HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-06-24 - RESOLUTIONS - EIR REDEVELOPMENT PROJ (2)RESOLUTION NO. RDA 97-9
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CERTIFYING ADEQUACY OF THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE PROPOSED NEWHALL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT,
ADOPTING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND ADOPTING
A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, a Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR), SCH. No.
97021002, was prepared for the Newhall Redevelopment Project to address the
environmental effects, mitigation measures, and project alternatives associated with the
adoption and implementation of the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the Final Program EIR was prepared pursuant to the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act (hereinafter "CEQA" Public Resources Code
Section 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section
15000 et seq. hereinafter "Guidelines"), and local procedures adopted by the Agency; and
WHEREAS, in April of 1997, notice to all interested persons and agencies inviting
comments on Draft Program EIR was published in accordance with the provisions of CEQA;
and
WHEREAS, written comments on the Draft Program EIR were received from the
public during the 45 -day public review period and such comments were responded to through
a response to comments section included in the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita Planning Commission is recommending
certification of the EIR prepared for the project; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") as the
designated Lead Agency has reviewed all environmental documentation comprising the Final
Program EIR and has found that all environmental effects of the proposed project have been
considered and that the document is complete and adequate and fully complies with all
requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Draft and Final EIR reflect the independent judgement of the
Agency; and
WHEREAS, Section 21081 of CEQA and Section 15090 of the Guidelines require that
the Agency make one or more of the following findings prior to approval of a project for
which an EIR has been completed identifying one or more significant effects of the project,
along with statements of facts supporting each finding:
FINDING 1- Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impacts
identified in the Final EIR.
FINDING 2 - Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding.
Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency.
FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible
the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
WHEREAS, the mitigation measures included in the Final Program EIR have been
designed to reduce or eliminate the environmental impacts described therein, according to
the criteria in Section 15370 of the CEQA Guidelines, and the mitigation monitoring
program has been prepared in accordance with the requirements in Section 21081.6 of
CEQA; and
WHEREAS, Section 15903(a) of the CEQA Guidelines requires the Agency to balance
the benefits of a proposed project against its environmental risks in determining whether to
approve the project; and
WHEREAS, Section 15903(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that, where the
decision of the Agency allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the
Final EIR but are not mitigated, the Agency must state in writing the reasons to support its
action based on the Final EIR and other information in the record; and
WHEREAS, the Agency, in order to gauge the full scope of potential environmental
impacts, considered alternatives to the project in the Alternatives to the Proposed Project
section in the Final EIR.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency does resolve
as follows:
Section 1. The Agency hereby certifies the Final Program EIR for the Newhall
Redevelopment Project as adequate and complete in that it addresses all environmental
effects of the proposed project and fully complies with the requirements of CEQA and the
CEQA Guidelines.
Section 2. The Agency adopts the Findings of Fact with respect to each significant
environmental effect and identified in the Final EIR and the explanation of its rationale with
respect to each such finding set forth in that portion of Exhibit "A" entitled "Significant
Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures".
Section 3. The Agency adopts the Findings of Fact with respect to alternatives set
forth in that portion of Exhibit "A" entitled "Alternatives to the Proposed Project," including
the findings that Alternative 2: Reduced Newhall Redevelopment Project Area, is feasible
and environmentally superior to the proposed project.
Section 4. The Agency adopts the Findings of Fact with respect to the overriding
considerations set forth in that portion of Exhibit "A" entitled "Statement of Overriding
Considerations" and adopts all other findings set forth in Exhibit "A".
Section 5• The Agency hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program for the Newhall Redevelopment Project attached hereto as Exhibit 'B* and made a
part hereof.
Section 6,. The City staff is hereby authorized and directed to file a Notice of
Determination, and pay any applicable fees to the Department of Fish and Game, with the
Los Angeles County Clerk pursuant to the provisions of Section 21152 of CEQA.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of June , 1997.
ATTEST:
S1
Secretary, Redevelopment Agency
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) §
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, Secretary of the City of Santa Clarita
Redevelopment Agency, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on
the 2d hday of .trop , 1997 by the following vote of Council:
AYES:Boyer, Darcy, Heidt, Klajic, Smyth
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
VL41-� A
Secretary, Redevelopment Agency
nwhirdv\M"W-&g"
P.2/33
FINDINGS OF FACT
REGARDING SIGNIFICANT ENMONMENTAL EFFECTS UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
SECTION 15901
AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
NEWHALL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND
MITIGATION MEASURES
Consistent with the requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines the Final Program EIR for the
,Newhall Redevelopment Project addresses environmental effects in proportion to their severity
and probability of occurrence. The Final Program EIR identifies certain potentially significant
adverse environmental effects of the project. These effects are summarized below. The Final
Program EIR also identifies mitigation measures which will reduce or eliminate certain potential
significant effects. These mitigation measures are listed below. The determination whether or
not to incorporate such mitigation measures and the rationale for such determination is set forth
below. In making these findings, all of the rationale and database contained in the Final Program
EIR has not been repeated. The Final Program EIR and other source documents referenced
therein are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full herein. Except to the extent they
conflict with the findings and determinations set forth in this document, the analysis and
conclusions of the Final EIR, including the responses to comments and any supplemental
responses provided City staff and consultants in connection with the adoption of the project, are
hereby adopted as findings of the City and Redevelopment Agency.
Air Quality
Sign cant Impact: Short-term PM10 emissions from grading and excavation activities could
affect sensitive uses. Long-term emissions of air pollutants primarily from vehicles will be
added to the Basin's air, which is a non -attainment area for federal and state air quality standards.
