Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-06-24 - RESOLUTIONS - GATE KING PARK EIR (2)RESOLUTION NO. 03-87 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FOR THE GATE -KING INDUSTRIAL PARK PROJECT, CERTIFYING FEIR SCH NO. 2001021121, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS THAT WEIGHS PROJECT BENEFITS AGAINST THE PROJECT'S SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS FOR MASTER CASE NO. 99-264 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 50283, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 99-003, ZONE CHANGE 99-002, OAK TREE PERMIT 99-029, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 99-013, HILLSIDE REVIEW 99-004, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 99-002 RECITALS: a. Whereas, the applicant, Gate King Properties, LLC, formally requested certain project entitlements related to the Gate King Industrial Park Project on September 9, 1999 (Master Case 99-264). Such entitlement requests included General Plan Amendment 99-003, Zone Change 99-002, Tentative Tract Map 50283, Hillside Review 99-004, Conditional Use Permit 99-013, Development Agreement 99-002, and Oak Tree Permit 99-029. b. Whereas, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings on the Gate King Industrial Park entitlements on February 19, 2002, and continuing on March 19, 2002, May 7, 2002, June 4, 2002, July 2, 2002, and July 16, 2002. The Planning Commission closed the public hearing on July 2, 2002 and made a motion to direct staff to return to the July 16, 2002 meeting with resolutions recommending certification to the City Council for the FEIR, approval of the "C Street Alternative Project #5." On July 16, 2002, the Planning Commission adopted a recommendation that the City Council approve TTM 50283("C" Street Alternative #5), and General Plan Amendment 99-003, Zone Change 99-002, Oak Tree Permit 99-029, Conditional Use Permit 99-013, Hillside Review 99-004, Development Agreement (Deal Points) 99-002, and consider the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), and ultimately certify the FEIR. Notice of said public hearings was given in the manner required by the Santa Clarita Municipal Code and State law. C. Whereas, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the Gate King Industrial Park project entitlements on November 12, 2002, April 8, 2003, and May 27, 2003 and a public meeting on January 28, 2003. On May 27, 2003, the City Council recommended, and the applicant agreed, to further amend C Street Alternative #5. Thus, the proposed project as modified would subdivide 508.2 acres into 68 industrial lots (184.6 acres), 4 water tank lots (12.2 acres), one helipad lot (2.1 acres) and 33 open space lots (257.4 acres) plus streets and rights of -way (52.4 acres) for a total of 106 lots. The 33 open space lots consist of landscaped slopes, trails, and City dedicated open space lots (207.6 acres). Resolution No. 03-87 Page 2 d. All public hearings and meetings on the project were held at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Santa Clarita. The City Council public hearings were advertised in The Signal, through on-site posting 14 days prior to the hearing, and by direct first class mail to property owners within 500 feet of the project area. e. An Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Gate King Industrial Park project was circulated in February of 2001. A scoping meeting was held in March of 2001 for additional input from the community on the scope and content of the EIR. Subsequently, a Draft EIl2 was prepared by the City's EIR Consultant (Rincon Consultants) that addresses the continents received in response to the NOP and at the scoping meeting. f. On January 28, 2002, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated for public review and comment and the review period closed on March 14, 2002. Staff received 25 written responses from outside agencies and citizens which are addressed in the Final EIR. The DEIR was also routed to all of the City Divisions which responded to the Draft and are addressed in the FEIR. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FINDINGS REQUIRED BY CEQA: The City Council does hereby find that the Draft EIR for Master Case No. 99-264 General Plan Amendment 99-003, Zone Change 99-002, Tentative Tract Map 50283, Hillside Review 99-004, Conditional Use Permit 99-013, Development Agreement 99-002, and Oak Tree Permit 99-029 ("C" Street Alternative #5 Project) identifies and discloses project -specific impacts and cumulative project impacts. a. The EIR identifies areas of potential project impacts and prescribes mitigation measures to minimize and/or eliminate those impacts. The City finds that the proposed project will result in the following potentially significant impacts and that mitigation measures and/or changes to the project will eliminate the impacts or reduce them to a level of less than significance. Environmental impacts identified in the Draft EIR, findings, and facts in support of findings are herein incorporated as "Findings Required by CEQA." LAND USE AND PLANNING Impact LU -3: With mitigation, the modified project is considered consistent with City Land Use Element goals and policies. Mitigation measures contained in Sections 4.6, Biology, 4.11, Aesthetics, 4.9, Public Services, 4. 10, Utilities, and 4.12, Cultural Resources of the EIR, would attain consistency with City General Plan goals and policies. In addition, the Planning Commission recommended, and the City Resolution No. 03-87 Page 3 Council is adopting, findings that the project complies with the Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance and Guidelines, including the criteria for finding a project to be innovative. GEOLOGY Impact GEO-1. The project site's potential to experience ground rupture is considered low. Nevertheless, impacts relating to ground rupture are considered Class II, significant but mitigable, due to the presence of the Beacon Fault onsite. Mitigation Measure GEO-1. The significance of the Beacon Fault for purposes of project construction shall be verified at the Grading Plan stage. During site grading, the final at grade fault location shall be determined, and, as required by the City Engineer, the location and width of the setback shall be adjusted accordingly. The implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce the potential impact to less than significant. Impact GEO-4. The project involves grading and development in steeply sloped areas with high landslide potential. Potential impacts relating to landsliding are considered Class II, significant but mitigable. In addition to the recommendations of the RTF&A report and any subsequent requirements of the City Engineer imposed during the grading plan stage, the following mitigation measures will be implemented. Mitigation Measure GEO-4(a): A definitive determination of potential debris flow hazard shall be completed as a part of a review of 1 inch = 40 feet scale grading plans. Specific mitigation measures for debris flow hazard may consist of avoidance, debris walls or debris basins designed to contain the anticipated volume of debris, building setbacks from the potential debris flow hazard area, or removal of the material susceptible to debris flow. Mitigation Measure GEO-4(b): A more detailed analysis of cut slopes shall be performed at the grading plan stage once 1 inch=40 feet scale plans are available: Cut -slopes that will expose bedrock disrupted by the Beacon Fault may also require stability fills to mitigate the potential for superficial instability, and should be evaluated at the Grading Plan stage. The stability of bedding planes below the proposed buttresses shall also be analyzed and presented at the grading plan stage utilizing piezometric surfaces where applicable. A declaratory statement needs to be made in the slope stability section of the report that justifies the use or omission of groundwater (piezometric surfaces) in the slope stability analyses. Per RTF&A, the temporary stability of the backcuts for the recommended stability fills and buttresses will also need to be demonstrated at the grading plan stage along with any backcuts required for the removal of landslides, alluvium or artificial fill. Future anticipated loads from water tanks, buildings or other significant structures should also be incorporated into the stability calculations at the grading plan stage. Mitigation Measure GEO-4(c): The future anticipated load(s) from the proposed water tank(s) shall be incorporated into the stability calculations at the Grading Plan stage along with any anticipated future groundwater. Per RTF&A's October 22, 2001 report, no other mitigation measures are required for the steep natural slopes. Mitigation Measure GEO-4(d): The areas of deep (>40 feet thick) proposed fills shall be evaluated further at the grading plan stage to ensure compliance with all recommendations in existing engineering reports for slope stability. Any additional requirements of the City Engineer shall be fully implemented. Mitigation Measure GEO-4(e): Recommended removal Resolution No. 03-87 Page 4 depths shown on RTF&A's Figure 2.1 (report 10/22/01) range from 3 to 70 feet. The deep removals shall be analyzed in detail at the grading plan stage relative to groundwater conditions and backcut stability. Per RTF&A (2001), uncertified existing fills will be removed prior to the placement of compacted fill. Any unsuitable materials underlying the fills shall also be removed. Mitigation Measure GEO-4(t): In order to reduce the potential for erosion, all cut and fill slopes will be seeded or planted with proper ground cover as soon as possible following grading. The ground cover will consist of drought -resistant, deeprooting vegetation. A landscaping expert will be consulted for ground cover recommendations. Mitigation Measure GEO-4(g): Canyon subdrains will be installed in the main drainage areas to receive fill and backdrains for Buttress Fills to help protect the proposed Gate -King Industrial Park EIR fills from groundwater infiltration. Mitigation Measure GEO-4(h): Per standard grading practices, water shall not be allowed to stand or pond on the future graded building pads nor should it be allowed to flow over natural or constructed slopes, but should be directed to the natural slope drainage devices. The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact to less than significant. Impact GEO-5. Some onsite soils are potentially expansive. This is considered a Class 11, significant but mitigable impact. Mitigation Measure GEO-5: If potentially expansive units are encountered in the final pad or street grades, they shall be evaluated by the Project Geotechnical Engineer. Special foundation designs and reinforcement can be utilized to mitigate expansive material. Optionally, the expansive material can be removed to a specified depth determined by the Project Geotechnical Engineer and replaced with compacted fill with very low to non -expansive characteristics, or the expansive soil may be treated with additives to lower the expansion index. RTF&A has reported that an 8 -foot thick cap of relatively non -expansive soils within building areas and a 3 -foot thick cap within pavement and hardscape areas is expected, which would adequately mitigate expansion potential. The implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce the potential impact to less than significant. Cumulative Impacts. Buildout of planned and pending development in the Santa Clarita Valley would continue to alter geologic landforms and expose new residents and property to geologic and seismic hazards that exist in the region. The proposed project would incrementally contribute to these cumulative impacts, which are considered potentially significant. However, grading and seismic issues are site specific and must therefore be addressed on a case-by-case basis to mitigate impacts resulting from individual projects. Given that all projects would be required to adhere to seismic standards contained in the Uniform Building Code and City requirements pertaining to grading, implementation of appropriate design and mitigation on all development is expected to reduce cumulative geologic impacts to a less than significant level. