, and alternative work hours by the project's employees. The TDM program shall be approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a site Development Permit. Carpooling shall be encouraged by providing preferential parking and ride- matching/sharing services. Ridematching will require an on-site Commuter Transportation Coordinator (CTC) at a centralized location to oversee, manage, and assist in the attainment of employee participation in this commute alternative. Ride -sharing services are offered free through Los Angeles County's Rapid Transit District's (RTD) Commuter Network. Employer incentives for utilizing Metrolink shall also be required. Convenient bike racks, information kiosks with local bus schedules, and subsidized bus passes shall be provided to encourage alternate commute odes. Alternative work schedules may be selectively implemented to encourage transit ridership and to attract new high - occupancy commuters. Transit riders could use this option to schedule their work trips to coincide with the most ideal scheduled transit service. Carpool commuters may participate in compressed work weeks, or staggered work hours to shift trips outside of the peak traffic periods. In addition to these TDM measures, the South Coast Air Quality Management District sets forth additional measures as a part of their Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), aimed at reducing overall vehicle miles travelled. These measures are contained in Section 4.4.3, Long -Term Air Quality Mitigation Measures, and shall be included in the required Transportation Demand Management Program. 169 4.7.4 Cumulative Project Improvements Existing -plus -project -plus -cumulative -plus -project ICUs without and with the proposed improvements are summarized in Table 22. As this table indicates, the proposed improvements are not sufficient to achieve acceptable levels of service.Additional intersection improvements by the cumulative projects and improvements to the roadway network are necessary to achieve acceptable levels of service under existing -plus -ambient - plus -cumulative -plus -project conditions. TABLE 22 EXISTING -PLUS -AMBIENT -PLUS -CUMULATIVE -PLUS PROJECT WITH IMPROVEMENTS ICU SUMMARY 2. Sierra Hwy & Placerita Cyn 4. Newhall & Lyons 5. San Fernando & Lyons 6. San Fernando & Newhall 7. Pine & San Fernando 8. Sierra Hwy & San Fernando 9. SR -14 SB & San Fernando 13. Sierra Hwy & Foothill/SR-14/1-5 Level of service ranges: .00 -.60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .81 - .90 D .91 - 1.00 E Above 1.00 F 1.32 Existing Existing + Ambient + Ambient + Cumulative + Cumulative + Project + Project w/ Mitigation Intersection AM PM AM PM 2. Sierra Hwy & Placerita Cyn 4. Newhall & Lyons 5. San Fernando & Lyons 6. San Fernando & Newhall 7. Pine & San Fernando 8. Sierra Hwy & San Fernando 9. SR -14 SB & San Fernando 13. Sierra Hwy & Foothill/SR-14/1-5 Level of service ranges: .00 -.60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .81 - .90 D .91 - 1.00 E Above 1.00 F 1.32 1.25 1.09 1.01 .95 1.19 .85 1.15 1.27 1.60 1.16 1.22 1.14 1.10 1.05 1.02 1.15 1.42 1.15 1.13 3.07 2.34 1.92 2.20 1.35 1.47 1.13 1.11 1.64 1.71 .91 1.40 Prior to the approval of a development agreement between the City of Santa Clarita and the property owner, the owner shall. agree to either construct or pay their pro -rata share of circulation improvements necessary to achieve acceptable levels of service under cumulative project conditions. ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE The proposed project consists of 356,500 square feet of corporate office space, 575,150 square feet of business park, and 12 multiple family units to be developed on the east side of Sierra Highway, south of San Fernando Road. The proposed project will generate 9,451 trips daily, of which 1,415 will be generated during the AM peak hour and 1,283 will be generated during the PM peak hour. These project -generated trips will create a significant impact at eight intersections in the project vicinity. The recommended 170 I ' improvements to bring these intersections to existing levels of service can reduce project - generated traffic impacts to a level less than significant. Other required mitigation measures can increase vehicle ridership, encourage carpooling, encourage alternative forms of commuting and minimize incremental air quality impacts. 1 I Li iI Ir L 1 171 4.8 NOISE 4.8.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Noise Criteria Community noise levels are measured in terms of the "A -weighted decibel," abbreviated "dBA". A -weighting is a frequency correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels with the frequency response of the human ear. Figure 35 provides examples of various noises and their typical A -weighted noise level. The "equivalent noise level," or Leq is the average noise level on an energy basis for any specified time period. The Leq for one hour is the energy average noise level during the hour, specifically, the average noise based on the energy content (acoustic energy) of the sound. It can be thought of as the level of a continuous noise which has the same energy content as the fluctuating noise level. The equivalent noise level has the units of dBA, therefore, a sound measured for one hour may be expressed as a one hour Leq of, for example, 57 dBA. Sound rating scales have been developed for measurement of community noise. These account for: 1) the parameters of noise that have been shown to contribute to the effects of noise on man, 2) the variety of noises found in the environment, 3) the variations in noise levels that occur as a person moves through the environment, and 4) the variations associated with the time of day. The predominant rating scale now in use in California for land use compatibility assessment is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL scale represents a time weighted 24 hour Average noise level based on the A - weighted decibel. Time weighted refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times. The evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m. penalizes noises by 5 dBA, while nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) noises are penalized by 10 dBA. These time periods and penalties were selected to reflect people's increased sensitivity to noise during these time periods. The day -night or Ldn scale is similar to the CNEL scale except that evening noises are not penalized. A CNEL noise level may be reported as a "CNEL of 60 dBA", "60 dBA CNEL", or simply "60 CNEL". Typical noise levels in terms of the CNEL scale for different types of communities are presented in Figure 36. The criteria used to assess the acceptability of community noise levels varies with the municipality. The City of Santa Clarita has adopted a General Plan Noise Element which established noise and land use compatibility guidelines for different types of land use. The City's adopted guidelines are consistent with the California Noise/Land Use Compatibility Guidelines. The City of Santa Clarita uses 65 CNEL as the critical criterion for assessing the compatibility of residential land uses with noise sources. The City of Santa Clarita recommends that the exterior living areas (yards and patios) for new residential land uses do not exceed 65 CNEL. In addition, for multi -family residential projects, the California Noise Insulation Standard (California Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 4) requires that the indoor noise levels in multi -family residential development do not exceed a CNEL of 45 dBA. The City of Santa Clarita indoor noise standards are consistent with the State standards. The City of Santa Clarita requires that both single family and multi -family development achieve an indoor noise standard of 45 CNEL. 172 EXAMPLES OF TYPICAL SOUND LEVELS SOUND LEVELS AND LOUDNESS OF ILLUSTRATIVE NOISES IN INDOOR AND OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTS (A -Seale Weighted Souad Levels) SOURCE: Reproduced from Melville C. Branch and R. Dale Bland, Outdoor Noise in the Mr,=22Ut.n. Ervi*a+ment. Published by the City of Los Angeles. 1970, p.2 Figure 35 VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 173 THE PLANNING CONSORTIUM t P NINA EWROWWTN Sl ES OVER-ALL LEVEL LOUDNESS dB(A) Sound Pressure Level COMMUNITYHOME OR INDUSTRY Human JudgRement ofDlfferentSound Approx.0.0002 Mlcrobar ( Outdoor ) kYeb 130 Mil. Jet AircraftTake-0ILw/Alta-burner OaygenToreh(121) l2JdB(A)32TlmcsasIoud UNCOMFORTABLY From Airasft Carrier @ 50 FL (130) 120 LOUD Turbo -Fan Aircraft @ Take OR Power Riveling Machim (110) 110 dB(A)16 Times at Loud 110 @ 200 Ft. (9.0) Rock -N -Roll Band (108.114) Jet Flyover @ 1000 FL (103) 100 Boeing 701. DC -80 6080 Ft. 100 dB(A) 8 Times as Laud Bcfom Landing (106) VERY Bell 1.2A Helicopter@ 100 Ft. (100) 90 LOUD ower Mower( ) Boeinit 737 DC -9 @ 6080 Ft. 1.andinE Newspaper Press (97) 90 dB(A) 4 Times as Laud Before (97) Motorcycle @25 FL (90) Car Wash a 20FL (89) Food Blender (88) 80 Prop. Airplane yo ver @ 1000 R. (88) Diesel Truck, 40 MPH @ 50 R. (84) Milling Machine (85) 80 dB(A) 2 Times as Loud Diesel Train, 45 MPH @ 100 FL (83) Garbage Disposal (80) MODERATMY High Urban Ambient Sound (80) Passenga Car, 65 MPH @ 25 Ft. (77) Living Room Music (76) 70 d8(A) 70 LAUD Freewa a 50 FL From Pavement TV -Audio, Edge. 10:00 AM (76 +or- 6) .1 Cash Regg@ 10 J4. (65.70) 60 Air Conditioning Unit @ 100 R. (60) @ 10 FL (64)ister Electric Typewrite Dishwasher (Rinse) 10 PL (60) 60 dB(A) 112 as Loud Convensdon 60) 50 QUIET Large Transformers @ 100 Ft. (50) 50 dB(A)114 as Loud 40 Bud Calls (44) 40 dB(A) lib as Loud Lower limit Urban Ambient Sound (40) )UST AUDIBLE (dB(A) Sale interrupted) 10. THRESHOLD OF HEARING SOURCE: Reproduced from Melville C. Branch and R. Dale Bland, Outdoor Noise in the Mr,=22Ut.n. Ervi*a+ment. Published by the City of Los Angeles. 1970, p.2 Figure 35 VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 173 THE PLANNING CONSORTIUM t P NINA EWROWWTN Sl ES The commercial land use is the predominate part of this project. The Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines contained in the City of Santa Clarita General Plan Noise Element specifies the compatibility of various land uses with the noise levels. The guidelines rate compatibility in terms of "normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, clearly unacceptable." The Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines are reproduced in Figure 37. The City of Santa Clarita does not have any specific indoor noise standards for retail or office commercial uses. However, general guidelines recommend that the indoor noise environment of commercial buildings not exceed 50 CNEL. Therefore, we recommend a 50 CNEL (or similar) indoor noise criterion be applied to the commercial buildings in the project. Existing Traffic Noise Levels The highway noise levels projected in this report were computed using the Highway Noise Model published by the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Protection Model," FHWA-RD-77-108, December, 1978). The FHWA Model uses traffic volume, vehicle mix, vehicle speed, and roadway geometry to compute the "equivalent noise level." A computer code has been written which computes equivalent noise levels for each of the time periods used in the calculation of CNEL. Weighting these noise levels and summing them results in the CNEL for the traffic projections used. CNEL contours are found by iterating over many distances until the distances to the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL contours are found. For the roadway analysis, worst-case assumptions about future motor vehicle traffic and noise levels have been made and were incorporated in the modeling effort (specifically, no reductions in motor vehicle noise have been assumed in spite of legislation requiring quieter vehicles at the time of manufacture). Traffic volumes and estimated speeds were used with the FHWA Model to estimate the noise levels in terms of CNEL. The existing (and future year 2000) traffic ACT volumes were obtained from the Valley Gateway traffic study conducted by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. (November 1992). The distances to the CNEL contours for the roadways in the vicinity of the project site are given in Table 23. These represent the distance from the centerline of the road to the contour value shown. Note that the values given in Table 22 do not take into account the effect of any noise barriers or topography that may affect ambient noise levels. The data in Table 23 indicate that noise levels in the areas adjacent to Placerita Canyon are in excess of 65 CNEL. Noise levels in the areas adjacent to Sierra Highway, State Route 14, and San Fernando (SR -126) Road are in excess of 70 CNEL. The existing noise levels near the major roadways in the surrounding areas are significant. 174 i1 TYPICAL OUTDOOR NOISE LEVELS CNEL Outdoor Location .90. 4 Apartment Next to Freeway 3/4 Mile From Touchdown at Major Airport —80. '*—Downtown With Some Construction Activity Urban High Density Apartment —70. *O—Urban Row Housing on Major Avenue .60. Urban Residential Area too Wooded Residential -*—Agricultural Crop Land —40 _Rural Residential - f— Wildemess Ambient —30— Figure 36 VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 175 THE "DLANNING CONSORTIUM U q MO -E ONMEK7N STUDIES Noise and Land Use Compatability Guidelines Santa Clarita General Plan Figure 37 City of Santa Clarita LEGEND NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE Spealhed tend use is satisfactory. based upon the assumption that any buildings Involved are of normal Conventional construction. without any special noise Insulation requirements. %U//G CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE New construction or development should be under. taken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reavvion requirements is made and needed none insulation features included in the design Convent Upnal construction. but with closed windows and trash air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. BE NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE New construction or development should generally be discouraged. it new construction or oeveiopment Oats proceed. a detalkd analysis of the noise reduction requirements must De made and needed noise Insulation features included in the design.. CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE New construction or development should generally not be undenaken. CONSIDERATIONS IN DETERMINATION OF NOISE -COMPATIBLE LAND USE A. NORMALIZED NOISE EXPOSURE INFORMATION DESIRED resldtmMi uses located in Community Noise E.Daure Areas greater man 6508 n rm 11 naccaOMo't whore Sufficient data a.Rts. 1vawale 4hd Isosudaoidy with 11141114040tQ M a •normalixao'valua of CNEL a L, NOrmalq" g4Hi era Doan" by apdmg a subiMping the cafeteria desanp" In Table i to IN measured a aicuLat" value of CNEL or L� E. NOISE SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS d CO The fares u56 -nose mpal'bllity reCammeravi l'ons should a ew" in tell to me specific source of lho nose Far 1.8,04 aircraft end Mitosis noise is nblmply rade .0 of h.9N1 Singh hit" evenls Man auto traflc WI =V'S lots n 1,eautnlly Therefore. offenl sources y'Slorig IN Ura coni ho0/ Pocwn 00 not `411 coal ms are notit enwrenment The Slott AeMNullcs ACI yas%65 CS CNEL as IN enlenan when arcane Must eM vtmuy Mato Prot"t a.ist.ng ns'denlgl communities from wacceplabit 1.00111,141 to Auenn noise In Shat to bell.lale me purposes of me ACI. QN of which H 10 onovnge land uses Coinallblt with IN 65 08 CNEL chtehon wNgvo "LAST and 'n *,a@-10 4c'l'ipS the 8o'I'iy of •',Oars to cOrply w'm the Act. should a discouraged and contldet" 10x1" vnirN no e y u also$. C. SURABLEWTERiORENVIRONMENTS ON DbRoi" of locating resi0enk&I Una rotative id a known NOe sowoe s to maintain a and"N interior nese MnrpneNnl at no g•ealer It a6 a8 CNEL of L. This r"wn,enl. MUD" with ma rMasura of ulcuuled no54 r"uNon performance 0I1N rya Or firuclun uhoer COns'agl10n, shW 0 g0vari, M mm. mum &Capt"H distend to a noire {Dura D. ACCEPTASLE OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTS Another panavlIII which In "me COlwhut n An a't"'ong fi`00i. n Ino "Ara lot n acceplaos outdar 010,54 environment when this ,$ IN cast Tory restrictive slangs lds to, ism use Comolluvoy. typically Delo* me me, hvm con' slda"'normally eatotSpk' far met Who use 94189M, maY a SM100144 soma Ca'+e,.r Daiul"imp heaim wivie'" in nw .,,,�..a v..ii..,iP..,..... .... 176 COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE L,,, OR CNEL, dB LAND USE CATEGORY SS 60. 65 70 75 80 RESIDENTIAL - LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY, DUPLEX. MOBILE HOMES RESIDENTIAL • MULTIFAMILY TRANSIENT LODGING• MOTELS. HOTELS SCHOOLS. LIBRARIES. CHURCHES. HOSPITALS. NURSING HOMES AUDITORIUMS. CONCERT HALLS. AMPHITHEATRES SPORTS ARENA. OUTDOOR SPECTATOR SPORTS PLAYGROUNDS. NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS GOLF COURSES. RIDING STABLES. WATER RECREATION, CEMETERIES _ OFFICE BUILDINGS, BUSINESS 0///////// COMMERCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL { INDUSTRIAL.MANUFACTURING UTILITIES. AGRICULTURE City of Santa Clarita LEGEND NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE Spealhed tend use is satisfactory. based upon the assumption that any buildings Involved are of normal Conventional construction. without any special noise Insulation requirements. %U//G CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE New construction or development should be under. taken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reavvion requirements is made and needed none insulation features included in the design Convent Upnal construction. but with closed windows and trash air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. BE NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE New construction or development should generally be discouraged. it new construction or oeveiopment Oats proceed. a detalkd analysis of the noise reduction requirements must De made and needed noise Insulation features included in the design.. CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE New construction or development should generally not be undenaken. CONSIDERATIONS IN DETERMINATION OF NOISE -COMPATIBLE LAND USE A. NORMALIZED NOISE EXPOSURE INFORMATION DESIRED resldtmMi uses located in Community Noise E.Daure Areas greater man 6508 n rm 11 naccaOMo't whore Sufficient data a.Rts. 1vawale 4hd Isosudaoidy with 11141114040tQ M a •normalixao'valua of CNEL a L, NOrmalq" g4Hi era Doan" by apdmg a subiMping the cafeteria desanp" In Table i to IN measured a aicuLat" value of CNEL or L� E. NOISE SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS d CO The fares u56 -nose mpal'bllity reCammeravi l'ons should a ew" in tell to me specific source of lho nose Far 1.8,04 aircraft end Mitosis noise is nblmply rade .0 of h.9N1 Singh hit" evenls Man auto traflc WI =V'S lots n 1,eautnlly Therefore. offenl sources y'Slorig IN Ura coni ho0/ Pocwn 00 not `411 coal ms are notit enwrenment The Slott AeMNullcs ACI yas%65 CS CNEL as IN enlenan when arcane Must eM vtmuy Mato Prot"t a.ist.ng ns'denlgl communities from wacceplabit 1.00111,141 to Auenn noise In Shat to bell.lale me purposes of me ACI. QN of which H 10 onovnge land uses Coinallblt with IN 65 08 CNEL chtehon wNgvo "LAST and 'n *,a@-10 4c'l'ipS the 8o'I'iy of •',Oars to cOrply w'm the Act. should a discouraged and contldet" 10x1" vnirN no e y u also$. C. SURABLEWTERiORENVIRONMENTS ON DbRoi" of locating resi0enk&I Una rotative id a known NOe sowoe s to maintain a and"N interior nese MnrpneNnl at no g•ealer It a6 a8 CNEL of L. This r"wn,enl. MUD" with ma rMasura of ulcuuled no54 r"uNon performance 0I1N rya Or firuclun uhoer COns'agl10n, shW 0 g0vari, M mm. mum &Capt"H distend to a noire {Dura D. ACCEPTASLE OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTS Another panavlIII which In "me COlwhut n An a't"'ong fi`00i. n Ino "Ara lot n acceplaos outdar 010,54 environment when this ,$ IN cast Tory restrictive slangs lds to, ism use Comolluvoy. typically Delo* me me, hvm con' slda"'normally eatotSpk' far met Who use 94189M, maY a SM100144 soma Ca'+e,.r Daiul"imp heaim wivie'" in nw .,,,�..a v..ii..,iP..,..... .... 176 �1 TABLE 23 EXISTING NOISE LEVELS (dBA) Distance to CNEL Contour From Centerline of Roadway (Feet) o. 114134W UQM�-� 4.8.2 IMPACTS The proposed project involves the development of the Valley Gateway project which ' covers a total of approximately 117 acres. The proposed project incudes approximately 44 acres of business park/commercial land uses, 7.8 acres of corporate headquarters/ commercial office land uses, 2.4 acres of multi -family residential, and 52.4 acres of open ' space land uses. The proposed land uses surrounding the project site are described as follows: to the east ' of the project site across State Route 14, the adjacent potential land use is the proposed Elsmere Canyon Landfill; to the northeast of the project site, the nearest proposed land use is a residential development; on the west side of the project site across Sierra Highway is the Gates Property for which the proposed land uses are mainly commercial and industrial developments. Potential noise impacts are commonly divided into two groups: temporary and long term. ' Temporary impacts are usually associated with noise generated by construction activities. Long term impacts are further divided into impacts on surrounding land uses generated by the project and those impacts which occur at the project site. Construction Noise Construction noise represents a short term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise ' 177 Sierra Highway North of Placerita Canyon 85 183 395 Placerita Cyn to San Fernando 61 131 283 San Fernando to Clampitt RW 108 233 ' Clampitt to Foothill RW 108 233 Placerita Canyon West of Sierra Highway RW 59 128 ' East of Sierra Highway RW 51 111 San Fernando (SR -126) West of Pine 66 143 308 Pine to Sierra Highway 70 150 323 Sierra Highway to SR -14 73 158 341 State Route 14 (SR -14) North of San Fernando 246 917 1976 ' South of San Fernando 466 1004 2163 ' RW - Contour falls inside the roadway right-of-way 4.8.2 IMPACTS The proposed project involves the development of the Valley Gateway project which ' covers a total of approximately 117 acres. The proposed project incudes approximately 44 acres of business park/commercial land uses, 7.8 acres of corporate headquarters/ commercial office land uses, 2.4 acres of multi -family residential, and 52.4 acres of open ' space land uses. The proposed land uses surrounding the project site are described as follows: to the east ' of the project site across State Route 14, the adjacent potential land use is the proposed Elsmere Canyon Landfill; to the northeast of the project site, the nearest proposed land use is a residential development; on the west side of the project site across Sierra Highway is the Gates Property for which the proposed land uses are mainly commercial and industrial developments. Potential noise impacts are commonly divided into two groups: temporary and long term. ' Temporary impacts are usually associated with noise generated by construction activities. Long term impacts are further divided into impacts on surrounding land uses generated by the project and those impacts which occur at the project site. Construction Noise Construction noise represents a short term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise ' 177 generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators can reach high levels. Worst case examples of construction noise at 50 feet are presented in Figure 38. The equipment directly involved in the excavation of the site as well as the trucks used to haul the dirt within the site could produce high noise levels. According to the information presented in Figure 38, the peak noise level for most of the equipment that will be used during the construction is 70 to 95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Construction noise typically have a drop off rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Therefore, at 100 feet thepeak construction noise is approximately 64 to 89 dBA. At 200 feet the peak construction noise is approximately 58 to 83 dBA. Note that these noise levels are based upon worst case conditions. Typically, noise levels on the site will be less. Grading activities also represent one of the highest potential for noise impacts, therefore, most of the grading should occur away from existing residential land uses. The most effective method of controlling construction noise is through local control of construction hours. The hours of construction shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Monday through Friday. Construction shall not be permitted on Sundays or federal holidays. For the project site, the construction noise will not impact any nearby existing or newly developed residential areas. The potential residential development to the northeast of the project site across State Route 14 will not be directly adjacent to the project site. Potential new homes will be located at least half a mile away from the project site. Construction noise associated with the proposed project is not considered to be a significant noise impact. Impacts on Surrounding Land Uses The development of the proposed project will generate traffic which may alter noise levels in the surrounding areas. To assess the impact of the proposed project on land uses adjacent to streets that will serve the project, the change in roadway noise along these streets was determined. Due to other planned development in the area which has already been approved, there will be an increase in traffic in the surrounding area with or without the proposed project. The change in noise was calculated for these roadways and is shown in Table 24. Columns I and 2 show the existing noise levels and noise levels attributed by the existing plus the proposed project at 100 feet from the centerline of the roadways. Column 3 shows the dBA change in noise levels solely attributable by the proposed project. 178 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE A -Weighted Sound Level (dBA) at 50 feet Source: "Handbook of Noise Control," by Cyril Harris, 1979. Figure 38 VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 179 PLANNING CONSORTIUM U i NlN -F RommchlLL MUM Compact (rollers) Front loaders Backhoes Tractors Scrapers, graders Pavers Trucks Concrete mixers Concrete pumps Cranes (movable) Cranes (derrick) Pumps Generators Compressors Pneumatic wrenches Jackhammers and drills Pile drivers (peak levels). Vibrators Saws Source: "Handbook of Noise Control," by Cyril Harris, 1979. Figure 38 VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 179 PLANNING CONSORTIUM U i NlN -F RommchlLL MUM TABLE 24 INCREASED NOISE LEVEL (dBA) Roadway CNEL Existing a 100' Exist. + Proj. CNEL a 100' Noise Incr. due to Proiect* Sierra Highway North of Placerita Canyon 69 69 0.1 Placerita Cyn to San Fernando 67 67 0.2 San Fernando to Clampitt 65 67 1.6 Clampitt to Foothill 65 66 0.6 Placerita Canyon West of Sierra Highway 62 62 0.1 East of Sierra Highway 61 61 0.2 San Fernando (SR -126) West of Pine 67 67 0.2 Pine to Sierra Highway 68 68 0.3 Sierra Highway to SR -14 68 69 0.5 State Route 14 (SR -14) North of San Fernando 82 82 0.1 South of San Fernando 80 82 0.1 * Measured in DBA In community noise assessment changes, noise levels greater than 3 DBA are often identified as significant, while changes less than 1 DBA will not be discernible to local residents. In the range of 1 to 3 DBA residents who are very sensitive to noise may perceive a slight change. No scientific evidence is available to support the use of 3 DBA as the significance threshold. In laboratory testing situations, humans are able to detect noise level changes of slightly less than 1 DBA. However, in a community noise situation, the noise exposure is over a long time period, and changes in noise levels occur over years, rather than the immediate comparison made in a laboratory situation. Therefore, the level at which changes in community noise levels become discernible is likely to be some value greater than I DBA and 3 DBA appears to be appropriate for most people. The data indicate that the proposed project will contribute slightly to the noise levels in the area. The largestnoise. increase of 1.6 DBA occurs on Siena Highway due to the proposed project. This indicates that the noise levels at 100 feet from the roadway's centerline will increase from about 65 to 67 dBA. The proposed land uses adjacent to Sierra Highway in the project area are commercial and industrial developments. The remainder of the major roadways shown in Table 24 have noise increase of less than 1 dBA. This means that the future noise levels will generally be up to 1 dBA higher than the existing noise levels due to the proposed project. The future noise increase due solely to the project in Column 2 are all less than 3 dBA. The project by itself will contribute slightly, but insignificantly, to the existing and future traffic noise sources in this region. 180 1_l 1 I Traffic Noise Levels On -Site Traffic volumes reported in the traffic study were used with the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Model to project future unmitigated noise levels for. all of the roadways. The modeling results are reported in Table 25 in the form of distances to the 60, 65 and 70 CNEL contours. Table 25 presents the future noise levels with the proposed project. ' These. projections do not take into account any barriers or topography that may reduce noise levels. The on-site CNEL noise contours are also shown in Figure 39. The data in Table 25 indicates that areas adjacent to Placerita Canyon will experience ' noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL. Areas along Sierra Highway; State Route 14 and San Fernando Road will experience noise levels in excess of 70 CNEL. The future noise levels adjacent to the major roadways will be significant. TABLE 25 FUTURE NOISE LEVELS (dBA) Distance to CNEL Contour From Centerline of Roadway (Feet) Roadway 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL 181 Sierra Highway ' North of Placerita Canyon 106 228 492 Placerita Cyn to San Fernando 106 227 490 e San Fernando to Clampitt 129 277 597 Clampitt to Foothill 136 293 631 Placerita Canyon ' West of Sierra Highway 43 93 201 East of Sierra Highway RW 78 167 San Fernando (SR -126) West of Pine 96 208 448 Pine to Sierra Highway 108 232 500 Sierra Highway to SR -14 133 287 617 State Route 14 (SR -14) ' North of San Fernando 559 1204 2593 South of San Fernando 616 1327 2859 RW - Contour falls inside the roadway right-of-way The results in Table 25 indicate that the proposed residential buildings along Sierra Highway could be exposed to noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL. According to the Noise ' and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines (Figure 37), residential buildings inside the 65 CNEL are "conditionally acceptable". New constriction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement is made and 1 needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally 1 suffice. The results in Table 25 indicate that the proposed commercial buildings along State Route ' 14 and Sierra Highway will be exposed to high levels of traffic noise. The proposed 181 N ON-SITE CNEL NOISE CONTOURS Y•' fit..••' r _ _ I/ �Q i \ I /-Fcp [•\` v I y� t— ' 70CNE a• �I p ( �'_'_ I.c •. a may- •� �7 <S rr 70 CN Q ..'^'� %i Eesti:. ,• : �.� '� ar VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 Figure 39 TIJE PLANNING CONSORTIUM I R MN-EWRONM WN SIM" ' buildings along these highways could be exposed to noise levels in excess of 70 CNEL. The nearest commercial building could experience traffic noise levels a high as 74 CNEL. According to the Noise and Land Use Noise Compatibility Guidelines, commercial ' buildings inside the 70 CNEL are "conditionally acceptable". New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. 1 Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. ' 4.8.3 MITIGATION MEASURES Short -Term Construction Noise ' Construction shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:30 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Saturday and shall otherwise comply with City noise regulations. ' Construction shall not be allowed on Sundays or federal holidays. Off -Site Noise The proposed land uses adjacent or near to the project site are residential, commercial and industrial. The potential off-site noise impacts due to the proposed project on these land uses, however, will not be significant. Noise levels in the surrounding areas will increase substantially in years to come. However, the increases are due to regional development, and the proposed project by itself will contribute slightly, but insignificantly to the ultimate future noise levels. On -Site Noise The City of Santa Clarita does not have any specific indoor noise standards for commercial uses. However, general guidelines. recommend that the indoor noise environment of commercial buildings not exceed 50 CNEL. Therefore, we recommend a 50 CNEL 1 indoor noise criteria be applied to the commercial buildings in the project. All commercial uses inside the 70 CNEL noise contours may require special construction ' mitigation measures for the commercial buildings. All commercial buildings on the project site shall be designed to not exceed 50 CNEL for interior noise environments. ' According to the noise contours in Figure 39, the residential buildings along Sierra Highway will potentially experience noise levels in excess of 65 CNEL. An acoustical report will be required for these proposed homes to address mitigation measures necessary ' to meet the indoor noise criteria of 45 CNEL for the homes, and the outdoor noise criteria of 65 CNEL for the outdoor living areas. ' 4.8.4 ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE Short-term construction noise and increased traffic. noise resulting from the proposed ' project increase off-site noise levels by less than 2 dBA, and are not considered significant. With the incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures presented above, the i' proposed project will not create or be impacted by significant adverse noise levels. In addition, existing and future surrounding land uses will not be adversely effected by noise levels generated by the proposed project. 183 4.9 4.9.1 INFRASTRUCTURE, UTILITIES AND ENERGY CONSERVATION Infrastructure, utilities and energy conservation devices analyzed in this section of the report include water, sewer, solid waste, electricity, natural gas, and telephone. EXISTING CONDITIONS Infrastructure and Utilities Water - The project site is located within the service area of the Newhall County Water District, one of four retail water purveyors serving the Santa Clarita Valley. NCWD obtains all of its water supply from the Castaic Lake Water Agency, imported in turn from the state Water Project and groundwater pumped from the upper alluvial aquifer. The water is filtrated, treated, and sold by CLWA on a wholesale basis to NCWD. NCWD is prepared to comply with regional water conservation measures, due to drought conditions which may periodically affect the quantity of water available from the State. Existing water service on-site is limited to a small, 6 -inch private water line which carries water to several storage tanks on the property from a meter and pressure booster station located approximately 0.3 miles north of the site west of Sierra Highway. The nearest major connection point into the District water system is a 12 -inch water main located under the intersection of San Fernando Road and Sierra Highway. The area's elevation above the supplying reservoir, however, has resulted in a severe shortage of water pressure. Accordingly, simple connection or minor improvements to this location are considered insufficient to provide safe and adequate supplies of water to the project. In addition to the above, a unique feature of the project site is that a major segment of the Second Los Angeles Aqueduct runs underground across the site from the northwest to the southeast. The aqueduct originates at the Owens Valley, located approximately 175 miles northwest of the project site, and flows south to the Upper Van Norman Reservoir, approximately two miles southeast of the project site in the northern San Fernando Valley. The aqueduct measures approximately 78" in diameter, and runs at a depth of 5 to 6 feet below the surface across most of the project site. The aqueduct enters the property at the intersection of Sierra Highway and Remsen Street, follows the centerline of Remsen Street past the Southern California Edison Company transmission line right-of-way, and then runs due south, exiting the project site and continuing under the intersection of Sierra Highway and the Antelope Valley (SR 14) Freeway. The portion of the aqueduct located south of Remsen Street is contained within a 50 foot wide easement that widens to 150 feet at two points used for repair and aeration access. Sewer - Sanitary sewer service to the area is provided by the County of Los Angeles Sanitation District No. 32, which serves the Newhall and Valencia areas of the community. District No. 32 operates the Valencia Water Reclamation Plant, and provides tertiary treatment -- filtered chlorination, dechlorination, and pressed filtering —to sewage prior to release into the Santa Clarita River. The Valencia Plant maintains a capacity of 7.5 million gallons per day (MGD), with a projected increase to 10.8 MGD by 1994. Currently, the County Sanitation District is pursuing preliminary plans for an additional reclamation plant to supplement existing facilities in Valencia and Saugus. The project site is not currently served by sanitary sewer service, and is dependent rather on internal septic tank service. An application is presently pending before the County of 184 II ' Los Angeles Sanitation Districts requesting formal annexation of the project site into District No. 32. The Sanitation District has, however, issued a "will serve" letter to the applicant dated March 4, 1992, confirming their ability to provide sanitary sewer service I' to the site, pending the construction of the appropriate internal and external infrastructure, and confirming the availability of treatment capacity to serve the project. The nearest connection point into the County system is a 10 -inch sewer main located under the ' intersection of San Fernando Road and Sierra Highway, approximately 0.5 miles north of the project site. Future development of the site, will therefore necessitate construction of a connecting sewer main running northward along Sierra Highway to San Fernando Road. Solid Waste - Solid waste disposal service to the site is provided by Blue Barrel Disposal. Waste is hauled to the Chiquita Canyon landfill, located approximately 8 miles northwest of the project site. The landfill serves a large portion of the Santa Clarita Valley, and currently takes in an average of 1,200 tons of waste per day. Total capacity is 5,000 tons per day. Chiquita Canyon is permitted for operation through 1997, and is pending approval for a landfill expansion -for operation through the year 2012. In response to demand on existing landfills and the diminishing availability of new sites, the California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) was passed in 1989. The bill requires every city and county in California to reduce their solid wastes generated by 25% by the year 1995 and 50% by the year 2000. In response to the legislation, the City of Santa Clarita has developed comprehensive policies and procedures for source reduction, recycling, composting, and solid waste disposal. Development of the site will be subject to the consideration of these issues. El tri i - The project site is within the service area of the Valencia District of the Southern California Edison Company (SCE). The site is well -served by electric service, and is bisected by a 150 -foot wide electrical transmission right-of-way, containing two parallel, elevated, high-tension transmission wires. These lines are part of the Southern California Edison Pardee/Sylmar transmission line system, which extends from the Pardee Substation located 7.5 miles northwest of the site in Valencia, southeast to its termination at the Sylmar Substation. Electrical service to the project site is provided via above -ground lines originating from the Lyons Avenue Substation, located_ approximately 3.0 miles west of the property, running south down Sierra Highway, and continuing along Remsen Street into a large underground substation adjacent to the SCE right-of-way. The electric lines then continue adjacent to Clampitt Road, exiting at Sierra Highway and continuing south. Natural Gas - Natural gas service to the area is provided exclusively by the Southern California Gas Company. The site is located within the Valencia District of the Gas Company's Foothill Division. The Division's boundaries include all of the City of Santa Clarita, and unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County directly to the south and east of the City of Santa Clarita. Existing natural gas infrastructure facilities in and surrounding the site include an active 12 -inch line running north to south below Sierra Highway, an abandoned 26 -inch line that runs northwest to southeast below the Southern California Edison right-of-way, an active 12 -inch line that runs northwest to southeast across the northern half of the site below the Remsen Street right-of-way, and an abandoned 4 -inch distribution line that runs northeast 185 to southwest below the Clampitt Road right-of-way. In addition, the Gas Company has advised that two other major lines formerly crossed through the project site running off of Sierra Highway and over the southern portion of the site. These lines were abandoned "in place" some time ago; however since the Southern California Gas Company does not retain any records of facilities once abandoned, the exact locations and routes of the lines cannot be determined without excavation. The safety of abandoned lines is assured by the Southern California Gas Company by the removal of all above -ground structures and accessories, and the cleaning and sealing of all below -ground structures and facilities. Telephone - The project site is located within Pac Telephone lines are located along Sierra Highway, adjacent to the site. The site is located within the Cellular and LA Cellular telephone companies. 4.9.2 IMPACTS Infrastructure and Utilities ific Bell's telephone service area. on existing SCE telephone poles cellular service area of the PacTel Water - The Newhall County Water District (NCWD) has indicated that although it maintains adequate supplies to serve the property, simple connection to existing lines in the area will not provide sufficient water supplies to the project due to a shortage of water pressure. The project could consume approximately 140,000 gallons of water per day, or 157 acre feet per year. This is based upon the estimated number of employees within the proposed project and the area of irrigated landscaping. Water consumption could increase significantly if specific, water -consuming uses are allowed in the commercial buildings. Water consumption for irrigation could be reduced if drought -tolerant plants and tree species are used, or if reclaimed water is used for irrigation. The cost of constructing a major new pressure boosting system and adequate water main connecting to the existing water main under San Fernando Road and Sierra Highway may well be prohibitive. Accordingly, an effort is presently underway by a group of property owners in the area, including the project applicant, to design and construct a "communal" water service system, whose cost of construction and installation would be shared by these parties in a private "assessment district". It is expected that this system would include a supply line and series of storage tanks and booster stations running east from an existing NCWD supply, down onto Sierra Highway. A connection line would then run from this trunk line in Sierra Highway along Remsen Street and Clampitt Road, serving and connecting to the individual parcels located within the proposed project site. Business park buildings at the northern tip of the project site (Lots 32, 33 and 34) lie either on, or directly adjacent to the easement for the Los Angeles Aqueduct No. 2. Existing Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) regulations prevent the construction of structures above or in close proximity to the Los Angeles Aqueduct easement. This will limit construction proposed in and around the easement. Relocation of the aqueduct easement would add significant cost and complications to any potential relocation or realignment of the Remsen Street or Clampitt Road Tights -of -way. 186 II ' The proposed project has the following options: 1) Obtain permission from LADWP to construct structures above, and in close II' proximity to the aqueduct easement. 2) Obtain permission from LADWP to relocate the aqueduct and easement to ' the new alignment of Remsen Street. 3) Leave the Remsen Street alignment, and its intersection with Sierra Highway in its current location that coincides with the aqueduct easement. 4) Redesign the proposed site plan to avoid the placement of buildings on the 1 aqueduct for Lots 32, 33 and 34. Options 1 and 2 may prove difficult to obtain and/or costly. Option 3 would result in the ' formalization of a substandard intersection with a dangerous angle of 45 degrees. The new alignment of Remsen Street is necessary to meet intersection safety standards required by the City's Municipal Code. Sewer - The proposed project could generate approximately 87,500 to 176,000 gallons per day in sewer flows. This information is also based on estimated employees and could vary significantly if specific water -consuming uses are included within the project. In a manner similar to that described in the preceding water section, an effort is presently ' underway by a group of property owners in the area, including the project applicant, to design and construct a "communal" sewer system in a private "assessment district". It is expected that this system would include an 8 -inch or. 10 -inch line running south down Sierra Highway from the existing connection point under the intersection of Sierra Highway and San Fernando Road. A connection line would also run along Remsen Street and Clampitt Road, to service the individual parcels within the project. Should annexation into Sanitation District No. 32 be approved, there is currently adequate sewer capacity in the District's main sewer line, and within the sewer treatment plant and outfall line for the additional flows generated by the project. I' Solid Waste - The project will generate approximately 3.4 tons of solid waste per day. Blue Barrel Disposal has indicated they have adequate equipment and personnel to serve ' the proposed project. There is also adequate capacity in the Chiquita Canyon Landfill to serve the proposed project for the next five years, with expansion pending for operation through the year 2012. ' Due to the significant amount of solid waste anticipated to be generated on site, a waste management plan shall be required during project permitting to minimize the amount of ' solid waste generated. This plan shall identify measures which reduce refuse and encourage or facilitate recycling, such as large trash enclosures to accommodate recycling containers. 'IE ectricity - Southern California Edison reports that the capacity and physical condition of the poles, lines, and underground electrical substation located on the site are excellent, and will easily provide sufficient power to the project site, regardless of the amount of 1 187 PROJECT SITE MAGNATIC RADIATION CHARACTERISTICS NORTH Envieom Corporation 0 Feet z0 400, Land Planning ° Emironmental Assessment ° Regulatory Compliance W WIN 1W City of Santa Clarita, California Figure 40 VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PM LANNING MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 CONSORTIU LNN RANf,'0i0 • CMROMMEtRAL 511100:5 188 type of development that may occur on site in the future. It is estimated that the project could consume approximately 54,600 kWH of electricity each day or close to 20 million kWH annually. Based on recent scientific research from many public and private researchers, it has generally been confirmed that electromagnetic fields of similar type to those associated with overhead power tines may be detrimental to public health; especially pregnant women and younger children. The specific long-term health effects from exposure to such fields have yet to be scientifically validated and quantified and as such are still under intensive research. In order to evaluate the implications of these power lines on future development of the property, field measurements of electromagnetic fields were taken by Envicom Corporation staff in January and February, 1991, using a Holaday HI -3604 ELF Measurement System (gauss meter). A total of 63 separate locations within the site were measured relative to the magnetic radiation component. Field measurements were concentrated in and around the elevated Southern California Edison transmission line right-of-way. Readings were also taken at several more distant locations from the right-of-way, to determine potential aberrations or "hot spots" in background readings at these locations. The measurements derived at these locations and contours of equal exposure are depicted on Figure 40. Contours have been shown out to the 1.0 milligauss level reading. Field studies indicate readings within a range of those considered acceptable based upon exposure to magnetic radiation under "everyday living" conditions near the edge of the right-of-way on the southern side of the transmission corridor and approximately 50-75 feet beyond the 150 foot width right-of-way on the northern side. The triangle area formed by the transmission line right-of-way, Clampitt Road right-of- way, and the eastern property line boundary exhibited higher readings than would have been expected in the range of 3.8 milligauss. The readings in this area are likely to have been skewed by the location of a large 600 kilovolt below -ground electrical substation which constitutes an additive factor to readings resulting from the overhead power lines. However, this substation was removed in 1992. Therefore, these high levels of electromagnetic radiation no longer exist. Project grading encroaches into property owned in fee by Southern California Edison. Approval of this encroachment is required by the property owner SCE) prior to the commencement of grading in these areas. Natural Gas - The Southern California Gas Company reports that the physical condition and capacity of their facilities in the area are adequate to serve any development that may occur on the project site, with the addition of small, 4 -inch or 6 -inch distribution lines to individual structures. It is estimated that the project could consume approximately 79,400 cubic feet of natural gas a day, or close to 29 million cubic feet annually. The availability of natural gas service is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under ' the jurisdiction of federal and sate regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any 1 189 1M7g1 action which affects gas service will be provided impacts are anticipated. supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas , in accordance with revised conditions; however, no adverse Telephone - Pacific Bell has indicated that they expect to be able to provide telephone service to the site in accordance with the requirements of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and at rates and charges specified in its tariffs with the CPUC. The existing telephone line infrastructure is located adjacent to the project site and can be extended into the proposeddevelopment without significant improvements. Pacific Bell has adequate facilities and services to provide telephone service to the proposed development. There is adequate cellular telephone service provided by PacTel Cellular and LA Cellular, approved by the CPUC in the vicinity of the project site. MITIGATION MEASURES Infrastructure and Utilities Water Prior to the issuance of a Site Development Permit, the applicant shall accomplish one of the following options: a. Obtain permission from LADWP to construct structures above, and in close proximity to the aqueduct easement. b. Obtain permission from LADWP to relocate the aqueduct and easement to the new required alignment of Remsen Street. C. Redesign the proposed site plan for lots 32, 33 and 34 to avoid the placement of structures on, or close to the aqueduct easement. 2. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant shall file a statement from the water purveyor with the City Engineer that states the water system will be operated by that purveyor, and that under normal operating conditions, the necessary quantities of water will be available, the system will meet the requirements for land division, and that water service will be provided to each lot. The statement shall also verify there is adequate water storage capacity in the area to meet all fire flow requirements. 3. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant shall obtain approval from the Fire Department and the City Engineer of a.water infrastructure plan that demonstrates all lots will be served with adequately sized water system facilities, including fire hydrants, of sufficient size to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows required for the land subdivision. Domestic flow requirements shall be determined by the City Engineer or water agency. Fire flow requirements shall be determined by the Fire Chief. 190 4. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain approval of a final water infrastructure plan by the Newhall County Water District (NCWD). The plan shall include establishment of a private "assessment district", the members of which shall bear the cost of system construction and installation. S. The water infrastructure plan shall provide for a supply line and series of storage tanks and booster. stations running east from the existing NCWD supply located west of the Gates property (near the existing Pine Street right-of-way), down onto Sierra Highway, and serving all properties participating in the private "assessment district", to the south and west of this point. A connection line will run from this trunk line in Sierra.Highway along Remsen Street and Clampitt Road, serving the individual parcels on site. A separate water line shall be constructed that will allow for the use of reclaimed water for landscape irrigation purposes. Reclaimed water shall be utilized for landscape irrigation as soon as it is made available by NCWD to the project site. 6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Fire Department shall approve a final water infrastructure plan that adequately provides required fire flow and fire hydrants within the project site. 7. The project applicant shall pay all water connection fees to NCWD per the District's current requirements. 8. Water conservation measures required to be incorporated within the project include: Sewer a. Low -flush toilets (see Section 17921 of the Health and Safety Code). b. Low -flow showers and faucets (California Administrative. Code, Title 24, Part 6, Article 1, T20 -1406F). C. Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems (California Energy Commission regulations). Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain approval of a final sanitary sewer infrastructure plan by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District No. 32 and the City of Santa Clarita. This plan shall include establishment of a private "assessment district", the members of which shall bear the cost of system construction and installation. All sewer pipe sizes shall be based upon a sewer area study approved by LACSD 32 and the City. 2. The sanitary sewer plan shall provide for an off-site 8 -inch or 10 -inch line running ' south down Sierra Highway from the existing connection point under the intersection of Sierra Highway and San Fernando Road. A connection line will run along Remsen Street and Clampitt Road, to serve the individual parcels on site. ' 3. The project applicant shall pay all sewer connection fees to the Los Angeles County Sanitation District No. 32 per District requirements. 191 The subdivider shall install and dedicate main line sewers and serve each lot with a separate house lateral or have approved and bonded sewer plans on file with the City Engineer. The applicant shall pay ordinance frontage charges before filing this land division map. The applicant shall pay sewer reimbursement charges as determined by the City Engineer or the County of Los Angeles prior to the recordation of the final map. 5. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the applicant shall offer for dedication easements to the City, appropriate agency or entity for the purpose of ingress, egress, construction and maintenance of all infrastructure constructed for this land division to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Easements are tentatively required over private streets, subject to review by the City Engineer to determine the final locations and requirements. 6. The discharge of sewage from this land division into the public sewer system shall not violate the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code. 7. Prior to the issuance of the first grading permit, the applicant shall obtain approval of annexation to County Sanitation District No. 32. Solid Waste All trash shall be stored within enclosed facilities screened from view from surrounding land uses and from adjacent streets and freeways. 2. A waste management plan, to minimize the amount of solid waste generated, shall be required prior to approval of a Site Development Permit. Electricity - Project design must meet State Title 24 requirements to minimize electricity consumption. All electric services and facilities, with the exception of the existing transmission lines within the right-of-way, shall be underground and shall be built in accordance with the Southern California Edison Company's policies and extension rules, as regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Design plans shall show the location of all existing buried and overhead utilities in the vicinity of the project site. Contract specifications shall require coordination with SCE prior to the commencement of construction to ensure existing underground and overhead electrical facilities are not affected. Prior to the issuance of a Site Development Permit, the Community Development Department shall approve a detailed analysis of measured electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emanating from Southern California Edison's overhead high-power electrical transmission lines, and all other sources of electromagnetic radiation. The study shall identify the exposure levels in relation to the proposed development and focus potential adverse biological effects that could result from those levels. The study shall demonstrate exposure levels meet all American National Standards Institute (ANSI) recommendations for safe exposure levels of EMR, prior to the issuance of a Site Development Permit. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, an Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from Southern California Edison Company that allows grading on SCE property adjacent to the proposed development area. 192 ' Natural Gas - Project design must meet State Title 24 requirements to minimize natural gas consumption. All natural gas facilities shall be built in accordance with the Southern California Gas Company's policies and extension rules, as regulated by the CPUC and other Federal regulatory agencies. Contract specifications shall require coordination with Southern California Gas Company prior to the commencement of construction to ensure existing underground natural gas lines are not affected. Telephone - All telephone service and facilities shall be underground, and shall be built in accordance with the Pacific Bell Company's policies and extension rules, as regulated by the CPUC. Contract specifications shall require coordination with Pacific Bell prior to the commencement of construction to ensure existing overhead and underground telephone lines are not affected. i4.9.4 ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE Development of the proposed project could result in potentially significant infrastructure and utilities impacts. The project will incrementally increase the demand for water, sewer capacity, solid waste disposal, electricity, natural gas and other public utilities. Mitigation measures identified in Section 4.9.3 would reduce potentially significant infrastructure and utility impacts to a less than significant level. 193 4.10 PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES Public services analyzed in this section of the report include police protection, fire and emergency medical protection, public transportation, schools, libraries, and medical facilities. Park and recreation facilities are analyzed separately in the General Plan, Zoning Code, and Subdivision Code Section of this report (Section 4.11). 4.10.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Police Protection - The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department currently provides law enforcement service under contract with the City of Santa Clarita to the project site. The City and adjacent County area is served by one station located at 23740 West Magic Mountain Parkway in Valencia, approximately five miles to the northwest. The station provides 117 sworn officers, approximately 38 secretarial and clerical employees, and 232 volunteers. 48 mobile units and one helicopter are available for dispatch. Other support services, including special investigations, correction, forensic and coroner services, are available to the City as needs dictate. The ratio of sworn officers to the population is approximately one officer for every 1,007 persons. The targeted response time for emergency calls is 5 to 10 minutes, and 25 minutes for non -emergency calls. Fire And Emergency Medical Protection - The Los Angeles County Fire Department currently provides fire protection and emergency medical service to the City of Santa Clarita and its surrounding planning area through a Consolidated Fire Protection District. The four closest stations to the site are identified in Table 26. They are located from 2- 1/2 to 6 miles away and have an emergency response time ranging from 5 to 12 minutes. 194 TABLE 26 FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES Distance from Project Station Site umber Address Miles(Minutes Eguirment ersonnel 73 24875 San Fernando 2-1/2 5 1 Eng. Co. 4 Full-time Road, Valencia Firefighters 1 Paramedic Squad 107 18239 Soledad 5 10 2 Eng. Cos. 8 Full-time . Canyon Road, Firefighters Canyon Country 1 Paramedic Squad 123 26321 Sand Canyon 6 12 1 Eng. Co. 4 Full-time Rd., Sand Canyon Firefighters 124 25111 Pico Canyon 6 12 1 Eng. Co. 5 Full-time Road, Newhall/ Firefighters Valencia 194 rl ' In addition to these stations, the Los Angeles County Fire Department has resources available to provide backup services to Santa Clarita as necessary. These resources include 131 engine companies, 20 truck companies, 38 paramedic squads, 2 hazardous ' material squads, 6 firefighting helicopters, 6 other fire camps, and a variety of specialty equipment. The U.S. Forest Service provides seasonal service to the nearby Angeles National Forest wildland area, as well. tPublic Transportation -The project site is currently located outside the service area of the Santa Clarita Transit District (SCTD). The nearest pick-up point for available public transportation is located at the intersection of Sierra Highway and San Fernando Road, approximately 0.6 miles north of the project site. Routes 50 and 55 serve this location, with service from San Fernando Road to Sierra Highway, Soledad Canyon Road and ' Valencia Boulevard, back to San Fernando Road. These routes operate from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM on 60 minute intervals both weekdays and Saturdays. No service is scheduled on Sundays or holidays. Regional transportation service connecting the Santa Clarita ' Valley with the Los Angeles Basin is provided via the Metrolink Commuter Rail Line. The nearest station is located on Soledad Canyon Road adjacent to the Saugus Speedway. School - The project site is served by the Newhall School.District and the William S. ' Hart High School District. School financing mechanisms for new development are limited to the provisions of AB 2926. Libraries - The project site is served by the Los Angeles County Public Library System. The closest branch library is located at 22704 West 9th Street in Newhall. This branch, however, has inadequate space in relationship to its collection size. To date, the Los ' Angeles County Public Library system has not established impact fees for new development. Medical Facilities - Henry Mayo Newhall Memorial Hospital provides community health care for the Santa Clarita area. Six outpatient centers are located throughout the Valley. The hospital is located at 23845 W. McBean Parkway, approximately five miles northwest ' of the project site. Facilities include 250 beds with specialized services, and a 100,000 square foot ambulatory care center. Ambulance response time to the project site is within 5 minutes. Newhall Community Hospital, located at 24237 San Fernando Road, two miles northwest of the project site, has 9 beds available for additional health care services. 4.10.2 IMPACTS I' Police Protection - The proposed project will incrementally impact law enforcement services. An estimated 2,576 permanent full-time jobs are forecasted to be created by the project (based on an industry standard generation ratio of one permanent job for each 500 gross square feet of developed business park space and one permanent job for each 250 gross square feet of developed corporate headquarters space). This will result in an increased residential population in the surrounding area, as well as additional traffic and ' the potential for new emergency and non -emergency responses to the development. Fire Protection - 1. The proposed project will not necessitate the construction of an additional fire station, or require the acquisition of special fire fighting equipment. However, the 1 195 2. 4. 5. RM 7 project could incrementally increase the number of incidents responded to by fire department and paramedic personnel. The project will contribute to the cumulative need for additional manpower and equipment to maintain adequate service levels. The possibility of simultaneous and greater alarm incidents is also increased incrementally. The project will require water infrastructure improvements that meet all fire flow requirements. Combustible construction prior to the water infrastructure being completed could create significant fire safety hazards. Underground water piping for automatic fire sprinkler systems must meet Uniform Fire Code Requirements. Proposed roadway widths less than 36 feet onsite could restrict emergency fire equipment access if curb parking is allowed. Uniform Fire Code regulations require "blue reflective pavement markers" at fire hydrant locations for improved visual access to these facilities at night. Hazardous materials that might be contained within the proposed project could create additional health risks for fire fighters and others surrounding the project site. Public Transportation - Implementation of the proposed project will create the need for Santa Clarita Transit to extend public transportation services to the project site. The closest bus stop is currently located at the intersection of Sierra Highway and San Fernando Road, approximately 0.6 miles north of the project. Dial -A -Ride service is available to seniors and the disabled in this area. Because of the project's location in the extreme southern part of the City, and limited funding forpublictransportation, Santa Clarita does not have the financial resources to expand public transportation bus service to the project site. Schools - Any new development within the boundaries of the Newhall School District (NSD) and William S. Hart High School District (WHSD) creates an incremental need for classrooms and other school, facilities. Although the project does not directly generate additional students, State law allows school districts to assess capital facility improvement fees for new development. WHSD collects all fees and distributes them as applicable to the elementary school district. WHSD's current impact fees are 27 cents per square foot for commercial development, and $2.58 per square foot for residential. Based on the current fee schedule, the proposed project would be subject to a school impact fee of $251,545 for its commercial component and $42,725 for its residential portion. Libraries - the Los Angeles County Library system has not adopted facility impact fees for development. The project site will be adequately served by existing facilities in the Santa Clarita Valley. Medical Facilities - Implementation of the proposed project will not adversely impact the existing medical facilities in the surrounding Santa Clarita area. There are adequate 196 II emergency medical facilities and ambulance transportation systems in the immediate vicinity should a medical emergency arise within the project. 4.10.3 MITIGATION MEASURES Police Protection - The project shall obtain approval of a security plan and lighting plan ' from the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department prior to the issuance of building permits, to minimize the potential for vandalism and burglary. ' Fire Protection - 1. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay all Fire Station fees required by the County of Los Angeles and the City of Santa Clarita. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, water improvement plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Chief for adequate fire protection, and ' financial security posted for the installation. The adequacy and reliability of water system design, location of valves, and the distribution of fire hydrants shall be evaluated and approved by the Fire Chief. 3. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for combustible construction, evidence that a water supply for fire protection is available, and shall be submitted to, and approved by the Fire Chief. Fire hydrants shall be in place and operational to meet ' requirements and fire flow prior to commencing construction with combustible materials. 4. Prior to issuance of any building permits, all underground piping for automatic fire extinguisher systems shall be approved. Plans for an automatic fire extinguishing system shall be approved by the Fie Chief prior to installation. Such systems shall be operational prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy. 5. Prior to the issuance of any certificates of use and occupancy, all street(s) having a curb width of less than 36' shall be red -curbed and posted "No Parking - Fire Lane" as per the 1988 Uniform Fire Code Section 10.207 in a manner meeting the ' approval of the County Fire Chief, or shall be widened to provide 36' of travelway, curb to curb, within a 48' right-of-way, in a manner meeting the approval of the Community Development Director. 6. Prior to the issuance of any certificates of use and occupancy, all fire hydrants shall have a "Blue Reflective Pavement Marker" indicating its location on the street or drive per Los Angeles County Fire Department standards. 7. The project shall comply with all Uniform Fire Code requirements related to hazardous materials. Public Trans o2 rtation - Prior to the issuance of a Site Development Permit, the Santa Clarita Transit Transportation Manager shall approve a Transportation Management Agreement (TMA) for extending public bus transportation to the project site. The TMA shall contain a commitment for extending public transportation services to the project site through one' of the following options: II 1 197 4.10.4 1. The owners, and ultimately the project's Transportation Management Authority shall provide funding to Santa Clarita Transit to acquire one bus and annual funding to support 3,100 hours of additional transit service per year. 2. The owners shall enter into a multi-year contract with Santa Clarita Transit for extending public bus transportation service to the project site. 3. The owners shall establish private bus shuttle service acceptable to Santa Clarita Transit and the City of Santa Clarita. Prior to the issuance of a Site Development Permit, the Santa Clarita Transit Transportation Manager shall review and approve all circulation plans to ensure project design allows for efficient transit routing and good pedestrian access. Schools - Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay the required capital facilities improvement fee to the Newhall School District and the William S. Hart High School District. ibrari - No mitigation measures are required. Medical Facilities - No mitigation measures are required. ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE Development of the proposed project could result in potentially significant public service and facility impacts. The project will incrementally increase the demand on police and fire protection services, and other public services and facilities. Mitigation measures identified in Section 4.10.3 will reduce potentially significant public service and facility impacts to a less than significant level. 198 4.11 GENERAL PLAN, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AND LAND USE 4.11.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS General Plan The City of Santa Clarita adopted a new comprehensive General Plan in June 1991. The document sets forth current land use policy, as well as issues, objectives, goals, and policies for the direction of development within the City of Santa Clarita and the surrounding area. The General Plan Land Use Map indicates the project site is designated as a "Business Park" land use. Desired uses within the Business Park (BP) category are stated as follows in the General Plan: "Business Park (BP) category is to provide areas for clean industry, offices related to.the industrial usage, research and development, limited retail commercial. It encourages the provision of employee recreation opportunities, and warehousing uses for the City. Development in campus -like settings within the City and near major traffic corridors such as I-5 and SR 126 and SR 14 is anticipated. Industrial activities which have a retailing or wholesaling function that is related to the industrial activities are encouraged. These areas of Business Park are expected to provide major employment for the City and the Valley. Development intensity for this category will be governed by floor area ratios ranging between 0.5 and 1.5:1." ' Surrounding General Plan land use designations include Community Commercial (CC), Industrial Commercial (IC), and Open Space (OS) west of the project site, and Community Commercial to the north. The unincorporated Los Angeles County land south of the project has been designated Hillside Management under the County General Plan. This area, as well as the County land east of the Antelope Valley Freeway, lie within the City's planning area and has been designated by the City for Residential Estate (RE) use. ' Figure 41 shows a detail of General Plan Land Use Map for the project site, and the south-central portion of the Santa Clarita Valley. In addition to establishing City land use designations, the General Plan sets forth criteria for the development of hillsides and ridgelines. The City's objective is to protect its integrity, image, and visual quality by minimizing the adverse impacts of grading and site design, and promoting a natural appearance through contour grading, revegetation, and other techniques. Specific standards related to such development are contained in the City Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Guidelines discussed later in this section. ' Unified Development Code ' In December, 1992, the City adopted a Unified Development Code, establishing standards for Zoning, Subdivisions, and Grading within a single, bound document. nin -Because the Valley Gateway project site is located within both the City of Santa 199 Clarita and the County of Los Angeles, existing local zoning includes both City designations and County designations. The northern 89.8 acres of the 116.9 acre property is located within the City of Santa Clarita . Under the existing City Zoning Code, this portion of the site has been designated within the Business Park (BP) Zone. All land uses proposed by the applicant on this portion of the site are permitted within the BP Zone; subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The southern 27.13 acres of the project site are located within the County of Los Angeles. Under the County Zoning Code, this portion of the site has been designated with two different zoning classifications. These include: 1) the 6.5 acre, triangular-shaped area at the far north-western corner of the County portion, designated with an Industry (M) Zone; and 2) the 20.63 acre area of the remainder of the County portion of the site, designated within the Hillside Management (HM) Zone. Residential uses proposed by the applicant on this portion of the site could,be permitted, subject to annexation by the City of Santa Clarita. This area is within the City of Santa Clarita's General Plan planning area, and designated for a Residential Estate (RE) land use. In addition to the Business Park classification, the Zoning Code identifies the property under a Planned Development (PD) Overlay Zone. This designation has been established by the City to facilitate development, and promote more economical and efficient use of the land. Although permitted and conditional uses remain those of the base zone, the development standards for property classified PD are more flexible. The following requirements are minimum unless otherwise stated: 1. Density or coverage Maximum of the Zone in which maximum per net acre the site is located 2. Site area, in acres 3. Front yard setback, in feet 15 4. Side yard setback each side in feet 5 5. Street side yard setback, in feet 10 6. Rear yard setback in feet 10 7. Building height, maximum 35 feet or 2 stories, whichever is less than 50 feet of the exterior boundaries. Maximum height shall be no higher than 50 feet or 4 stories, whichever is less. 8. Site coverage, maximum 5090 or maximum per zone, whichever is greater. 9. Parking spaces per unit, Per Standards in Section 2.11, covered in a garage Development Code 10. Distance between buildings (in feet) 10 99 N O SANTA CLARITA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE v. VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 Tl 11; Figure 41 PLANNING' %-J CP AOAL CC. MMA" Ea 01" 01ACt m, r�- C.-1itw�CN•.M A Arvr. N An WYruL..a Subdivision -The State Subdivision Map Act, supplemented by the Subdivision section of the City Unified Development Code, establishes the requirements for the review and approval of maps for the division of all land within the City of Santa Clarita. A tentative tract map is required for any subdivision of land consisting of more than four lots. The project site currently includes a total of nine parcels. An additional parcel, owned in fee by the Southern California Edison Company, serves as an electrical transmission right- of-way, and is not part of the project. Gradin - The City Unified Development Code, and Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Guidelines, establish grading plans and permits procedures within the City of Santa Clarita. The purpose of these documents is to protect significant ridgelines, promote sensitive hillside development, and ensure appropriate and reasonable grading in accordance with sound engineering and design standards. Please refer to the Landform and Topography Section (4.1) for additional information on grading. A grading permit is required for any grading performed within the City of Santa Clarita. Exceptions provided in the Grading Section of the Unified Development Code do not apply to the project site. Because of the long-time former petroleum extraction and refining facilities and activities that occurred on the property, portions of the project site have already been subject to significant grading activities, including a number of substantial man-made slopes and asphalt -coated slopes (to prevent erosion). Many areas on the property have been previously graded into pads for structures,. which have been removed since the refinery was decommissioned. Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Guidelines The City of Santa Clarita adopted a Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance in March, 1992. This ordinance was supplemented by a set of guidelines to further promote the positive character and image of the City's hillside development. The guidelines provide for sensitive development, maintaining prominent vistas, ridgelines, habitat and landforms. They incorporate recommendations for landscaping, architecture, grading standards and site design. Specific design concepts and standards for hillside projects include the following: A. Earthwork/Landforms Pad Guidelines They have been developed to ensure the blending and reintroduction of manufactured slopes on a lot -by -lot and property wide basis. a. Pads created in hillside areas should have rounded corners. b. Pads should conform to landforms within the site. KIYA c. Pads should be shaped to conform to the landform or the character of the topography. 2. Manufactured Slope Guidelines a. Along a given dimension, the maximum length for any straight horizontal slope should be 500 feet. Slopes over 500 feet should feature smooth transitions to simulate natural terrain. b. A 30' slope height maximum is encouraged for hillside grading wherever practical. 3. Retaining Wall Guidelines Along a public right -of --way or publicly viewed areas, decorative facing and coloring or textual ielief in combination with landscaping should be used on retaining walls to blend in with the natural surroundings. Walls should conform to the topography and be curvilinear in character wherever possible. 4. Drainage Guidelines a. Drainage devices should be screened from the view of public areas. Where visible, such devices are encouraged to incorporate materials ' compatible with the existing terrain, and should blend with the natural topography in character, color and design. Where feasible, underground drains should be utilized. 1 b. Building pads should have a drainage gradient of 2% toward approved drainage facilities or the street unless waived. C. Transitions from natural drainage courses to developed areas should be effected with comparable. landscaping and grading consistent with existing topography. Major detention or retention basins should be designed as visual and/or recreational amenities wherever possible. Concrete drains should be of colored concrete to emulate the natural color of the surrounding ground. 5. Road Guidelines Roads should, wherever practical, complement existing contours and blend in with existing topographic conditions. B. Landscape Guidelines These have been developed to maintain as many existing', large, specimen trees as possible, and to ensure that new planting on slopes and adjacent to existing native material blend with the existing materials with respect to color and texture of foliage. 203 2. 3. Suggested PlantList/Plant Selection A partial list of appropriate plants is provided in the Guidelines. Proposed native and non-native, drought -tolerant materials shall be chosen to be compatible with the existing native plant community. Sculptured Slope Planting Guidelines Sculptured slope planting shall enhance and blend with the contour graded slopes. The selection, design, and placement of plant materials shall provide visual relief both vertically and horizontally. Fire Protection/Fuel Modification Fire protection and fuel modification measures are required where new development is proposed adjacent to undeveloped natural open space. a.. In all areas of vegetation adjacent to residential lots (in all slope categories), a "wet zone" irrigated by a permanent, automatic overhead spray system shall be created. The irrigated wet zone shall be seeded with low -growing plants with a variety of drought - tolerant and fire-resistant species. A list of recommended plant materials is provided in the Guidelines. b. A fuel modification. clearing zone shall be established to separate new development from fire -prone materials. A map indicating these zones shall be submitted as part of the landscape development drawings. Specific zone dimensions are provided in the Guidelines. Erosion Control Sandbagging and all other erosion control measures required by code shall be implemented for all construction. The City Engineer shalt approve an erosion control plan prior to the issuance of the first grading permit. Slope and pads graded and left longer than 90 days (30 days during the October 15 - April 15 rainy season) shall be hydroseeded or planted with non -irrigated materials and allowed to naturalize. Shrubs and trees shall be considered a long-term erosion control measure. Additional slope improvements shall include ground cover for supplemental erosion control. Slope Irrigation Automatic irrigation systems shall be required for all landscaped slope areas and other areas .when an irrigation system is required. rM 6. Slope/Landscape Maintenance Property Owner Associations and Assessment Districts or other acceptable legal entities are required to be set up to guarantee the permanent maintenance of slopes, private rights-of-way, streets and other areas. C. Architecture/Structure 1. Building Envelope/Setback and Height a. Provide a variety of building and lot orientations which help development fit in with the hillside character of the site. Discourage bright white color and "row like" development. b. Provide minimum setbacks of 30 feet from top of slope and an average setback of 30 feet from the edge of the pad where the structure is in public view. Setbacks and building heights shall be varied from the top of 2:1 slopes to maintain ratios of 1.75:1 below significant ridgelines. C. A minimum of 25% of the business park buildings shall be single story when the buildings are in the public view from arterial roads and major public spaces. 2. Building Style The use of hillside adaptive architecture is encouraged on individual custom lots in areas of slopes of 30% or greater. As a general rule, structures have been clustered to respect and adapt to the existing topography. Varying the position of the buildings and varying the sizes of the lots are being utilized. 3. Materials and Color Colors and materials which blend with natural surroundings shall be required, and reinforced with compatible landscaping. 4. Fencing Location and alignment of fences shall conform to the natural topography of the area and be softened with landscaping. ' S. Patios, Pools, Trellises, and Ancillary Structures Residential development containing patios, pools, trellises and ancillary ' structures shall be designed to screen such amenities from public view, or be located within the housing area. ' 6. Water Storage Tanks Water tanks are to be recessed into the land form where possible. Exposed 1 205 portions shall be screened with both trees and shrubs. Please refer to the Aesthetics and View Analysis Section (4.12) for additional information on ridgeline preservation and hillside development requirements. Current Site Land Use The project site is located in the extreme southeastern comer (within the Newhall area) of the City of Santa Clarita. The site is generally bounded by the Antelope Valley (SR 14) Freeway to the east, a small, vacant parcel due north of the intersection of Remsen Street and Sierra Highway (south of San Fernando Road) to the north, Sierra Highway to the west, and a parcel within an unincorporated portion of Los Angeles County to the south. The site is the former location of the Newhall Refinery, which closed and began formal decommissioning in 1989. All former oil wells have been properly abandoned and capped in accordance with applicable State of California Department of Oil & Gas regulations and requirements. Additional existing structures, including administrative offices and facilities, will be removed prior to site development. Surrounding Land Uses Land uses adjacent to, and surrounding the project site are shown in Figure 42, and are summarized as follows: East - Immediately east of the project site is the Antelope Valley (SR 14) Freeway, currently owned and maintained by CalTrans. Land uses east of the Freeway are vacant, and lie within unincorporated Los Angeles County territory. The City has designated this land within its planning area for Residential Estate uses. North - A small, vacant parcel is located immediately north of the project site. Uses further north of the property to San Fernando Road include an automobile repair facility, vacant land, a gasoline station, and a fast food restaurant. West - Sierra Highway bounds the property immediately to the west. Land uses on the west side of Sierra Highway include undeveloped open space, the Eternal Valley mortuary, and miscellaneous light manufacturing facilities. This area is characterized by steep slopes and is therefore subject to substantial development restrictions. South - A vacant parcel lying within unincorporated Los Angeles County borders the project site to the south. This lot is bounded by both Sierra Highway and the SR 14 Freeway, and will likely remain undeveloped due to its steep topography. Jurisdiction The project site is located within both the City of Santa Clarita and the County of Los PT a = = m = = = 111th = m = m = = a m m m m w VgCq� VACANT VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 SURROUNDING LAND USE ?`W RESIDENCE. J�ce VACANT VACANT'4�1 V/��` VACANT' (' ulal % -INDUS SFR � N'j pxC vArp.N'T S VACANT CANYON -VACANT ETERNAL VALLEY MEMORIAL PARK I '— CIM1 IN IAK ANClUS I DwY. IOu'^N=fn1 Figure 42 (Existing surrounding land uses within a 700 linear foot radius,) alanilnlm infnR oil I and wale injatim wwll .yn.alanm upw vacant rym .. —North —� Stale o m ao � lmn Im leoo rtn l"iVrte 4u /uRelnCaxar Au�xw, nn l Tile PLANNING CONSORTIUM w+D nwxNwc • tl+viRORaRrarAl.3rtME3 Angeles. The City area totals 89.8 acres. The unincorporated County area totals 27.13 acres. The City General Plan currently designates the County property as Residential Estate. The project's primary access is from streets located within the City of Santa Clarita, with regional service to these streets provided by the Antelope Valley Freeway, operated by CalTrans. Sewer service will be provided by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District No. 32. Water service will be provided by the Newhall County Water District. Solid waste disposal service to the site is available at the Chiquita Canyon Landfill. Electricity and natural gas services are provided by Southern California Edison and the Southern California Gas Company, respectively. Telephone service is under the jurisdiction of Pacific Bell. The project site is located near the confluence of the Interstate 5 and Antelope Valley Freeways. The City General Plan identifies this location as a desirable location for Business Park uses because of freeway exposure and employment generation. These conditions and impacts have resulted in the property owner's decision to file the required applications with the City of Santa Clarita to allow for business park and commercial office uses. The property owner is processing an application with LAFCO to annex the unincorporated portion of the project site from the County of Los Angeles to the City of Santa Clarita. At the request of the applicant, pre -annexation zoning on the Environmental Impact Report. 4.11.2 IMPACTS the City of Santa Clarita has accepted an application for ' property, and is the Lead Agency preparing this Impacts associated with the proposed project affect six different land use considerations: 1. The consistency of the proposed project with the City General Plan. 2. The consistency of the proposed project land uses with the City Unified Development Code. 3. The consistency of the proposed project site design with the City Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Guidelines. 4. The compatibility of the proposed project with adjacent and surrounding land uses. 5. The compatibility of the project's internal land uses with each other. 6. Project impacts on surrounding jurisdictions. In summary, a total of ten separate preliminary discretionary application or actions related to the prepared project are currently pending or will be pending before the City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles, or State of California. These applications include the 208 (4) A total of 7.8 acres, or 7% of the entire land area of the site, is proposed for corporate headquarters commercial office land uses .(including open space and landscaping areas within individual parcels of lots proposed for corporate headquarters development); and (5) A total of 2.4 acres, or 2% of the entire land area of the site, is proposed for single family attached residential land uses. The residential land use proposed within the County (southern) portion of the project site is currently zoned "HM", Hillside Management, "M", Industrial, and "A-2-1", Heavy Agriculture. The applicant has filed a preannexation zone change request to designate the property "RE" Residential Estate, that allows up to M following: Subdivision Application - City of Santa Clarita Development Agreement Application - City of Santa Clarita Conditional Use Permit Application - City of Santa Clarita Pre -Zoning and Annexation Application - City of Santa Clarity and LAFCO ' Petition for Change of Zone - City of Santa Clarita Oak .Tree Permit Application - City of Santa Clarita Environmental Review - City of Santa Clarita County of Los Angeles Sanitation District Sewer District Annexation - Historic Landmark Registration Application -State Historical Resources ' Commission (approved) Remedial Action Plan - Regional Water Quality Control Board (approved) Analysis of these applications, as -well as other issues related to other issues related to land ' use; including circulation and traffic, noise, and visual impacts are mentioned in this section, but are discussed in detail in their respective sections of this report. ' 1. Consistency with the City General Plan a. The proposed business park project is consistent with those land uses ' allowed within the Business Park classification of the General Plan. Specific use categories are proposed as follows: (1) A total of 52.4 acres, or 45% of the entire land area of the site, is ' proposed exclusively for common open space and natural areas; (2) A total of 44.0 acres, or 37% of the entire land area of the site, is ' proposed for business park uses (including open space and landscaping areas within the individual parcels or lots proposed for business park development); (3) A total of 10.4 acres, or 9% of the entire land area of the site, is t proposed for streets and roadways; (4) A total of 7.8 acres, or 7% of the entire land area of the site, is proposed for corporate headquarters commercial office land uses .(including open space and landscaping areas within individual parcels of lots proposed for corporate headquarters development); and (5) A total of 2.4 acres, or 2% of the entire land area of the site, is proposed for single family attached residential land uses. The residential land use proposed within the County (southern) portion of the project site is currently zoned "HM", Hillside Management, "M", Industrial, and "A-2-1", Heavy Agriculture. The applicant has filed a preannexation zone change request to designate the property "RE" Residential Estate, that allows up to M one unit per 2 acres after it is annexed to the City. The applicant is also requesting to cluster the gross density allowed for the 27.13 acre portion of the'site on an existing disturbed area that was previously used as a water injection well. This 2.4 acre disturbed area is proposed to contain 12 single family attached dwelling units in two, six-plex structures. All residential is located within Parcel 1, which is 104,500 square feet in size. The flat pad for the dwelling units and parking area occupy approximately 21,000 square feet (0.5 acres). The driveway, and the cut slope above the driveway occupy an additional 161000 square feet (0.4 acres). The remaining 67,500 square feet (1.5 acres) would be left undisturbed. This proposed residential land use surrounded by Lot 40, which contains the majority of the open space (36 acres), with the most rugged terrain on the project site. This parcel is also located in close proximity to the historic "Beale's Cut", and to the protected San Fernando Pass ridgeline. Access for the proposed 12 units would be from a 275 -foot driveway (Snow Drive) that is 24 -feet wide and has a grade of 15 percent, directly on to Sierra Highway. The driveway intersection with Sierra Highway has limited site distance to the north, and left turns are currently restricted by a highway median. Because of the location and other development constraints related to the previous water injection well site, alternative land uses may be appropriate for this limited portion of the project site. Other land uses that may be more appropriate include: 1) Undeveloped open space. , 2) Museum/Interpretive Center for the San Fernando Pass, Beale's Cut and other historic places in the area. 3) Fire Station. 4) Public utility facility (electrical substation, water pump station, ' etc.). 5) Business park administrative offices. ' b. The project site design is consistent with that anticipated for business park uses. The structures proposed under the development plan are basically ' centered, arranged, and nestled in "campus -like" or "park -like" settings and patterns around and within the areas of the site which presented themselves most easily for development. ' C. The proposed project is strategically located near two major traffic , corridors: the eight -lane Interstate 5 Freeway which runs north and south, connecting the Los Angeles metropolitan area to the City of Bakersfield and points north; and the six -lane Antelope Valley (14) Freeway running ' 210 1 d. southwest to northeast, connecting Los Angeles to its major northern and northeastern suburbs (the City of Palmdale and the City of Lancaster), and continuing northeast'into the Mojave Desert. The proposed project will provide major employment opportunities to the City and the Santa Clarita Valley. Anticipated benefits are as follows: (1) An improvement in the balance between residential housing and commercial job opportunities within the City. A total of 2,576 permanent full-time jobs are forecast, based on an industry standard generation ratio of one permanent job for each 500 gross square feet of developed business park space, and one permanent job for each 250 gross square feet of developed corporate headquarters space. Based on these figures, the project would increase the existing 40,000 job employment base of the City of Santa Clarita by approximately 6.4%, and would represent a total of approximately 6.1 % of the total local employment base. (2) The jobs provided (service sector business park and corporate office) will extend over the entire range and spectrum of educational and employment levels. (3) Based on average local salary estimates for anticipated jobs, the 2,576 full-time employment opportunities expected to be created by the project will generate a total of approximately $90 million in annual gross salaries. A significant portion of this income will be spent in the local area, generating significant "spin-off" benefits to the local economy and community. (4) The provision of attractive employment opportunities in the local area will likely improve the local jobs -to -housing ratio since a portion of the employees can be expected to reside in the Santa Clarita Valley. To the extent this occurs, new employment will benefit the overall environmental conditions of the City by helping to reduce the number and intensity of long vehicular trips (and resultant air emissions) presently attributed to long distance commuters who live within the Santa Clarita area but most presently travel significant distances to their jobs. e. The proposed development density is consistent with allowable floor area ratios established by the General Plan. The project proposes to develop 931,650 gross square feet of commercial development on the 3,315,575 square feet of land zoned for business park/commercial use. This results in a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.28, well below the range of 0.5 to 1.5:1 set forth in the General Plan, and below that allowed by the average cross slope analysis (0.40). 211 2. Consistency with the Unified Development Code. Zoning a. The proposed project is consistent with the Business Park zoned portion of the property located within the City of Santa Clarita. b. A request has been submitted to formally annex this portion of the project site into the City of Santa Clarita. Approval of this requested action would transfer zoning control of the entire site to the City of Santa Clarita, and would necessitate the creation of new zoning designations for the former "County" portion of the site. The proposed open space is consistent with the existing County Hillside Management Zoning. The proposed residential on Lot 1 is not consistent with the heavy manufacturing County land use designation for that portion of the site. Specific land use designations requested by the applicant would change the zoning from County of Los Angeles Zoning Hillside Management (HM) and Industry (M), to City of Santa Clarita Residential Estate (RE). The applicant is requesting the residential be clustered within a disturbed portion of Parcel 1. C. The proposed business park structures are consistent with the development standards of the Business Park and Planned Development (PD) overlay zone, as designed under "Existing Conditions" in this section. The proposed development includes a total of 32 two-story structures (approximately 30 feet in height), and 1 three-story structure (approximately 45 feet in height). These business park structures have an average total size of 17,429 gross square feet, ranging from 10,000 to 43,000 gross square feet. The average building footprint size is 9,293 gross square feet, with sizes ranging from 5,000 to 21,500 gross square feet. The proposed corporate headquarters structures include one 3.5 -story structure (approximately 60 feet in height), one 5.5 -story structure (approximately 80 feet), one 6 -story structure (approximately 80 feet in height), and one 7 -story structure (approximately 95 feet in height). These structures have an average size of 89,125 gross square feet, ranging in size from 60,000 to 112,000 gross square feet. The average building footprint size is. 16,250 square feet, with sizes that range from 15,000 to 17,000 square feet. The corporate headquarters buildings are consistent with the BP and PD overlay zones, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit for structures exceeding three stories in height. The proposed 7 -story, 95 -foot tall structure would be the tallest office building in the City. Currently the tallest existing buildings are 4 -stories; the tallest approved building is 6 stories. Other 5 and 6 story office buildings are being considered in other portions of the City. 212 �1 1 Subdivision The project development plan proposes to subdivide the existing nine lot site into 1 a total of forty individual parcels. A total of 34 of the parcels are proposed as development parcels, while the remaining 6 parcels are proposed for permanent open space. Of the 34 development parcels, a total of 29 parcels contain business 1 park land uses, 4 parcels contain corporate headquarters land uses, and 1 parcel contains a residential land use. 1 The size of the 29 proposed individual business park parcels average 66,129 square feet (1.52 acres). The parcels range in size from 30;180 square feet (0.7 acres) to 181,005 square feet (4.2 acres). The size of the 4 proposed individual corporate 1 headquarters parcels average 84,480 square feet (1.9 acres). The parcels range in size from 43,420 square feet (0.99 acres) to 176,773 square feet (4.1 acres). 1 The multi -family residential parcel totals 105,400 square feet (2.4 acres) in size. The size of the 6 proposed individual open space parcels average 380,503 square feet (8.7 acres). The parcels range in size from 45,760 to 1,569,960 square feet. 1 The proposed subdivision map is consistent with the standards established by the. City Development Code. Findings of fact required for subdivision approval have been established in the code as follows: a. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Santa Clarita General Plan and/or any specific plan. b. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. C. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. d. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. e. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems. L The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. Specific analysis of these criteria regarding consistency with the code are provided in their respective sections of this report. Grading The proposed grading plan is generally consistent with the standards established by the City Development Code. The proposed plan concentrates the vast majority of its proposed development within previously developed and graded areas of the 213 property, and away from any of the topographically and biologically sensitive areas of the site. Accordingly, the proposed grading concept does not include substantial grading or encroachment into any of the highly steep or sensitive topographical areas of the site, and does not propose any encroachment into the major ridgeline existing on the site. The project does propose grading on one finger ridgeline below the San Fernando Pass ridgeline adjacent to Sierra Highway, and involves a 100 -foot high cut slope in order to provide for additional development area and balance grading on site. A significant amount of the proposed grading activity is necessary to repair or remediate the prior grading activities undertaken on the site, and/or to execute the proposed soil remediation activities to clean up the hydrocarbon contamination left from the prior use of the site. The extent and intensity of grading proposed for the project may be considered relatively modest in scope. A more detailed examination of proposed grading activities is provided in Sections 4.1, 4.2 and 4.12 of this report. Additional information related to grading is also provided in the following discussion of the City's Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Guidelines. Consistency with the City Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. The proposed project is generally consistent with the site design, open space and landscaping, grading and architectural objectives established by the City Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Guidelines. Site Design The proposed project attempts to capitalize upon, use, and preserve the predominant geographic form and natural topographic features of the property. The development plan emphasizes a "campus -like" or "park -like" setting, which makes maximum use of the various natural features of the site, such as hills and ridges, oak trees, related vegetation, and natural creek features. This has been accomplished through careful building placement and grading, tiering/terracing (relative to existing natural features, proposed roadways, adjacent structures, and site lines) and landscaping. The proposedbusiness park structures have been located and designed to maximize the size of and access to roadways from areas to be used for shipping and the loading of products and materials.- Surface parking lots, while located in close proximity to the structures, are visually hidden to the sides and rears of the structures, and protected by landscaping and subterranean parking. The corporate headquarters structures are proposed to be located in the higher elevated, and most prominent areas of the project site. This maximizes their visibility to passers by on the Antelope Valley (SR 14) Freeway and Sierra Highway, as well as capitalizes on the views available from these buildings off-site to surrounding canyons and other natural areas. With the exception of the singular six -story corporate headquarters structure, all other corporate buildings are concentrated in a cluster for their particular land use on the site. 214 II ' The two existing collector streets (Clampitt Road and Remsen Street) will be sufficient to support vehicle traffic within the project with required signalization. These collector streets are proposed. without sidewalks to minimize impacts to the ' site's landform and oak tree resources. The access proposed for the 12 units of residential, and access for internal circulation within the business park consist of private streets with substandard rights-of-way and no sidewalks. Open Space and Landscaping rA major portion of the entire project site (approximately 52.4 acres, or 45% of the total land area) is proposed to be preserved and maintained as exclusive permanent ' open space and natural areas. Additional open space and landscaping areas, totalling approximately 20 acres, will be provided within the individual parcels and lou proposed for development. ' The primary features of the proposed open space plan include: (1) preserving the historic Beale's Cut stagecoach pass and approach trail that bisects the site; (2) ' preserving several different potential wildlife migration and movement corridors that cross the site; (3) preserving and revegetating a portion of the blighted tributary of Newhall Creek that passes through the northern half of the site in its natural state; (4) preserving and enhancing a number of other large open space areas on the site; and (5) preserving approximately 705 (60%) of the 1,114 Coast Live Oak trees which presently exist on the site. ' Grading The City Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance is relatively restrictive, establishing a total of six different classifications related to slope types; all landforms having a slope of greater than 10% are designated "hillside" and are subject to the requirements of the Ordinance. ' Existing slopes for the entire project site have been calculated relative to these proposed categories, as summarized in Table 1 within the Topography and ' Landforms Section (4.1). As can be concluded from the analysis, a total of 72.42 acres of the project site ' (60% of the site) has existing slope percentages of 11% or greater, qualifying as "Hillside" areas under the Ordinance, and being subject to the terms and provisions of the City Ordinance and Guidelines. As indicated on the Existing Slope Characteristics Mao (Figure 6), the majority of these higher slopes are located in areas of the three or four small natural hill ' features on the northern portion of the site, the man-made three -tired terrace supporting the large flat shelf that was the former site of the North Tank Farm during operation of the refinery, and the majority of the large, vacant hill that dominates the southern half of the project site. Because of the extensive grading previously undertaken on the project site to accommodate its prior refinery use, a portion of the site is characterized by little or ' 215 4. no slope. These areas are indicated in white on the Development Suitability Map at Figure 43. The proposed plan concentrates the majority of its development within these previously graded areas, and away from the topographically and biologically sensitive areas of the site. The recommended grading concept includes a total of 274,000 cubic yards of cut and 346,000 cubic yards of fill, which are essentially balanced on site. This balancing would reduce the related air quality and traffic - related environmental impacts associated with grading activities that necessitate the import or export of materials via trucks. Proposed building pads feature rounded corners, and have been shaped to conform with the existing topographic character of the site. Architecture a. Proposed building setbacks and heights may not be consistent with the hillside character of the site. Mid -rise buildings will tend to dominate the site visually. This impact is proposed to be mitigated partially through varied building and lot orientations in a "campus -like" or "park -like" setting, as well as different building heights for each of the four corporate headquarters structures. b. Building style, materials and color will be designed and reviewed through a Site Development Permit process to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses, and soften the visual impacts of the development on the surrounding natural environment. Compatibility with Adjacent and Surrounding Land Uses a. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and compatible with surrounding land uses. Future development of the County property lying east of the Antelope Valley (SR 14) Freeway could create an incompatible land use, depending on the nature of proposed land uses on the site. b. Development of the project site as proposed will affect surrounding land uses through increased levels of traffic, noise,. light and glare, and air pollution, as well as alteration of existing views on the site. These issues are discussed in their respective sections of this report. Compatibility of the Project's Internal Land Uses The proposed 575,150 gross square feet of business park land uses and 356,500 gross square feet of corporate. headquartersland uses are the primary uses occupying the project site. The remaining 16,560 gross square feet of residential use is generally compatible because it is set apart from the business park and corporate office portion of the site. However, the residential use may not be compatible with the adjacent open space and historic resources preserved on the southern portion of the site. 216 DEVELOPMENT SUITABILITY SIERRA HIGHWAY U MOST SUITABLE :4• LEAST SUITABLE VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 PANNIN' Envicom Corporation f H °A0fe5 NORTHCity of Santa Clarita, California 0 '°°`"' 05NSORTIUM ff(AttesNING•ENVIRONMENI'AL SNOIES Land Planning •Environmental Asxsment • Rr{,vlaim�y Gnnpliance Figure 43 217 4.11.3 6. Project Impacts on Surrounding Jurisdictions The property owner has requested annexation of the County portion of the subject property into the City of Santa Clarita. Santa Clarita currently identifies the project site within the planning area, and designates this area for RE, Residential Estate land use. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. 2. Consistency with the City General Pian Ia. The project's proposed land use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. Annexation of the unincorporated County portion of the site into the City requires a zone change to residential to allow consistency with all proposed land uses. lb. The proposed site design is consistent with desired objectives for business park uses. Proposed structures are arranged in a "campus -like" or "park- like" setting to ensure compatibility with existing topographic features. lc. The location of the proposed project is consistent with the City's intention to establish business park uses near major traffic corridors. The City is conditioning the project to provide transportation -related improvements to minimize potential traffic and air quality impacts. Id. The project's anticipated economic benefits include the creation of major employment opportunities to the City and the Valley, substantial generation of salaries of which a large portion will be spent in the local area, and related additional sales tax revenues to the City, improving its ability to provide public services. The increase in local jobs will likely improve the City's jobs -to -housing ratio and benefit the overall environment by helping to reduce the number and intensity of long vehicular trips (and resultant air emissions) created by lengthy job commutes. le. The proposed development density is consistent with allowable floor area ratios established by the General Plan, and by the average cross slope analysis. Consistency with the Unified Development Code Zoning 2a. The project's proposed land use and site design are consistent with the development standards of the Business Park and Planned Development (PD) overlay zone. The City may modify these standards, if necessary, to minimize potential land use conflicts, and visual impacts. 218 2b. Annexation of the unincorporated County portion of the site into the City and approval of zoning to residential is required to establish consistency with all proposed land uses. Formal designation of this portion of the site into the City's Residential Estate (RE) zone will be required. The City can consider alternative land uses for this small portion of the site to further mitigate potential land use conflicts. 2c. A Conditional Use Permit shall be approved by the City of Santa Clarita to allow construction of the corporate headquarters buildings which exceed three stories in height.. Subdivision 2d. The project proposes to subdivide the existing nine lot, 116.9 acre site into 40 individual record parcels. Prior to the approval of a tentative tract map, the applicant shall satisfy all City requirements for physical suitability, density, environmental sensitivity, health and safety, and access imposed by the Planning Commission and City Council. Gradin 2e. The owner; at the time of issuance of permits or other grants of approval agrees to develop the property in accordance with City Codes and other appropriate ordinances such as the Building Code, Plumbing Code, Grading Code, Highway Permit Ordinance, Mechanical Code, Zoning Ordinance, Undergroundingof Utilities Ordinance, Sanitary Sewer and Industrial Waste Ordinance, Electrical Code and Fire Code. ' 2f. The applicant shall file a map which shall be prepared by or under the direction of a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer. The map shall be processed through the City Engineer prior to being filed with the ' County Recorder. The applicant shall note all offers of dedication by certificate on the face of the map. ' 2g. The applicant shall label driveways as "Private Driveway and Fire Lane" and delineate on the map to the satisfaction of the Department. I' 2h. The applicant shall remove existing structures prior to approval of the final map. 2i. The applicant shall quitclaim or relocate easements running through ' proposed structures prior to final map approval. 2j. If the subdivider intends to file multiple final maps, he must inform the ' Advisory Agency at the time the tentative map is filed. The boundaries of the unit final map shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and ' the Planning Department. 2k. The applicant shall extend lot lines to the center of private streets. 1 219 3.. I 21. if signatures of record title interests appear on the map, the applicant shall submit a preliminary guarantee. If said.signatures do not appear on the map, a title report/final guarantee is needed showing all fee owners and interest holders. ' 2m. The applicant shall pay a deposit as required to review documents an plans for final map clearance in accordance with Section 21.36.010(c) of the , Subdivision Ordinance. 2n. Annexation shall be completed prior to approval and recordation of the final subdivision map. 20. Prior to the approval of a grading permit, the applicant shall satisfy all City requirements for soil remediation to clean up the hydrocarbon contamination identified on the site. 2p. Prior to the issuance of a Site Development Permit, the applicant shall submit a grading plan that minimizes encroachment into existing natural slopes, and demonstrate balanced grading on site. The City may approve this plan as proposed, or modify it as necessary to minimize potential land use, grading and aesthetic impacts. Consistency with the City Ridgeline and Hillside Development Ordinance Site i n 3a. See grading mitigation measures. n Soace and Landscapin 3b. The applicant has proposed to retain 52.4 acres, or 45% of the total Jand area, as exclusive permanent open space and natural areas. Additional open space and landscaping of disturbed areas totalling approximately 20 acres will be provided within the individual parcels and lots proposed for development. The City may approve this plan as proposed, or modify as necessary to provide a desired level of open space and pedestrian amenities. 3c. The applicant shall provide street trees to the satisfaction of the Parks and Recreation Department. Trees shall be used from the City's approved Master Street Tree List, which can be obtained from the City Arborist. The irrigation and maintenance of these trees shall be per City Ordinance 90-15. 3d. The applicant shall provide final landscape and irrigation plans to the satisfaction of the Parks and Recreation Department. Drought resistant plant material and water efficient irrigation systems should be utilized in the design. 3e. The applicant shall provide median landscaping improvements to the medians adjacent to the project frontage. These improvements shall be to 220 II ' the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation. 3f. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall demonstrate ,compliance with the development impact child care facility obligations to ' the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation pending review and approval by City Council. ' 3g. The applicant shall provide a passible, outdoor employee recreation area to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation, which may include picnic tables, benches and trash containers. 3h. The Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department requires the annexation'of Lot 40 and the acceptance of fee title to Lot 40 for open ' space preservation purposes prior to the recordation of the final map. 3i. Lots 38 and 36 are to be wildlife corridor in perpetuity and maintained by others. 3j. All public trails shall be constructed using the city's adopted trail standards to the satisfaction of the City of Santa Clarita Department of Parks and Recreation. 3k. Class II and III trails are to be provided throughout the project to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department. 31. Bicycle facilities such as bike lockers, racks and shower facilities are to be provided at major destination centers to the satisfaction of the Park, Recreation and Community Services Department. Gradin 3m. See grading mitigation measures. Architecture 3n. See General Plan mitigation measures lb. Also, see Zoning mitigation measures 2c. . 4. Compatibility with Adjacent and Surrounding Land Uses 4a. Specific land use designations and site development standards have been proposed by the applicant. The City of Santa Clarita can adopt these designations and standards as proposed, or modify them to minimize any potential land use, grading or aesthetic impacts. 4b. See Land Use mitigation measure 4a. Also, refer to related EIR sections ' including Traffic and Circulation, Noise, Aesthetics and View Analysis, and Climate and Air Quality. II 1 221 4.11.4 5. Compatibility of the Project's Internal Land Uses The project's proposed permitted land uses are business park and corporate headquarters oriented to business park centers, and do not create incompatible internal land uses. Proposed residential uses are generally compatible with, and set apart from the commercial portion of the site. However, the residential portion of the project may not be compatible with adjacent natural open space and historic resources. 6. LAFCO must consider and approve an application to annex a portion of the property from unincorporated Los Angeles County into the City of Santa Clarita, prior to implementation of the southern portion of the project. ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE With implementation of the mitigation measures set forth in Section 4.11.3, the land use impacts of the proposed project can be reduced to a level less than significant. 222 4.12 4.12.1 AESTHETICS AND VIEW ANALYSIS EXISTING CONDITIONS The Santa Clarita Valley contains a variety of distinctive communities and areas, each with its own visual characteristics.. The Valley is surrounded by the mountains of the Los Angeles National Forest, and the Los Padres National Forest. Their ridgelines provide an important visual backdrop for much of the planning area giving definition to the Santa Clarita Valley. The National Forest lands in and adjacent to the planning area are, and will remain, largely undeveloped due to the land's protected status. The transition and interface between new development and adjacent forest lands is of vital importance in preserving the rural character of the Valley. While the National Forest has specific boundaries that are legally defined, its impact goes beyond its legal limits. The oak woodlands present in the National Forest are also located within many areas of the Valley; contributing to the feeling of development placed within a country or rural area. Because of the varied topography of the Valley, there are numerous canyons and waterways which give local identity to particular portions of Santa Clarita. Major freeways and roadways serve a dual purpose as transportation corridors through the Santa Clarita Valley and as view corridors. The freeways and canyon roads are surrounded by undisturbed mountains, ridgelines, forest land, and new development. Oak woodlands line I-5 between McBean Parkway and. Valencia Boulevard. Much of the planning area along I-5, SR -14, SR -126, various canyon roads such as Bouquet Canyon Road, San Francisquito Canyon Road, Sand Canyon Road, Placerita Canyon Road, Soledad Canyon Road, and Sierra Highway afford scenic vistas. Gateways to the City are formed naturally and by man. The pass from the Los Angeles Basin along Interstate 5 is a natural gateway. Anothernatural gateway is the northeast State Route 14 pass. Sierra Highway now serves as a secondary gateway into the southern portion of the Santa Clarita Valley. Other secondary gateways to the Valley are defined by the offramps from the Interstate and State Route, which include San Fernando Road and Placerita Canyon Road, close to the project site. Little consistency has been established with the development of primary or secondary gateways. The best examples in the Valley are the treatment of Valencia Boulevard and McBean Parkway exits. The gateways are well marked, the signing is not overpowering, and the landscaping gives a sense and feel of what is to be expected in the community. The gateway gives the visitor and resident alike a feeling of welcome without overstatement. Currently gateways within the City are relatively undistinguished in design from those gateways within the unincorporated areas. Views of commercial development, large and unattractive signage, as well as large amounts of undeveloped and vacant land predominate the City's existing gateways. The visual prominence of the Valley Gateway project is determined by its overall visibility in relation to the surrounding circulation system, and from surrounding properties. The site's prominence and visibility are primarily functions of the topography in and around the site, viewing opportunities from elevated areas around the site, and the various view - obscuring natural and man-made features on the project site. 223 Portions of the project site, and the area surrounding the site, are generally characterized by steeply sloping terrain and a series of prominent ridgelines. Figure 4, within the Topography and Landform Section (4.1) of this EIR shows the elevations within and surrounding the project site. The Valley Gateway project site is located between a number of prominent ridgelines, which are also identified in Section 4.1. The Hillside Ordinance designates an east -west trending ridge as a primary ridgeline running through the southern portion of the project site. It forms the southern and eastern sides of Elsmere Canyon in the San Gabriel Mountains. It then runs along the crest of the San Fernando Pass through the southern portion of the site, over to the foothills of the Santa Susana Mountains to she west of the site. Elevations range from 2,600 feet above Elsmere Canyon down to 1,800 feet at the San Fernando Pass, then back up to approximately 2,300 feet in the Santa Susana foothills. Approximately 0.25 miles to the east and southeast, the project site is framed by the westernmost ridgeline of Elsmere Canyon. This ridgeline generally runs north -to -south along the length of the project, and forms the boundary of visual access from points further east within the County of Los Angeles. This major ridge reaches heights ranging from 1900' up to 2300' in elevation. Approximately 0.10 miles to the west and southwest, the project site is framed by the easternmost ridgeline flanking Weldon Canyon. This ridge also runs north to south along the length of the project site, and forms the boundary of visual access from points further west. This ridgeline reaches heights ranging from 1700' up to 2200' in elevation. The majority of this ridgeline is located within the City of Santa Clarita and has been designated as a "primary ridgeline" by the Santa Clarita Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. Approximately 0.75 miles to the north, between San Fernando Road and Placerita Canyon Road, the project site is framed by a southern ridgeline along Placerita Canyon. This ridgeline trends east -to -west across the northern horizon and viewshed of the project site, and generally has an elevation of 1500 to 1650 feet. It attenuates views and visibility of the site from points further north in the Santa Clarita Valley. This ridgeline is not as steep or as high as the two previously described ridgelines. For these reasons, it has been designated as a "secondary ridgeline" by the Santa Clarita Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. Although the project site is located at a higher elevation than the developed areas of Santa Clarita and the Newhall area, it is not visible from appreciable distances to the north, east, south or west because of the aforementioned intervening ridgelines. The Newhall area and the Santa Clarita Valley to the north and northeast generally range from 1100' up to 1300' in elevation. The project site ranges from approximately 1500' up to 1900' in elevation. The intervening ridgelines range from 1500' up to 2100' in elevation. For these reasons, views of the site arei limited to 0.25 miles (west and east) up to 1.25 miles (north) surrounding the site. Figure 44 shows project visibility from the surrounding area, including areas from which portions of the site are visible, and areas from which the site is not visible. The analysis indicates approximately sixty -percent of the land area within the "frame" of the three ridgelines has unobstructed views of at least a good portion of the project site. 224 w m m m mm mm m m r r=== m m m m liJ t'rl pJ1111f 1111 I.: r.'} •�� •I' /• '�,_r, ?(4( ,fl \ • •, • - 1 . 1 (' L9HYpM � I I. li 3 _ t (• '' ' ' '> fie' Z, ,Ltc t ` 7 coil \II�1 t ' 111 i�,.�',"•- _)) I!� I\. y� I �. •ic 11 vl - •f \ 11i �'�' p• p It X( q\I\ul lYn Nldll• _� I l:n 1 � .JI, IIL1 I I II- I I' 1111 '.I �� •� I, I I S 11 L=1. I' 11:1.. •_...1 r o (i<�r ,i •`"• � - 1 I iii [n� Ji'� �S �I�-\.i •\ ' �1�I�i�'1 t lI 4 11 IIM1..1`/F�"�. A0, �:°°° u l 9 c I PROJECT SITE VISIBILITY '= PROJECT SITE .VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT 'ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 City of Santa Clarita, California AREAS FROM WHICH PORTIONS OF THE SITE ARE VISEBLE AREAS FROM WHICH SITE IS NOT VISEBLE SITE VISIBLITY OBSCURED BY SECONDARYILOCAL RIDGES 225 AREA OUTSIDE MAJOR , VIEW BLOCKING RIDGES L.--1000* Z�' r 4.12.2 Only portions of the site are visible from areas immediately adjacent to the site, due to the presence of a number of significant view -blocking terrain features and trees on these properties. Figure 44 illustrates that very few unobstructed views of the site are available from points north of San Fernando Road. The only unobstructed views are from the very top and the descending south facing slopes of the Placerita Canyon ridgeline (Valencia Vista residential project). Occasional views are possible from selected "pockets" within the lower -lying areas nearer San Fernando Road. Such views are typically confined to those portions of the project site lying above the elevation 1800 feet (existing fire reservoir). To the south of San Fernando Road (on the east side of Sierra Highway), significant portions of the project site are visible from the level areas directly abutting the highway, from the developed areas due west of Remsen Street, from the western facing slopes and tops of the finger ridgelines that extend down to Sierra Highway from the Weldon Canyon ridgeline, and from the level and north -facing portions of the property directly abutting the site to the south. Extremely limited and obstructed views are available only to the higher elevations of the project site from the existing Eternal Valley Cemetery (located due northwest of the site) and from the various lower -lying pockets located to the west of the property which are bracketed by the finger ridgelines that slope down to Sierra Highway from the top of the Weldon Canyon ridgeline. To the south of San Fernando Road, between Sierra Highway and the Antelope Valley (14) Freeway, only the higher elevations of the project site are visible. Views become more conspicuous and highly, visible as one travels south along the Sierra Highway climbing up the grade to Remsen Street, adjacent to the project site. Northbound traffic on Sierra Highway has limited views down over the project site after passing over the crest of the hill. Site visibility along this portion of Sierra Highway is interrupted and/or highly obstructed by three smaller hills or mini-ridgelines that occur between the roadways as one moves in a northward direction and climbs up the San Fernando Pass over the Weldon Divide Summit, and down, adjacent to the lower lying areas of the project site. To the south of San Fernando Road (on the east side of the Antelope Valley Freeway) to the City of Santa Clarita municipal boundary, the project site is highly visible from the level of the freeway itself, from the level areas directly abutting the freeway, and from the ascending faces and tops of the finger ridgelines that extend down to the Antelope Valley (14) Freeway from the primary ridgeline of Elsmere Canyon. From points south of the City of Santa Clarita municipal boundary, views to the project site are confined, highly obstructed or eliminated entirely by the San Fernando Pass ridgeline that runs along the southern portion of the site down to the level of the Antelope Valley (14) Freeway. IMPACTS The project proposes development on approximately 64.5 acres of the 117 acre site. The project consists of 40 buildings on 34 development parcels, concentrated primarily on existing disturbed or flatter portions of the project site. Proposed grading would alter a finger ridgeline close to Sierra Highway and Clampitt 226 Road, and would create a manufactured 2:1 slope approximately 100 feet high, at an elevation of 1740' up to 1840'. Proposed buildings range from 30 feet (two stories) up to 95 feet (seven stories) in height. Thirty-two (32) of the thirty-three (33) proposed industrial buildings are two -stories (30 ' feet). One industrial building is proposed at three -stories (45 feet), and is located close to the Antelope Valley Freeway (Parcel 11). Four (4) corporate headquarters/commercial office buildings are proposed in the southern portion of the development area. These buildings range from 3.5 stories (50 feet) up to 7 stories (95 feet) tall. If approved, the proposed 7 -story building would become the tallest office building in the City. ' Thirty-three (33) proposed industrial buildings are two -stories (30 feet). One industrial building is proposed at three -stories (45 feet), and is located close to the Antelope Valley Freeway (Parcel 11). Four (4) corporate headquarters/commercial office buildings are ' proposed in the southern portion of development area formally occupied by the main refinery facility, located close to the intersection of Clampitt RoadandSierra Highway. These buildings range from 3.5 stories (50 feet) up to 7 stories (95 feet) tall. The applicant has specifically located the corporate headquarters structures on elevated areas in the southwestern portion of the site to achieve the greatest visibility from the adjacent Antelope Valley Freeway and Sierra Highway. A computer-aided visual analysis has been prepared that creates a photo simulation of the building masses on photographs of the project site. Figures 45, 46 and 47 show before and after development photographs of the Valley Gateway property. Buildings are shown in blue, and roadways are gray. Worst case building masses (volumes) are reflected in the computer simulation. Future architectural plans and articulation of the building masses, elevations, colors and reflective surfaces will soften the computer simulated visual analysis. However, this level of project detail has not been prepared to date. Views 1, 2 and 3 (Figure 45) are from the east side of the Antelope Valley Freeway, and focus on the south-central portion of the site, and the corporate office buildings. Views 4, 5, 6 and 7 (Figure 46) are from an elevated hillside, also east of the Antelope Valley Freeway, and generally show a panoramic view of the site. The proposed site plan integrates the development primarily with the disturbed, and flatter portions of the site, and away from the majority of the site's oak tree resources. The removal of 348 of the site's 1,114 coast live oak trees for roadways and development pads and buildings will create a significant visual change on the property reflecting a more urbanized use. Views 8 and 9 (Figure 47) are from Sierra Highway. View 8 is looking southeast across Sierra Highway toward the current intersection with Remsen Street. View 9 is looking northeast across Sierra Highway toward the corporate mid -rise buildings proposed adjacent to the highway, close to the crest of the grade. The Development of 64.5 acres (55% of the site's 116.9 acres) into light industrial business park, mid -rise corporate headquarters office, multi -family residential, streets, driveways, parking lots and landscaped slopes combined with the removal of 348 coast live oak trees will create a significant visual change on the property reflecting a more urbanized use. 227 BEFORE I 'u COMPUTER VISUALIZATION ANALYSIS View I BEFORE View 2 . d .y /'w,► i `; .R"i�.i, t��.�}�5.�.�!'�M1•-)"iii}".. fY_�l. y'..� rpt_:#'-�....� fun} f } Md I_ 4fi l • _ —�� �'� �� �.- i — X71 - _ _ 1. 7-7 ` \ lookingsouthwest View looking southwest' BEFORE View 3 g'�"�..'��`�►=1 •�'�� _,1 ter_.__.__.-' wir• C �o ,� •. wM.� '^titin � a m. _. s = [� r '+--•.ham , i_ �� ,r View looking southwest into southern portion of development. VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 AFTER View looking northwest into southern portion of development. View looking southwest into central & southern portion of development. PLANNING Figure 45 X CONSORTIUM %—A 228 rirrIrNn r+ AFTER VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 City of Santa Clarita, California BEFORE COMPUTER VISUALIZATION ANALYSIS BEFORE View 6 BEFORE View 7 m_ Panoramic view looking south to north from a hillside east of the project site. AFTER AFTER <"+=77 Ali AFTER THE PLANNING CONSORTIUM �WG �RO�wS�[M 229 Figure 46 BEFORE View 8 View looking southeast from Sierra Hwy toward Remsen Street. AFTER VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 City of Santa Clarita, California COMPUTER VISUALIZATION ANALYSIS View looking northeast from Sierra Hwy toward Clampitt Street (below). TTIE PLANNING CONSORTIUM LAND(MANNING- ENNNONMEN STUDIES 230 Figure 47 4.12.3 MITIGATION MEASURES 1. The applicant shall comply with land use standards and development regulations established by the Planning Commission through the Site Development Permit process. 2. Prior to the approval of the Site Development Permit, the Planning Commission shall approve a final site plan, and grading plan that has been found to be consistent ' with adopted standards and development regulations established for Business Park land uses within the Santa Clarita General Plan. ' 3. a. Prior to the approval of a Site Development Permit, Parks and Recreation/ Community Development Department Staff shall approve a preliminary landscape plan that meets all landscaping and screening requirements for ' Business Park Site Development Standards, or approved variations to those standards. ' b. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit final landscape plans for City approval. Said final plans shall be consistent with preliminary plans approved by Parks and Recreation/Community ' Development Department Staff. C. Prior to the approval of a Site Development permit, the Parks and Recreation/Community Development Department Staff shall approve a roof - equipment screening plan that effectively screens all roof -mounted mechanical equipment from adjacent highways and upslope areas. d. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Parks and Recreation/ Community Development Department Staff shall approve a signage plan that meets the requirements of the City's sign ordinance. e. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall irrevocably offer for dedication Parcels 1, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40 to the Tentative Tract Map 51044 to the City of Santa Clarita for the preservation of historic, biotic, aesthetic and open spaces resources within the City and within the area proposed for annexation. 4.12.4 ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE The project will alter approximately 64.5 acres of disturbed and undeveloped land on the 117 acres site (55%), and construct up to 40 structures that total close to 950,000. square feet of business park, residential and corporate office land uses. Low-rise and mid -rise ' buildings will be either partially, or clearly viewable and visible from approximately a 1.5 mile stretch of the Antelope Valley Freeway that serves as the gateway into and out of the southeast portion of the Santa Clarita Valley. The major ridgeline, hillsides and other prominent landforms are being preserved in their current state, and offered for dedication to the City for permanent preservation and W protection. II 1 231 The proposed development plan would allow mid -rise corporate office structures up to seven stories high, and 95 feet tall. Even with this height, the intervening ridges would ' limit views of the project to the immediate area, and would not be visible from the lower elevations in Newhall, or the Santa Clarita Valley. However, these taller buildings will be highly visible against the backdrop of natural ridgelines that frame the project site, , from the adjacent circulation system. Mitigation measures identified in Section 4.12.3 can reduce aesthetic and visual impacts ' to a level less than significant. Building height restrictions, building material requirements, sign restrictions, screening and landscaping requirements can reduce visual impacts of the project on surrounding land uses, and the regional circulation system. ' 11 1 232 1 ' 4.13 LIGHT AND GLARE 4.13.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site currently contains a few remaining abandoned oil refinery buildings and tanks and does not contain lighting facilities. Reflective surfaces are limited to the remaining unoccupied oil refinery structures on the property. Therefore the site does not presently generate significant light or glare. The previous oil refinery uses use did have outdoor lighting of facilities; however, almost all lighting improvements have been removed. The area surrounding the project site is primarily undeveloped land, and currently contains limited night lighting and reflective surfaces. Street lights exist on Sierra Highway and the Antelope Valley Freeway adjacent to the site. Business signs and building lighting exists ' on the commercial uses located close to the freeway interchange at San Fernando Road. The other significant light source in the immediate vicinity includes vehicles travelling on the Freeway and Sierra Highway. ' 4.13.2 IMPACTS 1. Development of the proposed business park/corporate headquarters project would create new light and glare on the project site, and in the vicinity surrounding the property. New sources of exterior lighting associated with the buildings, streets, and parking lots include wall mounted fixtures, ground mounted fixtures, parking lot light standards, and street lights. Project signage would also create lighting impacts. 2. Glare associated primarily with the proposed multi -story corporate headquarters/office buildings and low-rise business park building would be generated by reflective window surfaces on the buildings, and from reflective window and chrome surfaces on vehicles within the parking lots and on project streets. I' 4.13.3 MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Prior to the issuance of a Site Development Permit, the Community Development Department shall approve a preliminary lighting plan that demonstrates all exterior lighting has been designed to confine direct rays to the premises by including shielded ' lamp boxes that direct the light toward the ground. 2. All non -security, exterior lighting of buildings and parking lots shall be turned off ' between the hours of 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM. 3. Prior to the approval of a Site Development Permit, the Community Development ' Department shall approve a signage plan that meets all adopted signage regulations and development standards set forth in the Unified Development Code. ' 4. Prior to approval of a Site Development Permit, the Community Development Department shall approve a preliminary landscape plan that effectively reduces glare from the proposed parking lots as viewed from the Antelope Valley. Freeway and Sierra Highway. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit 1 233 4.13.4 final landscape plans for the approval by the City Landscape Architect. Final plans shall be consistent with preliminary plans approved by the Community Development Department. ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE The proposed business park and corporate headquarters would generate new interior light, and exterior light and glare that will be visible from adjacent properties and the surrounding circulation system. Glare from vehicles in the parking lots could also be visible from the surrounding upslope areas and circulation system. The proposed residential land use is isolated by topography and would not be visible from the surrounding circulation system. Mitigation measures identified in Section 4.13.3 can reduce potentially significant light and glare impacts to a level less than significant. All lighting will be designed to confine direct rays downward, within the site. Existing preserved oak trees, required parking lot trees and perimeter landscaping will. further reduce potential light and glare impacts to surrounding land uses and to passing motorists. 234 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Section 15126(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project, with an evaluation of the comparative merits of ' each alternative. This discussion focuses on alternatives capable of reducing significant adverse environmental effects to a level less than significant, and to foster informed decision-making and informed public participation. 5.1 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The CEQA Guidelines require that the specific alternative of "No Project" be evaluated, ' along with the resulting impacts. This alternative would leave the site in its current partially disturbed state,with the majority of the property remaining in its natural state. Approximately 49 acres of the 117 acre site (42 percent) has been disturbed by the previous e oil extraction, refinery and related uses. The No Project alternative assumes the existing oil extraction and refinery facilities, as well as the existing hydrocarbon soil contamination, would remain on site for the short-term until a future development would require its ■ removal and clean-up. The No Project alternative is an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project in terms of impacts on natural topography, biotic resources (oak tree and wildlife resources), grading, traffic, light and glare, noise, visual impacts and air quality. However, this alternative preserves the site in its current condition for the short-term. The project site's General Plan Land Use classification is "BP" Business Park. In the long-term, it is likely that development plans will be pursued for the property that are consistent with the City's Business Park Land Use classification. Therefore, the No Project alternative does not fulfill the intent of the Santa Clarita General Plan, or its goals and policies aimed at achieving more of a jobs/housing balance within the City. In addition, this alternative would not result in the clean-up of the hydrocarbon contaminated soil that exists on the property. ' 5.2 CODE COMPLIANCE ALTERNATIVE This alternative would require strict compliance with all City codes and ordinances. This includes the General Plan, the.Uniform Development Code, the Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance, the Oak Tree Ordinance and Street Standards. The project proposes grading in one location that is inconsistent with criteria set forth in the Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. The project is also proposing substandard right-of-way and street widths, and no sidewalks within the project. Private ' street gradients and curve radii within the development would also exceed City standards in some locations. Property development standards for the Business Park zone limit the height of buildings to 35 feet. Planned development overlay zoning allows building heights ' up to 4 -stories, or 50 feet, which ever is less. The project is proposing corporate headquarter buildings heights up to 7 -stories, or 95 feet in height. ' If the project were redesigned for strict compliance with all City codes and ordinances, the following approximate amount of development could occur: I 1 235 5.3 If planned development height standards (up to 50 feet) are allowed for the project, the , following approximate amount of development could occur: Business Park Corporate Headquarters Residential Total project square footage Percent of proposed project Estimated Square Feet of Development 551,150 252,000 _ 0 773,150 82% These Code Compliance alternatives are an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project in terms of impacts on natural topography, biotic resources, grading, traffic, visual impacts, noise, light and glare, and air quality. Strict compliance with the Hillside Development ordinance will result in a proposed grading plan that cannot balance cut and fill on the site, requiring a significant amount of fill to be imported into the project, creating additional short-term traffic, noise and air quality impacts not required by the proposed project. These alternatives also generate fewer job opportunities than the proposed project. BUSINESS PARK ALTERNATIVE This alternative would restrict development to light industrial activities, with office and retail uses limited to serving the light industrial uses located on-site. The height would be limited to 3 -story structures (45 feet), with the average height being 2 -stories (30 feet). This alternative also assumes the same footprint for the 37 buildings proposed within the Valley Gateway project. No mid -rise corporate headquarters office buildings or residential uses are included in this alternative. This business park alternative would result in a total of 727,150 SF of light industrial use. Approximately 10 percent of this space would be utilized for office and minor retail uses directly related to the industrial business park uses located within the project. This project is approximately 23 percent smaller than the proposed project, and has a floor area ratio of 0.14 for the entire site which represents only 35% of the maximum floor -to - area (FAR) ratio allowed by the average cross slope analysis of the site. The business park alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project, in terms of impacts related to traffic, light and glare, air quality, noise, public services and facilities, and visual and aesthetic impacts. This alternative generates fewer job opportunities than the proposed project. #77 Estimated Square Feet of ' Development Business Park 541,150 Corporate Headquarters 138,500 , Residential Total project square footage 679,650 Percent of proposed project 72% ' If planned development height standards (up to 50 feet) are allowed for the project, the , following approximate amount of development could occur: Business Park Corporate Headquarters Residential Total project square footage Percent of proposed project Estimated Square Feet of Development 551,150 252,000 _ 0 773,150 82% These Code Compliance alternatives are an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project in terms of impacts on natural topography, biotic resources, grading, traffic, visual impacts, noise, light and glare, and air quality. Strict compliance with the Hillside Development ordinance will result in a proposed grading plan that cannot balance cut and fill on the site, requiring a significant amount of fill to be imported into the project, creating additional short-term traffic, noise and air quality impacts not required by the proposed project. These alternatives also generate fewer job opportunities than the proposed project. BUSINESS PARK ALTERNATIVE This alternative would restrict development to light industrial activities, with office and retail uses limited to serving the light industrial uses located on-site. The height would be limited to 3 -story structures (45 feet), with the average height being 2 -stories (30 feet). This alternative also assumes the same footprint for the 37 buildings proposed within the Valley Gateway project. No mid -rise corporate headquarters office buildings or residential uses are included in this alternative. This business park alternative would result in a total of 727,150 SF of light industrial use. Approximately 10 percent of this space would be utilized for office and minor retail uses directly related to the industrial business park uses located within the project. This project is approximately 23 percent smaller than the proposed project, and has a floor area ratio of 0.14 for the entire site which represents only 35% of the maximum floor -to - area (FAR) ratio allowed by the average cross slope analysis of the site. The business park alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project, in terms of impacts related to traffic, light and glare, air quality, noise, public services and facilities, and visual and aesthetic impacts. This alternative generates fewer job opportunities than the proposed project. #77 5.4 HIGHER INTENSITY CORPORATE OFFICE ALTERNATIVE This alternative is a variation of the proposed project, which considers additional mid -rise corporate headquarters office buildings in the north -central portion of the site. Similar amounts of business park and residential use to the proposed project are also included in this alternative. The corporate headquarters structures are proposed in higher elevation areas in order to maximize their visibility primarily from the adjacent Antelope Valley Freeway. As with the proposed project, there are encroachments into environmentally sensitive areas on the site. This option results in a net developable acreage of 40.4 acres, 3.7 acres less than the proposed project, resulting in impacts to fewer oak trees and less disturbance to the minor tributary of Newhall Creek. Approximately 68% of the developable acreage would contain low-rise (1-3 stories) business park land uses, 30% would contain mid -rise (4-7 story) corporate commercial office land uses. 2% is proposed as medium -density, multi -family residential land use. This alternative proposes a total of approximately 1,148,000 gross square feet of development, 569,000 square feet (49.6%) of corporate office use, 561,000 square feet (48.6%) of business park use, and 16,500 square feet (0.5%) of multi -family residential use. It results in an overall floor -to -area ratio (FAR) of 0.34 (1,131,300 gross square feet of business park development on 3,315,575 square feet of land zoned for business park use). This intensity of development is 15% less than the maximum FAR allowed by the average cross slope analysis of the site. Thirty-four (34) buildings would be constructed on twenty-eight (28) individual parcels. Eight corporate office buildings are proposed, ranging from 3.5 -stories (50 feet) up to 7 - stories (95 feet) tall on eight separate parcels. Twenty-six (26) business park buildings, one - to -three stories tall, are proposed on twenty (20) individual parcels. This higher intensity corporate office alternative creates 21 percent more square footage than the proposed project. It, therefore, creates proportionally more traffic, air pollution and noise impacts than the proposed project. The additional mid -rise buildings in the north - central portion of the site will create significant additional light and glare, and visual/aesthetic impacts than the proposed project. This alternative is environmentally inferior to the proposed project related to the issues listed above. ' Because the project concentrates more development in less area, and impacts 3:7 acres less than the proposed project, this alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project related to impacts on oak trees, and on the site's primary natural drainage course. This project also generates more job opportunities within the City than the proposed project. 