Mitigation Measures
I. For all individual development projects, construction -related exhaust and dust emissions
will be controlled. All unpaved demolition and construction areas shall be wetted as
necessary during excavation to reduce dust emissions and meet SCAQMD Rule 403.
A-1
. w co .. . • • �cni i �ciN rF1�;5LLiM� 1�, 3/33
Wetting twice a day will reduce particulate emissions (dust) by about 50 percent. All
grading activities shall cease when wind speed exceeds 25 mph. To the maximum extent
feasible, reclaimed water will be used for this purpose.
2. All grading, excavation, and other activities involving the use of fossil -fuel powered
equipment shall cease during second and thud stage smog alerts as designated by the
SCAQMD.
Individual development projects shall be designed and operated to conserve energy in
keeping with Title 24 requirements.
4. Implementation of the following Transportation Systems Management actions will mini-
mize the air pollution impact of new development and reduce trip making from existing
development:
• Transit signal synchronization of all major arterials and collectors in coordination with
the County of Los Angeles, and surrounding cities;
• Development of park and ride facilities to encourage transit use;
• Traffic Sow improvements;
• Bus transit improvements in the form of pads, shelters, and lighting; and
• Bicycle routes.
5. Implementation of any future air quality measures which will reduce air quality
impacts of new development in the project area.
Level of Stgn{rcance After Mitigation. Significant and unavoidable. The foregoing adopted
mitigation measures will mitigate or avoid some, but not all, of the significant air quality impacts
identified in the Final EUL Additional measures to reduce project -related vehicular emissions to
a less than significant level are beyond the technological, legal, and economic ability of the City
and Agency.
Transportation
Significant Impact: Addition of traffic to local street network.
Mitigation Measures
A-2
P.4/33
The intersection of Orchard Village Road/Lyons Avenue is projected to worsen form a V/C of
0.91 (LOS E) to 0.99 during the PM peak hour due to project -related traffic. Future -year analysis
of this intersection already assumed that it would be tally built out. No additional geometric
improvemcnts are feasible at this location.
Mitigation Measures for Reduced Project Area Alternative (Selected Alternative)
1. I -S off-ramp/Lyons Avenue: This intersection is projected to worsen from a V/C of 1.26
(LOS F) to 1.27 during the PM peak hour due to project -related traffic. Implementing the
proposed mitigation will improve the projected V/C ratio to 1.17 during the evening peak
hour.
2. Orchard Village Road/Lyons Avenue: This intersection is projected to worsen from a
V/C of 0.91 (LOS E) to 0,95 during the PM peak hour due to project -related traffic. Future.
year analysis of this intersection already assumed that it would be Hilly built out. No
additional geometric improvements are feasible.
3. Via Prineessa/Circle J Ranch Road: This intersection was assumed to contain two
through lanes in the eastbound and westbound directions in the future. Under this configu-
ration, the intersection would operate with a V/C of 0.82 (LOS D) and 0, 85 without and
with project -related traffic, respectively. Providing a third eastbound and westbound
through lane would improve the projected V/C ratio to 0.63 during the evening peak hour.
4. Lyons Avenue/San Fernando Road: This intersection is projected to worsen from a V/C
of 0.94 (LOS E) to 1.01 (LOS F) during the PM peak hour due to project -related traffic.
Railroad Avenue runs just east of San Fernando Road and just west of the MTA railroad
tracks. This parallel facility to San Fernando Road is planned to be improved to become a
two- or four -lane upgraded roadway. This improvement will provide additional capacity
along the San Fernando Road corridor in this area. Sufficient traffic should divert from San
Fernando Road to Railroad Avenue to improve the projected operation of Lyons Ave-
nue/San Fernando such that additional geometric improvements would not be necessary.
5. SR -14 SB ramps/San Fernando Road: This intersection is projected to worsen from a
V/C of 1.59 (LOS F) to 1.62 during the PM peak hour due to project -related traffic.
Implementing the proposed mitigation would improve the projected V/C ratio to 1.20 during
the evening peak hour.
6. Transit Compatibility of Development and Public Improvement Projects. Each
development project, street widening or improvement project, and streetscape project will
be reviewed with attention to the need for transit improvements such as bus bays, transit
shelters, waiting areas and information systems; pedestrian access and circulation to transit;
shuttle/circulation access and drop off/waiting areas; preferential HOV parking areas and
A-3
+u � co 7 r i 1 � Off`' ALM rM5lvyc, o,
__ - __.. _ .._... ....
P. 5/33
other design aspects to encourage use of public transportation and discourage use of
individual motor vehicles. All major projects and all projects along existing or anticipated
transit or shuttle/circulation routes will be coordinated with MTA and other transit agencies
as appropriate to ensure that project designs anticipate existing and future transit needs
7. MITA and SCRRA Rlght-of-Way Impacts. All development projects and public
improvements along the Metrolink rail lines will be coordinated with MTA to ensure that
safety and operation of the rail line are maintained.
Level of Signficance After Mitigation: Significant and unavoidable at Orchard Village
Road/Lyons Avenue. Additional measures to reduce project -related traffic impact at this location
to a less than significant level are beyond the economic, technological, and legal ability of the
City and Agency. The foregoing mitigation measures incorporated into or required in the project
will reduce the project -related traffic impact at all other study locations to a less than significant
level, resulting in acceptable Level of Service at all such said intersections.
Hazards
Significant Impact: Potential contamination on Metrolink site.
Mitigation Measure: A Phase II environmental site characterization will be conducted and
necessary site remediation will be completed prior to construction
Level of Sign j4cance 4fier Mitigation: The foregoing mitigation measures required in the project
will reduce the contamination hazard at that location to a less than significant level, resulting in
compliance with all applicable safety requirements.