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Impact H-2. The proposed project would increase impervious surface and runoff to Newhall Creek, which could increase the potential for downstream flooding and stream channel erosion. This is considered a Class II, significant, but mitigable impact. The r Resolution No. 03-87 Page 5 following measures will be implemented to mitigate the effects of runoff from the site. Mitigation Measure H -2(a): The drainage plan for the project shall include post -development designs for detention basins and on-site infiltration to reduce Q50B peak discharge to the pre -development level for Newhall Creek. The Los Angeles Flood Control District and the City of Santa Clarita Engineer shall review all hydrology and drainage plans for the site to determine if the drainage plans adequately reduce peak flows to predevelopment levels. Mitigation Measure H -2(b): The RCB under Sierra Highway shall be improved to have adequate capacity to accommodate the Capital Flood. Additionally, the natural channel approaching the RCB shall be improved to prevent flooding of the Highway. Alternatively, a retention basin with adequate capacity to eliminate the need for improvement of the RCB can be provided at the Hondo Oil and Gas site. Mitigation Measure H -2(c): Onsite drainage facilities for the developed areas shall be designed for the 25 -year Urban Design Storm. The 50 -year Capital Flood storm shall be used for all open channels, closed conduits under major and secondary road, and detention facilities. Mitigation Measure H -2(d): Slope protection along Railroad Canyon and Newhall Creek shall be designed to meet LACPWD standards. Rock riprap slope protection side slopes shall not be greater than 2:1 and gunite side slopes shall be no greater than 1.5:1. The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact to less than significant. Impact H-3. Portions of the site are within the 100 -year flood zone and may therefore be subject to flooding. This is considered a Class II, significant, but mitigable impact. The following measures are required for Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, and 23 to comply with FEMA flood protection procedures. Mitigation Measure H -3(a): The finished floor elevation of the buildings within the A and AO zones shall be a minimum of 1 foot above the existing adjacent grade. Mitigation Measure H -3(b): The applicant shall obtain a revision to the Flood Insurance Rate Map. This process will first entail a conditional letter of map revision (CLOMR). Then, after the project is built, a letter of map revision (LOMR) showing the actual "as built" plans shall be submitted. FEMA will require that the CLOMR and LOMR indicate, with supporting technical data, how the sites will be protected from erosive forces. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, including demonstrating non-erosive velocities or placement of rock rip rap along the channel. The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact to less than significant. Impact H-4. With the proposed project, runoff to Newhall Creek could be adversely affected with pollutants such as oil, pesticides, and herbicides. This is considered a Class II, significant but mitigable impact. The project would be subject to the Los Angeles County Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). Several measures can be used to reduce the amount of pollutants contained in surface runoff from the site that would reduce impacts to surface water. Development of a Storm Water Management Plan that includes education, maintenance, and the use other BMPs would minimize the effect of urban pollutants. Mitigation Measure H-4: A Storm Water Management Plan that incorporates Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the long-term operation of the site shall be developed and implemented by the applicant to minimize the amount of pollutants that are washed from the site. The plan shall be developed in accordance with Resolution No. 03-87 Page 6 the requirements of the City of Santa Clarita. Examples of BMPs that apply to both initial development of the lots and to long-term operation of the project are identified in the project EIR at pp. 4.3-14-15. The implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce the potential impact to less than significant. AIR QUALITY Impact AQ -1. Construction activity associated with the proposed project would result in the emission of air pollutants, including fugitive dust. Because emissions would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds, construction impacts are considered Class I, unavoidably significant. The following mitigation measures are required to minimize the dust and PM10 emissions: Mitigation Measure AQ -1(a): Water trucks shall be used during construction to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. Increased watering is required whenever wind speed exceeds 15 mph. Grading shall be suspended if wind gusts exceed 25 mph. Mitigation Measure AQ -1(b): The amount of disturbed area shall be minimized and on-site vehicle speeds shall be kept to 15 mph or less. Mitigation Measure AQ -1(c): Soil with 5% or greater silt content that is stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. Trucks transporting material shall be tarped from the point of origin or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard. Mitigation Measure AQ -1(d): Fugitive Dust Control Measures. All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering should occur at least twice daily with complete coverage, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day. All clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities shall cease during periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 20 mph averaged over one hour) so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. All material transported off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations shall be minimized so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. All inactive portions of the construction site shall be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown; or, a sealer is placed over these portions of the site. All active portions of the construction site shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Mitigation Measure AQ -1(e): General Dust Controls. All areas with vehicle traffic should be watered periodically, at a minimum, this will require twice daily applications (once in late morning and once at end of workday). Streets adjacent to the project site shall be swept as needed to remove silt that may have accumulated from construction activities so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Mitigation MeasureAQ-1(f): Ozone Precursor Control Measures. Equipment engines shall be maintained in good condition and in proper tune as per manufacturer's specifications. New technologies to control ozone precursor emissions shall be used as they become available in the future. The applicant shall use low-VOC architectural coatings in construction whenever feasible and shall coordinate with the SCAQMD to determine which coatings would reduce VOC emissions to the maximum degree feasible. The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact to air quality but the impact remains significant and unavoidable. Resolution No. 03-87 Page 7 Impact AQ -2. Operational emissions associated primarily with project -generated traffic would exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for ROC and NOx. This is considered a Class I, unavoidably significant impact. The proposed project includes a number of features designed to provide transportation alternatives that minimize air emissions. These include the provision of sidewalks and ample landscaping along all project site roads, and a network of hiking/equestrian trails through the portions of the site that would remain undeveloped. To further reduce emissions associated with the proposed project, the following measures will be implemented. Mitigation Measure AQ -2(a): On-site industrial structures shall be fitted with photovoltaic roof tiles or other technologies that allow the use of solar energy for heating and lighting to the maximum degree feasible. Mitigation Measure AQ -2(b): Energy-efficient windows shall be installed in all buildings. Mitigation Measure AQ -2(c): On-site parking areas shall be designed to accommodate electric vehicle charging stations. The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact to air quality but the impact remains significant and unavoidable. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Impact TC -1. The proposed project would generate significant traffic impacts under City criteria at 13 of 19 study area intersections under existing plus project conditions. These impacts are considered Class II, significant but mitigable. The project EIR, Table 4.5-7 summarizes mitigation measures in the form of intersection improvements that effectively mitigate the project's direct impacts. The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact to less than significant. Impact TC -2. The proposed project would generate significant traffic impacts under City criteria at 10 of 19 study area intersections under interim year plus project conditions. These impacts are considered Class II, significant but mitigable. Intersection and roadway improvements will be required in order to maintain acceptable levels of service in the future. The project EIR, Table 4.5-9 in Section 4.5 summarizes these improvements and lists the proposed project's percent share of the improvement. Also included in the table are the ICU values that result from applying the recommended mitigation. For locations where "with project" conditions are LOS B or better, mitigation consists of payment of Bridge and Thoroughfare District Fees in lieu of specific improvements for that location. The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact to less than significant. Impact TC -3. Installation of traffic signals is warranted at each of the new intersections created by the project as well as at the existing Pine Street/San Fernando Road and SR -14 Southbound ramps/San Fernando Road intersection. These impacts are considered Class H, significant but mitigable. In conjunction with project development, traffic signals shall be added as set forth in the project's Conditions of Approval and MMRP. The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact to less than significant. Resolution No. 03-87 Page 8 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impact BIO -1. Project development would result in the direct permanent loss, and indirect degradation and fragmentation of several "common" habitat types onsite, including Mixed Chaparral, Riversidean Sage Scrub, and Annual Grassland habitats. This is considered a significant but mitigable impact (Class II). The following measures shall be implemented to address the loss of these habitats within the vicinity due to direct conversion of vegetation to developed areas, and the potential indirect effects associated with the potential introduction of invasive species. Mitigation Measure BIO -1(a): Landscaping within fire clearance zones shall include native species indigenous to the region. Modification of fire hazard fuels shall be limited to hand thinning of individual shrubs, clearing dead fuel, replanting with fire-resistant plants indigenous to the area, or other