5.5 CORPORATE OFFICE CLUSTER ALTERNATIVE This alternative is similar to the previous alternative, and considers the same approximate gross square feet as the proposed project (931,000 square feet of business park use), but with an increased percentage of corporate office use in taller buildings, and fewer business park/light industrial park uses within the project. This option also assumes an alternative use, such as a historic interpretive center, fire station, or public utility facility would be constructed on the portion proposed for multi -family residential. This alternative redesigns 1 1 237 5.6 building and lots on the extreme north end of the project to avoid the Los Angeles Aqueduct easement and the natural tributary drainage course located adjacent to the base of the hill on the northernmost portion of the property. As with the previous alternative, the corporate office clustering would occur on the south- central portion of the site, and would be highly visible form the Antelope Valley Freeway. Encroachments into environmentally sensitive areas would be lessened by eliminating development on Lots 19, 26 and 29 within the proposed project and leaving those areas as open space. It also eliminates the conflict created by the structure proposed on Lot 32 with the Los. Angeles Aqueduct by making that area open space as well. This results in fewer impacted oak trees and less development in close proximity to the site's natural drainage course. This option results in a net developable acreage of approximately 61.9 acres, and 2.6 acres less than the proposed project. Approximately 59% of the site's developable acreage would contain low rise (1-2 story) business park land uses, 40% would contain mid - rise (4-7 story) commercial office land uses. I % is proposed for historic/interpretive center use on Parcel 1, in the southern portion of the project site. This alternative proposes a total of approximately 944,000 square feet of development. 523,000 square feet of corporate commercial office use; 416,000 square feet of business park use; and a 5,000 square foot historic interpretive center and museum. It results in an overall floor -to -area ratio (FAR) of 0.31 (944,000 gross square feet of business park development on 3,339,540 square feet of land zoned for business park use). This intensity of development is approximately 18% less than the maximum FAR allowed by the average cross slope analysis of the site. Thirty-two (32) buildings would be constructed on twenty-four(24) individual parcels. Nine (9) corporate office buildings are proposed, ranging from 3.5 stories (50 feet) up to 7 -stories (95 feet) tall on 7 individual parcels. Twenty-three (23) business park buildings, one -to -two stories tall are proposed on twenty-two (22) parcels. This corporate office cluster alternative creates approximately the same square footage as the proposed project. Therefore, very similar traffic, noise, air pollution and public facilities and services impacts would occur. Similar amounts of job opportunities would occur. The construction of additional mid -rise buildings in the south-central portion of the site would create additional light and glare and visual/aesthetic impacts, and is environmentally inferior to the proposed project for these two issues. Because the project concentrates development in less area, and impacts 2.6 acres fewer than the proposed project, this alternative is environmentally superior to the proposed project related to area of grading disturbance, impacts on oak trees, and on the site's primary natural drainage course into Newhall Creek. REGIONAL RETAIL OUTLET CENTER ALTERNATIVE This alternative would include the development of a regional -scale retail outlet center on a portion of the project site. If proposed on the southern half of the site, it would replace 40 acres of business park and corporate headquarters/office land uses. The remaining 25 acres of proposed development area in the northern portion of the project site would remain business park land use. If proposed on the northern half of the site, the outlet center land use would replace 25 acres of business park, while the remaining 40 acres would remain business park and corporate headquarters/office use. 238 Under the proposed project, the 40 acres of development area in the southern half of the site are projected to accommodate approximately 334,000 square feet of business park space in 16 low-rise buildings, and 356,500 square feet of corporate headquarters/office space in four mid -rise, multi -story buildings. The northern half could accommodate approximately 241,150 square feet of business park use in 16 low-rise buildings. For comparison purposes, the overall floor -area -ratio (FAR) of the developable area for the proposed project (excluding residential) is 0.33. a. The same 40 acres on the southern half of the site could accommodate a maximum of approximately 500,000 square feet of regional retail outlet center use, distributed in 15 to 20 separate low-rise, one and two-story buildings. Combined with the 241,150 square feet of business park use on the northern half of the site, this option would yield approximately 741,150 square feet of total development, excluding residential. This is 20 percent less square footage than the proposed project. The overall floor -area -ratio (FAR) of the developable area for this option (excluding potential residential) is 0.26. This option would generate similar impacts in terms of landform alterations and biological impacts, utilizing a similar area of disturbance for grading and site development as the proposed project. The 20 percent reduction in development density would result in environmentally superior impacts relative to the proposed project in the areas of traffic (AM and PM peak hour), noise, air quality, light and glare, public services and facilities, and infrastructure, utilities and energy conservation. This option reduces building heights to one and two-story structures only, which significantly reduces potential visual and aesthetic impacts and building massing in relation to the proposed project. This option would generate substantial increased sales tax and business tax revenue for the City over the life of the proposed project, however, employment opportunities within the project would be reduced. The outlet center land use would also provide a commercial service to local residents that is presently unavailable in the Santa Clarita Valley or the surrounding sub -region. b. if the same 25 acres on the northern half of the site were developed as the regional retail outlet center, it is estimated that this area could accommodate approximately 312,500 square feet of outlet center use, distributed in 12 to 15 low-rise buildings. Combined with the 334,000 square feet of business park use and 356,500 square feet of corporate headquarters/office use proposed for the 40 developable acres on the southern half of the site, this option would yield approximately 1,002,500 square feet of total development (excluding potential residential land uses). This is approximately 8 percent more square footage than the proposed project. The overall floor -area -ratio (FAR) of the developable area for this option excluding potential residential is 0.35. This option would generate similar impacts as the proposed project in relation to the area of grading disturbance, biological impacts and aesthetics/visual impacts. The 8 percent increase in development density would result in environmentally inferior impacts relative to the proposed project in the areas of increased AM and PM peak hour traffic, noise, air quality, light and glare, public services and facilities, and infrastructure, utilities and energy conservation. This option maintains the same building heights as the proposed. project by retaining the corporate 239 5.7 headquarters/office use on the southern half of the site. Therefore, aesthetic and visual impacts would remain the same. This option would generate substantial increased sales tax and business tax revenue for the City over the life of the project, and employment opportunities would also be increased. As with the previous option, the outlet center land use would provide a commercial service to local residents that is presently unavailable in the Santa Clarita Valley or the surrounding sub -region. ENHANCED WILDLIFE CORRIDOR DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE The project as proposed will result in significant adverse impacts to the existing wildlife corridor that crosses the property and provides a link between the San Gabriel and Santa Susana Mountains. While some native habitat and movement corridors are retained on the property under the proposed project, it would still significantly restrict free wildlife movements through the placement of buildings and other improvements and through the removal of a significant amount of southern coast oak woodland habitat. To mitigate adverse impacts to the on-site corridors to a less than significant level, the proposed project would have to be modified. Suitable project modifications that would lessen corridor impacts to a less than significant level are reflected in this "enhanced wildlife corridor development alternative". This environmentally -superior development alternative retains the function of the on-site wildlife corridor, offers coordinated: interaction with off-site portions of the corridor, and avoids impacts to southern coast oak woodland habitat within the previously affected corridor area. The following are the details of this enhanced wildlife corridor development alternative as depicted in Figure 48: 1) Proposed Lots 19, 20, 21 and 29 would be eliminated and development would not be allowed within the areas of these lots. Development would also be limited on the southern portion of Lot 28. These new open space areas would relate to .the proposed open space Lots 36, 38 and 39 as well as the open space within the Southern California Edison easement. 2) To isolate the east -west portion of the corridor in the currently -proposed Lots 20 and 21 from development to the north, a berm would be constructed along the northern boundary of those lots. The berm would be at least four to five feet in height to screen large mammals. The berm would be planted with native shrub and ground cover plant species to provide vegetative cover. This vegetation would be the lowest and northernmost portion of a convex vegetation pattern along this edge of the east -west portion of the corridor. Larger trees and other plant species would be planted southward from the berm to enhance the presently denuded corridor area with vegetative cover. This area would also provide a reception area from transplanted coast live oaks removed from other portions of the project site. 3) While there are.many smaller opportunity areas for transplanting individual oak trees, this enhanced wildlife corridor development alternative would include three main areas of transplanted oak trees. One area would be the presently denuded portions of proposed open space lots 39 and the Southern California Edison easement ground area. A second area would be within the eliminated Lots 20 and 21. The third area would be on Lot 19 and the easternmost area of open space Lot 240 39. While all of these three transplant areas are important to the wildlife corridor, the latter area is especially important because it would offer vegetative cover in the area immediately adjacent to the Los Pinos underpass where wildlife would first enter the project site from the east. Along with the transplanted oak trees, native vegetative plant species would be utilized for additional, varied wildlife cover. In addition, existing oak trees within these additional open space lots would not be disturbed. By retaining these four additional development lots as open space, the disturbance to approximately 50 coast live oaks under the proposed project would be avoided. 4) To facilitate the safe movement of wildlife between this property and the Gates property to the west, two 12' diameter undercrossings beneath Sierra Highway connecting open space Lot 39 with the Gates property to the west would be constructed. The cost of these undercrossings would be shared by the applicants for the proposed project and the applicants for the future development on the Gates property. This placement of the proposed underpasses relates to the wildlife reception/staging area present on the Gates property to the west. 5) Fencing of any type would not be allowed on or adjacent to these open space parcels to avoid the constriction of wildlife movements on and off-site. 6) All existing asphalt, structures, foundations and other improvements within the lots slated for open space under this alternative would be cleared to allow for transplanted oak trees and new native vegetation cover. 7) Night lighting would be restricted immediately adjacent to the open space corridor lots where possible. Where such lighting is required by City codes (such as along Remsen Street), the lighting should be directed away from the corridor/open space lots. 8) "No disturbance" signs that explain the significance of the corridor/open space lots would be posted along their perimeter at appropriate locations. This is to avoid daytime disturbance of wildlife from occupants of the future uses on the property. 9) The on-site portion of Newhall Creek which crosses the currently -proposed development Lots 19 and 29 would be cleaned of debris and restored where needed to ensure its viability as a wildlife movement corridor. If a roadway crossing is still a part of the redesigned project under this alternative, the bridge shall be designed to allow large mammal movement through the stream bed and approved under 1603 and 404 permits. 10) Restrictions would be placed on land uses adjacent to the corridor/open space lots to avoid nighttime disruptions that could adversely affect wildlife. While this would not apply to office uses, such restrictions would apply to light industrial uses that have the potential to generate excessive amounts of noise and disturbance. These restrictions could be set and enforced through the Conditional Use Permit procedure. 11) As per the discussion above on the three oak tree transplant areas, the wildlife reception area just to the west of the Los Pinos underpass at the southern end of the on-site portion of Newhall Creek would be revegetated with native riparian species to provide cover for wildlife. 241 12) The on-site wildlife movement staging/reception areas within open space lots 36 and 38 would be enhanced by constructing. and maintaining water guzzler systems to provide a dependable water source for wildlife. 13) The on-site improvements discussed above would be coordinated to the greatest extent possible with the applicants for the proposed development on the Gates property to the west of the project site. With this coordination, which would include input from governmental biological resource agencies, the above mitigation measure may be altered or enhanced as necessary. 14) The corridor/open space lots discussed under this development alternative and presented as mitigation measures above would be offered for dedication to a conservation group or agency for perpetual maintenance as an open space wildlife corridor. Such groups would include the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and the Nature Conservancy. As noted, the project as proposed would result in significant adverse impacts to the regional wildlife corridor between the San Gabriel and Santa Susan Mountains by placing structures, improvements and human activities within the critical on-site areas of the corridor. To mitigate these impacts to a less than significant level, the project redesign mitigation measures discussed in the above alternative should be incorporated into the proposed project. 242 Two IT diameter undercrossings to Gates property Alternative locations �. for protective berming 4 �.✓ F"" - ►lighwa�+ P Sierra w _ L 131 t elk tr , 22 3 . - ..._'' 24 ? , _ •+'�,: 14��- tiansp}ant area ,,P ; i•_ l j p_ + 36 p .... % 1 NATLAAL OPEN SPACE ) 1 ^� _ ice♦- 2126 26 1 ,/r IL 38• _ a+ ., ' /. �� .+�;:,�n+soPEN �� , 1 ;/- i'!�> .•, ..;Newhall :�, ,� ` :.�' fC f �-'� -_ 17 , E Np •.� , z "Oak tree tra-t5splanl-areas • _, 1 � " - - as Pinos undapass Figure 48 FUNCTIONAL WILDLIFE CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVE Me 6.1 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS In order to develop a reasonable, worst case development scenario for the area surrounding the Valley Gateway project site, the following methodology was utilized: POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA The General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations for all properties within 1-1/2 to 2 miles north and west of the project site were measured and the approximate gross acreage was determined. Areas currently developed were measured and subtracted from the gross acreage. The General Plan's mid-range density, dwelling units per acre for residential, floor area ratio (FAR) for commercial and industrial/business park land uses were calculated. All potential development areas subject to the City's Hillside Development Ordinance were further adjusted to 70 percent of the mid-range density/FAR, in the potential cumulative development scenario. Based upon an analysis of actual intensities of development achieved by other projects with hillside and environmental constraints similar to the project site, intensities of industrial and commercial development werefurther reduced to estimate reasonable, worst-case conditions. The Gates properties were estimated at an FAR of 0.20 based upon information from the property owner's representative. The Community Commercial Properties were estimated at 70 percent of the mid-range FAR (0.375), or 0.26 FAR. Some commercial properties were reduced to 0.20 FAR because of additional environmental constraints. Areas designated as Open Space were assumed to support the maximum density of 70 percent of one dwelling unit per 20 acres, or one unit per 26 acres. The Estate Residential (RE) area west of the project site assumes 70 percent of the maximum density (1 du/2.0 ac), or one unit per 2.6 acres. The Residential Low land use assumes 70 percent of the mid-range density (2.2 du/ac), or 1.5 units per acre. The Medium Density Residential area (RM) also assumes 70 percent of the mid-range density (10.9 du/ac) or 7.6 units per acre. Table 27 shows a summary of potential cumulative development within the City of Santa Clarita. Figure 49 shows the location of the 14 numbered land use areas. 245 TABLE 27 SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Figure - Mao # Category$g•Ft• AcresDen sit Total (rounded off to nearest 1,000) 1 OS 7,068 162.3 2 OS 3,464 79.5 3 OS 3.649 83.8 14,181 325.6 70% of 1 du/20 ac 11 du 4 IC(PD) 2,633 60.4 5 IC(PD) 15.709 MM 18,342 421.0 0.20 FAR 3,668,400 SF 6 CC(PD) 330 7.6 0.20 FAR 66,000 SF 7 CC(PD) 1,565 35.9 0.20 FAR 313,000 SF 8 CC 150 3.4 0.26 FAR 39,500 SF 9 CC(PD) 1.44933.3 0.20 FAR 289,800 SF 3,494 80.2 708,300 SF 10 RE 10,595 243.2 70% of 0.5 du/ac 85 du 11 RM(MOCA) 5,758 132.2 70% of 10.9 du/ac 1009 du 12 RL 1,989 45.6 13 RL(MOCA) 436 10.0 14 RL 264 §A 2,689 61.7 70% of 2.2 du/ac 95 du Totals: Residential 1,200 du Commercial 708,300 SF Industrial 3,668,400 SF FM CITY POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE PROJECTS V ,�.,4LJ j R I RVl " �,:...-.`;, �r . • ..J mer �gi; '_ R L(MO! RCA . .. ` WAD lM RI 114 0$ cc Ic Ic , RE 10. �Ic ( a •..Bp Ic' (PD) PROJECT SITE lPR) iu). City of Santa Clarita, California 'VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT Figure 49 •clic ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PLANNING 1 MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 CONSORTIUM 247 L,M➢ VW NTNG • [RV RONME T J STAIES 6.2 POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES The methodology implemented to determine potential impacts from projects within the unincorporated Los Angeles County area surrounding the project site was similar to that provided above. However, rather than defining potential impacts by land area, County record data allowed analysis of a site-specific list of projects filed since 1987. The methodology used for County land therefore consisted of the following primary steps: 1) Determine the area of potential impact; 2) Identify County projects; and 3) Quantify potential impacts by square feet and/or.number of dwelling units. Specific procedures included: Determine the Area of Potential Impact by identifying a 1-1/2 mile radius around the project site (Recommendation of the City and Traffic Consultant). 2. Identify relevant projects by obtaining a computer-generated report from the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, listing all County projects filed in the Santa Clarita Valley area and surrounding area since 1987, and screening the list to identify all projects that lie within the 1-1/2 mile radius. Quantify Potential Impacts by adding up quantities of proposed development to determine projected square feet of commercial and industrial land, and the number of residential dwelling units, and referring to traffic consultant for trip distribution and potential impact on traffic. Table 28 shows a summary of potential cumulative projects just outside the City of Santa Clarita. Figure 50 shows the location of the 7 lettered projects (A. - G.) within 1-1/2 miles of the project site. f falj TABLE 28 SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE PROJECTS WITHIN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Project and Current Location DeveloomentStatus A. Watt Land Inc. 219 single family units, on hold at County Whitney Canyon, 266 multi -family units, pending additional east of San Fernando 3 open space lots, and information Road and SR 14 2 commercial lots on Freeway 18 acres net usable; CUP, SP and ZC. 537.17 acres, total B. Sanitary Landfill, Solid waste landfill, application Elsmere Corp, 1 mile remove and replace incomplete NW of interchange of 2,160 oaks SR 14 and San Fernando Road C. RV Storage Yard, 54 acres - mountainous on hold at County Fred and Jane McHaddad, open storage yard for pending additional 22400 The Old Road RV. 5 acres flat, usable area information. D. Manufacturing MPD 159,000 SF Industrial application C.A. Rasmussen Co., Park Use, MPD on 24.48 incomplete 22200 Sierra Hwy. acres. Remove and replace 37 oak trees E. Travel Trailer Park Travel Trailer Park application HY Hunter, 23000 on 95.63 acres incomplete block of Coltrane Road 247 spaces F. Parcel map for single 4 single family lots on hold at County family lots, Norris on 58.88 acres pending additional Whitmore, 1 mile information south of the terminus of Wildwood Canyon Road between Medford and San Francisco G. Tract Map for single 68 single family lots time extension lots, Jeff McHaddad, on 157.0 acres granted 22400 The Old Road Hillside Management Zone falj I COUNTY POTENTIAL CUMULATIVE PROJECTS I 7~ .�'i \e•cdyy��h�1 I �;� .vC.::.+�.�,::a�y� �t�,'--^�E... r.•�'�;. .'t. �E° .7• W ' T ' }�C•ti, y" -t :t 'tj._.� err i ri' t.(' ��. �!xRaar•01 s' • Y... tY'.j¢ u�� t+k - _ -TMS" .ay°_.:°- •, I-'-'�•- .. •{,e,{{ c. _ ? �� s+..•s .: �."y 'eta• ' • , d'; ••t 1 ask" , ' :yy� tt, fr r,• 1, 1RI 3�1_ 14 v .h•'� l.(•ullnlo-t So •'� �� Phi wr�Y� - jTlcy. t. �5,r• ,• to o -a 7�. ` :' A. —Watt Land�� _ .Y r[S- PROJECTSITEI SF Lots °' ..F.-4rm. B. — ElsmereF _ ti F _ w« i i5 ,'• 0 1 _ 4, 5*Aipj:Y, .i tf!L ( L�.. i I, C co c`E RV Park — sr "-" - D. Manufacturing PD: -- RV Storage G. — 8 SF Lotsi,�.1I1j ,J or VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT Figure 50 THE' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PLANNING , CONSORTIUh1 MASTER CASE NO. 92-012 "°°"'""'"`-" RO"""`' AL$ ,M City of Santa Clarita, California ' 250 I These seven projects could result in the following cumulative development: - 557 residential dwelling units. 159;000 square feet of industrial park. 196,000 square feet of commercial development. A regional, solid waste landfill generating approximately 3,600 trips per day. ' - A 247 -space travel trailer park. The methodologies. implemented for both the City and County areas were developed in close coordination with the City staff to ensure consistency with the City's desired land use objectives. Particular attention was given to developing a framework for analysis which is realistic and consistent with the General Plan. Development standards found more stringent than those provided for in the City General Plan or Hillside Ordinance were used only where additional site considerations rendered such standards as the most reasonable estimation of potential worst case impacts. 6.3 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The cumulative development of all lands within 1-1/2 miles of the proposed project site ' could result in significant traffic, air quality and noise impacts that cannot be reduced to a level less than significant. Mitigation measures that include additional freeway access, which is not a part of this project, could reduce potential significant adverse traffic impacts to a level less than significant. On a cumulative basis, incremental increases in air pollutant emissions contribute to the ' impediment of basin -wide attainment of clean air standards, and are therefore considered a significant impact within the context of on-going regional growth. The project will also contribute incrementally to an area -wide exceedance of noise standards for isolated sensitive uses, which, on a cumulative basis, may be considered a potentially significant impact. However, the project's land use is consistent with the Land Use Element of the Santa Clarita General Plan, and the project has been designed to meet the intent of the Plan's seven basic land use goals and supporting policies, and encourages local employment opportunities within the City. I I 1 251 7.0 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The following are irreversible and/or unavoidable environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed action, should it be .implemented. As per the State CEQA Guidelines (15002(8)), a "significant effect on the environment is defined as a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions .which exist in the area affected by the proposed project. Further, when an EIR identifies a significant effect, the government agency approving the project must make findings on whether the adverse environmental effects have been substantially reduced through required mitigation measures or if not, why not". The following are significant irreversible and/or unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed project: Climate and Air Quality - On a cumulative basis, incremental increases in air pollution emissions contribute to the impediment of basin -wide attainment of clean air standards, and are, therefore, considered a. significant impact within the context of on-going regional growth. Noise - On a cumulative basis, the project will contribute incrementally to an overall area - wide exceedance of noise. standards for sensitive uses. This is considered a potentially significant noise impact within the context of on-going regional growth. All other significant environmental effects resulting from the proposed project can be reduced to a level less than significant through required mitigation measures. 252 I 1 I I I I 8.0 GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS When analyzing growth -inducing impacts, a proposed project could impact the existing environmental, land use, economic or social settings in a number of ways by inducing growth. For example, an applicant could request a higher intensity land use than what is allowed in the surrounding area. The approval and successful implementation of a substantially higher land use density and the extension or expansion of infrastructure into an unserved area can set a precedent to influence other local owners to seek higher density land uses. As another example, a property in a relatively undeveloped area could be developed and require the extension of urban -level services (fire, police, etc.)'and infrastructure (roads, sewers, water, electricity, etc.). This would provide access and services to undeveloped properties in the area and perhaps induce the property -owners to improve their own land. The project will require the extension of water and sewer infrastructure south from the San Fernando Road/Sierra Highway intersection up to the project site. The extension of this infrastructure into this area could induce other property owners of adjacent and surrounding undeveloped land to initiate development plans. 253 9.0 SHORT-TERM USE VS. LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY The cumulative and long-term effects of the proposed Valley Gateway project and other projects which adversely affect the environment are described in Section 6.0 of this report. Over the last 50 years, the property's primary land use has been oil extraction and refinery uses consisting of twenty-two wells, storage tanks, refinery equipment and other related uses. Over the last three years the project site has remained vacant. Most previous oil extraction improvements have been either removed or abandoned. The proposed development represents a long-term commitment to the continuing business park use of the property, and the commitment of natural resources, energy resources and human resources. If approved, the project represents a significant increase in the intensity of use, and will result in more urban activity on the project site. Long-term productivity will also result in approximately 2,500 jobs within the City. Implementation of the proposed project also represents a long-term irreversible commitment of energy resources, primarily in the form of fossil fuels, including natural gas and gasoline for automobiles and construction equipment. The consumption or destruction of other non- renewable and slowly -renewable resources include, but are not limited to lumber, sand and gravel, asphalt, metals, water, etc. An increased commitment of public services (waste disposal and treatment, etc.) will also be required. 254 II' 10.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS The proposed development represents a long-term commitment of the site to a more intensive land use. Once the proposed business park and supporting infrastructure are in place, utilization of the property for other purposes would be precluded. Irreversible environmental changes associated with the proposed development have been discussed throughout this report and are summarized below: Site grading would involve elimination and disruption of natural habitat of local vegetation and wildlife. - Site grading and soil remediation may temporarily cause accelerated erosion and create fugitive dust. - The grading program would result in permanent topographic alterations. ' - Increased air pollution emissions would result from both construction and operational phases of the project. ' - Long-term increases in ambient noise levels onsite and in immediately adjacent properties would occur as a result of increased traffic volumes on adjacent highways and freeways and from noise created within the business park. - Development of the project would reduce natural open space resources within the ' City. - Development of the project will impact a total of 409 of the site's 1,114 coast live ' oak trees (37%). Of these 409 oaks, 348 "(31 %) are proposed to be removed; 61 trees (6%) will have development areas encroach within the dripline. Increased demands would be placed on community services and facilities, as well as public utilities. In addition to the impact of the project on local and onsite resources, project implementation would necessitate the commitment of construction materials and energy resources. These commitments are responsive to the requirements of population growth and would be necessary whether the proposed development were implemented at the proposed site or at some other location. II II I! 255 11.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED a) City of Santa Clarita Lynn M. Harris, Deputy City Manager/Community Development Richard Henderson, City Planner Donald M. Williams, Senior Planner Glen Adamick, Assistant Planner Jeff Chaffin, Assistant Planner Judy Sleavin, Associate Engineer, Community Development Department Bahman Janka, City Traffic Engineer, Community Development Department Rabie Rahmani, Associate Traffic Engineer, Community Development Department Ed Kline, Traffic Engineer, Community Development Department Tom Sorensen, Park Supervisor, Parks and Recreation Department Wayne Weber, Park Planner Kay Werle, City Oak Tree Consultant b) County of Los Angeles 1) Fire Department Captain Frank Luna 2) David M. Norman Joseph Ferrara 2) Department of Public Works Dominic Dlucchi 3) Sheriffs Department 4) County Sanitation District #32 C) State of California 1) Office of Planning and Research David C. Nunenkamp 2) Department of Water Resources Charles R. White, Chief, Planning Branch 3) Department of Transportation (CalTrans) Gary F. McSweeney, Senior Planner 4) Department of Fish and Game Fred Worthley, Region 5 Manager 5) Regional Water Quality Control Board John L. Lewis, Unit Chief d) Newhall County Water District James E. Jinks; General Manager e) Castaic Lake Water Agency . Frank Sherrill, Staff Engineer f) William S. Hart Union High School District James Brown, Director of Support Services g) Newhall School District J. Michael McGrath 256 h) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Elizabeth Varnhagen i) Hondo Oil and Gas Company, Owner Phelps Anderson, Executive Vice President Blaine Hess, West Coast Project Manager j) Envicom Corporation, Development/Land Planning Consultant Joseph G. Johns, President David J. Armanetti, Project Manager Kelly Woodyard, Project Professional k) VTN West Engineers, Incorporated, Grading Consultant Jerry Domke, Civil Engineer 1) Austin Foust Associates - Traffic Engineers Joe Foust, Principal m) Kunzman Associates - Traffic Engineers Bill Kunzman, Principal n) EMCON, Associates,' Waste Management/Soil Remediation Christer Loftenius, Staff Geologist o) Mittelhauser Corporation, Remedial Action Plan Dr. David Leu, Principal David Dorn, Principal Environmental Chemist P) Pacific -Soils Engineering, Inc., Soils and Geology Michael F. Mills, Staff Geologist t) Mestre Greve Associates, Noise and Air Quality Consultants Paul Dunholter, Principal r) Archaeological Reso Irces Management Corporation Katie DeChario, Project Manager S) Lee Newman and Associates, Inc., Oak Tree Analysis Richard Ibarra, Vice President - Horticulture 257 12.0 QUALIFICATIONS OF THE PERSONS PREPARING THE EIR The Planning Consortium is an interdisciplinary land planning and environmental consulting firm that has prepared over 25 Environmental Impact Reports for municipal and private sector clients over the last six years. The two principals of the firm have over 30 years of land planning and environmental studies experience in southern and central California. Preparation of Master EIR 92-012 for the City of Santa Clarita was the primary responsibility of the following individuals: W. Dean Brown, Principal B.S. Urban Planning, 1974 California State Polytechnical University, Pomona John R. Bitterly, Principal B.A., Urban Geography, 1976 California State University, Long Beach Specialized environmental studies have been conducted for biotic (oak trees), noise, air quality, archaeologic, paleontoligic and geologic resources. Technical expertise was provided by the following consultants: Envicom Corporation - Dave Armanetti Land Planning and Site Planning Lee Newman Associates - Lee Newman Oak Tree Study James Brennan Engineering - Jim Brennan Civil Engineering and Hydrology Mestre Greve Associates - Paul Dunholter Noise and Air Quality Studies Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. - Mike Mills Soils, Seismicity and Geology Analysis Archaeological Resources Management Corporation - Katie DeChario Archaeological Paleontological Study Austin Foust Associates - Joe Foust Traffic Study 41.1 II 13.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY Archaeological Resource Management Corporation, A Cultural Resource Assessment ' conducted for the Valley_Gatewa Project City of Santa Clarita Los Angeles County, California, July, 1992. 1 Archaeological Resource Management Corporation, Paleontological Assessment of the Valley Gateway Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California, July 1992. Austin Foust Associates, Valley_Gateway Traffic Analysis, January 4, 1993. City of Santa Clarita Generll Plan, June 25, 1991. City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Ordinance 89-10, April 25, 1989. City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Preservation and Protection Guidelines, September 11, ' 1990. City of Santa Clarita Ridzeline Preservation and Hillside Development Guidelines, ' January 1992. 1 City of Santa Clarita Unifi Development Code (Draft), September 1991. Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Data Base, August 27, 1992. EMCON Associates, 1990, Newhall Refinery Site Assessment Volume Nos 1 and 21 Project C48-01.04: Unpublished Consultants Report, October 1990, Burbank, California. 1 259 EMCON Associates, 1991; Preliminary Site Assessment Newnan isennery rvpnn au ' Parcel and Additional Hydrocarbon Characterization- Lower Tank Farm Dump and Sump Newhall Refines'Newhall. California, Project C48-01.08: Unpublished Consultants Report, July 17, 1991, Burbank, California. Envicom Corporation, Valley Gateway Proiect Background and Existing Conditions Report, February, 1991. Envicom Corporation, Valley Gateway Proiect Interim Conceptual Development Plan ' Report. May, 1991. Submission Envicom Corporation, Valley Gateway Project Development Application Package, January 16, 1992. Valley Jeanette A. McKenna, Phase 1 Archaeological Investigation of the Propped Gateway Project Santa Clarita Los Angeles County. California, January 30, 1991. Kay Werle, City of Santa Clarita Oak Tree Consultant, Memorandum, August 20, 1992. Kunzman Associates, Valley Gateway_ Traffic Study, January, 1992. 1 259 Lee Newman & Associates, Inc., Preliminary Oak Tree Report Valley g tewav Proiect, July 22,.1992 {1st Revision). Mestre Greve Associates, Air Quality Assessment for the Valley Gateway Development, November 23, 1992. Mestre Greve Associates, Noise Assessment for the ValleX.Gateway Proiec , November 23, 1992. Mittelhauser Corporation, 1992, Remedial Action Plan for the Valley Gateway Proiect Site, Santa Clarita. California; Project Number 1798.04: Unpublished Consultants Report, March, 1992, Laguna Hills, California. Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc., Review of Available Geotechnical Documents for Environmental Impact ReportValley Gateway, August 17, 1992. State of California, Office of Planning and Research, California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines, June 1992. Valley Gateway Company (Hondo Oil & Gas Company), Beale's Cut Stagecoach Pass Historical Landmark Registration Application, March 20, 1992. Wilson, K., 1991, Fault Investigation Studies and Geologic Mapping for the Valley Gateway Project- Santa Clarita California: Unpublished Consultants Report, August 1991, Altadena, California. K1t: 14.0 INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST, NOTICE OF PREPARATION, AND COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION 261 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Initial Study Form B) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA MASTER CASE NO: -92_012 Case Planners: Glenn Adamick and Fred Follstad Project Location: 27674 Clampitt Road, approximately .6 miles southeast of the intersection of Sierra Highway and San Fernando Road. Project Description and .Settings Zone. Change. Conditional Use Permit. Annexation, Pre -Zone, Tentative Tract Map, Oak Tree Permit, and a Development Agreement to allow for the development of a 117 acre site with approximately 948,210 square feet of office and business park floor space and 12 multiple family residential units. General Plan Designation: Business Park and Residential Estate (0.0 to 0.5 dwelling units per acre) Zoning: M -2 -DP (Heavy Manufacturing Zone, Development Program) and A-2-1 (Heavy Agriculture, two acre minimum lot size) Applicant: Valley Gateway Company (Hondo Oil'Company) Environmental Constraint Areas: Hillsides, Oak Trees, Soil Contamination, Grading, Wildlife Corridor, Blueline Stream A. ENVIRONMENTAL. EFFECTS 1 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a M Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? .................. YES MAYBE NO Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? ............... [x] [ ] [ l C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? ........................... [x] [ J [ J d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? .................................. I J [XI [ ] e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? .......... [x] [ l [ J f. Exposure of.people or property to geologic hazards such as.earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? ............................... [x] I ] [ ] g. Changes in deposition, erosion or siltation? ................................. [xl I 1 [ ] h. Other modification of a wash, channel, creek, or river? ........................... [x] I J [ ] 263 ►'.M YES MAYBE NO i. Earth movement (cut and/or fill) of 10,000 cubic yards or more? ....................... Ix] ( ] [ 1 j. Development and/or grading on a slope greater than 25Z natural grade? ............ Ix] [ J ( J k. Development within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone? ...................... ( j ( ] (x] 1. Other? [ ] ( J [x] 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? .................... (x] I l [ l b. The creation of objectionable odors? ....... [ ] [x] ( J C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? .............. ( 1 ( 1 Ix] d. Other? [ I [ ] [XI 3. Yater. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ............................ [XI I l ( l b. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? .............................. IxJ I l I l C. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? ......................... ( J [ ] [xl d. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ............. [ J ( ] (x] e. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? ...................... [ J [x] ( 1 f. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- dravals, or through interception of an aquifer b7 cuts or excavations? ............ ( ] ( ] [x] g. Substantial reduction in.the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ............................ I 1 I 1 Ixl h. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? .......... ( ] ( ] (xJ ►'.M b. A substantial alteration of the : planned land use of an area? ............... [ ] [x] I ] 265 YES MAYBE NO i. Other? [ ] [ J [x] 4. Plant Life. Vill the proposal result ins a. Change-in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants'(including trees, shrubs, grasses, crops, and microflora)? ... [x] I I I ] b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? ...... [x] I J ( ] C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal re- plenishment of existing species? ........... I J IxJ ( ] d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?...................................... [ J [ J IxJ 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result ins a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and insects or microfauna)? .................... [x) ( ] ( ] b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? ..... [ ] [x] I ] C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? ...... ( J (x) [ j d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat and/or migratory routes? ........... [ ] [xj I ] 6. Noise. Will the proposal result ins a. Increases-in existing noise levels? ........ [x] I J I ] b. Exposure of people to severe or unacceptable noise levels? ................. (x] ( J I ] C. Exposure of people to severe vibrations? ( ] [ J IxJ 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? ................. [x] I ] ( J S. Land Use. Vill the proposal result in: a. Substantial alteration of the present land use of an area? ....................... IxJ I J I J b. A substantial alteration of the : planned land use of an area? ............... [ ] [x] I ] 265 YES MAYBE NO C. A use that does not adhere to existing zoning laws? ............................... I ] I ] Ix] d. A use that does not adhere to established development criteria? ...................... [ ] [x] I ] 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural - resources? ................................. I ] ( ] [x] b. Substantialdepletion of any nonrenewable natural resources? ......................... I ] I ] Ixl 10. Risk of Upset/)fan-!Sade Hazards. Vill the proposal: a. Involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? .......................... [ ) (x) [ ] b. Use, store, transport or dispose of hazard- ous or toxic materials (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? ................................ Ix] I ] I ] C. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? ...................................... [ ] [ ] [x] d. Otherwise expose people to potential safety hazards? ................................... I ] [x] I ] 11. Population. Will the proposals a. Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? ..................... [ ] (x] ( ] b. Other? _Child Care Services 12.. Housing. Vill the proposal: a. Remove or otherwise affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? ......4 ................. [ ] ( ] (x] b. Other? [ ] ( ] (z] 13. Transportation/Circulation. Vill the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? ........................ [x] [ ] [ ] 267 YES MAYBE NO b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? ................. [xJ I ] [ ] C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems. including public transportation? ............................ Ix] I 1 I ] d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? ................... :.......... [x] I ] [ ] e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ....... f. A disjointed pattern of roadway improvements? .............................. I ] Ix] I ] 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the following areasr a. Fire protection? ........................... ( I [xl I ] b. Police protection? ......................... [ ] [x] [ ] C. Schools? ................................... I ] Ix] [ ] d. Parks or other recreational facilities?- acilities? e. e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ............. I............. I ] Ix] I ] f. Other governmental services? ............... [ ] [z] [ J 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in? a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy . .................................... Ixl I I I ] b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? [ ] (z] [ ] 16. Utilities. will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities, a. Power or natural gas? ... :.................. I ] Ix] I ] b. Communications systems? .................... I I Ix] I ] C. Water systems? ............................. [ ] [zj I ] d. Sanitary sever systems? .................... ( ] [z] [ ] e. Storm drainage systems? .................... [ ] [xJ [ ] 267 268 YES MAYBE NO f. solid waste and disposal systems? .......... ( I [x] [ I g. Will the proposal result in a disjointed or inefficient pattern of delivery system improvements for any of the above? ......... [ I (x] [ I 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard.(excluding mental health)? ... [ J [ J [x] b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? ................................... [ I [xI [ ] 18. Aesthetics. Vill the proposal result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? ................... ( ] (x] [ ] b. Vill the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? ....................... ( ] [x] [ ] C. Vill the visual impact of the proposal ' be detrimental to the surrounding area? .... [ ] [x] [ ] 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? ..................... [ I [xI [ ] 20. Cultural Resources. a. Vill'the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? .............. ( ] (x] [ ] b. Vill the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? ... ( ] [x] [ ] C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ............. ( ] [ I (x] d. Vill the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ..................... [ I [ I (x] DEPARTMENT OF FISM AND GAME 'DE MINIMUS" FINDING Will the project have an adverse effect either individually or cumulatively, on fish and wildlife resources? Wildlife shall be defined for the purpose of this question as 'all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and related ecological communities, 268 ' including the habitat upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability". ' (Section 711.2, Fish and Game Code.) ................. (x) [N/AJ ( j Discussion of Impacts. Section Subsection Evaluation of Impact 1. EARTH ' Discussion of Impacts The subject site is located at 27672 Clampitt Road, approximately .6 miles southeast of -the intersection of Sierra Highway and San Fernando Road. The site is bounded on the north by vacant property, to the south by vacant property. to the east by State Route 14, and to the vest by vacant property. The site does contain Beale's Cut, a potential State Historical Landmark. ' Part of the submittal package includes a Preliminary Site Assessment prepared by EMCON Associates and a Fault Investigation Studies and Geological Mapping Report. Mitigation Measures have not been included within these reports. The project site is characterized by topographic relief in an area which includes the eastern portion of the Transverse Ranges physiographic and structural province, the Tunnel Area of the Newhall Oil Field, and the Eastern Subarea of the Upper Santa Clara River Hydrologic Subunit. The specifics of the these areas are further discussed within the submitted site assessment prepared for the project. The project site was previously utilized as a petroleum extraction and refining facility. Hydrocarbon contamination, related to the past use of the site, has been identified on-site. The applicant has indicated that a remediation effort is being carried out in conjunction- with the entitlement processing of the project. This remediation effort will be outlined in a remedial action plan (RAP) presently being negotiated with the State of California Regional Vater Quality Control Board, the lead/responsible agency for this remediation. The information contained in this plan is unavailable at this time. Grading activities associated with the above use have substantially altered portions of the site from a natural condition. A majority of the development associated with this project would be occur in these previously graded areas. GRADING According to the applicant's environmental questionnaire, approximately 25 acres of the site is expected to be graded in conjunction with this project. Additional areas may be graded as part of the soil remediation proposed for the site. The applicant has indicated that the grading (280,000 cubic yards of cut and 260,000 cubic yards.of fill) is necessary to 1) repair or remediate prior grading activities that were conducted on the site, and 2) achieve the soil remediation activities necessary to clean up the identified contamination on the site. P Currently, the City is developing a Hillside Ordinance. The City Council ' adopted this ordinance on March 10, 1992. This ordinance will establish restrictions that could effect the number of residential units permitted as well as the allowable floor area ratios for the commercial and , industrial buildings. SEISMIC , The project site is not located within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone established for the San Gabriel Fault. A Fault Investigation and ' Geological Mapping Studies has been conducted for the project. This report is attached to this document. The potential for impacts described in the above sections necessitate additional information in the form of an environmental impact report. 