Biological Resources
Significant Impact: Potential for construction of public improvements within the south fork of
the Santa Clara River, Placenta Creek, and Newhall Creek. Future development may occur on
sites adjacent to natural habitat areas.
Mitigation Measures
Each individual development proposal shall provide setbacks, buffering, or any other
features on sites within, adjacent to, or in close vicinity to natural riparian, live oak, sage
scrub, and other habitat, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.
2. Each individual development shall preserve natural riparian, live oak, sage scrub, or other
habitat on the site as determined appropriate by the Director of Community Development
A-4
� un co � r .. • .:...,i �Lr, rnpnuu �: , F. 6/33
Any loss of habitat shall be compensated through the provision of habitat off-site or other
measures determined appropriate and satisfactory by the Director of Community Develop-
ment.
3. Any grading, construction, or other activity associated with public improvement projects
and private development projects within the Santa Clara River drainage channels or
easements shall be required to revegetate all graded and disturbed areas with native
vegetation as determined appropriate by the Director of Community Development.
Revegetation plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Community
Development.
4. The City will ensure that drainage improvements do not result in the elimination of
watercourses or their channelization or conversion to subsurface drains, as determined
appropriate by the City in consultation with appropriate state and federal agencies. All
wetlands and watercourses, intermittent or perennial, shall be retained and provided with
setbacks which preserve the riparian and aquatic habitat value and maintain their value to
on-site and off-site wildlife populations.
5. Each individual development shall incorporate native species into landscape plans to the
extent feasible. All landscape plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Director
of Community Development.
6. The City shall continue to participate in the regional Santa Clara River Study. Upon
completion of the study, the City shall implement the study's recommendations as appropri-
ate.
7. All development is required to comply with the City's Oak Tree Ordinance and guidelines.
Level of Stgnficance.fier Mitigation. The foregoing mitigation measures required in the project
will reduce the project -related impact on biological resources to a less than significant level,
resulting in protection of biological resources.
Noise
Significant Impact•. Construction noise will be generated near sensitive receptors for some
development projects in the Newhall redevelopment project area Traffic increases will increase
noise levels along arterial streets. Residential development is permitted in high noise areas.
Mitigation Me=ures
A-5
i
co r ♦ ♦ • /rrn �Lti N;uuvt+ P. 7/33
The following mitigation measures will reduce noise impacts associated with construction of
development projects, public facilities, streets and utilities occurring within the Project Area. All
projects must comply with the City's noise ordinance, which restricts the hours of construction.
1. To the extent feasible, construction activities expected to last two weeks or more will be
screened from adjacent noise -sensitive land uses with a solid barrier.
2. All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1000 feet of a dwelling unit,
school, hospital or other noise -sensitive land use shall be equipped with properly, operating
and maintained muffler exhaust systems.
Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from occupied
dwellings or other sensitive receptors.
4. Construction routes should be established where necessary and practicable to prevent noise
impacts on sensitive receptors
5. Locations where widening of arterial streets is conducted adjacent to sensitive receptors
located near the roadway and cumulative traffic increases -*-ill result in noise increases of 3
dB or more, sound insulation mitigation will be evaluated for installation at the time of
street widening. If building construction of sensitive uses is such that sound insulation is
determined to be necessary and appropriate to provide acceptable interior noise levels,
sound insulation to compensate for the noise increase resulting from traffic and street
widening will be evaluated. If sound insulation mitigation is determined to be feasible and
justified based on the specific conditions, insulation will be made available at the option of
the owner of the sensitive use. Sufficient additional sound insulation would normally be
provided by improving weatherstripping, providing heavier doors, and by providing a
second pane of glass or other window material over single -pane windows.
6. Projects involving major street widening and significant increases in traffic volume will be
required to mitigate impacts on existing sensitive receptors to the extent feasible.
7. Title 24 building code standards will provide acceptable noise levels for new residential
construction in high -noise areas.
Level of Sign&ance After Mitigation. The foregoing mitigation measures incorporated into or
required in the project will reduce the project -related noise impacts to a less than significant
level, resulting in adequate noise protection for sensitive receptors.
A-6
♦VIS GO 7l - r�ril ea,"1 rl'.�nL'CI !I"I
Public Services - Schools
P.6/:,J
Signiftcant Impact: Project will generate additional need for school facilities beyond those that
can be financed with development impact fees,
Mitigation Measures:
1. The Agency will pay pass-through revenue as established by law to school districts. The
Newhall School District and William S. Hart Union High School District should utilize
mandatory redevelopment tax increment pass-throughs to accommodate additional students
by adding portable classrooms or constructing permanent facilities.
2. As applicable under the State law, the school districts should levy maximum fees or require
additional mitigation measures for new residential development, and the maximum amount
of developer fees for all industrial and commercial construction allowed by" State law to help
fund new or temporary facilities construction.
3. The school districts should continue to make regular and timely application to the State of
California for funding to construct new classrooms and other facilities in response to
enrollment growth.
4. To the extent that alternate means of financing new schools are made available to the
districts through changes in state law, the district will vigorously pursue these methods to
provide adequate facilities to support enrollment growth.
S. The districts will use year-round schedules and double sessions as necessary and appropriate
to maximize the capacity of existing facilities if funding is not available for new school or
classroom construction.
6. The State of California should continue to finance construction of new schools and class-
rooms in response to etuolhment increases.
The Redevelopment Agency will include public benefit projects which also benefit the
school districts among the projects eligible for tax increment financing from the Newhall
Redevelopment Project.