methods to attain fire safety while producing a viable natural and native vegetation community. No species identified as invasive on the CLAPS, Channel Islands Chapter Invasive Plants List (1997) shall be utilized in the landscape plans and all landscaping plans shall be prepared by the City and approved by the City and the County Fire Department. Mitigation Measure BIO -1(b): Revegetation and landscaping plans for the graded road areas onsite shall be prepared and approved by the City before each phase of the proposed project. Plant species, seed mixes, weed suppression, and planting methodology, and irrigation schedule shall be approved by a qualified biologist or landscape architect and shall utilize native species from onsite habitats. No species identified as invasive on the CNPS, Channel Islands Chapter Invasive Plants List (1997) shall be utilized in the landscape plans and all landscaping plans shall prepared by the City and approved by the City and Fire Department. The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact to less than significant. Impact BIO -2. The proposed project may cause the direct loss of special -status plants identified as List 1B or 4 species by the California Native plant Society (CNPS). This is a Class II, significant but mitigable, impact. The following mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts on the slender and Plummer's mariposa lilies to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure BIO -2: Prior to grading of each development phase, focused surveys shall be conducted during the prior flowering season for the slender and Plummer's mariposa lilies to determine the presence or absence of those special -status plants. If no specimens are found within the development footprint or fire clearance zone, then no additional mitigation is required. In the event either slender or Plummer's mariposa lilies are identified within the development or fire clearance areas, the applicant shall submit a special -status plant restoration plan for review and approval by a City of Santa Clarita Planning Department approved biologist. Target sites for mitigation will be sampled for soil type and habitat criteria sufficient for the establishment and growth of the affected special -status species. The plan shall additionally include, but not be limited to, the following components: 1) Performance criteria (i.e., what is an acceptable success level of revegetation to mitigate past impacts); 2) Monitoring effort (who is to check on the success of the revegetation plan, and how frequently); 3) Contingency planning (if the effort fails to reach the performance criteria, identify the remediation steps need to be taken); and 4) Irrigation method/schedule (how Resolution No. 03-87 Page 9 much water is needed, where, and for how long). The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact to less than significant. Impact BIO -3. Development of the proposed project could potentially affect the San Fernando Valley spineflower (SFVS), if present onsite. Potential impacts to this species would be considered Class II, significant but mitigable. Due to the extreme rarity of the SFVS and its known presence at only two locations, the following mitigation measures will be implemented. Mitigation Measure BIO -3(a): In the April -June prior to onsite grading and development of each phase, a survey for the SFVS shall be conducted by a qualified biologist in all Mixed Chapparal, Riversidean Sage Scrub, Annual Grassland, and Disturbed areas where ground disturbance is anticipated. If no SFVS are found, no further mitigation is required. In the event the SFVS is discovered onsite, mitigation measures B-3 (bd) will be implemented. Mitigation Measure BIO -3(b): In the event the SFVS is discovered onsite, the current and anticipated future distribution of the species shall be mapped by a qualified biologist. The CDFG and City of Santa Clarita shall be formally notified and consulted regarding the presence of this species onsite. If the SFVS becomes federally listed prior to grading of the site, the USFWS shall also be notified. A preservation and management plan shall be prepared for the SFVS by a qualified biologist and shall include, but not be limited to, the following: project development shall be located no closer than 200 -feet to any SFVS that may be found onsite. This buffer zone shall be designated with appropriate fencing to exclude construction vehicles and public access, but not wildlife access; stormwater runoff, irrigation runoff, and other drainage from developed areas shall not pass through areas populated by the SFVS; spineflower areas shall not be artificially shaded by structures or landscaping within the adjacent development areas; pesticide use shall not be permitted within SFVS areas; the agency responsible far monitoring the SFVS area during construction and after project completion shall be identified and the frequency and extent of monitoring shall be determined. Mitigation Measure BIO -3(c): In the event it is determined that project development could potentially affect the SFVS, the CDFG shall be contacted to determine the need for a "take permit" under the California Endangered Species Act. If the SFVS is federally listed prior to site grading, the USFWS shall be contacted to determine the need for a take permit under the federal Endangered Species Act. Appropriate mitigation required to minimize or mitigate impacts to the SFVS shall be implemented and may include the following: the creation of a spineflower preserve, establishment of vegetated buffers or other setbacks, drainage modification of the adjacent areas, SFVS revegetation, and monitoring to ensure success of the mitigation. The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact to less than significant. Impact BIO -4. The project site contains 11,721 on-site oak trees. The applicant is requesting to remove up to 1,408 (612 dead/fire damaged + 632 live oak trees + 100 live oak tree bank + 64 retroactive removals = 1,408 total oaks) oak trees within the grading area. None of the trees to be removed are heritage oaks. In addition, the applicant is requesting 790 oak tree encroachments to develop the project site. An estimated 69 acres, or approximately 34%, of the oak woodland/forest habitat onsite would be affected. Impacts to oak woodland/forest habitat are considered Class I, unavoidably Resolution No. 03-87 Page 10 significant. The applicant is required to obtain a permit from the City for the removal of onsite oak trees and comply with the provisions of the permit. In addition, the following measures to partially mitigate impacts relating to the loss of the oak woodland/forest shall be implemented. Mitigation Measure BIO -4(a): All direct impacts to oak trees on site shall be avoided wherever feasible. For oak trees that are affected, an oak tree mitigation program shall be developed pursuant to the City's oak tree preservation ordinance. This mitigation program shall include, but not be limited to: identifying specific protective measures for protecting and maintaining all oaks within potential encroachment areas; mature oak trees and shrubs shall not be removed during preparation of fire clearance zones; replacement tree planting, maintenance, and monitoring specifications, which shall at the minimum include the following: 1) Performance and success criteria to ensure that at least 80% of the 500 planted coast live oak trees survive for at least five years; 2) Monitoring effort (who is to check on the success of the revegetation plan, and how frequently); 3) Contingency planning (if the effort fails to reach the performance criteria, identify the remediation steps needed to be taken); 4) Irrigation method/schedule (how much water is needed, where, and for how long); and 5) A final map, corresponding spreadsheet, and impact summary table indicating all oaks to be removed and that reflects impacts resulting from the final approved project. Mitigation Measure BI04(b): The proposed open space wilderness area and any other wildlife/corridor easement areas and/or fee transfers per previous City agreements shall be deeded and/or secured with the City at the time of final tract map approval. The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact to oak trees but the impact remains significant and unavoidable. The applicant has provided an oak tree report for the project. The general purpose and intent of the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance is to preserve oak trees, yet allow for their removal in certain instances where it is necessary to enable reasonable use of the subject property which would otherwise be prevented by the presence of the trees and no reasonable alternative can be accommodated due to the unique physical development constraints on the property. The approval of the request will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of the Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. The proposed mitigation (207.6 acres of dedicated open space, plant 500 oak trees on the highly visible graded slopes, and to plant 700 additional agrifolias from local acoms on the site) for oak tree impacts is consistent with the provisions of the City's Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance. Impact BI0-5. The proposed development would cause direct and indirect impacts to CDFG and Corps jurisdictional drainages onsite. This is a Class II, significant but mitigable impact. Compliance with the requirements of the appropriate Corps, CDFG, and RWQCB permits, and implementation of any mitigation measures contained therein, would offset the loss of waters of the U.S. and waters of the state. As discussed in project EIR Section 4.3, Hydrology and Water Quality, a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required for development of the proposed project. As a result, Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be required to minimize impacts to water quality and quantity both onsite and offsite during construction. No additional mitigation is required beyond that specified in the project EIR Section 4.3, Resolution No. 03-87 Page 11 Hydrology. Although the Corps and CDFG will require specific mitigation as part of their permitting processes, the following measures provide minimum requirements for the project. Mitigation Measure BIO -5(a): Waters of the U.S. and waters of the state affected by project development shall be replaced at a minimum ratio of 2:1. Mitigation Measure BIO -5(b): Project development shall be located no closer than 100 feet from the perennial riparian habitat associated with drainage FF, which is located directly south of the Eternal Valley Cemetery. The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact to less than significant. Impact BIO -6. As originally proposed, the development would disrupt wildlife movement corridors through the project area, and between the open space areas associated with the San Gabriel and Santa Susana Mountains. With mitigation and project modifications, this impact is considered significant but mitigable (Class II). The following mitigation measures will minimize the potential for degradation of habitat linkages due to project development. The Los Piiietos wildlife corridor is the most viable of those available to the project site and mitigation for preserving and enhancing it will be given the highest priority. The proposed project as modified further mitigates impacts to wildlife movement corridors by reducing the acreage of developed areas. Mitigation Measure BIO -6(a): Dense native vegetation reflecting species currently present onsite shall be planted along the borders of these areas to provide appropriate cover and resources for wildlife. A pathway for animal movement shall be located between the vegetated buffers in order avoid potential