2. AIR ' Discussion of Impacts There will be short-term, localized impacts associated with the grading ' and construction of .the project site. Long-term significant impacts would be associated primarily with automobile traffic. The proposed uses (office and business park) associated with the are generally not , pollutant producing uses. Due to the relatively large scale of the project, further information in the form of an environmental impact report is required to assess possible long-term impacts to air quality ' (Community Development). 270 1 Cut and fill grading techniques will be utilized to accommodate the proposed roadways and lot grading. The maximum depth of cut is 80' with the average depth being 20'. The maximum depth of fill is 30' with the average depth being 101. All grading shall conform with the provisions ' of the City's _ proposed Hillside Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. HILLSIDES ' The project site includes both elevated hills and ridgelines. The project site has an average elevation of 1,700', with a minimum elevation ' of approximately 1,450' and a maximum elevation of 1,9501. The site does not contain a significant ridgeline as identified by the City's General Plan and draft Hillside Ordinance. ' A slope analysis has been prepared for the project site (containing 120.69 acres) with a breakdown as follows: ' Slone Classification Acres of Land Percent of Site 1) 0 to 5Z 28.96 242 ' 2) 6 to 1OZ 19.31 16Z 3) 11 to 151 7.24 6Z 4) 16 to 30Z 8.45 71 ' 5) 31 to 50Z 20.52 17Z 6) 51X+ 36.21 301 Currently, the City is developing a Hillside Ordinance. The City Council ' adopted this ordinance on March 10, 1992. This ordinance will establish restrictions that could effect the number of residential units permitted as well as the allowable floor area ratios for the commercial and , industrial buildings. SEISMIC , The project site is not located within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone established for the San Gabriel Fault. A Fault Investigation and ' Geological Mapping Studies has been conducted for the project. This report is attached to this document. The potential for impacts described in the above sections necessitate additional information in the form of an environmental impact report. 2. AIR ' Discussion of Impacts There will be short-term, localized impacts associated with the grading ' and construction of .the project site. Long-term significant impacts would be associated primarily with automobile traffic. The proposed uses (office and business park) associated with the are generally not , pollutant producing uses. Due to the relatively large scale of the project, further information in the form of an environmental impact report is required to assess possible long-term impacts to air quality ' (Community Development). 270 1 3. PATER Discussion of Impacts A hydrology report has not been prepared for the project. One USGS intermittent 'blueline• stream flows through the project site. The project site is located within Flood Zone C, which is not designated a flood hazard area. No surface evidence of a shallow water table has been observed. Groundwater was encountered at depths of 89' to 127' below grade. The project will alter the existing absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface run-off.' As indicated in Discussion Section 1, portions of the site will be altered considerably by the proposed grading. The addition of approximately 950,000 square feet of office and business park .floor area and accessory parking is expected to significantly effect existing drainage patterns and decrease present absorption rates. In addition, the project is expected to increase runoff and surface pollutants due to the increased paving of the site: Additional information in the form of. an environmental impact report is required to assess the potential impacts (Community Development). 4. PLANT LIFE Discussion of Impacts Development of the site will result in the loss of wildlife habitat and native plant communities. The project site contains 1,114 oak trees, eight non -oak trees, chaparral, scrub vegetation and non-native grasslands. The oak trees have been identified as Ouercus aarifoila. more commonly known as the Coast Live Oak Tree. Information contained within the submitted oak tree report indicates the site contains no heritage type trees. The submitted report has not provided the number of trees expected to be impacted by the project. The habitat of the project site has been negatively impacted by past use, though portions of the site remain in a fairly natural state. The project is anticipated to further significantly impact the existing condition of the project site. Information provided by the applicant indicates that there exists. no officially -listed state or federal endangered plant species. Additional information in the form of an environmental impact report is required to assess the potential impacts (Community Development). 5. ANIMAL LIFE Discussion of Impacts The project site currently acts as a wildlife corridor, providing a significant animal migratory route between the San Gabriel !fountains and the Santa Susan& Mountains. The development of the site may result in the elimination of this migratory route. The project includes, as a part of its design, an area, to be utilized as a wildlife corridor. Information concerning the characteristics of wildlife corridors and adjacent developments effects upon such corridors has not been provided with this application. Additional information in the form of an ' environmental impact report is required to assess potential impacts (Community Development). II 1 271 NOISE Discussion of Impacts The project prgposes office, business park and residential uses. -The site is located within an area above the 65 CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) contour on the City's noise contour map due to the project's close proximity to both State Route 14 and Sierra Highway. Localized noise increases are expected to occur during grading and construction of the site. These impacts are short-term and expected to cease at the completion of. project construction. The project is anticipated to increase long-term noise levels due to localized increases, in human activity, proposed uses, and associated automobile traffic. The project site is surrounded by vacant property to the north, south, and vest, although development of the parcels is expected in the future. in addition, as cited previously, the project site contains: an identified wildlife corridor. Noise impacts from the project may be significant due to the character and scale of the project. Additional information in the form of an environmental impact is report is required to assess the potential impacts (Community Development). 7. LIGHT AND GLARE Discussion of Impacts The project will result in a substantial new source the area. The development will be very visible to public right-of-vays. Additional information environmental impact report is required to assess (Community Development). B. LAND USE Discussion of Impacts of light and glare to surrounding areas and , n the form of an :he potential impacts The site was previously utilized as an oil production and storage facility. The site has been disturbed by this past use. Presently, this use is not in operation. Majorgrading and landform alterations have occurred over portions of the •site as a result of its past use. The project site is zoned M -2 -DP (Heavy Manufacturing Zone, Development Program) and A-2-1 (Heavy Agriculture, two acre minimum lot size). The proposed project is consistent with the type of development permitted for the area, as the office and business park uses will be located within the M -2 -DP zone. The City's General Plan land use designation for the project site is Business Park (BP) and Residential Estate (RE). The office and business park uses proposed with the .project are consistent with the Business Park Designation. The 12 .proposed .multiple -family units located within. the area- designated as Residential. Estate are inconsistent with this designation. Currently, the City is in the. process of developing a hillside ordinance. This ordinance will establish restrictions on floor area ratios of office and industrial buildings. This ordinance is likely to effect the permitted floor area of individual buildings. Additionally, proposed project grading and erosion protection facilities would have to be in conformance with the ordinance: 272 The subdivision, resulting in 40 parcels, does not adhere to established development criteria because the street sections proposed do not comply with City standards. The proposed deviation is considered a significant deviation from existing development standards. Additional information in the form of an environmental is required to assess potential.impacts. (Community Development) 9. NATURAL RESOURCES Discu5sion of Impacts The site was previously utilized as an oil producing and storage facility. Development of the project may result in the loss of additional opportunity to extract this resource from the site. This is not anticipated to be significant due to the availability of the resource. The project is of a nature and size which will incrementally increase the use .of natural resources. No significant impact is anticipate due to the availability of such resources (Community Development). 10. RISK OF UPSET/MAN-MADE HAZARDS Discussion of Impacts Hydrocarbon contamination associated with the site's past use has been identified on-site. The applicant has indicated that a remediation effort is being carried out in conjunction with the entitlement processing of the project. This remediation effort will be outlined in a remedial action plan (RAP) presently being negotiated with the State of California Regional dater Quality Control Board, the lead/responsible agency for this remediation activity. Other agencies, such as the California Environmental Protection Agency (Department of Toxic Substances and Control), may also want to grant initial clearance of the remediation effort. The information contained in this plan is unavailable at this time. Future industrial uses proposed for the site may use, store, transport or dispose of hazardous or toxic materials or may create a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances. Additional information in the form of an environmental impact report is required to assess potential impacts. (Community Development) Discussion of Impacts The. project proposes. 12 residential units. The City's General Plan indicates that the average household size is 3.1 persons. Based on this estimate, the population proposed for the project would be 37 persons. The addition of approximately 950,000 square feet of office and business park floor area will result in a beneficial increase .in the number of employment opportunities to the City. The applicant's environmental questionnaire indicates that .the project will generate approximately 2,367 full-time 273 employment opportunities. Additional job opportunities will be available on a part-time basis. The above number is considered significant related to potential child care services. Presently, the City is in need of child care services. Additionally, the project may have significant growth inducing impacts. Additional information. in the form of an environmental impact report is necessary to assess potential impacts (Community Development) 12. HOUSING Discussion of Impacts The project will provide 12 residential units. The addition of 12 residential units in the Newhall area is not considered a significant impact. The addition of the office and industrial uses -will be beneficial in improving the City's Jobs/Sousing Balance. No significant impact is anticipated. (Community Development) 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Discussion of Impacts According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (5th edition), this project is anticipated to create a total of 10,572 trips per day upon build out. The addition of these trips upon the existing area circulation system is .anticipated to have a significant impact. The project would take access from Sierra. Highway with three roadways (Remsen Street, Clampitt Road, and Snow Drive). Interior roadways would be constructed within the project site. As proposed the roadway widths are not in conformance with City code requirements. Cul-de-sac lengths also extend beyond established City code requirements. The applicant has submitted a traffic study (prepared by Ruzman.Associates) which has been reviewed. the City's Traffic Engineer. The City's Traffic Engineer has indicated that additional information is necessary to assess the potential project impacts, and should be included in an environmental impact report. (Community Development) 14. PUBLIC SERVICES Discussion of Impacts Fire service is provided for by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Police service is provided by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. This project may have a significant impact upon.fire and sheriff services. New roadways and increased use of existing roadways will impact road maintenance. This impact may be significant. The project proposes construction of '12 residential units. This number is anticipated to increase enrollment in the affected school districts. This increase in not expected to be significant. The additional jobs created by the project may result in a overall enrollment increase due to relocation of families into the City. This increase may be significant. 274 A portion of the project site (52.4 acres) is proposed to be preserved, improved, and maintained as permanent open space. This open space area is tentatively proposed to be dedicated to an appropriate agency. This open space area includes Beale's Cut and a wildlife corridor area. The potential for public 'dedication and maintenance of this area necessitates that additional information be provided. Additional information- in the form of an environmental impact repert is required to assess potential impacts (Community Development). 15. ENERGY Discussion of Impacts Due to the relatively large scale of the project. it may result in a substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy or require the development of new sources of energy. Additional information in the form of an environmental impact report is required to assess potential impacts (Community Development) 16. UTILITIES Discussion of Impacts Due to the relatively large scale of the project, it may result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to existing utilities: Additional information in the form of an environmental impact report is required to assess potential impacts. (Community Development) 17. HUMAN HEALTH Discussion of Impacts The project may have short-term construction related impacts (dust, noise) on human health. No significant impact is anticipated with this proposal due to the short-term. intermittent. and localized nature of project construction. Hydrocarbon contamination associated with the site's past. use has been identified on-site. The applicant has indicated that a remediation effort is being carried out in conjunction with the entitlement processing of the project. This remediation effort will be outlined in a remedial action plan (RAP) presently being negotiated with the State of California Regional Vater Quality Control Board. The information contained in this plan is unavailable at this time.. Additional information in the form of an environmental impact report is required to assess potential impacts (Community Development) 18. AESTHETICS Discussion Of Impacts The project site is very visible via State Route 14 and Sierra Highway. The project does act as a •gatevay" into the City of Santa Clarita. Proposed corporate headquarters structures (four buildings) would be 275 between 3.5 and seven stories, with heights ranging from 60 to 95 feet. The business park structures would be one to two stories and not as visible. As mentioned in Section 1, cut and fill grading techniques will be utilized to accommodate the proposed roadways and lot grading. Graded slopes and areas will be visible to vehicular traffic on.both State Route 14 and Sierra Highway. The project may negatively impact the aesthetics of the site. Full assessment of scenic values and aesthetic impacts must be determined through further study. in the form of an environmental impact report. (Community Development) 19. RECREATION Discussion of Impacts A portion of the project site (52.4 acres) is proposed to be preserved, improved, and maintained as permanent open space. This open space area is tentatively proposed to be dedicated to an appropriate agency. This open space area includes Beale's Cut and a wildlife corridor area. The potential for public dedication and maintenance of this area. necessitates that additional information in the form of an environmental impact report be provided (Community Development). 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES Discussion of Impacts The site does contain Beale's Cut, a historic transportation link between the Santa Clarita Valley and the San Fernando Valley. The project is not proposing to alter this historic object, but to include it within an open space area. Additionally, the applicant is currently seeking to have Beale's Cut designated as a state of California Historical Landmark. The applicant. has submitted an archaeological report (Prepared my McKenna). This report indicates that the site contains no prehistoric or historic archaeological site. The report failed to address the entire project site. Additional information,. in the form of an environmental impact report, is necessary to assess the potential impacts (Community Development) DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 'DE MINIMUS' FINDINGS Discussion of Finding The project site has been disturbed by past use. The project is intensifying the use of the site. Also, the site contains an identified wildlife corridor. Vhen considering the record as a whole, the City has found that there is evidence before the City that the project vill have potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. 276 ' C. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE YES MAYBE NO Section 15065 of the California Environmental Quality Act states, in part, that if any of the following can be answered yes or maybe, the project may have -s significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report shall be prepared. 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sus- taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history -or pre -history? ................. [xJ 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) ........... ( J (XI [ ] 3. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) .. ( ] [x] ( ] 4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ( ] [x] ( ] D. On the basis of this Initial Study, it is determined that: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION VILLBE PREPARED . .................................... ( J Although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect.in this case because the mitigation measures described in this Initial Study have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILLBE PREPARED . .................................... ( ] 277 The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on ' the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ........................ LYNN M. HARRIS • DEPUTY CITY MANAGER / COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA. CALIFORNIA 1y Prepared By: . - �--` Glenn Adamick Assi stant Planner' (Signature) (Name/Title) x_11-92 (Date) Approved By: 00 Lynn M. Harris ne ..•_ j e11- 9 ' Signature) (Name/Title) ( ' (Date) GEA:jcg:459 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 11 1 278 1 Project Location U1 :: kIJ 1:: US fAX JUS :5kl Si:J 41i bXIA tiL.ikil.i ' Notice of Wraparmlirm CtO33SMES! Clamoitt Road and Sierra Highway Append.,,?( F Sde .VOTE Seio .Mail to: Sum Ciearin&house,1400. enth Street Sacratncttto, CA 95814 916/445-..13 I SCH 8 ' Projectntlet Valley Gateway Project EIR - MC No. 92-012 LeadAgary: City of Santa Clarita Southern Pacific Schools: Cwa=Persen: Jeff Chaffin Stat Addttss. 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 phone: 1805) . -4 0 City Santa Clarita,California -- ZIP: 91355 — Cum . Los Angeles ---+—_— Project Location 'Loa Angeles Santa Clarita County: —. � 9 Ciry/Nura[ Cotruntaciry: CtO33SMES! Clamoitt Road and Sierra Highway Tom]Acres: 117 AssessoisPawlNo. 2827-010-007 et.al. Section: Twp. Range: _ Within: Miles: State Hwy k 14 Waterways: Newhall Creek Anp=: Railways: Southern Pacific Schools: Document Type CEC1A: M NOP ❑ Supplemenusubsegaent NEPA. ❑ NO( Other: ❑ Joint Document ❑ Early Coss ❑ EIR (Ptior SCH No.) ❑ Neg Dec ❑ Other ❑ EA ❑ Draft EIS ❑ Final Dmmem ❑ Other ❑ Drsh IDR ❑ FONSI ' ..-...-------------------------..---. Local Action Type ❑ General Pen Update ❑ Specile Plan Rrotke Am.ellman . (r Getrnl Plau Ammdmmi ❑ Masa Pim M Prezcoe r 1 Redevelopment Gaterd Plan Elemess ❑ Planned Unit Development ® Una Permit ❑ Coastal Permit ❑ Cormauairy Pisa ❑ Sue Pl= Lard D'tyuion (Subdivision. ® Other Oak Tree Pert' Ptarxl Map. Trac Map, era) Development Agreemer. 'Development Type- 60qoOOy�....------------------------. ®Residential: Unur�Aaes ❑Water Faalitiea: Type .MGD ' In Of ": soil. Acra Employee X Commorcist SgA.S Acre Employer 0Trc1q==V= Type ❑mining: Mimool — ❑ TwA„iCial Sq�t.er EmployW i] Power: Type wars_ C3 Edtteatiaaal ❑ Wute Treatmmu Type ❑ Reatadonal ❑ Harsdeus Werra Type ' $OC:t o00 ❑ Other .__----------__--_____.___---- ----r.---------- ' ` Project Issues Dlecussad In Document ® Aeahetir7VULW M Flood PS:Ea,IFlmding Cl selwoWUaNasidra E water Qudiry ❑ Agriatlronl Lend ❑ Force 1.md/Fue Hand ❑ Septic Sycoma Q Water S%W1Y/Grouttdwa:c Qj Air Quality M CeoioVA`Seiamlc' ® Sever Capnity ® WedatdRUpanm ' Q Arehe»logic WHismrical ❑ MtaaaL • ® Sail Em6aclCommezontOrad ng ® Wildlife ❑ Coastal Zone ® Noise Q Solid Ware ® Growth lo&%Cing ® Dmnage1Absorpdoa ® PopaUdom6oudag Balmee ©TotuNHarardous Q Lcxtm ® teen=ie/Johe } Public ServionlPacilidee © TttlfulCat:nladoa ® Cu d=upe Effects ❑ Fiscal ❑ Reaeaoott/Puts (y3 Vegetation ❑ Other ' Present Land UselZaning/Genoml Plass Uses : Abandoned Oil Refinery/Heavy Manufacturing; Heavy Agriculture/Business Park; Residential Estate ' ---------- Project Dsaortptlan __—__•^•terr..-_r++_— a----- Pre Tentative Tract Map, Oak Tree Zone Change, Conditional Use Permit, Annexation, -Zone, Permit, and a Development Agreement toallow for the development of a 117 acre site with approximately 948,210 square feet of office and business park floor space and 12 multiple - ' family residential units. 279 ' ,VOTE:Clesringhoumwill usigaidendficaconntttnbcnforallnewprojects. IfaSCH atmkba1hid ezisufor aProject (e.g.fromaNotice ofPrepa t or proviout draft doe spent) pLease fill it in. Revised Octoberl t Reviewing agencies ChAckiist •,KEY x Resources Agency S = Document sent by lead agency _Boating & WatrWays X. Document sent by SCH —Coastal Com�ac r Suggested distribution ,Coastal Conservancy _„Colorado River Board xConservation —.!—Fish & Game —forestry x Office of historic Preservation ____.Parks & Recreation x Reclamation _S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission x Water Resources (DWR) Business, Transportation & Housing Aeronautics x Califomia Highway Patrol x CALTRANS District N 7 _y,_Depanment of Transponazion Planning (headquarters) X .Housing & Community Development Food & Agriculture Health & Welfare x Health Services Departtaent of Toxic Substance on ro State & Consumer Services _General Services _OLA (Schools) Public Review Period (to be tilled in by lead agency) Environmental Altair$ X Air Resources Board x APCD/AQMD x Catifomia Waste Management Board _SWRCB: Clean Water Grants __SWRCB: Delta Unit —L—SWRCB: Water Quality _SWRCB: Water Rights x Regional WQCB # Youth & Adult Corrections —Corrections Independent Commissions & Offices x Energy Commission _Native American Heritage Commission X Public Utilises Commission ;Santa Monica lvfotuuains Conservancy —State Lands Commission __Taboo Regional Planning Agency _Other Stating Date April 13, 1992 Ending Date May 13, 1992 Siguanns l%i^ ` Date April B, 1992 Lead Agency (Complete if applleable): Consulting Firm: /State/Zip: Contac: none: L� Applicant: Valley Gateway Company Address: 109 W. _Third Street Cuy/StatelZip: Roswell, IN 88201 Phone: CM 625-6655 VKIJ RevixJOerebesl989 ' ' For SCH use Only: Dare Received at SCH I ' Due Rtwiew Stain Due to Agencies Date to SCH Clearance Dau i ' Notes: RevixJOerebesl989 ' TATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON, Govemor OVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 4o0 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 I! 1 DATE: Apr 10, 1992 TO; ReviewingAgency RE. CITY OF SANTA CLARITA's NOP for VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT EIR - MC NO. 92-012 SCH #I 92041041 ......�..�.e ..tom AP -R 13 139? Attached for your comment is the CITY OF SANTA CLARITA's Notice of Preparation of a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT EIR - MC NO. 92-012. Responsible agencies must transmit their concerns and comments on the scope and content of the EIR, focusing on specific information related to their own statutory responsibility, within 30 days of receipt of this notice. We encourage commenting agencies to respond to this notice and express their concerns early in the environmental review process. Please direct your comments tot JEFF CHAFFIN CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 23920 VALENCIA BLVD., STE. 302 SANTA CLARITA, CA 91355 with a copy to the Office of Planning and Research. Please refer -to the SCH number noted above in all. correspondence concerning this project. If you have any questions about the review process, call Tom Loftus at (916) 445-0613. Sincerely, Christine Rinne Acting Deputy Director, Permit Assistance Attachments ' cot Lead Agency 281 NOP Distribution List S a sm by Icad agcncy Fls►at imS • trRi63d Mkw tgNw.t /1 TrRaHrotln ❑Pnl...e.. X = 3cDc bySCN ...6.q,Y w7100 tatu6tc..ala1fvF4arpw6Ha1tM46sty .61 ..ACA f/fO O.Lt. 3.a... W. CA 17014 Dqa .tt.\r(lw 11613 -Ml (:.yl.wl.dl i6sla c.rr." 601 G,Na ❑ D 84%6 k aS~Dela L.6111.1..A Cd.w ua..ndAowfin e(Bud1yAMNWwIr fiYC lcmh/FN]! 3w F.ni•,CA fSfa f ❑ mawpl3la(St ) 1. A Roan rkra t61Y �T/NfMID i N CA! 3994 JV•IA nn yR.d.d M—SW �)5 S.Ch fSSt{ jjjA.1a.. t16A163.6A1 dFM• 1761 r4mY.I= 3.A ❑ NLYfr G•R.1\.. fiAery.7Arwti pl pp.pp f.1r L IIa01../ w1CA !3670 i161M1.36m r.0 P« t"610 TI]fd11nM3 Cd�CwwJCwi.ia U Fisw. 3wgir.2am ttunlaF3719A1f) A1ww d .A1 r6lR6oeaYD R.�r�,G 91O19�M0 t W:1f-ft3f t3MIt G97>16 6OI3N11 3.1 f...rlwtG 96104-3A! RSR.rFr.R.AIr N.n131r R.M.aCA 96101 N fI&fn44163(A7f941) w sISA061300 - d iirGr ldFt....va � n.a.vn6 Ljr.dM Y..1.IRtiG 945af 161AWMIS 0=16=00- I � 6 W O0- li>• r�7 13710 F.rG 17710 70821 -SMI 1/-611) 3r.Ry. 3f.�.ns.� dfir W Or .mr arr.3.1.30 �lwsilit 16942 IApNu1F63S1 bdVas"ACRRRYI&M .►6 Rlra.r c.ur.F...l,f�...w IL6Nw\ CA fu:t3 3..ar..G tyM i6M1S�]nf Nlcpr.+16.71, a�3r 3•..r1....,CAri1N • f16A31+091 wutl�Sf.bw 30V 14.oC+irir S. V« tl. A. 94 S. Fwow,G "10] {I]NP613101F7971 DwIF lr6W RM 11-w m 3..4I.1.&C - ❑Pnl...e.. 9Lr4 w4w.*$I Prxl ...6.q,Y w7100 IW7.m3.•a 3..r1.«.,G93914 .61 ..ACA f/fO O.Lt. 3.a... W. CA 17014 S1tWNIOIS 11613 -Ml -n Olin 714039M d^CMrr1.- ❑SVB,Cm.w 341616rbUw6Rs IM2 ❑ L.6111.1..A Cd.w ua..ndAowfin CINTRALCOAST REGION 1T) tIN4SiA3 3w O:..d3trsrtYdro S..I.:.Ok•t+G 93WI.564 Aa d Oil W Or mawpl3la(St ) 1. A Roan rkra t61Y W A7lCfr r. R[1:NIN (Q D"4. Wkbuff Qt {6 3daan 3Rao W W �)5 S.Ch fSSt{ jjjA.1a.. fw6f1f9f1 ION CUTMAL VAMY REG(3) u...z..d6Yra a 01\«dlfu.r... nvrwl+6 S. CA fS127.309 fA.l« 1673% i161M1.36m S«,.•.r..,G !611{0001 tray Rr66.\ ORk• OSLMP aAd6«A. "6nt3ela F.G ton A1ww d .A1 r6lR6oeaYD bR/wi3114(S43l) Snr..o..,CA l68FOOtl R.A6I.a Rr...ADRIW O613R.dl.aaikiw tl6alao3t7 Ljr.dM Y..1.IRtiG 945af 161AWMIS 0=16=00- I � 6 W O0- li>• r�7 13710 F.rG 17710 70821 -SMI 1/-611) 3r.Ry. 3f.�.ns.� dfir W Or .mr arr.3.1.30 �lwsilit 16942 IApNu1F63S1 bdVas"ACRRRYI&M .►6 Rlra.r c.ur.F...l,f�...w IL6Nw\ CA fu:t3 3..ar..G tyM i6M1S�]nf Nlcpr.+16.71, a�3r 3•..r1....,CAri1N • f16A31+091 wutl�Sf.bw 30V 14.oC+irir S. V« tl. A. 94 S. Fwow,G "10] {I]NP613101F7971 DwIF lr6W �� A. Lw 3r 3..4I.1.&C - ❑Pnl...e.. 9Lr4 w4w.*$I Prxl 93901 IW7.m3.•a 3..r1.«.,G93914 A4r 3.a... W. CA 17014 cw 11613 -Ml F.O.2•17110 714039M gwhY .T3ay6lb0a,iWlRlq ❑SVB,Cm.w N•«7 WAt &Dnlca 50VrMw"^ ..11 Ml ❑ L.6111.1..A Cd.w ua..ndAowfin CINTRALCOAST REGION 1T) Iu R.r CA 16101 3w /.O.Aa "3311 S..I.:.Ok•t+G 93WI.564 613AI7.76K mawpl3la(St ) 3.a.....i.,G lIS7►OOaI W A7lCfr r. R[1:NIN (Q All S. D.d. 18VE-c all fl6tu6lw �)5 tr.su l jjjA.1a.. . ION CUTMAL VAMY REG(3) w Wr�.r.R�9r.366... N 6Na►S..ya.�Aw S.o......G 9$11 116615)ffM a cad ffy%.-Tr..d OIA11d 3p.id h'-rm lR..s.l W Ar1/1a D..ai•6 S. CA fS127.309 i161M1.36m 21)9 Fra A.a.. tray Rr66.\ ORk• OSLMP aAd6«A. F.G ton 31...8..7•. CA 93941 bR/wi3114(S43l) R.A6I.a Rr...ADRIW O613R.dl.aaikiw f1w37-7m R.M.aCA 96101 N fI&fn44163(A7f941) w 9A110NFAN BECLON(6) f11..r • Fln.iiy -w El202W.T.6«R.+ f.ALA*lj CA 9450 ru 61r" 21 916666].61 ....w..C^CA 94D4I00% �� IuN ( 1GRTIICOR1I:t) 71r00u.B..+W.CA 1440 0.918 54 93901 R...G 1w 95401 A4r imA7FIIM(FSfO) cw SAN PRANaWG RAY REGION F.O.2•17110 wburr 3-n1 Sm 3.. F...o.a�G w30 046.LCA "617 4snsT-NN 1i5tq ❑ Cdwy CINTRALCOAST REGION 1T) rwr••jtWY 9914FG,b. 3w S. Ir.", D6+f4 G 9303 SIM S..I.:.Ok•t+G 93WI.564 tWAaf-34S1S{2f1 aNes r1 %. GMr..•.A..nrf Fa Des 17616 F. CA 9317! MlA4ft*1104 13 G111463«... f.l..r..A...r4 001r►S4r t.,fA r—s90DI] ]AH610-27M(SM1) ❑ P.O. r.D. R«371 S«Ra.r.dinw CA 93M 71413834MG 1F6A) ❑ Hun V !dun.., P:.•irlf f1DSa.1\4..13w.A R.Y� CA 13516 NM'13a010 RANI ❑ ca 1r Cluny Pu6irl w r.Q P.. 3048 I.d1A.CA 90201 IWA41-76H 94;251 (tin ra To P"IY.e S Ih Z x39 6..+a... µG TSII "IA4 NfA11147N q (SY A1..• 811••6/ 3s91 Fnur... x s....A«,fA r17as n6m.13»p-uf> no a w cu"W 11f/9kr ❑ ppiypa 1skm 7•.4r a0rau. ca0494 Imm"W4 10 LfIWaRrawawn R1r61..R1 . A.1lm.r�R11r I II03Q Sur s.....a..G 3Mt6 11611!2.067 Saw AR 6W. wrr W1•a:r 9"4 Aimedc D..s 31n. CA 1x36 ,f1A07I�7n atSIR f a1Rr Ranitas taRYSI wad 9204 1041 S"# btbntTatuftillyC Watold IuN ( 1GRTIICOR1I:t) ❑ 1440 0.918 54 R...G 1w 95401 imA7FIIM(FSfO) SAN PRANaWG RAY REGION ❑33101 wburr 3-n1 Sm 046.LCA "617 615N6FI2131F361) CINTRALCOAST REGION 1T) aItf11Wa.3�Sr 3w S..I.:.Ok•t+G 93WI.564 mawpl3la(St ) W A7lCfr r. R[1:NIN (Q All S. D.d. 18VE-c all �)5 jjjA.1a.. ION CUTMAL VAMY REG(3) Ey 344390 R-4. --A S. CA fS127.309 i161M1.36m tray Rr66.\ ORk• OSLMP aAd6«A. F.G ton bR/wi3114(S43l) R.A6I.a Rr...ADRIW O613R.dl.aaikiw R.M.aCA 96101 N fI&fn44163(A7f941) w 9A110NFAN BECLON(6) -w El202W.T.6«R.+ f.ALA*lj CA 9450 916666].61 ARIA r W ❑sw w..R.r.sC...•IRnd p.;.v.rtlr�warrwOr r.b.3«s66a: 3..n...11IfAtM3N-727R f1f73{�7Af Wks..1W Rr...►011k• I5421C.s 0..••3..• IOD Y wwodl ck 92"24M NfFRwu COIARADO DYER MA%M ElaculuR m TrinlDarLCA =60 31 NwA1 lol a Sr WwR1.u�OCrlyd R«d ❑ SANrA ANARf: St Pl R m 3«3108 :...Mr -G a507Sw CA "clam IWW413004n) #IQ3wrm SAN DIEGO RCG1O11(•1 Q So 11-%..rv«elNW ivies S.. W~ RwaaC.M.illod' mD+S�G rn?/-1131 -Inl pi.i.:«dwrr {19fYSJ116 (rlSb) f.Q B. SO 31� CA 93309 - 116A%TONa El S.UK@i. trvr�.6dRrli fO►Sr..A .-Owtum S.r.1.— CA 951 0IwT.1m n AWAQ El �7 / - - - Deputm. eunt OT Wer Mil power ., the My ®T LW AmgEw TOM BRADLEY Commutip0 Mayor MICHAEL J. GAGE, M,i&nr RICK J. CARUSO. Ner /maid" ANGEL M. ECHEVARAJA DOROTHY GREEN MARY D. NICHOLS JCDITH K. DAVISON. S, wy City of'santa Clarita Department of community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Attention Hr. Glenn Adamick Assistant Planner II GentlemenE DANIEL W. WATERS. Cerrd At naw wd Chkf DOmf ELDON A. COTTON, Anwaw Crnnal.Vvww- Powe JAMES F. WICKSER, Amnon Cenwd AIWWw• Warn NORMAN G iuENRJNG, AnYranr Genrrol Xw.vfer•I,rrrn,lApave NORMAN J. POWERS. CkWFF0 Wfal OVIcn April 30, 1992 DwP rile J-73106 C.1`r .� SAY o s 1992 vuh'1'-tvgOPVEh� Jnr . This is in response to your correspondence dated April 6, 1992 advising of a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Valley Gateway Company's proposed development. A preliminary review of the material reveals that the proposed project will affect both water and power facilities of the Department of water and power (Department). Therefore, it necessitates our review of the actual construction plane to determine the impact of the project on our facilities. When it has been determined that the proposed development will proceed and the plane are available, please forward six complete seta of the plans to this office. All inquiries and correspondence concerning.this matter should reference the Departments Pile No. J-73106. If you have any questions, please contact Ns. Vivian D. Nowell at (213) 481-5940. Sincerely, y�� TED L. NCGILLIS Chief Real Estate Officer VDHImt 283 Water and Pcm er C--,t- III :,t III North Hope Seas, Los ARVIC9. Califomis D MadinE addreu: sox 111, Los Angeles 90x314100 TelepAone:(11J)tSl-42l1 CoD4oddreu:oEW+ro�.PAX(1t3)�1.8701 ser... •a --.:r r f -MAY 20 192 13:10 THOMAS A. T19tt1 AN60N. DkW WF May 20, 1992 'U�Ijs 259 6125 (TY SNTA CLARITA FROM PLANNING DIVISION COUNTY OF IAS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PU13LIC WORKS OW SOOTii ftZMONT AVINVI ALIIAMDRA. CALIFORNIA 91303-1331 T.k,h•na (111) 438.S700 0 002 PAGE. 001 , Mr. Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner 11, City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development Point" brand fax transrrlmatmm*?M �etw9«►3 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 roM„ C�te�a Adal»;cK ""'Me�ce Acta Santa Clarita, .CA 91355 mss_ _cc_1. fl,.rh °e �.la.•G.�7.2v�/. Dear Mr. Adamick: RESPONSE TO A NOTICE OF PREPARATION I vALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Notice of Preparation (HOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)• Although we have not completed the review of the NOP, we offer the following comments. We will forward additional comments when we complete our review. Traffic Circulation We believe a development of this magnitude could significantly impact the adjacent Countyroadways and intersections. A traffic study should be prepared to identify the traffic impacts and ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are proposed. The study should also address the cumulative impacts generated by this and nearby developments and include levels of service analyses for affected intersections and freeway interchanges. If traffic signals or other mitigation measures are warranted at the affected intersections, the developer should contribute to the cost- In addition, the developer should determine his proportionate share of signal or other mitigation costs. and submit thisAcopy to or this Department for review and app Traffic/Access Guidelines is enclosed. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Mr. James chop of our Traffic and Lighting Division at (818) 450-5909- 284 ADDRESS ALL C0R1t?$?0NDENCE To: ALNAMaRA. CA WORNIA 91807.1460 p-6 IN ■tn. ntst *1191 TO 8491 , Mr. Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner 11, City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development Point" brand fax transrrlmatmm*?M �etw9«►3 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 roM„ C�te�a Adal»;cK ""'Me�ce Acta Santa Clarita, .CA 91355 mss_ _cc_1. fl,.rh °e �.la.•G.�7.2v�/. Dear Mr. Adamick: RESPONSE TO A NOTICE OF PREPARATION I vALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Notice of Preparation (HOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)• Although we have not completed the review of the NOP, we offer the following comments. We will forward additional comments when we complete our review. Traffic Circulation We believe a development of this magnitude could significantly impact the adjacent Countyroadways and intersections. A traffic study should be prepared to identify the traffic impacts and ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are proposed. The study should also address the cumulative impacts generated by this and nearby developments and include levels of service analyses for affected intersections and freeway interchanges. If traffic signals or other mitigation measures are warranted at the affected intersections, the developer should contribute to the cost- In addition, the developer should determine his proportionate share of signal or other mitigation costs. and submit thisAcopy to or this Department for review and app Traffic/Access Guidelines is enclosed. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Mr. James chop of our Traffic and Lighting Division at (818) 450-5909- 284 OS 33 9c 11:SJ $Su5 25f 5135 CTY SSTA CLARITA ' -MAY 20 192 13:19 FROM PLANNING DIVISION ' Mr. Glenn Adamick May 201 1992 Page 2 PAGE.002 Waste Management Los Angeles County is facing an estimated shortfall. in 93- s Assucwaste landfill Capacity of 101000 tons per day by proposal may adversely impact the solid waste management system in this County. The DEIR must identify what measures the project proponent will implement to mitigate the impact. These measures may include, but are not limited to, development of new or expansion of existing landfill sites, as well as, implementation of waste reduction, recycling, and composting programs. The DEIR should identify development standards to provide adequate "waste storage areas" for collecting recyclable materials. The existing hazardous waste management (M) facilities in this. County are inadequate to handle the hazardous waste generate hazardous waste being generated. The proposed development may which shouldcbeladdressedlandmpact mitigati nimeasuresaThis issue provided. impactThe DEIR should assess runoff as the result of the project.onstruction involving five or more Acrss should secure a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System general Construction Permit issued by the California Water Quality Control Board. (NPDES) Regional The DEIR should specify stormwater discharge. City under NPDES Permit project area is former Newhall Refinery site. Industriafacilitieal Waste closure Permits are required to resume existing also includesoil production wells that need Division of Oil and Gas (DOG) Abandonment Permits. There are areas sy serving eas of suspctedwaste disthis siteosal which1thin woulderestrictere are no gewArs potential industrial U30- Several known underground storage tanks exist that require closure permits. Areas s. suspected contamination exist on this site. This issue should be addressed in the DEIR. compliance with the City requirements on The City of Santa Clarita is a Phase III No. cA0061654. 285 U 'Os•.z f: 11:5.1 2ss05 25J $125 (TY S\Td CLkR1'Id QCJUU•1 -MAY 20 's2 13:15 FROM PLANNING DIUISION PAGE`.003 Mr. Glenn Adamick May 20, 1992 page 3 Any mitigation monitoring program performed by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Waste Management Division, will require a funding account to be established by the project proponent to pay, for the required services. The amount of necessary funds will be determined at the time monitoring will be performed. The Department of public Works, waste Management Division, must be contacted to establish the funding account. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Mr. Michael Bohlander of our Waste Management Division at (816) 458-3562. Questions regarding the environmental reviewing process of this Department can be directed to Ms. Clarice Nash at the above address or at (818) 458-4334. very truly yours, T. A. TIDEMANSON Director of public Works CARL L. BLUM Assistant Deputy Director Planning Division MAoaa WP/.103 286 0.15 1a:5+> £Y.iu5 2zv $125 CTT SNIA CLAR1TA 2016 rFC.A4C0� '' .o.,er.,,[eA�.nc•c� COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY ' 1955 Workman Miff Road / Whinier, California Mouir.g Addretsx / P. 0. Box 4998, Whittier, California 90607•d998 rHARIES W. CARR" Telephone: (213) 699.7at 1 / from Los Angeles (213) 685.5217 Chief Engineer and Generoi Manager May 1. 1992 . File No: 32-00.00-00 W. Olean Adamick R E C E 1 V ti, i. City of Santa Clarita MaY 0 5 1992 Department of Community Development 23970 Valencia Blvd„ Suite 302 ooMMLft'.f Santa C'larita, CA 91355 Cry -VS1Mr1 'AlmA Dear Mr. Adamicic • A copy of average wastewater generation factors is enclosed to aid you in projecting the amount of wastewater the proposed project will generate. • All facilities In question either have adequate capacity to handle the expected flow, or will be expanded in the future to meet the community's needs. The Sanitation Districts are emponere) by the Californis Health and Safety Cade to charge a fee for the privilege of connecting to the Sanitation Districts' Sewerage System. A connection fee is required 287 Tentative Tract No. SLU4 Conditional Vse ' Fermit Nq, 9j.001. Zone Chanee No, 92012 The letter and plans for the subject project, forwarded by your office, were received on A N 13,1992. ' The Sanitation Districts have no objection to the project as proposed. We offer the following comm, ntt regarding sewerage service for the proposed project: ' • Portions of the arca in question are outside the jurisdictional boundaries of the Sanitation Districts and will require annexation Into District No. 32 before sewerage service can be provided to the proposed development. For specific information regarding the annexation procedure and fees, please contact Ms. Alma Horvath at (310) 6997411, extension 270& A 1991.1992 connection fee schedule is endoscd. e Because of the projeces )oation, the Sow originating from the proposed project would have to be ' transported to the Districts' trunk sewer by local sever(s) which are not maintained by the Sanitation Districts. If no local sewer lines currently exist, it is the responsibility of the developer to convey any wastewater generated by the project to the nearest local sewer and/or Districts' trunk sewer. The Districts' San Fernando Road Extension Trunk Sewer, is located • nearest trunk sewer, the approximately 24 miles from the project site in San Fernando Road between 16th Street and Via Prinodsaa. • A copy of average wastewater generation factors is enclosed to aid you in projecting the amount of wastewater the proposed project will generate. • All facilities In question either have adequate capacity to handle the expected flow, or will be expanded in the future to meet the community's needs. The Sanitation Districts are emponere) by the Californis Health and Safety Cade to charge a fee for the privilege of connecting to the Sanitation Districts' Sewerage System. A connection fee is required 287 u5 1b a: 14 :5o la)os e5a 51:5 Mr. Glenn Adamick i1Y $.NTA 4LARITA 16 017 May 1, 1992 In order that necessary expansions to the Sewerage System an be constructed to accommodate new developmouL Payment of A connection fa Will be tequired before a permit to connect to the sewer is issued. A copy of the Districts' connection tee schedule for District No. 32 is enclow for your information We offer the following comments regarding solid waste management impacts of the proposed project: The California Integrated Waste Management Board has approved a resolution which acknowledges that AB 939 requires, In addition to aggressive waste diversion programs, the continued need for environmentally sound disposal capacity and recogaim that a shortage of adequate disposal capacity exists in Los Angclea County, The County of Ins Angela is facing a serious disposal crisis, both in terms of the daily capacity and long term disposal capacity ar+tiable, that requires every effort to minimize the amount of wastes generated. When new development projects are located in the wasteshed of a landfill, the wastes generated from these projects may aculeate the closure of the landfill, or displace wastes almdy coming to the landfill and cause .0 more distant disposal site to be toed. In response to this long term disposal capacity concern, recycling and reuse efforts in the County should be supported by Including the collection of recyclables in the refuse hauler collection contract. Any commercial lessor sbould be encouraged to recycle white office paper, computer paper, cardboard, glass bottles, aluminum and bi-notal cans and PST. bottles. Recycling should be included in the, design of the facility by reserving space appropriate for the support of recycling, such as adequate storage area and noes. The proposed project location is ocar a proposed regional waste management facility which has the potential to provide disposal capacity. The solid waste section of the Draft Envirottmcatal Impact Report should addreu solid waste management with reference to proximity of the regional facility as well as the potential impact of the project on landfill capacity. The Visual qualities section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report should include reference to the fact that the regional facility may be visibk to the residents of the proposed projmL Line -of -sight analyses should be conducted to determine the impact. In addition, the Draft Eaviroomental Impact Report should address issues relating to tmMc circulation and noise impacts due to the proximity to the regional facility. If you have any questio please contact the uadersigned at (310) 699-7411, extension 2728. Very truly yours, Charles W. Carry�n7 .,lam r.Zq David B. Lambert Project Engineer FMncial Planning do Property Management Section DBL•rc Encimures ?hJWVAME7VeVA6At1 W"LTa 288 I�- 1 L_.I 1 P. MICHAEL FREEMAN FIRE CHIEF FORESTER d FIRE WARDEN May 22, 1992 'OLJM OF LOS ANGEUS FIRE DEPARIMENr 1320 NORTH EASTERN AVENUE LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90063.3294 (213) 881-2481 Mr. Glenn Adamick, Asst. Planner II City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Adamick: MAY 2 9 1992 C:Tr C: :AN; A ^,AaPA ' SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT -- (NEWHALL) VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT -- (27674 CLAMPITT ROAD) MC #92-012 -- (117 -ACRE DEVELOPMENT) Our evaluation of the impact on fire protection and paramedic service for the proposed development is based on the current level of service available within the general area. with this in mind, additional manpower and equipment may be required as the need arises. The subject development will receive fire protection and paramedic service from the County of Los Angeles Fire Depart- ment. Fire Station 173, located at 24875 North San Fernando Road, Newhall, CA 91321-15200 is the jurisdictional engine company for this property. Engine 107 6.00 10.3 3 Engine 111 6.50 11.2 3 Truck 73 3.25 5.6 4 Paramedic Squad 107 6.00 10.3 2 • Mileage calculated to the.intersection of Clampitt Road and Sierra Highway. HAWAIIAN GARDENS WESTLAKE VILLAGE WHITTIER 289 AND THE SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY CITIES OF: AGOURA HILLS CALABASAS GLENDORA LA MIRADA PALMDALE SAN DIMAS CARSON HAWAIIAN GARDENS LANCASTER PALOS VERDE$ ESTATES SANTA CLARITA 'ARTESIA AZUSA CERRITOS HIDDEN HILLS LA PUENTE PARAMOUNT SIGNAL HILL BALDWIN PARK CLAREMONT HUNTINOTON PARK LAWNDALE PICO RIVERA SOUTH EL MONTE BELL COMMERCE INDUSTRY LOMITA RANCHO PALOS VERDE$ SOUTH GATE BELLFLOWER CUDAHY IRWINDALE MALIBU ROLLING HILLS TEMPLE CITY BELL GARDENS DIAMOND BAR LA CANADA FUNTRIOGE MAYWOOD ROLLING HILLS ESTATES WALNUT BRADBURY DUARTE LAKEWOOD NORWALK ROSEMEAD WEST HOLLYWOOD WESTLAKE VILLAGE WHITTIER 289 Mr. Glenn Adamick, Asst. Planner II May 22, 1992 Page 2 PROJECT IMPACT ON SERVICES Additional manpower, equipment, and facilities will be needed to serve this development. Limited tax revenues have restricted the Fire Department's ability to meet new growth needs. Although general plans for upgrading fireprotection in this area have been developed, the Department will not be able to implement these plans without specific provisions for the necessary manpower, equipment and facilities. Mitigation of this problem should be required prior to granting approval of this development. The Fire Department will work with the developer to establish appropriate mitigation arrangements for the proposed project. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION The development of this project must comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, -fire flows, and fire hydrants. Fire flows of up to 5,000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for a five-hour duration will be required. Final fire flow will be based on the size of the building, its relationship to other structures and property lines, and the type of construction used. Additional fire life safety requirements will be addressed at building plan check. FORESTRY DIVISION We have .reviewed the Notice of Preparation of a. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Valley Gateway Project. The statutory. responsibilities of the Forestry Division of the Los Angeles County Fire Department include erosion control, rare and endangered species, vegetation, and the Oak Tree Ordinance. The Draft Environmental Impact Report should address these impacts as well as the specific items below: 1. soil stabilization following the removal of vegetative cover. 290 Mr. Glenn Adamick, Asst. Planner IS May 22, 1992 Page 3 2. Dust control and soil erosion control measures. 3. Protection of vegetation on the.blue line streams. 4. Protection of known wildlife corridors. 5. Relationship of proposed project to designated SERs. If you have any additional questions, please contact this office at (213) 881-2481. Very truly yours, P. MICHAEL FREEMAN " BY JOSEPH FERRARA, CHIEF, FORESTRY DIVISION PREVENTION BUREAU JF:lc 291 �.ra ;<�.:�. ;4.uu -p•vla an:. olio L.1! a.1AALAh11A 819 Weat Seventh Street,12th Floor s Los Angeles, California 90017-3435 1ICO%L%I E ATTN: Mr. Glenn Adamick ' N.stdeat Rep.. Cyitta o_t�Ssa bemtrdino Assistant Planner II Lou JoOol Wn"Mal.+' Date: April 29, 1992 R+uso Re: Valley Gateway Project (MC 1192-012) Firm �.r City of Santa Clarita .^P:?!a.1kl«d Abe SYam4 Apm"e' Department of Community Development &coca Vit Praidens Gess County 23920 Valencia Boulevard Suite 300 of w.I.e i;m;"bI. c"NQ1'~^b" , Santa Clarita, CA 91355 �A0.,eew Implementation Plan (SIP). Pur %esidtpr Rep., Joke Fqm Yn,bnSwpenConryiWr ATTN: Mr. Glenn Adamick ' Los Angeles County Assistant Planner II hf1Se Aateae+kL, Svp+rvuor tkaCt Door $wpervu•r Valley Gateway Project MC N 92.012) and Development Agreement. As turrrfswkdcr. swyrrruor Re: Valley Gateway Project (MC 1192-012) Cana of vannas coney Jobe %4d011. Ca,.ry,bwrn,nrr SCAGif: ):A-55642•NPR Rvenwcaa"y nen.n Ywgbre, S•pe.,wsa' the Regional Plans, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), the Jro Madh Swyerxrer Regional :Mobility Plan (RMP), Growth Management Plan (GMP), and Air beu of Los C&"y k RMonront Dear Mr. Adamick: �A0.,eew Implementation Plan (SIP). WJU19 RECEIVED MAY 0 5 1992 QpMMII!::Tv fiE:4;3AMthf C1 sem+ M`e�cuw ryy+e+,ar, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of 1= 81011 cauroaaa ' appCIRt10a OF iOYEMaI[RV Valley Gateway Project MC N 92.012) and Development Agreement. As (113) 236.1800 a FAX(213)236-1825 areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG assists cities, RECEIVED MAY 0 5 1992 QpMMII!::Tv fiE:4;3AMthf C1 sem+ M`e�cuw ryy+e+,ar, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of "'ty Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 1nmdCk gr.Co bwas ""'"`rc, Valley Gateway Project MC N 92.012) and Development Agreement. As Y, 1.1 48 areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG assists cities, Cana of vannas coney Jobe %4d011. Ca,.ry,bwrn,nrr counties, and other agencies to review projects and plans for consistency with Santa Fsult the Regional Plans, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), the Cory erLos Aoprlp Regional :Mobility Plan (RMP), Growth Management Plan (GMP), and Air Nwrt Rldk:•I'w.zv4 Cuwnr,4u'net Quality. Management Plan (AQMP), all of which -am included in the State s"m"(.9wnr'"orndr' Implementation Plan (SIP). city• e( LonJ 8caca al. 31 W%0ibnnMer PoucY cow4rms mAnes The California Environmental Quality ACT-(CEQA) requires that EIIZ.s ua Cre,u r PmTrn #no discuss any inconsistencles between the proposed project (or plan) with the Mo n UN o" '°°" applicable general plans and regional plans (Section 15125 (bj). Accordingly, fh.., v NU& sf 'PmTM, one of SCAG's major interests is to ensure that the ER clearly identifies any N� � nil policies, objectives or programs of this project which are inconsistent with the 9tostGm,•st,Vee Mayar RHNA, RMP, GMP, and AQMP. If there are inconsistencies, an explanation Reuses: CAvY. Community, &anoeoc, tnd Hum" and;rationalization for such Inconsistencies should be provided, Dmlepmtet _ AT.LAAGL DUAGATO R'�Malsir Frog A�fsr, Mayo. CZ'd 292 ALo�Dearl�• Meyer 1 1 I I ALTLMATU lmperitl Cewnry o Jam 56arp, Swprvi,o• • La AaS•Im Conary a Ld EOalmsa Juprruue' too KaenmR Xti� Jwprrvuar • OstnSt Counq °Gadd 1'ttgswz Jwprrvunr • W rrr• p;[la County o HaI6a Dna11Q. Swpervi,or + Su Hmwmno Conary o =Art7 WaWr. Swprrvite' t Vaawn Cwpry o Vady Xo.ud, Jyprrotor • C;na ars a; County o Vlrtor Sanebrt.lr. Narer Pro hau Wnapalsnd • Ciom of Ln AartW Caunry a A!M Lassd,, Cow+rdmn+bar, War Ib1lr,.00d t Cldm of One�a Conary o Raf�i"%ummer, Cowc,l .,r.,br., Nr,vpgi Such o C.;nm of Ri.tnidr County o iVtaat) • Gom of Sae itratt4m Ca,My o Lear pyre, Mar•. Ira Trot. Loma LitrL • Cities e( VmNn County o Judl WteY, Ceuarwnenerr. Snti 1'Wryy • C;q of La Aa(ald o Yiehard Altssfrt, CownciNwrnber o Illu Wt114� Cw+rWviMrr o Mimtd Wag Caw.rJ.wiMrr • LonA Beren .no po• ,,sloes o Doglu Dtvmmeoly Cwnrilmrwbrr • Ar Lege o Gevrrffat Ytkoe, Cew+e/f+,r+,brr, Tomnct o Cohn tlagtH. Cow+rifmrmbrr, Sap Clemepte o JteJ Wrl{tL' Co.a,•,ban•err, Clanmum + Cldfflae a Jo6hR ltlmsoo-Wmaaa la A+ter++: CAoih Repoul Adaiwy Council �m ' SCAG Comments on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Valley Gateway Project (MCMV 92-012) s According to SCAG's designation of subregions, the Valley Gateway Project (MC N 92-012)0 Poll of the City of .Santa Clarita and a small part In the unincorporated area of I.as Angeles County, is located in the Santa Clarita Valley Subregion. This subregion is a "housing -rich" and "Jobs -poor" subregion. The EIR should address consistency of this project as a part of the Santa Clarita Valley Subregion with the GMP. Subjects which require amplification Include: 1. An estimatq of the number of jobs that would be generated by buildout of the project. 