Level of ign ficaxce After Mitigation: The foregoing mitigation measures required in the project
will reduce the project -related school impacts to a less than significant level, resulting in
adequate school facilities for the project -generated students.
A-7
r
r
P, 9/1,;
Cultural Resources
Signpicant Impact: Some properties in the project area may be of historical value; the proposed
project has the potential to result in a significant impact on historic resources.
Mitigation Measures:
1. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the City shall examine building records to deter.
mine whether a structure is 50 years or older and if so, whether such structure is of potential
historic significance. For structures determined to be of potential historic significance, the
City shall fore and the application for a demolition permit to the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) for further evaluation. Based upon the SHPO's evaluation the City shall
either issue a demolition permit, require the project proponent to provide archival documen-
tation including photos and existing records pertaining to history and architecture of the
structure(s) prior to demolition, consider reuse and integration of such structure(s) into the
project, or implement any other recommendations of the SHPO as determined appropriate
by the City.
Level of Sign ificance After Mitigation: The foregoing mitigation measures required in the project
will reduce the project -related impact on cultural resources to a less than significant level
resulting in compliance with the requirements of the State Historic Preservation Office.
Parks and Recreation
Significant Impact: Additional recreation demand in project area.
Mitigation Measures:
1. The Agency and the City shall encourage proponents of individual development projects to
provide pocket parks, mini -parks, or other open spaces on-site for use by residents and/or
employees.
2. The urgency will make recreational amenities and a permanent community center in
Downtown Newhall projects eligible for tax increment financing.
Level ojSign ficance After Mitigation. The foregoing mitigation measures required into the
project will reduce the project -related impacts on parks and recreation to a less than significant
level by promoting and facilitating the development of park and recreation facilities in the project
area.
A-8
JUN 26 '97 11.35AM �3A FASADEM P. 10/33
FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Four alternatives to the proposed project are discussed in the Final EIR. These alternatives
have been reviewed and considered in light of the adverse environmental effects which may
result from the project and the reduction or elimination of such effects which might be accom-
plished by selection of the alternatives. The review and consideration of the alternatives
concluded that the selection of Alternative 2: Reduced Newhall Redevelopment Project Area,
will reduce the adverse environmental impacts when compared to the proposed project.
The alternatives are summarized below. Specific economic, social, or other considerations that
render Alternative 1: No Project, Alternative 3: Development with Emphasis on Additional
Employment, and Alternative 4: Alternate Redevelopment Project Areas, infeasible are set forth.
Alternative: No Project
A: Continuation of Existing Conditions
If existing conditions in the project area remained into the future, the intensity and types of
development and their impact on the environment would remain unchanged. Blighting condi-
tions including dilapidated and obsolete structures and utilities would remain in the area.
Because of these blighting conditions, the project area would be expected to continue to decline,
with increasing vacancies and abandonment of properties, and higher public costs for operation
and maintenance of utilities and services.
If existing conditions remained, the project area would not include additional development or
employment, and would not generate additional traffic from people traveling to and from homes,
places of employment or other destinations. Additional residents would not be able to move into
the area. No additional demands on public facilities and services which depend on population,
such as schools, libraries and parks, would result.
This alternative would also mean that no additional revenue from redevelopment tax increment
and developer fees or increases in sales tax, property tan, or other fees would be available to fund
public improvements and blight removal. In the absence of such investment, the area would be
expected to continue to decline, and would not be expected to return to as high a level of
productive use for employment and economic activity. This alternative would not meet the
objectives of the City or the Agency for use of the area.
In addition, maintaining the status quo in the area would require unusual measures to preserve
existing uses, preserve vacant buildings in a vacant condition, etc. This limitation on private
activity on private property is substantially more restrictive than the City's current development
regulations. If the City were to require vacant buildings and properties to remain unoccupied,
this alternative would require compensation to owners of such property. Therefore, this
A-9
P. 11.33
alternative is not considered a realistic, legally or financially feasible option, and is therefore,
rejected.
1B: Continuation of Expected Development under Current Regulations
Under this alternative, development would continue in the project area under the current General
Plan and Zoning for the area. The implementation powers of the Newhall Redevelopment
Project would not be enacted.
Under this option, development would be expected to proceed at a slower pace in the project area
than under the proposed project. Although development to a similar intensity would be permit-
ted under current regulations, development would not be expected to include the same quality of
planning and design, or to happen as soon, without the redevelopment powers in place. In
particular, existing blighting conditions in Downtown Newhall would be expected to continue or
worsen over time in the absence of public redevelopment actions, since the private market by
itself was found to be incapable of revitalizing and redeveloping the area. Implementation of the
revitalization plan for this district may be severely limited or economically infeasible. Overall,
this option would be likely to result in less recycling of obsolete or marginal uses, less develop-
ment with modem business and industrial parks, and less housing development than the proposed
Newhall Redevelopment Project. For these reasons this alternative is rejected.
Alternattve 2: Reduced Newhall Redevelopment Project Area
This alternative considers reducing the project area by excluding subareas that are affected by
physical and economic blight to a lesser extent that the rest of the area. This alternative
represents the reduced project area approved by the Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency on
April 8, 1997. This alternative also includes the possibility of further reductions in the project
area. Such reductions would reduce the impacts resulting from development within the Project
Area in proportion to the reduction in size of the project area. Development of areas removed
from the Project Area would be expected to take place in accordance with the City's General
Plan, but at a slower pace and with less planning and design effort than if those areas were kept
within the project area. However, such reductions in the Project Area would farther reduce the
ability to apply redevelopment measures to elimination of blight and would further reduce the
potential tax increment revenue available for revitalization of Downtown Newhall and surround-
ing areas.