conflicts between vehicles and wildlife. Mitigation Measure BIO -6(b): Solid barrier fencing onsite shall be prohibited around areas that border open spaces or routes of animal movement. Fencing in these areas shall consist of "ranch style" post fencing or barbed-wire style fencing. Fencing shall allow at least one foot of clearance above ground to permit wildlife movement. Wildlife guzzlers shall be constructed in open space areas along wildlife movement corridors in locations to be determined by a qualified biologist. The following low -light design features shall be implemented adjacent to open space and wildlife corridor areas: Low sodium lights shall be used on all roadways to reduce glare and direct it away from wildlife corridor and open space areas; Streetlight poles shall be of an appropriate height to reduce the glare and pooling of light into open space and corridor areas; and Street light elements shall be recessed or hoods shall be used to reduce glare impacts on open space and corridor areas. The implementation of these mitigation measures and the project modifications will reduce the potential impact to wildlife movement corridors to less than significant. Impact BIO -7. The proposed development may cause the direct loss of special -status wildlife through conversion of onsite habitats to developed areas. Indirect impacts on special -status wildlife species could occur through the habitat fragmentation and degradation because of the introduction of non-native plants. This impact is considered significant but mitigable (Class II). Multiple mitigation measures included in the project EIR will reduce impacts to habitats onsite to the extent feasible, and thus to special -status species that are potentially present within these habitats. Measures BIO -1(a) and (b) require minimization of impacts to chaparral and scrub habitats within fire clearance zones, when feasible, and revegetation of landscape areas with native chaparral and scrub Resolution No. 03-87 Page 12 species. Mitigation measure 13I04(a) would minimize impacts to oaks and oak woodland to the extent feasible and create a mitigation plan for oak replacement onsite. Mitigation measures BIO -5(a) and (b) would avoid impacts to the perennial riparian area onsite, and mitigate impacts to habitats associated with CDFG and Corps jurisdictional areas through habitat replacement. These measures would mitigate direct and indirect impacts to habitats onsite to the extent feasible. The following mitigation measures would reduce significant impacts to the following special -status species potentially affected by project development: coast horned lizard, coastal western whiptail, coast patch -nosed snake, rosy boa, California horned lark, the Southern California rufous -crowned sparrow, and birds of prey that may nest onsite such as the Cooper's hawk, white-tailed kite, and burrowing owl. Mitigation Measure BI0-7(a): Two weeks prior to removal of trees during the raptor nesting season (February through October), a survey for raptor nests shall be made by a qualified biologist. If active nests are located, then all construction work must be conducted at least 500 feet from the nest until the adults and young are no longer dependant upon the nest site. Mitigation Measure 11I0 -7(b): Not more than two weeks prior to ground disturbing construction within Mixed Chaparral, Riversidean Sage Scrub, and Annual Grassland habitats, a preconstruction survey for the coast horned lizard, coastal western whiptail, coast patch - nosed snake, rosy boa, California horned lark, the Southern California rufous -crowned sparrow and any other special -status species shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. As all potential special -status species that may occur in these habitats are Species of Concern and not formally listed, any individuals found shall be captured, when possible, and transferred to adjacent appropriate habitat within the open space/wilderness preserve onsite. The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact to less than significant. Cumulative Impact: The cumulative effect of these impacts depends on the proximity and extent of other approved and proposed projects in the region. An estimated 123,877 residential units and 58,934 thousand square feet of nonresidential development are anticipated under buildout of the City of Santa Clarita General Plan. Cumulative projects close enough, or having relative impacts to the proposed project may include infill of the vacant lots along San Fernando Road and development of the areas to the east of the Gate -King site. All of these developments would result in loss of natural habitats for wildlife, including some special -status species, and would contribute to the fragmentation of the City of Santa Clarita and its interface with the Santa Clara River, the San Gabriel and Santa Susana Mountains, surrounding canyons, and the Angeles National Forest. The wildlife resources on the project site are already somewhat isolated by commercial development on the north and west; historic oil development to the east, transportation corridors to the north (San Fernando Road), east (Sierra and Antelope Valley Highways) Highway) and southwest (Golden State Freeway). Infill development in the project vicinity would further isolate the wildlife resources onsite by limiting animal movement within, and access to, the site. The wildlife now present on-site will change as a result of habitat alteration, fragmentation of open space, increased human activity, noise, night lighting, influx of domestic and feral animals, and other project -related disturbances. In time, the Resolution No. 03-87 Page 13 composition of wildlife communities could shift from a mixture of specialist and generalist species to communities dominated by the latter, with potentially occurring special -status species and larger mammals being shifted to the open space/wilderness areas onsite or eliminated from the project area. This transformation would also be marked by the introduction and spread of invasive, non-native plant and animal species. Mitigation measures have been proposed that will reduce some direct and indirect impacts to common habitats, special -status plants, and CDFG and USACE jurisdictional areas to a less than significant level. However, the project's impacts to Oak woodland/forest habitat and wildlife corridors would remain unavoidably significant. Regional programs, such as the City of Santa Clarita's designation and protection of Significant Ecological Areas, are in place to minimize cumulative impacts to biology. Nevertheless, the proposed project, in combination with approved and other proposed projects in the area, would result in cumulatively significant impacts to the biological resources in the region and would incrementally contribute to the significant cumulative effect of urbanization. NOISE Impact N-1. Construction activity would temporarily generate high noise levels on- site. Because noise could exceed thresholds in the City Noise Ordinance, impacts are considered Class II, significant but mitigable. All construction on the project site would be subject to the City Noise Ordinance, which limits noise generating construction activity to between the hours of 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM Monday through Friday and between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on Saturday. Although limiting construction to these hours would ensure compliance with the Noise Ordinance, the following measures will be implemented to further reduce the impact of construction -related noise on sensitive receptors. Mitigation Measure N -1(a): All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with factory -recommended mufflers. Mitigation Measure N -1(b): Whenever feasible, electrical power shall be used to run air compressors and similar power tools. Mitigation Measure N -1(c): For all construction activity on the project site, noise attenuation techniques shall be employed as needed to ensure that noise remains below 80 dBA in commercial/industrial areas and below 65 dBA at residences. Such techniques may include, but are not limited to, the use of sound blankets on noise generating equipment and the construction of temporary sound barriers between construction sites and affected uses. The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact to less than significant. Impact N-2. Daytime operations are not expected to violate the City Noise Ordinance, but noise levels could exceed Noise Ordinance standards for nearby residential uses if on- site truck activity occurs at night. Impacts relating to project operation are therefore considered Class II, significant but mitigable. The following measures will minimize the potential for noise disturbance. Mitigation Measure N -2(a): Loading dock operations on Lots 2- 4, 7- 9, 14, and 15 shall be oriented away from residential areas. Mitigation Measure N -2(b): Onsite trash pickup services, street and parking lot sweeping, and Resolution No. 03-87 Page 14 truck deliveries shall be restricted to between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:00 PM. The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact to less than significant. HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY Impact HHS -1. Several areas on-site potentially have soil and/or groundwater contamination that could pose a risk to human health and safety. This is considered a Class II, significant but mitigable impact. The following measures will minimize the potential for risk to human health and safety. Mitigation Measure HHS -1(a): The sampling program outlined in the project EIR (pp. 4.8-19 - 20) shall be implemented prior to issuance of grading permits for areas suspected of being contaminated. The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact to less than significant. Impact HHS -2. Disturbance of oil and gas lines on-site during site grading could potentially result in hazardous conditions for site workers. Implementation of appropriate safety precautions would reduce such impacts to a Class II, significant but mitigable level. The following measures will be implemented for all grading activity in the vicinity of onsite oil or gas pipelines. Mitigation Measure HHS -2(a): Pipeline operators shall be notified in advance of any grading activity in the vicinity of an oil or gas pipeline. Any specific requirements of the operator to avoid disturbance that could create a safety hazard shall be fully implemented. Possible methods to protect underground utilities include dielectric coating, cathodic protection, mortar coating or encase in cement -slurry or concrete. Mitigation Measure HHS -2(b): Prior to grading in the vicinity of oil or gas pipelines, the locations of the pipelines shall be marked. Underground Service Alert shall be notified 48 hours in advance of grading and shall clear the pipeline locations prior to grading activity. The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact to less than significant. PUBLIC SERVICES Impact PS -1. The proposed project would increase demand for fire protection service, however, provision of funding for additional fire protection equipment and facilities, and adherence to guidelines regarding access to all property would reduce the impact to fire protection service to a Class II, significant but mitigable, level. The following measures will be implemented to ensure that fire response times are adequate and that sufficient funding is available for needed fire protection equipment. Mitigation Measure PS -1(a): In the event that a fire facilities in lieu fee is no longer in effect when building permits are issued for the project, the applicant shall provide for the additional fire protection equipment/facilities that will be needed as required by the County Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits. Mitigation Measure PS -2(b): Coordination with the Los Angeles County Fire Department is required in order to determine the need for a fire station within the development and its inclusion in the tract map. If the Fire Department requests an on-site station, a fire station site shall be provided on-site in a location satisfactory to the Department. Mitigation Measure Resolution No. 03-87 Page 15 PS -1(c): All applicable building codes and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire hydrants, fire flows, brush clearance and fuel modification plans must be met. The Los Angeles County Fire Department has set forth specific guidelines regarding access issues. These guidelines are summarized in the project EIR (pp. 4.9-6 and 4.9-8). Any proposals for traffic calming measures (speed bumps, traffic circles etc.) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review prior to implementation. The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact to less than significant. Impact PS -2. The proposed project would be located in a Very High Fire Severity Zone as designated by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Impacts relating to wildfire hazards are considered Class II, significant but mitigable. Specific fire safety requirements would be addressed by the LACFD at the building fire plan check stage, however, the following minimum requirements will be incorporated into the project description. Mitigation Measure PS -2(a): The applicant shall develop a Fuel Modification Plan for all development areas adjacent to or potentially exposed to wildfire hazard areas. The plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Los Angeles County Fire Department Fuel Modification Unit. Mitigation Measure PS -2(b): The landscape palette for the project shall prohibit the use of highly flammable species near areas of open space. Mitigation Measure PS -2(c): Landscaping of manufactured slopes shall use plant species appropriate for use in fuel modification zones. Use of native plants shall maintain the natural landscape of the project area and will reduce the use of exotic and possibly invasive non-native species. The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact to less than significant. Impact PS -3. The project would generate a modest increase in demand for police services. Provision of funding for additional police protection personnel and equipment and adherence to the crime prevention guidelines suggested by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department would reduce the impacts to a significant but mitigable (Class II) level. The following measure, suggested by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, is intended to implement "defensible space" concepts and foster crime prevention at the proposed development. Mitigation Measure PS -3: The project shall incorporate the following crime prevention measures: adequate lighting in open areas and parking lots; visibility of doors and windows from public streets and between buildings; adequate parking spaces in all parking lots; well lit building address numbers that are large enough to be readily apparent from the street; a four -lane roadway with no parking as the major street access through the site (note: this is consistent with the applicant's proposal). The implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce the potential impact to less than significant. PUBLIC UTILITIES Impact PU-1. Development of the project unmodified would generate demand for an estimated 386 acre-feet of water per year. The project as modified will generate less demand than as originally proposed. Although the Newhall County Water District will be able to supply the projected demand, impacts to water supply are considered Class II, Resolution No. 03-87 Page 16 significant but mitigable because of ongoing concerns about regional water supplies. Mitigation Measure PU-1(a): Interior water conservation measures, as required by the State of California, shall be incorporated into the project. These include, but are not limited to: installation of low flow toilets and urinals in all new construction; installation of water heating system and pipe insulation in all new construction to reduce water used before water reaches equipment or fixtures Installation of self-closing faucets in all lavatories. Mitigation Measure PU-1(b): Exterior water conservation features as recommended by the State Department of Water Resources, shall be incorporated into the project. These include, but are not limited to: Landscaping of common areas with low water -using plants; minimizing the use of turf by limiting it to lawn dependent uses; wherever turf is used, installing warm season grasses. Mitigation Measure PU-1(c): The project shall, to the extent feasible, use reclaimed water for irrigation of landscaping. Mitigation Measure PU-1(d): Landscaped areas shall use vegetation that will eventually naturalize and require minimal irrigation. The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact to less than significant. Impact PU-2. Project implementation could potentially affect the existing MWD Foothill Feeder Newhall Tunnel pipeline, which traverses the central portion of the site. Conflicts with MWD right-of-way that could result in an interruption of MWD service or facilities would be considered a Class II, significant but mitigable, impact. The following mitigation measure, required by the MWD, will be implemented. Mitigation Measure PU-2: During project construction and throughout project operations, the applicant and future occupants shall comply with all requirements of the MV,/D's "Guidelines for Developments in the Area of Facilities, Fee Properties, and/or Easements of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California." In accordance with these guidelines, the applicant shall identify on-site MWD facilities on all applicable project maps and plans. The project applicant and/or future occupants shall obtain approval from MWD for all landscaping, structures, or other facilities within the MWD pipeline easement. The implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce the potential impact to less than significant. Cumulative Impact. Planning and pending development in the City would cumulatively increase the amount of solid waste sent to area landfills. The Sunshine Canyon Landfill to which project -generated waste is anticipated to go has adequate capacity to accommodate cumulative solid waste generation in the near term. Nevertheless, Chiquita Canyon Landfill is anticipated to reach its full capacity in November 2019 and the long- term availability of landfill adequate capacity remains a concern throughout the southern California region. The project will include the following mitigation measures to reduce solid waste impacts. PU-7(a): Construction contractors shall provide recycling bins for glass, metals, paper, wood, plastic, green wastes, and cardboard during construction. PU-7(b): Building materials shall be made of recycled materials, to the greatest extent possible. PU-7(c): Reduce yard waste on the project site through the use of xeroscape techniques and the use of drought -tolerant and native vegetation in common area landscaping wherever possible. PU-7(d): Business park tenants shall receive educational material on the City's waste management efforts. Resolution No. 03-87 Page 17 Although the project's contribution to the overall cumulative volume of solid waste generated in the region would be nominal, cumulative impacts relating to solid waste generation are considered unavoidable and significant. AESTHETICS Impact AES -1. The proposed project would alter scenic views from public viewing locations and alter City -designated Primary and Secondary ridgelines. This is considered a Class Il, significant but mitigable impact. Mitigation Measure AES -1: The proposed water tanks shall be fully screened from public view with landscape material. With the adoption of Alternative 5 as modified by the applicant and the adoption of the following mitigation measures, the impacts to ridgeline and scenic views, have been reduced to a less than significant level. The project employs contour grading to substantially reduce grading alterations of the terrain and to preserve trees, other natural vegetation, and prominent landmark features that are compatible with existing neighborhoods. The project conserves natural topographic features and appearances by means of landform grading so as to blend any manufactured slopes or required drainage benches into the natural topography, including designing the development to be compatible with adjacent neighborhoods and commercial sites, and preserving 54% of the site in its natural state. The project retains significant, natural, topographic prominent features to the maximum extent possible. The applicant is proposing to preserve 41% of the project site as natural dedicated open space and install native vegetation in portions of the project site. The project applies clustering of the development area and buildings to substantially reduce grading alterations to the terrain and to contribute to the preservation of trees, other natural vegetation, and prominent landmark features. The structures will be constructed on only 40% of the entire site. The project utilizes building setback, building heights and compatible structures and building forms to blend buildings and structures with the terrain. The project will conserve and introduce plant materials to protect slopes from slippage and soil erosion and to minimize visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas, including the consideration of the preservation of prominent vegetation and, to the extent possible, reduce the maintenance cost to public and private property owners. The project includes curvilinear street design and improvements to minimize grading alterations and emulate the natural contours and character of the hillsides. Grading designs, such as landform contour grading, that serve to avoid disruption to adjacent property owners are incorporated into the project design. Site design and grading that provide the minimum disruption of view corridors and scenic vistas from and around any proposed development shall be utilized as shown on the site plan, where the proposed development would be located away from the designated ridgelines on the project site. INNOVATIVE APPLICATION FINDINGS. The proposed industrial use and preservation of open space is proper in relation to adjacent uses, the development of the community and the various goals and policies of the General Plan. The project is considered a significant community benefit as the Resolution No. 03-87 Page 18 project will be providing full street improvement from Pine Street to Sierra Highway on San Fernando Road, Phase I, and if warranted, 11, and III environmental tests for City land dedication, 207.6 acres of dedicated open space, $2,400,000.00 cash contribution to the City, a 1.5 -acre fire station site, a fire helipad site, dedicated land for pedestrian bridge landing area, two trail heads, and three miles of trails. The use or development will not be materially detrimental to the visual character of the neighborhood or community because the proposed development will be consistent with the adjacent neighborhoods, nor will it endanger the public health, safety or general welfare because the proposal includes an extension of existing industrial and open space uses. The appearance of the development will not be different than the appearance of adjoining ridgeline areas so as to cause depreciation of the ridgeline appearance in the vicinity, because the project will preserve 41% of the site as dedicated open space. The establishment of the proposed use or