2. An estimates of the number of housing units that would be developed by the buildout of the project. 3. Where the future work force would live. 4. The availability of affordable housing units for workers In the project site, the City of Santa ClarIta, and in Santa Clarita Valley Subregion. S. Feasibility of a project alternative that includes (or places greater emphasis on) mixed-use development. 6. Discussion of any growth management planning that is occurring or that is contemplated by the neighboring local jurisdictions within the subregion. r:: •e _ r •, Moo pas air alt rM1ul The Draft EIR should include policies and programs related to TDM Including compliance with the AQMP and Congestion Management pian (CMP) and those developed for Los Angeles County. The Transportation Demand Management CI"DM) program can be considered as a possible Mitigation measure for the negative impacts of the proposed development in the Santa Clarita Valley subregion on traffic and circulation. To be adequate foelhe purposes intended by the State Implementation Plan (SIP), the TDM program should Include the following elements: 1. A detailed description of Individual TDM measures. 2. Subregional Job/housing relationships • existing and future • and :Vehicle Miles t Traveled (VNM reduction alternatives consistent with GMP, and AQMP/SII'. 3. Funding sources for each program component. ' 293 816 W. 6@"nth StrNt,t 2th Floor • Loa An30ef, CA 30017485 a (210) 236.1300 o FAX (21 1236.3) gU 1)5 is aQ iS... U505 (JY SMA CLik1TA 3 4. Identification of agencies or persons responsible for monitoring and administering the TDM program, S. An implementation schedule for each TDM program component. IUM , w • tIV W4 A plan or project Is found to be in conformance with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) when it has satisfied the following three criteria: 1. It improves the subregion's joblhousing balance performance ratio or Is contributing to attainment of the appropriate subregional VMT target. 2. It reduces vehicle trips (VT) and VW to the maximum extent feasible by Implementing transportation demand management strategies. 3. The plan's environmental documentation should provide an air quality analysis which demonstrates that the plan will not have a significant negative impact on air quality in the long term. The Draft EIR should address each of these criteria and demonstrate the extent to which the criteria are being, or will be, met by the project. [Please note that SCAG's Conformity Handbook provides four options for performance of the air quality analysis for the purpose of achieving SIP conformity]: A copy of the "Conformity Handbook" Is attached for your information. Ali mitigation measures associated with this project. as a part of the Los Angeles County should be monitored In accordance with AB 3180 requirements and reported to SCAG through the Annual Reasonable Farther Progress Report. Please provide a minimum of 45 days for SCAG to review the Draft EIR when this document is available. In the meantime, If we can be of any further assistance, please contact Charles Keynejad at (213) 236-1915. Sincerely,&6-� W Eric Roth Principal Intergovernmental Review 294 818 W. Swenth Strbt,IM Floor 9 Los Anprins, CA •001744 a Wn.�M N,NN M.�.M (213) M1•Uo 9 FAX(213)238.1825 IQ U21 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—SUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY PETE WILD, Gaw, , DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7, 120 $O. SPRING ST. LOS ANGELES. CA 90012 12131 807.3050 ]larch 2, 1992 IGR/CEQA City of Santa Clarita INITIAL STUDY - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT valley Gateway Project Development Plan City Master Case No 92-012 Vic. I.A-14-R25.97 Mr. Glenn Adamick Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, CA 97355 Dear Mr. Adamick Thank you for including the California•Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above -referenced Initial Study. Based on the information received, we have the following comments: Caltrans would be interested in'reviewing.and evaluating the Traffic and Circulation element Por the Valley Gateway Project Development Plan. Items which should be covered for this element should include, but not be limited to the following: Trip generation/distribution including the method used to develop the percentages and assignment. B. ADT, AN and PM peak -hour volumes for both the existing and future (Year 2010) conditions. This should include the Antelope Valley Freeway (SR -14), and the Golden State Freeway (I-5), and all significantly affected ramps, streets, crossroads and controlling intersections, as well as existing and future conditions on mainline Antelope valley Freeway and Golden State Freeway. C. An analysis of future (Year 2010) conditions which ' include project traffic and the cumulative traffic generated for all_approved developments in the area. ' D. consideration should be given to providing mitigation for congestion relief. Xny.nitigation proposed should be fully discussed in the document. These discussions should include, but not be limited to, the following: ' * financing * scheduling considerations ' * inplamentation responsibilities * monitoring 295 Mr. Glenn Adamick Page Two March 2, 1992 E. Consideration should be given to requiring developer contributions or fair -share funding for transportation improvements on State facilities. If any encroachment onto State right-of-way; such as construction, grading, changea to hydraulic run-off, fill slopes, bank or slope protection, etc., will require an Encroachment Permit. Projects involving State right-of-way and costs over $250,000, will require a Caltrans Project Studies Report. Also, any transport of heavy contruction equipment or removal of storage tanks which requires the use of oversize transport vehicles on State Highways will require an encroachment permit. The applicant shall comply with all applicable hazardous waste safety measures when transporting materials from the site. We recommend that truck trips be limited to off-peak Conmute periods. A discussion of the impacts, if any these trucks will have on the State Transportation Facilities, should be included in the report. Since the proposed development is located adjacent to an existing freeway, we recommend that noise attenuation mea- sures be included in the architectural design and construc- tion for this project. Caltrans policy does not provide fund- ing for any noise attenuation adjacent to existing freeways. We look forward to reviewing the DEIR. We expect to receive a copy from the State Clearinghouse. However,.to expedite the review.process, you may send two copies in advance to the undersigned at the following address: Wilford Melton District 7 IGR\CEQA Coordinator Advance Planning Branch 120 So. Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Thank•ybu for this opportunity to comaaent. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please call me at (213) 897-1338. nh\2064 296 Sincerely, OdD;naJ Signed By WILFORD MELTON IGR\CEQA Coordinator Advance Planning Branch iQ Ulla 14:40 ' Stat* of California *">Us :5;i al:5 t11 S\1A LLARITA Memorandum To 1 Mr. Tom Loftus ' State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121�j - Sacramento, CA 95814 14AY } 8 1992 Wilford Melton - District 7 �'A'V yptir From 3 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION y UU2 lusinoa, Transportation and Housing A94ney Daft May 13, 1992 Filo No., 1GR/CEQA/NOP City of Santa Clarita Valley Gateway Project Development Plan City MC No 92-012 Vic. LA -14-R25.97 Subject s Project Review Comments 'I= No.92041041 Caltrans has reviewed the above -referenced document. ' Based on the information received, and in addition to our previous comments made on March 2, 1992.enumerating items to be covered in your document, (copy attached). We look forward to reviewing and evaluating the Traffic and Circulation element for the Valley Gate- ' way Project Development Plan. The developer should be informed that a Caltrans Encroachment Permit will be required before any ' work may be performed within State right-of-way. If you have any questions regarding this response, please call me at (213) 897-1338. ' D1lglnal Signal Yy ' WILPORD MELTON IGR/CEQA Coordinator ' Advance Planning Branch ' cc: Jeff Chaffin City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 302 Santa^Clarita, CA 91355 ref 2064 nh/4069 297 0 18 9: 14:5u U•kls 259 e125 CTY 5\Ta CLYR1Td zoos STATE OF GWFORMA Pate w,Yan, Oovcmo.' CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD 14V) Cal Centcr Min Sammerro. ClUtrAin �SE26 ss S . May 15, 1992 Jeff Chaffin City of Santa 23920 Valencia Santa Clarita, Clarita Blvd., Ste. 302 CA 91355 MAY i B 1992 COMW0%1Tr O;VJL7PMj"J CMV CF SAv7A CtARttA Subject: Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Valley Gateway Project - MC No. 92-012, SCH 092041041 California Integrated Waste Management Hoard (CIWMB) staff have reviewed the NOP for the document cited above and offer the following comments: Project: The proposed.project consists of the development of a 117 acre site with approximately 948,210 square feet of office and business park floor space and 12 multiple family residential units. The project site was previously utilized as a petroleum extraction and refining facility. Comments: In consideration of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) section 15205(c) CIWMB staff will focus comments on specific issues involving solid waste. generation and disposal. The Environmental assessment states tlw' wntamination by hydrocarbons does exist on site, and that, soil remediation is proposed for the site. If remediation of the site includes removal and'disposal of any contaminated sc_l which is determined to be non -hazardous waste, the document sha ad estimate the quantity and identify the site for disposa' of this waste, to show it will be disposed of appropriately. In order to help decision -makers 1) identify potential impacts from new development projects, 2) determine whether any such impacts are significant, and 3) ascertain whether significant impacts can be mitigated to a level of insignificance, ciwmB 298 - Printed on Rm, Icd Paper - J Jeff Chaffin Valley Gateway NOP SCH #92041040 page 2 staff request that the Draft Environmental Impact Report.include the following information: A) Identification of the types:and quantities of solid wastes to be generated by the project, including wastes generated during construction, ongoing after the project completion, and including additional sewage sludge generated, which would require landfilling. B) Identification of the final -disposal site(s) for the additional solid waste generated by the project. C) Identification of the potential impacts of these quantities on remaining capacity and calculated site - life of target landfills. D) Identification of any past or present areas of unpermitted landfilling and/or dumping at the site, and how these areas will be mitigated. New developments can increase the amount of solid waste being sent to landfills. To minimize this amount, CIwMB staff suggest that the following diversion measures be considered.in the DEIR: A) Provide information, which identifies buy back centers, dropoff centers, and markets for recyclables in the area, to businesses and industries in the project area. B) Suggest to businesses and industries that they -recycle glass, metal, paper, cardboard, and other materials to the maximum extent feasible. C) Suggest to businesses and industries that they utilize products made from recycled materials, such as office and other paper, to the maximum extent possible. D) Use insulation and other products made of recycled materials in the construction of the buildings and structures. E) suggest to businesses and industries that they implement source reduction programs, such as using double -sided copying, reusable food utensils, etc., to reduce the amount of waste produced. 1 299 WiuuG us' lil 9: 14:51 abu5 259 51215 CTY SXTA CLIRITA M page 3 F) Include storage areas for recyclables in the design of the office and retail units. ' Finally, staff suggest that the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) for the City of Santa Clarita be consulted to evaluate and plan for how the project can take part in local waste diversion programs. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the NOP for the DEIR on the Valley Gateway Project - MC No. 92-012. If you have any questions about these comments, please contact Nancy Carr of my staff at (916)255-2334. Sincerely, V, Steven K. Ault Manager, South Section Waste Generation Analysis and Environmental Review Branch Planning and Assistance Division CC. Tom Loftus, SCH 300 ' Jeff Chaffin Valley Gateway NOP SCH 092041040 ' page 3 F) Include storage areas for recyclables in the design of the office and retail units. ' Finally, staff suggest that the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) for the City of Santa Clarita be consulted to evaluate and plan for how the project can take part in local waste diversion programs. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the NOP for the DEIR on the Valley Gateway Project - MC No. 92-012. If you have any questions about these comments, please contact Nancy Carr of my staff at (916)255-2334. Sincerely, V, Steven K. Ault Manager, South Section Waste Generation Analysis and Environmental Review Branch Planning and Assistance Division CC. Tom Loftus, SCH 300 51ATE OR CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE' M'�gCN, Crp.�mer DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 ' Long Beach, California 90902 au, (310) 590-5113 1 April 20, 1992 Mr. Jeff Chaffin ' City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Dear Mr. Chaffin: Notice of Preparation for Valley Gateway Project EIR MC No. 92-012, Los Angeles County - SCH 92041041 To enable our staff to adequately review and comment on subject project, we recommend the following information be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Reports 1. A complete assessment of flora and fauna within and adjacent to the project area, with particular emphasis -upon identifying endangered, threatened and locally unique species and sensitive and critical habitats. 2. A discussion of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts expected to adversely affect biological resources, with specific measures to offset such impacts. 3. A discussion of potential adverse impacts from any increased runoff, sedimentation, soil erosion, and/or urban pollutants on streams and watercourses on or near the project site, with mitigation measures proposed to alleviate such impacts. stream buffer areas and maintenance in their natural condition through non-structural flood control methods should also be considered in order to continue their high value as wildlife corridors. More generally, there should be discussion of alternatives -to not only minimize adverse impacts to wildlife, but to include direct benefit to wildlife and wildlife habitat. Those discussions should consider the Department of rash and :Game's policy that there should be no net loss of wetland acreage or habitat values. We oppose projects which do not provide adequate mitigation for such losses. 301 us•la aG 1{:5c tjau5 25U 5125 CTY SNTA CLIRITA Mr. Jeff Chaffin April 20, 1992 Page Two Diversion, obstruction of the natural flow, or changes in the bed, -channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake will require notification to the Department of Fish and Game as called for in the Fish and Game Code. Notification should be made after the project is approved by the lead agency. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Kimberley McKee at (310) 590-5137. Sincerely, Fred worthleye�;: Regional Manager Region 5 cc: office of planning i Research 302 iO 013 -113 1" v. 14e5u aou5 :58 01.5 CI1 SSii (L.ik17:i 10014 ' YI - .- STATE OF CAIIFOINIA—THE IE5OUCES AGINCYf [TE WILSON, i.OrImOI ' DEPARTMENT Of CONSERVATION DIVISION OFAZMNISTRATIVE SERVI �':F'`'�'.:::1:."o•'T•�. CES .T,,.,.•..... 01VISI011 OF KINES AND GEOLOGY L DIVISION Of OIL AND GAS DIVISION OF IECYC11NO 1416 N.nIA SI.tM SACRAMENTO. CA 45814 ' T001916132&255S (91rss4 4733 April 28, 1992 '• Mr. Glenn Adamick city of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development ' 23820 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 ' Dear Mr. Adamick: subject: Notice of Preparation (NOP ) of a Draft Environmental ' Impact Report (DEIR) for the valley Gateway Project. SCR /92011041. The Department of Conservation's Division of Oil and Gas has ' reviewed the NOP for the DEIR for the proposed project and submits the following comments for your consideration. ' The proposed project is located within the administrative boundaries of the Newhall oil field. Presently, there are nineteen abandoned and three idle wells within the project boundaries. An oil refinery was also located within the subject project. If any structure is to be located over or in the proximity of a previously abandoned well, there is the possibility that the wells may need to be plugged and abandoned to current Division specifications. Section 3208.1 of the Public Resources Code ' authorizes the State oil and Gas supervisor to order the reabandonment of any previously abandoned well when construction of any structure over or in the proximity of the well could result in a hazard. The cost of reabandonment operations is the ■ responsibility of the owner of the property upon which the ■ structure will be located. Under Section 3208.1 of the Public Resources Coder the reabandonment responsibilities of the owner/developer of a property upon which a structure will be located need extend no ' further that the property boundaries. However, if a well requiring reabandonment is on an adjacent property and near the common property line, the Division recommends that the structure be set back sufficiently to allow future access to the well. 1 1 303 05 Hr. Adamick April 28, 1992 Page Two Furthermore, if any abandoned or unrecorded wells are uncovered or damaged during excavation or grading, remedial plugging'operations may be required. If such damage occurs, the Division's district office must be contacted to obtain information on the requirements for and approval to perform remedial operations. Although the possibility for future problems from oil and gas wells that have been plugged and abandoned or reabandoned to the Division's current specifications are remote, we, nevertheless, suggest that a diligent effort be made to avoid building over any abandoned well. It construction over an abandoned well is unavoidable, we suggest that an adequate gas venting system be placed over the well. Any idle wells within the project area should be abandoned unless adequate provisions are taken to ensure that operators have access to these wells. Written approval from the State oil and Gas Supervisor is required prior to drilling, reworking, injecting into, plugging' or abandoning any well. Therefore, we recommend that the project applicant consult with the Division of oil and Gas district office in Ventura prior to application submittal. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Pat Kinnear at the Division district office in Ventura. The address is 1000 Hill Road, Suits 116, Ventura, CA 93003-44581 phone (805) 654-4761. Sincerely, Stephen E. Oliva Environmental Program Coordinator cc: Pat Kinnear, Division of oil and Gas, Ventura Michael Stettner, Division of oil and Gas, Sacramento 304 Lo 015 ' 15.0 NOTICE OF COMPLETION, COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR ' The City of Santa Clarita issued a Notice of Completion of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Valley Gateway Project on January 29, 1993. The State Office of Planning and Research review period began January 29, 1993 and ended March 15, 1993. In the time period between February 2, 1993 to March 29, 1993, the City of Santa Clarita has received nineteen (19) written comments on the Draft EIR.The following is a list of agencies, organizations and individuals providing written comments on the Draft EIR, and the date of the comments. LIST OF COMMENTS Letter Number Date Agency. Organization or Individual ' 1. 2/2/93 County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services 2. 2/3/93 Southern California Gas Company 3. 2/9/93 Newhall School District 4. 2/18/93 Los Angeles County ' 5. 2/23/93 Department of Regional Planning Southern California Gas Company 6. 3/3/93 State of California Department of Conservation Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources Division 7. 3/8/93 County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County 8. 3/9/93 State of California Department of Transportation CalTrans - District 7 1 9. 3/9193 Newhall County Water District 10. 3111/93 Tierra Planning and Design representing Needham Ranch Project ' 11. 3/12/93 Envicom Corporation representing Rio Hondo Oil and Gas Company 12. 3/15/93 State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research ' 13. 3/18193 County of Los Angeles Fire Department 14. 3/22/93 Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy ' 15. 3/22/93 County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works M. 3/23193 R. Marshall (individual) 17. 3/25/93 Sierra Club, Santa Clarita Valley Group Conservation Committee ' 18. 3/25/93 Lynne A. Plambeck (individual) Southern California Association of Governments 19. 3/29/93 II 1 305 Notice of Completit' Supplementary DocumentM S.eAnrsWOW ' Mai! to: State Ckainghouse,1400 Tenth Street, Swmrnento. CA 91814 916/445-0613 SCH S 92041041 pie)" THIN Valley Gateway Project �L&WAlay: City of Santa Clarita Cord=pasat: Jeff Chaffin SawtAddmu: 23920yalencia Blvd., #300 per: 805/255-4343 City: Santa Clarita, CA Zip: 91355 Coumr, Los Angeles ---------------------------- ---------- roject Location ------ Count Los Angeles Chy/Ncaut Community: Santa'Clarita/Newhall CrouSreeo: _Sierra Highway/Remsen Street Zips: 91355 Total Aces: 117 ' Aueuar'sParcelNo. Nine (9) parcels Seaioru 13 Twp. 3N Rale: 16W Bue5an Berc Widdn 2 Milu: State Hwy tY: I-5/SR 14 Waterways: A+rPcti t7Ra Seh=oh___ ------------------------- Docurnont Type ' CEGA: ❑ NOP ❑ SWpp1emat /3UWeTMW NEPA: ❑ NOI Other: ❑ Joust Dotatment ❑ Early Com ❑ EM (Prior SCH No.) ❑ EA ❑ FbW Domm=t ❑ Net Dec ❑ Other ❑ Draft EIS ❑ Odwr ---DraftElit _—___— OFONSI —_ -----_---_-- --_� —_--_—_, LooalAatbaType ❑ Gaterel Plan Update ❑$pod& Plan RamerE3 Armaatiort demal Plan Amamau 13Muter Plat 13d hu" [3 Itedsv4opmad ❑ Ckwal Plan Elattatt ❑ Planed Unit Developnent ®PwU avLk ❑ Coaw! Pamir ❑ Corrmuttity Plan ® Site Plast ® Lard Division (Subdivision ❑ Otha ' -------------------- _ _ Paul Map, Traa.Map, ac.) __—___---- Oevelopment TYPO D Residential: Unw_12— Acver_L_ ❑ Wwar Fed)itiu Type MGD ea 13❑ CJ Office: Sq j). 3 5 6 , O= Lftpl Trabpartadoa Type ®Cvrrtmer W: sq". Aaa� %— Enpbyesr Mhlirw MkWat ®Ldustrial: Sq Jt. 5 7 5 , 16a10 Ewtployertr o a t ❑ Powe: Type Watu_ ' ❑ Bdttcarional ❑ WuaTrumurc Type ❑ Reauti=W ❑ Ruardoua Wawa Type ❑ Oda ' ------------------------------------------ Project team" Dlecue"d In Doewnoat ' ® AcsfieticTiaul [3 Flood Pla nRAoduts ❑ 5dwobAhtivarown ❑ Avicvltttral Lara ❑ Fane LadiTn Hurd ❑ septic sraems Q Warr Quality M Wase sawylarotmdwamt Q'A'tr Q"Lty OGaotopd"Mul c gsewercepecity ❑ Wedw d/Ripaim ® Ardwoloxi"Mivorical ❑ Knwws Q Soto EruiorvCartpectiotL'Ondar= M Wiidiiftt ❑ Corin Zar13Growth hblxins ' M Dr&AJOAbsorpticn puladonlHatria= Balms Q To%WHarndooa ®Ao ® Laaduse M EoortomMobs ® Pubix ServiceAT ctottiu 63Traf is cirmAstion ® CormdAdve Effects [3 Fiscal ®R*wuS V?arlo--_— ®Vepautioo Odw ------_O Present LNW u.NzankMXWR.r.t naa U" ' BP, Business Park ----------------------------------------- ---- Projeot Deecrvtloa Approval of a Comprehensive Development Plan for re -use of the 117 acre project site.that includes approximately 575,000 square ' feet of industrial business park, 356,000 square feet of corporate headquarters office, use, and 12 multi -family residential units. 307 Reviewing Agencies �-.,ecklist .5uppknutttaryDommentN ✓ Resources Agency _Sowing & Waterways KEY Commission S ■ Document sent by kad agency _Coastal Conservancy X • Document sent by SCH _Coastal _Colorado River Board I . Suggested distribution _Conservation _L -Fish A Game _Forestry }Office of Historic Preservation _Parks & Recreation .Reclamation —S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Commission ." WwerResources(DWR) Cal.EPA ge Air Resauces Board _ of APCD/AQMD -he—California Waste Management Board _SWRCB: Clean Water Grants _SWRCB: Delta Unit -to—f SWRCB: Water Quality _SWRCB: Water Rights S Regional WQCB Mme_ (Los Angeles 1 Business, Transportation i Housing Youth i Adult Corrections—Aeronautics _,GCalifomia Highway Patrol —Corrections .1_CALTRANS District M 7 lndependent Commissions i Offices Deparunent of Transportation Planning (headquarters) _tGfinergy Commission i A _Native American Housing &Community Development Heritage Commission _Food i Agriculture j e—Public Utilities Commission 3 Santa Monica Mountains Conaervwncy Health i Welfare _State Lands Commission _L_Health Services Dept. Toxic Substance C n t r l . Tahoe Regional Planting Agency State i Consumer Services _General Services _Other _OLA (Schools) Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency) Stating Due — February 5, 1993 Ending Date March 22, 1993 Signature CQ sd.i _ CIA A " Dau 6z A C4 _?J y )q9,3 Lead Agency (Complete H applkable): ConsultingFum: The Planning Consortium Add= 1111 Town and Country Road, Suite City/Solmaip: Orange, California 92668 Contact W. Dean Brown Phone; 7( 141 569-0616 Appllcanty Valley Gateway Company Address• n n (Hondo 770in1 &Gas Compen� City/State/Zip: Roswell, New Mexico 88201 Plane: ( 818) 591-9880 240 • surrLXMWTA LN70pKlaox For SCH Use Onlyr Date Received at SCH Date Review Staru Dae to Agencies Date to SCH Clearance Date Nous: Revised October 1989 308 t CITY OF SANTA'CLARITA NOTICE OF COMPLETION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ............................................................................... TOs FROM: City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Ste. 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 (805) 255-4330 ............................................................................... Dates January 29, 1992 . SUBJECT: Notice of Completion of a Draft Environmental Impact Report. The City of Santa Clarita is the Lead Agency and has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the project identified below. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, if you wish to respond, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date, but not later than 45 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to Jeff Chaffin. Assistant Planner --II at the address shown above. Ve would appreciate the name of a contact person in your agency. Project Applicant: Va11eq Gateway Company (Hondo 011 Company) Project Name and Location: Valley Gateway Project (MC192-012); 27674 Clampitt Road, approximately 0.6 miles southeast of the intersection of Sierra Highway and San Fernando Road. The applicant is proposing development of a 117 acre ' site with approximately 948,210 square feet of office and business park floor space and 12 multiple family residential units. ...................................................................... LYNN M. HARRIS DEPUTY CITY MANAGER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Donald M. Villiams, Senior Planner Environmental Coordinator Contact Person: Jeff Chaffin, Assistant Planner II Telephone: (805) 255-4330 .............................................................................. ENV/329 1 309 COUNTY OF LO 1NGELES • DEPARTMENT OF HEAL ' SERVICES PUBLIC; HEALTH PROGRAMS AND SERVICLs �' �` ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH/HEALTH FACILITIES BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 2525 Corporate Place x150, Monterey Park, CA 91754.7631 • (213)881-4011 LETTER #1 February 2, 1993 R E C E I V E D , FEB 0 j 1993 ' COIAMJNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA Mr. Jeff Chaffin, Assistant Planner II City of Santa Clarita , Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 ' Dear Mr. Chaffin: NOTICE OF COMPLETION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) , VALLEY GATEWAY COMPANY (HONDO OIL COMPANY) -- 91-012 This is in response to your January 29, 1993 Notice of Completion of a DEIR for , the above -referenced project. This Bureau has reviewed the documentation and submits the following comments: ' ■ The Environmental Impact Report indicates that the pro- , posed project will be served by existing public water and sewage systems. If either of these conditions should 1 ' change, further review by this Bureau will be necessary. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Norman Groom, Chief of our Water, Sewerage & Subdivision Control Program, at (213) 881-4157. Very truly yours, Jack Petralia, Director ' Bureau of Environmental Protection JP:kaj1eir-swaI I eyGatmayco.ues ' 310 , �1 1 The following responses to written comments are listed by letter number, date and agency, organization or individual commenting on the draft EIR on the Valley Gateway EIR. 1 Letter Number 1, dated February 2, 1993 County of Los Angeles, Dept. of Health Services 1 Response to Comment No. 1: Comment noted; no further response is required. �1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 311 February 3, 1993 CITY OF BANTA Department of 23.920 Valencia Santa Clarita, Attn: Re: SOUTHERN CLARITA Community Development Blvd, Ste 1300 CA 91355 Jeff Chaffin R E C E I V E C FEd 2 21993 COMMJNITI DEVE WIPMENT C*TV ()F SANTA CLARITA CALIFORNIA 9C1S COMPANY 6520 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD • TUJUNGA. CALIFORNIA MAILING ADDRESS. SOX 457 . TUJUNGA. CALIFORNIA 91043 EIR Master Case No. 92-012 .,:.LETTER #2 The following is in response to your 1/29/93 letter.requesting information relative to an Environmental Impact Report on the proposed development of approximately 948,210 sq ft of office and business park floor space and 12 residential units. Within areas of interest and responsibilities of The Gas Company, we find the proposed development reasonable and acceptable. This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the subject development, but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the proposed project can be served from existing mains in the area. This can be done without a major impact on overall system capacity service to existing customers, or the environment. Industrial or commercial customers' loads vary with types of equipment used. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, The Gas Company is under jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with the revised conditions. We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conversation programs, please contact the Commercial Sales supervisor at (818) 951-2453. Sincerely, Bill Whalen Planning Aide BW: lam cc: G. Baca 312 1 11 1 Letter Number 2, dated February 3, 1993 Southern California Gas Company 1 Response to Comment No. 1: Comment noted; no further response is required. C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '1 1 11 1 313 OAn Affirmative Action -Equal Opportunity Employer LETTER #3 February 9, 1993 City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development . AT N: Jeff Chaffin Assistant Planncr II 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 To Whom It May Concern: RECEIVI_0 FEB 10 1993 COMMUNnV DEVELOPMENT CITU OE SANTA CtA91 i A RE: Valley Gateway Project (MC #92-012) DEIR Following please find our response to the above -reference Draft EIR. This proposed development should generate 1-2 pupils kindergarten through 6th grade and 1. the school fees which the development will generate will fully mitigate its impact on the Newhall School District. Please note that we arc uncertain as to how much of this development lies within the boundaries of the Newhall School District. A portion may be in the Los Angeles Unified :]2.' School District. Sincerely, �Michaelam Ed.U`�_ Superintendent JMM: ct 314 Ul Letter Number 3, dated February 9, 1993 Newhall School District Response to Comment No. 1: Comment noted; no further response is required. Response to Comment No. 2: A 26 acre portion at the southern end of the proposed project site is presently located within an unincorporated area of Los Angeles County and, therefore, is currently within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Unified School District. One component of the proposed project is a request to annex this portion of the project site into the municipal boundaries of the City of Santa Clarita. If the annexation is approved, the entire 116.9 acre project site would then be located within the City of. Santa Clarita and would be located within the boundaries of the Newhall School District. 315 February 18, 1993 Los Angeles Department of Rel Director of Planning. James E. Haill. AICP Mr. Jeff Chaffin Assistant Planner 1I City of Santa Clarita Department or Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard Ste. #300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report Valley Gateway Project Dear Mr. Chaffin: Thank you for providing the above document for review by this Department. RECEIVED FEB 2 3 1993 COMMph)Tl Publ.N'MENT !Pr :,c , 4Ta r! LETTER #4 The proposed project is to develop 931,650 s.f of business park/corporate headquarters on 117 acres located at Remson Street and Sierra Highway. The southern 26 acres would be annexed to the City of Santa Clarita and contains historical Beale's Cut (County Landmark # 19). The project Includes removal of the existing oil extraction facilities on the site. GEOLOGY. SEISMOLOGYAND SOILS Page 58 of the DEIR states that the site is not within an Alquist-Priolo special study zone. A review of the I' County Safety Element (Plate 1) indicates a small portion of an APSSZ is located on the southerly side of the site. , Plate 5 of the Safety Element Indicates 2 to 3 probable landslides (5+acres each) on the northerly portion of the site. This Issue should be addressed In the Final EIR. 2.' AQUEDUCT The second Los Angeles aqueduct traverses the site and is at a relatively shallow depth on the northern ' 2/3 of the site (page 42). As there are subterranean parking lots proposed as well as additional excavation for soil remediation purposes (page 50), any effect to this vital facility needs to be fully analyzed. 3• BIOTA , Our staff biologist, Dr. Daryl Koutnik, has reviewed the biotic impacts his comments are attached for your ' review. Please note that County staff disagrees with your conclusion of no significant Impact. o Ste SCENIC HIGHWAY aatcAta The Antelope Valley (SR -14) Is a second priority scenic highway study route according to the Los Angeles County General Plan. While the major ridgelines on-site are being preserved, the construction of mid -rise 5. office structures up to seven stories and 95 feet tall will significantly alter the existing vista along SR -14. 316 320 West Temple Streel t os Angeles. CA 90012 213 974.6411 FAX 213 626 0434 , February 18, 1993 Page 2 PREVIOUS USE OF THE SITE The site was previousy used for oil extraction purposes until the facility closed In 1989. it Is highly probable 6. that the Bolls may have become contaminated by various products produced and stored on-site. Proper soil remediation should be undertaken particularly In the area proposed for residential purposes. The DEIR does not clearly indicate where the residential component Is to be located other than to state that It will be along Sierra Highway (page 168). MITIGATION MONITORING Since no draft mitigation monitoring program was Included with the DE/R, it would be appropriate to have any responsible County agencies involved to review such a draft prior to Its adoption for comment. 7. If you have any questions please contact me at (213) 974-6-461 Monday through Thursday between 7:30 a.m to 6:00 p.m. Our offices are closed on Fridays. Very truly yours, DEPARTMENT OF REGIONAL PLANNING James E. Hand, AICP Director of Planning Frank Meneses Section Head Impact Analysis JEH:FM:pr 317 . 76L768 - I nS ANGELES COUNTY LEI rMGR 4X41 TO i� FRANK MENESES FROM DARYL KOUINIK, Biologist I 1Kt Date No. DATE: 16 February 1993 Comments regarding the Valley Gateway (Project No. 92-012) Draft EIR Impacts on wildlife corridor is not mitigated to less than significance as stated on page 22 4.a (see below). � 1 11 I 1 The vegetation classification does not fully follow the California Department of Fish & Game's classification, as is stated on page 90. 14.b. Scrub oaks (Quercus dumosa) do not occur on site (page 92), yet scrub oaks approach 4A arborescent size (page 94); explain this discrepancy. Coastal sage scrub dominant plant species are NOT summer -deciduous (page 95). -k 4 . d' On page 100, this wildlife corridor is mentioned as one of a "few remaining" links between the San Gabriel and Santa Susana Mountains; the corridor is actually the LAST link 4.ee between the mountain ranges. There are three movement corridors described on page 101; any data supporting these as movement corridors should be presented; corridor 1 has steep slopes and narrow access points making this a highly unlikely corridor (what percentage of movement is expected for ' this area?); corridor 2 is certainly the primary access through the project site; corridor 3 is probably not accurately depicted since many animals will probably continue to follow either 4.f the stream course or Remsen Street. A movement corridor requires some habitat to be included; this is not part of the project design. The project design does not maintain corridors 1 & 3 which are totally blocked, and corridor 2 is only partially maintained by the project design and much of the "natural" area for this corridor is presently unnatural. The lists of sensitive biotic species (pages 102 & 104) is totally insufficient - there are many more than one bird, reptile and mammal sensitive species in the area, in fact there are several on the project site (e.g., coastal western whiptail, loggerhead shrike, American 4. g. badger). Sensitive species missing in the Draft EIR are: 3 amphibians, 6 reptiles, 19 birds, ' and 6 mammals. All of these need to be addressed in discussion of wildlife impacts. It is stated (page 106) that no sensitive species were detected on projects' area o disturbance but the San Diego horned lizard was observed on southern portion of site which 4. h' will be indirectly impacted by project development. 318 The figures for oak tree removals are not consistent (page 107); most of the new disturbance of project will be of the southern coast live oak woodland which is the most sensitive habitat 4.1. on site; this does not appear to be fully mitigated. The statement that the project was designed to avoid disturbance of wildlife movement corridors (page 108) is not. accurate since 67% of the existing corridors will be lost. There 4. j . is no mitigation proposed for the introduction of alien plants (page 1080. ' The random use of native plants in landscaping does NOT mitigate removal of natural 4.x. habitat (page 109a). If redesigning of project will considerably lessen the impacts to the southern coast live oak woodland (page 110); the most sensitive habitat, why has this not been done? 4.1. It is stated (page 111) that the proposed project will avoid further impact (presumably since the construction of the Antelope Valley Freeway) on the wildlife movement corridors but there is no mention of how this is achieved. How much of the southern coastal live oak 4.m. ' woodland habitat will be destroyed by the loss of 409 oak trees? The project development does NOT avoid remnant wildlife movement corridors, as stated in analysis of significance. SENSITIVE SPECIES AMPHIBIANS BIRDS (continued) California red -legged frog Burrowing owl Arroyo toad Long-eared owl Western spadefoot toad Western yellow -billed cuckoo Ferruginous hawk Southwestern willow flycatcher REPTILES California horned lark Northern harrier Purple martin Coastal western whiptail Loggerhead shrike Silvery legless lizard Yellow warbler Coastal rosy boa Yellow -breasted chat Coast pact -nosed snake Beil's sage sparrow San Bernardino ringneck snake Southern California rufous -crowned sparrow San Diego mountain kingsuake Tricolored blackbird BIRDS Golden eagle Southern grasshopper mouse Sharp -shinned hawk San Diego desert woodrat Cooper's hawk San Diego black -tailed jackrabbit Ferruginous hawk California mastiff bat Swainson's hawk Pallid bat Northern harrier Townsend's big -eared bat Merlin Prairie falcon 2 319 Letter Number 4, dated February 18, 1993 Los Angeles County, Department or Regional Planning Response to Comment No. 1: Comment noted; the County Safety Element (Plate 1) referenced shows that the extreme western border of an Alquist Priolo Seismic Study Zone, apparently related to a small westerly splay of the Santa Susana Fault, may touch the far eastern boundary of the proposed project site. This zone is located a minimum of at least 900 linear feet from the location of any development proposed under the Valley Gateway Project. This distance is from 9 to 20 times the standard setback (50 to 100 linear feet) generally required from the boundary of an existing Alquist Priolo Zone. For this reason, the impact has been determined to be well below a level considered significant. Response to Comment No. 2: Comment noted; the County Safety Element (Plate 5) referenced shows probable landslides that are located on a large, adjacent Caltrans -owned slope abutting the Antelope Valley Freeway, not within the actual Valley Gateway Project boundary. The proposed project does not encroach into the landslide area and the project applicant has no control over the use or maintenance of this area. Response to Comment No. 3: No subterranean parking will be located in proximity to the existing aqueduct. Soil remediation activities in proximity to the existing aqueduct continue to be closely coordinated with the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power by the project applicant (Hondo Oil & Gas Company). See relevant correspondence in the Technical Appendix between these parties for additional information. Response to Comment No. 4: Response to comments received from Daryl Koutnik, County of Los Angeles biologist, dated February 16, 1993: a. A development alternative that modifies the proposed project has been added to the Final EIR that mitigates impacts to the on-site wildlife corridor to less than significant. The Final EIR has been modified to reflect that the project as proposed would result in significant adverse impacts to the wildlife corridor. A copy of the Final EIR has been forwarded to the County of Los Angeles biologist. b. The Final EIR has been changed to reflect that the vegetation classification system "is based on" the California Department of Fish and Game classification. c. The statement in the Draft EIR is in error; the Final EIR has been corrected. d. The statement in the Draft EIR is in error; the Final EIR has been corrected. 320 e. There are alternative grade separated wildlife corridors that provide linkages between the San Gabriel and Santa Susana Mountains. While they could prove to be of lesser quality than the Los Pinos wildlife corridor, there are existing corridors at the underpasses of San Fernando Road to the north and Sierra Highway to the south of the project site as documented in "Santa Clarita Wildlife Corridor" prepared for the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. Therefore, the Los Pinos underpass/wildlife corridor is not the last link between these mountain ranges. Please refer to the overall response to the issue of impacts to the on- site wildlife corridor presented in response to the prior Santa Monica Mountain Conservancy comment letter (Letter No. 14). g. The list of additional sensitive species provided by the County Biologist has been received and it has been determined that the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to these species. Specimens of these species were not detected on-site during the numerous hours spent on-site by biological personnel. Please refer to the Final EIR for specific discussions regarding these sensitive species. h. Sensitive species were not detected within the anticipated area of project disturbance. The San Diego horned lizard habitat is found on the southern portion of the project site. This portion of the property (Lot 40) is proposed as permanent open space to be offered for dedication to the City, or the City's designee. This portion of the project site will be left undisturbed. h The issue of minimizing individual oak tree and southern coast oak woodland loss due to the proposed project's implementation is addressed further in the Final EIR. Please refer to the overall response to the issue of impacts to oak trees and southern coast oak woodland presented in response to the prior Santa Monica Mountain Conservancy comment letter (Letter No. 14). j. A project development alternative that retains functional wildlife corridors and is environmentally -superior to the proposed project has been developed with input from the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and has been included in the Final EIR. Please refer to the response to the comments from the Santa Monica Mountains conservancy letter (Letter No. 14) and the Final EIR for a complete description of this environmentally -superior alternative. A mitigation measure has been added that requires that at least 75% of the landscaping material is to be of native, local vegetation species. While this does not completely avoid the use of some alien landscaping species that have been "naturalized" to Southern California and are commonly used in local landscaping, it does lessen the impact of alien plant species to a less than significant level. The remaining 25% of the plant palette will consist of non-invasive introduced plant materials. 321 k. This project's impacts on existing natural habitats cannot be completely mitigated, however impacts can be lessened with the use of native plant materials in landscaping. 1. The Final EIR includes a project development alternative that retains the function of the wildlife corridor and lessens impacts to southern coast oak woodland. This alternative has been found to be environmentally superior to the proposed project. in. Please refer to response "I" above and the Final EIR. Response to Comment No. 5: The Draft EIR's analysis of significance indicates the project's low-rise and mid -rise buildings will either be partially, or clearly viewable from approximately a 1.5 mile stretch of the Antelope Valley Freeway that serves as the gateway into and out of the southeast portion of the Santa Clarita Valley. The mid -rise buildings will be visible against the adjacent and surrounding hillsides and ridgelines, on and off the project site. Preserved ridgelines and landforms will serve to screen portions of the buildings from the adjacent freeway. Preserved oak trees will screen some of the low-rise buildings from the freeway. Surrounding ridgelines limit longer -range views of the site and of the mid -rise buildings. The limits of these views are shown in the Draft EIR and Final EIR (Figure 44). Given the level of development that currently exists along the Antelope Valley Freeway to the north, and the mitigation measures set forth in the Land Use, Aesthetics and View Analysis, and Light and Glare Sections of the EIR, the City has determined that the project's visual and aesthetic impacts will be less than significant after mitigation. Response to Comment No. 6: Comment noted. The potential impacts of the proposed project related to the previous oil refinery use and its remediation (including the 2.4 acre portion of the siteproposed for residential development) were described and summarized within the Draft Environmental Impact Report (primarily in Section 4.2 -- Geology, Seismicity, and Soils, pages 55 to 70). As stated on Page iii of the Table of Contents, the Remedial Action Plan (or RAP) conducted for the property and approved by the State of California Regional Water Control Board (Los Angeles Region) that will govern the site cleanup, was incorporated in its entirety, by reference, into the Draft Environmental Impact Report; and was included within the Technical Appendix to the document. This document remains available for review by interested agencies and the public at the City of Santa Clarita City Hall, Community Development Department, located at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita. 322 Response to Comment No. 6: Figure 3 of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Page 9, Section 2.5 Proposed Development Objectives — Summary) indicates that the residential parcel proposed under the Valley Gateway Project is located on Parcel til, at the far southwestern portion of the property. Response to Comment No. 7: Comment noted. The Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan will be available for responsible agency and public review prior to its adoption by the Santa Clarita City Council. 323 The Gas Compi February 23, 1993 City of Santa Department of 23920 Valencia Santa Clarita, Attention: Re: Clarita Community Development Blvd. Suite 300 CA 91355 Mr. Jeff .Chaffin E.I.R. 92-012 031 CCN. . city pp' +�ht `+AN7A h ao #5 1 Semham Wi;oml,. The following is in response to your January 29, 1993 letterGUCOMFM requesting information relative to an Environmental Impact Report on the proposed development of The Valley Gateway nqunga,r..a Project renovation. Within areas of interest and responsibilities of the Southern California Gas Company, we ljd"gIidd,,.v. find the proposed development reasonable and acceptable. eo,a57 This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the subject development, but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the proposed project can be served from existing mains in the area. This can be done without.a major impact on overall system capacity, service to existing customers, or the environment. Industrial or commercial customerst loads vary with types of equipment used. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter is based upon present conditons of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with the revised conditions. We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact the following for assistance: Commercial Sales Supervisor at (818) 951-2453. BW:dmr cc: G. Baca 324 Sincerely, FOIXL�v Bill Whalen Planning Aide np",?J. u 9104; 1 11 I II ' Letter Number 5, dated February 23, 1993 Southern Calirornia Gas Company (2nd letter) Responseto Comment No. 1: Comment noted; no further response is required. I 11 U 1 11 II II 1 325 State of California M E M -O R A N D U H To: Mr. Douglas p, Wheeler Secretary for Resources LETTER #6 ' THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA ' Mr. Jeff Chaffin City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, 0300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Date: March 3, 1993 ;?,j!