Under this alternative the following subareas would be excluded from the Newhall Redevelop-
ment Project area:
• Hart High School, Placenta Junior High School, Newhall Elementary School and Wiley
Canyon Elementary School, and Newhall Park. Exclusion of these facilities from the
project area will not preclude cooperative efforts between the Agency and the school
districts or City.
A-10
un co 7r 1P�onr9 �n� bi �nH P. 12/33
Property located in and near Circle J Ranch. A pending development application for a
substantial portion of this subarea is moving forward creating the potential for eliminating
existing blighting conditions at this location through the private market, without the need
for public action. The application is for residential development with a mix of single-family
and multi -family units, potentially with up to 350 units.
• Green Thumb nursery property on San Fernando Road near Valle Del Oro. This property is
not likely to change its use in the near future. Since it is not essential to the development of
nearby sites, its removal from the project area will not affect the feasibility of the overall
project.
• Pine Street properties south of the Newhall County Water District offices. The potential for
future development of these properties, even with redevelopment actions, is limited due to
existing environmental constraints, including oak trees and drainage.
• Commercial properties along the south side of Lyons Avenue, from Peachland Avenue to
Apple Street. The majority of existing commercial developments at this location appear to
be currently viable, reducing the need for immediate public action.
• Residential neighborhoods south of Lyons Avenue between Wheeler and I-5 and commer-
cial developments along Lyons Avenue between Wheeler and Wiley Canyon Road. While a
number of dwelling units in the residential neighborhoods are in need of significant
rehabilitation, these blighting conditions do not appear to be as widespread as to require
immediate public action. The majority of commercial developments at this location appear
to be currently viable, reducing the need for immediate public action.
• A mix of commercial, residential, and office development north of Lyons Avenue, from
Wiley Canyon Road to I-5 Freeway. This mix of commercial, residential, and office
developments exhibits some characteristics of blight, but overall does not appear to require
immediate public action.
Exclusion of these subareas would reduce the size of the project area by approximately 453 acres,
from 1,350 acres to 917 acres. This represents a 34 percent decrease in the size of the project
area. The smaller project area would basically be comprised of land designated for future
commercial and industrial uses, with no residential neighborhoods proposed. Under this
alternative, very limited housing development with about 62 units would occur in the project area
since the potential opportunity sites for larger residential development would be excluded from
redevelopment actions. The potential commercial development could also be somewhat less due
to the exclusion some commercial areas that have the potential to recycle to higher uses over
time, and industrial development would be less - primarily because a site of about 15 acres in
size projected to redevelop with such uses would not be included in the project area. However,
since most vacant opportunity sites for commercial, office, business park and industrial park
A -1I
♦W� Go 7r ��-�r.i� �Ge+ rn� -
' P. 13/33
development would be retained under this alternative, it is anticipated that up to 0.95 million
square feet of retail/commercial and 2.0 million square feet of business and industrial park
development could occur in this smaller project area. This is approximately 16% less total
square footage of potential development when compared to the proposed projectAreas removed
from the project area would be expected to develop ultimately in accordance with the General
Plan, but possibly at a slower pace. As with the proposed project, most of this development
would be anticipated to occur within the first twenty years of the redevelopment plan.
The tax increment generated in this reduced project area that would be available for necessary
public infrastructure, improvements and programs, would be also be reduced in rough proportion
to the reduction in land area, particularly the land that would have been redeveloped with
commercial and industrial uses. Such land generates most of the tax increment. Some public
improvements may, therefore, be limited under this alternative. As with the proposed project,
any public improvements and programs to revitalize Downtown Newhall and areas along San
Fernando Road and Interstate 5, would be constructed as redevelopment funds become available.
The environmental effects of this alternative would be slightly less than those of the proposed
project The reduction in housing development within the project area boundaries, would be
offset by private residential development on sites previously included in the project area.
Therefore, while project -related population impacts would be reduced, the cumulative effects
related to population growth would remain basically unchanged.
However, environmental impacts resulting from future development with commercial, office, and
industrial uses would be reduced in rough proportion to reduction in the square footage of future
development. Vehicular trips are directly related to the square footage of development.
Therefore, under this alternative, the volume of vehicular trips and the resultant vehicular air
pollutant emissions would be reduced by about 16 percent. With less traffic, impacts on the
area's roadways and intersections would also be somewhat reduccd. Demand for utilities would
be reduced, as less water and energy would be consumed, and less sewage and solid waste
produced.
However, in comparison with the proposed project, this alternative would reduce generation of
jobs from 9400 to 5,000 jobs, reducing employment opportunities for the residents of Santa
Clarita, in the area which currently is, and is projected to continue to be, housing -rich and jobs -
poor. This reduced employment would reduce the secondary impact of generation of housing
demand in the Santa Clarita area. However, in comparison with the proposed project, this
alternative would provide a lesser benefit to the region's jobs/housing balance.