development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property, nor encourage inappropriate encroachments to the ridgeline area because the development is an extension of an existing industrial and open space neighborhood, and the adjacent ridgelines will be preserved. It has been demonstrated that the proposed use or development will not violate the visual integrity of the significant ridgeline area through precise illustration and depiction, as required by the following: the visual impacts of the proposed use or development will be confined to the immediate local neighborhood which includes the Placerita Canyon area and the area around the "A" Street/Sierra Highway intersection which could be seen from the 14 Freeway; and the proposed use or development will be shielded from general public view by the southern perimeter ridgelines, however, portions of the buildings will be seen through the project's berming and landscaping from the Placerita Canyon area and the area around the "A" Street/Sierra Highway intersection which could be seen from portions of the 14 Freeway. The incorporation of these design elements into the project description will reduce the potential impact to scenic views to less than significant. Impact AES -2. The proposed project would produce new sources of light and glare that would extend the area of daytime glare and night light across the currently vacant property, which would alter the nighttime sky. Light and glare impacts are considered Class 11, significant but mitigable. The following mitigation measures will reduce adverse aesthetic effects associated with excessive lighting and glare. Mitigation Measure AES -2(a): Prior to development, proposed lighting shall be indicated on site plans that demonstrate that spill-over of lighting would not affect surrounding areas. The lighting plan shall incorporate lighting that directs light pools downward or otherwise shield adjacent areas from glare. Light fixtures that shield excessive rightness at night shall be included in the lighting plan. Non -glare lighting shall be used. Mitigation Measure AES -2(b): All lighting of the landscaped areas shall be of an accent nature. Any security lighting shall be screened such that lighting globes are not visible from a distance of more than 20 feet. Mitigation Measure AES -2(c): All on-site street lighting shall use cutoff luminaires. This would avoid creating high levels of glare and light pollution for motorists. Mitigation Measure AES -2(d): Project design and architectural treatments shall incorporate additional techniques to reduce light and glare, Resolution No. 03-87 Page 19 such as use of low reflectivity glass, subdued colors for building materials in high visibility areas, and the use of plant material along the perimeter of the structures to soften views. The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact to less than significant. Impact AES -3. Mitigation measures PU-1(b)-(d) are expected to achieve consistency with landscaping goals relating to water conservation and landscaping. The following measure will ensure consistency with applicable Community Design Element goals and policies. Mitigation Measure AES -3: Specific designs of future all on-site development shall adhere to all applicable standards and guidelines of the Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance and the Community Design Element of the General Plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building Services. Compliance with City -adopted standards, guidelines, goals, and policies will ensure that proposed landscaping and structures result in a high quality aesthetic environment that is generally compatible with the surrounding area. The implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce the potential impact to less than significant. Impact AES -4. The Planning Commission recommended, and the City Council is adopting, findings that the project complies with the Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance and Guidelines, including the criteria for finding a project to be innovative. Mitigation Measures BIO -4(a) and BIO -4(b) will mitigate oak tree impacts through development and implementation of an oak tree replacement program. The project employs contour grading to substantially reduce grading alterations of the terrain and to preserve trees, other natural vegetation, and prominent landmark features that are compatible with existing neighborhoods. The project conserves natural topographic features and appearances by means of landform grading so as to blend any manufactured slopes or required drainage benches into the natural topography, including designing the development to be compatible with adjacent neighborhoods and commercial sites, and preserving 47% of the site in its natural state. The project retains significant, natural, topographic prominent features to the maximum extent possible. The applicant is proposing to preserve 41% of the project site as natural dedicated open space and install native vegetation in portions of the project site. The project applies clustering of the development area and buildings to substantially reduce grading alterations to the terrain and to contribute to the preservation of trees, other natural vegetation, and prominent landmark features. The structures will be constructed on only 36.3% of the entire site. The project utilizes building setback, building heights and compatible structures and building forms to blend buildings and structures with the terrain. The project will conserve and introduce plant materials to protect slopes from slippage and soil erosion and to minimize visual effects of grading and construction on hillside areas, including the consideration of the preservation of prominent vegetation and, to the extent possible, reduce the maintenance cost to public and private property owners. The project includes curvilinear street design and improvements to minimize grading alterations and emulate the natural contours and character of the hillsides. Grading designs, such as landform contour grading, that serve to avoid disruption to adjacent property owners are incorporated into the project design. Site design and grading that provide the minimum disruption of view corridors and scenic vistas from and around any proposed Resolution No. 03-87 Page 20 development shall be utilized as shown on the site plan, where the proposed development would be located away from the designated ridgelines on the project site. INNOVATIVE APPLICATION FINDINGS. The proposed industrial use and preservation of open space is proper in relation to adjacent uses, the development of the community and the various goals and policies of the General Plan. The project is considered a significant community benefit as the project will be providing full street improvement from Pine Street to Sierra Highway on San Fernando Road, Phase I, II, and III environmental tests for City land dedication, 207.6 acres of dedicated open space, $2,400,000.00 cash contribution to the City, a 1.5 -acre fire station site, a fire heli -pad site, 500 oaks for planting within the City, $1,000.00 per year for ten years to. support the sports leagues for Newhall youth, dedicated land for pedestrian bridge landing area, two water guzzlers, two trail heads, and three miles of trails. The use or development will not be materially detrimental to the visual character of the neighborhood or community because the proposed development will be consistent with the adjacent neighborhoods, nor will it endanger the public health, safety or general welfare because the proposal includes an extension of existing industrial and open space uses. The appearance of the development will not be different than the appearance of adjoining ridgeline areas so as to cause depreciation of the ridgeline appearance in the vicinity, because the project will preserve 41% or more of the site as dedicated open space. The establishment of the proposed use or development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property, nor encourage inappropriate encroachments to the ridgeline area because the development is an extension of an existing industrial and open space neighborhood, and the adjacent ridgelines will be preserved. It has been demonstrated that the proposed use or development will not violate the visual integrity of the significant ridgeline area through precise illustration and depiction. The visual impacts of the proposed use or development will be confined to the immediate local neighborhood which includes the Placerita Canyon area and the area around the "A" Street/Sierra Highway intersection which could be seen from the 14 Freeway; and the proposed use or development will be shielded from general public view by the southern perimeter ridgelines, however, portions of the buildings will be seen through the project's berming and landscaping from the Placerita Canyon area and the area around the "A" Street/Sierra Highway intersection which could be seen from portions of the 14 Freeway. The topographic modifications are found to be consistent with the City's Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance. This impact is less than significant. Cumulative Impacts. The proposed project, in combination with other development in and around the City, will continue to alter the aesthetic character of the Santa Clarita Valley from rural to more suburban. The project and other development in the City and unincorporated Los Angeles County would transform the character of the area by adding urban uses in currently undeveloped hillside areas. The aesthetic impacts of individual development projects can often be mitigated through careful site design, avoidance of significant visual features, and appropriate building and landscape Resolution No. 03-87 Page 21 standards. Nevertheless, the overall change in visual character associated with buildout under the City's General Plan is considered an unavoidably significant cumulative aesthetic impact. CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact CR -1. The proposed project would not disturb any known archaeological resources; however, site development has the potential to disturb as -yet undetected areas of prehistoric archaeological significance. This is considered a Class II, significant but mitigable, impact. The following measures will mitigate impacts relating to the possible discovery of intact cultural resources during site grading. Mitigation Measure CR - 1(a): Should unanticipated cultural resource remains be encountered during construction or land modification activities, the applicable procedures established by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation concerning protection and preservation of Historic and Cultural Properties (36 CER 8700) should be followed. In this event, work shall cease until the nature, extent, and possible significance of any cultural remains can be assessed and, if necessary, remediated. If remediation is needed, possible techniques include removal, documentation, or avoidance of the resource, depending upon the nature of the find. Mitigation Measure CR -1(b): In the event that human remains are discovered during construction or land modification activities, the procedures in Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code shall be followed. These procedures require notification of the coroner and the Native American Heritage Commissions if the coroner determines the remains to be those of Native American ancestry. The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact to less than significant. Impact CR -2. The proposed project would not directly affect any identified significant historic resources, however, possible indirect impacts to the Pioneer Oil Refinery are considered Class II, significant but mitigable. The following measures will be implemented to