�C.i �' fagq ,,.. 8 i9 Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Valley Gateway project. SCH #92041041 The Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas, Geothermal Resources (Division) has reviewed the draft EIR for and the proposed project and submits the following comments for your consideration. Although the DEIR includes comments submitted by the 'Division in a previous document review, reflect the actual conditions of the wells the comments do not located within the project On ae3 ofit a easteight nofrthe twenty-two4wellstlocated�withinpthes that at r area will need some additional well work before they canbeect considered plugged and abandoned*to Division standards. Therefore, prior to commencing operations, the project applicant should consult with the Division district office in Ventura for information on requirements needed to bring the wells in question into compliance. Although the possibility for future -problems from oil and gas wells that have been plugged and abandoned or reabandoned to the Divisions current specifications are remote, we, nevertheless, suggest that a diligent effort be made to avoid 2. building over any abandoned well. If construction over an abandoned well is unavoidable, we suggest that an adequate gas venting system be placed over the well. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Pat Kinnear at the Division district office in Ventura. The address is 1000 South Hill Road, Suite 116, Ventura, CA 93003-4458; phone (805) 654-4761. Lunde gtetson, Assistant Director Office of Governmental and Environmental Relations cc: Pat Kinnear, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Ventura Michael Stett:ner, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, SFcramento 326 Letter Number 6, dated March 3,1993 State of California Dept: of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources Response to Comment No. 1: Comment noted; mitigation measures and conditions of approval contained in the Final EIR require that prior to the issuance of the project's first grading permit, the City's Deputy City Manager/Community Development shall approve a well abandonment plan that has been reviewed and commented on by the State of California's Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Office of Governmental and Environmental Relations. The report shall document that all wells have been plugged and abandoned to Division standards. Response to Comment No. 2: Comment noted; mitigation measures and conditions of approval contained in the Final EIR require that prior to the issuance of the project's first business park/office development building permit the approved well abandonment plan shall require that gas venting systems be placed over wells in areas of construction and development to further avoid the remote possibility for future safety problems. 327 w.lnwuu f((,1M11�ON !OLID M1f71 MANAG[M(M COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS 1955 Workman !.till Rood, Whittier, CA 9C6N.4998 Moiling Address. P.O. Boa 4998, Whittier, CA 90607-4998 Telephone: 13101 699.7411, FAX: (3101 695.6139 Mr. Jeff Chaffin City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Dear Mr. Chaffin: OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY March 8, 1993 File No: Tentative Tract Mao No. 51044 Valley Gateway Proiect CHARLES W. CARRY Chief Engineer and General Manager I 1 LETTER #7 The County Sanitation Districts received a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the subject project on January 29, 1993. We offer the following comments regarding sewerage service: 1. The area in question is outside the jurisdictional boundaries of the Sanitation Districts and will require annexation into District No. 32 before sewerage service can be provided to the proposed 1 development. For specific information regarding the annexation procedure and fees, please contact Ms. Alma Horvath at (310)699-7411, extension 2708. 2. Because of the project's location, the flow originating from the proposed project will have to be transported to the Districts' trunk sewer by local sewer(s) which are not maintained by the Sanitation 2 Districts. If no local sewer lines currently exist, it is the responsibility of the developer to convey any wastewater generated by the project to the nearest local sewer and/or Districts' trunk sewer. 3. The County Sanitation Districts provide sewage treatment in the Santa Clarita Valley by operating two water reclamation plants (WRPs), the Saugus WRP and the Valencia WRP. These facilities have been interconnected to form a regional treatment system known as the Santa Clarita Valley Joint Sewerage System (SCVJSS). As a result of a recently completed flow equalization project, the Saugus WRP has a rated capacity of 5.6 million gallons per day (mgd) and currently treats an average flow of 5.3 mgd. All solids, and any wastewater flows which exceed the capacity of the Saugus WRP, are conveyed to the Valencia WRP for treatment. The Valencia WRP has a design capacity of 7.5 mgd and currently treats an average flow of 8.7 mgd. The current treatment capacity of the SCVJSS is 13.1 mgd (7.5 + 5.6). Through the use of the wastewater and sludge connecting lines, all future expansions of the treatment works, as well as all sludge handling and disposal operations, will be carried out at the Valencia WRP site. A 6 mgd expansion of the Valencia WRP is currently proposed. The 6 mgd expansion will be staged and will occur in two phases. Phase one will consist of a 3.5 mgd expansion, scheduled to be on-line by late 1994 and is expected to meet the Regional Growth Management Plan forecasted demand until 1997. Phase two will consist of the remaining 2.5 mgd of capacity, scheduled to be on-line by 1997 and sufficient to meet the demand until 2002. These incremental expansions will provide adequate lead time to plan, design and construct the next required capacity increment. After both phases are completed the SCVJSS will have a total capacity of 19.1 mgd. 328 7 3. 1 1 I 01993 ' LETTER #7 The County Sanitation Districts received a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the subject project on January 29, 1993. We offer the following comments regarding sewerage service: 1. The area in question is outside the jurisdictional boundaries of the Sanitation Districts and will require annexation into District No. 32 before sewerage service can be provided to the proposed 1 development. For specific information regarding the annexation procedure and fees, please contact Ms. Alma Horvath at (310)699-7411, extension 2708. 2. Because of the project's location, the flow originating from the proposed project will have to be transported to the Districts' trunk sewer by local sewer(s) which are not maintained by the Sanitation 2 Districts. If no local sewer lines currently exist, it is the responsibility of the developer to convey any wastewater generated by the project to the nearest local sewer and/or Districts' trunk sewer. 3. The County Sanitation Districts provide sewage treatment in the Santa Clarita Valley by operating two water reclamation plants (WRPs), the Saugus WRP and the Valencia WRP. These facilities have been interconnected to form a regional treatment system known as the Santa Clarita Valley Joint Sewerage System (SCVJSS). As a result of a recently completed flow equalization project, the Saugus WRP has a rated capacity of 5.6 million gallons per day (mgd) and currently treats an average flow of 5.3 mgd. All solids, and any wastewater flows which exceed the capacity of the Saugus WRP, are conveyed to the Valencia WRP for treatment. The Valencia WRP has a design capacity of 7.5 mgd and currently treats an average flow of 8.7 mgd. The current treatment capacity of the SCVJSS is 13.1 mgd (7.5 + 5.6). Through the use of the wastewater and sludge connecting lines, all future expansions of the treatment works, as well as all sludge handling and disposal operations, will be carried out at the Valencia WRP site. A 6 mgd expansion of the Valencia WRP is currently proposed. The 6 mgd expansion will be staged and will occur in two phases. Phase one will consist of a 3.5 mgd expansion, scheduled to be on-line by late 1994 and is expected to meet the Regional Growth Management Plan forecasted demand until 1997. Phase two will consist of the remaining 2.5 mgd of capacity, scheduled to be on-line by 1997 and sufficient to meet the demand until 2002. These incremental expansions will provide adequate lead time to plan, design and construct the next required capacity increment. After both phases are completed the SCVJSS will have a total capacity of 19.1 mgd. 328 7 3. 1 1 I Mr. Jeff Chaffin 2 March 8, 1993 4. Both the Saugus and Valencia WRPs provide tertiary treatment to all influent wastewater. Tertiary 9 treatment at both WRPs involves the following wastewater treatment processes: • primary treatment by gravity settling in sedimentation tanks, • secondary treatment by an activated sludge process, • tertiary treatment via dual media filtration, • chlorination, and • dechlorination. All plant effluent is discharged to the Santa Clara River. 4 Sewage solids, sludge, generated at both the Saugus WRP and the Valencia WRP is treated at the Valencia WRP. Sludge is treated in the following sequence of processes: • waste activated sludge (WAS) from the secondary clarifiers is thickened by dissolved air flotation, • thickened WAS is then combined with primary sludge (PS) from the primary clarifiers and anaerobically digested, and • digested sludge is then dewatered using filter presses. Dewatered sludge is transported to a local landfill for disposal The expected average wastewater flow from the project site is estimated below. A copy ofthe Districts' average wastewater generation factors is enclosed to allow you to estimate the volume of wastewater the project will generate. 515,000 sf Industrial Business Park 25-200 gpd/1000 sf 14,375.103,000 gpd (Manufacturing/Warehouse) 356,000 sf Office 200 gpd/1000 sf 71,200 gpd 12 Multi Family Residential Units 156 gpd/unit 1,872 gpd Total 1 87,447.176,072 gpd 5. 6. A Districts' Permit for Industrial Wastewater Discharge may be required for this project. The developers of the project should contact the Sanitation Districts' Industrial Waste Section so that a 6. determination can be reached on this matter. If a permit is necessary, the Districts require that final plans be forwarded for review and approval, prior to any construction. 7. The Sanitation Districts are empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee for the privilege of connecting to the Sanitation Districts' Sewerage System or Increasing the existing strength and/or quantity of wastewater attributable to a particular parcel or operation already 7. connected. A connection fee is required in order that necessary expansions to the Sewerage System can be constructed to accommodate new development. Payment of a connection fee will be required before a permit to connect to the sewer is issued. 8. The design capacity of Districts' wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities are based on population forecasts adopted in the 1991 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The 18 . 329 Mr. Jeff Chaffin 3 March 8, 1993 , AQMP was jointly prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) as a requirement of the Federal Clean ' Air Act (CAA). In order to conform with the AQMP, all expansions of Districts' facilities must be sized and service phased in a manner which is consistent with the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The GMP is a regional growth forecast for the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, , Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial which was prepared by SCAG. Specific policies included in the 8. GMP which deal with the management and distribution of growth are incorporated into the AQMP strategies to improve air quality in the South Coast Air Basin. The available capacity of Districts' , conveyance and treatment facilities will, therefore, be limited to levels associated with approved growth identified in the adopted GMP/AQMP. As such, this letter does not constitute a guarantee of wastewater service, but is intended to communicate the Districts' willingness to provide this service up to the levels which are legally permitted and to inform you of the currently existing capacity and , any proposed expansion of Districts' facilities. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (310) 699-7411, extension 2717. ' Very truly yours, Charles W. Carry ' Marie L. Pagenkopp Engineering Technician Financial Planning & ' Property Management Section MLP:mc Enclosure ' 1 I I I I I N: ENVASSESENVASS:.7T1310H.LTR 330 1 LOADINGS FOR EACH CLASS OF LAND USE SUSPENDED COMMERCIAL Hotel/Motel/Rooming House Room FLOW COD SOLIDS Store 1000 ft= (Gallons ' . (Pounds (Pounds USER CATEGORY UNIT OF USAGE per Da r Dav) Per Da RESIDENTIAL 1000 ft2 325 3.00 1.17 Single Family Home Parcel 260 1.22 0.59 Duplex Parcel 312 1.46 0.70 Triplex Parcel 468 2.19 1.05 Fourplex Parcel 624 2.92 1.40 Five Units or More No. of Dwlg. Units 156 0.73 0.35 Mobile Home Park No. of Spaces 156 0.73 0.23 Condominium No. of Dwlg. Units 156 0.73 .0.35 0.35 COMMERCIAL Hotel/Motel/Rooming House Room 125 0.54 0.28 Store 1000 ft= 100 0.43 0.23 Supermarket 1000 112 150 2.00 1.00 Shopping Center 1000 ft2 325 3.00 1.17 Regional Mall 1000 ft= 150 2.10 0.77 Office Building 1000 ft= 200 0.86 0.45 Professional Building 1000 ft2 300 1.29 0.68 Restaurant 1000 ft2 1,000 16.68 5.00 Financial Institution 1000 ft: 100 0.43 0.23 Service Shop 1000 ft2 100 0.43 0.23 Laundromat 1000 ft2 3,825 16.40 8.61 Service Station 1000 ft2 100 0.43 0.23 Auto Sales/Repair 1000 ft2 100 0.43 0.23 Car Wash Tunnel - No Recycling 1000 ft2 3,700 15.86 8.33 Tunnel - Recycling 1000 ft2 2,700 11.74 6.16 Wand 1000 ft2 700 3.00 1.58 Wholesale Outlet 1000 ft2 100 0.43 0.23 Animal Kennel 1000 ft2 100 0.43 0.23 Nursery/Greenhouse 1000 ft2 25 0.11 0.06 Dry Manufacturing 1000112 25 0.23 0.09 Lumber Yard 1000 ft2 25 ' 0.23 0.09 Warehousing 1000 ft2 25 0.23 0.09 Open Storage 1000 ft2 25 0.23 0.09 Indoor Theatre 1000 ft2 125 0.54 0.28 Drive-in Theatre 1000 ft2 20 0.09 0.05 Nightclub 1000 ft2 350 1.50 0.79 Bowling/Skating 1000 ft2 150 1.76 0.55 Club (fraternal or civic) 1000 ft2 68 0.29 0.15 Auditorium, Amusement 1000 ft2 350 1.50 0.79 331 Letter Number 7, dated March 8, 1993 County Sanitation District of Los Angeles County Response to Comment No. 1: The project applicant has been in contact with County Sanitation District 32 representatives to discuss necessary. sewer annexation procedures. Mitigation measures and conditions of approval have been included in the Final EIR that require documentation of the availability of adequate sewer service and treatment plant capacity prior to the approval of the project's first tentative tract map. Response to Comment No. 2: The Draft and Final EIR identify, in a number of locations (primarily within Section 4.9.2, Infrastructure and Utility Impacts), local property owner efforts to design and construct the sewer infrastructure necessary to serve the project site and surrounding properties. The system is proposed to be financed through the establishment of an assessment district or community facilities district, and would be dedicated to the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Sewer Maintenance Division when completed. The Final EIR contains mitigation measures and conditions of approval that require the project to design, construct, finance and dedicate a sewer infrastructure system acceptable to the County Sanitation District prior to the issuance of the building permit for the first business park/office use. Response to Comment No. 3: Comment noted; information provided by the Sanitation District indicates that planned expansions to two water reclamation facilities in the area can provide treatment plant capacity necessary to serve the proposed project. Response to Comment No. 4: Comment noted; no further response is required. Response to Comment No. 5: Comment noted; the project could generate approximately 89,500 to 176,100 gallons per day in average wastewater flows. Response to Comment No. 6: Mitigation measures and conditions of approval have been included in the Final EIR that require the project to obtain a permit for industrial waster discharge from the Sanitation District's Industrial Waste Section prior to the issuance of a building permit for all industrial/business park development. If a discharge permit is not required, the project applicant shall submit satisfactory documentation to the City that the Sanitation District has reviewed the industrial project, and that no permit for wastewater discharge is required. 332 Response to Comment No. 7: Mitigation measures and conditions of approval have been included in the Final EIR that require the project applicant to pay all required connection fees to the Sanitary District prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Use and Occupancy being issued for project development. Response to Comment No. 8: Comment noted; no further response is required. 333 State of California Memorandum To Mr. Tom Loftus State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 Robert Goodell -District 7 From : DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Subject : Project Review Comments r iess, Transportation and Housing Agency ' Dote . March 9, 1993 File No.: IGR/CEQA/DEIR City of Santa Clarita VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT Vic. LA -14-R25.97 LETTER #8 Caltrans has reviewed the above -referenced Valley Gateway Project. Based on the information received, in addition to our previous.correspondence of March 2, 1992 and May 13, 1992, we have the following additional comments: We are satisfied with the document's overall traffic analysis. However, we strongly recommend an additional right -turn only pocket for the westbound Foothill Boulevard traffic to northbound Sierra 1, Highway. We do not believe that your projections of 0 traffic from westbound Foothill Boulevard to northbound Sierra Highway as shown in Figures 19, 24, and 25 is accurate. Also, this project will add.additional traffic to the southbound Antelope Valley Freeway at San Fernando Road. Therefore, we recommend constructing an additional lane on the southbound on-ramp at this location, which would provide three lanes, (two metered lanes.and a 2• HOV by-pass lane). The ramp design must conform to Caltrans Design Standards. For conformity Tables 13, 15,.17 and. 18 should have asterisks by the figures as needed.per your asterisk reference. 3. If you have any questions regarding this response, please call Wilford Melton (213) 897-1338. cc: Jeff.Chaffin ✓ City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard 1300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Original Signed By ROBERT GOODELL, CHIEF Advance Planning Branch RECEIVED MAI 1 51993 COMMUNITY OEVEiJFMCNT nh\2003 , C,TY Cr SANTA CLWIA 334 1 II ' Letter Number 8, dated March 9, 1993 State of California, CalTrans Response to Comment No. 1: The mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR and Final EIR at the intersection of Sierra Highway and I-5 NB/SR-14 NB/Foothill Boulevard consist of adding second northbound and southbound left -tum lanes and a second northbound through lane. This mitigation results in a background - plus -project level of service (LOS) well below the background LOS. Although the analysis projects zero project -generated westbound right -tum trips, even if five percent of project traffic utilizes Foothill Boulevard, with the identified mitigation measures the background -plus -project LOS will be well below the background LOS. Response to Comment No. 2: Assuming that five percent of the traffic utilizes the HOV by-pass lane and that ramp -metering discharges vehicles at a rate of one vehicle every five seconds, then a single HOV lane and a single metered lane can accommodate approximately 760 vehicles per hour. Under background - plus -project conditions there will be 870 vehicles per hour.(vph) utilizing the southbound on-ramp during the PM peak hour. With cumulative traffic, there will be 2,470 vph utilizing the southbound on-ramp during the PM peak hour. The project should be responsible for its fair -share of the increase over existing traffic. Response to Comment No. 3: Comment noted; Tables 23, 15, 17 and 18 have been modified in the Final EIR to reflect asterisks by the figures that exceed Level of Service "C". 335 'NEWHALL COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 23780 North Pine Street 'P.O. Bos 779 Newhall, California 91322-0779 U II F1 March 9, 1993 City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 MRM 1 1 1993 LOM."'N. V2-4. L -Mi V. LETTER #9 Attention: Jeff Chaffin, Assistant Planner II Subject: Valley Gateway Company Draft Environmental Impact Report Gentlemen: Telephone 1805) 259.3610 The following Newhall County Water District com- FA%(805)259.9673 ments on the Valley Gateway Project Draft EIR prepared by The Planning Consortium and dated January, 1993 are offered for your consideration. The text presented herein is suggested as an alternative to clarify the paragraphs cited. Directors JUNE HERRINGTON, Resident ELISHA J. AGAJANIAN DONALD B. HAYES ROBERT W. WADE JOE WHITESIDE ' Secretary General Manager JAMES E. JINKS Assistant General Manager 'JEAN A. DI ANGELGUS Auditor REBA MITCHELL Office Manager MARIE A. SMALL Attorney ROBERT H. DAHL Engineer C. FRANKLIN STEINER 4.9.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS The Existing Conditions of the local water supply could be stated more clearly as follows. Infrastructure and Utilities: Water - The project is located within the service area of the Newhall County Water District, one of the four retail water purveyors serving the Santa Clarita valley. NCWD obtains the majority of its water for the Newhall service area from wells drilled into the Saugus Aquifer. It obtains treated water from Castaic Lake Water Agency which provides water to the four local retail purveyors at wholesale prices. NCWD instituted conservation guidelines during drought conditions. In the second paragraph, the sentence starting with "The area's elevation above.... Should be modified to read: "The area's elevation above the supplying reservoir, Reservoir No. 5, has limited the acceptable service elevation to Elevation 1357 which is lower than any of the lands proposed for service. New booster pumping and storage facilities as well as a new transmission pipe line will be required to serve the.development." 337 City of Santa Clarita March 9-1993 Page 2 4.9.2 IMPACTS Infrastructure and Utilities: Water The third paragraph references private "assessment district". This is more properly defined as private funding of the required water facilities to be constructed to the specifications of Newhall 2. County Water District and then dedicated to NCWD as facilities to be owned, operated and maintained by NCWD. 4,9.3 MITIGATION MEASURES Infrastructure and Utilities: Water The comment in the preceding paragraph regarding private "assessment district" applies to para- graphs 2 and 3. The mitigation measure "A separate line shall be constructed that will allow for the use of re- claimed water for landscape irrigation purposes." is questioned. This line, if required at this time must be a portion of the privately funded project since NCWD has no plans to utilize re- claimed water in this area. Further, when the water is available, there are lands much closer to the reclaimed water source which can utilize all of the presently anticipated volume of reclaimed water.. Castaic lake Water Agency has proposed a reclamation program which will utilize available reclaimed water easterly of the reclamation facilities. In addition, the Department of Fish and Game and US Fish and Wildlife Service have laid claim to the reclaimed water flows in the Santa Clara River to maintain downstream biologi- cal resources. Yours very truly, NEWHALL C i ATER DISTRICT James E. Jinks General Manager CFS/so 338 3. Letter Number 9, dated March 9, 1993 Newhall County Water District Response to Comment No. 1: Comment noted; suggested text changes have been incorporated into the Final EIA. Response to Comment No. 2: Comment noted; suggested text changes have.been incorporated into the Final EIR. Response to Comment No. 3: Comment noted; the suggested mitigation measure has been eliminated since the Water District has indicated that NCWD has no plans to utilize reclaimed water in this area, and because of the remote possibility of reclaimed water being available to the project site in the foreseeable future. 339 TIERRA Planning & Design March 11, 1993 Mr. Glenn Adamick City of Santa Clarity Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 GATEWAY• Dear Glenn. A RECEIVED MAR 15 1993 C.MMUNITY'EVE LOR11;N? ■ ; CITY OF SAMA CLARITA LETTER #10 , We have received a copy of the Valley Gateway Screencheck E.I.R., and it has been reviewed by our planning and engineering team. At present, we are continuing to refine the Land Use Plan, infrastructure design and Specific Plan document for our project; we anticipate submittal to the City in the near future when our technical work is complete. The E.I.R. meets the technical requirements of CEQA and describes a project which appears to promote quality development and generally meet the goals and objectives of the City of Santa Clarita. At present, we are withholding technical comment on the document, but intend to track the processing and City review of the project during Planning Commission and Council public hearings. On .behalf of Needham Ranch and the consultant team, we thank you for keeping us informed on the continuing review process for the Valley Gateway Project. Sincerely, TIERRA PLANNING & DESIGN Alan Fishman Principal 34191 Camino capiatraw CApiorano Beach, G 92624 (714) 661-6212 FAX E7141248.9607 U'd 11.t1-1 340 11 11 SNINNa'ld UNH3I1 W0dd 9Z18 65Z 908 01 9£101 £6, SS HUW , II ' Letter Number 10, dated March 11, 1993 Tierra Planning & Design Response to Comment No. 1: Comment -noted; no further response is required. 'I 1 341 LETTER ##11 ; �d March 12, 1993 E`UCOM CORPORATION City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Attention: Jeff Chaffin, Assistant Planner H Subject: Valley Gateway Project Development Plan (MC #92-012): Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report '^ '•'' Project No.: 40-008-101 Dear Mr. Chaffin: As representative of Hondo Oil & Gas Company, the property owner and project applicant, Envicom Corporation appreciates the opportunity to submit the following comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Valley Gateway Project Development Plan. We believe that the document generally presents the characteristics and potential environmental impacts of the proposed project in a fair and accurate manner. As you might imagine, we are pleased to see that all of the potentially adverse environmental impacts expected to be generated by the proposed project will be mitigated to levels below significance, that no 1. significant unavoidable adverse impacts will be generated.by the proposed project, and that no statement of overriding considerations will have to be made by the City Council during the upcoming certification process of the environmental document. There is however, one important issue, concerning three distinct yet related topic areas in the document, that we feel was disclosed briefly (correctly) in the draft, but was severely under emphasized and should, therefore, be further stressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report. In Sections 4.4 (Climate and Air Quality), 4.7 (Traffic and Circulation), and 4.11 (General Plan, Unified Development Code and Land Use) of the document, it is indicated that the strategic location and accessibility of the property, combined with the proposed project's ability to house significant full-time employment opportunities, will combine to significantly improve the City of Santa Clarita's current "housing rich" jobs -to -housing ratio. The document (on Page 195) further explains that this dynamic will "benefit the AiraKIP. C',,vr,;;.1''3o] overall environmental conditions of the City by helping to reduce the number and intensity of long vehicular trips, and resultant air emissions, presently attributed to long distance commuters who live within the Santa FJ"'•5 >- Clarita area but must presently travel significant distances to their jobs." Fax -�-�-„ 342 !1 Mr. Jeff Chaffin 1 EN%'ICO.%l March 12, 1993 CORPORATION Page Two \ 1 Although we understand that it is technically infeasible to estimate to what 1 degree (quantitatively) implementation of the proposed project would improve regional traffic / circulation and air quality conditions, we do believe that the impact will be substantial, and should therefore merit greater focus and attention in the aforementioned sections of the document. 1 One of the primary goals and objectives of Hondo Oil & Gas Company in proposing an employment -intensive land use in the Valley Gateway Project 1 Development Plan was to address and assist in improving the existing local jobs -housing imbalance and reduce the need for local residents to travel out of the Santa Clarita Valley during peak traffic periods to reach employment opportunities at great distances in the San Fernando Valley and greater Los I', 1 Angeles Basin (a major goal of the City, as expressed in the General Plan). In this regard, we believe that the proposed project, by its generation of 1 approximately 2,600 full-time corporate and service -sector jobs closer to the Santa Clarita and Antelope Valleys, will divert and/or eliminate a substantial number of existing vehicles that presently encumber the Antelope Valley and 2 1 Golden State Freeways during peak hour weekday travel periods (and their accompanying air emissions) and will "do its pan" to incrementally improve regional traffic / circulation and air quality. 1 This impact will also serve to create a more general, perhaps more subtle, but nonetheless important and positive tangible improvement to the overall quality of life of many existing and future residents of the City of Santa 1 Clarita and the greater Santa Clarita Valley. Reducing the amount of time, energy, and resources that people presently spend and expend commuting on a daily basis will enable them to spend greater amounts of time with their 1 families and will allow people to pursue more productive and enjoyable endeavors. Please do not misconstrue the intent of this letter as disagreeing or 1 questioning the conclusions of the document as they relate to the projected impacts of the. proposed project on JaW traffic and circulation conditions. We believe that the assumptions used and conclusions generated in that area 1 (i.e., eight significant but mitigated local intersections) are both correct and reasonable. We simply believe that the regional traffic and circulation benefits (and resultant air quality benefits) expected to be created as a result of the proposed project are under emphasized in the draft document, and 1 merit additional prominence in the overall understanding and presentation of the "net" environmental consequences of the proposed project. 1 1 343 iG\'A ENVICON't CORPORATION Mr. Jeff Chaffin March 12, 1993 Page Three In addition to our comments, we would like to take the opportunity to formally commend the Community Development Department staff and your project consultant (the Planning Consortium) for your efforts on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The document successfully combines and reflects technically proficiency / thoroughness and brevity / readability, as 2 encouraged in the California Environmental Quality Act. The generous use of sophisticated color .graphics also adds a level of quality and understandability (particularly for the lay person or local citizen who chooses to read the document) that most environmental reports lack. If you have any questions regarding either our preceding comments on the document or the proposed project in general, please feel free to contact me. We look forward to continuing to work with you as the review and approval process of the proposed project moves forward. Sincerely, !' • C�I�Idhr'��� David J. Armanetti, Manager Real Estate Development Services cc: Blaine Hess, Hondo Oil & Gas Company Don Williams, Senior Planner, City of Santa Clarity Fred Follstad, Associate Planner, City of Santa Clarita Glenn Adamick, Assistant Planner 11, City of Santa Clarita W. Dean Brown, Principal, The Planning Consortium 344 I ' Letter Number 11, dated March 12, 1993 Envicom Corporation Land Use Representative for the Applicant Hondo Oil and Gas Company Response to Comment No. 1: Comment noted; changes have been made to the Final EIR that identify and include significant adverse environmental impacts for the proposed project that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant. Impacts to the site's wildlife corridors and coast live oak trees have been changed to significant adverse environmental impacts. The cumulative effects of air quality and noise also result in significant adverse impacts to a level less than significant. New information provided by responding agencies and individuals resulted in these changes between the Draft EIR and the Final EIR. These changes include the addition of a project alternative which is sensitive to the existing wildlife corridor and oak tree resources on the project site (Section 5.7, Figure 48). Response to Comment No. 2: Comment noted; no further response is required. 345 STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON, Governor �r GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 Mar 15, 1993 JEFF CHAFFIN CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 23920 VALENCIA BLVD., STE: 300 SANTA CLARITA, CA 91355 Subject: VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT EIR - MC NO. 92-012 SCH # 92041041 Dear JEFF CHAFFIN: Rr- CEIVED MAR 17 1493 COMMUNITY CEVELUPME'0 OTY OF SANTA C!ARI;A The State Clearinghouse has submitted the above named draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review period is now closed and the comments from the responding agency(ies) is(are) enclosed. On the enclosed Notice of Completion form you will note that the Clearinghouse has checked the agencies that have commented. Please review -the Notice of Completion to ensure that your comment package is complete. If the comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Remember to refer to the projectts eight -digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Please note that Section 21104 of the California Public Resources Code required that: "a responsible agency or other public agency shall only.make ' substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency." ' Commenting agencies are also required by this section to support. their comments with specific documentation. These comments are forwarded for your use in preparing your final EIR. Should you needmoreinformation or clarification, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency(ies). This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California.Environmental Quality Act. Please contact Tom Loftus at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions ' regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, ' Christine Kinne Acting Deputy Director, Permit Assistance Enclosures cc: Resources.Agency 347 M.P aa: Sash CkWw9W=. 1400 Taub SaeeL c-^-^•^ s,. CA 95914_91444_J -0Z_ 5914914445-0617 SC11 N 9 2041041 _ J sti.t..e Thy Valley C vAyF ect _LAW Alr. City of Santa C: ,ta Ca. -aft Jeff Chaffin S~ Add,.m: 23920 Valencia nivel _. e3DO Pk., 805/255-4343 Cq^ Santa 1-:.1rICA, CA 21R 91355 Cmr "s .Angeles ----------------------------------------- - --- ---------------------------------- P is Losatka C—r Cm3- Los Angeles C N. C-�•WT Santa Clarita/Newhall 4 C~Sema: -Sierra Miahvav/Remsen Street Twcwc 91355 TadAm 117 Aral. hnWMN Nine (9) o reels Ss:io:v 13 T.p. 3N 9pc 16W 9wSan Bar Mdaml M&c S:m H-yk I-51SR 14 Wae Gyc Awpl!*' Rul.gr schwb -----------------------------"•----------- O C6QA. [3NOP 13SwPww/Sw6"r NEPA: CNOI Olha: 13Join Doo.wr 0EdyCo L]EM(PSw"tie.) CFA CFAdD..emc 0� Oar.9Fn ❑Oar amt ❑ FONSI --------------------------------- Lead AeY.w Type ------- 0 Gerd Pie YPIM 0 SP ruk Fla ❑ Rwm. Aeede 0 Geral Pie Arnim CMr Pie P: Caw"dap.s 00erY Pkm Elea. 0MwMW U.k Dcvkgr ®O-remh Peml! 13C ---IF Pia ©so. Pie ® Lea Di.W=OWY.Yi.a a� P.d M.p. TY-m.M7, s) ---------------------- ---------- OW06100018M Ty" C 9.i6wid: Va _Lz_ Aom2 13 wr F.dWw 0Omar S4xa56.0Adn Fi. k?"0TYeiP-:mks 7J" Q Cemrdah SIIt._Anaa-I1 i fwylolwT,T?�iSd 13MFK Ml.►d 13hA-i.L SeA. 575. 189v�Fwrbl.m�Cd1 0b'w M.v OCL.^YJ ❑ wr Tnrre T3P. 9eawang . 0 Huw6m wwr 71Pa ❑ G+i ----------------------------------------- P obe W e Dieea ..s In oeeam.me 63 AM&MQVLMW 0 Fkad F mfflwo l.e 0 Sdmch&%wszidw Q Mer Qrilq 0 � 13 Fere Lm&!Pm Nod Oswde syam. ®wars"PWQMWAe-r A Ai Q -ft J3G_kd0s-wk flsa•m CR -ft Owd-*wPaia CZ Amb"hP.0fivniod 0w:..r mo 0So9emc..rm"aaroft ®wars. 0ComW7 E) Ni* ®Sold w.r 00..6hambg �Pbn. - El 0 hP!ft-A4-"Adan 0Tw-a"-r w 13 !bY CW1T Dmi+ Pabb, Swn N.T:.M4C.!m: 0CaaYtw KbM a� El sa.omJP.b Q Y" ! COea - --- -- - --------- --- ------ ---------------- Pr...ml Land YWS.wYyAs.m.r.l lNe t).. BP. Business Park ----------------------------------------- 0 014 ---------------------------------------- 0!"014 86*w*tkQ Approval of a Comprehensive Development Plan for re -use of the 117 acre project .site that includes approximately 575,000 square feet of industrial business park, 356,000 square feet.of corporate headquarters office, use, and 12 multi -family residential units. CLEARINGHOUSE CCN^. +CT:. TON LOFTUS (916) 445-0613 CHT SNT �- ]Q- Q 2 a s.Lewzcee STATE REVIEW BEGAN: DEPT. REV TO AGENCY: AGENCY REV TO SCH 3 L Xnn..'_. c ion SCH COMPLIANCE _- _donw- _Perks L Rec JDXP _ LDWR PLEASE NOTE SLB NVIDIER ON ALL COMMENTS PLEASE FORWARD LATE COMMENTS DIRECTLY TO THE LEAD AGENCY ONLY _ •- -a �^ M_Trhna Planning _ LHousing i Devel A:IMDIAPCD:�3 IP.e snurnes;�J�) - ra S' - s«nt 1v l•.v ! . s«nt by SClI1 QST SNT 348 Letter Number 12, dated March 15, 1993 State of California Governors Office of Planning and Research Response to Comment No. 1: Comment noted; this letter acknowledges that the Lead Agency has complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to CEQA. 349 Plannino. Conso.rtium W TEL 714-569-0327 R c /06.93 V.VV VVV . VAV�\. !\ P. MICHAEL 1ARCOMAN FIR! CMIEP FORESTER 3 FIRE WARDEN March 18, 1993 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT taxa WiMm W I'EhN AYME LOS ANGF.1 ES CAI IFOMIA 9MI-3794 (213) 881-2481 10=50 N0.004 P.02 Y. V11. RECEIVED MAR 3 01993 C11;4 u14ry oEV6Wk«LRT CITY OI 1AR1A CWITA Mr. Jeff Chaffin ' city .of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Chaffin: SUBJECTS VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT, CITY 07-SANTA'CLARITA The information on lira service resources in Table 26, Page 178, and the discussion of impacts on fSre services Page 1.79-1.80, are at variance with the information provided by the lire Department in response to the Notice of Preparation. Our letter, dated May 22, 1992, appears in the bacx or the document. As stated in our latter, the Department. does not have resources near enough to the project site to provide adequate fire protection 1• and emergency medical services for a development of this nature. A new station will be needed in the southern portion or Sa:ifa Clarita. The project shall contribute a suitable one -acre site or, in -lieu fees toward station and equipmant:costs. In addition, road access may be inadequate. The project will add nearly a million square feet of improvements and 2,500 employees. Nevertheless, the developer does not plan to provide any new aevers5 2• to the property, proposing only to improve some existing off -cite intersections. The developer shall contact the County of Los Angeles Firs I3 Department at (213) 881-2404 to discuss mitigation arrangements SERVING TME VNINCORPORATEO AREAS OF LAS ANGELES C.OVNTY AND THE Cri IEB OF: ADOVM MKS SRADSVRV DIAMOND 9" MWWDALC LOMMA n RNCTM 94NALI.ILL ARTSAA GAI SAW CVARC /A CANANA fIINTRiDAf. A u MMG ID FALOI vCOCC 90U4 9L MOWS AAIII. CAROON OLCKDOM LAREW00D WMWOOD. n Wl HMS SOYTNGATS NALOWW PARR CEPAIT04 NAWARAKCNCRNS MMITIADA NOT MK RCLUNG MILLS IETATSC TCMPLCCITV K6L O.ARCMpR AM&NKLf LANCASTCR AAL\WA 1 ""USAD WIANUT DOMMERGF YUMkWON AAI[ LA Nd t PALOCVCOOSSSRATGS S"01MAS s" DARDSNS CVDA-Y Mu$"10 was -/ILLROWIR LAWNDAIt P.I WNT SANTA CLAR?A WEI-LA<E VILLAGE WMITMR 351 Planuin� Yonsor�tiumr� STEL.:714 _569-0327 . � z� '06.93 1 xr. Jeff Chaffin xaron ae, 1923 sage a 10!50 N0.004 P.03 �d V4V 1 1 1 i'GARMY DIVISION' 1 Wo have reviewed the Draft Environmental Tmpact Report or the Valley Gateway project located at Sierra Highway and Remsen street in the City of Santa Morita. The areas germane to the statutory q, recponaibilitiae of the Forestry Division have been addressed. If you have any additional quootiono, please contact this office at (213) 881-2481. 1 Very truly yours, , P. MICHAEL FREEMAN By PAUL H. XJFFtN8, CHIEF, FORESTRY DIVISION PREVENTION BURMU Pigs: jlnb 1 I I 1 1 1 1 352 , .1 Letter Number 13, dated March 18, 1993 County of.Los Angeles Fire Department Response to Comment No. 1: Mitigation measures in Section 4.10.3 of the Draft EIR and Final EIR require that project applicant to contribute the amount of in -lieu fees for local fire protection, in accordance with the terms and provisions of the City of Santa Clarita Ordinance No. 92-152, which governs the City's Consolidated Fire Protection District Developer Fee Program. The Ordinance requires new development projects to contribute fees per gross square feet of building floor area at the time of building permit issuance, to fund station and equipment improvements that are necessary to serve the region. In accordance with the terms and provisions of the Ordinance, the Valley Gateway Project has been conditioned to contribute $0.19 per gross square foot in fees as mitigation for impacts to local fire protection services. Response to Comment No. 2: The Fire Prevention and Conservation Bureau of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department has reviewed the project's 100 scale tentative tract map and site plan in order to determine whether the project design meets applicable access and circulation requirements for fire protection and safety purposes. Officials of the County Fire .Prevention Office in Santa Clarita who reviewed the proposed project design have indicated that access to the site from Sierra Highway on to Clampitt Road and Remsen Street complies with applicable standards for emergency fire equipment circulation. Response to Comment No. 3: The project applicant's agent has contacted the County of Los Angeles Fire Department to discuss specific mitigation arrangements. The Final EIR includes appropriate Fire Department mitigation measures as conditions of approval. Response to Comment No. 4: Comment noted. No response to this comment is necessary. 353 STATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Go",m, ' SANTA MONICA MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY SOLSTICE CANYON PARK 7700 SOLSTICE CANYON ROAD MALIBU, CA 90765 (310)456-5046 FAX (3101456-1042 March 22, 1993 Mr. Jeff Chaffin Assistant Planner II Department of Community Development City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Re: Valley Gateway Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Comments Master Case No. 90-012, Tentative Tract No. 51044 State Clearinghouse No. 92041041 Dear Mr. Chaffin: RECEIVED MAR 2 5 1993 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CRY OF SANTA CLARITA The staff of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, a CEQA trustee agency, offers the following comments on the above -referenced DEIR. The regional public importance of the subject, 117 -acre property as a critical component of an inter -mountain range habitat linkage cannot be overstated The outcome of the current proposal will determine whether the potential remains for an adequate habitat linkage between the Santa Susana and San Gabriel ranges: This significant and finite public resource value of the property has not been adequately described in the DEIR. The Conservancy is actively working to protect this concerned natural lands connection between the San Gabriel and Santa Susana Mountains. Recent agency acquisitions have secured a wildlife "receiver" area into the Santa Susana Mountains along the west side of the Old Road. Our staff asserts that the DEIR is inadequate in its disclosure of both existing ecological conditions and potential impacts regarding this inter -mountain range habitat linkage. We feel that the current project footprint would result in unavoidable significant adverse impacts to the habitat linkage and to the southern oak woodland resources, regardless of what mitigation measures are implemented As designed, we'too feel that the height of the proposed buildings would result in unavoidable significant adverse impacts to the viewshed from both Highway 14 and Sierra Highway. We feel that a statement of overriding considerations is warranted with the current project design. We assert that the current range of project alternatives is inadequate. It is our professional opinion that the proposed land use and an adequate regional level habitat linkage can coexist; however, only with a substantial, strategic reduction of the proiect footprint. On at least two 354 1. and 2. ' Mr. Jeff Chaffin Valley Gateway March. 22, 1993 Page 2 occasions, our staff showed the project consultants how to "fix" the project ecologically, but the submitted design fails to incorporate any of our suggestions. ' To achieve a coexistence between the proposed land use and the regional ecological resources, under the alternatives section of this letter, we describe an alternative, labeled, 'Balanced Use/Functional Wildlife Corridor Alternative". We request that this alternative be incorporated into the EIR and be clearly shown as a figure. Because the viability of a regional public resource is at stake, we feel that the ultimate land use should, and can, maintain an adequate level of public benefit. As stated by the California Department of Fish and Game in its EIR scoping letter, the direct public benefits of a project and its direct benefit to wildlife and wildlife habitat should be evident. Public in this case should reflect both the region and the body of citizens of California. In order to provide the decisionmakers with a full disclosure document, our staff asserts that a supplemental EIR should be required unless the information requested in this letter is thoroughly incorporated into the Final EIR. However, based on the clear slant of the DEIR preparers towards minimizing potential impacts, we question whether that would be accomplished without additional circulation and review. Deficiency of Project Description: The extent of impacts to natural areas, under the current 1. project proposal, is not adequately disclosed in the DEIR. We request that the EIR include a and revised project description and impact analysis which addresses inevitable additional disturbance 2 to natural vegetation resulting from the following: 1. Mandatory brush clearance zones around buildings, roads and all other types of structures, 2. Remedial grading and equipment tum around, 3. Irrigation of transitional zones between landscaped and natural areas. ' Under DEIR Section 4.5.4 Analysis of Significance, it is erroneously stated the project will result in the loss of only 20.4 acres of natural habitat. We request that the EIR include. an analysis of how this number was derived The number of acres of natural vegetation directly affected should ' include a lot more types of land alteration than just the square footage of buildings. This analysis should address that fact that the amount of area within the six open space lots only totals 52.5 acres. We request an EIR figure which shows the amount of potentially altered natural II vegetation (incorporating items one through three above) around and within each development cluster. Would any brush clearance be required in the six open space lots? 355 Mr. Jeff Cham Valley Gateway March 22, 1993 Page 3 The project description states that it attempts to avoid significant impacts where feasible. This statement misrepresents the case when the current design calls for the removal or adverse impact to 409 oak trees when the DEIR clearly states that the majority of those affected trees are located in three clearly avoidable groupings. The EIR should note that the only developable area per City code which would not be converted is a one half acre corner of open space lot 39. We ask why was the property under the same ownership located across Sierra Highway from the south end of the project not included as part on the project? We request that this triangular shaped lot be addressed in the EIR because ecologically and visually it directly relates to the project. The property is important for continuity across Sierra Highway. Wildlife Corridor Available Information, Documentation and Constraints Analysis Information: We request that the EIR address both the existence of and relevance of the following two reports, entitled, "Critical Wildlife Corridor/Habitat Linkage Areas between the Santa Susana Mountains, the Simi Hills and the Santa Monica Mountains," and, "Santa Clarita Wildlife Corridor Plan, Habitat Linkage Between the Santa Susana and. San Gabriel Mountains," prepared by The Nature Conservancy and Dave Briley of Cal Poly Pomona, respectively. We request that the DEIR include the following information: 1. and 1. A figure (based on USGS topo) which shows the whole wildlife habitat linkage 2 between Highway 14 and the Old Road/Highway 5. At a minimum, this study_ area could be defined as Sections 10-15 of the Oat Mountain quadrangle. 