Overall, since this alternative would reduce some of the project's environmental impacts,
including traffic, air pollution, and demand for public services and utilities, it is considered
environmentally superior to the proposed project. This alternative, which includes all reduc-
tions in the project area as adopted by the City of Santa CMta, is considered feasible and it is
hereby selected as environmentally preferable to the proposed project
A-12
�ui� �O J. ♦a':.ni ..un rnDr JL Y?F. 14/33
Alternative 3: Development with Emphasis on Additional Employment
This alternative considers the policy emphasis on development of additional employment within
the project area. To create more jobs, more redevelopment of industrial areas for more intensive
employment -generating uses would be required, such as more intensive research and develop-
ment for industrial parks, higher proportion of business parks versus low intensity industrial
parks, and more office development within those parks. Such development would generate more
jobs benefitting the region's jobs/housing balance and the City's residents. By providing jobs
within the City, the amount of commuting to work outside the City could be reduced, with the
resultant reduction in vehicular air pollutant emissions. The decrease in commuter travel could
have a beneficial effect of reducing some traffic impacts on the City roadways. However,
business and industrial parks would generate additional vehicular trips and vehicular emissions
that could offset the benefits of reduced commutes. More intensive development could be more
inducive to the use of commuter rail, particularly if the Metrolink station is located in Downtown
Newhall. Additional employment would also generate additional demand for housing, and thus
demand for schools and other public services. More intensive development could generate
higher tax increment revenues which would provide for more public improvements and programs
benefitting the project area and the community. This alternative has mixed environmental effects
compared to the proposed project and is considered neither environmentally superior or inferior.
However, the City of Santa Clarita already has several industrial park areas, which limits the
potential for substantial increase in industrial park development. Also, since the project area
does not have a, direct freeway access, it would result in substantial additional peak hour traffic
on San Fernando Road, which does not have the capacity to accommodate such increases.
Significant improvements, including substantial roadway widening, would be required to provide
adequate capacity. These improvements could adversely affect the character of Downtown
Newhall, and could interfere with the project objectives which include implementation of
revitalization goals and strategies identified in the Downtown Newhall Improvement Program,
and preservation and enhancement of the historical character of the area. For these reasons, this
alternative is hereby rejected.
Alternative 4: Alternate Redevelopmeni Project Areas
The Newhall Redevelopment Project Area is an interrelated project area functionally related to
Downtown Newhall. It includes much of the physically and economically blighted area in the
City of Santa Clarita, The project area was developed as a result of evaluation of the areas of the
City which are most blighted and in need of public assistance for revitalization. While other
areas may be suitable for redevelopment, the proposed project was selected as the first focus of
redevelopment activities in the City.
Larger project areas could be considered which incorporate additional commercial and residential
areas of older Santa Clarita. A project area was originally considered by the City which included
substantial additional area east of the proposed Newhall project area and substantial additional
A-13
r
- -- --- - - - - -
�! 11 • �G'u9 �.[M+ 'rMS� ✓i.� Ire
P.15/33
residential area north and south of Lyons Avenue. This area would not provide the focus on
Newhall that is the focus of this proposed project, and therefore was rejected.
A smaller project area could be chosen which included just the area that is the focus of the
Downtown Newhall Improvement Program and immediately adjacent areas. such a small
project area would not provide the tax increment revenue that is needed to provide incentives and
revitalization in a declining commercial area, and would not be expected to be feasible.
A-14
co r 11 • �cn('1 ALN r,.:�itilJci+r+ P. 16/33
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The finding is hereby made that mitigation measures listed in the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program will, when implemented, mitigate or substantially reduce most of the
significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. Nonetheless, certain significant
environmental impacts of the project are unavoidable, even after incorporation of all feasible
mitigation measures. For such effects, the benefits of the project have been balanced against
such unavoidable environmental effects in its approval. The unavoidable impacts associated
with this project are short and long-term air quality effects resulting from construction and .
operation activities generating air pollutant emissions, and addition of traffic to Orchard Village
Road/Lyons Avenue intersection. Potential mitigation measures to reduce these impacts below a
level of significance, such as mandating use of cleaner fuel burning engines in all motor vehicles
or major right-of-way takes to reconfigure the Orchard Village Road/Lyons intersection, are
beyond the financial resources of the City and Agency, especially in light of the fact that passing
those costs along to local tax -payers would, even if legal, be contrary to the redevelopment plan's
goals of promoting development and economic revitalization.
In this regard, a finding is hereby made that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the
Final EIR will be implemented with the project, and that any significant unavailable effects
remaining are outweighed and are found to be acceptable due to the following specific economic,
social, and other considerations based upon the facts set forth above, in the Final EIR, and in the
public record of the considerations of this project, as follows:
The proposed project will provide additional housing units, including affordable housing.
2. The proposed project will provide employment opportunities for the residents of Santa
Clarita and surrounding communities.
The proposed project will facilitate transition to modem commercial, office, and industrial
uses that are economically viable, compatible, and of high quality of design.
4. The proposed project will provide for improvement of needed public facilities, including
improvements to school facilities, park facilities and the library system.
The proposed project will provide needed public improvements including roadways and
utility infrastructure.
6. The proposed project will increase safety and security in the Newhall project area due to
elimination of blighting conditions, and recycling of old and unsafe industrial and commer-
cial uses and structures to modem "clean" uses and structures constructed in accordance
with current fire codes and equipped with safety and security features.
7. The proposed project will accelerate hazardous materials cleanup on redevelopment sites.
A-15
8. The proposed project will eliminate or alleviate blighting conditions in the project area
through the construction of certain improvements and implementation of certain programs.
9. The proposed project will significantly assist in the implementation of the Downtown
Newhall Improvement Program.
A-16
...... .l.C: JI a• �Jn�i ..fin � _. ..�
�7t1:
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting program
Newhall Redevelopment Project
P. 18/33
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared in accordance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21081.6. Its purpose
is to provide for accomplishment of mitigation measures required by the Final Environmental
Impact Report for the Newhall Redevelopment Project (State Clearinghouse Number 97021002).
The Santa Clarita Redevelopment Agency (Agency) and the City of Santa Clatita (City) have
adopted the mitigation measures included in the Final EIR in order to mitigate or avoid
significant impacts on the environment. This program has been designed to ensure compliance
during project implementation.
Mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR for the Newhall Redevelopment Project, as
adopted, have been incorporated into a checklist. Each mitigation measure is listed separately on
the checklist with appropriate spaces for monitoring the progress of implementation of each
measure. The following information is identified for each measure:
• Whether the measure will be applied to individual development projects (project -level
implementation), to the Newhall Redevelopment Project (program -level implementation),
or to both.
• When the measure will be implemented, Le, one time only, prior to construction, during
construction, prior to operation, or during operation of the project.
• How the measure will be implemented, i.e. through existing code and other requirements;
new plans and programs; requirements imposed on all new individual projects, or as
needed.
• What City departments or agencies are responsible for mitigation and for responding to
violations.
• Monitoring and reporting schedule identifying how frequently each measure will be
monitored and reported.
The mitigation measures in the table are listed by environmental impact area in the Same order as
they are listed in the Final EIR.
B-1
co. yr ,.• �Mi� DoH rH�Hutfw P. 19/33
Mitigation Monitoring Program Management
The Newhall Redevelopment Project is a long-term program which includes a large number of
mitigation measures. Some of these measures are applicable at the individual development
project level, and others are applicable to the overall program or plan. In order to coordinate
implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring Program, a regular review of the progress of the
program is required.
Annual Review of Mitigation Monitoring Program
The overall management of the Mitigation Monitoring Program will be managed by the Agency,
which will undertake an annual review of the Mitigation Monitoring Program and prepare a brief
progress memorandum based on that review. The memorandum should be transmitted to the
Executive Director of the Agency for action. The reviewer will check each mitigation measure in
the Mitigation Monitoring Program to determine whether or not that implementation measure is
complete. If the mitigation measure has been completed for the project, the reviewer should line
through the mitigation measure on the form, initial and date the line indicating that the mitigation
measure has been completed.
For measures that require a report, program, or plan, the reviewer should determine if that report,
program, or plan is due based on the progress of implementing the program to date. If the report,
program, or plan is timely, that fact should be reported in the review memorandum to the head of
the Department. If no such program is necessary at this time, the memorandum should so state.
For measures that are ongoing measures, the memorandum should report whether these measures
are actively being pursued, and if not, what action is appropriate. If the measures are no longer
appropriate or necessary because the environmental effect is no longer an issue, then that fact
should be reported in the review memorandum, and the discontinuation of the mitigation
measure recommended. If measures are not being implemented adequately, recommendations
should be made to improve the application of the mitigation measure.
For measures that apply at the project level, the memorandum should report whether or not such
measures are being actively applied to individual projects. If the measures are no longer
appropriate or necessary because the environmental effect is no longer an issue, then that fact
should be reported in the review memorandum, and the discontinuation of the mitigation
measure recommended If measures are not being implemented adequately, recommendations
should be made to improve the application of the mitigation measure.
M
JUN --..-------
6 '97 11 CnA FFb„uuvR P.20/33
Implementation of Program -Level Mitigation Measures
Program -level mitigation racism m are measures which do not apply to individual development
projects, but which apply at the overall program level. They are implemented through the
regular actions of the Agency, the City of Santa Clarita Community Development Department, or
other applicable departments. They are reviewed and monitored through the annual program
review discussed above.
Implementation of Project -Level Mitigation Measures
Project -level mitigation measures will be monitored by the Agency in cooperation with the
Planning Division. When a development project in the Newhall Redevelopment Project Area is
submitted to the Agency and City, the Agency/Planning Division will have a copy of the
Mitigation Monitoring Checklist, including all pages which contain measures applicable to that
project. The mitigation measures which apply to that specific project should be highlighted on
the checklist. As each drawing or specification is reviewed, plans will be checked for
compliance with each mitigation measure required within the Project Area to be shown on plans
as indicated in the checklist. Mitigation measures are divided into one-time measures
(incorporated into project design, no further checking required once construction is verified),
construction measures to mitigate construction impacts, and operational measures that require
continuous implementation once the project is in operation. Each type of measure may require
different monitoring techniques, but will be monitored using the checklist.
Project Design Mitigation Measures
A project design mitigation measure is a measure that needs to be incorporated into the project
design, for example, traffic improvements or exterior lighting plans. Such measures will
normally be shown on the building plans, site plans, public improvement plans, specifications, or
other project documents. The mitigation monitoring checklist will be used to check off those
mitigation measures shown on the plans. If a mitigation measure is not shown on the appropriate
plan sheets, plans will be sent back for incorporation of those mitigation measures or approved
equivalents. Plans will not be approved until each mitigation measure is incorporated into the
project design.
After plans are approved, and before any component of design is approved as complete by the
City in its inspection, the project proponents will submit proof that each mitigation measure
shown on the plans has been installed or incorporated into the constructed project. Verification
of compliance will then be noted on the monitoring checklist and signed off, completing the
process for this category of mitigation measure.
B-3
P.21/33
Construction Mitigation Measures
Construction mitigation measures are measures designed to reduce the impacts of construction,
and are generally required to be maintained in operation continually during construction. (These
measures in some cases must also be noted on plans or specifications for the project, as indicated
on the mitigation monitoring checklist). Monitoring will be verified by building, public works,
or grading inspectors as appropriate during their regular visits to the sites during construction.
Reporting of compliance with mitigation measures should be required at least monthly, with
reports of violations made immediately to the appropriate department.