mitigate potential indirect impacts to the Pioneer Oil Refinery. Mitigation Measure CR -2(a): The applicant will provide to the City of Santa Clarita a cash payment which will allow it to construct a new fence that will be effective in preventing unauthorized individuals from entering the Pioneer Oil Refinery site. Mitigation Measure CR -2(b): Construction contractors shall take precautions to either avoid using heavy equipment in the vicinity of the acid tank on the Refinery property or stabilize the acid tank to prevent its collapse and potential destruction. Mitigation Measure CR -2(c): The drainage system for the areas surrounding the Refinery shall be designed to prevent any further deposition of materials onto the Refinery site. The implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact to less than significant. RECREATION Impact REC-3. The proposed project would provide a trail system that appears to generally meet City standards. This is considered a Class III, less than significant impact. Although the proposed trail system appears generally to meet the intent of City policies relating to provision of trails, the following measures will be implemented to maximize Resolution No. 03-87 Page 22 the utility of the system and minimize the potential for safety conflicts. Mitigation Measure REC-3(a): The on-site trail system will provide an on-site connection that will allow a direct public access connection to William S. Hart Park via sidewalks. Mitigation Measure REC-3(b): All trail crossings of internal roadways shall be appropriately signed and/or striped to alert drivers to the presence of a crossing. This impact is less than significant. b. The Draft EIR identifies issue areas as "Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant." These include: 1. (Land Use) Primary Ridgeline/Oak Trees (subject to City Council making findings that the project is consistent with the Ridgeline Preservation and Hillside Development Ordinance and Guidelines). 2. (Air Quality) (Short-term impacts during construction, long term impact associated with project operation). 3. (Biology) (Loss of oak woodland habitat, removal of wildlife movement connection and cumulative impacts to biological resources). 4. (Solid Waste) Cumulative impacts to solid waste. 5. (Aesthetics) Alteration of designated primary and secondary ridgelines affecting scenic vistas and cumulative impacts to visual resources. The Draft EIR also reviews project alternatives and identifies certain impacts associated with the alternatives as "Unavoidable Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Mitigated to a Level Less Than Significant." The Modified "C" Street Alternative #5 Project Unavoidable Impacts (which is being recommended for approval by the City Council) are as follows: 1. (Air Quality) Short-term impacts during construction, long term impact associated with project operation. 2. (Biology) Loss of oak woodland habitat and cumulative impacts to biological resources. 3. (Solid Waste) Cumulative impacts to solid waste (Aesthetics) (Cumulative impacts to visual resources). C. The Draft EIR identifies issue areas as 'Environmental Areas Where No Significant Impacts Would Occur." These include population and housing and energy and mineral resources. SECTION 2. CONSIDERATION OF EIR ALTERNATIVES: Based upon the testimony and other evidence received, and upon studies and investigation made by the City Council and on its behalf, the City Council determines that the Final EIR analyzes a reasonable range of project alternatives which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project and would substantially lesson any of the significant impact of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of each alternative. Resolution No. 03-87 Page 23 a. The objectives of the project, as specified in the Draft EIR, are: ■ To develop up to 4.45 million square feet of industrial/commercial buildings; • To create an economically feasible project. ■ To provide recreational and open space facilities for use by Santa Clarita residents. ■ To protect sensitive resources on the project site through the provision of open space areas and a wildlife corridor on-site. ■ To provide an employment center in proximity to alternative transportation modes, including Metrolink commuter rail service and bus service. ■ To contribute to redevelopment efforts in the downtown Newhall area through the following: ■ Adding to the district's tax increment. ■ Increasing local employment opportunities. • Increasing patronage in Old Town Newhall through an increased daytime employment population in the immediate vicinity. ■ Stimulating private investment in the area through physical improvements along San Fernando Road and Sierra Highway. • To retain major open areas that act as regional ecological preserves and migration corridors. These objectives are used as the basis for comparing project alternatives and determining the extent that the objectives would be achieved relative to the proposed project. b. Alternative 1 — No Project This alternative is required by CEQA Guidelines. It assumes that the project is not constructed, and that the site remains in its current condition. The site would remain primarily undeveloped, though existing industrial and residential uses along Pine Street and facilities at the Eternal Valley Cemetery would remain. The current General Plan land use designations and zoning classifications would continue to allow development of the site and development of the site could potentially occur at some future date. The project site is currently designated for 93 acres of open space and 337 acres of industrial uses. Alternative 1 is considered environmentally superior for most issue areas, as it would have no impacts. It is rejected, however, because it fails to satisfy basic project objectives and does not provide any of the community and financial benefits of the proposed project. Project objectives that are not satisfied by Alternative 1 are as follows. This alternative would not develop industrial and commercial buildings because it would not provide for any development of the site, and would thus also fail to create an economically feasible project. While sensitive resources on-site would be protected through continued presence of open space and a wildlife corridor, this alternative would not provide recreational and open space facilities for use by Santa Clarita residents because the property would Resolution No. 03-87 Page 24 remain privately -owned. Alternative 1 also fails to meet the objectives of creating an employment center in proximity to alternative transportation modes and does not contribute to redevelopment efforts in the downtown Newhall area. Since the site would remain undeveloped, this alternative would not add to the district's tax increment, increase local employment opportunities, increase patronage in Old Town Newhall, or stimulate private investment in the area. Similarly, Alternative 1 does not provide any of the substantial benefits that would result from the proposed project. Specifically, it would not generate the approximately 6,000 jobs anticipated by the proposed project nor would it generate that consequent $205 million in new salaries per year. Since no new jobs would be created by this alternative, expected expenditures of $5.1 million on retail goods, with an estimated $2.55 million of that spent in the Downtown Newhall and Newhall Redevelopment areas, would also not occur. The City would not receive additional annual revenues of $367,000 expected from the proposed project and the Redevelopment Area tax increment that would be provided by the proposed project, $140,000 annually, would also be absent. Finally, Alternative 1 does nothing to address the significant out -commute that Santa Clarita currently experiences as a result of a jobs/housing imbalance. In addition, the proposed project would provide a by-pass for the San Fernando Road/Sierra Highway intersection through the construction of `A' Street. Alternative 1 includes no such by-pass and none of its associated benefits to local traffic congestion. C. Alternative 2, General Plan Buildout. This alternative considers the impact of buildout of the project site in accordance with the land uses allowed under current City of Santa Clarita General Plan. Under the current General Plan, the site contains 337.5 acres of industrial commercial area, 29.2 acres of commercial area, 124.1 acres of residential area, and 93.2 acres of open space area. This would result in 4.4 million square feet of industrial building, 524,299 square feet of commercial buildings and 31 residential units. This alternative would allow a greater overall level of development on-site, including residential development. On-site development would not exceed that envisioned in regional growth projections since it would be consistent with the General Plan; however, the increased level of development would create more overall impacts to on-site biological, aesthetic, and recreational resources. This alternative would include some residential development that would potentially conflict with on-site industrial and commercial uses and would result in significantly higher traffic, public service, public utility and recreational impacts. Although, Alternative 2 would provide jobs and associated economic benefits, it would not provide the same level of recreational and biological benefits due to the decrease in open space provided for, 93.2 acres versus 220 acres dedicated by the proposed project. This alternative is rejected because it would result in more severe environmental impacts and would not provide the same benefits to the community as the proposed project. Resolution No. 03-87 Page 25 d. Alternative 3, Ridgeline Preservation. Under this alternative, 19 proposed industrial commercial lots (lots 17-22, 24-28, and 31-38) would instead be designated as open space. Also "C" Street, `B" Street, and the segment of "A" Street between lots 26 and 16 would be eliminated. Thus "A" Street would not serve as a roadway connecting San Fernando Road and Sierra Highway. The primary purpose of this alternative is to minimize grading and associated impact to the primary ridgeline that crosses through the central portion of the site. Buildout of this alternative would include an estimated 2,041,223 square feet of industrial commercial development on about 67 buildable acres. The overall buildout potential is about 46% of that proposed by the applicant. The area dedicated as permanent open space would be about 355.5 acres under this alternative, which is about 134.9 acres more open space than proposed by the applicant. Although the project would be environmentally superior to the proposed project, Alternative 3 is rejected because it fails to satisfy some key project objectives, does not provide many of the community and financial benefits of the proposed project, and would not be practicable given the existing lot ownerships. Under Alternative 3, portions of `A' Street would be eliminated. Thus, 'A' Street would not serve as a throughway connecting San Fernando Road and Sierra Highway. The result is that this alternative will not reduce the traffic congestion in that area and may incrementally worsen police and fire response times to certain portions of the project site, because all of the traffic generated by the north side of the project would funnel onto San Fernando Road. This Alternative also would not address impacts to the intersection of San Fernando Road and Sierra Highway. Because the proposed build -out for Alternative 3 is less than half that of the proposed project, the resulting employment and economic benefits to the community are also less than half of that expected from the proposed project. One of the key project objectives is to contribute to redevelopment