2. A figure which contains the slope information in Figure 6 of the DEIR overlain by the proposed wildlife corridor boundaries of both the proposed project and all existing and new alternatives. The slope information in Fig. 6 is inadequately presented because of difficulty differentiating between colors. We request that the DEIR at least address the presence of the Envicom research on animal movement through the Los Pinetos undercrossing. Why was this information and the existence of the study not included in the DEIR. When will the information package be released to the contractor? Figure 11 is extremely misleading. The Envicom consultants stated at meetings that the "potential wildlife migration corridors" shown on the figure were the best possible routes to preserve under a development scenario. The EIR should be corrected to show and state that every acre of the subject property currently functions as a wildlife corridor. Degraded habitat, in and of itself, does not preclude wildlife movement. �Kl U ' Mr. Jeff Chaffin Valley Gateway March 22, 1993 Page 4 We dispute the intent of DEIR Section 4.5.3 which states, "The proposed project will avoid further impacts to what remains of, the wildlife movement corridors across the property (these movement corridors were already adversely impacted to a significant level by the construction of the Antelope Valley Freeway adjacent to the project site's eastern boundary). The proposed project is already designed to minimize adverse effects to the remnant wildlife movement corridors across the property." We request that the EIR describe how the three wildlife movement paths in Figure 11 were derived (what methodology). We also request discussion of how well the proposed project, and all existing and new alternatives, respect each of these three pathways both in terms of dimension and location. ' We request additional general discussion on the value and importance of multiple movement paths as opposed to one or two paths. Failure to Define Finite Inter -mountain Range Wildlife Corridor Resource: The DEIR fails to state that, via the Los Pinetos undercrossing, the subject property is part of the only remaining 1. high quality habitat linkage between the Santa Susana Mountains and the San Gabriel Mountains. and In other words, it is a finite, irreplaceable, public resource which is directly related to the 2. ecological capability of both mountain ranges. We request adequate EIR discussion of the regional ecological value of having a habitat linkage from the national forest ecosystems into both the central and far eastern Santa Susana Mountains. For example, what if the only such inter -mountain range linkage was situated in the central ' portion of the range? This analysis should incorporate the spatial importance of individual animal territories. ' Inadequate Description of Surrounding Property Ownership and Easement Information: If decisionmakers are not exposed to the full range of property and easement information surrounding the subject property, they cannot understand the context or probability of protecting a habitat linkage across Sierra Highway to the west. Likewise, full ownership and easement disclosure for the area between the project and Highway 14 is essential to understand how adequately the project provides for its share of permanent inter -mountain range wildlife ' movement potential from the western entrance of the Los Pinetos undercrossing. We request that this relevant property and easement information be included in and discussed in the EIR. All such provided information should also be shown graphically. II 357 II 1 Mr. Jeff Chaffin Valley Gateway March 22, 1993 Page 5 In regards to wildlife movement potential, it is imperative that the EIR provide adequate information and discussion regarding the interface between the subject property and the Gates property to the west. The EIR analysis should address all the problems and opportunities in respect to coordinating habitat linkages through both properties. The City has seen copies of Gates' preliminary development plans and should coordinate this effort. Adequate information is available to the City, and more could be obtained, to conduct such an analysis with the Gates property. Gates is -currently doing his wildlife corridor analysis. The Conservancy has suggested to the City on numerous occasions that the City and County should conduct a specific plan for the wildlife corridor area between Sierra Highway and Highway 5. We feel that nothing less is warranted to. maintain the existing public resource. Inadequate Physical Description of the Project Wildlife Corridor and Alternative Project Corridors: We request that the EIR incorporate more graphics and discussion which address both the range and average horizontal dimensions of the project wildlife corridor and the wildlife corridors of all existing and new alternatives. An adequate discussion of corridors in this context should also address the concept of the length to width ratio. This analysis should include the effectiveness of a wildlife corridor as slope increases. For l , example, all other things being equal, is a corridor which courses across a 30% slope equal in and capability (acre for acre) to a flat corridor? 2. We request that the EIR analysis incorporate discussion of how well the project proposal, and existing and new alternatives, make use of natural topographic buffering, such as using small rises for shielding. We request that the EIR analysis incorporate discussion of how well the project proposal, and , existing and new alternatives, integrate the subject portion of Newhall Creek into the wildlife corridor design. Wildlife Corridor Impact Significance Determination: We request that the EIR state what ' method was used to conclude that the mitigated project would not result in an unavoidable significant adverse impact on wildlife movement between the San Gabriel and Santa Susana Mountains. What was the significance threshold for this determination? How as stated on DEIR.page 22 specifically did the mitigation take this impact below the level of significance? That statement on page 22 that the project will avoid wildlife corridor linkages should be substantiated in respect to the locations and dimensions of the pathways shown on Figure 11. ' 358 1 Mr. Jeff Chaffin Valley Gateway March 22, 1993 Page 6 The DEIR states (p. 101) that it is essential that these existing corridors be integrated into the design of any proposed development and that the role and function of the property as an important regional wildlife movement corridor be retained and preserved. Was this recommendation of the DEIR adequately followed? We request EIR discussion of why the consultants feel the proposed project corridor will facilitate, permanent, adequate wildlife movement between the San Gabriel and Santa Susana Mountains. This discussion should both. qualitatively and quantitatively describe the physical characteristics of the corridor provided by the project. How does proposed Remsen Road across the mouth of the Los Pintos undercrossing affect potential corridor function? How does a seven story building affect potential corridor function versus say a three story building? The decisionmakers should be afforded answers to these questions. The EIR should address how a difference of opinion exists between experts on whether the proposed corridor is adequate. Our staff ecologist with. specialization in habitat linkages disagrees with the DEIR finding that no significant wildlife corridor impacts would result. !• The burden of proof for corridor adequacy should be on the developer. Our expert opinion is that the only way to ensure adequate wildlife movement is to provide a corridor with a minimum 1 width of between 700-1000 feet which expands the proposed corridor to the north and with a and secondary route between Remsen Road and Newhall Creek to open space lot 36. 1 2. Post -Project Ecological Value of Six Remainder Open Space Parcels: We request an EIR analysis or discussion of what ecological capacity for wildlife will be retained on each of the remaining six open space areas. What mechanism will provide for the permanent protection of these six areas? e Has the applicant proposed to dedicate any of the six open space areas to a public agency. We request that such a dedication be included in the mitigation measures. ' We request that the EIR or its appendices include a floral and faunal species list, and both the times of and search routes used for the field investigations. This is important standard ' information. General Biota Impact Significance Determination: What method was used to determine that the proposed mitigation would reduce the loss of 20 acres of southern oak woodland to less than significant? Replanting and dollars help but in no way offset, or directly mitigate the ecological loss of the trees. Few projects in the region ever result in the loss of 20 acres of this habitat. ' 359 Mr. Jeff Chaffin Valley Gateway March 22, 1993 Page 7 We disagree that the incorporation of mitigation measures would lessen the impacts of the loss of the individual oak trees to a less than significant level. The EIR should address the ecological value of incorporating additional oak trees into an expanded wildlife corridor. We ask why restoration of Newhall Creek (page 108 (g)) is considered an impact? How can a decision maker make sense out of this restoration when its current condition is not detailed and no schematics and or performance standards are provided? Aesthetics and View Analysis Figures 45 an 46 should incorporate roads, brush clearance and parking lots or otherwise remain misleading. Mitieation As written, virtually none of the proposed ecological mitigation measures can actually be implemented. Our staff requests that all mitigation measures be written such that no two parties can interpret them differently. We ask specifically how will the big Newhall Creek restoration plan mitigate the loss of other onsite habitat? What will be the value of that new creek habitat to wildlife if it is sandwiched between office buildings? The DEIR states, "The onsite habitat of the San Diego horned lizard shall be retained in its current undisturbed state within an open space parcel on the southern end of the property under the proposed project." Where is this parcel, what was is special about it, and post -construction, how will it integrate with adjoining natural areas? Is setting aside just the area where the one individual homed lizard was found a prudent, comprehensive mitigation? How can working with the City's fuel modification requirements be considered a biological mitigation? What impact is being mitigated? It appears to more of an impact on natural communities. Alternatives "Balanced Use/Functional Wildlife Corridor Alternative": The following alternative footprint should be incorporated into the EIR. All other things remain equal with the proposed project other than those modifications mentioned. Eliminate [retain as open space] lots numbered 18,19,20,21,22,23,28, and 29. Provide two 12 -foot diameter undercrossings beneath Sierra Highway on open space lot number 39. Most experts would agree that this scenario provides the minimum level of assurance to maintain region wildlife movement in perpetuity. 1. and 2. I Mr. Jeff Chaffin Valley Gateway March 22, 1993 Page 8 Cumulative Effects Given the status of the Gates project with the City and his intent to soon file an application, we find the analysis of cumulative effects to be inadequate if the EIR is to be a full disclosure 3 informational document. The Gates property land is critical to the analysis of the Valley Gateway impacts, both direct and longterm. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this proposed project and we look forward to their incorporation in a supplemental or final EIR. Please contact me at (310) 456- 7807 ext. 121 if you have any questions. Sincerely, ' Paul Edelman Conservancy Project Analyst Staff Ecologist cc: Hon. Mike Antonovich, Supervisor L.A. County Unit Biologist, California Department of Fish and Game SCOPE Santa Susana Mountains Park Association. 361 Letter Number 14 dated March 22, 1993 Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Response to Comments I and 2: After a review of the comment letter and meetings on April 2nd and April 28th with Conservancy staff (Paul Edelman), it was determined that the Conservancy comments address two major issues: ' 1. The level of impact significance of the proposed project and appropriate mitigation measures or project alternatives to address impacts to the regional wildlife corridor that crosses the project site; and, 2. The level of impact significance of the proposed project and appropriate mitigation measures and project modifications to address impacts to on-site southern coast oak woodland habitat and individual oak trees. These two issues are also related in that the central portion of the proposed project involves the main impacts to the wildlife corridor as well as the highest concentration of proposed oak tree removals. The following are the overall responses to these two issues: REGIONAL WILDLIFE CORRIDOR 0 This issue has been re-examined in light of the comments from the Conservancy and other agencies. It was found that the project as proposed would have a significant adverse impact on the on-site portions of the corridor and subsequent impacts on the corridor as a whole. The Final EIR has been modified to reflect that the proposed project does result in significant impacts and recommends a functional wildlife corridor development alternative. This alternative is detailed in both the mitigation measure portion of the biotic resources section (4.5.3) and the alternatives section (5.7), as well as the summary section in the Final EIR. The wording will vary between the biotic mitigation measure section and the alternative section; the mitigation measure section uses the word "shall" and the alternatives section uses the word "would" (other than these two distinctions, the wording is identical). The wording from the alternatives ' section is used in the overall issue response as follows: The project as proposed will result in significant adverse impacts to the existing wildlife corridor that crosses the property and provides a link between the San Gabriel and Santa Susana Mountains. While some native habitat and movement corridors are retained on the property under the ' proposed project, it still significantly restricts free wildlife movements through the placement of buildings and other improvements and through the removal of a significant amount of southern coast oak woodland habitat. To rnitigate adverse impacts to the on-site corridors to a less than significant elevel, the proposed project would have to be modified. Suitable project modifications that would lessen corridor impacts to a less than significant level are reflected in this "functional wildlife corridor development alternative". This environmentally -superior development alternative retains the function of the on-site wildlife corridor; offers 1 363 coordinated interaction with off-site portions of the corridor; and lessens impacts to southern coast oak woodland habitat within the corridor area affected by the proposed project. The following are the details of this functional wildlife corridor development alternative as depicted in Figure 48: a) Proposed Lots 19, 20, 21 and 29 would be eliminated and development would not be allowed within the areas of these lots. Development would also be limited on the southern portion of Lot 28. These new open space areas.would relate to the proposed open space Lots 36, 38 and 39 as well as the open space within the Southern California Edison easement. b) To isolate the east -west portion of the corridor in the currently - proposed Lots 20 and 21 from development to the north, a berm would be constructed along the northern boundary of those lots. The berm would be at least four to five feet in height to screen large.mammals. The berm would be planted with native shrub and ground cover plant species to provide vegetative cover. This vegetation would be the lowest and northernmost portion of a convex vegetation pattern along this edge of the east -west portion of the corridor. Larger trees and other plant species would be planted southward from the berm to enhance the presently denuded corridor area with vegetative cover. This area would also provide a reception area for transplanted coast live oaks removed on other portions of the project site. c) While there are many smaller opportunity areas for transplanting individual oak trees, this functional wildlife corridor development alternative would include three main areas of transplanted oak trees. One area would be the denuded portions of proposed open space lots 39 and the Southern California Edison easement ground area. A second area would be within the eliminated Lots 20 and 21. The third area would be on Lot 19 and the easternmost area of open space Lot 39. While all of these three transplant areas are important to the wildlife corridor, the latter area is especially important because it would offer vegetative cover in the area immediately adjacent to the Los Pinos underpass where wildlife would first enter the project site from the east. Along with the transplanted oak.trees, native vegetative plant species would be utilized for additional, varied wildlife cover. In addition, existing oak trees within these additional open space lots would not be disturbed. By retaining these four additional development lots as open space, the disturbance to approximately 50 coast live oaks under the proposed project will be avoided. d) To facilitate the safe movement of wildlife between this property and the Gates property to the west, two 12' diameter undercrossings beneath Sierra Highway connecting open space Lot 39 with the Gates property to the west would be constructed. The cost of these undercrossings would be shared by the applicants for the proposed project and the -applicants for the future development on the Gates 364 property. This placement of the proposed underpasses relates to the wildlife reception/staging area present on the Gates property to the west. e) Fencing of any type would not be allowed on or adjacent to these open space parcels to avoid the constriction of wildlife movements on and off-site. f) All existing asphalt, structures, foundations and other improvements within the lots slated for open space under this alternative would be cleared to allow for transplanted oak trees and new native vegetation cover. g) Night lighting would be restricted immediately adjacent to the open space corridor lots where possible. If such lighting is needed or required by the City codes (such as along Remsen Street), the lighting would be directed away from the corridor/open space lots. b) "No disturbance" signs that explain the significance of the corridor/open space lots would be posted along their perimeter at appropriate locations. This is to avoid daytime disturbance of wildlife in receptor areas waiting for nightfall from occupants of the future uses on the property. i) The on-site portion of Newhall Creek which crosses the currently - proposed development Lots 19 and 29 would be cleaned of debris and restored where needed to ensure its viability as a wildlife movement corridor. If a roadway crossing is still a part of the redesigned project under this alternative, the bridge shall be designed to allow large mammal movement through the stream bed and approved under 1603 and 404 permits. j) Restrictions would be placed on land uses adjacent to the corridor/open space lots to avoid nighttime disruptions that could adversely affect wildlife. While this would not apply to office uses, such restrictions would apply to light industrial uses that have the potential to generate excessive amounts of noise and disturbance. These restrictions could be set and enforced through the Conditional Use Permit procedure. k) As per the discussion above on the three oak tree transplant areas, the wildlife reception area just to the west of the Los Pinos underpass at the southern end of the on-site portion of Newhall Creek would be revegetated with native riparian species to provide cover for wildlife. 1) The on-site wildlife movement staging/reception areas within open space lots 36 and 38 would be enhanced by constructing and maintaining water guzzlersystems to provide a dependable water source for wildlife. 365 2. m) The on-site improvements discussed above would be coordinated to the greatest extent possible with the applicants for the proposed development on the Gates property to the west of the project site. With this coordination, which would include input from governmental biological resource agencies, the above mitigation measure may be altered or enhanced as necessary. n) The corridor/open space lots discussed under this development alternative and presented as mitigation measures above would be offered for dedication to a conservation group or agency for perpetual maintenance as open space. Such groups would include the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and the Nature Conservancy. As noted, the project as proposed would result in significant adverse impacts to the regional wildlife corridor between the San Gabriel and Santa Susan Mountains by placing structures, improvements and human activities within the critical on-site areas of the corridor. To mitigate these impacts to a less than significant level, the project redesign mitigation measures discussed in the above alternative should be incorporated into the proposed project. LOSS OF SOUTHERN COAST OAK WOODLAND HABITAT This issue has been re-examined in light of the comments from the Conservancy and other agencies. Even though the City of Santa Clarita has an Oak Tree Ordinance plan that allows.full mitigation through transplantation and monetary remuneration (the Draft EIR analysis was based on this mitigation), it was found that the project as proposed would have a significant adverse impact on the southern coast oak woodland found on- site. The Final EIR has been modified to reflect that the proposed project does result in . significant impacts and recommends mitigations based on avoidance and transplantation with minimal reliance on monetary remunerations for oak removals. These mitigations address impacts to three main concentration of oaks within the proposed development area and other oaks located within and on the perimeter of the proposed development area. The following discusses the modification to the Final EIR to address impacts and mitigations for the oak tree issue: a) As recommended in the Draft EIR; the project should be redesigned to avoid to the greatest extent possible the three main concentrations of oaks within the development area (page 109 of the Draft EIR). The oak woodland within the large cut slope for Lots 2 through 6 is not only for development on those lots but also for fill material to balance the proposed project's grading on-site. A project redesign could significantly reduce the impact to the trees within the area of these lots, perhaps retaining up to 59 oak trees currently slated for removal. The second major concentration of oak woodland to be impacted under the proposed project is within Lots 19 through 29. Once again, project redesign would significantly lessen the number of oak trees that would be impacted in this area under the proposed- project. Under the environmentally -superior project alterative proposed in Section 5.7 of the Final EIR, the recommended project redesign to lessen impacts to the regional wildlife corridor would also result in the retention of approximately 50 or more oak trees within the area of proposed Lots 19 through 29. Impacts to even more trees can be avoided with further project redesign on these lots. The third concentration of oaks that would be impacted under the proposed project occur within Lots 30 and 31. As recommended in the Draft EIR on page 100, impacts to these oak trees can be lessened by combining the two lots and minimizing the development area to avoid trees. Overall, avoidance of the oak woodland and individual specimens will constitute the main mitigation and design modifications to lessen impacts to the on-site oak resources under the proposed project. b) Further oak tree removals or dripline disturbances can be avoided with project redesign, 'particularly impacted oaks on the perimeter of the development area. This could occur with a resubmitted project of a different design or redesign under the Specific Project Design Review phase where the City has the authority to require further project changes to preserve oak trees. C) Areas that would be suitable for transplanted oak trees have been identified under the functional wildlife corridor development alternative previously discussed in this response. These areas are included in proposed development Lots 19, 20, 21 and 29 and in open space Lots 38 and 39 within areas previously denuded under the refinery operations. Given the densities of the existing oak woodland, approximately 50 to 75 oak trees could be transplanted within these areas under proper conditions and monitoring. Response to Comment No. 3: No Specific Land Use Plans are available related to the "Gates" project at the time of the preparation of the Final EIR for the Valley Gateway Project. The known cumulative effects of the proposed Valley Gateway Project, the Gates Project and other known projects in the area were analyzed in the Draft EIR and Final EIR, and included traffic, air quality and noise. No cumulative biotic impacts or impacts to wildlife corridors can be reasonably assumed for the Gates property or other known projects without a Specific Site Plan for Development that identifies a specific area of disturbance, and the natural resources that could be removed and disturbed. Therefore, the analysis of cumulative effects within the Draft EIR and Final EIR does fully disclose known cumulative impacts, and adequately addresses those issues. J 1 ' 367 THOMAS A. TIDEMANSOM Dimto, March 22, 1993 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803-1331 Telephone.,(818)458.5100 Mr. Jeff Chaffin Assistant Planner II City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Development 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 Dear Mr. Chaffin: RESPONSE TO A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT (MC NO. 92-012) RECEI VEr' MSR 2 5 1993 COMMUNITY MVELUNMENI , CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO: P.O.BOX 1460 ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802.1460 IN REPLY PLEASE P-4 REFER TO FILE Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Valley Gateway Project. We have reviewed the Draft EIR and offer the following comments: - Traffic/Circulation , The study indicates traffic generated by this and other projects will significantly impact the intersection of San Fernando Road and the northbound Antelope Valley Freeway on/off ramps. Therefore, we recommend the consultant 1' propose appropriate mitigation and determine their pro -rata share of the ' Improvements. The consultant should also coordinate with Caltrans for their approval of the proposed mitigation. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact , Mr. Mark Richards of our Traffic Investigations and Studies Section at (818) 458-5909. Sewer Maintenance The Waterworks and Sewer Maintenance Division is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the local sewers within the City of Santa Clarita. Therefore, the entire project will be required to be annexed to the Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District. There are no existing local sewers in the project area, therefore, provisions must be made for the disposal of wastewater to.local or trunk sewers. Since the County is not the City Engineer for recommend that the City Engineer of that City be standards and plan check procedures. This will the County Sanitation District's requirements the Draft EIR. 368 the City of Santa Clarita, we contacted regarding sewer design be in addition to compliance with for trunk sewers as indicated in 11 11 11 11 II ' Mr. Jeff Chaffin March 22, 1993 Page 2 If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact 2, Mr. Norman Cortez of our Waterworks and Sewer Maintenance Division at (818) 458-7188. ' Waste Management The proposed development project is adjacent to the site proposed for the Elsmere ' Canyon Landfill. The proposed tract must discuss any impact the development of 3. the Landfill will have on the proposed project. This must include measures to mitigate direct visual access of the Landfill. The proposed development project encompasses a portion of the proposed Los Pinetos Road/SR-14 interchange. The EIR needs to address the impact of the 4. proposed development project on the interchange. The California Solid Waste.Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 requires each jurisdiction to adopt an ordinance by September 1, 1993, requiring each 5. "development project" to provide for an adequate storage area for collection and removal of recyclable materials. The EIR must discuss standards to provide adequate "waste storage areas" for collection/storage of recyclable and green waste materials for this project. Should any operations at the subject facility include installation or removal of underground storage tanks and/or industrial waste discharge into the public sewer 6. system, this office must be contacted for issuance of the necessary permit(s). This environmental document needs to fully assess the impact on the quality of stormwater as the result of the project. Mitigation •measures should be incorporated into the design and layout of the project. The document should reference National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit CA0061654 issued 7. by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, to the County and local agencies. The document should indicate compliance with all the relevant stormwater quality management programs of the County and local agencies. The existing hazardous waste management (HWM) facilities in this County are inadequate to handle the hazardous waste currently being generated. The proposed development may generate hazardous waste, including household hazardous waste, 8. which could adversely impact existing HWM facilities. This issue should be addressed and mitigation measures provided. Current estimates indicate that a shortfall in permitted daily land disposal capacity in Los Angeles County will occur within the next five years. As such, the proposal may adversely impact the solid waste management system in this County. The environmental analysis must include measures the project proponent 9- wi11 implement to mitigate .the impact. This is critical since the current Land Use Permit (LUP) for Puente Hills Landfill will expire on November 1, 1993 and the LUP:for Chiquita Canyon Landfill will expire in 1997. 369 Mr. Jeff Chaffin March 22, 1993 Page 3 If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Mr. Jerry Chang of our Waste Management Division at (818) 458-3564. Questions regarding the environmental reviewing process of this Department can be directed to Ms. Clarice Nash at the previous page address or at (818) 458-4334. Very truly yours, T. A. TIDEMANSON Director of Public Works O BRIAN T. SASAKI Acting Division Chief Planning Division MA:my/227 370 Letter Number 15, dated March 22, 1993 County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works Response to Comment No. 1: Traffic and Circulation Mitigation measures for the proposed project are based on the project's impacts on existing -plus -ambient conditions. At the SR -14 northbound onloff ramps, the project increases the background PM peak hour ICU from .61 (LOS "B") to .66 (LOS "B"). Project mitigation at this location is not required. With the addition of cumulative traffic however, the ICU increases to 1.02 (LAS "F") during the PM peak hour. This cumulative traffic is based on proposed projects which generate axotal of 9,244 trips during the PM peak hour; however no mitigation has been assumed for these projects. As these projects come on-line for development, they will be required to perform analyses similar to Valley Gateway to identify intersection and network improvements. Comments received from CalTrans on the proposed project have been responded to in Letter Number 8 within this section of the Final EIR. Response to Comment No. 2: Sewer Maintenance See response to Letter Number 7 from the County Sanitation District of Los Angeles County, Comments No. 1 and No. 2. The City Engineer for the City of Santa Clarita has been contacted related to the extension of sewer service to the project site, and sewer design standards. Response to Comment No. 3: Waste Management The Draft EIR and Final EIR document the proposed Elsmere Canyon Landfill Project, and its potential to create cumulative impacts in combination with the proposed project (Section 4.11.2, Land Use and Section 6.2, Cumulative Effects). The City cannot require the proposed project to mitigate potential impacts of development that cannot be reasonably known or assumed at this time. Mitigation measures aimed at reducing the project's direct visual access of a speculative landfill project that has not disclosed specific access and grading plans cannot reasonably be completed at this time. Response to Comment No. 4: The proposed project does not impact the potentially proposed Los Pinetos Road/SR-14 interchange that would be constructed to serve the potential Elsmere Canyon Landfill. The new interchange is proposed to be within the right-of-way owned by the State of California and does not encroach into the Valley Gateway Project. 371 Response to Comment No. 5: Comment noted; this specific issue is addressed on Page 170—Section 4.9.1, Existing Conditions, Page 172—Section 4.9.2 Impacts, and Page 176 -- Section 4.9.3 Mitigation Measures (Infrastructure, Utilities and Energy Conservation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report). The Final EIR also contains this information in the above referenced sections. Response to Comment No. 6: Mitigation measures and conditions of approval have been included in the Final EIR, and are contained in the Remedial Action Plan that require the project to obtain necessary permits related to the removal or installation of underground storage. tanks, or related to potential industrial waste discharges that may occur into the public sewer system. Response to Comment No. 7: The potential impacts of the proposed project related to the quality of storm water runoff were described in summary form within the Draft EIR (primarily in Section 4.2 — Geology, Seismicity, and Soils, pages 55 to 70). As stated within the Table of Contents and on Page 4 of the Introduction, the Remedial Action Plan (or RAP) conducted for the property, and approved by the State of California Regional Water Control Board (Los Angeles Region), was incorporated in its entirety, by reference, into the Draft and Final EIRs, and was included within the Technical Appendix to the document. This document was available for review by the public during the review period of the environmental impact report and remains available for review by the public at the City of Santa Clarita City Hall, Community Development Department, located at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita. The Remedial Action Plan document fully addresses all of the questions and concerns raised in the comment related to the potential water quality impacts of the remediation plan and the proposed project (including concerns related to the NPDES Permits and procedures that may be necessary to implement the proposed remediation and proposed project). Response to Comment No. 8: Mitigation measures and conditions of approval have been included in the Final EIR that require the preparation of a waste management plan, including potential household and industrial hazardous waste which could impact County hazardous waste management facilities, prior to the approval of a site development permit. Response to Comment No. 9: Comment noted; this issue is addressed on Page 170—Section 4.9.1 Existing Conditions, Page 172 --Section 4.9.2 Impacts, and Page 176—Section 4.9.3 Mitigation Measures (Infrastructure, Utilities and Energy Conservation of the Draft EIR). 373 Mr. Jeff Chaffin City of Santa Clarita Department of Community Planning 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Re: COMMENTS - VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT EIR Dear Mr. Chaffin, The proposed Valley Gateway Project is located on an historic oil extraction and refining operation. This location has been documented by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) as being contaminated by hydrocarbons and other petroleum by-product contaminants from the refinery operations. The Valley Gateway Project EIR (EIR) appears to be deficient because it does not adequately describe in any detail the potential for ground water contamination due to prior refinery operations. The EIR does not adequately address groundwater flow through the site or on a regional basis, and in particular, the potential for contamination of the Saugus Aquifer. Existing contamination that is still present onsite, may have the potential of endangering existing drinking water sources. The potential for existing contaminant movement migrating offsite and,the rate of movement is not discussed. Historic oil refinery operations included injection. wells, onsite storage tanks, and active oil extraction wells. The document states that a -remediation plan has been approved by the RWQCB, but the EIR does not address the long term affects to our local groundwater and drinking water sources due to 50 years of oil refinery operations. Sincerely, R. Marshall 23717 Adamsboro Drive Newhall, California 374 1. II Letter Number 16, dated March 23, 1993 (received) R. Marshall, Individual ' Response to Comment No. 1: Comments noted. As mentioned in a number of locations within the Draft and Final EIR documents, the project applicant has conducted an in-depth ' analysis of all of the potential remnant soil and groundwater -related impacts of the former refinery use on the local environment. This effort has been carried out parallel to, and concurrent with the overall planning and environmental review of the proposed Valley Gateway Project Development Plan. The characteristics of the property and the potential impacts related to this topic area were described in summary form within the Draft ' Environmental Impact Report. (primarily in Section 4.2—Geology, Seismicity, and Soils, pages 55 to 70). ' In addition, as stated on Page iii of the Table of Contents and Page 4 of the Introduction of the Final EIR, the Remedial Action Plan conducted for the property and approved by the State of California Regional Water Control Board (Los Angeles Region) that will govern the cleanup, was incorporated in its entirety, by reference, and was includedwithin the Technical Appendix to the document. This document was available for review by the public during the review period of the environmental impact report and ' remains available for review by the public at the City of Santa Clarita City Hall, Community Development Department, located at 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302, Santa Clarita. The Remedial Action Plan document addresses the questions and concerns raised by this comment letter, including questions regarding the potential for both short-term and long-term groundwater contamination and contaminant migration into local groundwater and drinking water resources. 375 Sierra Club Santa Clarita Valley Conservation Committee P.O. Box 801002 Santa Clarita, Ca 91380 Jeff Chafin c/o City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Blvd. Suite 300 Santa Clarita, Ca 91355 Re: Hondo Oil Project Comments Dear Mr. Chafin, Group I March 25, 1993 R E C E I VED' RAR 2 6 1993 COMMUNITY DEVLLVrMtN! ' CM OF SANTA CLARITA I am writing to comment on behalf of the local group of the Sierra Club. We are impressed with the sensitivity demonstrated by the proponents of the Valley Gateway Project, proposed by the Valley Gateway Company. They have been extremely responsible about the impacts that this project might create and this seems to be a well planned development. We would, however, like to express some concern about the planned wildlife corridor. It is of the greatest importance to us that this corridor be adequate for the continued migration of the animals which come through that area. We respect and value the opinion of Mr. Paul Edelman of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. If he feels that this is an appropriate allowancefor the wildlife corridor, then we, too, would be satisfied with the proposal. Sincerely, J 44 l � Pat Saletore, Secretary Conservation Committee S.C.V. Group, Sierra Club 376 I 1 1 I 1 11 1 II ' Letter Number 17, dated March 25, 1993 Sierra Club, Santa Clarita Valley Group, Conservation Committee ' Response to Comment No. 1: Comments noted. Please. refer to the response to comments to Letter Number 14 for a response to the concerns raised in the second paragraph of this written comment. II II II II II II II II 1 377 RECEIVED MAR 2 6 1993 CCMMumh ULVUI MENT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA 3-25-93 Lynne A. Plambeck 23149 Oakbridge Lane Newhall, Ca. 91321 Attn: Jeff Chaven City of Santa Clarita Re: Hondo Gil Valley Gateway Project Dear Mr. Chaven I am particularly concerned about this project because of the 'impact on our oak resources of losing 400 trees and because of its impact on the last remaining wildlife corridor between the San Gab.riels and the Santa Susanna Mountains. It is important that any development on this property only proceed in a manner that will conserve these resources. The impact of large buildings and night-time lighting requirements may be an unmitigatable impact on the wildlife corridor. Although I realize some accommodation for the corridor has been made, it does not appear to be wide enough to insure its continued existence. Also the removal of so many trees with the addition of such a great amount of traffic will severely impact the corridor as well as our air quality. It is also important to leave the water course in its natural condition as a supply to migrating wildlife. I applaud the proponent's use of existing pads, but believe the project may still have to be down -sized to conserve the above resources. A project built to -accommodate the natural resources would be an extremely desirable place to work as well as an environmental showpiece that would be a very "hot" selling point. aAincerey, ynne. Plambeck 378 2. 3. II Letter Number IS, dated March 25, 1993 Lynne E. Plamback, Individual Response to Comment No. 1: Please refer to the response to comments to Letter Number 14 for a response to this comment. The Biotic Section (4.5) and Alternatives Section (5.7) have been expanded in the Final EIR to address this concern. Response to Comment No. 2: Please refer to the response to comments to Letter Number 14 for a response to this comment. The Biotic Section (4.5) and Alternatives Section (5.7) have been expanded in the Final EIR to address this concern. Response to Comment No. 3: Please refer to the response to comments to Letter Number 14 for a response to this comment. The Biotic Section (4.5) and Alternatives Section (5.7) have been expanded in the Final EIR to address this concern. 379 f IOUTRERn CRUFORRIR R/fOgRT1011 Of 60YER11MEW 818 West Seventh Street,12th Floor • Los Angeles, California 90017-3435 ❑ (213) 236-1800 • FAX (213) 236-1825 .Mr. Jeff Chaffin March 29, 1993 City of Santa Clarita 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Ste. 300 Santa Clarita, CA 91355 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Report to the Valley Gateway Project SCAG Clearinghouse Number 19300068 Dear Mr. Chaffin: RECEIVED APR 12 1993 COMMLnslTY OEYELOfWENT CITY OF SANTA CLARITA ', I [I I Thank you for submitting the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Valley Gateway Project to SCAG for review and comment. As Areawide Clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG assists cities, counties, and other agencies to review projects and plans for consistency .with the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), Regional Mobility Plan (RMP), Growth Management (GMP), and conformity with the Air Quality Management (AQMP) Plan, all of which are included in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The following comments are meant to provide guidance for completing the proposed project within the context of our regional goals and policies which are based in part upon state and federal mandates. While neither the project sponsor nor the lead agency is required to undertake the specific actions recommended by SCAG or other agencies through the Intergovernmental Review Process, there are requirements in state and federal laws for consistency with regional goals and plans. SCAG requests that in the future, all General Plan elements, amendments and updates be submitted to SCAG for review through the Intergovernmental Review Process. If you have any questions about the attached comments, please contact Maggie Ide at (213) 236- 1881. Sincerely, � O'L4'1 p , ERIC ROTH Manager Intergovernmental Review Yrevdnd • Klcftard Ab naot Bernardi City of Lo City of RIC- Pains Ver CrWben iry of Moreno Pasadena, Bev" city ol of Oxnard. Beatrice Prua C Bob Stone City of Bellflowe Angeles. Evelyn Wells City 380 Linda, Richard Dison City of Lake Fd Edelman Los Angeles County. m City of Bell Ronald Bales Cir gess, Tom Bradley City of Los A geks County. Jim Busby, Jr. Cit) Forest. Douglas Drummond City r, Testy Frinel Ciry of Riverside. .ober Hargrave City of Lomita. I try of Palm Desert. Bob Kuhn City bra. Judy Militia City of Simi Val ?Temecula. WPkkler, City of At aromas City of Los Mgeles, Alba ITollyPayne City of Highland. . ClaremanL Zev Yaroslayskv Ci' �vn 11 I 11 1. 11 11 11 ngviBe City of Rialto Past ' Jr. City of Burbank. Er. a Mgeles. Susao Brooks Newport Beath. Cynthia m SandraCounty. John es. SandGerais City of ' Iles. Nall Holden City of Nen Hollywood. Uariea e.Kk athryn Noc cl M Ciry of Sharp ichael Paisley ty. n n Sharp Imperial County. Ria iviters rsidectyof Los0 1 love Riverside County • SCAG COA04ENTS TO THE VALLEY GATEWAY PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMUiTAL EUPACT REPORT Description: The proposed 117 acre Valley Gateway Project is partially located in the City of Santa Clarita and partially in unincorporated Los Angeles County. The proposed project is a comprehensive development plan for reuse of the site which includes development of business park/corporate headquarters, and 12 units of multi -family residential land use. This includes industrial business park use and corporate headquarter use. The project also includes common open space and natural area that preserves 45% of the entire site. '• .N Analysis: As SCAG has delineated subregions, the proposed project lies in the Santa Clarita Valley subregion. The DEIR to the proposed project indicates an increase of 2,500 new jobs and 12 dwelling units to the Santa Clarita Valley subregion. The Santa Clarita Valley subregion is a housing -rich subregion. The proposed Valley Gateway project provides for morejobs than that required under the Regional Growth Management Plan. Therefore, it contributes beneficially to jobs/housing balance and is consistent with the growth management policies for this subregion. Recommendations: 11. This project may require a study of the number of future jobs of the proposed commercial/industrial development which provide wage income that qualifies for the types of housing provided for in the City Santa Clarita. Such a study may assist in assessing more accurately, the Vehicle Miles Travelled generated on the regional transportation system, as well as other impacts associated with this level of growth in the Santa Clarita Valley subregion. SCAG's concern is that a discrepancy between the types of jobs and the price of housing may place a further burden on the regional transportation system as employees relocate to areas located outside the subregion of employment generation. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT As Areawide Clearinghouse, SCAG requests that TDM programs incorporated as mitigation measures in EIRs or as part of project conditions include the following elements: o A detailed description of the _TDM measures incorporated into the project as 2. mitigation measures or project conditions. o Expected effect and VMT/VT reduction targets for each component of the TDM 381 IO.IA.. <.Y.C..i. .00[MIMp.4I1M�IN 818 W. Seventh Street,12th Floor • -Los Angeles, CA 900173435 E3 (213) 2364800 • FAX (213) 236-1825 program. o Funding sources for each program component. o Identification of the agencies or persons responsible for monitoring and administering the TDM programs. o An implementation schedule for each TDM program component. The DEIR to the proposed project states that the added traffic projected as a result of the proposed plan is estimated to be 141,765 daily trips. The proposed Valley Gateway project lists various strategies contained in the 1991 AQMP such as local shuttle and regional transit systems and transit shelters; bicycle lanes and storage areas; and traffic synchronization. The DEIR further states that the City of Santa Clarita requires submittal of a Trip Reduction/TDM Strategy Plan in the form of.a Site Development Permit to the City prior to project approval. However, mitigations contained in the DEIR lack specificity and do not contain commitments to specific TDM programs with clear delineation of responsibilities, trip reduction targets, financial arrangements and specific schedules for action on each specific measure. As stated in the DEIR the TDM program is not adequate for the purposes intended by the SIP. Recommendations: The proposal should go beyond suggestions that a Transportation Demand Management program 'should be' developed. The project should be designed to include quantifiable commitments to specific TDM programs with clear delineation of responsibilities, trip reduction targets, financial arrangements and specific schedules for action on each specific measure. SCAG recommends the proposed project include adequate mitigation to comply with the above requirements. We refer the City of Santa Clarita to the current regional plans consisting of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, Growth Management Plan, Regional Mobility Plan, and 1991 Air Quality Management Plan, Appendix IV -E, as well as "Guidance for Implementation of 1989 AQMP Conformity Procedures", August 1991. SIP CONFORMITY A project is found to be in conformance with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) when it has satisfied the following three criteria: It improves the subregion's jobs/housing balance performance ratio or is contributing to attainment of the appropriate subregional VMT target. 2. It reduces vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled to the maximum extent feasible by implementing transportation demand management strategies. 3. Its environmental document includes an air quality analysis which demonstrates that the 382 AAMANk Adak nmw cuuoun .00n�"w..wnv 818 W. Seventh Stree1,12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017.3435 0 (213) 236.1800 • FAX (213) 236.1825 project will not have.a significant negative impact on air quality in the long term. indin As described in the proposed Valley Gateway Draft EIR, the plan does not conform to the SIP at this time. The proposed project does not reduce VT/VMT to the maximum extent feasible and therefore does not mitigate the effects on air quality to a level consistent with regional plans. Prior to considering the approval of the proposed Valley Gateway Project, the following problems should be addressed by the City of Santa Clarita: Regional Mobility — Impacts to air quality resulting from mobile sources associated future development on the site must be mitigated with a Transportation Demand Management Program which includes elements required for conformity with the AQMP. The transportation demand management measures of this project are not yet adequate to demonstrate relief from the burden the projectmay impose on the circulation and transportation systems of the community and region. If the Valley Gateway Project is approved, it is requested that SCAG be notified of the City Council's action so that the implications for the Comprehensive Regional Plan, which is now under preparation, can be evaluated with respect to transportation, wastewater treatment and other service systems. 383 818 W. Seventh Street,12th Floor 9 Los Angeles, CA 900173435 0 (213) 236-1800 • uocwnua.ewar.v FAX (213) 236-1825 3. Letter Number 19, dated March 29, 1993 Southern California Association of Governments Response to Comment No. 1: The Draft and Final EIRs analysis of vehicle trips generated, the average trip length and the total vehicle miles of daily travel accurately estimates the traffic and air quality impacts associated with the Valley Gateway Project, given the level of information known at this time. The tentative nature of the specific industrial [business park uses, and the unknown nature of the wage incomes that may be generated from that specific land use, combined with the correlation and the types and costs of available housing in the San Clarita subregion would also result in a subjective determination of the estimated vehicle miles of travel. Therefore, the Draft and Final EIR for the Valley Gateway Project do contain a reasonable estimate of the total daily vehicle miles travelled for the information that is currently available for the proposed development. Response to Comment No. 2: Comments noted. Mitigation measures and conditions of approval have been included in the Final EIR that require the project to prepare a comprehensive trip reduction/transportation demand management study prior to the issuance of a site development permit. The specific elements suggested by SCAG will be included in the project's TDM programs. The project's mitigation monitoring and reporting plan will identify the agencies or persons responsible for monitoring and administering the TDM programs. Response to Comment No. 3: Comments noted, The Final EIR does acknowledge that mitigation measures, such as the TDM plan, can reduce the project's air quality impacts to a less than significant level. However, the project does represent an incremental increase in pollutant emissions in the area and contributes to cumulative adverse air quality impacts throughout the region. On a cumulative basis, incremental increases in air pollution emissions contribute to the impediment of basin -wide attainment of clean air standards, and are therefore, considered a significant impact that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant within the context of on-going regional growth. 384