Operational Mitigation Measures
Operational mitigation measures are intended to verily the implementation of mitigation
measures that will continue after the project is occupied and in operation, These mitigation
measures should be verified on an annual basis, and if problems are noted, reinspected on a more
regular basis until the measure is operating effectively. Monitoring of such measures may be
certified by the applicants with verification by the Agency or a third party.
The monitoring program for measures to be incorporated into project design is the same program
that is currently used to verify compliance with applicable City codes in design and construction.
No additional staffing is required, exccpt that training may be appropriate to alert inspectors to
the new requirements and the use of the monitoring checklist. In case of some specific unique or
unusual mitigation measures, it may be appropriate or necessary to contract with consultants for
inspection or verification of mitigation measures.
The completed mitigation monitoring program checklist will be retained in the project file and
will be available for public inspection on proper request.
Monitoring Program Fees
For major projects for which the mitigation monitoring effort is substantial, it may be appropriate
to charge mitigation monitoring fees to support the actual costs of project -level mitigation
monitoring. In such cases, the Agency will charge and collect from the project proponent a fee in
the amount of the anticipated actual cost to the City or Agency for monitoring all mitigation
measures, including consultant services and costs of administration, for a project as described in
this program. A deposit may be required by the Agency to be applied toward this fee. Any
unused portion of the deposit will be refunded. In the case of a project where the applicant will
not be associated with the project after construction, the Agency will charge the anticipated cost
of operation of the mitigation monitoring program for an appropriate period in advance.
B-4
co �r ..•�.� an rH�.,u.•.r P.22/33
Sancdons/Fenalties
The Agency or City may levy sanctions or penalties for violations of conditions listed in the
monitoring program. These sanctions and penalties may include:
1. Civil penalties/fines according to City codes.
2. "Stop work" orders.
3. Revocation of permits.
4. Holding issuance of Certificate of Occupancy until completion of work.
S. Forfeiture of performance bond.
6. Implementation of measures with appropriate charges to the applicant based on
mitigation monitoring program agreements.
Dispute Resolution
In the event of a disagreement between the Agency and project applicants regarding the
monitoring program, including manner of payment, penalties for noncompliance, and financial
security arrangements, the following procedure, or other appropriate procedure as provided for in
the Implementation Agreement will be followed:
1. The Agency's representative will attempt to resolve the disagreement. If the disagreement
cannot be resolved, the Agency's representative will prepare a report documenting the source
of the dispute and the Agency's position.
2. The Agency's representative will take the report before the Executive Director of the Agency
as appropriate, who will determine the resolution of the disagreement.
3. The decision of the Executive Director of the Agency may be appealed to the City Council on
payment of the City's standard fee for the appeal to the City Council. The decision of the
City Council shall determine the outcome of the appeal.
B-5
P.23/33
p
>
�
a CE
a
2
SS IM
�
'R.I.]
1V
P.23/33
p
z» ..24/ 2
>
�
§
■
is
.
■�
11 Z
/
«
�j
j }■
!JI£)2
71
cc�
$�i�
•
!2!
fibsf
HIM,,
B%���2��
$i7}�$&
Asa.& a. /
'o i l
|JI.
� I
2
z» ..24/ 2
a
§
■
is
.
■�
�
�j
j }■
a
+�i� Co �! ♦1•rani ,� �.L(-F F'V+:.nuLiVN
P. 25/33
Q
Vol
w
E!,—w
w �
g
?
X
x
x
4�a
4gILS
;
P. 25/33
J UP1 co 7 r L l• `�GFI l.Gh rM�r�,..4\h�
¢
�5
Y OI
6
A
Y1
¢
I
m
Ills 8
M �
2
1—
Y �cq
Y
T
Q C� v
c I
IL
n
s
SIL
ej���
40
>����Be�
jam•
;SJU
$.G
ao**��i+oa•!�
CL
@Q J
f
p�
�4ae�'
'igy
g s
o£ �8
e
�
E
SO
J._..8
�{9{��.i �.
'33333'ttttt e [file
400 6 2
P. 27/33
m
ell
I . 8.
1>
94
ib
X
x
x
I
I
v
rL
Lu
tit
0 IVA
.2111,
.
CCU
- el
2
Iwo'
MAI I
�uDl GO Jf 11 • Y�FII i uLM f'/•IpnyriYht
¢
>
<
>
>
>
>
<
>
zo
4c
CL
s
g
g
d
<
_
i
��
m
�
X
X
X
X
p�t•
C
Cp
Cp
C
#gif
1�
' a
$5
3l
"a.
.a
21
2.
811
_ a
g
A
P.30i33
12.2
J U(Y Gb ',:I
r 11 •=l4rf•I l.Lq P•q`JfijiL('�Fi
�6 Sr• IGL �r
<
<
A
S a'
�an����
g
G
t
�fx
If
O
x
a.
IL
th
T
mm
m YYY D
?20
� �
G �
$�a'gill
$ g 1 a
.
2_: Ea3$.
EEM
���
�, �•�
P.31/33
g�g
_v
m
A
O
�an����
g�g
_v
m
�.i� c0 7� la•4»n�'i �.nn �h.�.�a.G vti
P.32i33
<
<
<
I¢
<
¢
S
6
x
a
c
a
IQ
<
x
x
x
x
�
x
Y
3S,
s
o. a
4
g
ass
.c3�
fV
l'f
f 4S
{6
A
W
CL
W
L�
.��� co 7r a.•.�n01 �Lti rNawc�
lit I
<
<
V
Q
LP
L
<
9
=
A
o�'
x
x
x
a6
Lp
S
1�
8N S E.•'
� � � �
O
1••� .�
N H 6� 9 W
�
N
d�Cla�44ii
G��1Q�.iZ!'��a.G.4?
f
0