efforts in the downtown Newhall area. Alternative 3 does not meet this objective because it does not provide the level of development necessary to revitalize the area. Alternative 3's resulting jobs and tax revenue would benefit the area but will not facilitate the construction of new retail in the area and will not provide the substantial tax increment for the Redevelopment Agency as the proposed project. This alternative also does not adequately address the jobs -housing imbalance in Santa Clarita. The proposed project would result in over 11 million dollars in bridge and thoroughfare (B&T) fees paid to the City. Because this fee is based on overall developed acreage, it would be reduced by more than half under this alternative. The proposed project improves the City's Pioneer Oil Refinery Historical Site by improving access, parking, landscaping and fencing on the site. Access will also be provided to the Old Southern Pacific Tunnel and a trail and sidewalk system Resolution No. 03-87 Page 26 will connect Hart Park, the Senior Citizens Center, Heritage Junction, Pioneer Oil Refinery, the Old Tunnel and the Park. These significant benefits are lacking in Alternative 3. In addition, Alternative 3 would not provide the on-site trail system and bike lanes included in the proposed project. he proposed project would provide road improvements from Pine Street to Sierra Highway on San Fernando Road, environmental testing for City land dedication, cash contributions of $2.4 million for but not limited to the San Fernando Pedestrian Bridge or other San Fernando Road Beautification improvements, an off-site park and ride facility, Newhall Community Center improvements, 1.5 fire station site, helipad site, 500 oak trees over a five year period for planting throughout the City and $1,000.00 per year for sports programs for the youth of the town of Newhall. None of these would be included in Alternative 3. Alternative 3 is likely impracticable because it entails development of Lot 41. The wetlands delineation prepared for the project indicates that Lot 41 contains wetlands which are likely not developable. Alternative 3 provides for the development of a number of the Hank Arklin lots, but only calls for the development of Lot 16 as one moves south on the site. There is a substantial number of cubic yards of dirt that must be removed from the Arklin site and the plan was to place it on Lots 16-18, which would be undeveloped under this Alternative. The cut and fill under Alternative 3 would therefore be imbalanced and a large amount of fill would have to be transported off site. In addition, Lot 23, which this Alternative plans to develop, could not in fact be developed because of the lack of a second access for fire department purposes. Finally, this alternative is also legally infeasible. The project site is an assemblage of property ownerships: Gates family (375 acres), Eternal Valley Memorial Park (36 acres), and Hank Arlin (64 acres). Alternative 3 would require one property owner, the Gates family, to maintain 79% of its property as open space in order to allow for the development of the property owned by the other two. The result would likely be an illegal taking of private property rights without just compensation since the Gates family cannot be required to mitigate for impacts located on another owner's property. In addition, this alternative is impracticable because the distribution of development rights among the three property owners would be so uneven that they would not all participate in the project. Specifically, the Gates family would not agree to participate in a development that required them to maintain 79% of their property as open space. e. Alternative 4, Oak Tree Preservation. Under this alternative, 17 industrial, 500 oak trees over a five year period for planting throughout the City and $1,000 per year for sports programs for the youth of the town of Newhall. None of these would be included in Alternative 4. Finally, this alternative is also legally infeasible. The project site is an assemblage of property ownerships: Gates family (378 acres), Eternal Valley Resolution No. 03-87 Page 27 Memorial Park (36 acres), and Hank Arlin (64 acres). Alternative 4 would require one property owner, Eternal Valley Memorial Park, to maintain more than 80% of its property as open space in order to allow for the development of the property owned by the other two. The result would likely be an illegal taking of private property rights without just compensation. In addition, this alternative is impracticable because the distribution of development rights among the three property owners is so uneven that they would not all participate in the project. Specifically, Eternal Valley Memorial Park would not agree to participate in a development that required them to maintain 80% of their property as open space. f. Alternative 5, "C" Street Reconfiguration. This alternative would eliminate all but about the 900 northernmost feet of "C" Street and would eliminate most of the planned development along "C" Street. Specifically, five industrial commercial lots (lots 24-27 and 27A) and the adjacent 8.8 -acre landscaped slope area would be left as permanent open space. One new industrial commercial lot would be added at the end of the reconfigured "C" Street. This approximately 18 -acre lot would accommodate an estimated 470,448 square feet of industrial commercial building area. This alternative is proposed to consist of 4,430,000 square feet of industrial uses which is 44,000 square feet less than the original proposed project. The "C" Alternative #5 Project would, as compared to the original proposed project, also remove 212 fewer oak trees, provide 16 additional open space acres, reduce impacts to the primary ridgeline, provide 20 additional acres of buffering between the wildlife corridor and development activity, and move 100,000 less cubic yards of earth. Therefore, this alternative is environmentally superior to the original proposed project. On July 16, 2002 the Planning Commission adopted resolutions recommending that the City Council approve Alternative 5. The Planning Commission found that this alternative was a good balance resulting in reduced environmental impacts but still providing ample significant community benefits. City Council Alternative - Alternative 5, "C" Street Reconfiguration with Lot 24 significantly reduced. This City Council Alternative would subdivide the 508.2 acres of the Gate King Industrial Park into 68 industrial lots (184.6 acres), street and rights-of-way (52.4 acres), 4 water tank lots (12.2 acres), a helipad lot (2.1 acres), 13 City dedicated open space lots (207.6 acres) and 20 slope lots (49.8 acres) for a total of 106 lots. This alternative would reduce the total acreage of pad 8 acres, the square feet of industrial uses by 230,000 square feet, remove 253 fewer oaks, reduce significantly the impacts on the wildlife corridor and move 1,400,000 fewer cubic yards of earth. This alternative is considered environmentally superior to the proposed project while still meeting the key project objectives, and is thus the preferred alternative. This alternative will result in fewer impacts on the environment because of its reduced footprint and reduced impacts on wildlife movement, oaks and ridgelines. At the same time, it still provides similar benefits to the originally Resolution No. 03-87 Page 28 proposed project and thus meets the project objectives. Specifically, this alternative will provide approximately 7,800 new jobs and $6.7 million dollars in new retail expenditures. The Newhall Redevelopment Area is expected to capture as much as 50% or 3.3 million dollars of those retail expenditures. In addition, new annual tax and other public revenues to the City from this alternative are expected to exceed service costs associated with the project by approximately $100,000.00. SECTION 3. CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR: The City Council certifies that: a. That the Final Environmental Impact Report for this project is adequate, complete, and has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). b. That the Final Environmental Impact Report was presented to the City Council, the decision-making body, and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to taking action to approve the project. C. That the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of Santa Clarita. d. That a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan ("NIMRP") has been prepared and is adopted to enforce the mitigation measures required by the Final EIR and project approvals. e. The documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings on which this decision is based are under the custody of the City Clerk and are located at the City of Santa Clarita, 23920 Valencia Blvd., Suite 300, Santa Clarita, California 91355. SECTION 4. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS: Based upon the above recitals and the entire record, including the Gate -King Industrial Park EIR, oral and written testimony and other evidence received at the public hearings held on the project and the EIR, and reports and other transmittals from City staff to the City Council, City Council finds that there is substantial evidence that supports a finding that the Project will result in substantial community benefits, including specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, that outweigh the significant effects on the environment that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant. Significant unavoidable impacts include the following: 1. (Air Quality) (Short-term impacts during construction, long term impact associated with project operation). 2. (Biology) (Loss of oak woodland habitat and cumulative impacts to biology resources). 3. Solid Waste) Cumulative impacts to solid waste. 4. (Aesthetics) (Cumulative impacts to visual resources). Resolution No. 03-87 Page 29 Project benefits outweigh the significant unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level less than significant including the following: ■ Creation of a new community that allows for industrial commercial uses, while preserving significant natural resources and open space. ■ Provision of development and transitional land use patterns which integrate and are compatible with surrounding communities and land uses. ■ Avoidance of leapfrog development and accommodation of projected regional growth in a location which is adjacent to existing and planned infrastructure, urban services, public transit, transportation corridors, and major employment centers. • Provision of a variety of industrial type uses to respond to economic and market conditions over several years. ■ Creation of a new Fire Station and Helipad. ■ Creation of a 207.6 acre City dedicated Open Space area. ■ Off-site full street improvements on San Fernando Road from Pine Street to Siena Highway. ■ Phase I and, if warranted, II and III environmental testing for City land dedication. ■ Cash contribution to the City of Santa Clarita of $2,400,000.00. ■ Improvement of two trail heads. ■ Three miles of trails within the project site. ■ Preservation of wildlife movement corridors. ■ Support for youth sports programs in the Newhall area. ■ Provision of 500 additional oaks to be planted at locations in the City of Santa Clarita. SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of June, 2003. ATTEST: CITY CLERK. Resolution No. 03-87 Page 30 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss. C]TY OF SANTA CLARITA ) I, Sharon L. Dawson, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 24th day of June, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: McLean, Kellar, Weste, Ferry, Smyth NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None CITY CLERK JWH S:\PBS\CURRENT! 1999\99-264\FINALRESOEIRCC